Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Page length

This guy has a bigger wikipedia page than Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.116.101 (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

No, he doesn't.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

No idea if this is true, but this page may indeed be overlong over 3.4 of the page it taken up with just 20 years of his life, and of that 3/3 with the last 4 years, about half with his imprisonment. I am not sure we need quite this much information.Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, there is a lot of recentism here. This could be partly solved by my proposal to move the reactions to the US indictment to another page. I also think the Dana Rohrabacher incident etc doesn't need to be mentioned. After the extradition has been resolved, I think there are several sections here that could be condensed. I think we need to know when the hearings were and what was decided. I don't really think, in the long term at least, we need to know about adjournments etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Do we really need this much detail, even in another article? This is the real problem, we need to know what everyone thinks, about every hearing and adjournment, about what he had for breakfast. This is Not Julian Assanges blog.Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Jack, the excessive coverage of the us election interference needs to be trimmed too. There are main articles for these subjects. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

As I've mentioned probably five or six times in the past here, the article main text devotes ten paragraphs to the 2016 election. The issue takes up 1/4 of the lead. This is a major coatrack problem and cutting that down to 2 paragraphs would go a long way to making this article more of a biography of Assange, and less an essay on his views of American politics. -Darouet (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you. We seem to go around in circles on this, and there are clearly editors that support the extended expose on the election content yet it never gets trimmed. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Previous discussions have shown that some editors believe that covering the 2016 election is very important. I think we are at an impasse on that. This is a problem is general. For example, I think the Rohrabacher incident is trivial, but others think it's vitally important. Editors are also divided on the "quote farm". But I think we can agree that we don't need a blog style approach. However, I think we need to indicate his current status and why a decision on his extradition has been delayed.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I applaud you hard work in trimming the article Jack. Generally seemed fine. However, several opinions are quoted in the section “Indictment in the United States” about whether Assange should be considered a journalist and whether that matters. I think you removed the text "WikiLeaks was recognised as a media organisation in 2017 by a UK tribunal, contradicting public assertions to the contrary by some US officials, and possibly supporting Assange's efforts to oppose his extradition to the United States". It seems to be quite relevant to the section as it is a legal ruling rather than only opinion. Can you comment? On an unrelated matter, when I was looking at the article, I noticed something seemed to be missing. When the US charges were first released I recall there was some discussion about the way the US framed the charges, which related to hacking, to get around the freedom of expression defence. This was before the additional 17 charges were released six weeks later. None of that is in the article for some reason. Is it relevant? Burrobert (talk) 06:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Much of which can be said in one sentence.Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

There is more information at Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange, which is appropriate. The essential point about the US charges is that they don't relate to publishing information. I'm not aware of any text about this being removed. With regard to the 2017 decision by the UK tribunal, we have discussed this ad nauseum. The tribunal ruled against a Freedom of Information request by la Repubblica. This is mentioned in "Later years in the embassy". It is not a reaction to the indictment and arguably doesn't belong in this article at all. By the way, I also think that "Surveillance of Assange in the embassy" has an excessive level of detail.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

"The new charges relate to obtaining and publishing the secret documents. ... The three charges related to publication concern documents which revealed the names of sources in dangerous places putting them "at a grave and imminent risk" of harm or detention". From the indictment article: "The New York Times commented that it and other news organisations obtained the same documents as Wikileaks also without government authorisation. It also said it is not clear how Wikileaks's publications are legally different from other publications of classified information". I went back in time and found that we apparently have never included a discussion about the choice of the initial charges as a way around freedom of expression. Regarding my first point, we have the Cato Institute, the Associated Press and Stephen Vladeck arguing that he could be considered a journalist. Does this have greater weight than a tribunal describing Wikileaks as a publisher? Perhaps it's a matter of taste as to which is more important. When the FOI request is mentioned elsewhere in the article there is no mention that the tribunal described Wikileaks as a publisher. Regarding the "Surveillance of Assange in the embassy" section, you could suggest some cuts if you like. I had a quick look and didn't notice any spare flesh. Perhaps you could also suggest some cuts to the "2016 U.S. presidential election" which for some reason seems larger than all other sections. It is much longer than the "Iraq and Afghan War logs and US diplomatic cables" section which surely is more important. Burrobert (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with more information on the charges, but you should bear that there is a separate "Indictment" article and that the article should be current (not focussed on the initial charges). As you know, we had an RfC on Assange being a journalist. That is resolved. If we are going to mention the tribunal decision in 2017, we should do so factually and in context, as we do now. The description of Wikileaks as a media organisation was hailed by Assange and others as a potential obstacle to his extradition. The extradition hearings are now underway, so it is superfluous to include speculation about what will happen at the extradition hearings. If Assange's lawyers raise this as some "killer point", then, yes, it should be mentioned. If not, then no.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes the RfC decision was that Wikipedia would not describe Assange as a journalist in the leading section. It doesn’t affect what we include about other’s views on the nature of Assange’s activities. However, I don’t want to make this a big issue. I was only wondering why the tribunal’s characterisation was removed but the opinions of the Cato Institute, the Associated Press and Stephen Vladeck, which may be considered less legally influential, were retained.

“The extradition hearings are now underway, so it is superfluous to include speculation about what will happen at the extradition hearings”. I am not going to pursue adding in the discussions which occurred about the initial charges and how they might affect the extradition case. However, a proper biography of Assange would include this. I don’t agree with your reasoning in general here. Waiting for the outcome of the trial would be fine if the decision was being announced tomorrow, for example. However, currently we don’t know when a decision will be handed down. The next hearings are in September I believe. Suppose the Large Hadron Collider was starting a run of experiments seeking to confirm the existence of Strangelet particles, for example. I believe we should include speculation about the nature of the particles even though the results of the experiments are not yet known and the experiments underway. Such speculation might even be worth including after the experiments are finished and the speculation proved wrong. In a different context, we include the Ptolemaic system in our article on astronomy even though it has not been considered an accurate description of the solar system for 400 years.

