Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 40

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Archive 45

Legal Issues

I think the whole legal issues section is set up wrong. The article was better with the bits separate and they are starting to include stuff that is better covered in other articles. The bits should be separated out into the chronological order they were originally and bits removed and links and summaries used more. - not start duplicating stuff unnecessarily.

Th section starts off with stuff from his youth in Australia before Wikileaks so it looks like he was doing it as part of Wikileaks. The early life section covers that and it should not be duplicated.

The US criminal investigations section is another articl being written within the Assange article and it mixes up different bits of the timeline badly. The articvle is not about the American investigations, it isabout Assange. The correct article for that stuff in that way if any is the arrest and indictments one.

The Swedish sexual assault section should also be placed back in the timeline. Anyway it is assaults not assault since the two women cam together to make the allegations. There is an article about this which can be linked to if one just wants to look at this in isolation and not in the context of JUlian Assange's overall timeline.

In all I just find this very annoying. Wikipedia is supposed to be collaborative, not people come along and rewrite articles acording to their on ideas, and it is annoying too that some people seem to have all day and endless energy to make things worse. There's lots of new things that could be written about instead of trashing other people's work. NadVolum (talk) 11:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes Nad, the changes are coming thick and fast. Burrobert (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Th section starts off with stuff from his youth in Australia before Wikileaks so it looks like he was doing it as part of Wikileaks. It says it was 20 years before WikiLeaks was founded so I dont think it looks like that, but we can move where the section is if that will help

The bits should be separated out into the chronological order The Swedish sexual assault section should also be placed back in the timeline. So you want to rename it to US legal issues or something?

not start duplicating stuff unnecessarily What was duplicated? Softlemonades (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I see what has happened. I basically was ignoring the 'Legal Issues' section header in the past because it was a reasonable description of the part of the timeline where the US started investigating him in earnest and when the sexual allegations were made. You took that header and treated the section as if it wasn't describing a part of the overall timeline but was a catchall for any legal issues irrespective of what was in the sections around it. Sticking in the hacking from his youth there did that. Yes removing that bit about hacking - which is already in the section about his youth anyway - would restore that bit of the article to something sensible. The section header 'Legal Issues' is I guess an invitation to do that sort of thing but really it is not about legal issues but a period of his life where legal issues became prominent. It is rasonable to include smaller things a bit out of timeline in a section which is more about that sort of thing like some of the stuff in the later publications section overlaps later stuff, but that is really a question of balance - a very strict timeline would also be unreadable. The youth business from years before though was just too far out of line and not really linked to anything else in the section.

So sorry for the misunderstanding, but yes I really do think the business of the hacking before founding Wikileaks belongs wholly in the Erly life section. NadVolum (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I disagree but I understand and obviously the consensus is to put it back

but was a catchall for any legal issues irrespective of what was in the sections around it yes

Id like to suggest one or two subsections for Early life, because he obviously did notable things before WikiLeaks Softlemonades (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I self reverted and made a subsection in Early life called Hacking, programming, and early activism Softlemonades (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. A number of citations there look like primary ones rather than secondary,primary sources shouldn't be used unless a secondary source backs up that they are of some interest. If the book says he contributed to a number of systems citing the book. Voice harvesting patented in 1999? Britain had been doing that with recognizing words of interest since they brought in packet switching! NadVolum (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

A number of citations there look like primary ones rather than secondary Im looking for more sources for that section to try to expand and improve it. If you want to tag anything that needs a better source, I can look for that too Softlemonades (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I think I found what you mean and didnt find a fix right away so I tagged them for now. i dont object to anyone changing the tags if theres a better way Softlemonades (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The sexual assault in the LEDE is undue, particularly the first sentence which was absurd. Some discussion might be due in the article body. On other articles we have removed it entirely when there is no conviction and everything was dropped (per WP:BLP). Essentially at this point it was only sexual assault allegations which the court eventually didn't pursue, thus grossly undue for the lede and probably undue for the article body. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The court dropped it because it was too old to pursue, and hes very famous for the accusations. Taking it out of the lead, which should summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies, would be wrong, and removing it from the body would be especially wrong. It was international news for 8 or 9 years, the news still talks about it and its probably the most famous sex assault case this century Softlemonades (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Not remotely true. This isn’t one of the most important points. He’s famous for publishing leaked documents. If not for that, in all likelihood there would have been no newspaper coverage of the allegations whatsoever. I agree with Jtbobwaysf . Cambial — foliar❧ 02:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes hes most famous for publishing leaked documents but the second and third most known things about him are the legal cases, and this is obviously a prominent controversy Softlemonades (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors dont get into why the court dropped it, that is irrelevant. You can read this thread about a similar BLP issue Talk:Alan_Dershowitz#Source_falsification. At this point in time it seems in relation to Assange all we had were allegations on the part of a prosecutor and the allegations were not even substantiated by the supposed victim (or she retracted it). You wont find much support for weight given to this, its a BLP issue and I dont feel the need to keep repeating it as you will not find support for going against BLP policy on this article. The article subject is mostly known for his legal battle with the US, the whole trivia relating to the likely false accusations related to the supposed sexual assault have no place here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it can be dropped from the article but it could probably be reduced quite a bit in coverage here and referred to the article about it for more details. I think the lead saying once about sexual misconduct is about the right description and amount for what is alleged to have happened. It has been rather newsworthy, not least because of what he did about it. An alternative is to not have the other article and keep the details here but I would much prefer this article was cut down overall as it is rather large. NadVolum (talk) 11:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Id be fine with reducing some of the details of the case, like about trying to question Assange and the video link Softlemonades (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Assange and Australia

Perhaps this warrents its own article. The views of various (!) PMs is notable, from Gillard to Scomo to Light and breezzzzzzzzzzzzy Albanese. More pwer to ya Albo! Albo is now calling for A's release! 'Bring him home!' shout the Aussie mob, as if A has ever canvassed a return to Aus... Jack Upland (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Why only Australia? Softlemonades (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Who said it was only Australia? Australia because JA is well-known in Australia, being an ex-pat citizen. I hope to split off some material from this page and add m details. For example, mining the excellent Robert Manne article. Talk about Alison Broinowski and the party. I am currently working on the article in my SANDBOX.--Jack Upland (talk) 15:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Who said it was only Australia? You named the page you linked Assange and Australia, so I thought you meant only Australia. Will wait and see what you mean Softlemonades (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC

Do we need an article on this (what is it even about)? Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

See the page above. The Pamela story can be shifted to the new article. This is an idea that has been percolating in my seedy brain for yrs. I have long wanted to split the article, as you know. There are pertinent facts in the Manne article that have not been included here for reasons of length. I am Australian, as is Burrobert and A may be the most famous Australian ever. But that's no interest to you. Assange was a Senatorial candidate once, but there's no room to discuss it. Operation Samsonite is now in operation.--Jack Upland (talk) 15:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean "see the page above" this does not tell me why we need a page, especially, about Assange and Australia.And what the hell is operation samsonite? Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Most of Early Life and Australian reactions can be moved to the new article. The incident with Pamela Anderson can be moved to the new article (see discussion above). The rattlesnake can be moved there (see previous discussion). Operation Samsonite was something I proposed last year to try to break the log jam. Forget about it! But this will be a positive change. Don't condemn it till you see my draft!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

So it is a content fork, to just have stuff rejected from here? What do most of that stuff tell us about Assange, why do we even need to know what Ms Anderson thinks (for example)? Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

No, it's not. Did you know that Assange was homeless and hospitalised at the time of his custody battle? Did you Pamela hit the headleines in Australia? Did you know that George Christianson supports Assange being released? No, and you don't care. But me and Burro do. We seem to have constant battles (e.g. on the Rattlesnake incident) which was important in Australia (sort of), but largely irrelvent to the rest of the world (naturally). This is a WP:SPLIT. Early Life, Australian Reactions, and paragraphs from Health and Appeal and Further developments will be drastically cut down. With a link to Main Article Australia. Finally can I say that, while Wikipedia is American it is not solely for Americana. If the new article is created, you can ignore it...!--Jack Upland (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

And this is Wikipedia not Assangepedia, we do not need to know everything about his life (or claims about his life). Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Please remember it's dawn in Australia.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Take your time theres no deadline Softlemonades (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm off to church, anyhow.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest Julian Assange in Australian politics as a suitable title. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

So do we have any assessments on his impact on Australian politics? Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm wrong, and Burrobert is right. It belongs in Reception of WikiLeaks. Because Americans say that A is a fascist, but many political conscious Australians, including conservatives, see A as a Australian hero. Australia is supposedly a close US ally, so this is relevant... Also, how can A's underlying health problems be irrelevant? We have had so many fruitless debates about his health, including about his mini-stroke and his psychiatrist being dishonest...--Jack Upland (talk) 01:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I am confused, what has his health conditions got to do with Australian politics? So I ask again, what impact has HE had on Australian politics, has he influenced any elections, has he had any impact on government, actions? Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, he almost became a Senator. The new Albanese govt now has a policy quote unquote to "bring him home". I agree this is misguided, but this whole article is about misguided activism. His whole appeal is based on underlying health conditions, as well you know. I agree with Burrobert (previously) that this really belongs in the Reception of WikiLeaks article, for JA is still a 'hero' in 'Oz'! Which is why John Pilger etc can't stop banging on about it. This is an old but very good idea. Move all the info (basically) about JA in Aust to the Reception article, which is a longstanding and much neglected article, which badly needs an update. The issue is that JA is now the most famous Aussie! There are so many PMs that even Australians can't remember, as the BBC has reported. This may be irrelevant to Americans, but Australia, JA's homeland, considers the man to be a hero. And now PM Albanese agrees. This leaves the US with a very sticky wicket. I have always agreed that this article is bloated. Let the Aussie stuff float away to the Reception article. This is a very old and very good idea.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

