Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Russian interference category

I've removed the category "Category:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" per WP:PERFCAT. Just because he's mentioned in the "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" doesn't mean he should be in this category. We don't include this category in the article of every pundit who has talked about Russian interference. There's also no evidence Assange or WikiLeaks knowingly worked with the Russian government to release the emails [1]. ^Falling_Gravity 01:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

FallingGravity, that is a bizarre rationale. WP:PERFCAT pertains to performers, examples of which "include (but are not limited to) actors/actresses (including pornographic actors), comedians, dancers, models, orators, singers, etc." Unless you can cite WP:RS that describe (and not facetiously) Julian Assange as a "performer," WP:PERFCAT simply does not apply. Before repeating your removal, please allow editorial consensus to form. I realize your attempt to delete the entire category failed today, but individually depopulating the category is not a suitable workaround to achieve your goal. Thank you. KalHolmann (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, then what does Julian Assange have to do with Russian interference in the 2016 election beyond being an "unwitting agent"? Like I said, there's no evidence he actively worked with the Russian government to publish the emails, like the category seems to suggest. (Also, my proposal was not to delete the entire category, but to define the scope according to WP:BLP.) ^Falling_Gravity 03:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

FallingGravity, as I understand it, your attempt to "define the scope according to WP:BLP" yielded a consensus to keep the scope as is. Instead of abiding by this, you're now trying to backdoor your proposal, proceeding as if it had been decided in your favor. Please await consensus here before imposing your singular will on this article. KalHolmann (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

By "backdooring my proposal" I'm sure you mean going through the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. ^Falling_Gravity 03:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I think BrownHairedGirl said there was no consensus regarding the scope, just that the category should be preserved. ^Falling_Gravity 03:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

FallingGravity, so which is it? Did you Propose deleting Category:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, as stated at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 16? Or did you propose "not to delete the entire category, but to define the scope according to WP:BLP," as you claimed on this very thread at 03:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)? I'm beginning to think you haven't read your own proposal, which would explain why you misunderstand the consensus reached. KalHolmann (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I was hoping a deletion discussion would produce consensus about the scope of the category if it was kept, but it seems that wasn't the case (although there was some support for removing biographical and other tangentially related articles). ^Falling_Gravity 04:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

FallingGravity, finally we agree on something: your proposal produced no consensus to remove BLP's from the category. That's why I object to what appears to be an attempt to circumvent the lack of consensus by singlehandedly removing selected BLP's one-by-one. Such an approach overwhelms my deference to Wikipedia's fundamental principle of Assume good faith. KalHolmann (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

He should not be categorized like this per WP:COPDEF. ^Falling_Gravity 22:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

FallingGravity, Your rationale for today, WP:COPDEF, replacing your absurd rationale proffered yesterday, WP:PERFCAT, advises: "Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes…the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for."

As our BLP describes, Assange has for many years been chummy with the Russian government:

• 2010: Sources within Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's office suggested that Assange should be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
• 2012: Assange hosted a TV show on RT (formerly Russia Today), a network funded by the Russian government.
• 2013: At Assange's advice, Edward Snowden sought (and received) asylum in Russia.
• 2016: WikiLeaks released private emails and documents embarrassing to Hillary Clinton, whom Assange considered a personal foe. Assange said he timed the release to coincide with the 2016 Democratic National Convention, which was expected to nominate Secretary Clinton for president. Assange said Clinton was causing "hysteria about Russia" after the Democratic Party, along with cybersecurity experts, claimed that Russian intelligence had hacked the emails and leaked them to Wikileaks.

All of which is evidence that Assange's longtime Russian connections, and in particular his purposeful disruption of the 2016 United States presidential election, are among the characteristics for which he is best known. It remains to be seen whether or not Assange colluded with Russia in acquiring the infamous leaks. But it's undeniable that his role in all this is one of the driving factors in his current notoriety. KalHolmann (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

A Wikipedian saying that someone has for many years been chummy with the Russian government does not mean we should put them in a category called Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, each of my four bullet points above is paraphrased from Wikipedia's BLP Julian Assange. It's not "a Wikipedian" saying this; it's Wikipedia collectively as referenced in each instance by citations to WP:RS. KalHolmann (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Using your logic, he should be categorized under Category:People chummy with the Russian government. ^Falling_Gravity 23:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

FallingGravity, thanks for your brilliantly witty bon mot. That sure beats addressing the substance of my objections, doesn't it? KalHolmann (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not some witty bon mot. Sources within Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's office suggested that Assange should be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize has nothing to do with Assange being defined by Russian interference an unrelated election. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 09:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@KalHolmann: I thought I already addressed this before. According to The Daily Beast, U.S. intelligence officials do not believe WikiLeaks or Julian Assange knowingly acted as a Russian front to interfere in U.S. elections. Plus Julian Assange himself has denied that his sources are from the Russian government, and even if you don't believe him (I myself am skeptical), his words are important when considering BLP implications of adding contentious categories. ^Falling_Gravity 18:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Pp-semi-indef

still a necessary tag for the article? Doug Cousins (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

SRI International misidentified

The Hacking section currently refers to "Stanford University's SRI International". It should read "SRI International" and remove reference to Stanford. Stanford has not been affiliated with SRI since 1970, per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRI_International. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcfriedly (talk • contribs) 15:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Origin of the name

He has a typical French name, Assange, I though he was the descendant of French Hugenots.Is it the same than the French pronunciation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:747F:788B:7728:AA20 (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

His surname is the same as his stepfather's and is of Chinese origin. It looks like this information has been deleted from the article. Totorotroll (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

You can't be serious… nothing remotely Chinese in that name. French pronunciation yes, but I have no sources documenting his surname's origins. — JFG ^talk 21:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

"Assange is the Anglicisation of the surname Au Sang – a Taiwanese/Chinese émigré, born in Canton, China." KalHolmann (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The link is dead as of 11:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC). Boud (talk) 11:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Boud, I replaced the dead link in my preceding comment with a live link to Internet Archive. Please try it now. KalHolmann (talk) 17:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The archive link, and the indirect link to https://web.archive.org/web/20130806105315/http://julianassangeancestry.wordpress.com:80/ as a major source, do give strong clues regarding Assange's ancestry. But a clue is not necessarily a WP:RS. The next questions are: can we seriously claim to know who the authors of the sources are? what quality of sources are acceptable for a WP:BLP article? can the info be properly NPOVed? is ancestry info relevant in the "personal" section compared to other information? I'm not promising to work on this, I'm just making suggestions of what next to do for people wishing to add content to the article... Boud (talk) 19:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Boud, you are conflating two separate issues. This section is titled Origin of the name. As Totorotroll pointed out on December 1, "His surname is the same as his stepfather's…." As Wikipedia defines it, "A stepfather is the husband of someone's mother, and not someone's biological father." Accordingly, Julian's paternal ancestry traces from his biological father, John Shipton, not from his stepfather Brett Assange. Your assessment of "strong clues regarding Assange's ancestry" is not on point. KalHolmann (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

You're right: so I'm correcting to: "strong clues regarding the origin of 'Assange' as Julian Assange's surname". Boud (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::They are being serious. In this book by David Welch a university professor it is mentioned. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The quote in that book is "Assange's unusual surname, itself given on Wikipedia in two competing pronunciations, is alleged to be a corruption of a Chinese surname; most persons say 'ah-SONGH'". The whole paragraph is sourced to reference 8. Lord Google didn't let me see what reference 8 is. So this is more a rumour (or Wikipedia self-reference) rather than a serious reference for the origin of the name. Boud (talk) 11:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a reference in Julian Assange: The Unauthorised Autobiography: "I've got his name - Assange - an unusual one, which comes from Mr Sang or ah-sang in Cantonese..." This is quoted here: https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/julian-assange-we-just-kept-moving-2359423.html Another reference is here: https://treatyrepublic.net/content/julian-assange-affirms-his-torres-strait-islander-heritage where Assange is quoted as stating: "'My father's surname is Assange. According to my father, on his side I am part-Chinese and part-Thursday Islander. My grandfather's name was George Assange and his father before him was also George, (however his) surname (was) Au Sang.'" Totorotroll (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Considering the lightning rod on his head -- does the etymology of his name matter? O3000 (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

This thread does not prevent you from working on other threads. Boud (talk) 11:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Political scientists's statements are misrepresented. Should remove from article.

The following 2 sentences are misleading and incorrect. Please remove.

(1) "According to two political scientists, WikiLeaks strategically released the e-mails whenever Clinton's lead expanded in the polls.[12]"

(2) "According to Harvard political scientist Matthew Baum and College of the Canyons political scientist Phil Gussin, WikiLeaks strategically released e-mails related to the Clinton campaign whenever Clinton's lead expanded in the polls.[12]"

Those statements make it seem like the political scientists determined Wikileaks release strategy based on data. That is not true. They merely suggest at the end of the sourced article that "Perhaps" it was Wikileaks strategy and offers no scientific data to back up that claim:

"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."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/01/why-its-entirely-predictable-that-hillary-clintons-emails-are-back-in-the-news/?utm_term=.ce327a10fd45

---

Ummyaaaa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ummyaaaa (talk • contribs) 05:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Immunity deal?

There was apparently a deal to grant immunity in return for not releasing some CIA docs. See: http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/394036-How-Comey-intervened-to-kill-Wikileaks-immunity-deal Should this be included in the article? -Terrorist96 (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not close enough to the action, but I find that article quite difficult to read and comprehend. Not really sure what it's telling me. Maybe it's more about the US political scene (and a bit of point scoring?) than about Assange. HiLo48 (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2018

The first option considered was to obtain diplomatic immunity for Assange by making him Ecuador’s representative to the UN. While there was a risk that the UN General Assembly could revoke this status, the report notes that this would take some time, which could be exploited to get Assange on to Ecuadorian territory.

A second consideration was to attempt to smuggle Assange out in an inviolable diplomatic car. However, the officials concluded that this would probably be impossible as Scotland Yard had even placed officers inside the embassy building, which was shared with other tenants.