Burrobert (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Now that the page has been significantly shortened, the continued presence of the off-topic information about indictments of GRU agents is even more jarring. The connection between these indictments and Assange has always been extremely tenuous, and the article used to source the information doesn't even mention Assange: [1]. Can we finally remove this irrelevant info? I think we all know why it's there - to imply some sort of connection between Assange and Russian intelligence. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

More generally, the section on the DNC/Podesta emails is currently 10 paragraphs long, with 4 separate subsections. This should be condensed down to about 3 paragraphs, with no subsections. We don't need 3 paragraphs about Assange's criticism of Clinton and Trump, 2 paragraphs about Seth Rich, etc. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and shortened the section on the 2016 US Presidential Election to 5 paragraphs. I think the section still covers all the major elements of the DNC/Podesta leaks, though it now does so much more succinctly. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Your edit was complete trash. NPOV violations all over the place, failures to stick to what RS say, and whitewashing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with you, and I think your blanket assertion that my careful edits were "complete trash" and full of "NPOV violations" is insulting. I encourage the other editors here to take a look at my edit (diff and the relevant section), and to judge if what Snooganssnoogans is saying aligns with reality. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

You are pushing FRINGE article narratives. SPECIFICO talk 15:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

How so? My shortened version doesn't say anything the longer version doesn't say. It's the same material, with nearly identical wording, just cut down so that each subtopic takes up less space. It would be helpful if you and Snoogans would say exactly what you find troubling in my version, instead of making blanket assertions that it violates FRINGE and NPOV. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I've gone back to the article version as it stood at the beginning of June, and as it had been for many, many months before this new dispute has broken out. -Darouet (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

OK can we just have some suggested deletions please, lets not have an new edit war.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I'm not opposed to that. We need to avoid edits that further imbalance the article. I'd suggest we go to dispute resolution where, together and with an experienced arbiter there, we decide how much weight in terms of fraction is given to each component of Assange's life. -Darouet (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I think DR will say "you already have more than three opinions". I suggest people just say what they want deleted and explain why.Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: my impression is that we have a diversity of opinions that fall primarily into two categories: 1) people who state that the 2016 elections are particularly important to Assange's life and career, and he's not a journalist, and 2) people who state that Assange is a whistleblower and the 2016 elections are overrepresented in this article. Because we've not been able to arrive at a compromise for years here, and observing the rhetoric above ("...complete trash... whitewashing... FRINGE narratives"), I don't think that such a compromise or consensus is even remotely possible without a structured discussion that enforces behavioral and content norms. -Darouet (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

For such a divisive article, it would not hurt to approach dispute resolution and then work through this article together and with an neutral experienced arbiter. I strongly support this very constructive approach. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I also support dispute resolution. Especially given my experience just now (being accused of whitewashing, POV editing and pushing FRINGE narratives, with zero attempt by the accusers to substantiate their accusations), I'd prefer a process in which we focus on each question in a structured manner. That seems far more productive to me. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Let's clearly identify the situation. Given the two views that D-T have articulated: The first is the mainstream view in the weight of RS references. The second is FRINGE. Naturally, if there were to be DR, the FRINGE would be held up in false equivalence to the mainstream description. That's not what DR is made for. SPECIFICO talk 17:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

If one of the views is fringe, that should be easy to demonstrate, especially in a structured format like DR. So why not give it a try? -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Cause it would be wasting the time of half a dozen editors who are busy at work improving all kinds of other articles. SPECIFICO talk 17:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Waste of time is a very weak excuse. If editors have not got time to edit this article inpartially I am concerned. Its crazy to remind editors of the basic five pillars but ~> Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. We strive for articles in an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence. ... In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is about a living person. So lets work constructively together and approach dispute resolution ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Bodney, this article needs more eyeballs. Busy with work, what kind of excuse is that? The article subject's beliefs are fringe, but notable. Thus supporters of the article's subject are also fringe and WP:DUE. DR might be a good way to get consenus here, as there is at least one editor with WP:OWNERSHIP issues (as exemplified by today's comments. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

A lot of the changes that Thucydides did relate to long-standing grievances that he's been bringing up and which have always been rejected by other editors. See for example this discussion[2] (which is one of several discussions on the topic) where he proposes to remove any mention that Assange promoted Murder of Seth Rich conspiracy theories and instead replace it with weasel language. It's not reasonable at all to ask that other editors bring up every single change he did in his last edit just so that they can be debated AGAIN individually: that burden falls on Thucydides. If he wants to make controversial changes, he should bring them up here rather than edit-war them into the article every 4 months. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

What weasel language did I introduce about Seth Rich? This is what my shortened version said: In a July 2016 interview, asked whether Seth Rich, a DNC staffer who was murdered by an unknown assailant earlier that year, was the source behind the DNC emails, Assange responded that whistle-blowers are at risk. Assange's statement fueled discredited conspiracy theories surrounding Seth Rich. You keep making these accusations about my edit, without giving any grounding whatsoever. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Your version omits that Assange implied that Rich was the leaker, that he did so knowing that Rich was not the leaker, and that Assange was the main driver behind the Seth Rich conspiracy theory (which had up until Assange's remarks been a fringe internet conspiracy theory). This is what the version which actually adhered to RS and provided actual context used to say: "In a July 2016 interview, Assange implied that Seth Rich, a DNC staffer who was murdered by an unknown assailant earlier that year, was the source behind the DNC emails that WikiLeaks published and that Seth Rich was killed for doing so. WikiLeaks offered a $20,000 reward for information about Rich's murder. Assange spoke about sources bringing information to WikiLeaks in the context of Seth Rich, and stated that whistle-blowers are at risk. When an interviewer said that Rich died as a result of "just a robbery", Assange said "No. There's no finding".[263][264][265][266] Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report into Russian interference in the 2016 election said that Assange "implied falsely" that Rich was the source to obscure that Russia was the actual source.[267][268][269] Assange's claims were highlighted by Fox News, The Washington Times and conspiracy website InfoWars.[270][264] According to a study by Yochai Benkler, Robert Faris, and Hal Roberts of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, Assange's claims set off a spike in attention to the Seth Rich murder. According to the scholars, Assange's claims lent credibility and visibility to what had at that point been a conspiracy theory in the fringe parts of the Internet.[271] According to the Associated Press, the July 2018 indictment of 12 Russian officers by Special Counsel Robert Mueller undermined the idea that Seth Rich was the source for the DNC emails.[266]" Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

My version does, in fact, say that Assange's answer fueled discredited conspiracy theories about Seth Rich. My edit shortened the entire section on the 2016 US presidential election by about 50%, so of course it does not go into the minute detail that you want it to go into about Seth Rich. It gives the top line: Assange answered a question in a way that implied Seth Rich might have leaked the emails, and that fueled discredited conspiracy theories. A reader who wants more details can read the "Seth Rich" article, which is Wikilinked in my version. But in no way did I use "weasel language." I shortened the entire section, to bring it in line with the rest of the article, which had been substantially shortened. I closely followed the wording of the previous version, and made sure to include every major element included in the previous version. That's why your accusations that I used "weasel language" or engaged in "whitewashing" are so confusing to me - I followed the wording and elements of the previous version closely. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