How close did he come, how did he poll (I have looked and this is the best I can find about polling numbers, and it is not an election https/news.sky.com/story/wikileaks-assange-in-australia-poll-setback-10448583 says only 15 % like him). Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Finally managed to dig something up, he did not come close, he, in fact, was less successful than Ricky Muir from the Motoring Enthusiasts Party. Mr. Muir, who won just 0.5 percent of the vote, is most famous for having posted a video on YouTube of himself having a kangaroo feces fight with friends. Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

And Muir was a Senator.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I think this proposed article is really about Australian perceptions. Australian supporters believe that the Australian govt can intervene with their great and powerful ally — the USA — and "bring Assange home". I understand that an American doesn't care about what's happening in a relatively small country. Sure, if Assange had become a Senator that wouldn't have meant he was immediately released, but it would have been embarrassing for the Australian government — which is presumably why Assange did this.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Have a draft? Softlemonades (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but not enough citations & really needs more work.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Though I think this proposed article would be interesting and revealing, I am increasingly pessimistic about it ever being accepted as an article.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

And on reflection, the Senate bid is adequately covered here, and in the WikiLeaks Party article.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

reparations or fine

@NadVolum, you changed the text back from reparations to fine for the hacking charges. I forgot to add the source for reparations to that sentence when I changed it, but I did that now. I didnt revert your edit because you put it back to what it was before, and two sources say "fine" instead. I think we should go with the more specific source and the others weree using general words, but I dont know whats the safer BLP choice especially since its been challenged

Whatever you think is fine, but since I made a mistake and forgot the source before I wanted to explain

Justice Ross said he was satisfied Mr Assange had not used his skills for personal gain and so he would not hand down a jail sentence, instead ordering him to pay a reparation order of $2100. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/nation/assanges-hacking-offences-laid-bare/news-story/044734e903cfb6fc25617239a47de97a Softlemonades (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

It seemed unlikely to me to be reparations as working them out with some sort of reasonable justifiation would I'd imagine cost more than that. And who would they go to? A$100 each? I don't have access to that article but I'm happy if you think it is a definitive source. Just other sources talked about a fine as opposed to a reparation. Or perhaps by reparation they simply meant a fine for an offence which didn't have a set fine. NadVolum (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Or perhaps by reparation they simply meant a fine for an offence which didn't have a set fine. That makes sense. I think it can stay "fine" unless someone finds other sources or thinks it has BLP issues

But I thought I should explain since I made a mistake and forgot the citation Softlemonades (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

wikileaks doesnt know chat logs

@Burrobert https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julian_Assange&diff=1141661680&oldid=1141659695

Quite relevant given the previous sentence involved "chat logs between Manning and someone they claimed was Assange".

The previous sentence said Assange said that WikiLeaks has no way of knowing the identity of its sources and that chats with sources, including user-names, were anonymous.

Whats the connection? Theres no doubt it was Manning. Assanges quote doesnt say WikiLeaks has no way of knowing the identity of staff members

Did i misunderstand something? Softlemonades (talk) 05:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The U.S. says it knows who Manning was chatting to. Assange says chats are anonymous. Burrobert (talk) 06:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I started to reply but decided to check the original quote was http://web.archive.org/web/20110526224759/https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/wikileaks/interviews/julian-assange.html

our technology does not permit us to understand whether someone is one of our sources or not, because the best way to keep a secret is to never have it. We are dealing with intelligence agencies that are very sophisticated. So instead of keeping source identity secret, we simply do not collect them at all, even in the first place.

Yeah, our help desk has a completely anonymous chat. It's anonymous to us. The usernames are anonymous and so on.

But theyre the help desk chat or wikileaks chats, theyre jabber chats https://www.wired.com/2011/12/manning-assange-laptop/ Softlemonades (talk) 07:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Interesting point. Hadn't noticed the difference. Then the sentence about WikiLeaks having no way of knowing the identity of its sources is not relevant at that point of the article. It is relevant to the section that deals with the nature of WikiLeaks' operation, so we should move it there. Burrobert (talk) 12:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Btw, we should mention that the government witness who examined Manning's computer and who identified the chat logs said that the chats "never show the WikiLeaks chief urging the young soldier to upload more documents for publication". Burrobert (talk) 12:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, that is also relevant. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

"fabrication about judge"

@Cambial Yellowing please check the sources and self revert. And please stop making false accusations like "fabrication" in Talk or edit summaries Softlemonades (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I haven't made an "accusation" of any kind. Please refrain from claiming I have done so. The content is not supported by the source. It does not say the judge "initially thought" anything, so the article saying he did is unsourced content. This is a biography of a living person, so it was removed immediately. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Content

The judge called the charges "quite serious" and initially thought jail was necessary

Sources

The judge, who initially thought a jail term was necessary, noted Assange had not been able to obtain formal educational qualifications, but said he could have put his intelligence to better use and he hoped the court case would send him on a better path.

He was fined several thousand Australian dollars - only escaping a prison term on the condition that he did not reoffend. Softlemonades (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@Softlemonades: I was looking at the BBC article you placed after that specific claim, which discussed this point (the judge's comments), but says something different. Evidently this was in the The Australian article. Can I ask why you added the BBC article? - that was confusing when it was cited mid-sentence for this specific claim but it doesn't support the content. I left just the source that does support it and added an archive for verifiability. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I left just the source that does support it and added an archive for verifiability. Thanks

Can I ask why you added the BBC article? I thought it offered secondary support because it talks about how he narrowly escape jail but Im ok to remove it

Can I ask why you didnt look at both sources before calling it a fabrication? Even when I asked and said there was more than one?

Can I ask why you called it a fabrication instead of neutral language and assuming good faith? Softlemonades (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

In your partial restore you rephrased it and removed that it was lenient https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julian_Assange&diff=prev&oldid=1141745503

Convicted but leniently treated is from the guardian article at the end of the sentence Softlemonades (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I do not have access to The Australian as it's paywalled/gdpr'd here. As there was a BBC article cited for this specific claim (i.e. mid-sentence) I looked at that one. It says the judge ruled that he was escaping a prison term on the condition that he did not reoffend. which is a different description.

I take the term fabrication as neutral language for anything that does not appear to be supported by the source. It doesn't indicate any kind of assumption. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Re: "lenient"; we should avoid editorialising, making value judgements such as this, and simply state what the facts are. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Were not editorialising or making value judgments, The Guardian published analysis in an article. Theyre an RSP and it wasnt an editorial or an opinion column. The facts are a reliable source decided it was lenient Softlemonades (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian article is indeed considered a reliable source, as you say. I don't dispute that. But whether something is lenient (or harsh, or "just right", etc) is a value judgement. It's not a fact, like "he was fined 2100 dollars" or "the judge said he would have been jailed if he thought there was malicious intent". We could include a "Guardian described it as lenient" but I think it's better just presenting the facts. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Then we would attribute it, but it is not a misrepresentation by either the source or an editor. Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

If you think a user has accused you of lying take it to wp:ani, not here. Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree we shouldn't say the judge was lenient.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Response to Melzer

@NadVolum The response to Melzer was DUE and RS. Like I said at Talk:Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority#"No_one_disagrees" Melzer responded by saying he agreed with their legal opinions.

We shouldnt cite his report but not mention the 300 experts that criticised it. Softlemonades (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The criticism had nothing to do with Assange or the treatment of Assange, it was of Melzer himself. How many perople complained about Melzer is irrelevant. NadVolum (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

It wasnt of Melzer as a person, it was of his report, his approach, his understanding of the case, his handling and his legal theory Softlemonades (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

And that is about Melzer not about Assange. was there anything saying he was wrong in what he said about Assange's treatment? What do you keep on trying to put in irrelevancies into a BLP especially one that is quite large like this one? NadVolum (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

There were things he was wrong in what he said about Assanges case, but I guess if anyone else agrees with me theyll say so Softlemonades (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

If we refer to his report we also should refer to criticism of it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

The article only refers to what he said about Assange's health and treatment. The criticism was not about that. The article is not about the report or Melzer, it is about Assange. Exactly why should this article refer to criticism of the report when the criticism is not about anything that is included in this article? NadVolum (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

That is a reasonable point. A significant portion of the lead about the election leaks that Assange was involved in publishing was deleted recently because it didn’t mention Assange. The same applies here. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Fair. Then theres more we can trim and leave for the other articles, like After previously stating that she could not question a suspect by video link or in the Swedish embassy, prosecutor Marianne Ny wrote to the English Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in 2013. Her letter advised that she intended to lift the detention order and withdraw the European arrest warrant as the actions were not proportionate to the costs and seriousness of the crime. In response, the CPS tried to dissuade Ny from doing so arguing the costs weren't a factor. Softlemonades (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