Another option for exfiltrating Assange considered by embassy staff was to put him in a diplomatic bag, considered inviolable by treaty, but only if they solely contain documents relating to the normal practice of an embassy.

https://leaksource.wordpress.com/2015/09/03/secret-ecuador-docs-reveal-assanges-embassy-life-fight-w-security-guard-health-concerns-escape-plans-more/

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/sep/01/julian-assange-documents-show-fancy-dress-escape-plan

https://www.rt.com/shows/going-underground/430067-assange-lawyer-global-life/ 76.220.209.184 (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

•  Not done: Thank you for the suggestion. All of the sources trace back to journalist and activist Fernando Villavicencio of Focus Ecuador. The linked Focus Ecuador site is closed, the domain is for sale and the journalist filed for political asylum in Peru. (Although that was last year and I don’t know the status). I think the sourcing is inadequate. Given that these plans were never attempted, and may have simply been fanciful ideas dreamed up by Assange, I also don’t think it passes WP:DUE. O3000 (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Officeholder: embed. = X

I think that the the subject of this article should just have an officeholder infobox instead of an embed.. The subject here may just be the leader of a small Non-state Nonprofit, but he is certainly being treated as a state actor (especially by US/UK). What do other users think? -- Sleyece (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. Wikipedia's Template:Infobox officeholder is clearly intended for politicians, not for "the leader of a small Non-state Nonprofit" who has never been elected or appointed to any political office. You're trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. KalHolmann (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose – Overkill: leader of WikiLeaks is not an official position. — JFG ^talk 00:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

WikiLeaks and WikiLeaks Party are two different but related things. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

What is your point? That Julian Assange being chairman of the WikiLeaks Party justifies using Wikipedia's Template:Infobox officeholder in our BLP? KalHolmann (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

There is a section for candidates/nominees Template:Infobox_officeholder#Nominee/candidate. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

You replied without answering. Do you favor using Wikipedia's Infobox officeholder template in this BLP? KalHolmann (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment -- I've changed my mind. After thinking about it for a few days, I think that an officeholder that is also known for other things/something else (journalist, in this case), that an embed is the most appropriate solution for the article. -- Sleyece (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit regarding Inter-American Court of Human Rights' Opinion of July 2018

Hello,

I thought I had made an edit to the page yesterday. I noticed this topic, a relatively recent bit of news, had not been added to the page.

At first i thought someone had reverted it but the edit history says otherwise.

Take two here we go, tossing the edit back up, cheers.

@Bishonen:Bishonen Sorry to bother you with a ping but I would hate to be wrong and accidentally break a rule that I am not aware of. I have never experienced this before and am curious if edits can ever be deleted without record of the deletion being created.

Nolanpowers (talk) 04:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nolanpowers: Not as far as I know. I think you may have forgotten to hit "publish" the first time. If I had a penny for every time I've done that, I'd be a moderately wealthy woman. (I open another tab to check something in the source, forget I wasn't done with the first one, and start reading Xkcd instead.) Anyway, you wouldn't be breaking a rule even if you did repeat an edit once. Bishonen | talk 05:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC).

@Bishonen:Thank you so much!

Nolanpowers (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

charged?

How shall we treat this [2] nyt.com content? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Section to be changed: Swedish sexual assault allegations

Please change the following sentences:

He was questioned, the case was initially closed, and he was told he could leave the country. In November 2010, however, the case was re-opened by a special prosecutor who said that she wanted to question Assange over two counts of sexual molestation, one count of unlawful coercion and one count of "lesser-degree rape" (mindre grov våldtäkt).

to:

An initial arrest warrant was issued, but was withdrawn the next day when prosecutors dropped the suspected rape from the investigation. Assange was questioned, but was told he could leave the country. Shortly after, however, the Swedish Director of Prosecution announced that she wanted to question Assange further, again including rape in the alleged crimes. In November 2010 the Svea Court of Appeal approved the prosecutor's request to detain Assange for questioning regarding two counts of sexual molestation, one count of unlawful coercion and one count of "lesser-degree rape" (mindre grov våldtäkt). By this time Assange had traveled to London and an international arrest warrant was issued through Interpol.

so that the whole paragraph reads:

Assange visited Sweden in August 2010. During his visit, he became the subject of sexual assault allegations from two women with whom he had sex. An initial arrest warrant was issued, but was withdrawn the next day when prosecutors dropped the suspected rape from the investigation. Assange was questioned, but was told he could leave the country. Shortly after, however, the Swedish Director of Prosecution announced that she wanted to question Assange further, again including rape in the alleged crimes. In November 2010 the Svea Court of Appeal approved the prosecutor's request to detain Assange for questioning regarding two counts of sexual molestation, one count of unlawful coercion and one count of "lesser-degree rape" (mindre grov våldtäkt). By this time Assange had traveled to London and an international arrest warrant was issued through Interpol. Assange denied the allegations and said he was happy to face questions in Britain.

Description of the change

Firstly, I am not reverting to the old charges :). I am, however, including some additional information regarding the initial arrest warrant, and the rape suspicion being dropped and reinstated. As the description stands today there are also a few incorrect details. I have tried to keep the edited text as brief as possible, while improving on the issues listed below:

1. It is not accurate to say that the case was closed. This wording implies that all suspicions and investigations were dropped. The fact is that the molestation investigation continued. There was, however, an initial arrest warrant for rape that was rescinded after only one day. At that point the only suspicion was for molestation.
2. As follows from point 1 the case was not reopened. The following things happened that deserve mentioning:
   1. The prosecutor listed suspicions and made a request for detention shortly after (September 1st 2010), not in November.
   2. The courts ruled on this and confirmed the charges in November.
   3. An international arrest warrant was issued.
3. The order of statements in the first sentence implies an incorrect order of events. The initial rape suspicion was dropped before Assange was questioned, not after.
4. The Swedish Director of Prosecution is the accurate title, not "special prosecutor". No special prosecutor was assigned.

The BBC has an excellent timeline that I added as a source in my edit.

I hope someone finds this useful. UppsalaHenrik (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Not done: The ref tags are not placed at the exact position where the text in which they verify resides, per WP:INTEGRITY.  Spintendo  02:07, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

That seems like a pretty trivial reason to reject the entire edit. Assuming the ref tags were moved to the correct positions, what would you think of the edit? -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The proposed text looks better written and more complete than what it replaces. @UppsalaHenrik: Are you willing to match each sentence with a source? You can reuse the same source multiple times, e.g. the timeline. — JFG ^talk 23:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

source does not support claim about hacking

The article flatly states that Assange hacked a variety of institutions including the Pentagon and various corporations. However, the source article only says that he was accused of hacking these institutions. I think either less conclusive language or better sources would be appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.186.182.181 (talk) 07:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I made a note in the article stating that the AOL source does not include the preceding claims. Assange's exploits are nevertheless chronicled in other sources. We simply need to read them carefully and match appropriate sourcing to each statement in the prose. — JFG ^talk 23:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The content has to match the source, not an editors WP:OR on his exploits supposedly being well known. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2018

Please change, "Julian Paul Assange (/əˈsɑːnʒ/;[1] born Julian Paul Hawkins; 3 July 1971) is an Australian computer programmer, a fugitive, and the editor of WikiLeaks" to "Julian Paul Assange (/əˈsɑːnʒ/;[1] born Julian Paul Hawkins; 3 July 1971) is an Australian born, Ecuadorian computer programmer, a fugitive, and the editor of WikiLeaks." This is because he now holds both citizenships. TimSeer1 (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done The information about his citizenship is already in the second paragraph of the lead. Do you have a source that shows that Assange considers himself or describes himself as Ecuadorian? – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Criticism of Guardian reporting and Assange's purported Trump criticism

An editor[3] recently added a Guardian piece which alleges that Paul Manafort met with Assange. This was a report that was neither corroborated nor rejected by other RS. The edit opts to portray this as an "extraordinary claim" and inaccurately claims the "the article has been characterised as possibly journalism's biggest scoop of the year, or its biggest blunder." The edit then opts to cite Gleen Greenwald's cranky fringe view on the topic to suggest that the Guardian was motivated out of hatred towards Assange. The edit also adds undue text and changes to a header to suggest that Assange has been critical of both Hillary Clinton and Trump when Assange has almost exclusively railed on Clinton and the Democratic party while secretly advising the Trump campaign.

This was reverted, and then restored. The text should not be in the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald's view isn't "cranky" or "fringe." The only real question is whether any of this (Luke Harding's article and the various criticisms of it) are DUE. They might fall into the category of recent news that will quickly disappear, but the original story got a lot of attention when it first came out, as did the subsequent criticisms and skepticism directed towards it.

As for whether or not Assange's statements should be labeled as criticism of Trump, I can't see how they're not criticism. Correct me if I'm wrong, but comparing a person (Trump in this case) to either "cholera" or "gonorrhea" is not meant as a compliment. We also quote Assange as saying that the Republicans have been hostile towards whistleblowers. How are these not criticisms of Trump and the Republican Party? -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

He refused to outright support Trump in public, but of course did so in private[4][5]. And of course spent an entire election seeking to botch one candidate while propping up the other. It's absurd to describe him as a critic of Trump in a header. If you want a line about how he equivocated when asked who he supported, then add that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Assange explicitly denies writing those messages.GPRamirez5 (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Comparing someone to "cholera" or "gonorrhea" is negative. For the leader of Wikileaks, saying that a party is hostile to whistleblowers is a criticism. He clearly criticized Trump and the Republican party. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Can someone explain the edit warring over the header? Did an old version of the section include criticism of the Dem party? D.Creish (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, before this edit, the section title was "Criticism of Clinton and the Democratic Party." There was an edit war over that entire edit (which changed several sections), but I thought that part of the edit was an obvious improvement, and reinserted it. Specifically, I reinserted the change to the section title and the inclusion of Assange's statement criticizing the Democratic and Republican parties' treatment of whistleblowers. The change to the section title is obvious - Assange compares both Clinton and Trump to terrible diseases. The inclusion of his criticism of both major parties seems relevant to the section as well. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. I think the header change is uncontroversial. And I don't see why we shouldn't include Greenwald considering he's a legitimate journalist who's broken real stories when most content is written by underpaid 20-somethings with 'communications' degrees. D.Creish (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The strange situation now is that the body of the section contains about an equal amount of criticism of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, but in the section title, we're somehow not allowed to mention that Assange criticized Trump. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Walkley Awards - False and misleading information

1. The Infobox claims Assange won a Walkley award in 2015 - This is incorrect, according to the Walkley Winner list he was not a winner in 2015, and nor was Wikileaks.

