Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 41

This is an archive of past discussions about Julian Assange. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

@Horse Eye's Back If you want to remove the statement about him leaving the embassy, thats fine. But adding sources and saying that Assange was arrested isnt redundant content. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julian_Assange&curid=26033941&diff=1150146199&oldid=1150132469&diffmode=source

The original text On 8 December 2010, Assange gave himself up to British police and attended his first extradition hearing, where he was remanded in custody. was less clear and didnt have a specific citation shared one citation with half the paragraph

I replaced it with text thats more clear and specific about what happened and had three RSes. Assange presented himself to and was arrested by officers from the Metropolitan Police Extradition Unit at Scotland Yard on December 7, 2010,^[1][2][3] and was remanded to London's Wandsworth Prison.^[4] Thats not redundant, thats clarifying and adding sources.

Your revert also removed two other RSes I copied and added from the other page about the bail. I didnt change the text. Adding RSes isnt redundant

Your revert also restored less clear neutral language about the interviews and the process and the statute of limitations. Thats not redundant. Since there isnt much detail there, we need to be as neutral as possible. Or we can add context. That wouldve been redundant

If you want to remove that Assange said he would leave the Embassy, which has RSes, fine. I think it belongs but its not critical

But we dont remove RSes because its "redundant" or use less clear language for the same reason. Please restore some of what you reverted Softlemonades (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Well yes it kind of is, as it is already sourced. Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I missed the shared source. But its not a reason to remove more clear language or RSes that give readers more information. That source doesnt tell them any more than the article does and which is almost copied from it Softlemonades (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

If its from Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority then it is redundant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I made corrections and additions there that needed to be made on both pages, then copied it here. Saying we shouldnt use better sources, more neutral or more clear language here because its from another page is silly Softlemonades (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I definitely think that the number of citations should be chopped down in sections which summarize and are dealt with in more detail in other articles. There just is no need for numerous lots of three references in the section about the sexual allegations for instance. NadVolum (talk) 08:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

So remove one or two of the references, its not a reason replace them all with a reference thats a copy and paste of what the article says which is a COPYVIO. And dont replace the article text with less clear text

And with summarized text like you say, we need to be as neutral as possible. There just is no need for less neutral text in the section about the sexual allegations for instance Softlemonades (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

If I had made the changes in the other order, no one would complain about it being redundant in either article. That just makes this more silly to me Softlemonades (talk) 13:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I really don't see your point. We don't need everything duplicated here and I don't see that they changes were more neutral or less neutral. The only strange business in that section is that it doesn't say when Assange skipped bail, that should be noted and reference the next section. Otherwise more could be removed - for instance in the first paragraph that Ny discontinued and then restarted the investigtion. The bit about European Wikileaks worrying about allegation by Assange is covered adequately by journalist Raffi Khatchadourian in the second paragraph. The point is to just have a summary here and do any nit picking in the other article. This is not the place to start saying it is the metropolitan police rather than the british police that arrested him and that needs better citation. NadVolum (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Otherwise more could be removed - for instance in the first paragraph that Ny discontinued and then restarted the investigtion. I agree

I would be happy with it just saying more clearly he was arrested which is less clear now, and having a source that says more than what the article does. The article is almost copy and pasted from the source thats there.

I don't see that they changes were more neutral or less neutral. The changes to the interview text that were reverted made the text shorter and more neutral.

In March 2015, Swedish prosecutors offered to interview Assange in London,^[5] and indicated that the interview would be conducted by a deputy prosecutor, Ingrid Isgren, as well as a police investigator.^[6] is already clearer and the same legnth as the old text, and Im fine with removing the deputy prosecutor part. 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.^[7][8]

In August 2015, the statute of limitations on three charges ended.^[9] is more clear and shorter than By that time, the statute of limitations had expired on all three of the less serious allegations. Why not be clear about the timeline? Thats not nitpicking Softlemonades (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no reason to go on about having your particular version of sdomething in or rejected when it has no particular benefit. Your clarifications are unnexcessary here - the other article is the place to mention Wandsworth prison, nobody reading this article would care which prison it was. As to timeline here the only bit I thought was inadequate was when Assange jumped bail and entered the embassy, the text in that section only mentions that he had entered the embassy four year after he did. NadVolum (talk) 09:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

What part of the sources support after public criticism from other Swedish law practitioners, in 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.[1][2] ?

This is also part of the NPOV issue I tried to fix

I see the sources saying The lead Swedish prosecutor explained the change of strategy by saying some potential charges against Mr Assange would expire under the statute of limitations in August. but if theres more I dont see it.

Does the text fail verification? Softlemonades (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Haven't checked but I think the text doen't really say anything about Assange and I think it is suprfluous when the other articloe can go into more depth. NadVolum (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The other article says the reason is different than what the text here says. The text here isnt supported by the sources. Thats not suprfluous, thats failed verification and incorrect information.

Its not suprfluous to make things up and then say readers can just go to the other article for real information. Softlemonades (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I was agreeing it could be removed and saw no reason to check the citations. It might be true or false, it might be cited correctly or not. Whatever, it doesn't matter. Even in the most advantageous situation of being true and being cited correctly it isn't really relevant to this article as her changing her decision is simply a fact and the reasons dont matter. It is not as though she is a witness giving evidence where her reasons might matter. And no reason was given for it mattering. We have the other article which deals with Sweden's case and any stuff like that should just be there if anywhere. In the most advantageous case it is superfluous here and there is no need to waste time further seeing if there are other citations which back up what is said. If it really could be relevant and seemed truthy then it might be worth while looking for a citation instead of just removing. It is even possible that a citation was thought to be superfluous but wasn't. But I believe that is all moot since it just isn't relevant here and should just go especially as this article should just summarize the other. I am entitled to have reasons that differ from yours and I hope that makes what I said clear and you don't have to complain about my agreeing with what you want to do because my reasons differ from yours. NadVolum (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I am entitled to have reasons that differ from yours You are, but I misread what you meant. I thought you were saying it didnt matter and so it should stay and I should let it go. Because I misread it, I thought we had a problem we dont have and Im happy I misread it and we agree which I thought we should since the text can just come out, and Im sorry I misread your short reply and thank you for the longer one Softlemonades (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

wp:agf. Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@NadVolum I didnt know how bad Bild was, and agree with removing it. I think it should be replaced with TF1 the most popular channel in France [3] and secondary coverage from Libertatea in Romania [4]

TF1 adds details like MIA tweeting it and deleting it Softlemonades (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I saw this image circulating on Twitter but didn't realize it was a fake! Nevertheless, my surprise doesn't make this notable, but the additional sources you've provided appear to meet RS. I've restored your edit with the aforementioned citations. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Well if it is making the rounds I guess so. It just seemed to be not much to do with actual news and there will be lots of these pictures going around. I added wings to a persons picture years ago, I don't expect automated versions of that sort of thing to become notable. It's rubbish and hopefully people will get fed up of them. Here's something to go on if you really can't stop stuffing the article Congressional Effort to End Assange Prosecution Underway. NadVolum (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Russia responds to EU over criticism on arrest of US journalist I would count as another rubbish one. Neither the picture nor Russia's remarks are going to have an effect one way or the other and hav practically nothing to do with Assange himself. NadVolum (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I support removing this information. It is trivia. Jack Upland (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

A "super virale" AI image? Really!? Yes, Bild Zeitung is popular, the highest-circulation daily newspaper in Europe for a long time - bad and inferior. Replaced with TF1 the most popular commercial TV-channel in France - bad and inferior. We already have a bloated article, why stuff the article with such clearly non-encyclopedic irrelevancies, that are not related to him and his biography? Time to move on.--91.54.19.113 (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I see the errors of my ways in regards to restoring this, I don't think there is enough weight to include this in the page. I will not contest a removal. Kcmastrpc (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

TF1 the most popular commercial TV-channel in France - bad and inferior what?

