Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

Early publications paragraph

I have removed this:

WikiLeaks first came to international prominence in 2008, when "most of the US fourth estate" filed an amicus curiae brief—through the organizational efforts of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP)—to defend Wikileaks against a DMCA request from the Swiss bank Julius Baer, which had initially been granted.

Virtually none of this is supported by the sources. The source cited does not say Wikileaks first came to international prominence in 2008. I can't find the quotation "most of the US fourth estate" in the source cited. Or reference to the RCFP. Or a DMCA request.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the part about coming to prominence in 2008 comes from the quote "Mr. Elmer, who helped bring WikiLeaks to prominence three years ago when ... " which was from an article written in 2011. The Julius Baer item is an important part of the Wikileaks story which should be told. I will have a look at some sources and come up with something. It is time you started looking at the bloated section "2016 U.S. presidential election". Burrobert (talk) 06:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

A suitable reference to support the text you removed is at WikiLeaks#2006–08. The source says

• "The American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a motion protesting the censorship of Wikileaks, and The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) assembled a media coalition that filed a friend of the court brief on Wikileaks' behalf" ("friend of the court" = "amicus curiae").
• "The media coalition comprised almost all of the major US newspaper publishers and press organisations, including -- in addition to the RCFP -- the American Society of Newspaper Editors, The Associated Press, the Citizen Media Law Project, The E.W. Scripps Company, the Gannett Company, The Hearst Corporation, the Los Angeles Times, the National Newspaper Association, the Newspaper Association of America, The Radio-Television News Directors Association, and The Society of Professional Journalists". This could be summarised as "most of the US fourth estate" or you could just list them all.
• Not sure about the reference to DMCA. Perhaps replace that with "injunction" which does appear in the source.

Burrobert (talk) 07:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

There is an article Bank Julius Baer v. Wikileaks, which should be linked to more openly here. The NYT is a US newspaper comments on a US case: it doesn't say that the case first brought WikiLeaks to "international prominence". I think it's better to leave this out. I think "most of the US fourth estate" is a rhetorical embellishment that doesn't belong here.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

You must be hard of hearing. I said:

• "I think the part about coming to prominence in 2008 comes from the quote "Mr. Elmer, who helped bring WikiLeaks to prominence three years ago when ... " which was from an article written in 2011"

and

• "This could be summarised as "most of the US fourth estate" or you could just list them all.

Burrobert (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I read what you said. There's no point in being repetitive.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Burrobert and Jack Upland: what do you think about this edit [1]? It brings in some part of Assange's political/economic philosophy, and mentions the Baer case while, I hope, addressing Jack's concern that the earlier text wasn't supported by sources. -Darouet (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

It is not perfect but close enough. Why didn't you use the article in The Inquirer which supports most of the previous version of the wording? Burrobert (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Was the Bard correct?

Would someone mind doing some regression on these data points to see if there is a pattern? They seem to indicate a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

• Assange’s bio should include the sentence: "During the time of the custody dispute, Assange's brown hair turned white".
• Assange’s bio should also include the sentence: "According to David Leigh and Luke Harding, Assange may have been involved in the WANK (Worms Against Nuclear Killers) hack at NASA in 1989, but this has never been proven".
• We shouldn’t mention that Wikileaks first came to prominence in 2008 when Swiss Bank Julius Baer sued Wikileaks for publishing allegations of illegal activity at the bank and Wikileaks was defended in court by The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and "almost all of the major US newspaper publishers".
• We shouldn’t mention what the British Minister of State for Europe and the Americas said the Brits were up in the months leading up to Assange’s arrest.

Burrobert (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• The change in hair colour indicates the trauma Assange went through. Arguably, we should have more about this episode, as it seems to continue to affect him. His prematurely white hair is a prominent part of his appearance and explaining how it came about is of interest. This is only a brief mention.
• The NASA hack is well-sourced speculation and is part of Assange's notoriety in his early day.
• No one has said we can't mention Julius Baer. The problem was with the sources used.
• No one has said we shouldn't mention Operation Pelican.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Burrobert: I saw your edits but I agree with Jack Upland here. It seems to me that readers should be aware of those earlier episodes. The comment by Leigh and Harding - who is known to be very hostile to Assange - is properly attributed. As to the issue of his hair color - is this incorrect? I agree with Jack that this is a meaningful event in Assange's life. -Darouet (talk) 10:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Did it turn white or was it bleached? HAs any MEDERS source commented on this?Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

https://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/books/5405161/Secret-of-Assanges-hair-revealedSlatersteven (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• I mentioned the hair colour and WANK items in the context of other actions. They are not important by themselves.
• Interesting point about the change in hair colour possibly requiring a MEDERS source. I'll let others comment on that.
• Regarding Julius Baer, I found the source. You only need to tweak a few of the words as I described above.
• Regarding the actions of the British regime leading up to Assange's arrest, that is good to hear.

Burrobert (talk) 12:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Well as there is a claim that his hair colour was the result of an accident. Yes we need a source even saying it has changed while During the time of the custody dispute.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

A source is provided.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Missed it, I think the claim needs attribution as the source does.Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• bump* Burrobert (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Burrobert, I don't understand what your concrete proposals are: in the bullet points you've given above I have no idea what you're arguing for or against. From the edits back and forth at the time of this dispute it seemed to me that Jack's sources and arguments were reasonable, but here on the talk page I can't even tell what's being disputed. -Darouet (talk) 22:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I was commenting on what I thought was a lack of consistency in the editing. The outstanding points from this section are:

• The resurrection of Julius Baer using the source I provided and with the change in wording that I mentioned in an earlier section.
• Describing what the British Minister of State for Europe and the Americas said the Brits were up in the months leading up to Assange’s arrest. I believe we are waiting for the publication of Duncan's book in order to cover this point.

Burrobert (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll comment on the Julius Baer bank issue in the section above. -Darouet (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, please do. Burrobert (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Regarding Assange's white hair (see above), there seem to be two different accounts: either his hair turned white after the custody battle or it was a high school experiment gone wrong. The photo in this article shows that his hair was light brown at aged 23, so I don't think the high school experiment claim is believable. It could have been a joke made by Assange. The custody battle explanation is given by his mother in a New Yorker article.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Seth Rich claim

Assange made a false, self-serving claim. Thats why NPOV cannot say "comment". Please restore. SPECIFICO talk 20:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Please see this text and cited sources. SPECIFICO talk 21:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

We haven't mentioned any claim by Assange in this paragraph. We say "Assange implied that ... " and "Assange's comments were highlighted ... ". What is the claim being referred to here? Don't leave our readers in the dark. Burrobert (talk) 03:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

According to the Mueller investigation, Assange "implied falsely" that Rich was the source to obscure the fact that Russia was the source. SPECIFICO talk 05:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

By the way, the statement about his comments being highlighted isn't supported by the sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

"Statement" would be OK, too. But "comment" repeats his lie. SPECIFICO talk 05:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I will let you work out whether Assange made any claim and what that claim was. Once you have done it, you should put it into the article so that readers also know what it is. Regarding Jack's comment about "highlighted" comments, the Vox story, that is used as a source for this point, does not mention Assange at all. It also does not mention any statements made by Wikileaks about Rich. It isn't a point I am particularly interested in. However, isn't it synthesis (or possible OR) to draw a conclusion from two separate sources that is in neither source? I'll leave you work on that as well. Burrobert (talk) 05:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it is an unsupported claim at the moment. I haven't checked Network propaganda yet. It seems odd to suggest Assange brought attention to the issue when the journalist in the interview (quoted above) knew exactly what Assange was talking about.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

"Coverage expanded to broader media outlets only after Assange, on August 9, tweeted a $20,000 reward for “information leading to the conviction for the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich” and implied on Dutch TV that Rich may have been the source of the DNC email dump and that his death may have been tied up with that fact". From The Network Book. Burrobert (talk) 06:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I have taken out the "highlighted" sentence as it is unsupported and rather unnecessary. I have altered the sentence sourced from Network propaganda to fit the quotation quoted above.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

10/10 for effort Jack. Burrobert (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Why is it unnecessary to note that Assange's intentional promotion of Seth Rich conspiracy theories prompted mass coverage in rightwing outlets? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

This is already covered by sentence from Network Propaganda.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't advocate removing any of the essentials, but the 2016 U.S. presidential election section with three separate subsections still remains way too long. There have been repeated efforts to trim it in the past. Can we please come back to that? This material can definitely be covered in a single section, with references and links provided to readers who are curious and want to know all the details. -Darouet (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

No, the highest profile issue that Assange was ever involved in should not be trimmed. Geogene (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Who said it was the highest profile issue? And, anyway, does it need multiple headings?--Jack Upland (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Assange is not best known for his comments on Seth Rich. One can get a very rough idea of what he's best known for from the timeline on Google Trends. Based on that timeline, Assange is best known for WikiLeaks' 2010 publications (the US diplomatic cables, and Iraq and Afghan War logs), followed by his extradition battle, then for the 2016 US Presidential election broadly and his political asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Fortunately, Wikipedia does not delegate editorial decisions to an unknown Google algorithm. If it did, we could all retire. SPECIFICO talk 22:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Some time back, I put together set of sources from a range of countries which address the topic, "Who is Julian Assange?" The Guardian doesn't mention the 2016 US election.The BBC also doesn't mention the election.SBS of Australia does mention the election. The LA Times mentions the election.The Sydney Morning Herald doesn't mention the election.NBC mentions the election.CNN mentions the election. My conclusion is that media sources outside the USA generally don't see Assange's involvement in the election as a major part of his life. I invite other editors to find other examples.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I remember that, and it was helpful. To add to your list: the BBC did another profile Who is Julian Assange and what is Wikileaks? [2] that talks about the US a lot, but doesn't mention the 2016 elections once (the only legal case against Assange related to the elections was thrown out of court on first amendment grounds [3]). Instead, the BBC profile focuses on what Assange became renowned for internationally - massive leaks in 2010-11 - and that are now the basis of the US espionage case against him. A Columbia Journalism Review article on those charges also doesn't mention the elections once [4]. -Darouet (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The Mulleur investigation is a primary source here on a political article, certainly not reliable to override an RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

You are free to cite any of the thousands of RS secondary and tertiary discussions of Muelller's findings. SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• This is the sentence I took out previously: "Assange's comments were highlighted by right-wing outlets such as Fox News, The Washington Times and conspiracy website InfoWars[293][292] and set off a spike in attention to the murder". As noted above, the Vox source doesn't mention Assange at all. The NBC source mentions InfoWars, but it doesn't mention Fox or the Washington Times. NBC seems to place more weight on the reward rather than Assange's comments. The second part of the sentence has no citation at all. Based on these sources it seems that attention was drawn to the murder by a number of people, including Roger Stone. That's why I would say this sentence fails verification.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• I have removed the subheadings from the 2016 US election section, as no one has advocated retaining them. This brings this section into line with the rest of the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