That whole section can be cut down drastically, there's an article dealing with the details. It is however missing a reference to his entering the embassy, that would be a duplication but can refer to the next section for details. NadVolum (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Degree edit

@Jack Upland I dont object to the removal but Im not sure you saw the source was the TIME article

•Assange studied math and physics at the University of Melbourne, though he dropped out when he became convinced that work by others in the department was being applied by defense contractors and militaries. Softlemonades (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the TIME reference. I think there are several problems with that reference. First, which department? Second, what about his studies at Central Queensland University? Third, did he have other reasons to drop out? Fourth, which militaries? This seems to me to be a throwaway line. I guess Assange said that once, but I don't see any reason to believe this is the only story behind his university studies.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good, from the edit summary I wasnt sure if you saw that reference so I wanted to be sure. Softlemonades (talk) 11:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Trimming things

Because of general consensus from Talk:Julian_Assange/Archive_39#Why_list_things_Assange_wasnt_actively_involved_in? and Talk:Julian_Assange#Response_to_Melzer that GoodDay put as this BLP is suppose to concentrate on the person. For example - We wouldn't want the page to become a second Wikileaks page, Im gonna trim some stuff that doesnt mention or isnt really about Assange and should be covered in other articles like WikiLeaks List of material published by WikiLeaks Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority Surveillance of Julian Assange and the Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange

I think the goal is to get the page closer to other CEOs and publishers, which dont include all the stuff the company did on their page. Looking at Bill Gates and Elon Musk, its just milestones and things they did personally

We have lots of other pages to include it on and some of the COATRACK gets in the way of the biography of Assange, and some of its been tagged diff of trim

Things I think we should trim or re write to be smaller but didnt want to without discussing first

Extended content

Assange's lawyers invited the Swedish prosecutor four times to come and question him at the embassy, but the offer was refused. In March 2015, after public criticism from other Swedish law practitioners, Ny changed her mind about interrogating Assange, who had taken refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. The UK agreed to the interview in May awaiting Ecuadorean approval. These interviews, which began on 14 November 2016, involved the British police, Swedish prosecutors and Ecuadorian officials, and were eventually published online. By that time, the statute of limitations had expired on all three of the less serious allegations. Since the Swedish prosecutor had not interviewed Assange by 18 August 2015, the questioning pertained only to the open investigation of "lesser degree rape". I think it just needs to be re written and smaller. The UK government wrote to Patiño, saying that the police were entitled to enter the embassy and arrest Assange under UK law. Patiño said it was an implied threat, stating that "such actions would be a blatant disregard of the Vienna Convention". The Australian attorney-general, Nicola Roxon, wrote to Assange's lawyer saying that Australia would not seek to involve itself in any international exchanges about Assange's future. Prime Minister Julia Gillard said the Australian government had no evidence the US intended to charge and extradite Assange at that time, and Roxon suggested that if Assange was imprisoned in the US, he could apply for an international prisoner transfer to Australia. Assange's lawyers described the letter as a "declaration of abandonment". WikiLeaks insiders stated that Assange decided to seek asylum because he felt abandoned by the Australian government. Assange had lots of reasons and we cant give them all this much space. Did he even say it? On 5 February 2016, the UN's Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concluded that Assange had been subject to arbitrary detention by the UK and Swedish Governments since 7 December 2010, including his time in prison, on conditional bail and in the Ecuadorian embassy. The Working Group said Assange should be allowed to walk free and be given compensation. The UK and Swedish governments denied the charge of detaining Assange arbitrarily. The UK Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond, said the charge was "ridiculous" and that the group was "made up of lay people", and called Assange a "fugitive from justice" who "can come out any time he chooses", and called the panel's ruling "flawed in law". Swedish prosecutors called the group's charge irrelevant. The UK said it would arrest Assange should he leave the embassy. On 1 March 2016, 500 prominent Assange supporters, including Nobel prize winners, politicians and human rights organisations, signed an open letter accusing the UK and Sweden of undermining the UN. Mark Ellis, executive director of the International Bar Association, stated that the finding is "not binding on British law". US legal scholar Noah Feldman described the Working Group's conclusion as astonishing, summarising it as "Assange might be charged with a crime in the US. Ecuador thinks charging him with violating national security law would amount to 'political persecution' or worse. Therefore, Sweden must give up on its claims to try him for rape, and Britain must ignore the Swedes' arrest warrant and let him leave the country." Its long and barely about him, but its important, but if we have it we have to have the reaction and analisis In September 2016 and again on 12 January 2017, WikiLeaks tweeted that if President Obama granted Chelsea Manning clemency, Assange would agree to US extradition. After commuting Manning's sentence on 17 January 2017, Obama stated that Assange's offer had not been a consideration and WikiLeaks tweeted that Assange was "still happy" to agree to extradition if his rights were respected despite Obama's statement. Assange said the decision to grant Manning clemency was an attempt to "make life hard" for Assange and make him look like a liar. One of WikiLeaks' lawyers, Melinda Taylor, said Assange would stand by the offer, and WikiLeaks tweets suggested he was ready for extradition. Assange faced pressure to agree to extradition, but retreated from the offer. WikiLeaks lawyers Melinda Taylor and Barry Pollack said that the clemency didn't meet Assange's conditions and Manning should have been released immediately. I dont know if it fits in Indictment and arrest In August 2017, in the midst of the Qatar diplomatic crisis, Dubai-based Al Arabiya said Assange had refrained from publishing two cables about Qatar after negotiations between WikiLeaks and Qatar. Assange said Al Arabiya had been publishing "increasingly absurd fabrications" during the dispute. Is there secondary coverage or something I dont know? In February 2018, after Sweden had suspended its investigation, Assange brought two legal actions, arguing that Britain should drop its arrest warrant for him as it was "no longer right or proportionate to pursue him" and the arrest warrant for breaching bail had lost its "purpose and its function". In both cases, Senior District Judge Emma Arbuthnot ruled that the arrest warrant should remain in place. I dont think we should list every failed court case especially if it doesnt have another appeal or bigger impact like extradition Most cases brought under the Espionage Act have been against government employees who accessed sensitive information and leaked it to journalists and others. Prosecuting people for acts related to receiving and publishing information has not previously been tested in court. Gabe Rottman from the the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said there were a few occasions when the U.S. government had almost charged a journalist under the Espionage Act, but had decided not to proceed. He mentioned the case of Seymour Hersh, whom the Justice Department decided after consideration not to charge for reporting on US surveillance of the Soviet Union. Buzzfeed News wrote that lawyers to whom it had spoken said there was only previous case in which third parties were prosecuted for sharing leaked information. In that case, two lobbyists for a pro-Israel group were charged in 2005 with receiving and sharing classified information about American policy toward Iran. The charges, however, did not relate to the publication of the documents and the case was dropped in 2009. Id trim this because its about the case not him but it was just edited and re added with my consensus We could trim all of the reaction to the indictment and replace it with a summary and put it all at the Indictment and arrest page

Softlemonades (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

• When you trim something that you believe is more appropriate to Wikileaks, can you make sure that the text is in the WikiLeaks article. If it is not, please copy it across before deleting it from Assange's bio.
• You have placed an unreliable source tag against the Daily Maverick with an explanation. The situation is fairly clear. Arbuthnot's family has connections to the intelligence services and defence industries which were impacted by Wikileaks publications. Assange's lawyers complained about her potential bias. Arbuthnot stepped away from the case. A spokesperson said she was aware of guidelines on "avoiding the perception of bias and is not hearing the case". The Daily Maverick interprets this to mean she stepped down because of a perception of bias. The Intercept wrote that "she withdrew from the case for what she told Private Eye magazine was a "perception of bias" ". There is not much difference in interpretation between the two. If you want to change the wording to "avoid a perception of bias", go ahead, since it has the same meaning. If someone "avoids a perception of bias" by not hearing a case, then a "perception of bias" exists while that person is hearing the case.
• Have you considered cutting down the bloated section on 2016 U.S. presidential election?
• The following seems to be an assessment that Assange revealed crimes and was the target of crimes:

"the crimes that have been revealed by Assange, and the crimes that have been committed against him, in turn".

• Manning's assessment is that Assange "expose[d] ... serious, ongoing, and systemic abuses of power by this government".

Burrobert (talk) 05:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Have you considered cutting down the bloated section on 2016 U.S. presidential election? Yes I think it needs it, but edits about the election create debate and I didnt want to do things that I knew people would want talk about first

When you trim something that you believe is more appropriate to Wikileaks, can you make sure that the text is in the WikiLeaks article. If it is not, please copy it across before deleting it from Assange's bio. Sorry Softlemonades (talk) 06:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The following seems to be an assessment that Assange revealed crimes and was the target of crimes: I just dont think this is an assessment. Consensus will decide

Manning I still think its about grand juries and the movement in general.