Associated Press and France24 too. And the first time Russian government caught using AI generated images for disinformation. Softlemonades (talk) 03:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

"[T]he image circulating online was generated using AI. It was posted on Twitter under the username "The Errant Friend", who confirmed to the AP that it was not real.

"The Errant Friend", who declined to give a real name for safety reasons, said the photo was produced using the latest update of Midjourney, version 5. The online tool allows users to generate images using simple text prompts, and the new iteration can produce convincing images mimicking real photos. Since its release last month, there has been a flood of realistic but entirely synthetic images of high profile figures on social media

Through Twitter direct messages, the user said the image was created to depict Assange’s “documented suffering in Belmarsh,” further adding that it was designed as “part of a viral movement for Julian’s freedom.” The user also provided the AP with a screenshot showing the text prompt on Midjourney". Burrobert (talk) 04:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Right, it was made by an Assange supporter. The article text says that twice, and could maybe be clearer about how AI made it. Its all the same to me, I just linked to the AI generated art article.

France24 confirms what AP said and adds

Since the start of the war in Ukraine, Russian embassies have been regularly sharing fake images in order to discredit Ukrainian and Western authorities, like this fake news story about Ukrainians vandalising Nazi symbols at the World Cup or these fake anti-Ukrainian ads. Embassies have also shared false information about Russian attacks in Ukraine, such as this claim that Russia had launched strikes on an ammunition depot, when in fact it hit a shopping mall that was open to the public.

The image of Julian Assange in prison is the first example of an AI-generated image used by a Russian embassy to spread disinformation that our team has identified. Softlemonades (talk) 04:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Softlemonades you've not attempted any justification for your recent revert. What is your objection to the phrases "Assange took an interest in computers from an early age." and "He founded WikiLeaks with a group of other activists in 2006. As its output was gaining significantly wider prominence in 2010, Assange became the organisation's spokesperson." Both of these summarise considerably more detailed coverage in the body.

You state in your edit summary "dont attribute to me", even though the precise wording about events in 1996 used is directly attributable to you - why? Cambial — foliar❧ 15:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

In the absence of any reason whatsoever for an objection to this entirely neutral content, I’m going to put a version of it back on the page. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

You can put it back, but putting in edit summaries that youre using my language when making changes to things makes it sound like you have my consensus when you didnt bring it up, so I reverted it and asked you not to attribute it to me in the same edit history. Before I could say anything on your Talk page about your edit summaries again, the network went down. This is first day logged back in Softlemonades (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

You shouldn't have bothered reverting it if you didn't object to it. You can alway put your thoughts here if that sort of thing really bothers you but really I couldn't give a rat's arse about something like that. NadVolum (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

You are right, thank you for saying so calmly and helpfully. I wouldve clarified right away or self reverted my revert I dont know which but my connection died. But youre right I shouldve gone to Talk here or uw-mislead and not revert. Edit historyy isnt the home for it. Softlemonades (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

This was suggested above and it is a good idea because it describes what Assange has been doing for the past few years. Jack Upland (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I suppose it does take up a sizable chunk of the article, and seems to be what he is most notable for. Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, most of this article describes him being a prisoner or avoiding being a prisoner in the Embassy. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

This is not how RS generally characterise the article subject. No RS indicate that this is what he is notable for, which is what the first sentence of the lead is to lay out. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English. Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. MOS:FIRST Softlemonades (talk) 11:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The word “prisoner” is a noun for a person; it is not a location. In this case it is not supported by RS as something article subject is notable or known for. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Prison is a location. When it was suggested above when you reverted it before Cambial, it referred to being a prisoner in Belmarsh, that is a location

Almost every RS talks about it, hes known for it Softlemonades (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The last of the four paragraphs in the lead goes into that, I think it is covered quite adequately. Personally I think the lead could be trimmed quite considerably. NadVolum (talk) 10:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Its odd that something he is not primarily noted for takes up something like half the article. Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

There's two million people in prison in america, many for extremely long periods. It is not something any are notable for that I can think of. NadVolum (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Birmingham Six is the ort of thing people become notable for being in prison for. Probably something like ten percent of the prisoners in america didn't do what they are in prison for but even so are not notable unless possibly they get out in notable circumstances. NadVolum (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

But the lede reflects the article, not the importance of something outside of the article. Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Assange is in prison for what he is notable for. Not the other way round. Same as for most any other prisoner. I see no need to duplicate it in the lead. NadVolum (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

MOS:FIRST says we should say where he is

And he has become more notable because of his case and because of being in prison. Thats why the Belmarsh Triburnal exists and Al Jazeera calls him a cause celebre [5] Every article hes had written about him since 2019 is because of his case and because hes in prison Softlemonades (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

You left out 'and often' in the description of MOS. And I think most people interpret that as saying something like 'Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician ...', not that he currently lives in Florida. The lead already has a paragraph about him being in prison. The lead should be smaller I think. NadVolum (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

If Assange were free to move around I think itd be different, but hes not so the "and often" seems like itd apply Softlemonades (talk) 12:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• Prisoner seems to imply that he has been convicted of a crime. At least from my POV. Unless we are talking about using the term political prisoner which we can wikilink and is probably accurate. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  Prisoner implies hes in prison. Many people are in prison while they wait for trial. Thats how bail works Softlemonades (talk) 11:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

'Prisoner implies to me' would be a more correct way to phrase that. It doesn't look like it implied it to who you're replying to. None of us is the measure of the world. NadVolum (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Prisoner means someone in prison, which clearly applies to Assange.Jack Upland (talk) 03:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Hardly the most important thing about him. There's lots of prisoners in the world. NadVolum (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Hardly the most important thing about him Theres lots of Australians, editors, publishers in the world too Softlemonades (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Being an editor or publisher can be a route to becoming notable. Compare to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, he cetainly spent enoug time in prison but it isn't what he is notable for and therefore in Wikipedia for. NadVolum (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Hes not notable for being Australian but we include that too because MOS says, just like it says The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where.

