Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 45

Archive 40

←

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Assange's cypherpunk ethos

Shouldn't we mention Assange's cypherpunk philosophy, specifically his view that there should be "privacy for the weak, transparency for the powerful" and his advocacy for encryption as a safeguard against the deprivations of governments, corporations, surveillance agencies and Western imperialism? It appears to be a central motivating factor in his creation of WikiLeaks. After all, we have given space to his cat. Burrobert (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

This article really does not benefit form any more opinions his or others. Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

This article is about him, it is not his manifesto. Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

What about the cat? Burrobert (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I think we should not mention his cat either. But this is to about his cat. Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

At least you are consistent to that degree. To improve your consistency you should change your vote on the inclusion of a potentially imaginary statement by Assange from "neutral" to "oppose". Burrobert (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

this is not about me, either. Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

The cat is very briefly mentioned in the context of Assange's disputes with Ecuador. I think that is valid.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Searching for sources I find a surprisingly significant number (a small sample includes the Guardian, ABC, SBS, NBC, NPR). I think WP:BALASP is met for this information - and as a general point, how someone acts and what they say in private is probably more informative as to who they are, is more encyclopedic, than how they publicize themselves. BilledMammal (talk) 08:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of more information about his views.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Support if there is any decent coverage or analysis of them. NadVolum (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I too support the inclusion of more information about his views. I also added a see also template to the section. I too think this is an important part of the biography and good to give a bit more weight. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks all. I also think readers would benefit from knowing why Asssange created WikiLeaks. Regarding the cat, it's not worth talking about other than as a counterpoint to other edits to the page. Burrobert (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with NadVolum; we should include this if there is sufficient coverage to demonstrate that WP:BALASP has been met. So far, I haven’t seen such coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

See Robert Manne’s article. Jack Upland (talk) 05:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you link it? BilledMammal (talk) 07:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I think Jack mean this The Cypherpunk Revolutionary By Robert Manne Softlem (talk) 12:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Only if we also put in links about his support for Eastern Imperialism. 208.87.236.202 (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone remember the Star Trek NG episode in which Beverly Crusher’s world kept shrinking until it disappeared? It seems the same thing is happening with this article. We briefly knew why Julian created WikiLeaks and how he believed it could be used to protect individuals and smaller countries. We once knew his view on war and his assessment of the US war in Afghanistan. However, once the current RfC is completed we may know that some people say he said something and other people say he didn’t. Hilarious!! Burrobert (talk) 04:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this article is heading in the wrong direction Jack Upland (talk) 05:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree Slatersteven This article is about him, it is not his manifesto. but some views are encyclopedic and if editors find RSes then maybe SPLIT it and some Julian Assange#Written works, television show, and views into Commentary about Julian Assange and move page to name like Commentary about and by Julian Assange Softlem (talk) 12:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I oppose the creation of such an unwieldy article.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

How can we decide what is the right or wrong direction? The best we can do is try and make it fit for an encyclopaedia. Thanks for the link to 'The Cypherpunk Revolutionary', haven't read it all yet but it looks like it rounds out a number of things about him. NadVolum (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

It is used extensively in the article Jack Upland (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Then again, if Wikipedia is not overly-interested in giving a full profile on a well-known public figure (who might die in a US jail), when why is it putting undue effort into reporting on unknown ARTORvist in Russia? 95.147.153.31 (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

This is where anything about WikiLeaks needs to go WikiLeaks. Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikileaks doesn't necessarily share Assange's philosophy. THere may be bits which are integral to Wikileaks though. NadVolum (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

[1] should be at WikiLeaks. if we know Wikileaks doesn't necessarily share Assange's philosophy about something it should be here Softlem (talk) 11:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I have added it to the WikiLeaks article. I do think it relates to Assange as well since he was the person who created both the goals and the method of the organisation. Burrobert (talk) 11:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

for Assange page or WikiLeaks page i ask two questions

is it about Assange or WikiLeaks? WikiLeaks

can we tell Assanges story without it? yes

different editors maybe its different Softlem (talk) 12:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Right-ho. Burrobert (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with the position that this article is about him, not his manifesto. His manifesto is part of his persona. We should not have people reading a long article about him and never have much exposure to his ideas. I have always been a critic of the bloat of this article. But information about his opinions is important. Since he created WikiLeaks, his ideas in its creation are important here. They should be covered briefly, but they should be covered.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Manifesto is maybe bad word but agree some views are DUE

Suggest edits? Softlem (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Privacy for the weak, transparency for the powerful

This is another item which was recently removed from Assange's bio. It provides part of his philosophy and was a motivating factor in his creation of WikiLeaks. The specific text which was removed is:

In his 2012 book Cypherpunks: Freedom and the future of the internet, Assange wrote that his fundamental principle was "the traditional cypherpunk juxtaposition ... privacy for the weak, transparency for the powerful". His strong advocacy for the use of encryption also stems from his cypherpunks ethos. He advocates for the use of encryption by individuals to protect themselves against the intrusions of governments, corporations and surveillance agencies and by states to protect themselves against Western imperialism. In a 2013 article for The Guardian, he wrote that "[cryptography] can be used to fight not just the tyranny of the state over the individual but the tyranny of the empire over smaller states".

Here are some sources which mention this part of his philosophy:

• Firstly, a Guardian article by Assange about the use of cryptography "to fight not just the tyranny of the state over the individual but the tyranny of the empire over smaller states". It is a primary source but usable for Assange's views.[2]
• Privacy for the weak, transparency for the powerful: the cypherpunk ethics of Julian Assange[3] "Assange’s fundamental principle is not radical transparency but “the traditional cypherpunk juxtaposition”: “privacy for the weak, transparency for the powerful” "
• The editor of Assange’s book “Cypherpunks : freedom and the future of the internet”, writes “[Assange’s] work with WikiLeaks has given political currency to the traditional cypherpunk juxtaposition: “privacy for the weak, transparency for the powerful.”
• WikiLeaks: the illusion of transparency by Alasdair Roberts.[4] "New technologies, applied to the old logic of disclosure, are predicted to lead us to a new world of radical transparency: a world in which, as Assange has said, ‘strong powers [are] held to account, while the weak [are] protected’ ".
• The Cypherpunk Revolutionary by Robert Manne.[5] "No mainstream journalist so far has grasped the critical significance of the cypherpunks movement to Assange’s intellectual development and the origin of WikiLeaks". "There is a direct link between Assange’s cypherpunks period and the theory behind WikiLeaks". "From his cypherpunk days he had become interested in the political possibilities of untraceable encrypted communication".
• 'It’s not easy to do a WikiLeaks': A Cypherpunk Approach to Global Media Ethics.[6] by Patrick D. Anderson published in Ethical Space: --Jack Upland (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)The International Journal of Communication Ethics. All rights reserved. Vol 19, No 1 2022 "Assange is not enacting a double standard but upholding ‘the traditional cypherpunk juxtaposition’: ‘privacy for the weak, transparency for the powerful’. Ultimately, Assange’s ethical paradigm is best understood as a philosophy of cypherpunk ethics". "In response to the twin threats of secrecy and surveillance, Assange aligns his philosophy of technology with his emphasis on justice, advocating the use of digital cryptography and works to make the cypherpunk slogan ‘privacy for the weak, transparency for the powerful’ a reality". "Assange argued that cryptography could contribute to justice both at the individual level and the national level. ‘Mass surveillance is not just an issue for democracy and governance,’ he notes, ‘it’s a geopolitical issue. The surveillance of a whole population by a foreign power naturally threatens sovereignty’ ".
• Organizational resistance as a vector of deterritorialization: The case of WikiLeaks and secrecy havens by Iain Munro.[7] "This article analyzes the tactics of resistance developed by the WikiLeaks network that invert existing hegemonic systems of surveillance by supporting privacy for the weak and transparency of the powerful".
• Frontiers in Sociology and Social Research Volume 7.[8] "Assange’s campaign to achieve “transparency for the powerful” ... always accompanied by the fight to protect “privacy for the weak” has its immediate precedents in the cypherpunk ethic but also echoes analogous Enlightenment battles".

Burrobert (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

sAME OBJECION. Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Support a brief inclusion.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Struggling to generate any interest in this. Even the editor who removed the text has not bothered to comment. We have two in favour of some form of wording (Jack and me) and one neutral (Steven). Will give it a few more days. Burrobert (talk) 05:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I think there’s too much apathy. Jack Upland (talk) 05:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of well-sourced description of Assange's motivating beliefs in his BLP. NightHeron (talk) 08:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
• I think it's appropriate to include Assange wrote that his fundamental principle was "the traditional cypherpunk juxtaposition ... privacy for the weak, transparency for the powerful". or similar, but I'm not convinced there is sufficient independent coverage of the rest; can you provide additional sources? BilledMammal (talk) 08:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Let's put aside the “Privacy for the weak .. “ motto since everyone, except possibly Steven, agrees that we should mention it. The other part of the text relates to Assange’s attitude towards encryption. I have not looked beyond the sources above. Here is some relevant information from those sources:

1. There is a quote above from Assange’s article in the Guardian that gives his view. This is of course a primary source.

2. From “Privacy for the weak, transparency for the powerful: the cypherpunk ethics of Julian Assange”: “Assange advocates for the use of cryptography in the fight for individual privacy as well as the fight for global justice”. “Assange (2013) implores the governments and the people of the Global South to adopt encryption as a means of protecting themselves from the NSA and other western surveillance agencies. Drawing from his roots in cypherpunk philosophy, Assange argues that encryption is one of the most powerful tools for nation-states to defend themselves against Western imperialism”.