If we are going to claim that Assange "implied" that Rich was the source of the leak, then we should include his clarification as reported in the article by Alex Seitz-Wald: “We treat threats toward any suspected source of WikiLeaks with extreme gravity. This should not be taken to imply that Seth Rich was a source to WikiLeaks or to imply that that his murder is connected to our publications.” I don't think Assange implied anything, but understand how one might draw that conclusion. TFD (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Rich was not previously suspected of leaking, and after Assange's weird, gratuitous comment, it was widely reported both that he'd made this disingenuous remark, which fed a frenzy of right-wing narratives. SPECIFICO talk 00:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

In that case, how did the journalist know who Rich was?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I've previously referred you to the Seth Rich article. If you have no knowledge of the matter, you should not be making "bold" edits. SPECIFICO talk 02:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The Snopes article that Seitz-Wald cites says, "Internet commenters have suggested that Rich was behind the disclosure of DNC emails to WikiLeaks that helped force the resignation of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida as chairwoman. The conspiracy theorists got new ammunition when WikiLeaks announced a $20,000 reward for information leading to a conviction in Rich’s death." We can use Google search to see if anyone mentioned this before the interview. TFD (talk) 02:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The Murder of Seth Rich article makes clear that the conspiracy theory was alive before Assange made his comment. I have checked Network Propaganda, and its analysis of the saga shows that Assange's comments — and the reward — caused a brief surge in interest in the story, but major coverage didn't start till 2017. Therefore I feel that the sentence based on Network Propaganda also fails verification. It seems to have been written to make Assange's role in the saga more important than it actually was.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

This is second guessing reliable sources. And it's pointless, because plenty of other reliable sources can be produced for this As Isikoff’s reporting makes obvious, it’s in fact much more accurate to pin the broad embrace of Seth Rich conspiracies on WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange — and on U.S. actors like Infowars’ Alex Jones and Fox News’s Sean Hannity. [5]. Geogene (talk) 05:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

How is it second guessing? The point of reliable sources is to quote them correctly. This isn't happening here. The article you cite is entitled, "Don’t blame the Seth Rich conspiracy on Russians. Blame Americans." Assange is obviously not an American. This article doesn't really help your cause.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

That's a failure of reading comprehension on your part, then. It says what it says whether you understand it or not. Geogene (talk) 06:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Have you actually read the article?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

This minor sub-section is draining more editor time than it deserves as Jack pointed out above. I woke from my slumber to complete Assange's quote since the abridged version obscured an important point. Not sure why this would be regarded as "UNDUE detail" and I can't make sense of "RS give summary accounts". BtW the recent addition doesn't satisfy Jack's earlier objections. Burrobert (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Kindly specify your concern and why you believe that long quote is the best way to address it. SPECIFICO talk 04:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The edit summary was not very informative so let's use the Socratic method to see if we can find the truth (which will, as you know, set us free):

• Was the addition of the quote "and they become concerned to see things occurring like that" undue. If so, why?
• Was the addition of the longer quote inside the citation undue? If so, why?
• Was my change to the introduction ("When asked whether Rich's killing was "simply a murder", Assange answered, ...") undue? If so, why?
• What does "RS give summary accounts" mean?

That will do for a start. We can look at the parts of the section that fail verification later.

Burrobert (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the accusation is that Assange was misleading in order to conceal his source. There seems little reason to expand beyond that. We can say that Assange played a part in spreading rumours, but that's all the sources indicate. This isn't an impeachment debate.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. Burrobert (talk) 05:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Re this edit [6], the two quotes come across quite differently:

(1) "No. There’s no finding. I’m suggesting that our sources take risks, and they become concerned to see things occurring like that."

(2) "No. There’s no finding. I’m suggesting that our sources take risks."

In the full quote (1), Assange says that Wikileaks sources might be fearful seeing someone like Seth Rich Killed. In the truncated quote (2), Assange appears to be saying that Seth Rich died because he was the source. If you believe there's no difference in meaning that's fine: surely you wouldn't object, then, to having the full quote (with 10 extra words) available? -Darouet (talk) 12:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I also agree with TFD that we should include Wikileaks' clarification [7]:

"We treat threats toward any suspected source of WikiLeaks with extreme gravity. This should not be taken to imply that Seth Rich was a source to WikiLeaks or to imply that that his murder is connected to our publications."

-Darouet (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if you will read the hundres of RS that discussed this, both contemporaneously and to this day, you will learn that this was not received as a good faith "clarification" but rather as a doubling down on the deflection, dog-whistle conspiracy theorizing, and self-serving lie. SPECIFICO talk 21:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Darouet, I see you have restored the disputed text. You say in your edit summary "per" @TFD: suggestion, while ignoring three other editors who argue the contrary here. Please self revert and pursue consensus here on talk. @Awilley:. SPECIFICO talk 22:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to include the full quote. As far as I can tell only one editor has objected to including the full quote and that editor has not yet clarified their objection by answering the above questions. Burrobert (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Did anybody oppose TFD's suggestion? Also, I saw that you disagreed with Burrobert adding the full quote, but I agree with Burrobert, and Jack's statement appears ambivalent (Jack correct me if I'm wrong here). SPECIFICO it's hard to even know what consensus or edits you're referring to if you don't take the time to use diffs to explain yourself. Lastly, why are you constantly pinging Awilley? Other editors here take the time to link and quote from sources, and build consensus. I think that's the best way to go about things. -Darouet (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

If necessary, we can consult an Admin. Geogene, Jack, and I did not agree with TFD. If you were a less experienced editor I'd think you did it in error. Please read WP:ONUS and please pursue consensus for your view on talk. There's no rush, but edit warring on a DS article is not helpful. SPECIFICO talk 01:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

It is still unclear what you are disagreeing with and your reasons.

• Do you disagree with the addition of the quote "and they become concerned to see things occurring like that"? If so, why?
• Do you disagree with the addition of the longer quote inside the citation? If so, why?
• Do you disagree with the change to the introduction ("When asked whether Rich's killing was "simply a murder", Assange answered, ...")? If so, why?
• Do you disagree with the addition of the quote "We treat threats toward any suspected source of WikiLeaks with extreme gravity. This should not be taken to imply that Seth Rich was a source to WikiLeaks or to imply that that his murder is connected to our publications"? If so, why?

Burrobert (talk) 02:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, I disagree with inserting quotes into this paragraph. It is a minor incident in Assange's life and should be dealt with briefly.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Removals

Jack Upland, since there's been some back and forth about the material you removed, and because the removals were quite substantial, can you explain your thinking a bit more? Is this a balance issue? -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

For reference, these are the removals I'm referencing: [8]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I will caution you to review ONUS & CONSENSUSUS, and observe that evasion of 1RR by tag teams is likely to be sanctioned, if reported. Highly visible and not constructive. SPECIFICO talk 16:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

caution you, ONUS, CONSENSUSUS (sic), evasion of 1RR, tag teams, sanctioned, reported. Highly visible, not constructive. It seems Jack has started an mini edit war and a war of words with his bold removal of long standing content. The article has been stable for a while now so it is unclear what triggered the sudden burst of boldness. Anyway, in the future, ex abundanti cautela, would it be a good idea to discuss major changes on the talk page before implementing them? Burrobert (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Jack did not start an edit war. They just removed text and I objected to the removal. That's not an edit war. -Darouet (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I removed the text — as I explained at the time — because it was repetitive. Yes, we should note the opinions of Melzer and Doctors for Assange, but we don't need to repeat essentially the same opinions multiple times. We certainly don't need to include trivial details such as how many doctors were involved each time. I don't see this as a major change. It is just trimming excessively verbose text in an overlong article. The text is not really "long standing" and has just accumulated over the past few years. If you want it to stay, please do some copy-editing to make it less verbose and repetitive.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I support complete removal. This nonsense was opposed by many less insistent editors from the beginning. It was never important to mainstream narratives. And news flash. He's still alive despite the world disregarding the alarm. SPECIFICO talk 20:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

You all would benefit from reviewing the policies and guidelines. ONUS NPOV WEIGHT and CONSENSUS are policies. BRD is not, and furthermore is varied in its interpretation and application. @Awilley:. SPECIFICO talk 20:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Kudos to Jack Upland for breaking the edits up into small chunks with edit summaries. And to Darouet for only doing a partial revert. The path forward is discussion combined with more smaller edits with detailed edit summaries. Not more 6,923 byte reverts. ~Awilley (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd also say that I think the text is labouring the point when the issue has now moved on. Assange's health is being contested in the courts. I don't think there was any serious doubt Assange was unwell. The question is how that affects his extradition.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I think Jack's division of editors (see below) into supporters of Assange or apologists for the US-UK regime is too simplistic and doesn't represent the views of all editors working on the page. One way of dealing with Melzer's views (and the views of others) is to create a "Reception" section for the views of all commentators. Currently there is as "Assessment" sub-section which is strangely placed within the "Founding WikiLeaks" section. I would suggest moving the "Assessment" section to a more appropriate place and revamp it to include opinions such as Melzer's that are currently spread out through the article. Currently Melzer's name appears five times in the body because his contributions are spread out. If we reduce that to one mention of Melzer's name, that is 24 characters saved. Burrobert (talk) 06:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I have never made such a division of editors, and I don't fit it to it myself. (The comment below referred to the book edited by Tariq Ali.) I don't think we want a jumble of responses to everything that has happened to Assange since 2006. This article is way too much of a WP:QUOTEFARM. Look at articles on other famous people: actors, politicians, artists etc. There are occasional quotations by commentators, but these are selective. Here, every time a VIP says something about Assange, some editor inserts it here, even if it is repetitive or inconsequential.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Glad you have disowned that position Jack. Have you also stopped beating your wife? What about the revamp suggested above and the odd placement of the "Assessment" subsection? Burrobert (talk) 09:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Certainly there are many Assange supporters editing (like you). I don't disown that. The "Assessment" subsection is placed there because it is an assessment of WikiLeaks at that point in time. Your suggestion would create a jumble of various reactions by various people to various things, as I said. I think it is reasonable to have assessment of events as they happen. I think the problem here is quoting Melzer etc repetitively. Commentary should be selective. It shouldn't be all-inclusive. The commentary shouldn't drown out what is happening with Assange, as it does in the "Imprisonment in the UK".--Jack Upland (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Darouet: is there a reason you moved this — "On 10 March 2020, the International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute, IBAHRI, condemned the mistreatment of Julian Assange in the US extradition trial." — back from the "Hearings on extradition to the U.S." section to the "Imprisonment in the UK" section? As far as I can see, it relates to the extradition trial.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey @Jack Upland: actually I think neither section is appropriate, but I might be wrong. Though their statement was published on March 10 [9], the IBAHRI comments relate to treatment that occurred immediately following Assange's arrest. This indicates that the end of the first paragraph of Conviction for breach of bail would be appropriate. Specifically,

According to his lawyers, Mr Assange was handcuffed 11 times; stripped naked twice and searched; his case files confiscated after the first day of the hearing; and had his request to sit with his lawyers during the trial, rather than in a dock surrounded by bulletproof glass, denied.