The wrong source was cited so we need to find where the quote froms and get all the information Softlemonades (talk) 06:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Your mission, Softlemonades, should you choose to accept it, is to tackle the 2016 U.S. presidential election section. Don't be afraid. Burrobert (talk) 06:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I tried https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julian_Assange&curid=26033941&diff=1142233876&oldid=1142225854 Softlemonades (talk) 06:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Well done. There was still plenty of spare flesh to cut. Burrobert (talk) 08:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

'The perception of bias'. That's a good one. I would have thought she should have recused herself. Judge Baraitser reports to her and was mentored by her during the extradition trial. NadVolum (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes need to be especially careful when removing things which aren't covered in other articles. But overall yes I think the article is still a bit large but I think a reasonable size considering the size of the area to be covered. Perhaps the assessments section could be a separate article with just a short note here saying there's been a large number of wildly different opinions giving perhaps one example of each extreme. The honours and awards could be covered in the same article. There would be space then to try and make the article more readable without actually adding material. NadVolum (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I think spinning out the assessment would be a good move.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

References

It looks like the lead section is too specific about all the legal charges. Even though they are important, they have taken over the entire summary. General assessment about Assange as a person should remain in this article. Senorangel (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Reverting appeal update

An appeal update was added by @Manmaruda and then reverted by @Cambial Yellowing with the explanation WP:SPS are never acceptable for BLPs. It should be restored for a few reasons.

1 SPS doesnt say it cant be used for BLPs, it says Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people. This was about an appeal decision, not about Assange

2 SPS says Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications and the source counts

3 Verifiability. The post gives a link to a tool and the case number so anyone can look it up. The tool doesnt let us link directly to the results or we could use that. Softlemonades (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

If this is official why have not third-party RS picked up on it? Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I dont know but it is listed https://app.echr.coe.int/SOP/index.aspx?lg=en Application number: 34859/22 Softlemonades (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

"This was about an appeal decision, not about Assange" – an appeal decision about Assange. That level of sophistry does not merit an extensive response. As this is a BLP, we do not use a Mastodon post as a source. It's concerning, but unfortunately not surprising, that you think such a post acceptable. Because of the bar on use in BLPs, whether the source is an expert is not relevant; but the individual Daniel Burnet/Emma Best has no recognised expertise in any subject. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Please keep comments civil and not about other editors

an appeal decision about Assange The appeal is about Assange, not what was reported. Nothing about what the appeal said or its implications for Assange were in the text added by the original editor.

Emma Best is a journalist that has broken news about WikiLeaks before Softlemonades (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Since this is clearly accurate info and not a BLP violation (nothing negative), we can link to the European Court of Human Rights website and decision. This is an acceptable use of a primary source. Here's the ref. Now just figure out the text we'll use and add it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Now added by User:Softlemonades. I think we are done here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Alternative Facts

Does the column 'A Letter from Washington' in Harpers by Andrew Cockburn count as opinion or news? He has one on Assange in Cockburn, Andrew (10 February 2023). "Alternative Facts: How the media failed Julian Assange". Harper's Magazine. NadVolum (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Well as he is the editor, I would say opinion. Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, opinion in a RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Everythings an opinion or mentions other reporting as a source Softlemonades (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I would say an opinion.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

In absentia

1. Chronology: "27 September 2010: Julian Assange is arrested in his absence."
2. November 18, 2010: "The Stockholm Criminal Court on Thursday issued an international arrest warrant for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on probable cause, saying he is suspected of rape, sexual molestation and illegal use of force. The court also ordered Assange arrested in his absence, which requires Swedish authorities anywhere in the world to detain Assange if they come across him. Sweden's director of prosecutions, Marianne Ny, had requested the arrest in absence."
3. December 2, 2010: "The Stockholm Criminal Court two weeks ago issued an international arrest warrant for Assange on probable cause,...The Swedish court ordered Assange, 39, formally arrested in his absence, which requires Swedish authorities anywhere in the world to detain Assange if they come across him. Sweden's director of prosecutions, Marianne Ny, had requested the arrest-in-absence."

In absentia is the key term we're looking for. A suspect can be indicted in absentia. A person can even be tried in absentia. I suspect that the Swedes meant "indicted in absentia, but without the original, which I can read, I can't be sure. Please find the original. Unless we can come up with better than what is written in the sources, we should quote them "arrest-in-absence". I have tweaked the wording to the following:

• Assange left Sweden on 27 September 2010 and an international warrant for his "arrest-in-absence" was issued the same day.[the same 3 sources]

How's that? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Original Swedish Julian Assange anhålls i sin frånvaro. https://www.aklagare.se/nyheter-press/for-media/assangearendet/kronologi/ Softlemonades (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, the translation is very literal, so no need to change what the sources say. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Conviction in lead

Two weeks ago, I added Assanges conviction to the lead, as the second sentence. Cambial reverted it, saying it was inappropriate as second sentence of lead.

Looking again, I agree. So today I re added it in the second paragraph, in time order. I think this is ok and belongs and isnt a violation of the topic sanctions for the page. But to be safe I self reverted and decided to bring it here Softlemonades (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Per REFACTOR, I replaced your links with actual diffs of each edit so we can see them, rather than the whole page, which tells us little. I think it's good and should be restored. Should I do it? Ping me. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Valjean: sounds good Softlemonades (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and restored your good content. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing Why did you remove Assanges conviction from the lead again with the edit summary "section should establish notability" ? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julian_Assange&diff=prev&oldid=1146298676

Does Assange appealing extradition establish notability or summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies? Being denied bail? The Belmarsh prison category?

Thats not a reason to take it out, and his hacking was very notable which is shown in that section.

It seems extra wrong to take it out after others put it back in, and others edited it. This seems like edit warring again Softlemonades (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

We need to establish some consensus as to where this should go, and whether it is significant enough to mention in the lead. Apart from anything else, placing it as the second sentence using the phrase "previous conviction", before even mentioning what makes the article subject notable, creates a non-sequitur and is completely inappropriate. Assange is notable for starting Wikileaks, as seen in almost every RS to discuss the subject. Cambial — foliar❧ 01:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

We need to establish some consensus as to where this should go, and whether it is significant enough to mention in the lead. Editors already agreed it should be in the lead and restored it after you deleted it last time. Saying We need to establish some consensus as to where this should go isnt a reason to remove it without discussion, especially when theres a discussion on the talk page that was going against what you want.

placing it as the second sentence using the phrase "previous conviction", before even mentioning what makes the article subject notable, Then you should have moved it back, not deleted it

Assange is notable for starting Wikileaks most notable, hes also notable for hacking and sexual assault. The hacking has lots of sources, including Wikileaks, that say hes one of the most famous hackers in australia. Softlemonades (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

One editor replying to your post is not an establishment of consensus, Softlemonades. He’s notable for Wikileaks. The other allegations you mention were reported on because he was already famous, not vice versa.

Cambial — foliar❧ 14:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

And a second editor edited it, like I said and linked.

But even if its not consensus, an editor replying to the post and restoring the content means you should at least reply and not just remove it again

He’s notable for Wikileaks. The other allegations you mention were reported on because he was already famous, not vice versa. He was famous for hacking before Wikileaks, Cambial. Thats why The Age has photos of it, like I said in the infobox discussion. And the Guardian said by 1991 he was the most accomplished Australian hacker. And either way, hes known for it now because RS reported on it Softlemonades (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

This should make it easy. According to WikiLeaks, As a teenager he became Australia's most famous ethical computer hacker.

So he was famous for hacking before WikiLeaks, and the judge mentioned his ethics in sentencing Softlemonades (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Rather than a whole sentence, let's just put "convicted" in the first sentence, as in "is an Australian editor, publisher, convicted hacker,..." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Im ok with that. See Talk:Julian Assange#Is a hacker in lead too Softlemonades (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

References

RFC infobox

Should the infobox include Assange pleading guilty to 24 hacking charges? Softlemonades (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Background (infobox)

• In 1991, Assange and two other hackers conducted "massive attacks on the US military". Later that year he was discovered hacking a Canadian multinational telecommunications corporation. In 1994 he was charged with 31 counts of hacking and related crimes. In December 1996, he pleaded guilty to 24 hacking charges. The judge called the charges "quite serious" but gave Assange a lenient penalty due to his disrupted childhood and the absence of malicious intent.
• WikiLeaks called him Australia's "most famous ethical computer hacker", and said he "hacked thousands of systems, including the Pentagon" when he was younger.
• The Guardian said "By 1991 Assange was probably Australia's most accomplished hacker. ".
• The Sydney Morning Herald said he was one of Australia's "most notorious hackers"
• The New Republic said the experience of hacking and his conviction "set him on the intellectual path that would lead him to found WikiLeaks."
• Julian_Assange#Hacking,_programming,_and_early_activism has 20+ sources about his hacking including video interview
• RFC two years ago non admin close to not use. Most No votes cited notability or said charges were minor
• It was notable at the time and made the news. Profesional photos were taken by The Age and I remember TV coverage was mentioned somewhere

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Softlemonades (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• All of the sources referenced above are from 2010 or later, with the single exception of a Wikileaks page from 2007. They discuss events from nearly two decades earlier. There was no Julian Assange page on Wikipedia until February 2010. There is no evidence these events contribute towards the article subject's notability. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  So it passes the WP:10YEARTEST. Good point.

  There is no evidence these events contribute towards the article subject's notability I guess if you ignore the quotes saying the opposite. He made the news at the time but its not on the internet

  There was no Julian Assange page on Wikipedia until February 2010 There was no Wikipedia until 2001. Would have been weird if he had an article in 1999. Softlemonades (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  if you ignore the quotes saying the opposite. It's not possible to ignore something that doesn't exist. Various quotes indicate he is well-known, and that he is a hacker. They do not state his notability stems from a hack in 1991. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  By 1991 Assange was probably Australia's most accomplished hacker. Softlemonades (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• No, as we can't overload the infobox with everything about him. Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  How is his affiliation with WikiLeaks Party, which failed no one has heard of unless they already know he ran it, more relevant than his giulty plea and experience with the law that set him on the path that led him to the path of starting wikileaks? Softlemonades (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  It may not be, but that is the subject for another discussion, two wrongs do not make a right. Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  If one meets the standard than the other does too. Everyone is quick to bring in outside examples to set the standard in the last RFC. Why not Assanges own infobox?