3. From Robert Manne’s article: “From his cypherpunk days he had become interested in the political possibilities of untraceable encrypted communication. … In essence, his conclusion was that world politics could be transformed by staunching the flow of information among corrupt power elites by making them ever more fearful of insider leaks. He believed he could achieve this by establishing an organisation that would allow whistleblowers from all countries to pass on their information, confident that their identities would not be able to be discovered. He proposed that his organisation would then publish the information for the purpose of collective analysis so as to empower oppressed populations across the globe”. Burrobert (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Time for a little less conversation and a little more action. There appears to be a consensus that the "Privacy for the weak, transparency for the powerful" statement should be included. There has not been any strong protest about the encryption statement apart from a request that it be brief. Unless someone intervenes urgently this will be added soon. Burrobert (talk) 11:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement related to Afghani informants

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Numerically, I count 13 support !votes to 7 oppose !votes. While discussions on Wikipedia are not a vote, the headcount is not irrelevant either. Supporters generally argued that this is a well-sourced allegation and including it would be due weight; they provided numerous sources to bolster their arguments. There is not much more to say about the arguments in support, besides restating that they were comfortably in the majority. Opposers argued that the reliability of the sources is in doubt due to the legal dispute, and further that including the quote would be undue weight. They also raised BLP concerns, which is something I have paid special attention to. However, many of the concerns they raised are "fixable": objections to not knowing the precise wording (because the end product might be undue weight), or that including the quote without further context would be undue (the latter concern was also shared by many supporters). Given these objections are surmountable, combined with the strong numerical majority in support, there is consensus to include the quote alongside appropriate context, inline attribution (not in wikivoice), and Assange's denial. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

---

In Julian Assange#Iraq and Afghan War logs, in relation to whether the names of Afghani informants should be redacted prior to the publication of the logs, should the allegation that Assange said the following be included?

Well, they’re informants, so if they get killed, they’ve got it coming to them. They deserve it.

If included, it would be attributed to David Leigh, Declan Walsh, and Luke Harding. 02:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• Support. This allegation was made by multiple individuals present at the meeting and was widely reported on, both in news (CBS, The Atlantic, NBC, ABC, The Times Washington Post, The Guardian, CNN, the Telegraph, DW, Financial Times, the Nation, the New Republic, Agence France-Presse, South China Morning Post. etc) and scholarly (WikiLeaks and mega-plumbing issues – unresolved dilemmas revisited by Rodney Tiffen, Wikileaks: Information Messiah or Global Terrorist? by Ben Saul, WikiLeaks 2010: A Glimpse of the Future? by Tim Maurer, etc) sources; it warrants inclusion per WP:BALASP.

Assange disputes it, as does John Goetz, but the fact that the allegation has been denied has little bearing on whether we should include it under WP:NPOV - and I note that a number of the sources I've provided state that it happened in their own voice. In addition, Goetz's statements are suspect; he also claimed that he told Patrick Forbes of this prior to the release of WikiLeaks: Secrets and Lies, but both Patrick Forbes and Channel 4 deny this, with Channel 4 adding "It would be difficult for Mr Goetz to state categorically that Mr Assange did not say these words, particularly when taking into account that the restaurant (Moro) was busy and noisy and the dinner did not take place in a private room." BilledMammal (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose At the time Leigh and Harding made these claims, they were in a public and a legal dispute with Assange over the issue of redaction. This was specifically over recklessness with regard to security as WikiLeaks held Leigh and Harding responsible for the full cable files being made public, after Leigh and Harding published the complete password to a file holding the original cables in a book. An encyclopaedia is not a place to report mudslinging in disputes between journalists. And as per WP:NOTNEWS, we don't need to include specific and contested allegations made in such disputes.

Both the article subject and Der Spiegel journalist John Goetz deny the purported statement was ever made, Assange's denial noted in several of the sources above and is reported in the London Review of Books – and Goetz's in Harper's Magazine. As Ofcom note: "In the [signed affidavit] statement Mr Goetz said that he was asked "specifically [in an interview with the programme maker which was not recorded] if Julian Assange had made the remark "they're informants they deserve to die" at that dinner, as has been alleged by David Leigh, and I told him that Julian did not say that at the dinner. I told Patrick Forbes [the director of the programme] that I would not discuss the dinner on camera, because it was a private dinner and it is the policy of 'Der Spiegel' not to discuss meetings in a public forum" Goetz's denial and signed legal affidavit indicate Leigh and Harding's claim is contested by attendees of this dinner.

Claims made by those in a legal dispute with the article subject - closely related to that dispute and denied by the article subject and others - are not encyclopaedic content. A legal representative (who was not present) acting to defend Channel Four to the regulator makes the unevidenced claim that it was too noisy for Goetz to hear the conversation - this obviously partial opinion is of negligible value, and in the larger context of an encyclopaedia article can be disregarded. The fact is Leigh and Harding's claim is an allegation made by those with an obvious motive to be derogatory about the article subject's attitude toward redaction because of their ongoing disagreement and legal tangle. That's not for an encyclopaedia. Cambial — foliar❧ 03:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The claim was also made by Declan Walsh - and as far as I can tell, he was not in a legal dispute with the subject. In addition, neither "claim was disputed" nor "claim was made by an individual in a legal dispute with the party" are reasons to exclude the content under any policy that I am aware of - I would also suggest that connecting the legal dispute over the accidental release of the decryption key is WP:OR, as I haven't found any reliable sources that do so.

What is policy is WP:BALASP, and per the examples I provided above this is a sufficiently significant piece of information and warrants mentioning in the article. BilledMammal (talk) 03:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The policy on "balancing aspects" detracts from an appeal to inclusion. As the policy notes: a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. That's exactly the case here: The Guardian and Assange had fallen out significantly; they were no longer working together and a legal tangle was in progress. Various accusations were made on both sides, few if any of which can be stated with certainty. They're not important to the story of someone's life, and disproportionate for an encyclopaedia article. Cambial — foliar❧ 03:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Their overall significance to the topic is assessed by their treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. I've provided a long list of sources that report on these allegations - some published at the time, others years later - that establish that this is sufficiently significant to mention. Indeed, it has received more coverage - is of greater overall significance as assessed by its treatment in reliable sources - than much of the content currently in the article. BilledMammal (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support: This article includes allegations made about Assange as well as allegations made by Assange. It is original research to say the journalist lied because of a "legal tangle". This is a significant claim about Assange and should be included.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

PS I think Assange's denial should be included too.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support per BilledMammal, this has been reported on by quite a number of reliable publications and the allegation has been made by multiple individuals at the meeting. TarnishedPath^talk 05:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support. It seems to have wide coverage. The words should be attributed and Assange's denial should be mentioned too. Alaexis_¿question? 09:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support. However I think the whole thing should be dealt with in some detail. I am concerned that under 'Claim by Leigh and Harding' where @BilledMammal: says 'I don't think it's appropriate, per WP:BLP, to say There's good evidence Leigh lied - as far as I can tell, there is no evidence of this, just the claim of Goetz and Assange. Will you please strike it?' One or the other lied and that is pretty evident and then they go on to say 'Meanwhile, Goetz's claim is suspect;...'. Leigh does not claim to have heard it himself even though he was supposed to be at the dinner - he attributes it in the book to Declan Walsh who has not as far as I know ever said anything publicly about it. Declan Walsh is also alleged to have said 'There was, for a moment, silence around the table. I think everyone was struck by what a callous thing that was to say.' So Goetz would definitely have known about it if it happened - there was supposed to be only five of them there. Anything about the restaurant being noisy is just stuff made up after - or as well? Also the business of Nick Davis then saying it was in Stockholm when he met Assange, what arew e to make of that? And talking about being careful when Leigh disclosed the password without talking to anyone and there's good evidence Assange was very careful about redaction, that's just silly. As to who is most believable check up on [9] and then see what other newspapers say about its veracity. NadVolum (talk) 10:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:UNDUE. The OR policy would say that the article should not connect the dispute over the Assange quote to the separate legal dispute between the same parties unless there's RS that connects them. However, the OR policy does not say that editors cannot use what we know about sources to evaluate them (even if we don't have RS that discusses the reliability of those sources). That is, we're allowed to take the legal dispute into account as a reason to question the reliability of the opposing party's version of what Assange allegedly said. It's also possible that Assange said something on the subject that some people thought was callous and similar to the statement they later attributed to him. In other words, it's very possible that the statement is not a complete fabrication, but rather an exaggeration that turns their interpretation of Assange's words (whatever they were) into a direct quote. The disagreement over whether or not Assange really said something offensive at a social gathering, for which the evidence is murky, is undue content. NightHeron (talk) 10:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support it is covered by MANY reasonable sources, and the reasons provided by @BilledMammal LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:UNDUE. The seventeen words proposed for addition don't come close to contextualize this information for our readers. And to leave out the denial(s)?? That goes against BLP, which explicitly states: If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too. This kind of one-sided reporting gives undue weight to a particular view, and should be rejected. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  To clarify; no specific wording is proposed, just whether we should include the quote. I agree that if there is a consensus to include it we should include the fact that Assange denies it - and I note several of the other support !voters have said as much. I think this addresses your concerns? BilledMammal (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  My comment/!vote was in response to the specific question asked of this RfC. And without knowing what the specific wording would be to make an informed decision on weight, due or undue, context, npov, blp; no, my concerns have not been addressed and I still oppose. Honestly, I just don't see how including this disputed allegation helps our reader have a better understanding of Assange. In my view, conflicting reports from two or more parties on this contentious allegation is not encyclopedic content. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• Neutral It seems to be that this opinion is as notable as many others we have here, the article is too long, but stuff keeps getting added. So I am neutral, we need to triumn opinions not add them. Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support, but I agree with Alaexis: words should be attributed and Assange's denial should be mentioned. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Perhaps if the proposer had started a pre-RfC discussion we could have worked out a way of dealing with this. I am not willing to give an editor carte-blanche to shoe-horn the possibly imaginary statement into Assange's bio without ensuring there is some context. Attributing the claim to David Leigh, Declan Walsh, and Luke Harding is not sufficient. Firstly, Harding was not at the dinner so his view means nothing. Secondly, the RfC statement makes no reference to Assange and John Goetz, both of whom said Assange made no such statement at the dinner. When adding Assange and Goetz' statements to the bio, we would need to use appropriate wording. Saying something like "Leigh, Harding and Walsh said Assange was a callous bastard. Assange and Goetz denied this" would be great for the US security state and a boost for their extradition case (assuming anyone bothers to read or take anything here seriously) but would breach the guidelines at words to watch by implying culpability. So, without having a guarantee that this important context would be included in any resulting edit, it would be safer to leave the claim out. Burrobert (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  More accurately I think Leigh and Harding said that Declan Walsh said and cite their book. NadVolum (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  The sources I've seen say Leigh also heard it, including the ofcam statement where they are quoting Leigh. BilledMammal (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  It does not say that, it says Declan Walsh supports Leigh statement but what that means I don't know, did anyone talk to him? and Leigh was the fact checker for the program. Anyway I found a version of the program at [10] and I've been trying to find the bit that was being complained about but I can't, can somebody else point out the relevant bit thanks? The closest I can find is Assange giving a talk and saying about the problem of Wikileaks not being able to redact the information and saying it probably would still be worth releasing it despite the damage it would cause. Basically the major reason the cooperation was needed. NadVolum (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  David Leigh of the Guardian newspaper tells FRONTLINE of meetings he attended with Assange in the run-up to publication of the war logs. "And we said: 'Julian, we've got to do something about these redactions. We really have got to.' And he said: 'These people were collaborators, informants. They deserve to die.' And a silence fell around the table."