First sentence for biographies says the same thing, and his being in prison and his case is what hes most notable for now. Its not what made him notable first but hes notable for it now. They even count how long hes been in prison. The UN did reports about how he was detained

Should we do an RFC? Because I think we agree on the policy but were arguing the same points about whats notable and not convincing each other. Does it matter after the changes that Cambial made? Softlemonades (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

If you feel it is so important then by all means go ahead and set up an RfC. I see his being a prisoner as being already covered in the lead and I don't think it is impotrtant wenough to cover twice and I don't see it as being any basis for his notability and more than I would for practically any other prsioner who became notable except ones like the Birmingham six. NadVolum (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I just didnt know how to solve the lock and didnt want to argue forever. More people came to Talk so I think its ok Softlemonades (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

If you're going to raise an RfC I think you'f need to explain what prisoner means or includ esome other term like detainee. Despite the sophistry above too many people think prisoner means convicted, for instance Cambridge dictionary 'a person who is kept in prison as a punishment', Collins dictionary 'A prisoner is a person who is kept in a prison as a punishment for a crime that they have committed'.NadVolum (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Did you read all of the definitions, or just pick the one you liked? O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose in general, "prisoner" is a state of being not a profession or characteristic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• The article subject is one of the most well known modern political prisoners. He would not meet the definition of prisoner without the qualifying term, as he has never been convicted. Essentially he is held as an Enemy combatant although I suspect the latter really only applies to the US treatment on the matter (those held at Guantanamo). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  Well, of course he's a prisoner if he is in prison. People can be in prison for years without conviction, usually awaiting trial. We would not say "politcal prisoner" without a preponderance of reliable sources using the term. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

The dictionary definitions above show it would definitely need some qualification if put in. NadVolum (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Read all of the definitions. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

That's not the point. Finding a definition so A is a B does not mean that B is a reasonable descrption of A. One might as well say Casey Jones was an engineer. NadVolum (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I do not think Assange is a political prisoner, do you have a source for this? I thought he was a fugitive from justice and hiding out in foreign territory to avoid extradition. Andre🚐 00:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Sure, there are many sources for it here including president of mexico saying it here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Seems more like an attributed opinion than a wikivoice fact. Andre🚐 04:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Regardless, in all instances it sounds like a contested label (MOS:LABEL) that should stay out of the MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE. Kcmastrpc (talk) 05:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Time for a RfC? Saying that he is more notable as an editor than as a prisoner seems to be an absurdity to me.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  I agree but if there is an RfC we should do what NadVolum said and explain what prisoner means or includ esome other term like detainee because too many people think prisoner means convicted Softlemonades (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  What about saying he is a "prisoner in the UK currently fighting extradition to the US"?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  I think thats better, maybe add "while" so maybe if you do an RfC ask what people think about

  prisoner in the UK while fighting extradition to the US or

  detained in the UK while fighting extradition to the US

  I like challenging better than fighting because I think its not not as charged but thats a different issue Softlemonades (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

If you want to state Prisoner you first need to deal with the target article which states "The term applies particularly to serving a prison sentence in a prison.". Assange hasnt been convicted. If you want to use Political prisoner instead this would be a different matter. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Thats one reason I think detained works better or would get less argument about it. I think it also is how Assange an Wikileaks have ABOUTSELFed for years

I dont think political prisoner will get consensus because so much disagreement about Assange and like the article says there is no internationally recognized legal definition of political prisoner. With disagreement about Assange and unclear definition, I dont think itll get agreement. But it can be included in an RfC

After reading others comments I think the word most likely to get agreed is detained Softlemonades (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Assange claims in the Guardian and letter to the King that he is a political prisoner, stating “As a political prisoner, held at your majesty’s pleasure on behalf of an embarrassed foreign sovereign, I am honoured to reside within the walls of this world class institution,” . That should be due and we can summarize to state that the article subject claims he is a political prisoner. I have added it to the body here and would support it being added to the lede, but that can be discussed here more (so I didnt bother to add that since we are discussing). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I think "detained" would falsely suggest he wasn't a prisoner. He definitely is.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

roughly the same in terms of google hits for detained 252k and prisoner 293k. Here we can see the definition of prisoner doesnt read like our wikipedia destination reads, saying " a person deprived of liberty and kept under involuntary restraint, confinement, or custody" so maybe my assumption that it means convicted is wrong and that simply the target article needs to be updated. I note that this talk page wouldnt be the place to discuss that, and also qualify my statement that it probably should be updated before we consider linking to it. If we want to use the term prisoner in the lede, given that Assange claims he is a political prisoner, this full term could certainly be used in the lede. 'Assange is confined at Belmarsh pending extradition and asserts he is a Political prisoner. That would be fine in the lede. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I think we've got to take account of some major dictionaries including convicted in their primary definitions. People will assume they know what it means without reading what Wikipedia has written about it. I don't quite see what google counts has got to do with all this. NadVolum (talk) 07:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

RSPs quote lots of things that arent encyclopedic or noteworthy for wikipedia. O'Hagan isnt an FBI or law enforcement expert. His refusal to cooperate belongs, his analysis of FBI doesnt

Plus According to Andrew O'Hagan, during the 2011 Egyptian revolution after Mubarak closed the mobile phone networks, Assange and others at WikiLeaks hacked into Nortel to reverse it.^[1]

I think there are better opinions we could add, like Gabriel Shipton saying they might be preparing another indictment to strengthen the charges. Hes kind of an expert on the Assange case. But I think the speculation might be early to add Softlemonades (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

That bit from O'Hagan sounds very unlikely indeed - I wonder what sort of thing he garbled into that! If the FBI were willing to try and use Thordarson in the indictment I guess they could try using this to bolster their case! I find the FBI drive to do anything they can incredible and very disquieting. NadVolum (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

This is turning into a forum.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I think probably what happened is O'Hagan mixed up Assange hacking into Nortel when he was twenty with Wikileaks releasing documents at that time of the Arab Spring. Basically got his dates wrong and thought it had something to do with the then current situation. NadVolum (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Some twitterati think it is rubbish as well. I can't see anyone else has picked it up pro or con. NadVolum (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Assange was asked the question about what he did tofor the business in Egypt in Julian Assange: The man who came to dinner, the man who saved Egypt and the answer there? "it's difficult to disentangle". And that's it besides saying about a time he spent in Egypt and learnt something about the place. I'm even more certain the O'Hagan story is just mixed up - if you read the Ghosting artice you'll see he was discussing Assanges hacking when young at the same time. NadVolum (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

El Pais has published further evidence today that the CIA was spying on Assange’s privileged conversations with his lawyers. Where should we put this?[6] Editors may be interested in this fascinating diagram of how Julian's work has impacted UK establishment figures.[7] If anyone can find an appropriate version of the graphic, we should add it to Julian's bio. Some writers have concluded that the UK courts handling of Julian's case is partly the result of the connections made in the diagram. Burrobert (talk) 06:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I have a folder marked GW, I have no connection to the company. Lets wait and see what the court actually finds. Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Has somebody said you worked for them and have you got data in the folder they'd really want? Or what is the purpose of that remark? NadVolum (talk) 11:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

No, but my point is its not evidence, its an accusation. So lets wait to see what the court finds, we are not a newspaper. Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

And Wikipedia is not a court. It paraphrases what is in reliable sources. Which can go wrong of course, like I'm pretty certain the quote in the article from O'Hagan I discuss above is wrong but it is in the article and would probably need an RfC to remove. We do not need to wait for court sentences. But even cour sentences can be wrong. NadVolum (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

But we also do not have to include everything either, I do not see what these accusations add, that we don't already say (that he was spied on). Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The article already suffers form bloat because everything ever said about him must go in. When it is saying what we are saying, why? Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

You're changing your grounds. PLease put in your actual grounds to start with rather than doing gish gallop. Anyway Surveillance of Julian Assange is an obvious place for this and I believe it would be due there. The graphic of the relationship between the various groups in Britain is interesting but we'd definitely need a reliable source to draw the lines. NadVolum (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I have long argued that we need to stop adding odd lines here and there, that has never changed. Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with NadVolum, it belongs at Surveillance of Julian Assange

If we get more information we can add it here. Right now its allegations without all the information. Theres a police report that we dont know what it says, or why the information wasnt included. Adding all of that here would be too much, and just the headline information would be misleading. Theres an article dedicated to this, and it should go there

When we get more information and can explain it clearly and without confusing people or taking up a lot of space, we can add it here Softlemonades (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't aware you had created an article dedicated to the surveillance of Julian inside the Ecuadorian embassy. That would be a good place for the new El Pais material. Still looking for a non-copyrighted version of the chart mentioned above. Burrobert (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I found so much and that section of the page was so long that if I added it all there would have been a split right away so I just started a new page and added a Main Page link to that section of the Assange page Softlemonades (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph about the El Pais material to that article. Apparently one of our editors thinks the article is biased in some way. Burrobert (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it was an IP editor. There is a message on Talk Softlemonades (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that comes under WP:JDL. It's always worth trying to see if there's anything in particular that triggers that but they said nothing specific to justify the tag so I'll remove it. NadVolum (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

That was what I thought but didnt want to remove the tag since I had started the article Softlemonades (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@NadVolum: You say there’s no mention of Assange in the Trafigura reporting. You did read the content before deleting though , right? Assange is mentioned several times , his direct involvement in the leaks being reported in a scholarly history of WL^[1] and his being quoted by British press about the injunctions. Why do you claim Assange is not mentioned?