  So far your reason is the only one that works, even if I disagree with the standard Softlemonades (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  I did not add it, I have not objected to removing it, so I am applying the same standard. Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Survey (infobox)

• Support per notability established by WikiLeaks, The Guardian and The Sydney Morning Herald and others Softlemonades (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose It's not clear why having this information in the infobox would be useful. The information is included in the article. Why does it need to be in the infobox? Nemov (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  You could say that about everything in the infobox Softlemonades (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose infobox summarizes that primary data in an article. Assange is not at all known for his long ago guilty plea for hacking. Not even remotely due to in the infobox. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose As Nemov and Jtbobwaysf point out, the purpose of the infobox is to summarize key facts in the article. An event from the subject's early twenties which did not give rise to any notability for the subject is in no way a key fact or a relevant fact for the infobox. Snow is falling. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  1. which did not give rise to any notability isnt the purpose of the inbox its to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article

  2. It put him on the intellectual path that would lead him to found WikiLeaks

  3. I added to the background to show that there was news about it at the time Softlemonades (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, summarizing key facts is what I said in the first sentence of my comment. This isn't a key fact, so it doesn't belong in the infobox. Sean Wilentz thinks it set an "intellectual path", but that isn't relevant to inclusion. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• I am unsure another photo in the infobox adds anything. Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  What? Thats not what this is about Softlemonades (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Then why is it titled Photot in an RFC about the info box? What is this about? Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Thats my fault. Sorry. I copied the example formatting and forgot to change that part. Softlemonades (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose does not really seem a major part of or article or his life. Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  It has more coverage and sources in the article than his citizenship, where he was born, his spouses, the wikileaks party, and his awards, all are in his infobox Softlemonades (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Assuming that is true, much of that is what we would expect in a biography, details about him, as a person. But I would be happy to see much of it removed as an irrelevance, and likely puffery. This is not (however) a reason to add more irrelevancy. Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree that this is irrelvant but I appreciate your constance Softlemonades (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support as it was a pivotal event in his life and people still refer to him as a "hacker" on account of this.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose There's no need to bloat everything in the article. He was let off with a fine - and we know he also helped the police on another matter. It isn't really all that relevant to his later career. NadVolum (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  For what its worth he was let off with a fine because he had a bad home life. He faced 10 years and the judge was going to send him to jail, said it was serious Softlemonades (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

He was fined period. A judge always tells a teenager that what they did was serious. He was not sent to jail. We go by what happens in the real world. NadVolum (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Thats fair standard. I just wanted to make sure you knew about the source. Thanks Softlemonades (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, not of primary importance to be included.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, as others have said, not of sufficient importance, even if we do accept the premise that it "set a pattern". Pincrete (talk) 06:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  Where does the "set a pattern" come from? Didnt mean to argue that, do I need to clarify something? Softlemonades (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  2. It put him on the intellectual path that would lead him to found WikiLeaks Pincrete (talk) 10:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose; not remotely key to his notability; I just looked at a handful of randomly-picked news articles about Assange, none mention this; see WP:10YT. DFlhb (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

  Random articles dont mention lots of things. If you look at Background, 10YT is more than met. Softlemonades (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment; We can include hacker under occupation, if that is meant to cover his past too. Highlighting only the charges against him seems not balanced. Senorangel (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (infobox)

• Hes most famous for WikiLeaks but hes still famous for other things, especially in Australia. Infobox includes date so theres no confusion Softlemonades (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Softlemonades (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• After reviewing the previous RfC I believe this RfC should be withdrawn. I don't see a compelling argument here to reopen this issue. Nemov (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  The section has been expanded a lot, has many more sources and notability is much more established than two years ago Softlemonades (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  The coverage of what happened in the 1990s hasn't changed in two years. He's not notable for those events. This RfC is a waste of time. I would caution you to avoid WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion. Nemov (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  The coverage hasnt changed but its more clearly shown. 2x as much. Same with importance.

  Your point about bludgeoning is taken, but responding to a call to close the RFC isnt wrong Softlemonades (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Is a hacker in lead

The first sentence says Assange is a hacker. Is that appropriate for something that happened a long time in the past before he became famous for Wikileaks? NadVolum (talk) 10:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Hes one of the most famous and notable hackers in Australia, according to multiple sources, including Wikileaks. Softlemonades (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

MAybe, but this is not a newspaper-style leader, it is a summery of the important parts of OUR article. Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Which has a big section all about it and the legal case. Julian_Assange#Hacking,_programming,_and_early_activism

That section has more information and more importance that the type of prison Belmarsh is, the name of the judge in his extradition case, the dates of extradition case details, or that leaks came from Chelsea, which we all include in the lead.

This is one word that has a lot more information and relevance than any of that, and taking it out of the lead leaves the reader with a lot less information about Assange than they would have with it Softlemonades (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

something that happened a long time in the past before he became famous for Wikileaks?

If it helps, he became famous for hacking first, then a lot more famous for Wikileaks. And RS still call him a hacker. The New York Times review yesterday wrote The documentary insists that the computer hacker, who’s accused of publishing classified government documents Softlemonades (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Two more recent allegations of Assange hacking or being a hacker that are mentioned in the article

In 2014, the company hired to monitor Assange warned Ecuador's government that he was "intercepting and gathering information from the embassy and the people who worked there" and that he had compromised the embassy's communications system

In late May 2017, President Moreno said that Assange was a "hacker" Softlemonades (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The intercepting and gathering information was about a briefcase found in his room with listening equipment. It isn't as though there haven't been enough spies around the place that I don't know what to make about it, after all there were lots of other listening equipment and cameras in his rooms. It was not hacking though nor has there been any substantive allegations of hacking. Have there been any halfway substantiated reports of him actually hacking anything since the business in Australia? Otherwise we should say that he did some hacking in Australia rather than that he is a hacker and it shouldn't be in the first line. NadVolum (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

You skipped over the second part of the quote that he had compromised the embassy's communications system

Have there been any halfway substantiated reports of him actually hacking anything since the business in Australia? RSes call him a hacker, and he called himself a hacker after starting Wikileaks https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/julian-assange-i-am-ndash-like-all-hackers-ndash-a-little-bit-autistic-2358654.html

Otherwise we should say that he did some hacking in Australia rather than that he is a hacker and it shouldn't be in the first line. Then we shouldnt say hes an editor or activist anymore either, since he isnt. The timeline about hacking was a lot clearer before Cambial deleted it again Softlemonades (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The bit about compromising the communications is from documents and sources that wish to remain anonymous, and is denied by Wikileaks. We really need somebody to actually say it rather than have 'the source claimed'. NadVolum (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

{It was reported by a RS and In late May 2017, President Moreno said that Assange was a "hacker" Softlemonades (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

What was reported was that an anonymous source said it. I'd hope for at least some backup like a second source or a copy of a bit of a document. That hardly is halfway good evidence he was doing it. He was being monitored all the time, don't you think the Equadorian embassy woulldn't know or be able to complain about it? NadVolum (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

In fact considering that the Americans were willing to try and use Siguder Thordarson to testify that Assange did hacking so they can get their case through don't you think it just a little strange that they haven't found good evidence for it? And should we assert something in the first line that is the basis of the case against Assange without having reasonable evidence? That doesn't sound exactly in line with WP:BLP to me. NadVolum (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

See also #Conviction in lead. While this is primarily about his early hacking: "In December 1996, facing 10 years in prison, he struck a plea deal[72] and pleaded guilty to 24 hacking charges." mention in the lead can cover all other later hacking any later alleged hacking activities, if they happened (I don't know). He is in deed a hacker. The rules for LEAD require that we mention something about this in the lead because it has a whole section on his early hacking activities. Using "convicted hacker" in the lead seems to cover that whole section and topic of hacking. It's a simple fix, so let's get it done and move on. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

What later hacking activities? NadVolum (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I should say "alleged" hacking activities. I didn't read what you discussed above very carefully, but didn't you discuss allegations of hacking later on at the embassy? That's what I meant. I'll add that now. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

done Softlemonades (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

At least it doesn't say he is currently a hacker though I wonder about the grasp of logic some people have. The Guardian described him as a teen hacker but I can live with what's in the lead. NadVolum (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• I suggest we continue to use REMOVE hacker as one of his titles. Its common for BLP to have multiple titles. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

That is the core of the American case against Assange. I think asserting he was a hacker in the last twenty or so years is tantamount to saying he is guilty of what he is charged with and that comes under WP:BLPCRIME. NadVolum (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