  There are similar statements in the ofcam report.

  I didn't realise previously, but the claim is also corroborated by Nick Davies; Davies alleged that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange told him: "They deserve to die, they are informers, they are collaborators." BilledMammal (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  I had a look at [11] and it is quite interesting. David Leigh was there but says nothing like that. You've got Daniel Domscheit-Berg saying he did not think the diplomatic cables should be released - but he is implicated in later showing the link between the encryption key and the file. You have Assange saying they promised to publish everything that they were given - which is an absurd promise if it included endangering people unnecessarily. What is most concerning is that the newspapers had such a hands off attitude that they would not concern themselves with helping redact what was in WikiLeaks - only what they printed - they just worried about lawyers not people. It does look like Assange probably did say something that could be construed like the allegation - but meant something different so Goetz was also right. At Frontline Julian Assange directly refutes the assertion when Martin Smith puts it to him. However unfortunately Martin Smith repeatedly interrups him when he tries to say anything more about it. On something like that if a person says 'Oh I'll explain' one should let them go ahead instead of interrupting. I'd have like to have seen what the 'rhetorical trick' was about. There's no way Assange repeated what he said so exactly like that to Nick Davies, perhaps one of them got it from the other? NadVolum (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  There is what appears to be a more complete transcript available @NadVolum:. I don't want to clog up this survey section with text so will comment in the discussion section below. Burrobert (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  Finally at least one real-world instance of where you don't seem interested in engaging with the arguments. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Neutral What Slatersteven said Softlem (talk) 11:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support per BilledMammal JM (talk) 02:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose & Malformed I am opposing since I dont understand the context. I might support if I could understand the context, but since there is no diff I cant understand the point of this. Also we have the BLP subject that denied this statement according to isaidnoway. Lets get more clarification to find out if this is due or not. As it is now, it is controversial and thus appears UNDUE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Disconnected from the context, which is already not that much in the article. There is barely any explanation of what happened. This seems undue, at least in the current state. Senorangel (talk) 03:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support. This is an important comment defining personal views of the subject, and it is well sourced to multiple RS. My very best wishes (talk) 04:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Due weight evidenced by scale of RS coverage. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support There are more than enough secondary sources to verify this quote and certainly enough sources implore Wikipedia's coverage of it but I am also understanding to those editors who say that the quote deserves more context including any possible doubts or responses or denials Jorahm (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• OpposeClearly, whether or not this statement was actually made is a matter of contention. Though there are secondary sources that supposedly verify the quote, it's clear from this discussion alone that its veracity is still in doubt. Therefore, I would err on the side of caution and not include it.Coalcity58 (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support, though of course with attribution and including Assange's denials to the extent that they're covered in the sources. There's more than enough high-quality coverage to satisfy WP:BLP and establish that this is WP:DUE. --Aquillion (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support. It's noteworthy, although his denial should be added too. _signed, SpringProof ^talk 05:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• @Cambial Yellowing, NadVolum, and Jack Upland: Notify editors who contributed to the informal discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Cambial Yellowing: When you update a comment after someone has replied to it, can you please mark changes as described at WP:TALK#REVISE? BilledMammal (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Policy says “RfCs are time consuming, and editor time is valuable. Editors should try to resolve their issues before starting an RfC. Try discussing the matter with any other parties on the related talk page”. I don’t see any prior discussion about this issue.
• It seems that Harding was not at the dinner so we cannot attribute the statement to him. In the book, who is telling the story about what Assange is alleged to have said? Is it coming from Leigh directly or is he passing on something that Declan Walsh told him had happened? Btw, the Declan Walsh who attended the dinner is unlikely to also be an Irish Gaelic footballer.
• The claim that Assange recklessly published unredacted documents is smear number 30 in Caitlin Johnstone’s catalogue. We have managed to squeeze a fair number of her list into Assange’s bio, including a claim about his cat that editors trying to “shorten very long sections” appear to have overlooked. In her listing, Johnstone provides the evidence that "it was Guardian journalists such as Leigh and Nick Davies, the two most vocal critics of Assange, who were displaying the cavalier attitude toward redaction back then" and concludes with "In a classic case of projection, it appears that Assange’s enemies are charging him with the very sins they were committing".
• Any mention of this alleged quote would need to include both Julian’s and John Goetz’ statements that it didn’t happen.
• Interestingly, in Julian's extradition hearing, Lewis for the prosecution cited the alleged statement by Assange but objected when the defence started asking Goetz about the restaurant discussion. Obviously Lewis did not want the court to hear Goetz's statement that Julian did not make the statement.
• Why is there a push to include this disputed quote from Assange in the article but other quotes from him, which would provide readers with useful information, are being airbrushed out?[12] If editors are keen to include quotes from Assange, consider these real quotes:

- If wars can be started with lies, they can be stopped by truth.

- I enjoy creating systems on a grand scale, and I enjoy helping people who are vulnerable. And I enjoy crushing bastards.

- The goal is justice, the method is transparency. It's important not to confuse the goal and the method.

- I've never said that secrecy doesn't have its place, in fact it's a cornerstone of WikiLeaks, is secrecy. It is protecting the identity of our sources, so it's a cornerstone of our operations. Privacy or secrecy gives organisations an edge over actors who are hostile to them, so it is important for small organisations that are acting in the public's-, public interest to have secrecy. Equally it is important that large and powerful organisations never believe that they have absolute secrecy. It's not important that everything be revealed instantly from them, but it is important that they never feel secure that any particular piece of information will never be revealed. Because it is that fear that some plan will be revealed that keeps them accountable to the degree that they are accountable at all.

= Censorship is always a cause for celebration. It is always an opportunity because it reveals fear of reform. It means that the power position is so weak that you have got to care what people think.

- Fine journalists are an exception to the rule. When you are involved in something yourself, like I am with Wikileaks, and you know every facet of it, you look to see what is reported about it in the mainstream press and you see naked lie after naked lie. You know that the journalist knows it's a lie, it is not a simple mistake. Then people repeat lies and so on. The condition of the mainstream press nowadays is so appalling I don't think it can be reformed. I don't think that is possible. I think it has to be eliminated, and replaced with something better.

- Power is mostly the illusion of power. The Pentagon demanded we destroy our publications. We kept publishing. Clinton denounced us and said we were an attack on the entire "international community". We kept publishing. I was put in prison and under house arrest. We kept publishing. We went head to head with the NSA getting Edward Snowden out of Hong Kong, we won and got him asylum. Clinton tried to destroy us and was herself destroyed. Elephants, it seems, can be brought down with string. Perhaps there are no elephants. Burrobert (talk) 13:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Yeah if people just used a little common sense and asked simple questions when things like this come up instead of just going oh that's terrible then stories like this might not get such purchase. Like in this case why did Assange contact the newspapers for help instead of putting out these leaks like previous ones directly on Wikileaks? NadVolum (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  good quotes

  Like in this case why did Assange contact the newspapers for help instead of putting out these leaks like previous ones directly on Wikileaks? we shouldnt WP:FORUM or WP:SOAPBOX Softlem (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Is it such original thought or soapbox to say the world might might be better if people thought for a moment when they feel like just reacting? NadVolum (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  i agree but Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article

  did you mean the wikipedia article? i thought it was general Softlem (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  There is a discussion directly above. Jack Upland (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above the RfC started on 19 February and the RfC was opened on 20 February. I don't think that was what policy meant by a prior discussion. Burrobert (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

This follows on from a comment by Nad in the Survey section above. Nad referred to an interview conducted by Martin Smith for PBS Frontline. Smith asks Assange "Why are there people out there that are saying that you didn’t care if informants were killed?" Assange replies that "It’s absolutely false. And I’ll explain to you why it keeps coming up. First of all, this is the bog-standard tactic of the Pentagon. Whenever they are or expect to be criticized for slaying innocent civilians, thousands — in the case of the Afghan war diaries — [of] people killed documented in this conflict, over 20,000 in our material. Whenever they come under that criticism, they use the bog-standard rhetorical trick which is to turn the precise criticism that you expect back on your opponent". Assange then says "It is absolutely right to name names. It is not necessarily right to name every name. We’re dealing with a situation where we have in Kabul radio stations, who are meant to be independent, who are funded by USAID [U.S. Agency for International Development], taking PSYOPS programming content, psychological operations programming content, to be played on their radio stations as news, but it is actually propaganda. Now, the names of those people involved, do the Afghan people have a right to understand which one of their media channels are propaganda and which one is the true independent? Of course they do". He also says "We, as all good investigative journalists do, name names. We name names of those people that are involved in corrupt or abusive activities, and that includes in Afghanistan". Regarding the infamous dinner, can someone clarify who says Assange made those comments? Does Leigh himself make that claim or is he quoting Declan Walsh? I don't have access to Leigh's book so don't know whether the claim is coming directly from Leigh or whether he is passing something on that Walsh told him. If Leigh himself is not making the claim directly then we should ask why he presumably didn't hear the comments himself, given that he was apparently at the same dinner. As Nad has pointed out, the Ofcom report does not clarify the issue because Walsh may only have confirmed that Leigh had correctly passed on what Walsh had told him. Again, as pointed out by Nad, it is suspicious that the words that Nick Davies says Assange used are virtually identical to those Walsh says Assange used at the dinner. Afaict, a link to Davies statement has not yet been provided. Burrobert (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that,it certainly explains a lot. Have you a link? It is strange that he says there was a silence round the table when it was said and there was five of them and yet Leigh does not say it in his own voice and Declan Walsh has said nothing about it himself and Goetz denies it. As I said I think there may be something behind it but it sounds like whatever it was has been spun. And it is very annoying that someone calls it a transcript and leaves that out. NadVolum (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

can someone clarify who says Assange made those comments Leigh and Walsh; I provided a quote for Leigh above. Separately, Davies made an allegation that Assange said something similar to him.