You’ve also restored unsourced content to the page - a link to nothing but a list of years - not supportive of any content - and content with no source cited. Please remove the unsourced content. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

No I missed where his nasme had been stuck into this article at the end of that section. They seem minor as head of Wikileaks rather than anything particular. The place I looked at mainly was 2006 Ivory Coast toxic waste dump which is the main article about this, and he is not mentioned even once there. Might I suggest that you put something there about his contribution before trying to stick a section here about it? Not that I think it really meakes the cut for a whole section rather than as something Wikileaks did with him in charge. 10:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the unsourced contentent again. Sorry didn't noticed you'd done that I thought it was just moved aroundd by the other insertion. NadVolum (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I just checked the two citations about Assange you had put in. The first was to Wikileaks and I couldn't get at it, I think we'd want a secondary cite. The second one commenting on the press and injunctions could be okay here but wouldn't justify dragging te whole section in. NadVolum (talk) 10:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a closer look. The secondary cite would be Fowler 2020, which discusses it in some detail (p.221):^[2]

Carter-Ruck had managed to obtain what is known as a super-injunction. It prevented the Guardian from revealing any information covered by the injunction, including the fact that there was an injunction at all...

Fowler then goes on to describe the publication in events surrounding the injunction in detail. He also writes (pp.223-224):^[3]

It caused a furore. It was one thing to censor the press and quite another to silence Parliament. In the end, Carter-Ruck posted a statement on the company website saying that it had never been its intention to prevent the press reporting on Parliament and that it had since agreed on changes with the Guardian to the gagging order...

The author describes that (pp.224-225):^[4]

...Julian Assange launched a blistering attack on how free speech had not been saved in the UK. In a WikiLeaks online editorial, Assange argued that the secret gag order against the Trafigura report ‘remains in effect, and entirely prevents the reporting of the report’s contents’. He argued it was not the only one. The previous month he said the Guardian revealed it had been served with ten secret gag orders—so-called ‘super-injunctions’—since January. In 2008, the paper was served with six. In 2007, five. ‘Haven’t heard of these?’ asked Assange. ‘Of course not—these are secret gag orders; the UK press has given up counting regular injunctions.’

Assange said that because of the damaging threat of legal costs, UK newspapers had silently removed some of the original dumping investigations from their databases. ‘For example, the Independent’s “Toxic shame: thousands injured in African city” no-longer “exists” except at WikiLeaks,’...We are back at the UK censorship status quo, which may be described, without irony, as privatised feudalism.’

(This is the Wikileaks article I linked to - you're right that should have used the secondary citation). Fowler later describes Assange's continuing involvement in the debate about such injunctions (p.225-228):^[5]

Several months later he [Assange] confronted Professor Alasdair Mullis, an acclaimed expert on defamation law and the editor of the book Carter-Ruck on Libel and Privacy. At a debate sponsored by the European Union, Mullis pointed out that while he was not connected to Carter-Ruck, he did have an issue with the BBC.

Fowler then goes on to describe the details of Assange's participation at the conference panel in some detail, with extensive quotes.

Based on Fowler and the press reports, would you support a section focused on Assange's involvement in opposition to the injunction, and about the publishing of the report online (which many Twitter users then linked to as described in the newspaper reporting.) ? Cambial — foliar❧ 11:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Cambial — foliar❧ 11:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

That does sound to me a much better basis for something to include in the article about Assange okay. NadVolum (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok I've added a section with a different focus so its more about Assange and what the scholarly source about Assange says about his role. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

This still doesnt seem DUE for Assanges page Softlemonades (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

On what basis? It's one of early instances of Assange becoming the public face of Wikileaks - the entire reason for his notability. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

He was always a public face of WikiLeaks Assange launched WikiLeaks eight years later, in January 2007, in Nairobi, at the World Social Forum.[8]

Its the second longest section in the Wikileaks section and almost as long as the Unredacted cables section. We quote and emphasise Assanges editorials but not secondary sources and we say The affair caused a furore but not what that means or according to who. Theres background information that doesnt need to be there.

I dont think we have to remove all of it, but we should trim it and maybe merge to Early publications Softlemonades (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Your quote from CJR does not demonstrate that Assange was always the public face of Wikileaks. Your claim about the quotes are inaccurate; the quotes are reproduced and commented on in the secondary source already cited. The background information (presumably you mean the first 3 or 4 sentences) is necessary to contextualise Assange's actions to end the censorship i.e. publication of the report, editorials on wikileaks, comments to others. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Your quote from CJR does not demonstrate that Assange was always the public face of Wikileaks He personally launched it at that event, and did a lot of other events. The wiki already says From 2007 to 2010, Assange travelled continuously on WikiLeaks business, visiting Africa, Asia, Europe, and North America.

Your claim about the quotes are inaccurate; the quotes are reproduced and commented on in the secondary source already cited. Theyre quotes from Assange, not from people assessing him or his or Wikileaks impact. Fowler comments on it but I think only repeats one of the quotes, but its still just Assanges quote. Were not quoting a secondary sources view. And the section mostly cites one secondary source.

The background information (presumably you mean the first 3 or 4 sentences) is necessary to contextualise Assange's actions to end the censorship i.e. publication of the report, editorials on wikileaks, comments to others Some of it can be trimmed, people can click on wiki links if they need more information.

Assange also isnt mentioned at 2006_Ivory_Coast_toxic_waste_dump#Minton_Report_and_legal_controversy or RJW_v_Guardian_News_and_Media_Ltd. Its not clear from there or the text on this article what his impact on it was. It sounds like he just was doing his job at Wikileaks and had opinions like always Softlemonades (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Theyre quotes from Assange.. which are considered sufficiently noteworthy to reprint in a scholarly biography. This article is a biography of Assange.

Assange also isnt mentioned at a different article. This talk page is for discussing this article. Other articles are not sources for this one.

Its not clear from there or the text on this article what his impact on it was. This is, in fact, discussed in the second paragraph. But again, this is a biography of Assange and his work. This is an early example of Assange's work, hence its clear relevance to this article.

You've suggested this is "undue weight", and tagged it as such, which is about the weight given to sources, not to topics. What source do you think is being given excessive weight? Cambial — foliar❧ 18:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Theyre quotes from Assange.. which are considered sufficiently noteworthy to reprint in a scholarly biography. This article is a biography of Assange. Fowlers biography isnt scolarly and like I said I dont think he reprints the first quote. Hes also the main source for the section.