So far we don't have any content here that asserts "he was a hacker in the last twenty or so years", do we? We would need sourcing to do that. Just saying he's a hacker is a fact. That's what he was first known for. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by a fact. If a person does a murder thirty years ago yes they are a murderer, and I think it is in that sense you are saying Assange is a hacker. However if there was another current case against the person then saying they are a murderer would relate to the current case and is an accusation rather than a fact - and that would definitely be covered by WP:BLPCRIME. As it is the Guardian said he was a teen hacker and we've no halfway reasonable evidence of him doing any unauthorized intrusions into computer system=s since, and things like the Equadorian President calling him a hacker don't change that. NadVolum (talk) 09:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian reporting on accusations are evidence otherwise. It might be anonymous sources but the Guardian is an RS. Its as reliable as the Yahoo reporting about CIA plans. More reliable since its a better RSP than Yahoo Softlemonades (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Yahoo had multiple sources and we've got Pompeo calling for criminal prosecution of the leakers rather than denying it. And source, not sources. NadVolum (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

A case where The Guardian says they had multiple sources is for Manafort meeting Assange at the embassy three times. Like to check up on the general assessment of that story? NadVolum (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Good point, when theres reason to challenge the anonymous sources used by RSes then its challenged by other RSes, not by editor OR or opinion Softlemonades (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Correct. In the absence of other RS contradicting or correcting The Guardian, we use them. Doing otherwise would be OR manipulation of what the RS says. We can't do that. "Verifibility is truth." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying not to use them in the article. I'm saying there is very reasonable doubt about what they said and by WP:BLPCRIME we should not be saying Assange is a hacker. The article lead writer was the same one who wrote the business about Manafort and who also said that Assange said 'Well, they're informants so, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it' at a dinner, which is also pretty definitely untrue. NadVolum (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

1 Assange calls himself a hacker.

2 BLPCRIME says A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Assange has been convicted.

3 Saying someone is a hacker isnt calling them a criminal. A hacker is a person skilled in information technology who uses their technical knowledge to achieve a goal or overcome an obstacle, within a computerized system by non-standard means. Though the term hacker has become associated in popular culture with a security hacker – someone who utilizes their technical know-how of bugs or exploits to break into computer systems and access data which would otherwise be inaccessible to them – hacking can also be utilized by legitimate figures in legal situations. Softlemonades (talk) 04:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

To make it even less odious, we are not saying he's a "hacker". We're saying he's a "convicted hacker", which implies he is no longer hacking. It's a very different meaning than just "He's a hacker." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Right. And anything else isnt labeled, its described with context, details and sources outside the lead.

BLPCRIME is already over used to spend more time on Assanges conspiracy theory explanation for the Swedish charges then mentioning or even linking to what those charges are, we dont need to remove mention of the things he was convicted of Softlemonades (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I hadnt considered NadVolum (talk · contribs)'s point on BLP. I am also ok with it being removed and revise my position. Certainly im opposed to current lede with "convicted hacker" which is absurdly undue Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Ive struck my initial comment above Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Valjean (talk · contribs)'s comment that it makes it less odious by adding an adjective (convicted) is laughably false Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

He plead guilty to dozens of hacking offenses. Hes a convicted hacker. He was famous for that before Wikileaks. Even Wikileaks said so. Softlemonades (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that he is currently accused of hacking by the US and faces a 175 year jail term for it, far more than for a murder. His circumstance falls under WP:BLPCRIME. You mght dislike BLPCRIME and think it is overused but it is quite commmon in many countries to assume innocence until proven guilty. As I said in the example above if a person committed a murder in the past, then yes they are a murderer. However if they are then accused of another murder then saying they are a murderer without good context refers to the current case. Saying that Assange is a hacker currently is saying he is a criminal. And saying he is a convicted hacker struck me as perhaps halfway acceptable but it is obvious from the discussion that followed that you believe he is guilty in the US case and trying to express that. He was convicted of hacking offences when he was young. I would be careful using Guardian quotes about Assange given its history till a few years ago but I think 'teen hacker' can cover the business without violating BLPCRIME. Or if you really have a burning desire to say he is a criminal even though the judge said it was without malice and he was just give a fine then you could put in a sentence like he was convicted of hacking when he was young. NadVolum (talk) 12:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

1 Comment on the article, sources and policy, not other editors

2 it is quite commmon in many countries to assume innocence until proven guilty I just said we should say he was convicted of what he plead guilty to

3 BLPCRIME refers to WP:BLPPUBLIC which says In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. Hes a public figure Softlemonades (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I think 'teen hacker' can cover the business without violating BLPCRIME He also hacked as an adult and when he was 20, so teen hacker is inaccurate or incomplete or whatever.

from Julian_Assange#Hacking,_programming,_and_early_activism In September 1991, Assange was discovered hacking since he was born in July 1971, he was 20 when he was caught Softlemonades (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I've put a note at WP:BLPN#Putting_is_a_convicted_hacker_in_the_first_sentence_when_there_is_a_current_case about this discussion. NadVolum (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Changed to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Putting_that_he’s_a_“convicted_hacker”_in_the_first_sentence_when_there_is_a_current_case. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

While it is true he has been convicted of computer crimes, he is most notably known for Wikileaks and for those alleged crimes there has not been a conviction (to the best of my knowledge). Nevertheless, this smells like lede stuffing. Characterizing Assange as a hacker in the lede sentence is appropriate as he has described himself as one, along with many reliable sources. However, attaching "convicted" to it will mislead readers into believe he has been convicted of every computer crime he was charged with and that's certainly not the case. Wikipedia is not in the business of misleading people. An individual can be a hacker without being a criminal, and vice versa. We should seek to disambiguate these claims and not confuse people. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Labelling him as a hacker with no context will most definitely mislead people into thinking that refers to his time with Wikileaks rather than as a teenager. I was silly to think convicted might help because it did not say he was now a hacker but as you say and I pretty soon realized it was very bad too. And saying a person can be a hacker without being a criminal is being rather ingenuous when we have headlines like Journalist or criminal: Julian Assange, notorious for leaks of US secrets, faces computer hack charge. NadVolum (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

than as a teenager. You know he hacked as an adult too

I was silly to think convicted might help because it did not say he was now a hacker You also said no to has been a hacker

The article isnt saying hes either a journalist or a hacker. Theres a reason WP:HEADLINES says News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source. The article and the charge are about certain things allegedly not being part of what a journalist does. In framing the case that way, the Justice Department cast its focus on conduct that separates Assange from journalists who receive and publish classified secrets. “I think the top line takeaway form this: journalism is not a crime, but hacking is,” said April Doss, a former National Security Agency associate general counsel. and "This indictment does not cause any risk to journalists who are encountering that information," Doss said. "What it does is reinforce the longstanding rule that nobody can commit crimes in order to get that kind of information.” and "It's one thing for a journalist to publish information from a source who has access to it and is willing to risk the consequences," Fayhee said. "It is quite different, though, for a journalist and a source to be willing to work together to take information from a protected computer." Softlemonades (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It might be me, but once you are convicted of a crime, there is no problem with saying "convicted X" if it is a significant part of the article. Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

In accordance with Wiki policy, contentious material in a BLP should be removed if there appears to be no consensus for its inclusion. Until such time consensus is achieved for the retention of "convicted" in the lead sentence, it should remain out of the mainspace. See: WP:BLPRESTORE. "convicted" is a new addition and is not the stable version, as such, it should be dropped immediately until such time there is consensus for the change. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually I had less problems with saying he is a convicted hacker than with sayng he is a hacker. However I think it is fairly obvious from the above discussion that more context is needed though than just saying hacker or convicted hacker to show that such a description applies to the past rather than to the current US case against him. NadVolum (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Thats what it originally was until it was recently deleted by another editor. Until a few days ago, it said he is an Australian editor, publisher, hacker, and cypherpunk activist. He has a previous conviction for hacking, dating back to 1996. He founded WikiLeaks in 2006; the organisation came to international attention in 2010 when it published a series of leaks provided by U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning. Softlemonades (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I've set it back to something like that saying he was convicted for hacking and removed the bit saying he is a hacker. NadVolum (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks thats better but hes still a hacker, according to himself and recent RS. Removing it because he hasnt hacked in years suggests we should remove editor because he hasnt been that in years. But its still a good, accurate description of him, his life, and his biography so we keep it. Softlemonades (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The article subject was never notable as a hacker. He is only notable in relation to journalism. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

WikiLeaks and lots of RSes say different Softlemonades (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

'is' is such a slippery word. In which of the senses you gave above is he a hacker? In which sense did he use it of himself? In what sense would it be understood if it is put unadorned in the lead? Is it a reasonable description of his current capabilities? When is is used like that what does it actually mean - a capability and desire to engage in it like in a CV? or is is used even when it only refers to past events with no reference to the future?People can engage in soliphisms like saying it means one thing and intending to give the impression of another like political dog whistles. That is why it is normally best to just say what the facts are rather than putting on prejudical labels if the facts are unclear. NadVolum (talk) 09:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

In which sense did he use it of himself? he was talking about him hacking the pentagon, and just being obsessed with computers and how they worked. So he used in both the meanings I know about

Is it a reasonable description of his current capabilities? Is editor? Doesnt matter, its an OR question. RSes still call him a hacker

People can engage in soliphisms like saying it means one thing and intending to give the impression of another like political dog whistles. what?