it is suspicious that the words that Nick Davies says Assange used are virtually identical to those Walsh says Assange used at the dinner Unless you have a source for this it is not appropriate for us to speculate - there is no reason to believe that Assange can't have given a similar response to similar questions on multiple occasions. BilledMammal (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

We now have a link for the statement by Nick Davies. Apparently he made the statement to the Leveson Inquiry. Assange made a submission to the same enquiry in which he said he had faced "widespread inaccurate and negative media coverage".[13] Davies, who worked for The Guardian is the chap who in 2010 said he "felt betrayed" by Assange, claiming Assange "promised an exclusive deal, then gave away the paper's secrets to rivals".[14] Leigh was also a Guardian employee. I presume we no longer intend to mention Harding as a source for the claim. However, Harding, also a Guardian employee, was responsible for a 2018 Guardian article which cited anonymous sources claiming Donald Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort held secret meetings with Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London in 2013, 2015, and 2016. The piece was criticised for providing no evidence about something that was supposed to have taken place in "one of the most surveilled and filmed buildings on the planet".[15] Regarding the Guardian's coverage of Assange, Stella Assange said its its "negligence has created such a problem that if Julian dies or is extradited, that will forever blot the reputation of the Guardian".[16] With regard to Declan Walsh, who was also a Guardian employee, do we have a direct statement from him or are we relying on Leigh's statement about what Walsh said. The Ofcom report is odd because it firstly says Walsh "entirely supports Mr Leigh’s account" and then uses Leigh's own book as evidence that Walsh supports Leigh. Hardly convincing. So, is there a separate statement from Walsh about this? Burrobert (talk) 06:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Most of what you’ve said isn’t relevant to this discussion; I’ve provided a significant number of sources and you are welcome to read through them, but I’m not going to engage further. BilledMammal (talk) 06:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

A simple question then. Have you provided a source that verifies what Leigh claims Walsh said other than Leigh's book and the Ofcom report which relies on Leigh's book? Burrobert (talk) 07:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

There is good evidence Nick Davies said the same thing about Assange. That quite extraordinary statement to the Leveson inquiry [17] which is not touched in his witness statement [18] plus there is a video [19] in 2011-07-07 of him describing the early days of the collaboration. His earlier description of 2010-09-10 [20] omits anything about redaction. Personally I am much happier to accept written things like the book than verbal statements. NadVolum (talk) 09:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Leigh’s book is available on Google books. The claim about Assange is made in a strange way. The book quotes Declan Walsh describing the dinner and saying “I told David Leigh I was worried about the repercussions of publishing these names … That night we went out to a Moorish restaurant , Moro, with the two German reporters. David broached the problem again with Julian. The response floored me …”. It’s strange that Leigh uses Walsh to tell the story rather than saying what happened in his own words. Anyway, further on Leigh says Assange changed his view in the next few months and by the time the US cables were published, Assange had “entirely embraced the logic of redaction”. With regard to the Afghan release, the book says Assange removed 15,000 “threat reports” from the release since they were most likely to contain identifying details. It says “all the anxieties about the fate of informants remained purely theoretical” and there was no evidence of informants being harmed as a result of the release. Then, “as Walsh had predicted, the enemies of WikiLeaks nevertheless did their best”. The slogan “blood on their hands” was “endlessly repeated” including “by US generals, who, as the WikiLeaks documents revealed, had gallons of genuine civilian blood on their own hands”. Burrobert (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

long talk. are we missing sources? does google have enough of the book? i can try to borrow it Softlem (talk) 11:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

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

War = official money laundering

Assange made the following famous statement about the US-Afghanistan war:

"The goal is to use Afghanistan to wash money out of the tax bases of the U.S. and Europe through Afghanistan and back into the hands of a transnational security elite. The goal is an endless war, not a successful war".

It has appeared in a number of sources and is often linked in social media posts about war in general. Its universality is evidenced by the fact that it went viral after being slightly modified to apply to the the Russia-Ukraine war. We have not yet mentioned Assange's strong aversion to war, so should we include it in Assange's bio, perhaps together with a general statement about his anti-war stance? Here are some sources that mention the quote.[21][22][23][24][25] Burrobert (talk) 06:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, these types of quotes of his that are notable are very encyclopedic. The perfect kind of content to give the reader a feeling of the subject, rather than the (now largely pruned) earlier content we had about wikileaks and not the BLP. I support this quote and it is a great suggestion! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Support Softlem (talk) 04:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Support. As discussed before, I think we have a lot of information about what Assange has done, but not so much why he did it. The "Views" section is very brief.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Life in Belmarsh prison

This section has been added. We had a section entitled "Imprisonment in the UK" which has been moved to Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange. I don't think it belongs there. I think some of its contents (in a summarised way) could be moved to this new section. Jack Upland (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the personal stuff about him being incarcerated and his reaction to it (illness, etc) is due on the BLP rather than the legal article. Could maybe be life in Belmarsh and that might help limit the scope of what is added here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I created that section. It contains three sentences and covers a period of five years in our hero's life. His incarceration in Britain's version of Guantánamo Bay should be mentioned on the Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange page - probably one sentence would be sufficient there. However, the personal information about his incarceration (health, books etc) seems more relevant to his personal page. Burrobert (talk) 06:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea what you’re saying. Could you be more explicit? Jack Upland (talk) 09:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood what you were saying. I interpreted your comment to be a suggestion that details about Julian's life in Guantánamo should be removed from his bio and placed in a different article, possibly after being summarised. It seems that you were actually suggesting that text from another article should be moved into Julian's bio and placed in the Life in Guantánamo section. If that is the case, then I have no objection. Burrobert (talk) 10:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Burrobert, I don't think you mean Guantánamo!--Jack Upland (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Gulag? Burrobert (talk) 11:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Makes me Hungary! Jack Upland (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Gulag, they did not even let him have the right kind of Lap top the monsters. Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

But isn’t that noteworthy? Jack Upland (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

THis is what, less than 20% of his life, but 50% of the article? Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Why was this new section deleted? There's no consensus here!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Do we need more stuff about his time in prison, its not as if this is what he is most famous for, is it? Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I think he is famous as a so-called political prisoner. Jack Upland (talk) 11:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I have brought back the "Imprisonment in the UK" section and added the text of "Life in Belmarsh Prison" to it. I think there is consensus for this.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Swedish sex crime allegations in the intro

If we don't mention the nature of the allegations it sounds like they were computer-related. What are we trying to hide? The body of the article makes the nature of the allegations clear in any case. Jack Upland (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Nick Davies

@Cambial Yellowing: Why did you remove the Nick Davies claim? It is relevant that multiple individuals have accused him of saying this at separate incidents. BilledMammal (talk) 09:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Davies does not say this is separate; in fact he gives no context at all. It’s also repetitive, the ostensible quote said by Davies is nearly identical to that preceding it. It lacks wide coverage in news sources like the claim by David Leigh. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

David Leigh and Luke Harding did not say they heard it, they said in their book that Declan Walsh had heard it. NadVolum (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you all please quote the text that youse are arguing about? Jack Upland (talk) 06:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The bit covered by these edits by BilledMammal [26]. Seemingly it is important to them to remove John Goetz and also important to include Nick Davies, - as Cambial Yellowing then did [27] NadVolum (talk) 10:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

This is hard to follow. For some reason we can't mention a statement by Goetz, who was at the dinner. On the other hand we use David Leigh, Declan Walsh, and Luke Harding for the claim that Assange said "Well, they’re informants, so if they get killed, they’ve got it coming to them. They deserve it". Harding was not at the dinner. As far as I can tell, we don't have a statement from either Leigh or Walsh saying they heard Assange say it. What we do appear to have is a story by Leigh in which Walsh tells Leigh he heard Assange say that. Neither in his book, nor in the linked Guardian article does Leigh say he heard Assange make that statement. A more accurate description of the sources would be "According to Leigh and Harding, Walsh told Leigh that he heard Assange say "Well, they’re informants ... ". Not sure why anyone would bother including that (and omitting Goetz' counter statement) unless ... Burrobert (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually it sounds to me more like Luke Harding than David Leigh, but that's just my feeling. It could very well be an embellishment of something Assange actually said given what he said about it. NadVolum (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the sequence would make more sense if it was Harding telling the story about Walsh telling Leigh something Assange said. Which increases the probability that there was a Chinese whispers effect. Anyway, if we include this, we can't leave it in its current form because it misrepresents the two sources which are being used. Burrobert (talk) 09:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

We had an RFC but we’re still squabbling about this… Jack Upland (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The RfC concluded "there is consensus to include the quote alongside appropriate context, inline attribution (not in wikivoice), and Assange's denial". The discussion above is not about the quote itself but around the "appropriate context" that needs to be included with the quote. Specifically, based on the two sources we are using we cannot say "According to journalists David Leigh, Declan Walsh, and Luke Harding, ... Assange replied "Well, they’re informants ...". We would need to say something like "According to Leigh and Harding, Walsh told Leigh that he heard Assange say "Well, they’re informants ... ". Also, the RfC did not deal with Goetz' statement, so we still need to discuss why anyone would want to exclude it. Burrobert (talk) 11:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Does it say Walsh told Leigh? Walsh said there was a silence round the table when it was said, but even that is disputed in the OFCOM resolution where they talked about the place being noisy and perhaps that's why Goetz didn't hear it. Yeah we should put it in but removing what Goetz said was over the top. 16:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)NadVolum (talk)

The text from the Guardian article by Leigh and Harding says:

Declan Walsh, the Guardian's Islamabad correspondent, recalls one tense evening: "We went out to a Moorish restaurant, Moro, with the two German reporters. David Leigh broached the problem again with Julian. The response floored me. 'Well, they're informants,' he said. 'So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it.' There was, for a moment, silence around the table. I think everyone was struck by what a callous thing that was to say."