2. The Content claims he won a Walkley in 2011. This is misleading as Wikileaks, not Assange, is listed as the winner on The Official Winners List. By this Definition we'd have to accept Rupert Murdoch has probably won ever year, as at least one News Ltd outlet has probably won an award every year.

Cannot correct this directly due to protections. Agent c1983 (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

open government proponent

Julian Assange is primarily a proponent of open government. That is what his career is all about, why he is famous, why he founded wikileaks, why he was granted political asylum, and why he is being indicted for prosecution by the USA. Where is the evidence that he is a computer programmer? Which computers did he programme? The wikileaks website? I suggest the opening description should describe him as an open government proponent/activist and that the founding/editing of Wikileaks is the manifestation of this activism. 101.184.10.15 (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Guardian story on Assange

I noticed that @Tobby72: recently added information about the Collyns/Harding Guardian article about Assange. The addition summarised the accusation and also provided reactions to and criticisms of the article. The addition has since been reverted. I am in favour of including a mention of the Guardian article and reactions/criticisms even if nothing further is heard about the accusation (though given the nature of the accusation surely it won't just disappear). I think the text that was included was a good summary of the situation so would be happy for it to be included in the original form. Here are some comments:

1. There was some concern about the description of the story as the “biggest scoop of the year, or its biggest blunder”. This comes from the VanityFair article which included the quote “If it’s right, it might be the biggest get this year. If it’s wrong, it might be the biggest gaffe.” The summary provided in the Wiki addition seems like a fair summary of the quote to me but perhaps including the actual quote would solve the issue.

2. There was some concern about using Greenwald as a source. He was quoted from an Intercept article. The Intercept is not listed as an unreliable source and the only discussion I could find about it suggested editors were happy for it to be used as a source with attribution. It has been used frequently as a source on other Wikipedia pages.

3. Unfortunately Assange does not seem to be in a position to respond to the charge. However Wikileaks has responded on his behalf and its response was referred to in the VanityFair article so I think it would be useful to include some mention of this. Its response came in the form of a tweet which said “Remember this day when the Guardian permitted a serial fabricator to totally destroy the paper's reputation. @WikiLeaks is willing to bet the Guardian a million dollars and its editor's head that Manafort never met Assange.”

4. There has been some good analysis of the Guardian article by various people but it is likely that most would not be considered RS and many of the responses are on social media. The main points they make are that there has been no video evidence of Manafort’s visit to “the most videoed place on Earth”, that the Guardian changed the story after its initial publication to add an element of uncertainty to the charges, that the Guardian “hid” the third author of the article (Fernando Villavicencio) in the version published on the Guardian website and that the sources are anonymous.

5. The Canary (https://www.thecanary.co/exclusive/2018/12/03/former-diplomat-challenges-fake-guardian-claims-about-julian-assange-meeting-paul-manafort/) and RT carried denials by Fidel Narvaez, a former consul and first secretary at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, who said that, to his knowledge, Manafort made no visits at any time during the period 2010 to 2018. The quote from Narvaez provided by The Canary was: “It is impossible for any visitor to enter the embassy without going through very strict protocols and leaving a clear record: obtaining written approval from the ambassador, registering with security personnel, and leaving a copy of ID. The embassy is the most surveilled on Earth; not only are there cameras positioned on neighbouring buildings recording every visitor, but inside the building every movement is recorded with CCTV cameras, 24/7. In fact, security personnel have always spied on Julian and his visitors. It is simply not possible that Manafort visited the embassy”.

6. The reason the story should be included is that it makes a rather significant accusation and comes from one the the most respected sources of news in the world. It is important that the accusation is documented whether is is true or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs) 07:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Include – The Guardian story by Harding and Collyns, and its debunking, received significant RS coverage, and they deserve WP:DUE WEIGHT in the article about Assange. Could be in The Guardian as well, although less weighty there. — JFG ^talk 10:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

pronunciation of surname

This should be /əˈsɑːndʒ/. There's definitely plosion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.50.84.235 (talk) 14:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

No. The stated pronunciation is correct; it's the French way. — JFG ^talk 22:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize 2019 nomination

According to the Irish Examiner national daily newspaper, Assange has been nominated for the 2019 Nobel Peace Prize by 1976 Nobel Peace Laureate Mairead Maguire (confirmed by Maguire herself). I wonder if that meets requirements for being mentioned. --2001:BB6:A35:5358:7434:52FB:4719:6D3F (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

If other news sources pick it up, yes. — JFG ^talk 22:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

From Nobel Peace Prize: "Over time, many individuals have become known as "Nobel Peace Prize Nominees", but this designation has no official standing, and means only that one of the thousands of eligible nominators suggested the person's name for consideration" and "...in 2011, the record was broken once again with 241 nominations". The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

It has been picked up by the Daily Dot now. Connor Behan (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Possible expulsion from Ecuadorean embassy

I think this should go in but, as it's the Daily Mail, I assume it is unacceptable.[6] Mock wurzel soup (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Here's Wikileaks tweeting it as well. Archive just in case. Dr-Bracket (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

It appears in today's Age newspaper - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs) 04:32, April 5, 2019 (UTC)

Wikileaks is always crying wolf -- I assume it's a fundraising schtick --so until it actually happens, Wikipedia should ignore it, especially if it's not widely covered. If and when Assange is turned out, wide media coverage from reliable sources will be guaranteed. --Calton | Talk 08:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

For some of the things he leaked, it's shocking he lasted this long at all. Whether or not his time is finally up, if this event gains notable coverage it should be added to the article. Dr-Bracket (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

1) Wikileaks has been crying WOLF WOLF WOLF for a very long time and nothing has happened; 2) I see no evidence of notable or substantial coverage, probably because of point number 1. --Calton | Talk 14:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I have to disagree with your second point. Did you look? Bloomberg, The Guardian and The Washington Post all covered the incident itself, and both Reuters and Fox News covered the actions leading up to the event. Dr-Bracket (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

With all the mainstream sources picking up this story, it has acquired due weight for inclusion. — JFG ^talk 09:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Calton, regarding your assertion, "WP:SYN: You're implying, in the very first sentence, that Moreno is retaliating against Assange, and that's the narrative throughout the graf" [7], I strongly disagree and think the text follows sources perfectly. However, so as to help me see your point, can you suggest language that would not make the error you believe I've made? -Darouet (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Timeline

Would be interesting if we start a timeline of his legal case and - possible - extradition? Julian Assange: US justice department says he faces five years in jail – live updates. Erick Soares3 (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Lock This Page

Due to the recent news, I would recommend locking this page until details become clear.

OwendotCode (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Really bad idea, we always try to avoid this in such current event circumstances and only ever do so for persistent edit warring; haven't seen any edit warring so far. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 19:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2019

In the section where Assange's awards or award nominations are listed, the digit "9" is missing from the date when he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize - it should be "2019". 84.61.213.63 (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

 Already done NiciVampireHeart 19:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

That book was Vidal: History of the National Security State

Assange was holding a copy of the book 'Gore Vidal: History of the National Security State'. It's about historical events that led to the establishment of the massive military-industrial-security complex & the political culture that gave us the “Imperial Presidency”. The book is a transcription of a series of interviews Paul Jay from The Real News Network did with Gore Vidal: https://therealnews.com/series/gore-vidal-history-of-the-national-security-state --87.170.192.64 (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

In Presidency of Lenin Moreno

Change Señor to Mr or Mister. No sense to have only one easily-translatable word in Spanish while the rest are in English. Secondly, mention him as an Ecuadorian-Australian in the lead since he holds both nationalities — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.70.152.5 (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I have removed it but because we cannot use quotes from living people with no reliable source. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 18:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

After years of giving refuge, Ecuador suspends Assange's citizenship. Erick Soares3 (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2019

Change - assange was arrested outside the embassy. Wikileaks official statement is ecuadorian embassy has let british police inside and he was arrested in the building. 2001:8003:6E57:5800:E4F2:98FA:3443:17DB (talk) 10:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: It appears this information has already been changed in the article; I no longer see anything saying he was arrested outside the embassy. If this is not the case, please reopen this request and point out specifically where in the article this change needs to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

===Arrest states that Moreno said Assange violated "domestic conventions of internal interference". It is not reported that Moreno said he violated any conventions, only that he intereferes domestically. Change the wording or link to a source that quotes Lenin Moreno saying something about conventions.2607:FEA8:A6A0:A06:E967:8704:AC73:BE68 (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Possible useful interviews

The Brazilian journal Agência Pública (that have partnership with WikiLeaks) released (since yesterday) released two interviews about Assange's arrest. I don't have true fluency in English, so I'm putting the links down here:

1-) “Prison of Assange is personal revenge of the Ecuadorian president", says Rafael Correa (Google Translate).

2-) WikiLeaks director: "Assange faces decades in US custody" (Google Translate)

The texts are under Creative Commons Attribution-Non derivative. Thanks, Erick Soares3 (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Muito obrigada!--93.211.222.216 (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Por nada! Erick Soares3 (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Lede far, far too long

Seriously people, I think there's been some POV-led bloat of the lede, particularly as a result of recent events. It is no longer key to explaining who Assange is to discuss him hiding in the Ecuadorian Embassy as he is no longer there - so it doesn't need to be discussed in the lede in detail. FOARP (talk) 09:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I trimmed the lede a bit per your suggestion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with FOARP and it's still way too long. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Award section

There's been an announcement of the Galizia Prize, which should be added here.Connor Behan (talk) 04:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Foreign Policy magazine article 2017

Thucydides411, can you explain more about your removal of the following content?:

In 2017, Foreign Policy magazine obtained chat messages showing that the previous year, Assange and WikiLeaks had declined to publish a large quantity of leaked documents obtained from within the Russian Interior Ministry, containing damaging information on the Russian military's involvement in Ukraine, even as WikiLeaks published the hacked DNC data.

References

Thanks. --Neutrality^talk 23:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I removed it because the claim that WikiLeaks refused to publish documents on Russia is untrue, or most charitably, highly misleading. As the body of the Foreign Policy article points out, the documents in question had already been seen by other journalistic outlets and extensively reported on. Foreign Policy even links to one such article, by the BBC. Many of the documents were out in the public domain in raw form. As WikiLeaks says in the chat logs, quoted by Foreign Policy, they do not republish information which is already public. The headline that was slapped onto the Foreign Policy article is sensationalist and dishonest, but the body of the article explains the fact that these documents had already been reported on.