Assange also isnt mentioned at a different article. This talk page is for discussing this article. Other articles are not sources for this one. I didnt say it was a source for this one, Cambial. Stop being silly. But if his impact wasnt important enough to mention in any other article, is it important enough to get this much focus?

This is, in fact, discussed in the second paragraph. No, Wikileaks' impact is discussed. Not Assanges. Theres no mention of his editorials having any impact.

This tag may be used on sections of articles that discuss one aspect of the section topic in too much detail. This is especially true if the content focuses on a relatively unimportant aspect of the topic while ignoring items of greater importance or coverage. The whole topic gets too much focus here

If you dont think one word you wrote can be trimmed you should re read WP:OWN Softlemonades (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Fowlers biography isnt scolarly. The Fowler biography is scholarly. It's published by a major university press, and so will have been through that publisher's editorial board. Its author is a veteran and authoritative, highly-respected journalist. The book is in its second edition.

I didnt say it was a source for this one. No, but you did say Assange also isnt mentioned at 2006 Ivory Coast toxic waste dump, as though these other articles should somehow be the measure of what we include here. They are not, and whether it's mentioned on another article (which may be good or very poor, I don't know) is not relevant. If you stop making facetious arguments such as that, other editors will not be compelled to respond to your facetious argument in a way that you perceive as "silly".

Wikileaks' impact is discussed. Not Assanges No, the book is a biography of Assange and makes clear that Assange was the editor of Wikileaks at the time they published this. The main bits Fowler writes about the editorialthat Assange wrote are: "While some celebrated what they saw as a victory for freedom of speech, Julian Assange launched a blistering attack on how free speech had not been saved in the UK. In a WikiLeaks online editorial, Assange argued that the secret gag order against the Trafigura report ‘remains in effect, and entirely prevents the reporting of the report’s contents’....Assange said that because of the damaging threat of legal costs, UK newspapers had silently removed some of the original dumping investigations from their databases. ‘For example, the Independent’s “Toxic shame: thousands injured in African city” no-longer “exists” except at WikiLeaks,’ Assange wrote: ‘Now is not the time to be distracted from this reality, or to see the unravelling of a grotesque attack on parliamentary reporting as a step forward; it is a return to last week. We are back at the UK censorship status quo, which may be described, without irony, as privatised feudalism.’ Assange wanted no congratulatory mutual praise or celebrations of victory." Fowler moves on to the debate with Mullis. The quote on the article is sourced directly from the Wikileaks editorial from which Fowler quotes, but we could potentially switch it for one of the quotes from that section of the book. I think the one used is more representative.

If you dont think one word you wrote can be trimmed We should trim things where there is a compelling reason to do so. You haven't suggested a reason. You haven't indicated why you think this is "too much" detail. Given you think it appropriate to add three paragraphs about an online chat allegedly involving Assange that lasted a couple of hours, this is an extraordinary claim. Your animosity toward Assange and emotions about the article are affecting your judgement here, it seems. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The Fowler biography is scholarly. It's published by a major university press The publisher doesnt make it scholarly. And its had more than 2 editions, or been updated more than twice

Wikileaks' impact is discussed. Not Assanges No, the book is a biography Thats great but I was responding to you talking about the second paragraph of the text in the section. And you knew that. But if you keep changing the subject the Talk page is pointless

Given you think it appropriate to add three paragraphs about an online chat allegedly involving Assange that lasted a couple of hours, this is an extraordinary claim.

Your animosity toward Assange and emotions about the article are affecting your judgement here, it seems. The chat was part of the indictment against him, and I was ok when others wanted to edit it. If you think three paragraphs on something from the indictment makes less sense than three paragraphs and a block quote on two editorials, then Id like to hear you explain why. You know youre supposed to comment on content, not editors. You could just as easily be accused of bias, and only one of us has been banned from Wikileaks and Assange related pages in the past. Softlemonades (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

There are also accuracy problems

After a question had been tabled about the report in the House of Commons under parliamentary privilege, Trafigura's law firm Carter‑Ruck claimed the injunction was sub judice and tried to prevent discussion of the affair in parliament itself.^[6][7][8]

But looking at your sources

Fowler says In the end, Carter-Ruck posted a statement on the company website saying that it had never been its intention to prevent the press reporting on Parliament and that it had since agreed on changes with the Guardian to the gagging order so that the newspaper could report on the issue.

The Guardian says Carter-Ruck said in a letter and press release that, although the Speaker had discretion over sub judice questions, "we believe the proceedings to have been and to remain 'active' within the definition of House Resolution ... of 15 November 2001 in that arrangements have been made for the hearing of an application before the Court". Bercow had told MPs the previous day: "It is not sub judice under the house's rules ... There is no question of our own proceedings being in any way inhibited."

And Press Gazette says Solicitors Carter-Ruck said the final decision was subject to the Speaker’s discretion

Why leave out Carter-Ruck saying they didnt intend to do that, and that they and everyone else agreed the decision was Parliaments? Softlemonades (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

There are no accuracy problems. You are confusing statements by the institution in question as though they are the reliable source. WP:MANDY is relevant: the law firm would say that. The reliable source says 'The law firm Carter-Ruck has made a fresh move that could stop an MPs' debate next week by claiming a controversial injunction it has obtained is "sub judice"... Carter-Ruck partner Adam Tudor today sent a letter to the Speaker, John Bercow, and also circulated it to every single MP and peer, saying they believed the case was "sub judice".' Carter-Ruck denying it does not change what the reliable source says. You've just been arguing that there is too much detail. Now you claim we should add more detail (Carter-Ruck's WP:MANDY-ish denial). You seem confused as to what you want. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Bercow isnt from Carter-Ruck. And if someone says theyre saying the opposite of what we say they said, thats not ok. Press Gazette and Guardian both make it clear Carter-Ruck said it at the time and MPs thought there was still a risk. We cant say what they worried about was what happened in wiki voice, the RSes dont do that

Im not saying more detail should be added. Im saying 1 that whats there is misleading to make it seem more important. And 2 none of it shows Assanges importance to the event. And 3 there are things that dont belong on a biography of Assange, because these editorials arent special. He wrote lots of editorials. These didnt change things, the text in the article makes that clear. It was Wikileaks publishing the report. The publicity generated about the easy availability of the report on the Wikileaks website, and subsequently its publication by the Norwegian broadcaster NRK, led Carter-Ruck to agree to a modification of the injunction

I wouldnt object to moving it to Wikileaks or List of material published by Wikileaks and we can rephrase that one line to attribute it. I just dont think it belongs here. Softlemonades (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Bercow isnt from Carter-Ruck. Bercow is not a reliable source: The Guardian is the reliable source. They say what is written in the text, so the text is not misleading on that point (nor any other). Fowler has already made clear, in his biography of Assange, that Assange was the editor and publisher at the time, and Assange refers to their publication of the report in the editorials from which Fowler quotes. The canard that "oh well Assange wasn't important" is a facetious argument that does not bear scrutiny. He wrote lots of editorials - that is likely wrong. What's relevant is that a scholarly biography discusses this editorial (written by the editor about the media organisation's recent publication) at length. I disagree about whether it belongs here. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Bercow is not a reliable source: The Guardian is the reliable source. And Guardian and Press Gazette both quote Bercow. Three RSes say things that arent in the text.

Assange was the editor and publisher at the time Assange was editor for almost every Wikileaks release and publisher for every Wikileaks release.