Seems most relevant there. Those are details of what IBAHRI calls mistreatment that we would certainly consider notable for a prisoner being held in another country, and what is why, according to IBAHRI, it's notable here (perhaps even more so, since one would expect greater protections in the UK). -Darouet (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The statement clearly says the IBAHRI "condemns the reported mistreatment of Julian Assange during his United States extradition trial in February 2020". His arrest was on 11 April 2019.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jack Upland — I stand WP:TROUTed. I'll move the text as you've requested. Thanks for catching this, and my apologies for my error. -Darouet (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

"Most consequential event"

I'm just noting that the edit summary for this revert is not in any way backed up by an analysis of the sources: Undid revision 1019125366 by Darouet (talk) restore RS content. dont obscure the origins of the leaked documents. this is by far the most consequential event in this person's life (emphasis added). Assange's role in Wikileaks' 2016 US election publications has received far less coverage than his role in Wikileaks' 2010 publications and his ongoing extradition battle (and all the legal and political issues surrounding it). The amount of coverage is not even close, as has been repeatedly demonstrated in discussion after discussion here. We've been through this so many times, and it's frustrating to see editors continue to repeat a claim that's just not true. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Nobody disputes that you have repeated this so many times. But with no basis and with little support from the larger community of editors. SPECIFICO talk 13:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Anyone can read the previous talk page discussions and see that what you're saying is just not true. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Just to flesh this out a bit, Jack Upland recently looked at what sources that give a broad overview of Assange say: [10]. Jack concluded that media sources outside the USA generally don't see Assange's involvement in the election as a major part of his life. Darouet added a couple of sources that give a broad overview of Assange, which do not even mention the 2016 US election: [11]. The idea that the 2016 US Presidential election is "the most consequential event" in Assange's life, or that that's what he's best known for, is simply not backed up by the sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

United Nations

The opinions of people working with the UN are referred to more often than the English judges. Agnes Callamard is cited twice. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention is cited three times, twice saying that skipping bail is a minor offence. Nils Melzer is cited four times. Isn't this undue weight?--Jack Upland (talk) 04:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I made a suggestion above about how to deal with multiple quotes from Melzer which could also be used to deal with multiple quotes from others. Take the quotes out of the timeline and roll them into a separate section dealing with "Reactions". Any thoughts? Burrobert (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

This would take the opinions out of context. For example, the statement by the Working Group on 5 February 2016 is related to his time in the Embassy. It would just be confusing to lump this together with comments about his imprisonment in Belmarsh. And I'm not sure what problem this would solve.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Right-ho. Then you have made a rod for your own back. By the way, while you have your measuring stick out, can you compare the amount of space devoted to the 2016 US election to the amount of space devoted to the release and impact of the Collateral Murder video or the Vault 7 files? Burrobert (talk) 04:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Jack Upland: part of the problem is that there are multiple UN bodies that have gotten involved in the Assange case, alongside all the other human rights groups. According to these groups, the fundamental issues at stake are serious — treatment of political detainees, due process of law, freedom of journalism and speech — particularly important since the countries prosecuting Assange (US, UK) are some of the more powerful in the world and set the standard of what can be done to journalists or whistleblowers everywhere.

Otherwise, I disagree Burrobert with the idea of taking out these various declarations by human rights groups or officials and having a separate "reactions" section. With that separate section, a reader curious about Assange's circumstances at Belmarsh would have no idea of the descriptions and statements of on the topic, by institutions the world has established to monitor human rights and incarceration. Often, the very facts that are relevant to Assange's incarceration, and his biography, might be made known only because of an investigation and report by those bodies. -Darouet (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Who, other than a few insistent Wikipedia edtors, puts any credence in the proclamations of a UN factotum? Note that Melzer is a qualified expert in legal affairs, not medicine or personal health. With proper sourcing, his analysis on the legal issues regarding Assange may be DUE WEIGHT. Otherwise, none of it belongs in the article. I note again -- Assange is still alive. Somebody got it wrong. Maybe the physicians whose opinons Melzer relied on? SPECIFICO talk 22:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Who, other than a few insistent Wikipedia editors, gives any weight to what the US regime says happened in the 2016 US election.
• Nils Melzer is the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
• We already have a "Reactions" section. It is called "Assessments" and is placed, oddly, under the "Founding WikiLeaks" section.
• Two of the four references to Melzer appear in the same paragraph and all are in the same "Imprisonment in the UK" section. It should be easy to roll these references into a sub-section of that section, perhaps under a title like "UN Rapporteur's assessment of Assange's imprisonment".
• These sentences are about the whole process that Assange has been subjected to and not only about Assange's imprisonment. There may be a more appropriate location: "In a later interview with The Canary, Melzer criticised the "secretive grand jury indictment in the United States", the "abusive manner in which Swedish prosecutors disseminated, re-cycled and perpetuated their 'preliminary investigation' into alleged sexual offences", the "termination by Ecuador of Mr Assange's asylum status and citizenship without any form of due process", and the "overt bias against Mr Assange being shown by British judges since his arrest". He said the United States, UK, Sweden and Ecuador were trying to make an example of Assange. He also accused journalists of "spreading abusive and deliberately distorted narratives".".

Burrobert (talk) 05:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I am deeply sceptical about the how and the why of this proposal.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

No problem. I was only trying to help you reduce the length of the article. Personally, I am happy with the way it reads now. Burrobert (talk) 08:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not just the length. It's the weight given to the opinions of UN personnel. I don't believe they should be ignored, but I don't think we need multiple comments.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Jack has stated the central point. Melzer is not even UN personnel. He's an unpaid consultant with a strange and unusual generic title and a limited brief that does not include medical diagnosis. It also does not include a law school prof choosing and re-stating whatever his chosen physicians may have said to him. That does not make either his or their medical judgment notable in this matter. Once again I note -- Assange is still alive months after this proclamation. Melzer is arguably a notable expert on the law in these matters. Nothing further. SPECIFICO talk 14:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• I think the two mentions of the comments of United Nations Special Rapporteur Agnes Callamard can be rolled into one item. They stem from the same article.
• Nils Melzer is the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
• There is a more urgent weight problem that needs to be addressed in another of our sections.
• British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond is quoted twice within three sentences saying almost the same thing.
• We devote a paragraph to something that didn’t happen (one of Jack’s pet hates) - Assange agreeing to go to prison in exchange for clemency for Chelsea Manning.

Burrobert (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Don't keep deprecating Jack's good faith editorial positions. Nobody's guessing what kind of pets you might keep, despite the unique user name. SPECIFICO talk 22:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

not responsive or substantive to this thread. SPECIFICO talk 14:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)}}

Don't worry too much about the weight of a petite looking UN while one of our sections is morbidly obese. Burrobert (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Who, other than a few insistent Wikipedia edtors, puts any credence in the proclamations of a UN factotum? Let's see:

• The New York Times: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]
• The Washington Post: [17] [18] [19]
• The Guardian: [20] [21] [22]
• The Independent: [23]
• The Financial Times: [24] [25]
• The BBC: [26]
• Le Monde: [27]
• Le Figaro: [28] [29] [30] [31]
• El Pais: [32]
• Sueddeutsche Zeitung: [33] [34]
• Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung: [35] [36] [37] [38]
• Deutsche Welle: [39]
• Xinhua: [40]
• South China Morning Post: [41]
• The Globe and Mail: [42]
• Sydney Morning Herald: [43] [44] [45]

It looks like every major newspaper in the world cares. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

That's an impressive list. Burrobert (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

In the world of principled journalism, unlike The Intercept, RT and various fringe grad student blogs you sometimes promote, there is a distinction between reporting -- which is generally warranted when even a volunteer factotum of a major promotes hyperbole and nonsense outside his brief, and credence that would be indicated by widespread endorsement by analysts, editorial boards, or accredited medical experts in this field. An impressive list of publications, whose reporting does not confirm any lasting significance for Melzer's ramblings on health. For the fifth time, Assange is still alive and we hear nothing further about his health with editors here instead fretting about his white hair. SPECIFICO talk 16:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

That first sentence has more layers than Inception. What is the relevance of Assange still being alive? If you want to get rid of Assange's white hair you will have to go through Jack who overruled my removal. Burrobert (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

This is the last time I'm going to tell you this before I just stop reading your posts. That first sentence has more layers than Inception makes no statement relevant to this discussion and is unintelligible to those of us who are not familiar with American (? I presume) pop-culture cinema. If you can't speak clearly and specifically to the group assembled and attempting to collaborate here, you are wasting your time. SPECIFICO talk 22:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Right then, I'll go inform the editors of the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian, the Independent, the Financial Times, the BBC, Le Monde, Le Figaro, El País, die Süddeutsche Zeiting, die Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, die Deutsche Welle, Xinhua, the South China Morning Post, the Globe and Mail and the Sydney Morning Herald that they should stop writing articles about the ramblings of this volunteer factotum. But while I'm trying to convince them to ignore this guy, WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS unfortunately still apply, and we can't just dismiss continued coverage by virtually every major news agency on Earth by making vague references to fringe grad student blogs. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Let's not forget that Assange's extradition was overruled by reference to his health. His health is still an issue. I would also question Melzer's role as a legal expert here, though he is certainly qualified. He has raised concerns about the treatment of Assange. But most legal commentators that I've seen have not backed up his legal arguments, and none of his legal arguments have stood up in court. Therefore, if we're citing Melzer as a legal expert, that's very problematic. As Oliver Wendell Holmes said, legal advice is a prediction. If the prediction isn't accurate, then the advice isn't any good.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Have we cited any of Melzer's legal opinions? What "legal arguments" are you referring to? The views we have cited seem to fit in with his role as the United Nations special rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Burrobert (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I was responding to earlier comments that he was an expert in legal affairs etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I was just trying to concede the less contentious claim. It's not clear to me that he is a particularly respected legal scholar or practitioner. And in the increasingly marginalized United Nations, he is a volunteer part-time unpaid consultant. Not a position of particular importance or authority. I examined Melzer's WP page, and it is tenuous and weakly sourced and rehashes of PR bios related to speaking engagements and books. He appears to have gotten just enough press for more than this single event to establish marginal WP:NOTABILITY, which a series of socks and SPAs turned into a thin little article. Further, Assange is still Alive. SPECIFICO talk 22:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

With regard to legal arguments, I don't think most lawyers would endorse Melzer's comments in the interview given to The Canary (quoted above) nor that Assange was being tortured. He seems to be acting as a campaigner for Assange rather than an independent legal expert.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