On a related matter, if the accusation is going to be aired that Assange is some sort of Russian puppet, it should also be mentioned that WikiLeaks recently published a large cache of Russian government documents detailing Russian government spying on its own population. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The Foreign Policy article notes that the information that was previously published "was less than half the data that later became available in 2016, when Assange turned it down." You may personally think the "Foreign Policy article is sensationalist and dishonest," but I think most people can agree that FP is a reliable source. Neutrality^talk 23:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The NY Times points out that most of the "new" information in this cache was actually just publicly available information that had been bundled together: [8]. The claim that WikiLeaks refused to publish new information about Russia is categorically false. Foreign Policy's title here is false, or at best extremely misleading. If we're to maintain "neutrality" here, we shouldn't insert patently false claims, only on the basis of a bad headline. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The New York Times article indicates that Wikileaks didn't decline to publish the material on the basis that it was already published. Rather, the article says that WikiLeaks' stated justification for declining to publish the material was that "it 'rejects all submissions that it cannot verify' or that it finds 'insignificant.'" I'd be fine adding Wikileaks' response to the text above, if that would make you more comfortable. Neutrality^talk 23:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

This should be in the article. FP is a RS. If the content is incorrect, show how with RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm generally against adding false information to the article. There have been many false claims about WikiLeaks over the years, especially given the animosity that many traditional newspapers have towards the organization. In this case, you're insisting on adding information that is demonstrably false, simply because of a sensationalist headline. There's been an attempt to smear Assange as a Russian agent, and I don't think this article should carry false information designed to further that smear. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• This is based on your own WP:OR and your own judgment that this is a "false claim" and a "smear." Can you cite any actual source that says that and contradicts the Foreign Policy article? If not, that seems to be 100% your own supposition. And again, the text under discussion is supported by the source (i.e., the body of the article cited), not "simply because of a ... headline." Neutrality^talk 12:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Thucydides411, per WP:Biographies of living persons: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. per WP:BLPGOSSIP: Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea how that quote is relevant. Is your claim that the New York Times and Foreign Policy are unreliable sources? Is your claim that the information is "titillating"? Neutrality^talk 12:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I have a few comments about the FP article and the text that was removed:

1. The FP article mentions that the data about Russia contained "details about Russian military and intelligence involvement in Ukraine". It does not mention that it was "damaging" as the removed text describes. Who was the data damaging to and where did this description come from?

2. The removed text includes the phrase "even as WikiLeaks published ..." which contains an implied comment on Wikileaks different approaches to the two batches of data. The implication, which is also contained in the FP article, should not be in Wikipedia's voice.

3. The removed text does not contain Wikileaks explanation of why it chose not to release the Russian documents.

4. The removed text does not mention that Wikileaks had previously released information about Russia as stated in the FP article. Burrobert (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

The FP article says "The leak organization ignored damaging information on the Kremlin..." And the whole point of the article is that yes, WikiLeaks treated two batches of data very differently. We reflect what the reliable sources say here. Neutrality^talk 15:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

If we are sticking to what the source says the text should read "damaging information on the Kremlin" or "details about Russian military and intelligence involvement in Ukraine" or possibly "damaging information on the Kremlin and details about Russian military and intelligence involvement in Ukraine". The FP article asks the question of why wouldn't Wikileaks publish the Russian data when it is publishing the DNC data at the same time. It implies that the reason is that Wikileaks and Assange are working for Russia. That isn't a claim we should make or imply in wikipedia's voice (point 2 above). It is also a serious charge to make in a bio. It also appears that we have only included part of what the source said as I mentioned in points 3 and 4. Burrobert (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I've restored the text with your suggestions. The modified version now quotes the headline and subhead of the fp article verbatim with proper attribution; I have also added material as it relates to your input and the extant article content. This whole "debate" of yours is a joke, but given your strong pov push on other articles (for which you were subjected to a sockpuppet investigation) I am not surprised by this borderline disruptive editing of yours. User:Neutrality is correct about your first so-called observation you can clearly deduce it from the FP article while your second one doesn't make sense. As for the third and fourth ones, it's actually not necessary to include them as they go against the spirit of what that author was saying and you are just looking for an excuse to recuperate that just so it can serve your hegemonic reading of the article, but for the sake of npov I've included some passing mention of that. Make no mistake: one way or the other this FP content will be restored, there is no way that you and the two other (tag-team?) editors who are desperately trying to scrub this information from the article are going to be successful in your censorship.

User:Neutrality I urge you to exercise your admin powers here given the problem history of tendentious editingg by this editor; User:ZiaLater and User:Jamez42 take note of this exchange the next time you have to deal with this editor again. Syopsis (talk) 04:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Pinging @SandyGeorgia: --Jamez42 (talk) 02:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the ongoing problematic editing. (As to this matter, I have not followed the Assange matter closely at all, but I generally find Neutrality to be a knowledgeable and sensible editor, and I often rely on Foreign Policy.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

We rely on reliable sources. A false headline from one article isn't a reliable source. There has been a lot of inaccurate reporting on WikiLeaks over the years, and it's clearly a political target of newspapers like the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Guardian (see the Guardian's refusal to retract its false reporting on Manafort supposedly visiting Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy). This is a BLP, and the hurdle for essentially claiming someone to be a Russian spy has to be much higher than one headline, which is demonstrably false. I also have to question the political motives for including this material, given how tenuous it is. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

FP is a reliable source and there is no false headline. We are not debating your bloggy, personal opinions about Manafort, Assange or whatever they aren't relevant. The only thing that matters here is the source and in any case you shouldn't be complaining about political motives anyway given your history of constant edit warring and POV pushing. Syopsis (talk) 04:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

There's about 0% chance that Manafort visited Assange in the embassy, given the fact that the embassy was under such tight surveillance and nobody has been able to corroborate the Guardian's reporting. Everyone in any position to confirm such a meeting denies it. There were two security cameras in every room Assange used, but no footage of Manafort visiting him has been released. Yet despite all this, the Guardian has not corrected its false reporting on the issue. That should alarm you.

By the way, headlines are generally not considered reliable sources, even if the publication they're in is considered reliable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The report is garbage and should not be included. Why is it notable that a publishing organisation declined to publish material that was already public? 84percent (talk) 01:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

It's false that the material was "already public." The Foreign Policy article notes that the information that was previously published "was less than half the data that later became available in 2016, when Assange turned it down." You're entitled to your opinion that the report is "garbage" but that opinion is not reflected in the reliable sources nor does it have any basis in Wikipedia policy. Neutrality^talk 01:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The material was public. It was a combination of emails that had already been reported on or released, and other public material that had been scraped together. It's also important to remember that this is a claim made by a single, anonymous hacker. Forum Policy's own headline is contradicted by the body of their article, and they give very little information about the accusation (for example, who's making it), making it difficult to evaluate. The only reason this weakly sourced material is being edit-warred into the article is that Julian Assange is in the cross hairs of people upset about the 2016 election results. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Why is one piece in Foreign Policy given an entire paragraph of space? If this FP article is to be used, the context should be clearly stated (Wikileaks cited its policy of not publishing information which is already public or unverifiable, and the BBC had already reported on the cache), and it should not be given more than two or so sentences. I note that I made these changes ([9]), but was instantly reverted ([10]), in favor of the version that loads up every tenuously supported criticism of Assange mentioned in the FP article, and which leaves out Wikileaks' policy on what merits publication. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Why are you even here? As far as I am concerned, you should be topic (also known as WP:TBAN) banned from editing this and other Julain Assange related pages. You refuse to listen to anybody, not even an admin, and raise all these non-sequiturs. We have already explained our position to you, it is not our fault you make the conscious decsion NOT to engage constructively. Syopsis (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I've edited the article to be more neutral, and to comply with WP:BLP. It's a problem when significant space is given to poorly sourced smears. You seem to be under the misconception that admins' opinions on content matter more than those of other editors, or that not agreeing with your particular views is equivalent to but agreeing with anyone. One particular article from FP is being given enormous weight, for pretty transparently political reasons, and that's a problem. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to note that the current revision of the article devotes about 240 words to describing the arguments made in this one Foreign Policy piece, quoting extensively from it. That's severely undue. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

They aren't smears they are sourced info that legitimately belong in the article. In this case yes the admins opinion wold matter more because of how little you know about how WP actually works (the proof is in your comments). Stop talking about this already, it's obviously going nowhere as I see your attempt to purge the fp content was almost instantly reverted lol. Syopsis (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Lede: WikiLeaks's claim that Assange was spied on

The editor 84percent has now edit-warred content about WikiLeaks declaring that Assange was being spied on to the lede of the article, along with text suggesting that Assange was being thrown out of the embassy for this reason. The editor has also restored a large number of utter trash sources (e.g. WSWS, Consortium News). This should all be reverted, and the editor should seriously heed WP:BRD rather than edit-war these awful changes to the article. WikiLeaks is absolutely not a reliable source for the assertion that Assange was being spied on, and this does not belong in the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The sources are The New York Times (Reuters), The Guardian, The Age, ABC News, etc. These are reliable sources. See WP:SOURCES. Also, I did not write anything to the effect of "Assange was being thrown out of the embassy for this reason." Further, the other "utter trash" source Consortium News was founded by Robert Parry, the award winning journalist covering the Contra affair. None of these sources are listed as unreliable on WP:RSP. 84percent (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The reliable sources in question are sources for "Wikileaks said X", they are not sources for "Assange was spied on". And the loonie sources that you bring up are such trash that they have not even merited enough mention on the RS noticeboard to be added to the RSP. Usually, they just get deleted and the Wikipedia editors who add them let it go. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The sources that 84percent added support the text, which attributes the claim to WikiLeaks. The claim is transparently true, by the way: Ecuador has even started releasing some of its surveillance of Assange. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

---

I am challenging this recently added material and have removed most of it. I explained in my edit summary my reasons, but I'll repeat them here: (1) the newly added material cited to, and relied in large part upon, unreliable/fringe sources (Consortium News, the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS), and Ruptly (which is part of Russian state-controlled RT); (2) the newly added material was undue and recentistic, according top much space to WikiLeaks' recent claims in lead section and body; and (3) the newly added material at times repeated WikiLeaks' claims in article's voice ("The spying..."; "WikiLeaks revealed"). Moreover, the newly added material sought to claim that WikiLeaks' press conference was the reason for Ecuador withdrawing asylum, but cited zero sources reflecting this. I've kept one appropriate, well-sourced sentence in the body of the article cited to the Guardian and Reuters, which reads:

On 10 April 2019, WikiLeaks said it had uncovered an extensive surveillance operation against Assange from within the Ecuadorian embassy, asserting that videotapes of Assange taken at the embassy constituted an invasion of privacy. WikiLeaks said that "material including video, audio, copies of private legal documents and a medical report" had surfaced in Spain and that unnamed individuals in Madrid had made an extortion attempt.