The canard that "oh well Assange wasn't important" is a facetious argument that does not bear scrutiny. The text of the article doesnt explain his importance or give any impact that he directly made. You havent explained any importance or impact of his editorials.

He wrote lots of editorials - that is likely wrong. He wrote editorials and statements for every major release

What's relevant is that a scholarly biography discusses this editorial (written by the editor about the media organisation's recent publication) at length. The book talks about lots of things that dont get an entire section, and the book is about Wikileaks as much as about Assange as a person. Softlemonades (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Only some of the releases and Assange's editorials are considered particularly noteworthy by reliable scholarly sources, such as this one. You say "You havent explained any importance or impact of his editorials." This is a biography explaining events in Assange's life, not an assessment of how significant each event was on the wider world. There are undoubtedly more examples of Assange's work prior to 2010 that are considered noteworthy to his biography in RS. They can be added in future as well. Their impact on the world at large is not relevant to inclusion. If that were a criterion, none of the content about the US pursuit of Assange would be included, because it had little impact on the wider world. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

This is a biography explaining events in Assange's life Like I said before, its just as much about Wikileaks as about Assange. Stop calling it a biography like all the focus is on him. The full title is The Most Dangerous Man In The World: The Inside Story On Julian Assange And WikiLeaks or The Most Dangerous Man In The World Julian Assange And WikiLeaks' Fight For Freedom for a reason. Its not a biography explaining events in Assange's life its a book about Wikileaks and Assanges role in it.

There are undoubtedly more examples of Assange's work prior to 2010 that are considered noteworthy to his biography in RS You still havent established that it was noteworthy about Assange, just that a 300 page book about Wikileaks talked about it. And its been moved there until you get real consensus it belongs here Softlemonades (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

When I write This is a biography explaining events in Assange's life, by "this" I'm referring to this Wikipedia article. Consensus was established to include the section on this topic a month ago. One editor objecting a month later does not eradicate that. If you want to propose concrete changes to the text (which, despite all your rhetoric you're yet to do) then let's discuss. The argument "it's not really about Assange", despite scholarship stating it is about Assange, and a contemporary source referring to Assange in his role as editor, carries little to no force. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The section does seem excessively long in an article that is already bloated.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I've edited it for length. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

There was no consensus a month ago. One editor dropping one objection a month ago is not consensus that it belongs here.

I didnt even delete the text, I moved it to the Wikileaks article where i belongs. h

When I write This is a biography explaining events in Assange's life, by "this" I'm referring to this Wikipedia article. And the text was mostly about Wikileaks, which is where it belonged.

Another editor has objected now. I notice you listen to them and trim it when they say its too long, but when I do you say its perfect and not one word should be trimmed Softlemonades (talk) 11:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I asked the specific question "would you support this..?" and Nad replied in the affirmative. I've never said "its perfect and not one word should be trimmed" nor anything close to that in meaning. You need to stop making things up about what other editors have said: repeatedly doing so is uncivil, and the ban on such uncivility is a key pillar of how this site operates. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

1 I was obviously sarcastic

2 If you dont think one word you wrote can be trimmed We should trim things where there is a compelling reason to do so. You haven't suggested a reason. I said it was too long. You reacted differently Softlemonades (talk) 12:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Julian_Assange#Hacking,_programming,_and_early_activism Says that "came to prominence". Do we have sources for this? Was he a notable hacker? I am doubting he would have a wikipedia page if it was just this. Any sources here? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

That was after several changes by @Cambial Yellowing and me. It started with what the source said. I think Cambial changed it because prominence is more neutral than notoriety. Im ok with it being changed back.

Was he a notable hacker? People have different views. The article says The Sydney Morning Herald later opined that he had become one of Australia's "most notorious hackers",^[1] and The Guardian said that by 1991 he was "probably Australia's most accomplished hacker".^[2] Assange's official biography on WikiLeaks called him Australia's "most famous ethical computer hacker",^[3] and the earliest version said he "hacked thousands of systems, including the Pentagon" when he was younger.^[3][4][5] Softlemonades (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I was simply looking to capture a similar meaning with a more encyclopaedic tone with ‘prominence’. I don’t think adding such a phrase expressing an opinion adds anything to the article, and given the consensus on taking care about Daily Beast’s use in biographies, I’ve removed it. The main point to his biography is that as a teenager he was a hacker. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I am not opposed to another term. He is certainly not a prominent hacker nor more than I am a prominent editor ;-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: Yes, I agree with you. In looking to give a neutral account of his biography, simply stating he was a hacker; this is what he did; this is how they got him is enough I think. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Other sources

Before starting WikiLeaks in 2006, Assange was already known in the hacking world Digital Whistleblowing Platforms in Journalism By Philip Di Salvo

Among fellow hackers, his tangle with the authorities had turned him into a minor star. The Most Dangerous Man In The World

Wikileaks remote origins lay in the skills, experiences and reputation Assange built up as a hacker in his teens and early adulthood Global media journal [9]

notorious hacker Julian Assange SANS Institute [10]

Julian Assange was your typical teenage hacker, hellbent on notoriety and achievement. Gizmodo [11] Softlemonades (talk) 05:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I believe these state he was a hacker and probably an obscure to irrelevant one. Certainly not a prominent one. I would like to see a source that refers to him prior to wikileaks founding date, i doubt there is even one. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

We see "minor star" differently

I would like to see a source that refers to him prior to wikileaks founding date, i doubt there is even one. He was in Australian press when his case was happening but the archives arent online. But they have the archived photos from then Softlemonades (talk) 03:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Can this be worded better?

In November 2017, WikiLeaks asked Donald Trump Jr. to share a WikiLeaks tweet with the quote "Can't we just drone this guy?" which the website True Pundit claimed that Hillary Clinton had made about Assange. After the election, WikiLeaks also requested that the president-elect push Australia to appoint Assange as ambassador to the US.

It seems a bit vague and possibly confused between Donald Trump and Donald Trump Jr. Jack Upland (talk) 05:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree, read it a couple times and I cant understand it. Have to admit I dont know the story either, but we must also assume the reader doesnt know the story as well. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

It is Donald Trump Jr. Theres more at WikiLeaks#2016_U.S._presidential_election but I think it was only the part about Assange on this page

I support wiki linking or adding or copy editing whatever you think to make it clearer Softlemonades (talk) 05:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

It's hard to copy edit when you don't know what is means.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I gave a link to information. how can i help more? what is confusing? should i try to tell the story? Softlemonades (talk) 03:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

If no better source has come forward surely we can delete the line from the into 2600:1700:7479:8000:EB8D:D4E5:DED8:2543 (talk) 01:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

i removed it, if someone finds a good source it can be restored Softlemonades (talk) 04:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Dues to some bizarre refacrting of edits, I can no longer view what passage was allegedly a copy vio. But as we do not use the source its hard to say if we copped them or they copies us. So can we have the passage we allegedly copied pasted here. Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

It was the Assange quote about the Wikileaks strategy [12]

Im explaining that the copyright detection from Wired is wrong because its an Assange essay in the public domain or whatever its called and that Wired quoted it too User_talk:Softlemonades#June_2023 Softlemonades (talk) 13:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

So not a copyvio? Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I was wrong. That wasnt removed, it was flagged in the report so I thought it was removed but it wasnt. With the diffs hidden I couldnt see, but she replied

The content I did remove is not present in the essay, but is present in the source article (at The Monthly.com). What I removed was a sentence about child pornograhy that was an exact match for the source document and was not withinin quotation marks or a block quote template. It is the sentence beginning "On the cypherpunks list he defended ..."