See, for example, this reaction by human rights lawyers against his approach.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Check out the worldwide coverage of the 1948 Olympics. Please read the policy and discussion pages related to WP:WEIGHT NPOV and the Village Pump. The object is not to cherrypick news items that died out almost immediately. He's still alive. Thank God. SPECIFICO talk 22:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Are you referring to this sentence: "Melzer criticised the ... "abusive manner in which Swedish prosecutors disseminated, re-cycled and perpetuated their 'preliminary investigation' into alleged sexual offences" "? That does not seem to be a legal opinion. Burrobert (talk) 05:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand the last two comments.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Related to the comment "With regard to legal arguments, I don't think most lawyers would endorse Melzer's comments in the interview given to The Canary (quoted above)". Burrobert (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The "secretive grand jury indictment" jumped out at me. Aren't they all secret? But my point was that it's misleading to call Melzer a legal expert. His comments can't really be treated as legal opinions. He is just someone who is a partisan of Assange. If Assange got a parking ticket he'd probably call it a "grave injustice".--Jack Upland (talk) 08:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Careful, you will get censored for making a facetious comment. The other view is that Melzer is doing his job. Was I right about your pet? Burrobert (talk) 08:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not being facetious. I think Melzer's job is reporting to the UN about torture. Assange is a prisoner being held on remand facing possible extradition. I can't really see why Melzer should focus on him. If you're asking if I think this article should focus on things that have happened to Assange, I agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Burro, you are not giving any sustantive response to Jack's reasonable assessment of barely-notable Melzer. A self-serving interview is a primary source. Flash in the pan newspaper coverage doesn't establish DUE WEIGHT. There's a strong case to cut Melzer to 1-2 sentences. SPECIFICO talk 09:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: Melzer has said that he is not a partisan of Assange, and that for a long time, he didn't care to look into Assange's case because he had a somewhat negative superficial impression of Assange. I'm not aware of any history of activism by Melzer on behalf of Assange, before he looked into Assange's case as part of his role as UN Special Rapporteur. Moreover, ignoring his statements, which have been reported on by virtually every major news outlet on Earth, because one or another Wikipedia editor thinks he's wrong on the legal substance, would be original research. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Melzer's comments show that he became a partisan of Assange. Obviously he wasn't always a partisan of Assange. I gave a source above, and there are more. He is a high profile partisan of Assange, who because of his role gets a great deal of coverage. I'm not saying we should ignore him. I just don't think we need to repetitively document what he and other UN personnel say.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

This is circular logic. We have to give less weight to Melzer's views on Assange's treatment and legal travails because he's a partisan of Assange. How do we know he's a partisan of Assange? Because of his statements on Assange's treatment and legal travails. You're effectively just saying that anyone who expresses the views that Melzer has expressed should be given less weight. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

You're just putting words into my mouth. We shouldn't quote anyone excessively, regardless of whether they are partisan.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

If I've misunderstood you, then you should clarify what you meant above when you called Melzer a "partisan" and said, His comments can't really be treated as legal opinions. It looks to me like you were saying we should discount his statements on legal matters, because he's just ... a partisan. Now, you're saying that I'm putting words in your mouth, and that whether or not he's a partisan is besides the point. That just doesn't square with what you were saying above. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The long list of sources I gave above demonstrates that Melzer's comments about Assange have received extremely wide, continuing coverage. Claims that the UN or Melzer are "marginal" are just laughable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Going back to the dreaded 2016 US election section again, why are the two or three paragraphs we devote to the Seth Rich item located at the bottom of the section rather than in their correct chronological order? Burrobert (talk) 07:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Burrobert, please move that comment to the section discussing Seth Rich above.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:WEIGHT, Melzer, whose opinions received scant if any endorsement from notable experts, should be expunged entirely. Per WP:ONUS, if no consenus is reached to include, then it stays out. SPECIFICO talk 14:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

It's been clearly demonstrated by sources posted here that Melzer's assessments on behalf of the United Nations are repeatedly reported by all major papers on earth. They've also been confirmed by assessments from other human rights organizations. -Darouet (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

You can repeat that empty assertion over and over, but reporting on a UN press release, with Melzer's further speculations is basically a primary sourced bit of news. The same papers will print the UN mosquito count in a member nation or the monthly refugee counts from a war zone. That does not confer encyclopedic significance to each such press flurry. What's needed is notable expert comments endorsing Melzer's narratives. Produce them if you wish to collaborate responsively. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Above, I cited 34 articles published by 16 major news agencies in 8 countries around the world, all discussing Melzer's statements about Assange. Your posts in this thread are just not serious. Please stop wasting everyone's time with nonsense about the "UN mosquito count". It's disrespectful. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Bail appeal?

News outlets have said that Assange was going to appeal the refusal of bail,[46][47] but I can't find any record of this appeal. Did it happen? Does anyone know?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Jack, I have looked far and wide and haven't found anything to enlighten us. On 30 January, Rebecca Vincent from Reporters sans frontières, who has been covering the case, said "We’re waiting for news on Assange’s legal team appealing the decision to deny bail". She hasn't said anything since then and I haven't found anything else after that date. Burrobert (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. It looks like he didn't appeal.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Narcissist a trope?

Judge Michael Snow said Assange was "a narcissist," reproducing a common media trope.

I don't see what the addition to this sentence (in bold) adds to the article. Does the cited source actually say that the judge was echoing the media? If so, who actually said that? Could it be that the judge said it because it's true? I don't think we need sniping by Assange supporters at every point — if this is what this is supposed to be. I have undone the edit because the full quotations from the judge, which were removed, are important. Textual criticism of the wording he used is not.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

That sounds right. Let's move on. SPECIFICO talk 00:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Jack Upland - the use of the term "narcissist" to describe Assange is discussed in four chapters in the book, edited by scholar Tariq Ali and civil rights lawyer Margaret Kunstler.

• Chapter 3 is by journalist Alan MacLeod. MacLeod notes that the term is used by an opinion column in The Week, and is mentioned in various contexts by a host of other papers. MacLeod writes, "The narcissist accusation is a common trope thrown at enemies of the US establishment."
• Chapter 14 is by human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson. Robertson says, simply, that "the judge, not being a psychiatrist, had no business" to call Assange a narcissist.
• Chapter 15 (titled "Responding to Assange's Critics") is by journalist Caitlin Johnstone. Johnstone writes that accusations Assange is a "narcissist" amount to a smear used by opponents who have no arguments at their disposal other than ad hominem attack.
• A late chapter in the book "Endgame for Assange" is by artist and author Angela Richter. Richter writes that it is difficult to get Assange to talk about himself: "difficult. I hardly know anyone who says “I” as reluctantly as Assange, which is amazing considering how often he is described as a narcissist and an egomaniac in the media."

My summary of these four references was [48], "...reproducing a common media trope." Is there some other way you would summarize this information?

My edit also removed the second half of the judge's comment regarding Assange, "who cannot get beyond his own selfish interest." We should remove the text because it adds nothing to the judge's charge that the Assange is a "narcissist." The judge doesn't have an editor in the courtroom to let him know that he's simply defining the term he used a second before, but his repetition doesn't need to be reproduced here. By contrast, the four chapters I cited above offer different and less hostile appraisals. Given that this is a biography of Assange, it's appropriate to replace the judge's second, identical attack with a differing viewpoint of the issue more sympathetic to the subject of the biography. -Darouet (talk) 03:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

You also removed the judge's comment about Assange not having a reasonable excuse, which I think is the important part. These quotations were taken from the source. I don't think we should get fixated with the term "narcissist". Of what you've quoted, only Roberton's comment is directly relevant, and your opaque "summary" doesn't reflect what he said. I don't accept that every negative comment about Assange should be counteracted by a chorus of his fans.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

There may be a perspective problem here. If literally five words "...reproducing a common media trope" to summarize a whole book amounts to a "chorus," then any text however concise and necessary can be considered unreasonable. In this case, simply reproducing more of the judge's text misleads readers regarding appraisals by experts. Human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson is correct that the judge wasn't competent to call Assange a narcissist, and multiple psychological evaluations during his trial did not determine he is one. Citing the book here instead enriches the judge's quote by providing another view and resource that discusses the term "narcissist" in depth and so only helps readers and this article.

As to the remainder of the judge's comments, "...no excuse...," it just doesn't belong in the article. Assange skipped bail to receive political asylum and avoid extradition to the US on charges of espionage that are universally decried by international human rights [49][50][51][52][53] and journalistic organizations [54][55][56][57][58] whose evaluations contradict the judge's comment. -Darouet (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Just because you disagree with the judge's comments is no reason to remove them.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

...Sure, but that's not what I wrote. -Darouet (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

By the way, Darouet, as far as I can see, of all those sources you've produced, only the PEN international article even mentions skipping bail. Those sources are basically irrelevant. Back in 2012, when he skipped bail, Assange wasn't charged with espionage. It seems clear that the Obama administration had made no decision to prosecute. In fact, you yourself have been supporting text in the article which says the Obama administration had decided not to prosecute. I don't see how you can "excuse" Assange's behaviour in 2012 by events in 2018 and 2019. In any case, I don't think that any court would agree that avoiding other charges is an reasonable excuse to skip bail. It is baffling to me how these sources and this line of argument can be used to say the judge was wrong. And even if the judge was wrong, why not quote his opinion?--Jack Upland (talk) 05:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Operation Pelican

Operation Pelican was the name of the British government's push to get Ecuador to drop its political asylum protection of Assange. Alan Duncan wrote about the plan in his recent book In the Thick of It: The Private Diaries of a Minister. Some excerpts:

Friday, October 19: The Ecuador Ambassador says they have taken away [WikiLeaks founder Julian] Assange's cat. After living in their embassy for five years [where he'd sought asylum], Assange has today launched a lawsuit against the Ecuador government for violating his human rights, but probably for restricting his internet rather than taking away his cat.

Wednesday, March 13: Ecuador Ambassador Jaime Marchán is determined to get Assange out of his embassy, but President Moreno requires a final push in order to be persuaded to press the button.

Thursday, March 28: I think I am nearly there with Ecuador to get Julian Assange out of their London embassy. It has taken months of delicate negotiations, but nearly, nearly . . .

Thursday, April 11: Suddenly it's game on: I'm told Assange will be sprung from the [Ecuador] embassy today. So I drop everything and head to the Operations Room at the top of the Foreign Office. Operation Pelican is go — suitably assisted by one official wearing a pelican-motif tie. We watch a live feed which ironically was available on the web from Russia Today. Bang on 10am, two or three plainclothes policemen enter the embassy. We were expecting Assange to be brought out very soon after their arrival, but texts to the Ops Room revealed he had caused a bit of a commotion and had been screaming and bawling while edging towards the Ambassador's office — at which point he was forcibly restrained. Then, with military precision, six police officers marched up to line each side of the entrance steps, to form a protective corridor through which Assange was bundled out at about 10.20am. By this time Russia Today had twigged something was afoot and cut the live feed. So, job done at last — and we take a commemorative photo of Team Pelican. It had taken many months of patient diplomatic negotiation, and in the end it went off without a hitch. I do millions of interviews, trying to keep the smirk off my face.