References

That sentence should be more than sufficient. Neutrality^talk 14:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

As I said above, sources include The New York Times (Reuters), The Guardian, The Age, ABC News, and others. They each support the text. You can remove the "unreliable" sources -- that's fine -- but the text is still supported by the other sources. The revelation is important and damning. We can see now that the surveillance material is already being dripped to the press (e.g. the skateboarding video). One sentence is not sufficient for this; not even prisoners are subject to this level of abuse -- they are allowed to have conversations with defense counsel which aren't recorded by government and later leaked to criminal organisations in Spain. 84percent (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

The sources reliably report what WL have claimed, they don't support the truthfulness of those claims - which is at present unknowable. Neutrality's text reflects that better. Pincrete (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Reason for Ecuador allowing Assange to be arrested

Why doesn't the article say that the reason Ecuador allowed police to arrest Assange was in retaliation to him posting photos on the internet of the president of Ecuador eating lobster in bed while his country still suffers great economic hardship?

It has been widely reported in the news as one of the reasons.

Just google it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.229.230 (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Seth Rich BS

The editor Aviartm has edit-warred out long-standing content on Assange's fueling of Seth Rich conspiracy theories (even going as far as violating 3RR on the WikiLeaks article). The editor keeps removing RS language that notes that Assange (1) suggested/implied that Seth Rich was the leaker[11][12][13][14][15][16][17] and (2) that Assange's BS fuelled conspiracy theories on the subject.[18][19] The editor instead keeps adding obfuscating WP:OR nonsense that claims Assange "stated no confirmation or refutation that Seth Rich" was the source, when RS clearly say Assange "suggested"/"implied" this[20][21][22][23][24][25][26] or "carefully nurtured" the conspiracy theory[27]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• I agree that Aviartm's changes are fringe-promotional and obscure the point of the sources cited, which is that Assange fueled conspiracy theories about the death of Mr. Rich. Aviartm, you need to stop putting this in. Neutrality^talk 15:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Here is the fallacy in all of this: Correlation does not imply causation. You are implying that since WikiLeaks set up a reward for information, they "must" be fueling the conspiracy theories. The stupidity behind this is that even the police set up a $25,000 reward for information, yet you are not saying that they "fueled" conspiracy theories. And the interesting thing here is that the very interview in which we can say that Assange implied/suggested that Rich was the source is already cited in the page! There are corresponding citations referencing to this video. So frankly, both viewpoints on the matter is already on the page, per Wikipedia:BALANCE. --Aviartm (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

We stick to what RS say, not how you personally interpret the world and events in it (thank god). I have zero interest debating you on what it meant when Assange started BSing about Seth Rich and offering reward money for this one murder out of the blue. The RS clearly and explicitly say Assange implied Seth Rich was the leaker and RS (incl. a peer-reviewed publication) say he fueled Seth Rich conspiracy theories as a result. That suffices. If you want to debate conspiracy theories, go to reddit or start a blog. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

NPOV states: "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance." And if you are not interested in debating, why make a Talk Page inquiry whilst neglecting notifying the user at hand, me? And you imply that I am doing Wikipedia:Original research yet that is a bold-faced lie. Using RS not constitutes original research? No. Aviartm (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

There is ZERO contradiction between sources - what on Earth are you talking about? You are scrubbing reliably sourced content from the page (content EXPLICITLY substantiated by upwards of a dozen RS), and adding Assange's own BS on the issue (from a transcript) which you yourself are interpreting as "stated no confirmation or refutation that Seth Rich" was the source. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Half of your citations were talking about Fox News, not WikiLeaks. And tell me how this somehow confirms or denies anything: "We're not saying that Seth Rich's death necessarily is connected to our publications – that's something that needs to be established. But if there is any question about a source of WikiLeaks being threatened, then people can be assured that this organization will go after anyone who may have been involved in some kind of attempt to coerce or possibly, in this kill a potential source." --- No where does this sound confirming or refuting. Assange is abstaining from giving an answer. Now reliable sources, from the source itself, is original research, provided by reliable sources? No. Aviartm (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

EVERY SINGLE CITED SOURCE EXPLICITLY SAYS THAT ASSANGE "SUGGESTED"/"IMPLIED"/"CAREFULLY NURTURED" THAT RICH WAS THE LEAKER. You're edit-warring and violating 3RR, yet you can't even be arsed to actually read the sources? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

If you read what I say, you would see that I did check your citations. And as previously mentioned, Sources 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 discuss about the Dutch Interview which is already on the page. And Sources 7, 9, 10 are either solely/heavily discussing exclusively about Fox News. Both POVs are there in balance. --Aviartm (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Apart from anything else, the opening sentence of the present text is very clumsy. I fail to see how anyone could claim that JA was not implying a connection to Rich, if not to his murder - sources certainly felt that he was implying such a connection. It is as much WP:OR to deny that sources saw JA as implying such a connection as it would be to say that he said nothing to 'damp down' such speculation.Pincrete (talk) 08:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The opening sentence is just fine. Reads cleanly in my opinion. Frankly, it is WP:OR to say "yes, he meant it" to "no, he didn't meant it" in implying a connection. I think it is best to have quotations of the conversation than have someone else's opinion on the mix. Some of the citations already cited are using quotations instead of an ambiguous interpretation trip. Aviartm (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

How is quoting Assange directly "obfuscatory" ([28])? Surely quoting him directly is the most accurate way to express his views. I'll remind everyone involved that this is a BLP, and we have a duty to accurately represent Assange's views. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Assange's quote about how Rich was not killed as a result of a robbery is already in there. The extensive wink wink quotes don't add anything of value. They are just thrown in there to obfuscate from the fact that Assange implied Rich was the leaker. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Thucydides411 Exactly. The best way to explain someone's views is to have their own quotations through reliable sources, which both POVs of the section contain. This intentional fabrication of excluding direct quotations on a matter is unethical and frankly, bad editing practices. Wikipedia:STONEWALLING... Aviartm (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I still don't get how directly quoting Assange is "obfuscatory." Why quote other people's interpretations of what he said, instead of what he actually said? If you find Assange's statement to be "obfuscatory," then that's because what he said was noncommittal and cagey. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Thucydides411 I don't understand it either. We shouldn't use someone else's take on the matter because that introduces distortion and bias. It is best to just use Assange's quotations from reliable sources. Aviartm (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Here's a source from a few days ago that says Assange made "deeply misleading" remarks about Seth Rich [29]. I see no reason to try to WP:QUOTEFARM this away. Geogene (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

If you believe Robert Mueller's indictments of Russian nationals, and believe Assange knows who the source is, then the remarks could be seen as "deeply misleading." If you don't hold either of those views, then they're not necessarily misleading. The NPR reporter being interviewed predicates their statement on the Mueller indictments. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Geogene: Could you explain why you reverted my edit (my edit: [30], your revert: [31])? Your edit summary references something completely different (whether or not to quote Assange directly). My edit removed a redundant clause, and avoided stating in Wikipedia's voice that Mueller's indictments are true (something we obviously cannot state in Wikipedia's voice). I assume my edit got caught up in a larger revert. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Geogene Bad source. "shown to be deeply misleading. U.S. intelligence chiefs and a Senate panel have concluded that the Russians were behind the hacks and that they ensured WikiLeaks got the Democratic documents..." This is talking about who hacked the DNC, not his remarks on the matter on Seth Rich. Aviartm (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC) Edit: And the most ironic thing since Geogene joined the conversation is that the very edits that Geogene reverted had those quotations from Assange's interviews with Nieuwsuur verbatim from his NPR source. Aviartm (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

NPR isn't reliable? Really? Geogene (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Geogene It's not reliable when the individual that cites a website in any case doesn't read it. Nor did I ever say that NPR is unreliable. Of course they are, but you are either Wikipedia:Cherrypicking or did not read thoroughly the source you provided. Aviartm (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I did read it, and the reason the Newsiuur quotes are used there is because it's radio and those are soundbites. As a print medium, Wikipedia minimizes the use of quotations. Regarding "Nor did I ever say that NPR is unreliable." except that you immmediately took up that argument below, by suggesting that live radio programs are inherently unreliable. Geogene (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Serious question: are live statements made by reporters in on-air segments reliable sources? They don't go through the editorial process that a written article would go through. I haven't seen on-air statements being used as authoritative sources on Wikipedia. Using them as such is basically taking whatever formulation the reporter comes up with on the spot as Gospel, which seems very wrong. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Thucydides411 I have no idea. I've never seen them be used before. I want to say no. Aviartm (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, the NPR source under discussion is an on-air segment. It's not a written article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Thucydides411 I am aware. Aviartm (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

You think that an on-air segment is unreliable because it's radio? Geogene (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

In terms of off-the-cuff opinions generate instantly for the conversation that NPR is having, yes. We already stated that NPR is reliable; either you Cherrypicked or did not read thoroughly the source you provided. I already talked about this above. Aviartm (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Admin help: remove vandalism

This sentence is in the article:

• Assange said that choosing between Hillary Clinton and Donald "I’m more honest and my women are more beautiful" Trump is like choosing between cholera or gonorrhea. "Personally, I would prefer neither."

Please remove the "I’m more honest and my women are more beautiful" part. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

It's still in there. Indefensible.