The quote from the article was On the cypherpunks list he defended the circulation of child pornography on the internet on the grounds that it would cut the need for new production and make it easier for police to capture paedophiles. [13] and it was right after him helping the police catch pedophiles online, same as in the wiki Softlemonades (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

OK. Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I put the other things back, I think everything. Edit summary for the rollback said things were a mess because of refactor and deleted edits so I thought you were ok with the edits. If not, sorry. you can revert again or I can self revert if you want

I want to be careful about editing and re phrasing this part. The copyvio was because I was afraid I would change what something means and not know it or make it so people read it different than I think they will. A mistake could be a very bad BLP problem, very bad

I think his opinion is interesting and significant with his experience helping the police catch them, I dont want to start an edit war of good will or make a bad BLP problem when I try to rephrase Softlemonades (talk) 03:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

And if its not a copy vio why the hell is it all being refactored? Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The International Subversives regularly hacked into systems belonging to a "who's who of the U.S. military-industrial complex" like the Australian Federal Police, Australia National University, NASA, the Department of Defence, the Stanford Research Institute, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Since when have Australian Federal Police and the Australian National University been part of the US military-industrial complex? Jack Upland (talk) 03:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

that should be re phrased Softlemonades (talk) 11:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree: It has been suggested, by tags, that the article section Espionage indictment in the United States be split to Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange, but there has been no discussion or negative comments here or on that page. I included notification of this discussion in the "Article split discussion" section there.

The reason for the requested split is that the article is too large, currently 89 kB (14352 words) of "readable prose size". It is suggested that at 15,000 KB an article almost certainly should be divided

This article is currently at 89 kB (14352 words) of "readable prose size". This does not include section and subsection headings, quotes, embedded lists (Honours and awards), or the appendices. The target article is 26 kB (4246 words) of "readable prose size", so could comfortably receive more content. -- Otr500 (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the tags are about the extradition section and the discussion is Talk:Indictment_and_arrest_of_Julian_Assange#Merger_proposal

If the only issue is size then I think go there Softlemonades (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, apparently the split was superseded by the merge request. -- Otr500 (talk) 05:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing

Stop it. You are restoring changes challenged by reverting without affirmative consensus and then claiming that affirmative consensus is needed to go against you. [14] [15] [16] [17]

The rule is that Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page. Your change was challenged by reversion. You reinstated it. That is against the rules. You demanded affirmative consensus. That is backwards.

You claimed the text you removed was "a bisarre non-sequitur." [18] And when I showed it wasnt, that it led to his indictment, you still insisted [19] [20] [21]

Stop ignoring and abusing consensus required Softlemonades (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Stop making up nonsense accusations because you dislike having to achieve consensus for new additions to the article lead. It’s a ridiculous waste of editor time. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Its a new removal. It was added months ago in May. [22] You complained about the section a month ago so you saw it. [23] Softlemonades (talk) 13:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

It literally wasn’t added “months” ago, because it wasn’t even 2, the minimum to make it a plural. You already challenged other material a month after it was added - though that material, unlike yours had been discussed on talk already. Much like your previous inappropriate behaviour on this article and others, you are trying to make up your own rules as you go along to edit by yourself and ignore other contributors. That is the behaviour that needs to stop. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

You already challenged other material a month after it was added - though that material, unlike yours had been discussed on talk already. If you mean the Trafigura report, I supported moving it to WikiLeaks where it belongs.

Much like your previous inappropriate behaviour on this article and others Which one of us was blocked from editing Wikileaks?

you are trying to make up your own rules Who deleted Wikileaks content and said I needed a consensus - highly unlikely - for an exception to that side-wide view [24] that they said didnt exist at WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_404#Does_WP:DAILYMAIL_deprecate_RSes_reporting_on_interviews_in_Daily_Mail??

But thats not what this is about. If you want to file a report, go ahead. It didnt go well before.

What matters here is the content You claimed the text you removed was "a bisarre non-sequitur." [16] And when I showed it wasnt, that it led to his indictment, you still insisted Softlemonades (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

You didn’t show that this event, taking up the space of an hour or two out of a lifetime, is due for inclusion in the lead, which is what is relevant.

If you mean the Trafigura report, I supported moving it But you challenged its presence here. So I sought to further the earlier consensus.

You’ve never gained any consensus for that material, and putting it back without discussion when it’s challenged is not appropriate or collegiate behaviour. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

But you challenged its presence here. So I sought to further the earlier consensus. After a lot of complaints including about the section about this

You didn’t show that this event, taking up the space of an hour or two out of a lifetime, is due for inclusion in the lead, which is what is relevant. You talk like the amount of time is what matters, and not that it led to his indictment, which I said in the edit history and added to the text

It also had sustained coverage over several years, cited in 2013 and 2019

And youre wrong and the chats were more than an hour or two Manning went on to tell the court that in February 2010 she began talking through a secure online chat log to an individual with WikiLeaks going by the handle “Ox”. ... In the webchats, Ox also went under the pseudonym “pressassociation”. Manning called him “Nathaniel Frank”, after the author of a book she had been reading. “Over the next few months, I stayed in frequent contact with Nathaniel,” she said in her statement. “We conversed on nearly a daily basis and I felt that we were developing a friendship.” [25] [26] [27] Softlemonades (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

The series of brief conversations over time add up to a couple of hours. I am aware of the occasional references to the chats - rare in mainstream sources. It’s not lead material. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

The series of brief conversations over time add up to a couple of hours Source or OR?

So the event RSes say got him indicted isnt lead material because he only spent a few hours on it spread over several months? Thats like saying that a shooting that someone is indicted for isnt lead material because it only took a few seconds or minutes. We dont judge importance or relevance by how long something took

I am aware of the occasional references to the chats - rare in mainstream sources. The article cites 10 or more like The US referred to these chat logs in the 2018 indictment of Julian Assange and filed an affidavit which said they were able to identify Assange as the person chatting with Manning using hints he made during the chats and that Manning identified him as Assange to Adrian Lamo.^[1][2][3][4] Softlemonades (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Thats like saying that a shooting that someone is indicted for isnt lead material - It’s not remotely close to like saying that. What an absurd analogy. Shooting someone is itself a crime. Chatting to someone a couple of times on jabber is not itself a crime, despite what Assange’s bitter enemies - the military shills at “DDoS” - would like to be the case.

No-one (as far I am aware) has disputed its presence in the article body. That doesn’t make it an appropriate detail for a broadbrush overview in the lead. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Shooting someone is itself a crime. Not in war or self defense and probably other places I cant think of

Chatting to someone a couple of times on jabber is not itself a crime No one said it is. What the sources say is that he was indicted over the chats Unsealed this morning in the Eastern District of Virginia, where Assange was indicted last week, the 2017 affidavit by FBI Special Agent Megan Brown says Assange took “elaborate measures to conceal,” encrypt and anonymize his communications with former U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning. Brown says chat logs from 2010 – when Manning first provided WikiLeaks with a massive trove of classified documents revealing U.S. war operations in Iraq and Afghanistan – plainly show a “specific illegal agreement” where Assange offered to help Manning crack a password stored on a Defense Department computer linked to a classified server. [28]

despite what Assange’s bitter enemies - the military shills at “DDoS” - would like to be the case. What are you talking about? Was that in a cited source?