The article does not explicitly identify the person to whom Walsh is "recalling" this story, but presumably it is one or both of the writers of the article, i.e. Harding and/or Leigh. Not sure why Leigh is referring to himself in the third person here. As mentioned earlier, it is also unclear why Walsh needs to be the one relating this story given Leigh was apparently at the same dinner and he is writing the article. I quoted Leigh's book in an earlier section. The text is very similar to that in Harding and Leigh's Guardian article. It quotes Walsh as saying

"I told David Leigh I was worried about the repercussions of publishing these names … That night we went out to a Moorish restaurant , Moro, with the two German reporters. David broached the problem again with Julian. The response floored me …".

So in both the Guardian article and Leigh's book, the story is related by Walsh and there is no mention that Leigh himself heard Assange make that comment. Burrobert (talk) 04:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

True. I think it should just say thatLeigh and Harding in their book say Walsh said it and include the statement by Goetz. I don't think we should read anything more into the book than it actually says, there's a number of funny things about it so we shouldn't infer anything. NadVolum (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Just Leigh and Harding said it. No need to go into details. Jack Upland (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

They didn't though. Their book quotes Walsh saying Assange saying it. NadVolum (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

We could say they reported it.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we should say that the claim about what Walsh said is from Leigh and Harding, possibly mentioning their book. Not sure we can do it in one sentence given the complex sequence. "Leigh and Harding wrote that Walsh told them Assange said ""Well, they’re informants ..."? Unless someone comes up with an objection, I will make an attempt at improving the way in which this anecdote is related to the reader. Burrobert (talk) 04:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

You don't need permission to edit the page, comrade.Jack Upland (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Davies said he heard it, and Davies was not present at the meeting - therefore, he heard it separately. It's significant that multiple people have independently claimed they heard it, and I don't think it's appropriate to exclude this - do we need to hold a second RfC?

Goetz I removed because it has minimal coverage, and there is a lot of context that we need to include - such as the noise level in the restaurant - that wasn't included and would give this section excessive weight if it was included. I think it is sufficient to say that Assange denies it. BilledMammal (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion is not about whether the quote should be included. That question was decided by the RfC. The discussion is about the context around the quote. The consensus here is that neither Leigh nor Harding can be used as direct sources for the quote since they are passing on something that they say Walsh told them. Burrobert (talk) 06:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The consensus was to attribute it to the three listed individuals; the new version does not do so, instead saying that Leigh and Harding say that Walsh says that Assange says this. This is against the consensus, and further not supported by the sources; if you look at the sources provided in the RfC, they support saying that Walsh says this in their own voice, and also support saying that Leigh said it. Considering this, I have no objection to removing Harding entirely.

Further, there was no consensus to include Goetz, and definitely no consensus to include it in the manner done here which omits considerable context. BilledMammal (talk) 06:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The RfC decided "there is consensus to include the quote alongside appropriate context, inline attribution (not in wikivoice), and Assange's denial". The closing editor did not say who the quote should be attributed to, presumably that is part of the "appropriate context". If you want to attribute the quote to Leigh, Harding and Walsh, you would need a source that says Leigh, Harding or Walsh heard Assange make that statement. Since Harding was not at the dinner, you won't find a source saying he heard the quote. As mentioned a number of times above, the two sources that are being used do not say that Leigh heard the quote, they say that Walsh told him that he (Walsh) heard the quote. Hence, this is how Nad has described the incident. Regarding Goetz, why would you exclude his statement given he was at the dinner? According to NPOV, we "should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another". What context would you like to add? Burrobert (talk) 07:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The RfC decided "there is consensus to include the quote alongside appropriate context, inline attribution (not in wikivoice), and Assange's denial". See the RfC question, which was to attribute to the three named individuals.

two sources that are being used That is easy to fix; we can add sources from the list provided above, although I note that some of the other sources already there support this.

Since Harding was not at the dinner, you won't find a source saying he heard the quote. As I said above, Considering this, I have no objection to removing Harding entirely.

Regarding Goetz, NPOV also tells us An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. The Goetz quote appears sourced only to an opinion article and two primary documents; by including it we are giving it undue weight. BilledMammal (talk) 08:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

What source are you using for your claim that Leigh said he heard the statement?

I disagree that Goetz' statement is "undue weight". Burrobert (talk) 11:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

There's several; CBS, NBC, etc. BilledMammal (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Both the CBS and NBC article's do say that Leigh claimed Assange made the disputed statement so there should not be a problem amending the sentence appropriately. Not why Leigh would then need to use Walsh as the source for this both in his book and in the Guardian article, but nevertheless ... You would need to add the CBS and NBC sources to Julian's bio as support. So we have Leigh saying Julian made that statement and we also have Leigh saying Walsh told him Assange made that statement. Any ideas on how that should be described? Burrobert (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

We also have sources for Walsh, including The Guardian and South China Morning Post. BilledMammal (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Both of those sources are excerpts from the book WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy by David Leigh and Luke Harding. Burrobert (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you clarify your point? BilledMammal (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The two sources use Leigh's book as their source. Burrobert (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I still don't see your point. Our sources say, in their own voice, that Walsh said this - what else is needed? BilledMammal (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The Guardian article is sub-titled "Extract from the Guardian book ...". The SCMP is a review of Leigh's book from which the writer has selected passages. Notice the quote marks around some of the phrases. It says at one point "The Guardian's account, quoting Walsh, says ... ". These sources support the statement that Leigh said Walsh told him Assange said something. Burrobert (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

My point is that at no point do the sources say "Leigh said Walsh said Assange said something"; they say "Leigh said Assange said something". We can, of course, cite the book directly if that is your concern - and we already do that. BilledMammal (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Disagree with the first part and agree with the second. Burrobert (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I also disagree. There are numerous sources that refer to Goetz denial, and the Nation says of the Leigh claim “something many witnesses, including Goetz, who was present at the dinner, said is not true.” It’s appropriate and neutral to include it. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Only Nation link that is I can find is the one I provided in the RfC, and it doesn't include that quote. Can you provide it? Further, assuming that the Nation article is suitable, that leaves us with only one source for the claim that contributes towards WP:BALASP; I don't think that is sufficient. BilledMammal (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I think you should look at [28] first before going on and on about Assange not caring about informants. At the very least it is another journalist Mark Davis (journalist) whose story casts doubt on what the book and Nick Davies say. NadVolum (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Well that was a waste of my time, what exactly was I supposed to learn from that besides the fact that Davis is a well meaning fool and Consortium News is a joke? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Davis is a respected reporter with awards. Consortium News is marked as generally unreliable but that doesn't mean that what it says can'tbe okay for other reasons. I'm not proposing putting the video into the article. Did you not see the bit from four minutes in that Nick Davies was lying when he said Assange had a cavalier attitude to life and that it was the Guardian journalists that had such an attitude with things like if they die they die, and that Assange was the only one to express any concern whatsoever about the lives of people. He later goes on about the NY Times wanting Assange to publish first but no-one being interested in helping Assange to mark what should be redacted in the database they set up together or extend the timeline to allow more time for redacting it. That's why Assange had to do so much of the work of redaction himself. NadVolum (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Why do you say Consortium News is a joke? I've looked up some media monitors andyes there are some problems okay but they just classify it as left wing and seem to think it is fairly reliable. My major problem with it is not marking things as opinion. THe major thing people seem to have said about it in the various RSN discussions is that it doesn't agree with the mainstream sources and is therefore fringe - when not repeating the mainstream is practically its reason for existence in its about page. I saw a couple of stories by Robert Parry (journalist) whch are certainly dubious but he's dead now and they have some famous contributors. NadVolum (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The Nation - What’s At Stake in Julian Assange’s Extradition Trial Cambial — foliar❧ 20:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

"Strangely, Leigh and Harding weren’t called to testify in court on this". Burrobert (talk) 06:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't a trial on the facts. They were just seeing if the extradition request was in order and there were no factors stopping him being extradited. NadVolum (talk) 09:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Julian exposed government lies

Why in this article in the beginning is it not mentioned that Julian exposed the US government lies in Iraq and is being persecuted for it? 162.254.123.138 (talk) 10:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

We do, we just do not use the word lies. Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I think most times you'll find it is more a case of obscuring the truth rather than straightforward lies. How often have you seen a politician actually answering an embarassing question? NadVolum (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Assange's Right to Challenge Extradition

The BBC, among many high-profile news outlets posted this article a few hours ago verifying that Assange now has a right to challenge his extradition to the United States. Just to make sure (I'm still new to this whole editing thing), is this significant enough (both as a source and as an event) to be added to the article? LegalizeCaruana (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I've added this in. It follows on from existing text.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Still active?

The information box describes Julian Assange as active "1987 - present". But he has been in maximum security prison for several years now, and I don't see how he could be described as "active" during that period, unless you just mean being in the news. He had limited contact with the outside world during his years in the Ecuadorean Embassy, so I suppose that could count as "active", although it may be a bit questionable. But certainly it seems to me there is no way he can be counted as active after the police entered the Embassy and arrested him.