Burrobert (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for whatever edit you are suggesting?Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

It looks like Alan Duncan's memoirs are being serialized by the inimitable Daily Mail, which had the honor of being the first tabloid to be deprecated on Wikipedia (I think?). We need reliable sources to cover that to be used here. -Darouet (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

It's in Alan Duncan's book. Isn't that a reliable source? Burrobert (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Well it may be a source for his claims, but in the quoted passages, I see no explanation of what operation Pelican is or was.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The "claims" of the Minister of State for Europe and the Americas, who apparently was running the operation to remove Assange from the embassy ("I think I am nearly there with Ecuador to get Julian Assange out of their London embassy. It has taken months of delicate negotiations ... "), should be of some interest. The name isn't particularly important and we can probably leave out the bit about the cat. Operation Pelican may be the name of the whole thing or it may just relate to the end-game where the police enter the embassy and extract Assange. it doesn't particularly matter. The more important point is that Alan Duncan, on behalf of the British government, was conducting "delicate negotiations" with the Ecuador government to remove Assange from the embassy for months. As far as I can tell, we haven't mentioned what the poms were up to during Assange's time in the embassy and his extraction comes out of the blue. Burrobert (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

So then you do not know what operation Pelican is, so no we should not add anything about this.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Forget about the name. Consider the rest of what I have said. Burrobert (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Seems both encyclopedic and written by a notable author. Seems WP:DUE to me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

If this is what is being cited [59], a brief mention might be useful. -Darouet (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but the "red herring name" implies there was a deliberate plan to force Assange out, that is the implication. Does the source say this was the case? What do you want to use the source to say?Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Forget about whether there was a name. That is a red herring. Red herring is a red herring. What about something like: "In the months leading up to Assange's arrest, Britain conducted an operation to pressure Ecuador to drop its grant of political asylum and allow British police to extract him from the embassy"?

Other suitable words can be substituted for "operation" and "pressure". However, Duncan does say "President Moreno requires a final push in order to be persuaded ". "Push" and "persuaded" suggest that this involved more than negotiations. For precision, it might be better to use Duncan's exact words. Burrobert (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure the text supports that, maybe "to get them to release him", in fact only one of those quotes even says that "It has taken months of delicate negotiations,". So we can (if we not already say it) use this to support text that says "Britain tried to negotiate his removal from the embassy".Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• "Britain tried ... " - why only "tried"?
• The text says this (whatever we want to call it) went on for months. We can mention that.

Burrobert (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• • Because there is no evidence from your source it was these efforts (rather than Assange's own actions, for example) that was succefull. And again, it does not say there was any operation, but rather "negotiation". Time for others to chip in, I have had my say.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

"Tried"?? The source says that Britain conducted "months of delicate negotiations". It didn't say Britain "tried to conduct months of delicate negotiations". Later on the source says "It had taken many months of patient diplomatic negotiation, and in the end it went off without a hitch". Burrobert (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Jtbobwaysf above that it is WP:DUE, encyclopedic and written by a notable author. It should br included as per Burrobert "In the months leading up to Assange's arrest, Britain conducted an operation to pressure Ecuador to drop its grant of political asylum and allow British police to extract him from the embassy" What Assange may have or may have not done simply does not change the reliably sourced fact that Britain conducted an operation to pressure Ecuador. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 19:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that this adds much to the article. The British government was open about wanting to arrest him from the start, and this is included in the article. Is there a source for "In the months leading up to Assange's arrest..."? I think if we include Operation Pelican, we have to know more about. If we just want to say Britain pressured Ecuador, well, we've already said that. We don't need to labour the point.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

While I'm not opposed to referencing "Operation Pelican," it may be simply untrue that this was an operation to influence the Ecuadorian government. In that case, the proposed text would be false. As others have noted above, there are two salient points: Duncan said that convincing the Ecuadorians to give up Assange required months of negotiations, and on the day UK police removed Assange from the embassy, Duncan referred to the extraction as "Operation Pelican." I think that noting these points can be done briefly while attributing claims, properly, to Duncan. What about text like this?

In his memoirs, UK Minister Alan Duncan wrote that convincing the Ecuadorian government to revoke Assange's asylum required months of negotiations on his part.

And when describing the police detention of Assange,

According to Duncan, the removal of Assange from the embassy was dubbed "Operation Pelican."

Does this seem accurate, given the quotes provided above by Burrobert? -Darouet (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC) Edited per comment below -Darouet (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I realize my own text isn't even accurate: Duncan appears to be referring to months of negotiations on his part. Given the UK government's obvious displeasure at the granting of asylum in the first place, Duncan is almost certainly not referring to the UK government's own efforts overall. -Darouet (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

This is already a long article. Maybe include it in Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Burrobert: Jack, this is absurd proposing the content is moved to a different article when the diplomatic issue has nothing to do with either the arrest or indictment of Assange. Burrobert, please propose some text, maybe a sentence or two at most (my idea at least). We can run an RFC if needed, seems sometimes that is the only way to reach consensus on this article, unfortunately. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Here is our current narrative describing the British regime’s efforts to arrest Assange after he entered the Ecuadorian embassy:

1. The UK government wrote to Patiño stating that the police were entitled to enter the embassy and arrest Assange under UK law.

2. Officers of the Metropolitan Police Service were stationed outside from June 2012 to October 2015 to arrest Assange for breaching the bail conditions and to compel him to attend court to face the Swedish extradition appeal hearing, should he leave the embassy. The police guard was withdrawn on grounds of cost in October 2015, but the police said they would still deploy "several overt and covert tactics to arrest him". The cost of the policing for the period was reported to have been £12.6 million.

3. In 2015, La Repubblica stated that it had evidence of the UK's role via the English Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in creating the "legal and diplomatic quagmire" which prevented Assange from leaving the Ecuadorian embassy.

4. The UK said it would arrest Assange should he leave the embassy.

5. On 11 April 2019, the Metropolitan Police were invited into the embassy and arrested Assange … Moreno stated that Ecuador withdrew Assange's asylum after he repeatedly violated international conventions …

What was Britain up to between points 4 and 5? The explanation by Moreno about why Assange was abandoned to the British jackboots gives the impression, which we now know to be false, that the abandonment had nothing to do with any actions of the British regime. By omission, our story implies that the British regime woke on 11 April and were unexpectedly told by Ecuador to come and get Assange. We should use Duncan's diaries to fill in the blanks. Burrobert (talk) 07:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding a proposed wording, I think @Darouet:'s suggestion above is a good start. He does make the point that his first sentence does not account for the fact that the Brits may have been up to other nastiness in addition to pressing Ecuador diplomatically. His second sentence is fine with me. Burrobert (talk) 07:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I think your summary of the narrative proves we have LOTS of information about the British government's activities.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Jack Upland: I don't agree with your removal of UN expert commentary, and have restored that [60]. My edit also shortens the section on Assange's arrest, while fixing one of the references, adding a comment by UN Rapporteur Agnes Callamard [61], and making space for a brief note about Duncan's diplomatic efforts (once they are published by Harper Collins and we can check that the reference there checks out, in a week). -Darouet (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree that between 4&5 was an operation and we have sources for the name of that operation. A sentence or two is DUE. I guess I dont have a strong opinion as of now on how it is written, only that it is included. It would be absurd to omit this detail about a coordinated operation. We know the US was putting pressure (diplomatic and covert in terms of spying), now we also know the UK was using its own tactics. This must be included however it is worded. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf Duncan's comment does indicate his own role in a diplomatic exchange between the UK and Ecuador, with the purpose of removing Assange. I suppose that shouldn't surprise anyone: the UK always made its displeasure concerning the asylum known. But Duncan's comment doesn't implicate the US in any direct way, and it doesn't tell us that an effort to remove Assange from the embassy was, beyond the days leading up to his re-arrest, called "Operation Pelican." Also, this material cannot be inserted into the article until Duncan's memoir is published on the 15th, at which time we can confirm any of these details. The Daily Mail is not useable as a source at Wikipedia. -Darouet (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, lets wait for the release of the book. I am confused about your description of the term "operation pelican." The book doesn't say the name of the operation used that name? Or it just doesnt say when the term was used? Or we are waiting to figure that out from when the book is released. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

It is unclear from the extracts above whether Operation Pelican is the name of the whole thing (pressuring Ecuador, extracting Assange and whatever else the Brits were getting up to) or whether it only relates to the part where the British police enter the embassy and extract Assange. The book may clear that up but, ultimately, it is not an important point. Burrobert (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

If this is included, I think the details of Operation Pelican are important. Otherwise it's just a weak statement that Britain pressured Ecuador. Of course they did.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is here and why you think it is important that we know the name the Brits gave to whatever they were doing. Our article currently says (by omission) that they were doing nothing and Assange just fell into their laps. Burrobert (talk) 09:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

This article says no such thing, and your own summary proves that. But this is an article about Assange, not about the British government. If all the activities of the British, US, Swedish, Australian, Ecuadoran, and other governments relating to Assange were written down, yes, we would need another article.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Alan Duncan's book is now published and can be treated as a reliable source. Burrobert (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Bump* Burrobert (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Of course Operation Pelican is WP:DUE. Why not just add it? If it gets removed, ping me and I will come to discuss. I dont always watch this talk page. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

It certainly sounds DUE, but if this were really noteworthy wouldn't it be in the news by now? Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

There's no problem using a book as a source, but what text is being suggested for the article?--Jack Upland (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Darouret's suggestion above is concise and accurate. Google books don't appear to show the quotes that I listed above, not sure why. Duncan's book has received media coverage and the quotes can be found in an article by Matt Kennard which also goes into more detail about the efforts of the British regime to render Assange from the embassy. Burrobert (talk) 08:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Health

As I have said previously, I think Assange's health is a valid concern and has been accepted as such by the extradition decision. However, I think the 16 sentences devoted to the topic since his arrest in the embassy is excessive, particularly as most of them give no specific information about his health. We can and should accept his health is not good, without having regular updates which don't give any new information. It is hard to see how this repetition belongs in an encyclopedic biography.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

What are the sixteen sentences? The word "health" only appears seven times in the article. Burrobert (talk) 10:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I have identified them sufficiently if you want to find them. I'm not going to list them all.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I will start the ball rolling. This is what I have found. Can anyone add any more?