As an alternative, we could create an article about Julian Assange interference in the 2016 U.S. elecions. Would you favor that approach? Without a link to some such detailed description of Assange's role, the "trimmed" wording is indead weasel and POV. SPECIFICO talk 21:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Snoogs makes the argument for DR by seeking to constrain the discussion to point to point discussions which is I think the overall issue of the article, in that the article is a hodgepodge of minutia about a quite notable subject. We should be able to do better, and DR is worth a try. This article seems to have pretty standard AP2 issues, with highly polarized sides pushing their POVs, thus an independent editor mediating might be able to sort through it pretty easily. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Last year I did a short survey of profiles of Assange and Wikileaks which indicated that US sources tended to see the 2016 US election as an important part of who Assange was, while non-US sources tended not to mention it all. I think we need to balance these different perspectives. Firstly, the 2016 U.S. presidential election does not need all those subheadings. Secondly, statements that Mercer "had proposed", Assange "met with dozens of people" are vague.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that all the subheadings are unnecessary. The shortened version I wrote compressed everything into one heading, and trimmed about 50% of the length.

I just want to reiterate, though, that Dispute Resolution would be useful here, so that we can address these issues in a structured manner. The first question to clarify, I think, would be the overall weight to give to various aspects of Assange's biography. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Then lets do it, and not have another rambling thread that goes nowhere.Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Reactions to the US indictment

The "US indictment" section has a long section called "Reactions to the US indictment" which documents reactions around the world. Maybe this could be moved to the "US indictment" article, with a summary left here.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems valid, if we have an article on it why not use it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

There being no objections, I have now done this.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I object and support the revert by Rebecca jones. Let's not pretend there is consensus to blank this content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Let's not pretend I didn't raise this issue a month ago.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Let's also not pretend the content has been "blanked". It is preserved in its intricate entirety at Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Assange is a controversial figure. Some paint him as a criminal and others as a hero. His criminal indictments speak for themselves, but the statements in his support are in many cases character statements by notable 3rd parties. They are not directly attributive to his arrest and moving them there in wholesale is inappropriate. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I didn't move them there wholesale. I moved them and left a summary here. If you think there needs to be more in the summary, sure, add it in, but we don't need everything here (and nothing there).--Jack Upland (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I have moved them again. No reason has been given why we need to duplicate this section here and at the Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange article. Reactions to the indictment are clearly relevant to that article. As far as I can see these "reactions" are not general statements of support (or condemnation). We have ample documentation of support for him, including his "Honours and awards". If there is any information that is wrongly labelled "Reactions to the US indictment" or which should be here for some reason, by all means move it appropriate place. But this should be done on a case by case basis. Duplicating absolutely everything is pointless.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Darouet has reverted this, without bothering to discuss it here. His edit summary says, "This was the stable version before edit warring, and we've agreed on the talk page we're going to use DR to decide what to remove". I can't see how it is "the stable version" as the page has been edited quite regularly all through May. The edit warring was initiated by Rebecca Jones, who has since been banned. I don't see an agreement on dispute resolution on the talk page. The discussion about dispute resolution came up in the "Page length" thread, which focussed on the 2016 US election, not on this section.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: it's being discussed below, and has been discussed multiple times on this talk page. I'm sorry that I missed this one thread, out of all the others discussing the same thing. I'm glad you found the threat below. -Darouet (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: I apologize, as I know you put work into this. Would you participate in DR? Your edits here can help as proposals for how to reduce article size. -Darouet (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy to participate, Darouet. Does this mean a moratorium on editing?--Jack Upland (talk) 02:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Jack — that is great that you'll participate. I think avoiding controversial edits just for now would be wise. -Darouet (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Starting again

I was going to reinsert edits that had been removed when we were taken a few months back in time. However, given the current glasnost I will list them here for comment first. No one had any issue with them when they were initially made:

• In the lead we have run the Clinton emails into the DNC investigation without any explanation. I suggest quarantining Clinton in her own paragraph away from everyone else and adding a sentence that "The emails had been released by the US State Department under a Freedom of information request". This is to reassure readers that her emails were not hacked. I suggest starting a new paragraph for the DNC material and introducing it with a sentence taken from the body "In July 2016, WikiLeaks released emails and documents from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) seemingly showing that the DNC favoured Clinton’s campaign and tried to undercut Bernie Sanders, leading to the resignation of party chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz".
• I suggest a slight expansion of a sentence in the "Iraq and Afghan War logs and US diplomatic cables" section to provide more information. I suggest replacing the sentence "Opinions of Assange at this time were divided. Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard described his activities as "illegal", but the police said he had not broken Australian law" with "Opinions of Assange at this time were divided. Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard described his activities as "illegal" but the Australian Federal Police said neither he nor Wikileaks had broken Australian law by publishing US government documents.

Burrobert (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I think until all the issues above (as in all the threads) a resolved it might be best to leave the article as it is. I would rather there was no possibility of anyone reinserting contested material (hence why I set it back a month). So lets have DR and try and resolve this all first.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree, lets do DR. Round and round in circles on this article. I support Burrobert's change suggestions as well. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the comment that he didn't break Australian law is pretty irrelevant and really an example of the kind of thing that shouldn't be in the article. It makes the article read like a high school student's essay arguing Assange is innocent. Unless you are a high school student, and a barrack room lawyer, the issue is whether Assange's actions were illegal under US law. If legal issues are raised in this article, they should be legal issues that are raised by real lawyers, preferably in real court cases that really involve Assange. Irrelevant, adolescent arguments just confuse readers and are a waste of space. Not only are they unencyclopedic, they are no help to Assange and are therefore pointless on every level.--Jack Upland (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not going to consider placing the changes into the article until this DR thing gets going. However, the lead about Clinton and the DNC will mislead readers until it is corrected in some way. Regarding Jack's comments about the AFP, I think the AFP's determination about criminality is quite relevant to Assange who is an Australian citizen. The statement says he is innocent of any crime under Australian law, it doesn't say he is innocent absolutely (who is?). I don't see that we need to restrict ourselves to US law. The issue of his criminality under Australian law did arise when Gillard accused him of criminal activity. The AFP determination had the effect of stopping any action that Gillard may have been planning against Assange. I believe she was looking at cancelling Assange's Australian passport but was told she had no grounds to do that.[3] Perhaps we need to add a mention of the passport issue to provide the gravitas to take the item from the schoolyard to the adult world where many of us live. Burrobert (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I would rather we just stopped editing until DR, so I oppose any changes to the article.Slatersteven (talk)