What does anyone else think? M.J.E. (talk) 05:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree - Assange couldn't possibly be considered active at the moment, but what date can we say that he was considered inactive? After his asylum was revoked in 2019? LegalizeCaruana (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

That would depend, is his case is still active, his self-promotion is still active? Is his "reporting" still active? Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I would say active until 2019.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

RFC: Calling Assange a journalist

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

---

Should we refer to Julian Assange as a journalist? Wikinetman (talk) 03:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (journalist)

I suggest you come forth with some new sources or a new argument as outlined at Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 17#Request for Comment - Journalist. Moxy🍁 03:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• Document the dispute There is a real dispute, I don't think it can be said without attribution. Changed from yes but attribute, with a real dispute weshould document it. NadVolum (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment What sources support the claim that Assange is a journalist? My understanding is that most sources reject the claim, including the Committee to Protect Journalists. In addition, where do you propose including it? We currently note a few times in the body that some individuals have called him a journalist (Assange's defenders have responded to U.S. accusations, describing him as a journalist who did nothing more than publish leaked information that embarrassed the U.S. government., O'Hagan refused the request and said to he "would not give a witness statement against a fellow journalist".) and that there has been a debate about whether he is one (After Assange's arrest in 2019, journalists and commenters debated about if Assange was a journalist.) If the proposal is to add it to the lede then I think that would be WP:UNDUE, given the lack of support for this claim. BilledMammal (talk) 08:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• No I seem to recall the last time we had this some sources were brought forth saying he was a journalist, and other saying he was not. Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Not without reliable sources: this isn't just a poll for Wikipedia editors; our personal opinions are not relevant. Wikipedia:Verifiability applies: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations." As well: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Status quo (summoned by bot). Per Moxy and BilledMammal above, I don't see any reason to alter the status quo from the previous RfC that we don't call him a journalist in Wikipedia-voice or in the lede, but we can document the controversy in the article body, to an encyclopedically appropriate extent. -- Visviva (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
• No this is not a description that is used by there is no consensus amonsgt reliable sources, therefor it would be WP:UNDUE. TarnishedPath^talk 09:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
• Status quo I don't see a compelling reason to make this change or an argument for what has changed since the last RFC. Nemov (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
• No (Summoned by bot): Per Moxy, BilledMammal, Nemov, and Visviva (maintain status quo). Nothing has changed since previous RfC -- Otr500 (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
• No, keep the status quo: I don't want to repeat my lengthy answer in the previous RfC, but the points remain valid. It remains controversial whether Assange is a journalist: see for example, [29]. He does not fit the conventional definition of a journalist which involves producing written and photographic content for news publications. This does not preclude us noting that he has been hailed as a journalist or noting his awards for journalism. What it does preclude is describing him as a journalist in "Wikivoice".--Jack Upland (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

No Sawitontwitter (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• No He is not a journalist by any conventional definition of the world. Simply winning awards for breaking a story does not a journalist make. Avgeekamfot (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
• Yes Julian Assange is a journalist. What exactly is a conventional definition of 'journalist,' and why would a journalist be required to meet such a definition before being called such? The Internet has changed how such things get defined. There are millions these days who perform journalistic functions online but whose content isn't produced for mainstream media organizations. Does that make their content any less journalistic or them less than journalists? I think this gets into opinion territory, so it would seem to be a discussion that may not come to a point of consensus, but it seems to me that someone who has performed the role of a journalist, as I believe Mr. Assange has, cannot be said to be anything other than a journalist.Coalcity58 (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
• No. He is not trained as a journalist and has not performed normal journalistic work. In fact, his actions violate journalistic ethics. He's something else. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  What in Journalism ethics and standards has he violated? NadVolum (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  "Assange presents a particularly painful example of journalistic misconduct";[30] "Julian Assange is not a journalist, said Kathy Kiely, a veteran reporter with four decades of experience in newsrooms and classrooms. He’s a broker of information, often motivated by his own political interests and rarely adherent to a code of ethics."[31] The following article shows why the question of whether Assange's actions are good or bad is not a settled one, and thus why we should present both sides here, without taking sides. It's complicated. (The article doesn't take a clear stand on whether or not he's a journalist.):"Why Journalists Aren't Defending Julian Assange"

  Whether he is or is not a journalist is not always relevant to those issues, so that makes this question a potential red herring in some cases. Whether he's a journalist and whether his actions are defensible are two different matters. This RfC is about whether he's a journalist, and I say he isn't. It's possible to take that position and still defend some of his actions, but that's not the purpose of this RfC. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  Well at least that is something citable even though it is stupid. That Kathy Kiely should have been aware of what happened about the release of the unredacted files and not used it to back up an allegation of not having ethics. If anything it was the newspapers attacking him for doing it particularly the Guardian which lacked ethics. NadVolum (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Could people come up with something objective that can be reasonably easily checked thanks if they want to say a definite yes or no. NadVolum (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
• No, keep the status quo: per reasoned, detailed argument of Jack Upland. He does not fit the conventional definition of a journalist which involves producing written and photographic content for news publications. This does not preclude us noting that he has been hailed as a journalist or noting his awards for journalism. What it does preclude is describing him as a journalist in "Wikivoice". Pincrete (talk) 06:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

This is WP:OR, we dont do our own interpretations of what a journalist is. We just follow what the sources say. This statement in fact indicates how weak the argument against using the journalist term is. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• No I do not see sources that support this claim and at most this is disputed. Perhaps we could document the dispute maybe but we would need to see more quality sources. Jorahm (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, in some way The article subject has won multiple awards for being a journalist, so there is no reason for us to downplay that. We can certainly state that the term is controversial. We see sources such as this that state explicitly that the subject's critics dont want him to be called a journalist freedom of press foundation, US Govt, and PBS. All of these over the top statements that 'black is not black' from our encyclopedic perspective lends a lot of weight that something might be black, and thus makes it WP:DUE. Here at DUE we read "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources", therefore it is contrary to policy that we exclude this discussion/controversy. It is easy enough for us to summarize the topic and note the term is controversial or in dispute, but to whitewash it, is contrary to policy. Should we call him a journalist in wikivoice? WP:DUE says: "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. " Therefore, we would not say the subject is a journalist in wikivoice without qualification/clarification, but we also would not remove that many newspapers take the position that he is not a journalist, nor would we ignore the multiple notable journalism awards, therefore we should include both sides of the discussion to provide WP:BALANCE. I think a lot of this discussion above misses this point, and that policy here trumps the opinion of the editors that seem to want to line up on party lines. This article is often one of frequent disputes, and this dispute should probably be covered according to policy to end the journalist discussion Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  You write "All of these over the top statements that 'black is not black' from our encyclopedic perspective lends a lot of weight that something might be black, and thus makes it WP:DUE". That is an argument from original research. We should not be stating that because quite a number of sources disagree with the attribution, that therefore it must be true. To do so is specifically not allowed according to WP:NOR. The fact of the matter is that there is no agreement amongst reliable sources and if there is no agreement we should not be saying it in wikivoice in the lede. TarnishedPath^talk 05:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

No its not even remotely OR, you yourself admit the controversy and confirm my point, stating "quite a number of sources disagree with the attribution." Who are they disagreeing with? ;-) You also dont address the journalism awards the subject has won. There cant be controversy when there is consensus, the two concepts are diametrically opposed. The very point that, & according to you, many sources "disagree with the attribution", demonstrates according to you at least, that a controversy exists. WP:QUACK applies here and there is nothing here that prevents us from covering the controversy. Your suggestion to just make it go away, saying 'nothing to see here' is flawed at its very root and contrary to wikipedia policy. I also dont see that this RFC relates to the WP:LEAD. Did I miss something? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

We do mention all of this, just not as one word in the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

When I do a search for the term "journalist" in my browser on the article, I saw only one mention referring to the subject as a journalist (I found many hits, but most were not related to the subject), and the hit I found was "Assange's defenders have responded to U.S. accusations, describing him as a journalist who did nothing more than publish leaked information that embarrassed the U.S. government.[428][429]" The only result that I found in the article seems to allege that only Assange's defenders refer to him as a journalist, and this statement appears to be non-neutral and conflicts with all the awards. Again, this RFC doesn't mention WP:LEAD so it seems you are alleging the RFC is based on the lead, I would like to see some evidence of this other than just your assumption. You and the editor above are putting forth this claim, but that is not part of the RFC. Do you have any evidence that the the subject of this RFC is the lead, or are you just arguing (without evidence) that point? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

So as I said we do mention he is described as a journalist, what we can't do it put it in our words. Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I was going to respond the same as Steven however the Android app sucks so I had to wait until I got home. @Jtbobwaysf there is material about it being a matter of debate in the Julian Assange#Commentary about Assange section. Now if you wanted to add to that, that would be an entirely different discussion. You are correct that this RfC is about whether we should refer to him as an journalist in article voice anywhere in the article, my apologies there. However it still comes down to the same situation where there is no agreement amongst the reliable sources and no one during this RfC has presented any analysis to demonstrate how the discussion amongst reliable sources has changed since last time. Given that there is no agreement amongst reliable sources it would be WP:UNDUE to call him a journalist in article voice. TarnishedPath^talk 10:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

As NadVolum says above, we can document the dispute/controversy and there should be no prohibition against using wikivoice in this description. A blanket ban on it is incorrect and against policy. We dont need agreement in RS to use that term in wikivoice if it is properly attributed, there is no such policy that states this, WP:BALANCE covers this. Too many opinions on this article talk page if Assange is or is not a journalist, this is not the point. The point is if our ban on use of the term in wikivoice adheres to policy, and I say it does not. Maybe we need to amend this statement "After Assange's arrest in 2019, journalists and commenters and wikipedians debated about if Assange was a journalist." I am joking here, we will not cover this, but it does forward my point that we are debating if he is a journalist here, and that is not the point. The point is if DUE and BALANCE allow us to use it in wikivoice and what circumstances. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any argument against documenting the dispute/controversy. The question asks, should we call him a journalist, with the implication being that we do so in article voice. Now the answer to that question is simple and I'll repeat myself again. There is no agreement amongst reliable sources so no we shouldn't call him a journalist.