No-one (as far I am aware) has disputed its presence in the article body. You complained about it a month ago Softlemonades (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

No one said it is. You made the comparison to a shooting that someone has been indicted for, saying Thats like saying that a shooting that someone is indicted for isnt lead material. [my emph.] Are you under the impression your earlier posts disappear? They are still visible to everyone.

The charge is already mentioned in the lead.

You complained about it a month ago What are you talking about? Are you just making things up again? Cambial — foliar❧ 17:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

You quoted the words that someone is indicted so dont pretend you didnt see them. You said Shooting someone is itself a crime not me

I havent made anything up please remember AGF and I already linked to it but one more time You haven't indicated why you think this is "too much" detail. Given you think it appropriate to add three paragraphs about an online chat allegedly involving Assange that lasted a couple of hours, this is an extraordinary claim. [29] Softlemonades (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with Cambial Yellowing that the sentence about talking with Manning just does not fit in the lead in that place and in fact I don't think it really should be in the lead at all. The lead is supposed to be a summary. NadVolum (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for contributing and staying to content and policy Softlemonades (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• I also agree the content doesnt belong in the lede. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Here we are told that Stella Assange said an application for a new appeal would be made on Tuesday 13 June 2023. I can't find any record of this. Maybe it just hasn't been reported, or maybe I'm missing something. Jack Upland (talk) 06:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Should the following subsection about Assange publishing a report into the 2006 Ivory Coast toxic waste dump be included in the article, beneath "early publications" in the section "WikiLeaks"? Cambial — foliar❧ 14:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

<Proposed section>:

In September 2009 Assange published the Minton Report, a scientific report about the 2006 Ivory Coast toxic waste dump.^[1][2][3][4] Thirty‑thousand claimants were suing the oil firm Trafigura in London, in one of the largest class-action suits brought before a British court, after the firm had illegally exported toxic waste and then had it dumped in Abidjan in Ivory Coast.^[5][6] When the Guardian newspaper had asked the company about the report, it responded by having its law firm Carter‑Ruck obtain a super-injunction (in RJW v Guardian News and Media Ltd) to prevent discussion by the media of either the contents of the report or the existence of the injunction.^[1][4] After publication on WikiLeaks of the document itself, Assange published two editorials about the situation:^[4][7]

Assange argued that the secret gag order "remains in effect, and entirely prevents the reporting of the report's contents"....Assange said that because of the damaging threat of legal costs, UK newspapers had silently removed some of the original dumping investigations from their databases. "For example, the Independent's 'Toxic shame: thousands injured in African city' no-longer 'exists' except at WikiLeaks"

Wikileaks maintained the report on its site and linked to it on the social network Twitter, where they encouraged journalists to break the injunction's censorship. After a question was tabled about the report in the House of Commons under parliamentary privilege, Trafigura's law firm Carter‑Ruck claimed the injunction was sub judice and tried to prevent discussion of the affair in parliament itself.^[4][8][9] The publicity generated about the easy availability of the report on the Wikileaks website, and subsequently its publication by the Norwegian broadcaster NRK, led Carter-Ruck to agree to a modification of the injunction.^[4][10] The affair caused a furore and prompted a wider discussion in the British press about the continued use of super-injunctions.^{[4][9][11][12][13]}

As Wikileaks' editor, Assange commented about super-injunctions to the publishing industry trade publication Journalism.co.uk that "In 2008, the paper was served with six. In 2007, five. Haven't heard of these? Of course not, these are secret gag orders; the UK press has given up counting regular injunctions".^[14][4]

<end>

• Include as proposer. The report and subsequent injunction were the subject of news coverage in several national newspapers and the BBC, with several reports referring to its publication on WikiLeaks.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]} There was some coverage in the international press.^[8][9][10] WikiLeaks was directly referred to in debate in the UK national parliament. Academic sources including a textbook on Media & Entertainment Law,^[11] a chapter on WikiLeaks in a work on political communication in the media,^[12], a journal article on super-injunctions,^[13] and a history of Assange and WikiLeaks,^[14] detail the publication and its media and legal significance. The latter reproduces Assange's editorial at the time of publication.^[14] Other sources on the history of Assange/WikiLeaks discuss Assange's publication of the report and its significance.^[15][16][17] It's directly relevant to the article subject and part of a neutral narrative. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: It was moved to WikiLeaks#Trafigura_report_and_super-injunction where it belongs. This is about Wikileaks more than Assange. We dont need to add every Wikileaks release here that Assange was involved in because it was all of them and this isnt a second Wikileaks article. And if we add it we should keep it to Assanges personal role and only if it matters or we would add everything on List of material published by WikiLeaks and list him as editor and publisher. Softlemonades (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, no-one has suggested adding every Wikileaks release, only the most significant ones like the above. As publishing leaked documents remains the only source of the article subject's notability, mention of the more significant publications is appropriate, as is already the case with several others. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: I would support a very much cut down version with the bits said by Assange and something like "IN 2009 Assange had WikiLeaks actively oppose a super-injunction gagging order on a report into the 2006 Ivory Coast toxic waste dump. He said...". NadVolum (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  I would probably support a cut down version like that. I suggested trimming and merging it into Julian_Assange#Early_publications before Softlemonades (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose the full section being included in this article. I would support a one or two (but preferably one) sentence summary with a link to the Wikileaks article. Fieari (talk) 04:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose the full section included in this bloated article. A couple of sentences would do.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Include - I'll note that every voter so far agrees that at least some part of text proposed by Cambial could be included in some format. I agree, but I think a paragraph of 4–5 sentences is ideal. This might seem like it's too short, Cambial, but I think the main points can be conveyed in a short paragraph of that size, including the general context, Assange's views, and impact of Wikileak's publication on the British legal and political system. -Darouet (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as written and I like the suggestions for a shorter summary here and a more developed section at the main Wikileaks article. Jorahm (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• I moved an older copy [31] to WikiLeaks#Trafigura_report_and_super-injunction two days Softlemonades (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

This edit [32] removed text describing Assanges early conviction using the biography from an article he wrote that was quoted by an RS. A 2006 biography for an article he wrote said he was "Australia's most infamous former computer hacker" and that he had been "convicted of attacks on the U.S. intelligence and publishing a magazine which inspired crimes against the Commonwealth."

Its relevant, DUE ABOUTSELF and not bloat Softlemonades (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

if the only objection was length, the paragraph can be rewritten, before it was just added to the end Softlemonades (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

What is "DUE ABOUTSELF". Looks like this content is an obscure reference to a short author bio mentioned by one RS - not encyclopaedic content. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

It is WP:DUE and an WP:ABOUTSELF description mentioned an RS

Its about a topic we cover. How is it "not encyclopaedic"? Because you made up a rule about how many RSes are needed?

And your edit restored the Julius baer content without consensus after it was removed [33] and makes claims I dont think are in the body. If the body does say he was part of publishing Tibet, say where. I see it says Wikileaks published it, but I dont see that he was involved in publishing such leaks Thanks for editing that Softlemonades (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I've adjusted to summarise the body better. Don't know where you got the idea about "made up a rule" - I didn't mention a rule (did you just make something up about people making things up? *exhales* *Woah*) The relevant policy is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

You said it was "not encyclopaedic" because it had only one RS. Its not WP:INDISCRIMINATE, what makes you think it is? Softlemonades (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I support including the text because it relates to an important phase in Assange's life.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• What does this mean which "inspired crimes against the Commonwealth"? Which crimes exactly? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)