• On 4 January 2021, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser ruled against the United States' request to extradite him and stated that doing so would be "oppressive" in view of his mental health. (from the lead)
• On 1 November 2019, Melzer said that Assange's health had continued to deteriorate and his life had become at risk. He said that the UK government had not acted on the issue.
• On 22 November, in an open letter to the UK Home Secretary and Shadow Home Secretary, signed by a group of medical practitioners named Doctors for Assange, said Assange's health was declining to an extent that he could die in prison. Subsequent attempts by the group, made to the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice Robert Buckland, and to Marise Payne, the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, also yielded no result.
• On 17 February 2020, the medical journal The Lancet published an open letter from Doctors for Assange,[406] in which they said Assange was in a "dire state of health due to the effects of prolonged psychological torture in both the Ecuadorian embassy and Belmarsh prison" which could lead to his death and that his "politically motivated medical neglect ... sets a dangerous precedent".
• In December 2020, German human rights commissioner Bärbel Kofler cautioned the UK about the need to consider Assange's physical and mental health before deciding whether to extradite him.
• On 4 January 2021, Judge Baraitser ruled that Assange could not be extradited to the United States, citing concerns about his mental health and the risk of suicide in a US prison.

Burrobert (talk) 07:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

This is an absurd discussion. I wasn't talking about how many times the word "health" is used, but how many times the issue is raised.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Jack, I think you should go ahead and remove the UNDUE and NOTNEWS health text. Especially the 100 Docs who never examined him. These group adverts are a dime a dozen. SPECIFICO talk 10:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

You made a statement and I, not unreasonably, tried to work out what you were talking about. It seems a bit odd to call the subsequent discussion absurd. Other than the sentences I have mentioned above, what else are you referring to? Burrobert (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Since you insist, here they are:

1.After examining Assange on 9 May 2019, the United Nations special rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Nils Melzer, concluded that "in addition to physical ailments, Mr Assange showed all symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture, including extreme stress, chronic anxiety and intense psychological trauma."

2.The British government said it disagreed with some of his observations.

3. Shortly after Melzer's visit, Assange was transferred to the prison's health care unit.

4. On 1 November 2019, Melzer said that Assange's health had continued to deteriorate and his life had become at risk.

5. He said that the UK government had not acted on the issue.

6. On 22 November, in an open letter to the UK Home Secretary and Shadow Home Secretary, signed by a group of medical practitioners named Doctors for Assange, said Assange's health was declining to an extent that he could die in prison.

7. Subsequent attempts by the group, made to the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice Robert Buckland, and to Marise Payne, the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, also yielded no result.

8. On 30 December 2019, Melzer accused the UK government of torturing Julian Assange.

9. He said Assange's "continued exposure to severe mental and emotional suffering ... clearly amounts to psychological torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

10. On 17 February 2020, the medical journal The Lancet published an open letter from Doctors for Assange, in which they said Assange was in a "dire state of health due to the effects of prolonged psychological torture in both the Ecuadorian embassy and Belmarsh prison" which could lead to his death and that his "politically motivated medical neglect ... sets a dangerous precedent".

11. On 25 March 2020, Assange was denied bail after Judge Baraitser rejected his lawyers' argument that his imprisonment would put him at high risk of contracting COVID-19.

12. On 25 June 2020, Doctors for Assange published yet another letter in The Lancet "reiterating their demand to end the torture and medical neglect of Julian Assange", in which they state their "professional and ethical duty to speak out against, report, and stop torture".

13. In December 2020, German human rights commissioner Bärbel Kofler cautioned the UK about the need to consider Assange's physical and mental health before deciding whether to extradite him.

14. Other witnesses testified that the conditions of imprisonment, which would be likely to worsen upon extradition to the U.S., placed Assange at a high risk of depression and suicide which was exacerbated by his Asperger syndrome.

15. Psychiatrist Michael Kopelman said that a hidden razor blade had been found in Assange's prison cell.

16. On 4 January 2021, Judge Baraitser ruled that Assange could not be extradited to the United States, citing concerns about his mental health and the risk of suicide in a US prison.

That makes 16 sentences, not including the lead. Basically the message is that prison is unhealthy, but we take 16 sentences to say that.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

1. 16 is biographically significant for this encyclopedia. The rest are not, have no editor consensus to include, and per ONUS should be removed. Discussion could continue, but when in doubt, leave it out. SPECIFICO talk 01:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

That is helpful. We now know what you are talking about. Here are a few points:

• Not all items are restricted to the question of Assange's health. A number of the items assess the actions of the British regime and describe them as torture.
• You could remove item 2 but it is usual to provide a right of reply when an accusation has been made.
• Some of the items could be combined into one. This would break the chronological order to some extent. For example, the Doctor's for Assange items could be condensed into a few sentences.
• We should create a section entitled "Statements by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment" or something similar. The various statements by Melzer could be summarised in this new subsection, which should provide some saving of space. If you would prefer not to give this prominence by creating a section, then devote a paragraph to Melzer's opinions in summarised form.
• Item 11 documents a significant legal ruling in the case so should remain.
• Item 14 may not be necessary as the opinion is endorsed by Baraitser in her ruling at point 16.

Burrobert (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

It all needs to be removed now, pending any consensus here. At this time, everything except the item about the court's decision needs to be removed. SPECIFICO talk 15:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Wow, thank you Jack and Burrobert, those lists are in fact very helpful. Even though these are just 16 sentences in a very long biography, they do give a brief glimpse into the effects of confinement on Assange’s health. As we all know now that would play a major role in the legal proceedings (so far).

Something that struck me, going back through the sources when this discussion began, is that the details of how confinement have materially affected Assange’s health are reviewed by sources, sometimes extensively. But those aren’t included here. Some however are certainly relevant to Assange’s biography and deserve inclusion.

I’m also wondering if we should try to consolidate some of these disparate statements into a subsection, or something like that. -Darouet (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

By all means, propose a summary. Meanwhile, all but the court statement must be removed. There is no support for all that minute, redundant, and insignificant detailed list. SPECIFICO talk 02:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

All these statements are taken from "Imprisonment in the UK" and "Hearings on extradition to the US". There is really no need to consolidate. It is not "just 16 sentences": it forms the bulk of "Imprisonment in the UK". I certainly think it would be an improvement if there was more specific information. However, I don't think that means we need to devote so many words to the issue. 16 sentences is not a "brief" mention, and I can't see how it can be justified in an biographical article like this.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes Darouet I agree that creating subsections would be a good way to summarise this information. It would also allow us to provide appropriate emphasis on the various health aspects of Assange's ordeal. Regarding the space devoted to this topic, I think that should be part of a broader discussion over the whole article. There are some parts of the article which receive disproportionate coverage and others which are under-represented. We should go through the article as a whole and work out the balance rather than employ a piecemeal approach. Burrobert (talk) 08:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

A "broader discussion" has been proposed many times. It has never happened. It would be better to have a specific discussion about whether we need 16 sentences to discuss Assange's health in recent years. I fail to see what subsections would achieve, apart from making this article even more tedious.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I think a subsection about Assange's health and related subjects would provide a connection between the disconnected facts that make up the "Imprisonment in the UK" section. For example, Melzer's name appears five times in that section and Doctors for Assange appear three times in that section and neither appears anywhere else. Let me try to come up with something. You may like it. Burrobert (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

This is what the "Imprisonment in the UK" section would look like if the health concerns and opposition to extradition are removed:

Since his arrest on 11 April 2019, Assange has been incarcerated in HM Prison Belmarsh in London. Assange was transferred to the prison's health care unit in May 2019.

On 13 September 2019, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser ruled that Assange would not be released on 22 September when his prison term ended, because he was a flight risk and his lawyer had not applied for bail. She said when his sentence came to an end, his status would change from a serving prisoner to a person facing extradition.

On 25 March 2020, Assange was denied bail after Judge Baraitser rejected his lawyers' argument that his imprisonment would put him at high risk of contracting COVID-19. She said Assange's past conduct showed how far he was willing to go to avoid extradition.

Burrobert (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I will sort through the material that I removed above to look for a coherent way of presenting it. Burrobert (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

16 sentences about Assange's health in the body is not needed. Trim for concision and DUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Burrobert, please trim the article content down to what you've written above. Content that does not have consensus is by default excluded from WP articles. We can expand when and if additional text is proposed and agreed to by the editors here. It would be constructive if you would make the trim. Thanks. Melzer is no reason to pad this section. He doesn't belong in the big picture of Assanges (ongoing) life at all. SPECIFICO talk 14:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Here is a possible summary for the material that I removed above. It could be placed under a title such as "Commentary about Assange’s health and imprisonment".

A number of people and organisations have expressed concern about Assange’s treatment and health during his imprisonment in the UK.

United Nations special rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Nils Melzer, visited Assange on 9 May 2019 and concluded that "in addition to physical ailments, Mr Assange showed all symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture, including extreme stress, chronic anxiety and intense psychological trauma”. He said the United States, UK, Sweden and Ecuador were trying to make an example of Assange. He also accused journalists of "spreading abusive and deliberately distorted narratives". Melzer reiterated his concerns about the state of Assange’s health on a number of occasions and said the UK government ’s treatment of Assange “amounts to psychological torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.

The medical journal The Lancet published two letters from a group of medical practitioners named Doctors for Assange, which described Assange’s treatment in the Ecuadorian embassy and in Belmarsh prison as “prolonged psychological torture” which could lead to his death.

In December 2020, German human rights commissioner Bärbel Kofler cautioned the UK about the need to consider Assange's physical and mental health before deciding whether to extradite him.

A number of people and groups have opposed Assange’s extradition to the US.

In February 2020, Reporters Without Borders posted a petition which accused the Trump administration of acting in "retaliation for (Assange's) facilitating major revelations in the international media about the way the United States conducted its wars". The petition said, Assange's publications "were clearly in the public interest and not espionage". Australian MPs Andrew Wilkie and George Christensen visited Assange and pressed the UK and Australian governments to intervene to stop him being extradited. In September 2020, two current heads of state and approximately 160 other politicians signed an open letter to Boris Johnson in support of Assange. In October 2020, U.S. Representatives Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat, and Thomas Massie, a Republican, introduced a resolution opposing the extradition of Assange.

In addition, I suggest incorporating the following statement into the last paragraph of the "Indictment in the US" section:

In a later interview with The Canary, Melzer criticised the "secretive grand jury indictment in the United States", the "abusive manner in which Swedish prosecutors disseminated, re-cycled and perpetuated their 'preliminary investigation' into alleged sexual offences", the "termination by Ecuador of Mr Assange's asylum status and citizenship without any form of due process", and the "overt bias against Mr Assange being shown by British judges since his arrest".