Fair enough. Placing powder in an air-tight container. Burrobert (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that what's in the article is misleading on this point. Gillard "said the government had believed it was appropriate to refer the matter to the federal police to see if there had been any breaches of Australian law" and the AFP said it "has not established the existence of any criminal offences where Australia would have jurisdiction".[4] As the source makes clear, there is really no contradiction between Gillard saying that what he did was "illegal" and the AFP saying that it wasn't in Australian jurisdiction. The AFP cannot make a "determination about criminality". All it did was provide "advice" to the government on "the material available". And let's not forget that Assange pleaded guilty to 24 hacking charges in Australia, and that related allegations have been unresolved. Declaring him "innocent" under Australian law is misleading. I am perplexed by the comment, "it doesn't say he is innocent absolutely (who is?)". There are many people (such as myself) who do not face criminal charges, and very few that have faced criminal allegations in multiple countries. The statement that he didn't face criminal charges in Australia in 2010 is hardly noteworthy. He didn't face criminal charges in Botswana in 2013. The fact that he is an Australian citizen is irrelevant. The issue was simply that he wasn't in Australian jurisdiction. Apparently, the Australian government considered cancelling his passport, but didn't for several reasons. The AFP apparently recommended cancellation on national security grounds as recently as last year.[5] Assange has had an eventful life. I don't think we should spend much time on what didn't happen.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess it wont hurt to continue the discussion while waiting for DR to start. Firstly, here are the quotes that I think are relevant and have been discussed in the media:

Gillard said:

I absolutely condemn the placement of this information on the WikiLeaks website – it’s a grossly irresponsible thing to do and an illegal thing to do.

The AFP said

The AFP has completed its evaluation of the material available and has not established the existence of any criminal offences where Australia would have jurisdiction.

.

• “I think that what's in the article is misleading on this point … As the source makes clear, there is really no contradiction between Gillard saying that what he did was "illegal" and the AFP saying that it wasn't in Australian jurisdiction.” I think you would need to expand on this as the two quotes seem to be clearly contradictory. What is the argument for saying they are not? If Gillard had only asked the AFP for advice on the criminality of Assange’s actions and the AFP had then given that advice there would be no contradiction. However, Gillard went further by calling Assange’s actions illegal either while waiting for the advice or prior to requesting it.
• “And let's not forget that Assange pleaded guilty to 24 hacking charges in Australia, and that related allegations have been unresolved”. I’ll ignore this as it isn’t relevant to the current discussion. Both points are already covered in the article.
• “Declaring him "innocent" under Australian law is misleading”. Our article currently says “but the police said he had not broken Australian law”. I proposed to change it to “but the Australian Federal Police said neither he nor Wikileaks had broken Australian law by publishing US government documents” which is more specific and accurate. “Innocent” doesn’t appear in either version. I don’t see anything wrong with the second version. The first version could be described as possibly misleading because it is incomplete.
• “I am perplexed by the comment, "it doesn't say he is innocent absolutely (who is?)". There are many people (such as myself) who do not face criminal charges, and very few that have faced criminal allegations in multiple countries”. My comment here was in reply to your statement that “a high school student's essay arguing Assange is innocent”. I thought you were referring here to innocence in the wider Graham Greene sense, rather than the narrower legal sense. I thought you were imagining a young, possibly Roman Catholic, student who sets out to show that Assange is beyond sin. Obviously I misunderstood your intention. I am sorry you took this as a personal accusation of criminality. In regards to the state of Assange’s soul, i haven’t seen any media comment on it so it is probably inappropriate to include anything about it in the article.
• “The statement that he didn't face criminal charges in Australia in 2010 is hardly noteworthy”. To have your Prime Minister accuse you of illegal activity by publishing documents and then have the AFP say that you had not done anything illegal by publishing documents seems quite notable to me. In fact to have your PM accuse you of illegal activity seems notable in itself even without the subsequent police advice. How often has this happened for example? It certainly provoked a lot of reaction in the media.
• “The fact that he is an Australian citizen is irrelevant. The issue was simply that he wasn't in Australian jurisdiction”. I don’t have legal training but think it is almost certain that you can break Australian laws from anywhere in the world. If you turn that around, isn’t that what is happening with the US charges. Assange is being accused of breaking US law and the fact he wasn’t in the US is considered irrelevant. The US is saying the world is its jurisdiction and every living person can be charged under US law.
• “I don't think we should spend much time on what didn't happen”. Happen in what sense? The PM did accuse Assange of illegality and the AFP said no. The AFP advice would be preserved in the official records.