That is why it is normally best to just say what the facts are rather than putting on prejudical labels if the facts are unclear. what facts are unclear? Softlemonades (talk) 13:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I was trying to explain my reasoning but I really don't feel like extending this discussion, I've already said quite enough above. And as WP:BLP says in its very first sentence 'Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, and project pages' so can I please ask you to be more specific in future rather than just saying that he is a hacker thanks. NadVolum (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I was trying to explain my reasoning but I really don't feel like extending this discussion, I've already said quite enough above. Ok

And as WP:BLP says in its very first sentence 'Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, and project pages' so can I please ask you to be more specific in future rather than just saying that he is a hacker thanks. Like I said in this discussion, The New York Times just described him as a hacker a few days ago Softlemonades (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@NadVolum made a good point, the problem is 'is' is such a slippery word. . What if we changed the intro to something like Julian Paul Assange is an Australian prisoner in Belmarsh who has been an editor, publisher, hacker and cypherpunk activist. He was convicted in Australia for hacking in 1996. He founded WikiLeaks in 2006

That avoids the problems NadVolum talked about and tells readers his status as a prisoner in the first sentence and not the last paragraph of the lead Softlemonades (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Because I think this fixes the problems, updates the beginning of hte lead and gets close to the stable version like Kcmastrpc said, Im doing this for now Softlemonades (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Cambial reverted it again without discussion and ignoring all the discussion thats taken place here

I rolled it back to before my edit since it was disputed and will go to ANI about Cambials repeat edit warring without participating in discussion Softlemonades (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

None of the discussion, apart from one post by you with no replies, was about inserting "is a prisoner" as the first words after the name of the subject. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

If you had read the discussion, the change you made restored the exact problem that was trying to be avoided. Saying he "is" a hacker. Thats why I tried to roll it back to before the change. But then you changed it back again. Even though it requires affirmative consensus, it didnt have it, and that exact point is what is contested. Softlemonades (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

My reading of the above is that there is a general consensus to describe him (amongst other things) as a hacker. I mean, as you've pointed out correctly on many occasions, he says so himself (as well as RS). Cambial — foliar❧ 18:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

It was taken out because it was contested. Theres general consensus, but how is disputed. NadVolum specifically disputes "is". I changed "is" on purpose, and said so in discussion. You changed it back. I reverted to before anything for more discussion. You reverted it back again. Then you joined discusion. Is that right?

And saying most RSes dont say hes a prisoner is odd. What RSes dont say hes in Belmarsh? Softlemonades (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't really have a dog in this dispute about "is" "was" "former" whatever. I removed the phrase "is a prisoner" because it ignores MOS:FIRST, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP. Sources do not characterise him as a prisoner. Not the same question as whether they mention that he is currently in Belmarsh. If you want to remove hacker from that opening sentence, or want me to do so (but leave the subsequent sentence about hacking in Australia in), then say so. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem with 'is is that it prejudges his trial on that precise case and will be read as saying he is guilty which is against WP:BLPCRIME. The problem with 'was' is that it is possible he will be found guilty so we can't say with Wikivoice that he isn't. Neither way is reasonable in Wikivoice. Saying he was convicted of hacing gets the information that we do have across without expressing an opinion. Just because the New YorktTimes or the Equdorian President says he is a hacker does not entitle us to imply he actually is guilty as charged in Wikivoice. And I would like to see no more WP:POINTy messing about with the lead or I think this will have to go to WP:ANI. NadVolum (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem with 'was' is that it is possible he will be found guilty so we can't say with Wikivoice that he isn't. it would work either way because even if found guilty, the crimes are in the past Softlemonades (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

And I would like to see no more WP:POINTy messing about with the lead or I think this will have to go to WP:ANI You said the problem was the word is so I changed it to not be is. Thats not disprtuion. Before making accusations, remember you removed RS content that has the support of multiple editors. Softlemonades (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

You also reverted my rollback to before prisoner was there at all, which I did so there could be more discussion because of objections like NadVolums. Thats the problem. You insist on having it your way when others disagree, instead of coming back to Talk. Softlemonades (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Seeing as your charge is simply made up, there is no value in responding in detail. Your absurd accusations that others are edit warring, just as you are breaking 1RR yet again,[1][2] also do not merit a response. The only thing I insist on is that the WP:BLP and WP:NPOV policies, which your edits suggest you view as either optional or a hindrance, are followed on this page. As NadVolum points out, "Pointy" edits like this are not appropriate. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

our absurd accusations that others are edit warring, just as you are breaking 1RR yet again Yes make sure you point out that I reverted an edit warring IP editor yesterday in your response to the ANI report Im going to file

As NadVolum points out, "Pointy" edits like this are not appropriate. Theres nothing "pointy" about making an edit that tries to fix the problem someone points out. But the problem Nad seems to have is with the description that has RSes, not "is" like Nad said. Softlemonades (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

If you object to me calling your edit pointy then you are perfectly free to complain at WP/ANI and see what they say. And as to my interpretation of BLPCRIME you are also perfectly free to raise it at WP:BLPN and maybe they'll slap me down and you'll be fully vindicated. NadVolum (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

And as to my interpretation of BLPCRIME you are also perfectly free to raise it at WP:BLPN and maybe they'll slap me down and you'll be fully vindicated. Why bother when you raised it at BLPN and got no support? Softlemonades (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't raise it as a question on the noticeboard itself but pointed to this discussion if they were interested. People don't tend to move much off a noticeboard, and they're not keen on reading and joining long rambling discussions. I did not see a need for a discussion there as BLPCRIME saying assume innocence seemed straightforward to me, we should not imply, and especially not in Wikivoice in the first sentence!, that they are guilty of what they are accused of. There would be more response if they are asked on the page itself. NadVolum (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

No one has been implying guilt, and the consensus thats been reached here has been to include hacker because its accurate and used by RSes. Even Cambial agreed that the consensus is to include hacker. I dont need to start another discussion to challenge that consensus. If you want to, go ahead.

I tried to find alternatives because you said the problem was the word is because it referred to past events but then you had problems with has been too. Softlemonades (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

So do you want to just say he is a hacker in the lead and take out that he did hacking in Australia? Or do you want both in? The first would imply that he was an active hacker when the Wikileaks were done. The second puts hacker twice into the lead paragraph and Cambial Yellowing definitely does not agree with that as it would be undue. He is unhapppy even with his hacking in Australia being in the first paragraph. And Assange is being charged with being a hacker rather than a journalist - that's why some people object to journalist being stuck into that lead sentence. NadVolum (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

take out that he did hacking in Australia? I never said that

The second puts hacker twice into the lead paragraph If you look at the earlier discussion and the article edit history, I was actually happy with it being later in the lead. Other editors moved it back because consensus is it belongs there

and Cambial Yellowing definitely does not agree with that Consensus has been against him

And Assange is being charged with being a hacker rather than a journalist Assange is being charged with one hacking related conspiracy charge and the rest are unrelated

that's why some people object to journalist being stuck into that lead sentence Which discussion did they say that in? Softlemonades (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

What is the problem with just describing what is in the citations with attribution? If you feel the need to say the Equadorian President says he is a hacke then say the Equadorian President in xxx said he is a hacker , or he himself said he was a hacker when talking about his exploits in Australia . But we don't need whatever it is more than once in the lead paragraph nor should we be saying it unadorned in Wikivoice. NadVolum (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

That sounds sensible. My own view is that in trying to sum up all the thousands of RS characterising what Assange does, and what he is notable for, "hacker" is not used to characterise his work sufficiently frequently to merit a mention in the lead. I really don't take a strong stance on it either way, but certainly using it twice in the first two sentences is obviously excessive. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem is the timeline. It used to be further down in the lead but it was confusing to people about the timeline so it got moved up by other editors to be in order of events. Thats not excessive thats the timeline.Softlemonades (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Cambial here, this is now excessive and starting to be POV pushing. Sometimes I dont see it until we get a talk page section like this. It is undue in the lede at this point in time. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The point wasnt the Prisoner part, I just thought we should describe him as something other than Australian. I was trying to fix NadVolums issue with the word is but they have a problem with has been too Softlemonades (talk) 07:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

huh? The message 22:00, 27 March 2023 from cambial didnt say anything about this. Im confused Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry this discussion has gotten too long, I thought you were talking about a different part of it. Softlemonades (talk) 07:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Indeed too long. Its obvious that the subject is not know as a convicted hacker who was released on a good behavior bond. Sounds akin to a known jaywalker. Too much weight. MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE is clear here. "One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person held, avoiding subjective or contentious terms. The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.)" Hacker is now contentious as its a legal charge. Enough jabber here, just strike it, its a BLP violation at this point. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Its obvious that the subject is not know as a convicted hacker except for the RSes and Wikileaks saying otherwise. Hes most known for Wikileaks, but he was famous first for hacking the Pentagon, which isnt like Jaywalking no matter what sentence he got Softlemonades (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Certainly not Wikileaks; [3] 'It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange is a “hacker”'. And some RS treat hacker is an allegation rather than a fact as in for instance [4] NadVolum (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikileaks denied what it admitted before. Like you just pointed out at Talk:Julian_Assange#Asked_for_an_ambassadorship that list of denials includes things with good evidence. Its not reliable

WikiLeaks As a teenager he became Australia's most famous ethical computer hacker. After referrals from the United States government his phone was tapped in 1991 and he spent 6 years in court. He hacked thousand of systems, including the Pentagon and the US military Security Coordination Center. https://web.archive.org/web/20071122093707/http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks:Advisory_Board#Julian_Assange.2C_writer.2C_hacker_.26_activist A less complete version is still on the website

