Talk:Julian Assange

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1995 sources and charges removed[edit]

I added sources from 1995 about his trial and details about his charges. They were removed and edit summaries said we shouldnt lay out every prosecution claim [1] and the charges against Assange are excessive detail [2] and we should stick with what was shown in court about Assange rather than accusations about the group [3] even though he plead guilty

Removing the earliest RSes on Assange and his isnt right. Editors said before that the charges needed more detail and context and proof that RSes covered the trial in the 1990s, and editors like @Jtbobwaysf said that the RS I gave before didnt count. Now that I added it, its excessive detail?

The charges that were filed against Assange arent excessive detail, especially because of his guilty plea

The prosecution's opinion is relevant, and if we include things like but ultimately sentenced Assange to a fine of A$2,100 and released him on a A$5,000 good behaviour bond because of his disrupted childhood and the absence of malicious or mercenary intent, which the prosecution said was "simply an arrogance and a desire to show off his computer skills" then we need to include things like The prosecutor said this cost was to find out what had been accessed and how, saying it was "the real damage that these sort of hackers do. They're known as 'look-see' hackers. They do it because they're there". We cant leave it out without losing WP:BALANCE Softlemonades (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @NadVolum:Your edit summary says "Revert excessive detail about police charge" but you don't appear to have remove excessive detail... It doesn't even look close to excessive. Can you perhaps rephrase that so we know what you're actually thinking? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I removed the 'various charges including obtaining access to information, erasing data, defrauding Telstra and incitement. The prosecution argued that a magazine written by the International Subversives would encourage others to hack, calling it a "hacker's manual" and alleging that Assange and the other hackers posted information online about how to hack into computers they had accessed. The prosecution also accused the hackers of phreaking and using telephone systems to illegaly tap into computers, illegaly using federal computer systems, and collecting encrypted passwords'. Why is that anything special compared to what is there already and why would a list of what he was charged with as opposed to what he pleaded guilty to be of special interest?Wikipedia is not a place to go writing a book with every ittle detail you've ever gleamed stuck into it. NadVolum (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Special" has never been the standard, due is. It doesn't have to be of special interest it just has to be of interest, which this is by definition having been covered extensively by WP:RS. You're being hyperbolic, nobody is trying to write a book. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The section about his early life is already bigger than many full articles and I don't think it is notable enough for a sub-article. If you think there's something worthwhile in all that stuff I removed put it in as another link to 'He was eventually charged in 1994 with 31 counts of hacking and related crimes' which I think cover it fully adequately with what follows. NadVolum (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The section about his early life is already bigger than many full articles Thats not a reason to remove RS content Softlemonades (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's an indication that the article is being stuffed with stuff that isn't due. Did anyone repeat any of that stuff in the newspaper after it was reported? That might at least give some idea it was of lasting interest. NadVolum (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes about Assange in general but this RS is one that says it was brought up at trial Softlemonades (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We certainly have enough coverage for an article on the 1990s to pass GNG a half dozen times over, what in the world would make you think it wasn't notable enough? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia is not a place to go writing a book with every ittle detail you've ever gleamed stuck into it
@Cambial Yellowing said before that This is a biography explaining events in Assange's life, not an assessment of how significant each event was on the wider world. There are undoubtedly more examples of Assange's work prior to 2010 that are considered noteworthy to his biography in RS. They can be added in future as well. Their impact on the world at large is not relevant to inclusion. Their role in his life is Softlemonades (talk) 15:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not explaining, documenting. I'm not talking about impact except in that what you were sticking in was news at the time but hasn't been treated in detail since as far as I know and that indicates the details are of minimal interest. Just stick to details like for instance newspapers from 2010 covering his early life did. It is not due. NadVolum (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
but hasn't been treated in detail since as far as I know Lots of articles have covered it. Some articles have been all about it
and that indicates the details are of minimal interest. Just stick to details I dont understand this Softlemonades (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See WP:NOTNEWS'#Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events'. Nt what made it into the newspapers twenty or thirty years ago. NadVolum (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The events were covered in 1995 and 2010 and still talked about now. NOTNEWS is not a reason to keep out details and information for events that are already included Softlemonades (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[r as pinged] I stand by those words. They don’t support the inclusion of every minutiae of what a prosecutor said 30 years ago. Assange pleaded guilty to the charges. In common sense and in law that does not mean he agreed that every claim made by the prosecution is true. Cambial foliar❧ 15:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for replying. I think we half agree on the idea but not on what to do yet
They don’t support the inclusion of every minutiae of what a prosecutor said 30 years ago Im not trying to add everything the prosecutor said or insist that everything I wrote be restored like it was. Editing makes it better. And lots of the minutiae that was removed was just what Assange was charged with