Burrobert (talk) 05:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it is clear from the sources that Gillard (an experienced lawyer) was saying that what Assange did was illegal, not that he had necessarily had contravened Australian law. After all, Assange was overseas and had published US documents on a website whose server was based in Europe. If I — a fair dinkum Aussie bloke — go to the US of A and shoot a man in Reno just to watch him die, I haven't committed a criminal offence in Australia. But no doubt Scomo was say what I did was illegal, if questioned. In an international context, calling something "illegal" only means that it is illegal in some jurisdiction. It is meaningless to say that I haven't committed a crime in Australia, Iceland, or Monaco. I have committed murder in Nevada, and I can't be free. Generally speaking, you can't be found guilty of an Australian crime anywhere in the world. Australian citizenship is basically irrelevant. If I'm arrested in Reno, I won't get anywhere if I say, "G'day, mate, I'm an Aussie, and I haven't broken the law down under". I have broke the law of Nevada, and I'm headed for a Nevadan prison. The law is based on where you are, the jurisdiction. The American indictment against Assange rests on the claim he was instructing Manning, who was in the land of the free. Naturally, if I'm in prison in Nevada and give instructions to Adam "The Wombat" Henry to terminate the arse of Robin "The Birdman" Peacock and "The Wombat" shoots "The Birdman" in his humble abode in Lightning Ridge, New South Wales, Australia, then I am guilty of murder in Australia, as the act occurred in Australia. I am not guilty of any crime in America, even though I have been there the whole time. Needless to say, I have not done most of this stuff. My comment about a high school essay did not refer to a Catholic high school student. From a Catholic point of view, no one is without sin, and clearly Assange has lived his life in disregard of Catholic doctrines. My comment — which I think is valid about the article as a whole — imagines a leftish student who is writing an essay supporting Assange, who cobbles together a series of facts, such as: the AFP said Assange didn't commit a crime in Australia, a British tribunal said WikiLeaks was a "media organisation", Pamela Anderson said she loved Assange, Assange is a member of the journalist union in Australia, Assange was given asylum by Ecuador, Olympic gold medallist Zali Steggall supports Assange, the Yellow Vests support Assange, and Emma Arbuthnot, the Chief Magistrate of England and Wales and Berwick on Tweed, is married to (and presumably has sex with) a British Conservative MP. The problem is: firstly, this encyclopedic article is not an essay, and should not be trying to argue for any point of view; secondly, even if it was an essay, those random facts aren't really good evidence for anything in particular. Even if we were supporting Assange, those facts wouldn't really do the job. Arguing that they are facts, and that reliable sources support them, doesn't actually achieve anything. The problem is that these facts are basically irrelevant and trivial, and inserting them into the article makes it seem like a high school student's essay. I'm not saying that as a criticism of high school students — who are very useful in the marijuana trade — but Wikipedia shouldn't descend to this level. As the Ice Man said, if I wasn't in Reykjavík, I can't be in jail. But he's been in Folsom Prison since 2013. Don't make his mistake, kiddo.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

As Gillard’s defence barrister you have put an alternative scenario for the jury to consider. Would the jury think it reasonable that when the leader of a country says one of its citizens has acted illegally, without further clarification, that leader is referring not to her own country’s laws but to another country’s laws? You may have put reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury. However, in the court of Wikipedia your argument suffers from two problems. I haven’t seen any reference in which Gillard claims that is what she meant. I haven’t seen any reference saying anyone else interpreted her words in that way. As a result, we need to keep to what has been written about it, which is that Gillard meant Australian law. If you can find a reasonable reference that supports your alternative theory, perhaps we could consider including it in the article. If Gillard had said that “Assange had acted illegally according to US law” then this would also be notable enough to include in the article. Either version reflects badly on Gillard. It is a serious matter for the leader of a country to say one of its citizens has acted illegally before charges have been laid.

Moving from Gillard’s defence barrister to Assange’s prosecutor you state that you charged him because Manning was in the US even though Assange wasn’t. You state that you wouldn’t have charged Assange if Manning had lived in, say, Australia at the time Assange was in contact with her. I don’t find this argument very convincing. Firstly, I haven’t seen any reference that has made this argument which is what counts for Wikipedia. However, if we disregard Wikipedia, we still need to consider your actions in charging Nicolas Maduro , Kim Dotcom , Lauri Love and countless extraordinary renditions.

You also tried your hand at defending yourself against a variety of crimes which you committed outside of Australia. Not having any legal knowledge I duckduckgo’d this question and found a reference about acts which Australians can commit overseas and which would constitute a crime under Australia law. “There are a whole host of offences contained in legislation such as the Criminal Code Act 1995 that apply even if you are overseas.

• One example is the law against child sex tourism. This is a crime whether or not it is treated as a crime in the country where the offence was committed.
• Engaging in military operations overseas is another crime that can be prosecuted in Australia.
• One of the more recent, and controversial, anti-terrorism laws that is currently being debated seeks to introduce ‘no go’ zones. Travelling to one of those areas will be an offence under Australian law – unless you can prove that you travelled solely for a legitimate purpose such as to provide humanitarian aid, visit a family member or for journalistic purposes”.
• Moving away from provincial Australia, there is the case of the Indictment and arrest of Augusto Pinochet I believe there are some countries that Tony Blair is careful not to visit for the same reason.

These examples from Australian and international law show that an act can be committed in one country and be a crime in another. It seems that the place in which an act occurs does not necessarily determine where that act is considered a crime.

Burrobert (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Is there a source that says that Gillard meant that Assange had broken Australian law? The fact that she asked the AFP to clarify the issue implies she wasn't sure. I can assure you that many Australians refer to acts commited overseas as "illegal" even if they were not subject to Australian law, e.g. the killing of George Floyd. I have never claimed to be prosecuting Assange, and your argument is wrongheaded. I was merely stating what I believe the prosecution case to be. Referring to other cases is a red herring. I am well aware that there are a handful of instances where acts overseas are deemed crimes under Australian law, but I don't use Duckduckgo because I am an innocent man. I have never tried to defend myself against accusations of a crime, and I think you have entirely missed the point.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• "Is there a source that says that Gillard meant that Assange had broken Australian law? The fact that she asked the AFP to clarify the issue implies she wasn't sure. I can assure you that many Australians refer to acts committed overseas as "illegal" even if they were not subject to Australian law, e.g. the killing of George Floyd".

The point about which country’s laws Gillard was referring to is probably not particularly important. The articles I have seen assumed that she meant Australian law. For example the SMH reference states that the AFP said no oz law was broken and then says: “This comes despite Prime Minister Julia Gillard labelling the actions of the group "illegal" two weeks ago”. I think referring the matter to the AFP would have been necessary as I don't think she is allowed to handle the case herself while she is PM. She would have been too busy with other things anyway. Whether she meant the act was illegal under oz law or under Botswana law doesn’t matter because the way we have written the sentence doesn’t specify which country’s law is being referenced. We have kept her phrasing. As I said in an earlier edition, the remark is equally notable no matter which country she meant.

• "I have never claimed to be prosecuting Assange, and your argument is wrongheaded". - Sometimes I do get the wrong end of the woomera. Thanks for pulling me up.

• "I don't use Duckduckgo because I am an innocent man": I think you are foolhardy if you think being innocent will always protect you. I can give you a list of innocent people who have been persecuted if you like.

• "I was merely stating what I believe the prosecution case to be. Referring to other cases is a red herring. I am well aware that there are a handful of instances where acts overseas are deemed crimes under Australian law. … I have never tried to defend myself against accusations of a crime, and I think you have entirely missed the point".