Agree, the sentence is not sourced and should be removed ASAP.Pincrete (talk) 08:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 April 2019

Can someone please change these references:

<ref>{{Article|langue=fr|titre=Des parlementaires soutiennent Assange à Londres|périodique=VQH|issn=1424-4039|lire en ligne=https://www.24heures.ch/monde/parlementaires-soutiennent-assange-londres/story/18773950|consulté le=2019-04-16}}</ref>

<ref>{{Article|langue=fr|titre=Dick Marty: "Assange ha solo detto la verità". In Ecuador un nuovo arresto|périodique=ticinotoday|lire en ligne=https://www.ticinotoday.ch/content/dick-marty-assange-ha-solo-detto-la-verit%C3%A0-ecuador-un-nuovo-arresto}}</ref>

to:

<ref>{{cite news |title=Des parlementaires soutiennent Assange à Londres |url=https://www.24heures.ch/monde/parlementaires-soutiennent-assange-londres/story/18773950 |work=VQH |date=15 April 2019 |language=fr}}</ref>

<ref>{{cite news |title=Dick Marty: "Assange ha solo detto la verità". In Ecuador un nuovo arresto |url=https://www.ticinotoday.ch/content/dick-marty-assange-ha-solo-detto-la-verità-ecuador-un-nuovo-arresto |work=Ticino Today |date=12 April 2019 |language=it}}</ref>

Or you can remove the refs altogether. Either way, the {{article}} template is not meant to be used in mainspace, and definitely not as a reference. (edit: These are refs 189 and 191. ref 190 should also be fixed, but it's not causing dabsolver errors, so I'm not that bothered about it) Iffy★Chat -- 14:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

 Already done by User:R'n'B. Iffy★Chat -- 12:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 April 2019 : Galizia Prize

At the end of the section "Honours and awards" add "2019 Galizia Prize" Reference: https://www.guengl.eu/shortlist-unveiled-for-journalists-whistleblowers-and-defenders-of-the-right-to-information-award/ Andri Limma 08:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@JJMC89:Looking at the talk page I saw this had been suggested by 3 different users (1 IP, two named) with no opposes when you said there was no consensus to add, so I've proposed text above, which can always be improved, to make it easier for you to add. Anyone opposed? SashiRolls ^{t · c} 07:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

See O3000's comment above. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Please up date

• 16. April 2019, GUE/NGL Award for Journalists, Whistleblowers & Defenders of the Right to Information. The award, sponsored by European parliamentarians, was established in honour of assassinated Maltese journalist, Daphne Galizia. → Merci :-) --87.170.197.239 (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps something like:

On 16 April 2019, Mairead Maguire accepted the 2019 GUE/NGL Award for Journalists, Whistleblowers & Defenders of the Right to Information on Julian Assange's behalf.

Optionally, this could be added:

Earlier in the year, on 8 January 2019, Maguire had nominated Assange for the Nobel Peace Prize.

The story of the award appears to have been syndicated via news.com.au, for which there are very nearly 16,000 references in en.wp, so it is presumably a paper "the community" considers reliable. Though granted not quite as reliable as the Daily Mail which is cited by en.wp more than twice as often. Curiously, much of the press seems to have chosen not to cover the award this time around. The Irish Examiner (cited 4K times in en.wp) article is identical to the original? Canberra Times story. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 07:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

References

An award in only its second year by the GUE/NGL. The announcements talk of the award granted by European parliamentarians. But, it appears that it's a very small minority (7%). Looks UNDUE. O3000 (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Hm. Nobel peace prize winner accepts award for someone she nominated for a Nobel peace prize. Run of the mill stuff, surely. (That said, the Nobel committee did give the prize to Europe back in the Grexit days, and to a freshly elected Obama.) Still, reading that such things are !note-worthy is a bit surprising. I guess we've gotten rid of the WP:PORNBIO industry-awards exception to WP:N now, so it's harder to argue that awards from European parties are as (ir)relevant as say the Global Citizen Award the Atlantic Council gave Ali Bongo Ondimba. (§)^^ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 02:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Original research on how many parliamentarians came up with this or opinions on how new awards differ from old ones are irrelevant. Non-controversial facts (like somebody winning an award) become DUE when multiple reliable sources report them. Connor Behan (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

Add We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks to filmography. This documentary is one of most notable looks at Wikileaks and JA's role in it. Since this film is about, rather than by JA, it might be apt to put in new section or in 'See also'. Pincrete (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. DannyS712 (talk) 01:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 April 2019

I would like to request that the qualifier in the partner field in the infobox be changed from (esp. 2009; sep. 2012) to (dated 2009 - 2012), as I did with his former girlfriend, Sarah Harrison's infobox. They only dated - they were never married. See [[32]] for sourcing. I can't confirm the timeframe but suggest leaving the dates that are there now, with a {{cn}} to encourage a source with the specific dates. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to include Julian Assanges theory of economic induced censorship

Include Julian's contributions to censorship theory specifically, the censorship pyramid, is a worth entry. It is one of the pillars of his philosophy and understanding of censorship. It deserves at least a mention, one sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julientremblaymclellan (talk • contribs)

Could you supply a citation for this? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure, page 123 Cypherpunks which references the first conceptualization of the concept. http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/articles/book-reviews/16631-cypherpunks-freedom-and-the-future-of-the-internet this article is also referenced by Assange in his book When Google Met Wikileaks page 70, citation 133, references counterfire.org, but provides an archive. archive.today/Oyczc The article from counterfire.org is the illustration of the concept as described by Assange. Also referenced in https://wikileaks.org/Transcript-Meeting-Assange-Schmidt.html

https://www.newsweek.com/julian-assange-why-i-founded-wikileaks-294283 (search for pyramid to get relevant passage)

On a different matter, do you get notifications when someone responds to a talk comment? I was informed of the reply, and has to check in manually. Julientremblaymclellan (talk) 04:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Julientremblaymclellan: No I did not get notified directly. I do watch this page, so I saw there was a change and saw that it was your reply. As for Assange's theory, I guess what is needed is some academic in the field of censorship saying his work advanced the field. Otherwise it is basically just an idea he had that gets passing mention in non-academic works. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay thank you @Richard-of-Earth: I will look into Academic sourcing. Let me get back to you in a couple of days, while I look into it. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julientremblaymclellan (talk • contribs)

Still Belmarsh?

I don't see a mention in the source given that Assange is still being held at Belmarsh. He was taken to the court from Belmarsh according to the source, but I don't know if this means that he is still incarcerated there. Totorotroll (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Bail issue

There is an issue of weight here. The bail issue is hardly mentioned. More space is devoted to conspiracy theories like the one about John Jones. It is mentioned far less than the asylum issue. However, both existed simultaneously. Ecuadorian law did not trump British law. On the contrary, in a sense, it turned out the other way round, as Assange's asylum has been revoked and he is serving 50 weeks in prison. Editors seem to have assume that the breach of bail was a small issue that would just go away. This obviously wasn't true. The article should be edited accordingly. For example, "Political asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy" should become "Breaching bail and political asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

In fact, things seem to be jumbled. Under "Indictment in the United States", the article says: "On 11 April 2019, the day of Assange's arrest in London, the indictment against him was unsealed. Judge Michael Snow said Assange was "a narcissist who cannot get beyond his own selfish interest" and he had "not come close to establishing reasonable excuse". He was charged with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion ..." Judge Snow's comments about an excuse related to skipping bail. However, in context there is nothing to tell the reader that, and I'm not sure the writers knew that either. The context, on the contrary, suggests that Judge Snow was referring to hacking. In fact, as far as Judge Snow was concerned, the US indictment was irrelevant.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

POV

This article seems to have a pro-Assange POV. He is portrayed as a journalist hero standing up to the American Empire, and anything else is swept under the carpet. As noted before, the fact that he skipped bail is minimised. In fact, there is the erroneous suggestion that he was arrested on hacking charges. The Swedish allegations are given only three paragraphs. Yes, there is a main article for them, but there is also a main article for the US indictment, and that section includes not less than 10 paragraphs about Assange's supporters. There is similar material scattered through the article, including a trivial aside about Pamela Anderson's tussle with Australia's latest PM. Then, there is space given to conspiracy theories about Seth Rich, John Jones, and Hillary Clinton. Reality doesn't seem to matter much.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Please do not post comments about the article itself here. If you want to suggest an edit, feel free to do that here, but there are: discussion pages for comments.

Thanks,

Muffington (talk) 08:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your characterization of the article.

• "As noted before, the fact that he skipped bail is minimised". The lede covers the fact that he skipped bail: Having been unsuccessful in his challenge to the extradition proceedings, he breached his £340,000 bail[13] in June 2012 to seek asylum from Ecuador.
• "In fact, there is the erroneous suggestion that he was arrested on hacking charges.". Assange was, in fact, arrested on hacking charges (among others): [33]. He was first arrested for breaching bail, and then formally arrested again for extradition to the US on hacking charges. This is, suprisingly, not mentioned in the lede.
• "The Swedish allegations are given only three paragraphs." There is one paragraph in the lede that is largely about the about the Swedish charges, and another three paragraphs in the body of the article. The charges, the investigation, the extradition hearings and Assange's asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy are outlined. I don't know what more you expect here: a detailed analysis of the he-said-she-said surrounding the case?
• "There is similar material scattered through the article, including a trivial aside about Pamela Anderson's tussle with Australia's latest PM." The details about Pamela Anderson's confrontation with the Australian PM can be condensed into one sentence. In general, though, there has been a lot of support for Assange by high-profile individuals and organizations, and this shouldn't be censored from the article.
• "Then, there is space given to conspiracy theories about Seth Rich, John Jones, and Hillary Clinton." That points to anti-Assange POV in the article, not pro-Assange POV. I agree that there's too much discussion of Seth Rich and Russiagate in the article.