Julian Assange Every hacker has a handle, and I took the name Mendax, from Horace's Splendide Mendax – nobly untruthful, or perhaps "delightfully deceptive". I liked the idea that in hiding behind a false name, lying about who or where I was, a teenager in Melbourne, I could somehow speak more truthfully about my real identity. By now, the computer work was taking up a great deal of my time. I was beginning to get the hacker's disease: no sleep, bottomless curiosity, single-mindedness, and an obsession with precision. Later, when I became well known, people would enjoy pointing out that I had Asperger's or else that I was dangling somewhere on the autistic spectrum. I don't want to spoil anyone's fun, so let's just say I am – all hackers are, and I would argue all men are a little bit autistic. and As experiences of young adulthood go, it was mindblowing. By day you'd be walking down the street to the supermarket, meeting people you know, people who have no sense of you as anything other than a slacker teenager, and you'd know you had spent last night knee-deep in Nasa. We were even able to hack into the police's systems. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/julian-assange-i-am-ndash-like-all-hackers-ndash-a-little-bit-autistic-2358654.html

And some RS treat hacker is an allegation rather than a fact as in for instance Those are talking about the conspiracy charge, which is an allegation because he hasnt been convicted Softlemonades (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Which is thw point about BLPCRIME. And by the way his offence in Australia hs been expunged and in Australia 'It is an offence to disclose information regarding spent convictions'. NadVolum (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

1 Explaining the conviction adds the context

2 BLPCRIME has the public figure exception which fits

3 I dont know about it being expunged but his lawyers petitioned for the unsealing of some of the records including details of his cooperation with the police and its mention during sentencing

4 Its been reported by several RS and talked about publicly by Assange

5 Lots of his hacking thats been reported on by RS and talked about by Assange like the Pentagon wasnt what he was convicted for but its RS and ABOUTSELF Softlemonades (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The bit BLPCRIME says about 'A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction' is before they talk about extra requirements for people who aren ot public figures. Are you really trying to say hacker twice in the first paragraph or what is it you want? What is the point of saying it in a way that can be misunderstood easily? An old self description his exploits in Australia does not override a Wikileaks statement objecting to him being described as a hacker. NadVolum (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The bit BLPCRIME says about 'A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Right. And he plead guilty to 24 charges. And described himself that way a lot

Are you really trying to say hacker twice in the first paragraph I said this several times already, but I wasnt the editor who moved the conviction back into the first paragraph.

An old self description his exploits in Australia does not override self description used by RSes then and now

Wikileaks statement objecting to him being described as a hacker. Wikileaks said it was "false and defamatory" when its clearly true, and you said the list isnt reliable at Talk:Julian_Assange#Asked_for_an_ambassadorship

You keep asking what I want, Im trying to find something that works for everyone. You said the problem was saying he is a hacker but then you had problems with has been too. It was a big part o fhis life and it was more than just his guilty plea Softlemonades (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Well come back with something when you have it rather than continually breaking BLPCRIME on the talk page without any suggestions. NadVolum (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

1 I havent broken BLPCRIME

2 I made a suggestion, using has been after you said that is is the problem but then you had a problem with past tense too. You havent made a suggestion other than reverting to what you want

3 Stop making accusations against other editors or go to whatever noticeboard you want Softlemonades (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I have raised my complaint at WP:BLPN#An_editor_insisting_on_labelling_a_person_as_a_hacker_because_of_doing_it_thirty_years_ago_when_young NadVolum (talk) 12:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Asked for an ambassadorship

In the Wikileaks note about false and defamatory things said about Assange it includes suggesting Wikileaks tried to have Assange appointed as an ambassador. I thought there was fairly good evidence that Assange had touted the idea to Trump Jr. It is a pretty silly note overall, but why would they deny something like that which has good evidence? Ignorance? Wikileaks isn't Assange? or did they actually believe it was false? I think it is lot stranger even than the original suggestion! NadVolum (talk) 09:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It's trivial nonsense. Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Would you trust someone on something big if they tell a lie on something small? NadVolum (talk) 10:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

WhaT? Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Well actually as far as I can see people are trusted more if they tell some lies than if they don't! Still it niggles me. NadVolum (talk) 11:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Please read wp:forum, what are you suggesting we do? Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I read further and they said “They won’t do it but it will send the right signals to Australia, UK + Sweden to start following the law and stop bending it to ingratiate themselves with the Clintons.” They still did suggest Trump ask for it though. NadVolum (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Assange tweeted it too. Dear @DonaldJTrumpJr our offer of being ambassador to the US still stands. I could open a hotel style embassy in DC with luxury immunity suites for whistleblowers. The public will get a turbo-charged flow of intel about the latest CIA plots to undermine democracy. DM me. Assange renews offer to become ambassador to US after private messages with Trump Jr are revealed Softlemonades (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Andrew Billen

I added the following opinion of Times feature writer Andrew Billen to the Assessments section of the article:

Andrew Billen wrote in The Times that "it’s entirely predictable that when you strip naked a superpower, it will come down hard on you. But [Assange's] reckless focus allowed him to go where no others dared".

The text was reverted. The reason given was "Why is his view needed?". It's a question that we could ask about any entry in the Assessment section, which, by design, is a collection of opinions about Assange and his work. For example, why are the following needed (I have no opinion on any of them):

• Journalists at The Guardian, The Daily Beast, and Salon wrote that Assange wasn't a journalist, and other journalists at Salon argued he was.
• Italian Rolling Stone magazine called Assange "the person who best embodied a rock'n'roll behaviour" during 2010, describing him a cross between a James Bond villain, a Marvel superhero and a character from The Matrix films. It hailed him as "the exterminator of secrets held by the world's great powers".
• That October, Andy Greenberg said The Architect "sees Assange as driven by his ego and there were points when he felt like Assange was not as focused about the release of significant information as he was on breaking records, releasing leaks that were bigger than the last one."
• In 2012, Bob Beckel called for Assange's assassination, and in 2013, Michael Grunwald echoed the call
• Khan wrote: "As editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, ... WikiLeaks team in Iceland are also featured.
• That month Pussy Riot member and Courage Foundation advisory board member Nadya Tolokonnikova criticised Assange for his connections to the Russian government.
• In 2017, Barrett Brown said that Assange had acted "as a covert political operative" in the 2016 US election
• The Washington Post's editorial board wrote that he was "not a free-press hero" or journalist and that he was "overdue for personal accountability."
• Louis Menand of New Yorker wrote that "Julian Assange is possibly a criminal. He certainly intervened in the 2016 election, allegedly with Russian help, to damage the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.

Burrobert (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

We already have a bloated article, bloated by way too many talking head opinions, why do we need yet another? What does it really tell us we do not already know? Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Burrobert, the RS cited is a news interview piece. It’s well-sourced, relevant content. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe the second part can go in [Assange's] reckless focus allowed him to go where no others dared It should go in Softlemonades (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Have we quoted anyone else who has linked Assange's per/prosecution to his "strip[ping] naked a superpower"? Has anyone else said he went "where no others dared"? Is Times feature writer Andrew Billen any less notable than some of the other people we have quoted in the Assessments section? Bloating of an article is something we should consider. Policy says "Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage" and Assange's story is as big as Western Australia. Policy also says "Removing appropriate content, especially summary style, and/or reliably sourced and non-tangential information, from an article simply to reduce length without moving that content to an appropriate article either by merging or splitting, may require a consensus discussion on the talkpage". Burrobert (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I didnt understand that it was talking about the prosecution, I thought it was a general thing. "You hit they hit back" which is why I thought it could get cut, it didnt seem like it was about Assange. If its about the prosecution then I agree it should be included Softlemonades (talk) 13:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Billen does not specify the U.S. actions to which his comment relates. Given the article mentions the CIA assassination and kidnapping plots as well as the legal actions, we can perhaps assume he means everything. If we included that part, we would not need try to interpret the comment. Burrobert (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

So no then it does not say it, you infer it, that violates wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The text I included contained no inference. It was a quote from Billen. Burrobert (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

i think the section on assessments takes up rather too large a part of the Julian Assange article, but the quotes are notable enough, that I think the best thing would be to have another article containing them. Assange has engendered very polarized opinion and I think it could be an interesting article seeing the difference between the different groups. The summary of that other article should summarize the goupings and opinions and that could be used for the section here instead. The quote is good enough for here but most, probably including it, should be moved eventually. NadVolum (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

i think the section on assessments takes up rather too large a part of the Julian Assange article, but the quotes are notable enough, that I think the best thing would be to have another article containing them

The summary of that other article should summarize the goupings and opinions and that could be used for the section here instead.

Someone said this before and I think it should have its own Talk topic. I think its a good idea and if we can agree on a summary that presents a debate or something and not conclusions it would be very good. Debate might be the wrong word but people can solve it in a SPLIT talk Softlemonades (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes Nad, that's a good approach. We have done that in other circumstances, such as for the sections "Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange", "Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority" and "Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange". Burrobert (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Australian letter

I reverted this edit about a letter written by Australian politicians, because its not about the US investigations. It belongs on the Indictment page where it was already added. If someone wants to move it to Appeals and other developments section I wont argue but I think it fits most in the Australia reaction section of the Indictment page where it was added Softlemonades (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)