Now if you want to further document the dispute/controversy, I'd recommend suggesting edits in another thread because this isn't it. TarnishedPath^talk 10:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Here in this RFC we are discussing if use of the journalist term in wikivoice is allowed/prohibited. My position is that "prohibited" is against policy. The arguments above that this RFC relates to LEAD are a convenient way to strawman that RS consensus is required to use the term in wikivoice. This position is false and against policy. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

No, it is an assumption of where we would say he is a Journalist (where else would we say he is a journalist?), based on past edits. And wp:npov is clear, we do not say something is a fact that is contested, RS contests the idea he is a journalist. So its an opinion, not a fact. Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

You and Tarnished are making the argument that for wikivoice we must have RS in alignment. WP:BALANCE states "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint" and WP:WIKIVOICE (under NPOV which you quoted) states "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them" as well as plenty of other text to that characterizes this discussion, but none of it offers up your view that we need consensus in the RS to use it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Exaclty "describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint", not take a side in the said dispute. So we would say "has been called...but other disagree not "is". Slatersteven (talk)

Per Slatersteven, if you want to flesh out why there is disagreement, then certainly there are already others saying to discuss it. However that is not what is being asked here. TarnishedPath^talk 11:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The scope of this RFC is well defined and narrow, and it doesnt include going off into a discussion of the disagreement about our opinions if you or I think subject is or is not a journalist. This talk page is full of these yarns that I for one find tedious. I just weigh on on this RFC as it delves more into a policy issue and one that I dont care for these consensus bans on formulated on individual article talk pages. Broadly speaking it would be difficult to describe the subject if the use of the term is prohibited by a discussion on this talk page, and that ban is not encyclopedic and is contrary to policy. Both you of you editors are apparently unable to refute the policy issues I have noted and rather continue to try to get into a discussion of the subject (essentially 'is he or is he not a journalist!?!') rather than address the wikipedia policy matters that govern how we deal with content on this article and others. Too often these defacto content bans are put in place to steer content on these controversial subjects. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

No one had said the article can't mention he had been described as a journalist only that WE can't say something like "Assange is a journalist", which is what the RFC is asking. Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• No. the term has a specific defined meaning relating to principles, practices, and procedures. Assange's work does not stay within or observe those limitations to his chosen mission. Use of the term would confuse or mislead our readers. Description is more valuable than labeling. SPECIFICO talk 16:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Gender pronouns

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

---

The article is missing information about Assanges preferred gender pronouns. Please add them. 2A01:599:404:FFB4:B886:C7E4:B6A:E1EE (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Is this a joke? It's obvious. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not obvious what Assange's preferred gender pronouns are and it should definitely be part of the article. 178.203.13.112 (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you (178.203.13.112) the same person as 2A01:599:404:FFB4:B886:C7E4:B6A:E1EE? If so, I recommend making that clear, so that editors don't get confused over how many people they're discussing with/how many people support/oppose something. GoldRomean (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

imo WP:NOTHERE 𝙴𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗𝚊𝚛𝚒𝚌 𝙴𝚗𝚓𝚘𝚢𝚎𝚛 (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Why? Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Having preferred gender pronouns is the standard these days. 2A02:3032:20E:31A2:98EE:2842:A1F1:5065 (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

IMO, I agree with Aaron, it's obvious. If you want this kind of change you could propose an infobox change or something, because if this article was changed, wouldn't it be logical to follow with other articles like Donald Trump, Taylor Swift, etc.? GoldRomean (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The article uses "He". Presumably this indicates that his preferred pronouns are he/his/him, probably inferred from use of "he" in the published sources the article is based on. If you have a reliable published source indicating that Assange has different preferred pronouns, tell us about it, otherwise no change in the article is needed. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.

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

Subtle bias in this article

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

---

The article does not mention as in source that the count is a felony.

In a plea bargain agreed on 24 June 2024, Assange would plead guilty to one count of violating the Espionage Act in exchange for immediate release.

Change to "felony count" as the source describes. Multiple RS refers to the count as a "felony". 207.96.32.81 (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't object if this change were to be implemented, but is this really necessary? It's for violating the Espionage Act, which is federal law, so ofc it's a felony. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Not sure how you can come to the conclusion that this is self-evident. Not all federal crimes are felonies. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done Aaron Liu (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

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

edit

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

---

South African-born > South African–born

Thanks. 191.57.6.244 (talk) 06:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: cf. English-born, not England-born; Canadian-born, not Canada-born; American-born, not America-born; French-born, not France-born; etc.... Cambial — foliar❧ 12:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe our anon IP friend was requesting that the dash be changed to an emdash. This would be in the fourth graf of 'personal life', referring to his wife. But yes, also, it would be South Africa—born. I'll fix. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 16:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually, her country of birth is entirely irrelevant to this BLP; it's a non-essential factoid, so I removed it. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 16:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Deportation of Assange from usa

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

---

We need to add details of how Assange was deported from the USA to Australia and whether or not he was handcuffed on the plane. 2A02:3037:60F:F73E:B06E:9425:6380:3700 (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: We don't include unsourced bullshit on Wikipedia. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

It should definitely be added since as a criminal he was deported immediately from the US. 2A01:599:404:FFB4:B886:C7E4:B6A:E1EE (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Source? Aaron Liu (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

No he wasn't deported from the US. For him to be deported from the US, he would have to had been there in the first place which he wasn't. He spent his time in custody in the UK, so its impossible for him to have been deported from the US. Refer to this article from the BBC which clearly states that he was held in a prison in London prior to his release and return to Australia. TarnishedPath^talk 11:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

He was sent to a court in US territory near Australia for his plea hearing. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

He wasn't sent - he went there voluntarily, on his own, as a part of his plea deal. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

As a convicted and released criminal he would have been deported immediately from the US after serving his sentence. 2A02:3032:20E:31A2:98EE:2842:A1F1:5065 (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Source? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

He was not formally or legally imprisoned while in the US, so there was no question of handcuffs, release, etc. People are deported only if they stay illegally and fail to leave territory voluntarily. Essentially, you are trolling. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Assange only came to the US at the begging and lengthy attempted coercion of the US gvt; so it's not even good trolling. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

He had no handcuffs leaving court and the plane was not American so I believe the answer is no, he wasn't handcuffed. And as said source please for any other ideas that occur to you while eating eating your breakfast. NadVolum (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.

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

First sentence

Julian Paul Assange ... is an Australian editor, publisher and activist who founded WikiLeaks in 2006 in order to commit "acts of journalism".

The source doesn't say that WikiLeaks was founded "in order to commit 'acts of journalism'". The way this sentence is phrased makes it sound like Assange said he wanted to commit "acts of journalism". I think we should go back to what we previously had. We go on to show what WikiLeaks was used for. Jack Upland (talk) 01:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I support the change and am strongly opposed to "acts of ..ism" in the lead. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

"acts of journalism" is a strange phrasing especially for the lead and we should just call it what it is... for example he "founded WikiLeaks to force transparency of large organizations" or "founded WikiLeaks to reveal contradictions and corruption among governments and other institutions". Avoid euphamisms or misleading quotes and just call things what they are. Jorahm (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

totally agree. the acts of ism sounds too/suspiciously close to terrorism... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

agree Softlem (talk) 04:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

No, it does not matter how you try and reword it, consensus (via RFC) is against calling him a journalist, please stop this. Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I support acts of deletionism on edits like that :-) NadVolum (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Content gap

I am not familiar with the details of this article subject, but when reading today the article goes from:

• Julian_Assange#Appeals_and_other_developments "On 20 May, the two High Court judges, Dame Victoria Sharp and Sir Jeremy Johnson, found that the assurances regarding the First Amendment and the nationality question were not sufficient and gave Assange leave to appeal against extradition."

to:

• Julian_Assange#Plea_bargain "Assange agreed to plead guilty to one count of violating the Espionage Act in exchange for release on 24 June 2024."

Was there any activity by the subject or his legal team that can connect these two points? Seems a crucial encyclopedic period of time to cover to explain why the flip flop on the part of the UK and US govts. They were both preparing to extradite, then the court ruling. Was there any filings or due activity in between?

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Undoubtedly there was, but it’s not yet been reported in RS as far as I know. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

This ABC News source seems to infer it hinged on free speech protections. Comments? Do we have a source tied to Assange that states that non-citizens are not afforded first amendment rights? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

This Fox News has some decent coverage of the first amendment issue and also notes that Biden was considering a request from Australia to end the extradition request. Seems both of these would be good to bridge this gap. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

RS with some possibly useful detail here. Excellent but not RS summary of the legal context here. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I guess NOTFORUM but can I comment on that the BBC has this as a front page minute by minute business - whereas they practically completely ignored anything about his extradition case and his most important entry before was his marriage in prison. It just blanks things it doesn't like. NadVolum (talk) 08:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

It is encyclopedic that we include the legal analysis of why he was released. We include all kinds of other analysis. The craigmurray blog is great, and as Cambial noted, not an RS. Hopefully we can get some RS analysis of this to follow. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Criminal Status

Since he pleaded guilty it's important to list that he is a criminal in the first paragraph. 178.203.13.112 (talk) 06:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not. That's not what he's primarily notable for. Riposte97 (talk) 06:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is. In fact, it is the only basis of his notability. SPECIFICO talk 14:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

RFC on convicted felon in leade?207.96.32.81 (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikileaks, anyone? We have 4/7s of the lede about the persecutions already. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not any basis for his notability, as has already been long-established on this talk page, not to mention in reality. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

In a technical, legalistic sense he's guilty of a crime, but not necessarily in the commonly understood meaning of words like "guilty" and "criminal". Under the US system, innocent people sometimes plead guilty so as to avoid incarceration either as a possible punishment if their trial results in a conviction or in the form of a long period of pretrial confinement. That's especially true when the defendant can't afford to pay for an expensive private lawyer or when the defendant does not believe that they'd get a fair trial. Assange is clearly in the latter category. NightHeron (talk) 07:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