The article, as a whole, does have balance issues, covering some topics in too much detail and others in too little detail. There should be much more space devoted to the actual information that WikiLeaks revealed, for example. But I don't see the pro-Assange POV you claim. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• The lead covers the fact that he skipped bail, but it is minimised in the body of the article.
• It is clearly erroneous to suggest that Judge Snow's comments were related to hacking charges (see before). I see no evidence Assange was arrested twice. The article you link to doesn't even mention breaching bail. It suggests Assange was arrested in the embassy on US charges. This is false, so this problem is at least partly due to a confusion in (American) sources.
• Again, the lead covers the Swedish allegations, but they are minimised in the body. The section is one of the smallest in the article, and doesn't explain what the allegations are. This is inappropriate because they form an important part of the events of recent years. The article seems happy to record what "she said" when she is Pamela Anderson.
• I'm not suggesting any censorship of information about Assange's supporters. I'm just saying it could be condensed. Perhaps, there could just be a list, e.g., Assange was supported by Pamela Anderson etc.
• Perhaps there is a pro-American bias. Certainly there is a bias away from the Swedish charges and the bail issue, and towards issues related to US politics and the US sealed indictment.
• It is probably hard to establish a POV in a large article edited by many editors over a long time. However, Assange and his supporters assert that his legal problems are about the US indictment and minimise the Swedish allegations and the bail issue. So does this article, and in that way has a strong pro-Assange bias. It seems we agree that there are balance issues.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:00, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: There is an article devoted to the Assange v Sweden case which is linked at the top of the section. Were you suggesting copying information over from that section? I don't have a problem with that other than it seems unnecessary. Regarding the bail case, is there anything else that can be said - Assange breached a bail order, he was found guilty and sentenced. We have included his reasons for the breach and some responses to the sentencing. If there is anything else that you think is suitable add it in.Burrobert (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

If you read my comments, you will see I have already mentioned the Assange v Sweden article. As I pointed out, this is an inconsistent argument because there is an article on the Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange, but that doesn't mean there aren't many, many paragraphs covering the same topic here. This page should at least explain what Assange was accused of doing. There is more that could be said about bail. The fact that his supporters like Jemima Goldsmith tried and failed to get their money back. But my point is there is a lack of recognition the bail issue. Assange is portrayed as seeking asylum, but he was also breaching bail, and this should be acknowledged. The bail issue is dealt with in a diffuse and confusing way. There is a serious confusion in the article about Assange's arrest, as I have pointed out.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no point discussing generalities here. I think that may have been what Muffington was referring to earlier. Why don't you make any changes that you consider appropriate. If other editors disagree with you they will let you know and then we can discuss specifics on the talk page.Burrobert (talk) 02:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Where are the "discussion pages"??? I don't want to spend hours editing a page only to find someone has reverted it without reading what I had written. I will make some minor changes and see how it goes.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning

This article refers to "Chelsea Manning" in relation to events that occurred while Manning was using the name Bradley. This is an attempt to reinvent history, and is inconsistent with the approach taken at Gdańsk, where the name Danzig is used in relation to events that occurred while it was known by that name. It would be better to write "Bradley Manning (now called Chelsea Manning)" where first mentioned, and thereafter simply "Bradley Manning" or "Chelsea Manning" as applicable depending on the name which Manning was using at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.242.75.201 (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Tough question. Reminds me of the endless debates about The Wachowskis at Talk:The Matrix. MOS:GENDERID states, under "Referring to the person in other articles", Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis. Generally, do not go into detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless they are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned. That guideline is clear as mud if you ask me, but I would interpret "use context" as leaning towards using Bradley for events from 2010, and Chelsea for more recent references. — JFG ^talk 13:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

"Reinventing history" is a bit of a hyperbolic way to describe the name change: anybody can click on the wikilink and read the Chelsea Manning article for all the details they desire. If many editors wanted clarification we could theoretically add write "Chelsea (then Bradley) Manning" at her first mention in the main text, but I don't really think this is necessary. -Darouet (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

[Same person as above - IP address may differ.] Thank you JFG. Yes I agree it is not terribly clear but nonetheless I believe that it tends to support my suggestion. My suggested "now known as Chelsea Manning" is the minimum detail that would be required in order to clarify that later references to Chelsea Manning relate to the same person, so I don't think that it counts as excessive or irrelevant detail. I agree that this article is not the place to go into further detail and discuss Manning's gender identity, and I'm not proposing that we do so - simply that for each reference we choose the name by which Manning was known at the time. I think this is better than retrospectively imposing the name change before it actually happened (for which I still assert, despite Darouet's comment, that "rewriting history" is a fair description). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.221.64 (talk) 05:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

nationality

Ecuador not only granted asylum to Assange but in december 2017 also their citizenship, so Assange also has Ecuadorian nationality now.[34]--Bancki (talk)

Ecuador suspended Assange's citizenship on 10 April 2019, according to Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Jose Valencia. See this Reuter's article. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Interesting, I think both should be mentioned in the article itself.----Bancki (talk) 13:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect word usage

He had been questioned there months earlier over allegations of sexual assault and rape.[7]

Should this say "three" instead of "there"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tincanblower (talk • contribs) 13:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

No. "There" refers to Sweden in this sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.232.213 (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Point of order lazy journalists routinely mistranslate Assange's sex charges as rape, or sexual assault. In fact his accusers said he misled them, not assaulted them. In Sweden if you have otherwise consensual sex with someone, where they thought you were monogamous, but you actually had multiple partners, you can be charged with a sex crime. Swedish reasoning is that your partner only agreed to monogamous sex, so you lacked their consent to non-monogamous sex.

  There were two Swedish women who met, compared notes about their lives and love-lives, and realized they both thought they were Assange's sole monogamous partner.

  In most parts of the world this would make Assange a cad, but he wouldn't face charges.

  Even if some lazy journalists report he faces allegations of rape nothing stops us from neutrally saying he faced sex crime charges, without using wording that implied violence. Geo Swan (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

This is blatantly untrue, and a fabulation. There is nothing in the Swedish law about monomgamous sex. He is charged with rape, because he had sex with a woman without a functional condom when only sex with a condom had been consented to, and had sex with the same woman while she was sleeping, and hence unable to give consent.

The British High Court said: "On this approach, then intentional penetration achieved by coercion or where consent is lacking to the knowledge of the defendant would be considered to be rape. In our view on this basis, what was described in the European Arrest Warrant was rape." Creuzbourg (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Structure

I suggest a move to a more chronological structure. Currently, we have:

• "Wikileaks": 2006-2017
• "U.S. investigations: 2010-2019
• "Indictment in the United States": 2012-2019, includes arrest in April
• "Swedish sexual assault allegations": 2010-2019, refers to arrest in April
• "Political asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy": 2012-2019, includes arrest in April under "Presidency of Lenín Moreno" (why have a separate subsection for Moreno?)
• "Withdrawal of asylum, arrest and conviction" (a subsection of above), includes arrest in April again
• "2016 U.S. presidential election", which is placed after the above.

I don't think a strict chronological order would be feasible, but a structure that was more chronological would be better. There are at least three different accounts of his arrest. This is unnecessary and confusing. I think it would be difficult for someone who knew nothing about Assange to make sense of this jumble.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I have started to work on fixing this.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Assange's belongings

I recently added the following text to the article:

On 2 May 2019, WikiLeaks' editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson attempted to secure the belongings Assange left at the Ecuadorian embassy. However, he was denied entry by Ecuadorian diplomats. Wikileaks claimed later in May that Assange's belongings such as manuscripts, legal papers, medical records and electronic equipment were to be turned over to US prosecutors by Ecuador. Baltasar Garzon, who is the international legal co-ordinator for the defence of Assange and WikiLeaks said "It is extremely worrying that Ecuador has proceeded with the search and seizure of property, documents, information and other material belonging to the defence of Julian Assange, which Ecuador arbitrarily confiscated, so that these can be handed over to the the agent of political persecution against him, the United States".

It was reverted. I am unclear of the reasons for the reversion so I will quote the text attached to the revert:

“And this has do do with the biography of Julian Assange...how?”

The text that I added was about Assange and was widely covered in the media. We know that Assange has been charged in the US and is fighting extradition. The significance to his cases of the US obtaining the “manuscripts, legal papers, medical records and electronic equipment” left in the embassy seems evident. The quote from Assange’s representative indicates how serious it is being taken by his team. What do other editors think?Burrobert (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

If it was widely covered, can you find a better source? RT is not a reliable source, and The Age article sounds like it was written by Wikileaks. O3000 (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

RT is a source for the initial two sentences which I put in for context. The attempt by Hrafnsson to obtain Assange's belongings does not seem to be widely reported. RT isn't a proscribed source although I think it is frowned on for controversial matters. However I don't think Hrafnsson's attempt is controversial so don't see a problem using it here. If other editors disagree then omitting that part of the text would be the solution. The Age does quote from Wikileaks and I have attributed the claim to Wikileaks. The same story with the same quotes from Wikileaks appears on MSN and news.com.au and on Yahoo with a different quote from Assange's lawyer in Madrid, Aitor Martinez. A duckduckgo search should bring up others.Burrobert (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

These articles talk to a possible future event based on a claimed email that is not authenticated. Wait until something actually happens. WP:RECENTISM. O3000 (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

RT is reliable to report Hrafnsson was denied entry to the Ecuadorian embassy to retrieve Assange's belongings. I haven't seen any WP:RSN decision that RT is generally unreliable - perhaps someone could point towards such a thread, if it exists. If we want to be cautious, we can attribute these claims about Assange's belongings in the embassy to Hrafnsson and WikiLeaks. The issue of Assange's belongings has now been widely reported, and it probably deserves a sentence in the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Lede: "accused the Clinton campaign of stoking "a neo-McCarthy hysteria""

The bolded part of this paragraph should be removed:

• During the 2016 U.S. Democratic Party presidential primaries, WikiLeaks hosted emails sent or received by candidate Hillary Clinton from her private email server when she was Secretary of State.[18] The U.S. Intelligence Community, as well as a Special Counsel investigation, concluded that the Russian government carried out a hacking campaign as part of broader efforts of interference in the 2016 United States elections.[19] In 2018, twelve Russian intelligence officers, mostly affiliated with the GRU, were indicted on criminal charges by Special Counsel Robert Mueller; the indictment charges the Russians with carrying out the computer hacking and working with WikiLeaks and other organisations to spread the stolen documents.[20] Assange consistently denied any connection to or co-operation with Russia in relation to the leaks, and accused the Clinton campaign of stoking "a neo-McCarthy hysteria".[21][22][23]

First, it's needlessly long (the sentence already notes that Assange rejects connection to Russia). There's no added value of including Assange's specific attacks on various groups and individuals. Second, given that both the US intel community and later the Special Counsel investigation (which indicted GRU officers in 2018) have described connections between WikiLeaks and Russia (while there is no mention of the Clinton campaign saying anything of the sort in the lede), it's a bit weird to include Assange's attacks on the Clinton campaign. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