Yes I may have missed your point. When you mentioned those people killed by X in Australia while X was in gaol in the US, I thought you were saying that the location of the act determined where the act was considered a crime. I thought you were making a case to support your theory that Gillard couldn’t have been referring to Australian law because the act didn’t occur in oz. Anyway, as I mentioned above, the country she meant doesn’t matter for us.

Burrobert (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this thread? You've all enthusiastically said you want DR. That was several days ago. Nobody has made a DR request. Meanwhile you're going back and forth among a handful of the thousand or so editors who watch this page, many of whom would have to accept invitations to the DR for it to achieve any standing. SPECIFICO talk 15:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

We are just standing around chatting while waiting for this DR experience to begin. Burrobert (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Cool. I'm standing around waiting for my dog to whistle Dixie. We'll see which happens first. SPECIFICO talk 18:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Just, for clarification, yes, the location of the act generally determines the jurisdiction in which it is considered a crime. For example, if Johnny Cash shot a man in Reno, he should have been in a prison in Nevada, not in Folsom Prison, which is in California. (Cash didn't understand copyright law either.) In Assange's case, the Sydney Morning Herald reported, Based on the information available to date, the federal police has not identified any criminal offences where Australia has jurisdiction and as a result have not commenced an investigation... (my emphasis).Therefore, it is erroneous to imply that Assange had somehow been "cleared".--Jack Upland (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing up that point about Johnny Cash. It was a bit obscure the first time around. Had always assumed the song made sense but I have almost no knowledge of US geography. With regards to Assange being cleared, our current statement and my proposed alteration are fairly close to what the sources say. No charges had been laid at the time Gillard made her pronouncement so to mention guilt as Gillard did or innocence would be reckless. We currently say “Opinions of Assange at this time were divided. Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard described his activities as "illegal", but the police said he had not broken Australian law". I proposed being more specific by changing the sentence to: "Opinions of Assange at this time were divided. Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard described his activities as "illegal" but the Australian Federal Police said neither he nor Wikileaks had broken Australian law by publishing US government documents”. Burrobert (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

But there is no "division of opinion" between Gillard and the AFP.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the part about opinions being divided refers to the whole paragraph which mentions Biden calling him a terrorist and others calling for his assassination and execution. Burrobert (talk) 03:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The context implies there was a division of opinion between Gillard and the AFP, which is false.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Reword it. Or break it into two sentences. Separate the sentences with other reactions. Place the AFP's response before Gillard's to disconnect the two statements. Remove the initial statement "Opinions of Assange at this time were divided." Change the "but" to an "and" in the second sentence and let readers decide how the two options are related. Both parts of the issue are notable - that Gillard described Assange's actions as illegal (whatever she meant by that) and the AFP said it had identified no criminal offences under Australian law. Burrobert (talk) 10:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Piling on

• The US Department of Justice revealed the new indictment on Wednesday, intended to “broaden the scope of the conspiracy”
• On Wednesday, the indictment was expanded to accuse him of conspiring with a hacking collective known as LulzSec in 2012, which was “cooperating with the FBI” at the time, directing them to hack specific targets.
• WikiLeaks “obtained and published emails from a data breach committed against an American intelligence consulting company by an ‘Anonymous’ and LulzSec-affiliated hacker,” the DOJ said in a statement.

Burrobert (talk) 09:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, should be added.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Patrick Cockburn

Editor may be interested in reading Patrick Cockburn's recent article in the LRB. It doesn't provide any new information but editors can compare his thoughts with what we have included in our article. Burrobert (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

References

One hour

The latest one hour show had a segment on Assange during which Andrew Wilkie and Stella Morris were interviewed. Some of the information is already in our article but there are other parts missing, e.g. Background on Morris and details of Assange’s relationship with Morris. Some quotes:

• “I hope many people would agree when an Australian is overseas and in strife, there is at least a moral obligation on the Australian government to come to their aid whereas in this case, the Australian government has basically hung Julian Assange out to dry, being more interested I think in cow towing to Washington as is the case with the British government,” he said.
• But MP Andrew Wilkie says the allegation of espionage is complete and utter nonsense. “The substantive issue is that Julian Assange revealed hard evidence of US war crimes, in Iraq and Afghanistan, of the inhumane treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay".
• It reports that the CIA surveilled Assange 24/7 in the embassy, including on privileged conversations with his lawyers; that the CIA plotted to kidnap Assange, poison him and steal one of his boy’s diapers for DNA to prove it was his child.
• She describes plots to kidnap Assange, poison him, steal the couple’s oldest son Gabriel’s dummy and nappy to collect his DNA to prove the 48-year-old Aussie was the boy’s father – even allegations his confidential appointments with doctors and lawyers were spied on by the CIA inside the embassy.
• “I don’t want our lives to be determined by an incredible injustice. I have the certainty of his love, and he has the certainty of my love. We have an incredibly strong bond,” Stella said.
• his sons were snuck into the embassy with the help of British actor Stephen Hoo who pretended to be the boys’ father.
• There was even a plot to obtain the DNA of three-year-old Gabriel by stealing his dummy and nappy to prove the boy’s parentage. Whistleblowers tasked to obtain the items told the couple they were working for the US secret service.
• Describing the moment Assange was arrested at the Ecuadorian Embassy in April 2019 and taken into police custody, she said: “We knew it was coming, but I never thought it would be as brutal and as brazen as that.”
• Stella, an accomplished legal researcher who previously worked for the United Nations, met Assange when she joined his team working on helping to clear his name.
• The first time she got pregnant, she had to write it on a piece of paper to tell him as there were “microphones everywhere”.

Burrobert (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

So what new does this add?Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

There is a fair amount of biographical information in the articles that doesn't appear in the Wiki bio. One example, is the five year relationship between Assange and Stella Moris, to which we devote two sentences: "In 2020, Assange's fiancée, South African-born lawyer Stella Moris-Smith Robertson, announced that the couple have two children together, conceived during the time he resided in Ecuador's London embassy and she was handling his legal interests. They began a relationship in 2015 and have been engaged since 2017". Burrobert (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Ahh, care to suggest an addition?Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Here is one example of what can be constructed from the various articles:

===Relationship with Stella Moris===

Assange first met Stella Moris, a legal researcher who has worked for the United Nations, in 2011 when she joined his team and was asked to look into Swedish legal theory and practice.. They commenced a relationship in 2015 and became engaged in 2017. They have two sons, Gabriel and Max, both conceived while Assange was in the Ecuadorian embassy. Assange and Moris kept their relationship secret as they believed Moris and the children would become targets if their relationship became known. When Moris became pregnant with Gabriel she informed Assange by writing it on a piece of paper as there were “microphones everywhere” in the embassy. Gabriel was able to visit Assange at the embassy with the help of British actor Stephen Hoo who pretended to be the boys’ father. Both Assange and Moris have described a plot by the US secret service to steal Gabriel’s nappy in order to conduct a DNA test to prove paternity. Assange and Morris were aware that he was about to be removed from the Ecuadorian Embassy and taken into police custody. Moris eventually revealed her relationship to Assange in April 2020 when she made a court statement asking for him to be granted bail.