Any thoughts? Burrobert (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Non-starter, elevating Melzer, who is irrelevant to Assange's life story. Also, we do not publish medical speculations by physicians who have not examined Assange. Just as we do not publish opinions or petitions of arm's length doctors who said Trump is psychotic, or Barry Goldwater was insane. Please propose things that have not already been rejected. SPECIFICO talk 18:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: This is just edit-warring, plain and simple. There is no consensus to remove this material, which has been in the article for more than a year (compare with the article as of March 2020: [62]). Please self-revert. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

No consensus means it stays out of the article. @JzG, Jack Upland, and Burrobert: As has clearly been established in this thread, there is no consensus for the lengthy primary coverage of marginal detail of Melzer's views, and the ususal avenues are available to you if you wish to escalate to NPOVN or an RfC. Please do not edit war. SPECIFICO talk 14:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, you are correct. WP:ONUS is unambiguous, and obvious - anything else would be a POV-pushers' charter. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. In this way, the encyclopedia is gradually added to and improved over time.

Discussions sometimes result in no consensus to take or not take an action. What happens next depends on the context:

• In deletion discussions, a lack of consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept.
• In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.

Burrobert (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:ONUS does not require editors to establish a new consensus whenever an editor wants to remove long-standing material. Above, we had a long discussion about inclusion of Melzer's views, in which several editors objected to SPECIFICO's proposals to remove Melzer's views. As I demonstrated in that section, Melzer's statements about Assange have been covered extensively by major media outlets around the world. The repeated push to remove Melzer's views is getting into tendentious editing territory, and edit-warring to remove them is just unacceptable behavior. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

The UNDUE Melzer narration has been disputed from its first appearances here. Shall we ping all the past editors who gave up trying to follow NPOV here? SPECIFICO talk 15:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC) @Slatersteven:, previous discussant on this. SPECIFICO talk 17:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO: stop canvassing, and stop threatening to canvas in order to pull together the mythical consensus that you repeatedly claim, but have never found on this page. -Darouet (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

You don't need to ping any editors. All the discussions are on file here at Wikipedia. Have a look and provide links to previous discussions where the inclusion of this particular text has been contested. Burrobert (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I have provided a link, above, to the RfC closed with consensus the extensive Melzer text is UNDUE. Please review this talk page thread and try to be responsive. This current thread, too, show no consensus for the extensive, repetitive, and poorly-sourced version that was trimmed and reinstated. SPECIFICO talk 08:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I can't see the link. I have been through the talk page archives. There are no previous discussions about the text that was removed. There have been previous RfC's regarding Melzer. All outcome's from those RfC's have already been implemented. Burrobert (talk) 09:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The ONUS is on you to cite your purported passive consenus -- which still would not justify the grossly undue length and detail. I suggest you self-revert as a show of good faith. SPECIFICO talk 16:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Are there no previous discussions where the text was challenged? If so, then the policy that I quoted above applies. Burrobert (talk) 17:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Burrobert, it's challenged now, it stays out until you can demonstrate consensus. That's how Wikipedia works. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

That's not how it works. You must be aware of that, because you participated in the AE case that ended with SPECIFICO being topic-banned from this very article in November of last year. That case was about the exact same behavior: removal of longstanding content and subsequent edit-warring to keep the material out. Consensus has to be demonstrated to remove longstanding material, and I'm surprised to see you and SPECIFICO yet again disputing this basic rule at the very same page. It's getting disruptive at this point. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

What you call "longstanding content" was rejected in a 2019 RfC and has been opposed continuously since then. That is so obviously not what's meant by silent consensus for longstanding content that it's hard to believe an experienced editor would say that in good faith to justify an edit war. Meanwhile, the modest trim I initiated was a fraction of the Melzer narrative, removed because that particular text was poorly sourced and not essential to Assanges bio and not NPOV, as I and others explained in detail. Would you prefer this to go to AN or to a month long RfC, or would you care to provide specific detailed rationale why the text in dispute should be in the article? I would greatly prefer to see you choose the latter course of constructive collaboration. Pinging @Awilley: whom you have, indirectly, cited above. He may be interested in this example of a dysfunctional talk page. It's rather pointless to personalize your comments here, when 7 editors have rejected your view and you have nobody else taking your all-or-none position. SPECIFICO talk 16:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

There are two RFCs in the archive from 2019. One is about the description "journalist". The other asks the question whether This edit [1] (which adds below quoted text) is suitable for the lede, which presumably is what you're referring to. The portion of the text deemed unsuited to the lead is not in the lead. This discussion isn't about that statement, and it isn't about content in the lead. Why do you misrepresent the purpose and outcome of the RFC? Cambial foliage❧ 16:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

convenience break

• We have content that has been in the article for a long time (some of it approaching 18 months).
• The policy says "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus".
• It appears that the first challenge to this content was on 7 April 2021 by Jack followed by other challenges.
• Policy also says "In deletion discussions, a lack of consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept".
• Finally policy says "In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit".
• Can anyone cite a policy to justify removing the material? ("That's how Wikipedia works" isn't a policy)

Burrobert (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Burrobert, cruft is cruft. This is an opinion stated at enormous length referencing a mix of primary, unreliable, and a few reliable secondary sources. We need less of the special pleading and he-said-she-said, not more. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

You should put that argument as part of a discussion about how to treat the material. Burrobert (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Burrobert, that's easy: by removing it. It's WP:UNDUE, cruft, special pleading and Assange-cult obfuscation. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

That's an insulting and unhelpful comment: you do need to make arguments based on reliable sources to be taken seriously, and it's inflammatory and unprofessional to describe Burrobert as engaged in Assange-cult obfuscation (whatever that means exactly). -Darouet (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Jack_Upland, SPECIFICO, Snooganssnoogans and JzG that these mentions are completely excessive and undue. Of the numbered sentences listed above, no.3 might be worth including, no.11 probably is, and no.16 definitely is. The rest are really minor details or basically opinions not widely reported in secondary sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC) Also, according to RSP, there is consensus that The Canary is generally unreliable, so that whole sequence should be removed. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Assange's health is the only reason cited by the judge for refusing his extradition. That alone makes it highly relevant to his biography and justifies sufficiently extensive coverage.

Furthermore, while many prisoners undoubtedly, in Jzg's peculiarly glib phrase, "get the sads", in this case his medical condition is the subject not just of formal diagnosis by multiple specialists but, more unusually, the subject of a court ruling. Furthermore, my research indicates that the majority of individual prisoners' treatment and associated health issues are not the subject of an investigation by an official of the largest intergovernmental body in the world, nor have they multiple correspondences devoted to them in one of the world's oldest medical journals. I'm not really following the argument of those who suggest those circumstances are commonplace or quotidian, but perhaps it is I who is insufficiently jaded. These facts strongly mark the health issues out as unusually noteworthy and hence worthy of comment, and 16 sentences is not remotely excessive.

The article on Lauri Love, indicted for some of the same charges a few years earlier, is shorter by some orders of magnitude; four sentences are devoted to his health, and for the same reason: it's one of the reasons cited by the High Court for the refusal of extradition. It's also significant that the UK is a member of the UN and therefore, by treaty, subject to an obligation to respond to the findings of its officials. The assertion made by a minority of editors that the comments by Melzer or articles in the Lancet are not much reported in reliable sources shows an ignorance of the facts: Deutsch Welle BBC France 24 il Fatto Quotidiano New York Times The Hindu Sky News Business Insider The Local Los Angeles Times Reuters Council of Europe la Repubblica ABC Australia Washington Post Spiegel Sydney Morning Herald Al Jazeera CNN NBC Democracy Now ITV Le Monde Evening Standard LBC Deutsche Welle (again) and United Press International.

I lay no fault at those making the inaccurate assertion of a lack of reliable sources; merely an oversight on their part. Given its faulty premise, we can safely and properly discount that line of argument. That said, I would remove sentence "[15]" about Kofler, despite its wide reporting in the German and French press. Otherwise I agree with Darouet, Burrobert, and Thucydides411 that the coverage is justified. Cambial foliage❧ 19:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Just about all your points were previously rebutted above. Nobody's suggesting to remove coverage of the judge's rationale. The issue is excessive, undue, repetitious, primary sourced comments of a non-expert unpaid UN part time volunteer and an unvetted petition. RSVP. SPECIFICO talk 20:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

None of the points were rebutted above. Your claims make further errors of fact. Melzer is considered an expert by the UN as are his advisers, and their affording him that status is recognised by the member states. Your personal opinion about his expert status is of no consequence. All the sentences listed are available in secondary sources. Cambial foliage❧ 20:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Please give a careful review of the talk page above. No, Melzer has no expertise in medicine or in the selection of whoever said this or that about Assange's medical issues. In the area of law, Melzer is a marginally notable professor. We do not have respected legal experts rushing to endorse Melzer's views. The so-called Rapporteur is an unpaid part time volunteer position of an increasingly marginal legacy world organization. Hardly an elevated standard of mainstream expertise, for better or worse. SPECIFICO talk 21:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

an increasingly marginal legacy world organization: That's a funny way to describe the United Nations. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I've already reviewed the talk. Your argument is weak to non-existent. Please review the facts of the case and reliable sources, with which you are evidently unfamiliar. You make further errors of fact. It is Melzer's position at the UN, and the international press' wide reporting of his reports to the general assembly, which gives him notability on this subject, not his extensive academic career. Contrary to your claim, a large number of notable lawyers, legal academics and lawyers associations have reflected Melzer's views, as reported in reliable sources (e.g. [63], [64]). That said, this is a discussion about sentences about health issues, so the fact that there are respected legal experts rushing to endorse Melzer's view on the legal position is not particularly relevant. Your fringe views on the status of the United Nations are of no interest or relevance. Like it or not, the governments involved, and the vast majority of scholarship, take the UN seriously. Cambial foliage❧ 21:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Sourcing

• Are articles written by John Pilger and Oliver Stone primary sources for the Julian Assange page? Primary sources are described as "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on". An article by Assange would fit this definition but I don't see that either Pilger or Stone are directly involved or insiders.
• An article in Consortium News is described as "definitely unreliable as based on a deprecated source". It was published by Consortium News and written by "the Grayzone’s Denis Rogatyuk" who is described as a "Russian-Australian freelance writer, journalist and researcher. His articles, interviews and analysis have been published in a variety of media sources around the world including Jacobin, Le Vent Se Léve, Sputnik, Green Left Weekly, Links International Journal, Alborada and others". There is a link at the top of the article to a Grayzone article. This appears to be deprecation by association which I haven't seen in policy.