There's no added value of including Assange's specific attacks on various groups and individuals. Why? The quote was widely reported ([35] [36] [37] [38]), and it explains his reaction to the accusations. In an article about Assange, Assange's views are notable, and suggesting that Assange's views are incorrect (as you seem to do by referencing the Mueller investigation) doesn't make his views less notable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

His denial is already covered. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean? -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

"Assange consistently denied any connection to or co-operation with Russia in relation to the leaks" Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't address my point. Why is Assange's view that the Clinton campaign was stoking "a neo-McCarthy hysteria" by claiming a connection to Russia not notable? That was part of his response to the accusation of a Russian connection, and it was widely reported. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed Assange's opinion of Clinton is very relevant to understanding his mindset when releasing the DNC information. Plenty of sources have reported this. — JFG ^talk 00:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

In the lead? Are we purposely trying to embarrass him? O3000 (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

We're just trying to reflect Assange's views. The accusations against him relating to the 2016 elections are explained in great detail in the lede, so his response should be included. If there's anything that should be trimmed, it's the detailed explanation of the accusations. The accusations should be summarizable in one sentence, rather than the 2.5 sentences they currently get. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the "Clinton campaign" is particularly noteworthy.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

If the lede is going to discuss the accusations against Assange related to the Clinton campaign, which it does, then his response, which includes this statement about the Clinton campaign, should be included as well. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

If his response was a defense, I'd agree with you. This isn't a defense -- it's a rather odd insult. OK for the body. O3000 (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course it's his defense. He thinks that the entire accusation was brought up in order to stoke "a neo-McCarthy hysteria." That's his response to the accusation. You may view that as an "insult," but that's not what it is. It's his view of what Hillary Clinton's objective was in pushing these accusations. This is an article about Julian Assange, and we can't censor his own views out of the lede, just because you don't agree with them or find them odd. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is an article about Julian Assange, and I think the whole paragraph is a long and intricate distraction. It also violates the principle that the lead should reflect the body. The second and third sentences are about Russian hacking, and don't mention Assange. The bolded passage is confusing because it implies the Clinton campaign was making the allegations, whereas we have just said it is the US intelligence community and Mueller. This paragraph might not be needed at all, given the new indictments against Assange.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Director?

The opening sentence currently names him as a "former director" and the infobox calls him a "director" of WikiLeaks. No source is cited and this is not mentioned in the body of the article. This says: "WikiLeaks’ job titles have proven fluid over the years. Assange has variously described himself as the group’s spokesman, publisher and editor." I'm sure he was named director at one point, and maybe he still is, but should this be mentioned in the opening sentence. Isn't "founder" enough?--Jack Upland (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Following the AP article you link above, we could say something like,

"[...] and the founder of WikiLeaks, variously described as its publisher, spokesman and editor."

How does that sound? -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

He is often described as a journalist, especially in recent news events (noting this is controversial, but we have plenty of sources to cover it). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

You have never produced these sources, and this is the wrong section to raise this point.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

With regard to Thucydides411's question, I wouldn't object to something on those lines.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

"Criminal" in opening sentence

The fact that assange is a criminal should be clearly stated in the introduction, as he is not a good example for our children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:181:4640:74E4:F73F:A2E1:8C54 (talk) 06:41, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Many people disagree with you. Please stop edit warring. It can lead to your account being blocked. HiLo48 (talk) 06:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

He was not proven guilty of any serious charges that can define him as primarily a criminal. El_C 06:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Assange has already been found guilty and sentenced, that makes it a fact that he is a criminal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:181:4640:74E4:F73F:A2E1:8C54 (talk) 06:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

And it is certainly not his occupation. El_C 06:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

This is WP:UNDUE garbage and has no place in paragraph one. GPRamirez5 (talk) 09:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's that simple. Assange pleaded guilty to 25 hacking-related charges in 1996. He is now serving a prison sentence in Britain. He spent the past seven years as a fugitive from justice, avoiding facing court on a charge of rape. I don't know on what basis this is not "serious". This is what he's famous for. Saying that he is a "journalist" is misleading. How many news items has he created in the course of his "career"? What is the "occupation" of someone who has been holed up for seven years in an embassy, dependent on the embassy for food etc. What is the "occupation" of a convict who is facing two possible extradictions? The introduction should make it clear what he is notable for, and should not create a mundane career he has never had.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Julian Assange is primarily known for WikiLeaks. Of the people who have heard of Julian Assange, I doubt more than a small fraction are even aware of the hacking charges he plead to as a teenager. That episode only comes up in a tiny percentage of the coverage of him, whereas his role in WikiLeaks will reliably be mentioned in nearly every article about him.

We're on pretty solid footing to call Julian Assange a "journalist." He's won a number of journalism awards (including the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism and the GUE/NGL Award for Journalists). WikiLeaks is behind some of the highest-impact stories in the past decade.

The lede should begin by describing what Assange is primarily known for - his role in WikiLeaks, and the major leaks it has enabled. The lede should later deal with other issues that are important to his biography, including his asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy, the investigation in Sweden, and the American government's attempt to extradite him to the US. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Thucydides411, this 'criminal' is a POV and moreover doesn't comply with WP:BLP Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

What part of the BLP policy are you referring to? You don't write an encyclopedia based on what the general public are aware of. He pleaded guilty to hacking when he was 25, not as a teenager, having been under police investigation since 1991. He was given a three year good behaviour bond. The Swedish charges arose in 2010. He chose to skip bail in 2012. The rest you know. He is now 47, almost 48. For only about 10 years of adult life, 2000-2009, was he not in the clutches of a criminal justice system. Criminal charges have dominated his life. It is wrong not to mention them in the opening sentence. I don't think he should be labelled a "criminal" — that's too broad. But his life should not be misrepresented. With regard to his journalism, Dylan got a Nobel Prize of literature, Kissinger and Obama for peace, and Rutherford for chemistry. Prizes are not a good guide to what someone is. What about "activist"?--Jack Upland (talk) 05:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The idea that "criminal charges have dominated his life" is your personal interpretation. By far, Julian Assange is best known for WikiLeaks. Very few people have heard about the hacking he did as a teenager, and it's a pretty hard sell to say that that episode is in any way comparable in importance in this biography to Assange's activities with WikiLeaks. Assange isn't some random person who somehow received several journalism awards - the publishing he's done through WikiLeaks is what won him those awards. That publishing was behind a number of the highest-impact stories over the past decade. The issue of skipping bail is covered in the lede, when it chronologically comes up. If we're going to define who Julian Assange is in one sentence, however, "he skipped bail and is serving a jail sentence" doesn't make the cut. WikiLeaks certainly does. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

So seven years in the Ecuadorian Embassy isn't important???--Jack Upland (talk) 08:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

When did I ever say that, and what does political asylum have to do with him supposedly being a criminal? -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

While he did receive asylum, by refusing to leave the embassy he became a criminal, and he is now in jail because of that. The opening sentence should sum up the whole article [39]. Why is he notable? Yes, he is notable because he founded WikiLeaks. He is also notable for being in the Ecuadorian Embassy for seven years. That should be alluded to in the opening sentence, and then the lead can deal with it chronologically. At the moment the opening sentence gives no indication of any of his legal problems over the past decade. And that's wrong.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Jack, it's clear that you're intent on labeling Assange a criminal in the first sentence, while removing the label "journalist." I think that would be highly POV, and not reflect what he's known for. He's primarily known for WikiLeaks. His legal troubles are handled later in the lede. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Any suggestion that Assange is "criminal" would be a violation of WP:BLPCRIME and I am pretty sure that Assange team can sue Wikipedia for that. Assange is accused of crimes but nothing has been proven by the court.--SharabSalam (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with SharabSalam and others above. If this POV pushing cant stop, then the offending editors that seek to violate wikipedia policy must be banned from the page. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about? He has been convicted of 25 crimes and is currently serving a prison sentence.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Having thought about it, I think the earlier hacking convictions should be in the lead. They are notable, being featured in works such as Underground (Dreyfus book) and Underground: The Julian Assange Story. Various sources name him as a former hacker:[40][41][42][43]. I don't see how a sentence in the lead would be excessive. It would do a lot to counteract the perception of bias in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Jack, you are pushing a POV. Assange is not known for his hacking convictions that occurred 23+ years ago. Can you find sources to show he was notable at that time for hacking? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I provided sources that show that his hacking convictions are considered notable at the present time.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

No, you found a few articles that mention it. There are many articles about Julian Assange. What percentage cover his teenage hacking, and what percentage cover his activities with WikiLeaks? The answer to that question tells you what weight should be given to each aspect of his life. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

That's another false dichotomy. The introduction can mention WikiLeaks and have a sentence about hacking. It is misleading to talk about "teenage hacking". He was 19 when police raided his home. At that time, according to the article, he was married with a child. They were not juvenile crimes. The hacking was the first part of his life that came to public attention, being mentioned in the Dreyfus book. Why do you object to having one sentence in the introduction?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Income?

Since we're talking about his occupation, what about his income? In this interview in 2010, which is cited in the Wikileaks article, he says, "I have made money in the Internet. So I have enough money to do that [work full-time without a salary], but also not forever. And the other four guys, in the moment they are also able to self-finance". This, however states he was paid $86,000 in 2010, apparently out of donations. It also mentions book deals. This says that Assange boasted about making a lot of money on bitcoin (for what that's worth). It would be good to clarify this.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

This states he looked after his son Daniel (born 1989) as a single father for 14 years. This would cover the period of the "Programming" section. Regarding WikiLeaks, the $86,000 mentioned above is probably expenses rather than a salary, bearing in mind that Assange was travelling the world at that time. According to this, Ecuador supported him financially from 2012 until December last year. Now of course Her Majesty is putting him up. So this seems to be an unusual case of someone who is 47 years old, but has never had a paying job or run a profit-making business.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Hawkins and Assange

The article refers to Brett Assange whom "Julian regards as his father (choosing Assange as his surname)". I can't access the source. When did Julian choose Assange as his surname? Brett and Christine Hawkins married when Julian was one year old and divorced about 1979, i.e., when he was still a little boy. If his name was changed in the 1970s, it wasn't much of a choice. And if he changed his name later in life, when and why? And if his name was changed when he was very young, why mention it three times in the article? It's not very important.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)