Burrobert (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Unsure about the nappy stuff, its a bizarre but serious allegation. It might to to put stuff rather less in our voice (so to speak).Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes this is mainly coming from interviews with Moris so any contentious material should be described as “Moris said ... “ or something similar. I think there is enough material there to create a section about their relationship. However given the current moratorium on editing it will need to wait. Burrobert (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

How did they have sex? Did they write it down on a piece of paper too?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

What?Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

If we are to believe that Moris had to tell Assange she was pregnant by writing it on a piece of paper because there were microphones everywhere, how did she get pregnant? She and Assange must have had sex in front of all those microphones. How could this relationship be "secret"? We know Assange's meetings with Pamela Anderson were recorded. I think this story has major gaps in it.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Which is why it needs to be written with great care, its what she claims.Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

We already have a section Surveillance of Assange in the embassy which I think is excessively long. I don't support a second section which goes over the same ground. I don't support relationships having separate sections. I think they should be integrated into the article as they occur, so that the reader can interpret them in context.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you only referring to the part about how Assange was notified of Moris' pregnancy or do you think there other gaps? I don't care where the information is placed. However, a 5 year relationship involving our main character which has so far resulted in 2 children deserves more than 2 sentences. Burrobert (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

No, the major gap in the story is how this relationship was kept secret (if it was).--Jack Upland (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think I understand what you are saying. Are you able to elaborate? Does it affect the way in which we can report the relationship? Burrobert (talk) 09:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I think I have elaborated it enough. Perhaps too much.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

No offense Jack, but it's sort of comical to demand an explanation of how human sexual relationships could be confidential. Furthermore, a relationship can be kept secret from the public even if its participants are under surveillance from the CIA or FBI (e.g. the FBI's interest in King's adultery). -Darouet (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

You have misunderstood what I said.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Doctors for Assange

We don't need the details of five letters written by Doctors for Assange. Nor do we need to know their numbers. In fact, seeing as the group is so small and apparently none of them have medically examined Assange, I don't know why we need to mention them at all.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

another question for the RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we have reached that point where we assign weight yet. Burrobert (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I feel there's a need to condense all the Doctors for Assange info in the Imprisonment in the UK section into a couple of lines. On 16 December, in the absence of a reply from the UK government, they wrote to Marise Payne, the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs. needs to removed, letter in the Lancet paras need to be condensed to a single line. - Harsh 21:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I've considerably condensed the content related to Doctors for Assange, without missing out any key info already present earlier. Removed some citation overkills (where there were already more than three different sources). - Harsh 22:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

That's an improvement, but I still think there's way too much.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Dispute resolution started

Hi All, I made a post at DRN, here: [6]. Please feel free to join if you're interested, or let me know if you're not. Valjean and Bodney: I apologize for not adding you, but feel welcome if you're interested. -Darouet (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I am puzzled by this. Why are you asking editors to notify you? SPECIFICO talk 13:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain what's "puzzling" about this? -Darouet (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

What the RFC should say. It should not say that in one camp they want to say X and in the other they want to say Y. It is not that clear cut, with many of us think the whole article is overly long and need major trimming. Also a DR on multiple issues will be hard to manage, the volunteer will have to try and juggle and follow 15 different arguments. If we do there need to be clear subheadings laying out the actual conflicts (rather than vague assertions like (including the UN), as far as I know I have never said we cannot include official UN statements).Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: this is productive, thank you. We'll work here to prepare for the RfC. -Darouet (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I am a volunteer on the DRN board- I wanted to come and make a suggestion- if you do decide to re-open the DRN at some point, It would be helpful to us if you could make a bullet list of the issues- objectively (so just the topic, not the arguments on each side ie: *The age of Nightenbelle as opposed to *Side A says Nightenbelle is 37 and side B thinks she is 38) If this list is longer than 2-3 items, perhaps prioritize which are the most important so we can tackle chunks at a time rather than getting muddled trying to solve too much at once. And- if certain editors are only concerned about certain issues- this would also help reduce the number of people involved at any given time. Of course- this is just a suggestion, and hopefully your RfC will resolve things well anyway. Good luck to you all! Nightenbelle (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

DRN was short lived :-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Subheadings

Inclusion of material about the 2016 election

Inclusion of material about Russian link

Inclusion of opinions of non UK/UK/Oz politicians

Inclusion of opinions of Oz politicians

Inclusion of opinions of non UK/UK/Oz press

Inclusion of opinions of Oz press

Inclusion of opinions of UK/UK/Oz human rights organisations

Inclusion of opinions of non UK/UK/Oz human rights organisations

Inclusion of opinions of UK/UK/Oz press freedom organisations

Inclusion of opinions of non UK/UK/Oz press freedom organisations

Inclusion of official UN position

Inclusion of opinions (this would include all the opinion subheadings above)

The doctors letters

Iraq and Afghan War logs and US diplomatic cables

US criminal investigation

Swedish sexual assault allegations

Asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy

All other leaks

Relationships whilst in the embassy

Any more?Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Slatersteven: I'd recommend replacing "non UK/US/Oz" press with "Global" press, so that almost every country on earth isn't defined by a negative.

We also need a big picture discussion about overall Due Weight in the article. I don't think any editors are suggesting for instance that all material about the 2016 election, or about a Russia link, be removed. Instead, the question is how much weight should be afforded to that issue versus others?