Burrobert (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Articles written by Pilger and Stone are primary sources for Pilger and Stone's own opinions. If Pilger and Stone's opinions are DUE, they will be covered in secondary sources. I think you swiftly found and added secondary sources, so the problem was solved as a result of my tagging. Although there hasn't been an RfC as far as I can see, and it isn't listed at RSP, the discussions on RSN seem to indicate a week consensus against Consortium being considered generally reliable, despite the track record of its founder.[65][66][67][68][69] If we take it on a case by case basis, this would be a case where its reliability would be weaker, the facts the author's primary affiliation is with a deprecated source must count against it, no? There are two remaining citations to Consortium in the current article, and I think we should assess if (a) this is a strong enough source for the facts sourced in it, and (b) whether the details have due weight if it is the only source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The claim where I deleted Consortium as a source was an assertion also made by critics of Moreno, such as former Ecuadorian foreign minister Guillaume Long, which has two other citations, to The Real News, which has not had a proper RSN discussion but seems unlikely to be considered RS to me, although in this case there is an argument that its author Gregory Wilpert is an expert on Ecuador, though opinionated, and to an opinion piece by Chip Gibbons at In These Times. Am definitely open to persuasion these are RSs, although the detail may not be due. The other thing tagged (not by me) as a possible unreliable source: In a December 2015 court submission, the US government confirmed its "sensitive, ongoing law enforcement proceeding into the Wikileaks matter", citing a court document hosted by the user-generated content site Cryptome. I think that's more clear-cut. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Yes I am aware that articles by Pilger and Stone are primary sources for their opinions. What relevance does that have in an article on Julian Assange? Articles by Philip Dorling, Arturo Wallace, Alexandra Ma ... are primary sources for their opinions too. Any article is a primary source for the author's opinion. The opinions of Philip Dorling, Arturo Wallace, Alexandra Ma, John Pilger, Oliver Stone etc don't need to be covered by secondary sources because they are already secondary sources for the Julian Assange article.
• I only solved one problem by adding a few references. I did remove the Getup petition reference because it is likely to be an unreliable source. I added The Guardian reference to the "primary source" tag you had added because I assumed otherwise some editor would come along and remove the statement. I didn't remove the reference you had tagged because I don't consider it a primary source.
• "the author's primary affiliation is with a deprecated source must count against it". I assume you mean against Denis Rogatyuk. Your reasoning is that Denis Rogatyuk writes for a source which we have deemed unreliable and that, therefore, his work is also unreliable. Is there a reference in policy to this "unreliable-by-proxy syndrome"?

Burrobert (talk) 14:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The topic of the article is not the relevant information for whether a source is primary or secondary; it's what it is being used for. In this case, the text with these citations was about Pilger and Stone's opinions about Assange. For that, secondary sources are preferable to show noteworthiness. On the reliability of the Consortium article, if we don't have an existing consensus on general un/reliability (maybe we need an RfC at the RSN for that), we need to take it on a case by case basis, and, yes, someone who mostly writes for an unreliable source is unlikely to be a reliable source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• (I was pinged) Stone is not a problem--there's a third party source, the Guardian, reporting on his views. It isn't wrong to include in addition the primary source, an op ed by Stone and Moore in the NYTimes, . I think the decisive factor might be where it was published. I'm considerably more concerned about Pilger, which was published only on his own blog--it was in 2013--has nobody reported on it at all at the time or since ? (I note it isn't mentioned in our article on John Pilger-- perhaps it should be. DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  DGG, I agree that this is exactly the correct analysis, and forms an excellent model for considering a lot of the other cruft in this article. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  Hear hear. And it's a key issue with respect to the vastly overlong treatment of UN volunteer inspector Melzer, who gets the usual press regurgitation of any press release with United Nations on the masthead but virtually no third party corroboration or endorsement of his surprisingly conclusory opinions. SPECIFICO talk 18:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  "virtually no third party" lacks credibility, given the more than 150 lawyers, academics and lawyers associations which have publicly expressed similar views to Melzer on the legal position, and 200 physicians whose correspondence to The Lancet that institution considered worthy of publication multiple times over, who expressed similar views to Melzer based on the evidence available publicly. All this reported very widely in RS. In fact it suggests the opposite: a significant level of endorsement. Cambial foliage❧ 18:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  Excuse me, I should say, no Reliable Source for Wikipedia has verified the qualified opinion of any third party expert. We don't elevate names from an unvetted petition and as stated several times here, we do not elevate medical opinions of folks who've not properly examined the subject. SPECIFICO talk 19:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  Melzer's views, and the content of his reports to the General Assembly, are attributed: you needn't concern yourself with whether they are "verified". His notability is established by the member states and the ratification of the 1985 treaty. We don't elevate names – quite right. And you can rest easy, no names have been "elevated". We do report views that are published in major medical journals of which the publishing itself has been reported widely in the reliable press. You'll recall that the APA is not the source of WP content policy. Cambial foliage❧ 20:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  An internal memo from a volunteer to the host organization signifies nothing in terms of WP sourcing and content policy. It's kind of like if I cited a random talk page post here by a volunteer editor to Wikipedia talk page. SPECIFICO talk 21:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  That flimsy false equivalence doesn’t add anything to the discussion. Cambial foliage❧ 21:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• We should not be inviting selected editors to inspect our work here, even if their input is appreciated. Invitations should be placed on the designated noticeboards.
• How did Melzer force his way into this topic?
• "The topic of the article is not the relevant information for whether a source is primary or secondary; it's what it is being used for". My interpretation of "event" in the definition of primary source was that it referred to the subject of the Wikipedia article in which the source appeared. However, a footnote on the sources page seems to support your view by saying that "Further examples of primary sources include: ... editorials, op-eds, columns, blogs, and other opinion pieces". Presumably that means that all opinion pieces should have the primary source tag attached.
• A policy reference for the "unreliable-by-proxy syndrome" would be useful. If that isn't possible, has the issue been discussed on the Reliable sources noticeboard?

Burrobert (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• As for pinging, JzG, Specifico, and I have very divergent views on many questions of sourcing, including many sources relating to politics. I think asking experienced people known to often disagree on related questions is a fair way of doing it. If there's a significant reasonable doubt about what is balance or RS, they'll make it clear without hesitation, and if they agree.... The relevant guideline is WP:3O. Sometimes listing things on noticeboards gets more heat than light, and turns a small local dispute into a Major Issue. . DGG ( talk )

• Third opinion (3O) is a means to request an outside opinion in a content or sourcing disagreement between two editors. If no agreement can be reached on the talk page and only two editors are involved, follow the directions below to list the dispute.
• WP:Canvassing is more relevant.

Burrobert (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Re Burrobert, and focusing on the topic of this section, sourcing (rather than Melzer, which is being discussed in a different section, I believe): "The topic of the article is not the relevant information for whether a source is primary or secondary; it's what it is being used for". My interpretation of "event" in the definition of primary source was that it referred to the subject of the Wikipedia article in which the source appeared. However, a footnote on the sources page seems to support your view by saying that "Further examples of primary sources include: ... editorials, op-eds, columns, blogs, and other opinion pieces". Presumably that means that all opinion pieces should have the primary source tag attached. The specific citations at stake here footnotes for are the factual claims that Pilger and Stone support Assange: He also garnered support from many leading activists and celebrities, including...John Pilger... and Oliver Stone. For these specific claims, Pilger and Stone saying they suport Assange are primary. I've removed the primary source tag from Stone, as the addition of the secondary source (Guardian) solves the issue. With Pilger, we currently only have his own self-published website, so mentioning his support for Assange relies on original research and may not be noteworthy, so we need a secondary source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but more importantly there's the question: Is Stone's opinion noteworthy or significant in mainstream thought? If we cite an op-ed or even a blog post by a Nobel Laureate or an acknowledged top expert in a field, that may be DUE WEIGHT for an encyclopedia. If we cite the opinion of every bloke who's had his 15 minutes of fame, even including a WP article sifnifying notability, that may not be an important factor in the bio of the subject. Stone is rather an iconoclast given to outbursts, rash extemporizing, and manifest error. I'm not sure many people care what he thinks on political subjects. SPECIFICO talk 11:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment This whole discussion seems to be a tempest in a tea pot. Am I missing something? We list Pilger and Stone among a group of other famous people who support Assange. Since both self-published third party sources document their support (it takes four seconds to verify this with your browser of choice [70][71][72][73]), it's unclear what the problem is. -Darouet (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Kind of agree: I followed WP:RSPRIMARY] policy of tagging primary sources; other editors found secondary sources. (For Pilger, either Indepdent or BBC would be fine, as the interview and letter are both primary too. But I guess it took off because it relates to the bigger issue in previous sections on this page: excess detail that doesn't always seem noteworthy, which being more rigorous about sourcing might hekp trim.

On the second issue, whether the Consortium article by the Grayzone guy is reliable, there isn't a policy that someone who writes for one unreliable source is unreliable if writing for another, but I think when we assess sources for reliability the reputation and track record of both author and publisher is one of the things we typically take into account, and so writing for trashy publications would surely count against. If there is serious disagreement here, we should either open a new section and discuss the reliability or go to RSN, but that seems like overkill as it doesn't seem like a major detail worth holding on to and anyway has two somewhat better sources (Real News and In These Times) still there. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

This is all rather missing the point. For any individual who has risen to global fame or notoriety, it's possible to curate a list of those who praise and those who criticize her. In WP terms, those lists are Original Research. What's needed is a tertiary source that tells us that Assange was widely praised by expert, informed, respected individuals or that he was condemned by them. This list of folks who said nicey nicey 10 years ago in the context of a recent incident tell us not a thing about the enduring assessment or reputation of Mr. Assange. It's not encyclopedic content and it just needs to be sliced out like the soft part of an otherwise tasty mango. SPECIFICO talk 18:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

We have literally hundreds of sources that do this, many of them published in the last few years. Please stop cluttering this talk page with unfounded opinions, this isn't a place to WP:SOAPBOX. -Darouet (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Please respond to the substance of my concern, which I tried to express clearly above. It is not our role as WP editors to pick and choose which of your hundreds of opinionated individuals discussed Assange in various times and contexts. We need a tertiary source that tells us which are the significant pros and cons. Please cite a few and you will advance your case. Otherwise, it is invalid and the content should be expunged. SPECIFICO talk 00:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

If you have some specific text you want to "expunge", you can present the text here, and explain how the sources that support the text do not justify its inclusion. If you can manage even one textual explication, I will be amazed. Otherwise, you're continuing to waste volunteer time here with vacuous musings on the United Nations and various public figures. -Darouet (talk) 01:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I trimmed some bad content and a swarm descended to reinstate it with no basis whatsoever except the false claim that it was longstanding consensus. (See above where that's refuted). It would be nice to see you undo your revert and reinstate the cut of trivial ill-sourced content inessential to the man's biography. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I see the discussion on sourcing has degenerated into a discussion of the actual views of the various sources, and whether what htey think is correct or justified. I fail to se that those are any concerns of ours. some people seem to behave come here looking to insert anything possibly negative about JA, some to do the opposite. Neither way of dealing with it is suitable for an encyclopedia. .I think it pretty simple to present the plain facts of what he has done, in his life and work, and the readers can form their own opinions without knowing what various pundits think about it, or various WPedians. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)