In over 10% of the serious cases they plead guilty to things they are innocent of as far as I can see. Doesn't mean they're not being fitted for something else sometimes of course. Hate to think what the percentage is for minor things. In this case it has been pretty evident the US has been preying on Assanges fears and wanted to keep the case in the UK for as long as possible as it would be a very damaging media circus in the US. Anyway pleaded guilty about covers it I think. NadVolum (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

No, we dont do that. He is hardly known as a criminal. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

That would be inappropriate, and it's not "important". Cambial — foliar❧ 08:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

NO, i do not think so, it seems undue. Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

No per MOS:FIRSTBIO, The opening paragraph of a biographical article should neutrally describe the person, provide context, establish notability and explain why the person is notable, and reflect the balance of reliable sources. Criminality is not a reason for his notability. Given the significance of the guilty plea, I'd expect it to be covered somewhere in the lead, but not the first paragraph. For something similar refer to Donald Trump, who was recently convicted of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in his attempt to conceal campaign financing violations. Discussions on the talk page for that article resulted in consensus that he should not be called a criminal in the lead, but that the convictions be covered in the lead (not the first paragraph). TarnishedPath^talk 10:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

This kind of label up top "felon" "conspiracy theorist" etc. are generally not encyclopedic. But to be clear, there is no question that he is a criminal. He's been fleeing the law for how long, and now cops a plea for time-served. WEIGHT of RS don't say he is not a criminal. SPECIFICO talk 12:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Re:there is no question. There is plenty of question about that. Many people around the world consider him a courageous journalist and not a criminal for having exposed massive violations of human rights by the US military. NightHeron (talk) 12:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

But in the eyes of the law, he is one, that is not affected by what people think. Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Our infoboxes are not required to include all criminal court findings, cf. Hunter Biden, Donald Trump. Britney Griner, Paul McCartney, Phil Spector (while alive).Burrobert (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I think I had already said we should not include this. Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Please provide your due weights of reliable sources that brand him a criminal. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

AT a quick guess weight of RS doesn't say that any of us is not a criminal. NadVolum (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

In the ″eyes of law″ of which country? The US law Espionage Act of 1917, passed during the height of the patriotic war fever as the US entered the First World War? Assange isn't even American citizen though. He shouldn’t have had to plead to any charges, it was the political persecution of an Australian citizen not even Obama dared. The serious war crimes that he uncovered in 2010 and 2011 remained unpunished. The cause célèbre that this had turned into shows it was a popular cause and that Americans prefer Free Speech. Assange's flight back home was for a period of time the most tracked flight on the planet and even eclipsed Taylor Swift's jet, which is the most tracked jet on the planet, so the amount of interest in Assange's freedom is huge. Maybe Biden did not want to have to deal with this in his debate with Trump this week. We don't want journalists going to prison — that's a very core principle. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is the solid bedrock of the country for a reason. The Pentagon Papers case (New York Times Co. v. United States) defined one of the purposes of the First Amendment: that the American public has the right to know what their government is doing. Assange walked free and US imperialism took its pound of flesh. It ultimately goes to the brutal exercise of US extraterritorial power against any publisher, irrespective of outlet and irrespective of nationality. America’s Espionage Act, for the first time in history, has been given a global reach, and made it a weapon against publishers outside the US, paving the way for future prosecutions. There was another, rather more sordid angle, and one that the DoJ had to have kept in mind in thinning the charge sheet: A trial would have seen the murderous fantasies of the CIA regarding Assange subject to scrutiny. --87.170.199.80 (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• WP:NOTFORUM applies here. please stop. Many editors are not providing RS and are what appears to be going into a discussion of opinions, which is beyond the scope of wikipedia. Please take this discussion over to reddit. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

New article called "Release of Julian Assange?"

This is one of the biggest stories of the year so far, and presumably will remain relevant. We have Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange, Commentary about Julian Assange, Surveillance of Julian Assange. I'm not sure of the title, but I feel like "Release of Julian Assange" would be sufficient. MarkiPoli (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

At the moment there is very little text in this article about the release. If this changes, we can certainly have a new article. If not, I don't think this venture will succeed.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok. More text could definitely be added, and I anticipate it will be. MarkiPoli (talk) 04:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I think by now there is more than enough content on all major media regarding his release. Also given the length of the main article, I think it merits having a new entry on his release. Frankserafini87 (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I would rather see it trimmed. I think there's too much irrelevant information about his charter flight. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

TOO-SOON, lets discuss if and when we have sufficient content. This article has long suffered from excessive wikileaks content and lack of BLP content. Now that we have some BLP content, lets rejoice. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Can't see the point. But what could be useful is tidying up some of the stuff prior to his release now that the phase with him in jail awaiting extradition is over. NadVolum (talk) 10:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Is it, or just one of the biggest relating to him? No we do not need another fork, why is saying a few sentence not enough? Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see reason for a spin-off at this point in time. TarnishedPath^talk 00:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Content questionable

Under Personal Life: “Assange is the cousin of Australian-British academic and former Iranian hostage Kylie Moore-Gilbert.” If you click over to her page, it looks like this is quite questionable. Should probably be reworded to reflect that? 2600:1700:8B41:A4C0:D085:B718:4B14:5D4D (talk) 04:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

It appears this is a "claim". What kind of cousins are they anyway? First? Second? Third? I don't see what this adds to this article.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it is important to include the claim as that, in itself, is odd. Why would his lawyer do this? Perhaps to garner some sort of attention or sympathetic feelings. In any case, it should be rephrased here to indicate it is a claim with a questionable background, similar to what is found on the link. 104.177.197.158 (talk) 04:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

The material at Kylie Moore-Gilbert says nothing more than "A 2011 account of Gilbert and Assange's meeting, written by the former for The Western Advocate newspaper, head-quartered in Bathurst, New South Wales, said nothing about the two having known each other before". This is not contradictory to the material on this article. TarnishedPath^talk 05:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

We should not include these legalese type statements "said nothing about." We need active statements to produce an encyclopedia, not comments on something missing that is an invitation to WP:SYNTH. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

The source we cite describes it as a "claim".--Jack Upland (talk) 04:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Jtbobwaysf. The source we cite may cover that an account of the two meeting "said nothing about the two having known each other before", but that doesn't mean that we should necessarily cover it if it invites our readers to engage in original research. Further there is a question of significance. There are many things that articles don't say. Should we enumerate every claim that is not made by an article, just because some other article notes that those things weren't said? I think not. TarnishedPath^talk 04:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Its a different thing if the source says affirmatively the two had not met each other before. It moves into legalese and is WP:UNDUE when it becomes this double negative. Just remove and it we can discuss restoration of it if it is due, as WP:BLPRESTORE applies to this. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the material in my edit at Special:Diff/1231597959. TarnishedPath^talk 05:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

"may have cost Clinton the election"

The following content was deleted with the IDONTLIKEIT summary of "doesn't seem to me to be due":

Thomas Joscelyn, a senior fellow at Just Security, has described how Assange's "hatred of Clinton" and "WikiLeaks' collusion with Russian government hackers during the 2016 presidential campaign" may have cost Clinton the election. He wrote that "Assange made it his goal in 2016 to counter the 'American liberal press,' which he accused of supporting Clinton. He aimed to turn that same press against her. Ultimately, with Russia's help, Assange succeeded."

That content is an opinion from a RS that is properly attributed. That's what we do with such opinions. We don't delete stuff because it's an opinion. On the contrary. It's an interesting commentary from a subject matter expert about the obvious success of WikiLeaks' collusion with Russian intelligence.

Every single thing in that quote but the opinion is a proven fact that is common knowledge, proven in the Mueller report and Senate testimonies, and the opinion that WikiLeaks' actions "may" have cost Clinton the election is quite logical. Why? Because WikiLeaks' actions (in this case) were directed at Bernie Sanders voters, who then changed their votes to Trump, so it's a very reasonable "may". There is no justifiable reason to remove that content. It may not seem due to you, but it seems due to others, and the whitewashing/NPOV violation is what's undue. We don't write hagiographies here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

It’s always best to avoid speculating on other editor’s motives, especially in your opening sentence, as per WP:AGF.

WP:BLPBALANCE indicates that Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources. The source cited is very much the primary originator of the opinion piece. It’s an online commentary magazine, not a mainstream news organisation. Given the lack of secondary coverage of this person’s opinion, NadVolum is right to point out that it’s undue weight here. In addition, you have no evidence for your claim that Bernie Sanders voters...then changed their votes to Trump. The frothily hyperbolic logical jump from the view we ought not to include one online comment piece to accusations of whitewashing and hagiography is unnecessary and detracts further from an already weak argument. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I would agree on inclusion. Just to be safe, we can trim it down to more of a summary by only including the first sentence. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Here is an actual proper discussion on the matter How Much Did WikiLeaks Hurt Hillary Clinton? rather than some random opinion piece. NadVolum (talk) 07:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Support inclusion. There is a long history of excluding material unfavorable to Assange. Jack Upland (talk) 07:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• Remove these non-notable pundit opinions are WP:UNDUE. Person making the statement lacks a wikipedia article, so if they are not notable, then we dont need to cover the opinion. Pretty easy test. The the source thedispatch lacks an WP:RSP entry. Am I correct about these two points (non notable pundit and non RSP listed source)? If yes, I am confused why we are even discussing it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC) WP:BLPRESTORE applies to this content, do not re-add it without consensus here. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
• Remove, pure speculation with zero evidence to back it up. Besides, here is Assange's biography, not an analysis of Clinton's career. (I won't even mention how dumb that proposal is – national support for Clinton was low at the time because of her performance, not because of the Russians or Assange). — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
• I can't find the phrase "may have cost Clinton the election" in that reference. The closest I came was "But the tsunami of coverage surrounding Clinton’s and the Democrats’ emails likely had much more of an effect on Americans’ perceptions—and votes—than any social media ads". which isn't the same. TarnishedPath^talk 09:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

It's om the subheading, along with the allegation he conspired with the Russians stated as a fact. NadVolum (talk) 11:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, then, WP:HEADLINE seems to apply as well. Drop it. Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• Remove per above concerns around WP:UNDUE and WP:HEADLINE. Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)