I think we need a section on how international and national human rights and press freedom organizations view and have commented on Assange's case. E.g. the ACLU, HRW, the UN... etc. -Darouet (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I say UK/UK/Oz because the inclusion of the opinions of the UK and US press have (as far as I know) not been challenged and so is not an issue. feel free to add any question you want, I am only adding those where I think I know the question, I cannot know what you think the issues are.Slatersteven (talk)

As to weight, this is just the headings, we can then put our arguments as to what we think the issue is.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I think we should draw up a list of the major aspects to be included in the article, and when be begin DR, start by coming up with a rough apportionment of weight (or article space) between the different aspects. @Slatersteven: You've already hit some of these aspects above, but I'll try to fill them out in a bit. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

These are just headings, section titles. Lets decide on what we are going to ask about before we start to ask.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Can we delete all these sub-headings and just summarize? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: I think it's good to use them, since Slatersteven has developed a list, and this was also recommended by a DRN volunteer. -Darouet (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Darouet: Is the idea to use subheadings to allow for NPOV? Is that the approach? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

What is happening with this DR?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Nothing as we are still trying to sort out a way to have it where we are discussing specific issues not vague concerns. Any volunteer who tries to sort this out does not want to read walls of text, they need clear concise arguments. No its not about making it NPOV, its about making it readable.Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I think inclusion of opinions should be condensed into one subheading.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean, we just discus everything in one?Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the inclusion of opinions is one topic. Maybe you can look at subtopics under that, but fundamentally it is one topic.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

OK.Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

We can do things hierarchically, determining allocation of weight to broad categories first (e.g., early life, Wikileaks, asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy, the Swedish investigation, the US charges and extradition battle, opinions on Wikileaks/Assange/legal battles), and then determining weight within those categories afterwards (e.g., within "Wikileaks," how much weight to give to the diplomatic cables, the 2016 election leaks, etc.). -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Before you put too much effort into this please keep in mind, once again, that you will need to put your drafts up to the larger group of editors to demonstrate consensus. This exercise is not going to change the fact that most of the views expressed so far are unlikely to achieve consensus for article text. SPECIFICO talk 18:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Since a fortnight has passed, I think it's reasonable to ignore the DRN proposal and keep on editing as normal.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Or we go with what we have?Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Let's not drop this - we should actually sort out the major issues of contention, rather than letting the same arguments continue indefinitely. Slatersteven, what do you think about my proposal to arrange the subheadings hierarchically? We can determine weight for high-level headings first, and then determine weight for sub-headings afterwards. If you're okay with that idea, we can work out the high-level headings here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Given we cannot even agree on weight even I would suggest alphabetically.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay. There are a few more subheadings that we should consider, then:

• Iraq and Afghan War logs and US diplomatic cables
• US criminal investigation
• Swedish sexual assault allegations
• Asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy
• All other leaks

Anything major that I missed? -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

If this DR does happen we'll also need a discussion of Assange's personal relationships while in the embassy. -Darouet (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

So which of these do we discus, please put a list?Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Harry Dunn

I was reading the Harry Dunn page and found that his parents had contacted the UK government about Assange's extradition. "On 23 February 2020, the Dunn family urged the UK government to refuse the extradition request of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange which was made by the US government until they returned Anne Sacoolas back to the UK. They accused the US government of hypocrisy and said that the US had launched an attack on the Special Relationship between both countries."

Once we get things up and running again, perhaps we could consider adding a sentence about this. Any thoughts? Burrobert (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

It has had some coverage, but not sure its really relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I've seen this in the news as well, but compared to all the other larger issues that we've chosen to keep out of the article, this is a pretty minor one. -Darouet (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Right-o. Burrobert (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Re: Seth Rich conspiracy theory

It seems that there's no realization in the public consciousness that you cannot upload to wikileaks unless you are using a privacy protecting system such as TOR; this is an intentional design. The exception is when there is too much data, in which case they then setup some other way to upload the data. This should be clarified in this section. Family Guy Guy (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Source?Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Keystone courts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possibly not unique [[7]].Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

What does this mean?

What are these sentences referring to?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is anyone awake?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Reminder

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"In November 2010 a Swedish prosecutor based in Gothenburg acting on a request made by a political colleague, lawyer and friend reopened an investigation that had been closed in Stockholm." are facts referred to in the same BBC Source [8] Except for the relationship between Anna Ardin's lawyer/political candidate Claes Borgstrom and Prosecutor Ny that was not reported. Claes Borgstrom has a wikipedia page as well.

"After some weeks Prosecutor Ny gave Assange permission to leave Sweden." [9]

During the flight from Stockholm to Berlin Assange's checked in luggage was stolen." [10]

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

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

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

Swedish sexual assault allegations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interesting Jack please specify the whole article title.

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

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

Interesting Jack thanks for the response.

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hearings on extradition

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

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

I suggest something like this: Assange's extradition hearings have been delayed due to requests for extra time from the prosecution and the defence[11] and due the COVID-19 pandemic.[12]--Jack Upland (talk) 03:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dead Mary's recent edits

After Jack Upland's monthlong effort [13] to reduce the size of this article, Dead Mary has selectively restored [14] a great deal of material about the 2016 elections. Dead Mary's edits bloat this section, giving it weight that is WP:UNDUE in the context of Assange's whole life and current prosecution:

• The BBC's recent summary articles on Assange at the time of his arrest don't mention the elections once [15][16].
• The Guardian doesn't mention this either [17].

The sole case against Assange for the 2016 elections was thrown out of a US court [18]. Since those Guardian and BBC overview pieces were written, coverage of Assange has been dominated by his indictment under the US Espionage Act of 1917:

• The Columbia Journalism Review calls his current legal predicament a terrifying threat to press freedom [19], and
• The New Yorker calls it an offensive on the first amendment [20].

Media discussing Assange today or introducing him to readers don't discuss the 2016 elections. For this reason, adding back all this content [21] after Upland trimmed the whole article [22] — he also removed a lot of "international support" for Assange — has turned Assange's biography into a WP:COATRACK to recapitulate the 2016 US elections. Some amount of material should obviously be there, but what Dead Mary has added is far too much. -Darouet (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Assange is mainly known for 3 things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can use Google Trends to track interest in Assange over time: [23]. The four largest spikes are around the time of Wikileaks' 2010 publications, Assange's arrest in the Ecuadorian embassy in 2019, the 2016 elections, and when Assange entered the Ecuadorian embassy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

... Alleged to have been stolen by the Russians. Perhaps, in the long term, we'll find that Craig Murray was telling the truth, that they were given to Wikileaks by Democrat insiders "motivated by 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.'" (the first results from a Google search: [24][25][26][27][28][29]) Do you think it's possible that your own edits might reflect a bias towards the viewpoints or versions of events you believe to be true?     ←   ZScarpia   13:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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