Assange has brought up the incitement charge several times and was apparently convicted of it. Example Following a case in the supreme court, he was convicted of writing a magazine that inspired crimes against the federal government. [4] I think that makes it worth mention
In common sense and in law that does not mean he agreed that every claim made by the prosecution is true I agree but dont know a source on what charges were dropped. Assange responded to the prosecution after sentencing and said they mislead the judge. If you want the RS and quote I can find it I think Softlemonades (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To clarify, I think every charge reported in secondary RS that he pleaded guilty to should be included. All of them. But that’s not the same as claims by the prosecutor, made as part of their arguments, that they did x and y and were very naughty boys etc.
While we’re on this subject, there is a closely related issue that we should address which is the actual name of the charges. In US and UK law ‘hacking’ is a colloquial term used by the press for charges like “misuse of a computer network to access x” etc. or even more abstruse phrases. Do we know the formal name of the charges in Oz. Not saying they couldn’t be ‘hacking’ but it seems likely they had a more formal name in which case we should use that. Cambial foliar❧ 17:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That sounds like research to me rather than finding what has been thought to be of long term interest after the fact as documented in reliable sources. NadVolum (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If that sounds like research to you I suggest you review WP:OR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's reading the reliable sources and using a formal tone. A scholarly biography indicates the twenty-six charges he’d pleaded guilty to [involved] breaches of the Crimes Act and fraudulent use of a telecommunications network.[1] @Softlemonades: I know you're familiar with several of the online sources; have you come across any other mentions of the actual names of the charges? Cambial foliar❧ 20:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I dont the actual names of the charges. I dont know if the RS described the acts or the laws, just what the RS siad
We should use Fowler with the 1995 sources, and the articles about Assange disagreeing with the proescutor. So we can be clear what he plead guilty to and what he agreed and the accusations against him and the pressure he felt
I think the Crimes Act 1914 means "federal" and includes almost anything. Do we know if fraudulent use of a telecommunications network is the name of a law or charge? Softlemonades (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pretty sure that is a charge yes. You also mentioned references in some sources to “incitement” - incitement to what? Did Assange plead guilty to this? Cambial foliar❧ 22:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Incitement to hack. Im not sure if he plead guilty but his biography on Wikileaks said he was convicted. The charge was because of a magazine about hacking and maybe some posts online Softlemonades (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The main issue we have had with this article for a couple of years was it was essentially a repository for duplicate wikileaks content. That has thankfully be greatly improved over the past year. Now we are discussing removal of early biographical content prior to wikileaks that is core to the article subject's early notability. I cant see any reason it is not DUE. The presumption is to keep the content and if we feel it is later too much, we can always split into a sub-article. But the argument that it is too much and don't put it anywhere violates WP:PRESERVE. Let's keep the content and work towards creating a sub-article. We build an encyclopedia, we dont tear it apart. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well said. Jack Upland (talk) 08:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The content was just put in and removed. It wasn't there before. My understanding of what's being said above is talk of documenting all the charges he peaded guilty to for his fine, they don't know what they are but want to go digging around to try and find them though no-one has expressed an interest in them. I believe what is there covers what has been said about his early exploits in later sources rather than as current news at the time and that is all that is due. NadVolum (talk) 08:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ned, per PRESERVE you then edit the copy and leave the source. You dont remove it. I am starting to see WP:STONEWALLING "opposition to a proposed change without (a) stating a substantive rationale based in policy" here. We are starting to see a pattern of this. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A newspaper source for something that was interesting in its day but people have not been interested in that level of detail since? Anyway I said if they really though it might be of some interest they could always add it to the sentence anout the 31 charges. You are seeing some pattern of what? That I'm opposed to piles of trivia of no lassting interest? I pointed out to the policy WP:NOTNEWS 'Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events'. I don't see that the precise charges in Australia have been of any lasting interest. And no I don't particularly like to just quote policy rather than explaining. Have you read PRESERVE yourself? It says nothing about preserving sources for stuff that is removed and it has a section on 'Problems that may justify removal' which includes the reasons I gave. NadVolum (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article subject's biographical information is not trivial. Preserve clearly states you summarize it, not remove it. I did exactly quote STONEWALLING for you, and now I will quote for you PRESERVE "Rephrasing or copy-editing to improve grammar or more accurately represent the sources" is the preferred approach to removal. Your seeking editors to exactly quote policy for you as a mechanism to refute arguments is disruptive and wears down a discussion using the same arguments again and again. You are capable of reading the policy yourself and stating why you think it meets policy (as SPECIFICO) does below (in this incorrect argument that this is news). Asking an editor to quote policy is disruptive. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you at least get your act together if you're going to accuse me of stonewalling. It was you who asked me to quote policy which I had but I also explained because I think that is a good idea. Now you come in with asking an editor to quote policy is disruptive when I have not done any such thing. I have already pointed out to you where WP:PRESERVE talks about reasons for removing edits. NadVolum (talk) 09:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • At least half of this article fails WP:NOTNEWS with detail such as the witness recant, the UN rapporteur, etc. But the 1995 facts that are still discussed after nearly 30 years are certainly DUE as reported in recent RS. The arguments against this content appear to have reversed the meaning of NOTNEWS. SPECIFICO talk 12:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was an RfC on the witness recant where your objections were overrule. As far as I rem,member the recent RfC said the facts back in 1995 were not a major thing to be stuck into the first sentence like some people wanted, that a $2000 fine long befor Wikileaks did not justify it.. NadVolum (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are wrong about WP:NOTNEWS. We are not talking about "breaking stories", we are talking about something three decades ago. "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events" is exactly what we are talking about here, the subject's enduring notability relating to his early behavior and how it has maybe led to his incarceration today. We are not saying it is the cause, but we are certainly going to document the encyclopedic events of the subject's life good and bad. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was breaking news at the time. There is no period after which breaking news of the time suddenly passes that policy because you can trawl through the newspaper archives. Has it been of any interest in the last twenty or so years? Enduring is the operative word. Don't you see the talk about people trying to find some stuff from then - does that sound like enduring interest? What kind of stuff is it you think I am stonewalling? Try putting a bit of it in your own words here. What would it add to what is already this article? NadVolum (talk) 08:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You removed a source rather than summarizing it and the content it anchored in violation of PRESERVE. NOTNEWS applies to current events, the content you removed was three decades old, I think you can recognize the distinction. There is plenty of coverage of the article subject's prior affairs, there is no such policy in WP:DUE that requires content to be subject of continuing coverage over time. Your continuing to request clarification and explanation of policy is disruptive. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Give your own reason for saying I am violating policies because I do not believe I have and I have explained why. And cut out the accusations of stonewalling and bad faith and disruption. If you really believe I am doing that then raise an RfC here to override my objections or if you think it is at a disruptive level raise the problem of my disruption at an admin noticeboard. NadVolum (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was breaking news at the time. There is no period after which breaking news of the time suddenly passes that policy because you can trawl through the newspaper archives. Then we should remove most of the article sources about Assange in Julian_Assange#Hearings_on_extradition_to_the_US and Julian_Assange#Appeals_and_other_developments. But thats not what the policy means so we dont do that because the topic has enduring interest.
And saying the case and trial and gulty plea have enduring interest but the charges dont seems strange, and saying the prosecutors quote about Assanges intentions is DUE but not the one about the damage that did doesnt pass BALANCE Softlemonades (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are of enduring interest because they've been written about after the fact. Quite obvious enduring interest as they were written about in 2010 when describing Assange's background. What evidence have you seen in sources expressing any interest that would pass NOTNEWS in the stuff you were thinking of putting in? NadVolum (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quoting @Horse Eye's Back and agreeing with other editors That is not at all what NOTNEWS means Softlemonades (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is not at all what NOTNEWS means... What is it about NPOV and NOTNEWS which causes people to run with their own interpretation of their name and not what it actually means? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps you could enlighten us then of why 'enduring interest' is in the policy? Or how it is being misinterpreted? NadVolum (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It means for example other than routine coverage. Which this all is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well I can see there's a consensus of editors against me so go ahead and stick this stupid stuff in if you want. I do wish you'd at least made a slight effort to justify it. NadVolum (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I still think reasons for including information on the charges are obvious and Im sorry I dont know how to say it better. But Ill try to use the information and source Cambial added and Assanges comment about the prosecutor and edit it with your comments and not restore it the exact way it was Softlemonades (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I am sorry I an't convince you there's something wrong about trawling through the newspapers of the day for whatever strikes your fancy when there's perfectly good writeups about it from afterwards. NadVolum (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Like the other nonsensical discussion we had on this talk page recently (probably there are many) there is no reasonable justification to remove the content and the source. The only justification is BLP, and nobody is arguing that (including me). I think it should be re-added and it is WP:ONUS of those that want to remove it to put this to DR or RFC if they disagree. We do not have to go on with this nonsense to add non controversial content. This is becoming a WP:5P issue now. The endless discussions about trivial issues are an issue with WP:5P4. If someone wants to add content that is not controversial, then the ONUS is on the rest of us to exclude it, not the other way around. WP:5P1 not a soapbox for all this drama and promotion, we are working on an encyclopedia, not an excluded content list. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That you did not understand what I was saying does not mean I acted in bad faith at any point. Cut out the personal attacks, they stop you even trying to see the point. NadVolum (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The Age article of 6 May 1995 "hackers taunted investigators" says the following about the legal proceedings against Assange:

    Julian Paul Assange, 23, of Ferntree Gully, is charged with 30 offences, including obtaining access to information, erasing data, altering data and defrauding Telecom. His committal proceedings began yesterday. The second defendant, Mr James Joseph Carter, 21, of Balwyn, pleaded guilty to 26 similar charges.

    (Telecom refers to Telecom Australia, then a government department but now privatised). Cambial foliar❧ 11:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The Age article of 13 May 1995 "trial date set" reads:

    A Melbourne man accused of hacking into computer systems throughout the world was yesterday committed for trial in the County Court on 27 June. Julian Paul Assange, 23, of Ferntree Gully, is charged with 31 offences. Two co-accused on similar charges will also face the County Court in June. The offences allegedly occurred in 1990 and 1991. In a clarification yesterday the prosecutor, Mr Geoff Chettle, said the accused had never accessed Australian Federal Police computers, but had allegedly accessed Australian National University computers and left messages for investigators.

    I've removed the reference to accessing AFP computers as it is specifically denied by the prosecution (who were working with the AFP). Cambial foliar❧ 13:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any guesses about whether there is any source about the charges he actually pleaded guilty to now the prosecution case has been inserted? NadVolum (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ Fowler, Andrew (2020). The Most Dangerous Man In The World: Julian Assange and WikiLeaks' Fight for Freedom (2nd ed.). Melbourne: Melbourne University Press. ISBN 978-0-522-87685-7.

Party quote[edit]

That ostensible quote is so hilarious @Softlemonades:. I lol'd. I would have preferred to retain it because it's so funny, and I did a google "phrase" search to try to find all or some of it in reliable source but alas found nothing. (An opinion piece is not a basis for a factual claim about a living person.) If anyone can find the original in a reliable source sufficient for a BLP I'd like to give my pre-emptive support for inclusion on the basis of lulz. "The prominent candidate is Julian Assange! Who founded it? I founded it.". Brilliant. Cambial foliar❧ 11:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It might be a quoting a video press conference. If I cant find it somewhere else I might post the diff and source at RSN because it is still New York Times and a reliable writer but I see your issue. If you think BLPN is better is I can post there and not RSN
The quote is funny but I think the important part is him being president of the party. I dont know how to describe his answer in wiki voice and not lose something so I just quoted it like New York Times did Softlemonades (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the claims about appointing himself "president" and it not being in the party constitution are accurate it should be possible to cite them to reliable secondary sources. Opinion pieces are not adequate sourcing for a BLP. Cambial foliar❧ 12:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the link to WP:RSOPINION I tried to find it but only found WP:OPINION EDITORIAL and thats a wikiproject.
This isnt a statement of opinion, but its an opinion piece so the policy application is unclear to me. I will look for a better source and try to solve like that Softlemonades (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did have a search on youtube to try to find a wikileaks party press conference but I don't have much time rn. There is a cite av media template which can be used if the quote turns out to be real and the original TV news organisation is reputable etc. I hope we find it; it reminds me of a quote from The Thick of It: "Who did your media training? Myra Hindley?" Cambial foliar❧ 12:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can't see what the encyclopaediac interest is. Journalist asks stupid question gets stupid answer they deserve. Made up journalistic stupidity. No interest beyond the newspaper of the day. Comes under trivia as in WP:NOTNEWS or WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Getting even sillier though not as wrong as the stuff stuck in under #1995 sources and charges removed. NadVolum (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can't see what the encyclopaediac interest is. You mean the quote and not Assange being the party president right? Softlemonades (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The quote. I see no interest in it after the next sip of coffee or whatever a person has when reading it on the particular day it was stuck in a nespaper. NadVolum (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regardless of whether it's UNDUE, the NY Times opinion piece is an acceptable source for a direct quote such as is under review. SPECIFICO talk 14:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nope. Cambial foliar❧ 17:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Try that out at RSN and see how it goes. SPECIFICO talk 19:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’m good. The onus is on those wanting to add material, regardless of their lack of understanding of sourcing policy. Cambial foliar❧ 20:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suggest you review ONUS. Did you mean to cite WP:BURDEN? As I said above, I have no view as to whether it meets ONUS. SPECIFICO talk 14:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I dont think the quote is important and another editor objects to the content and not the source. I dont think theres a reason to argue about the source anymore, but I found something that makes the articles claim more unclear so it needs another source even if the NY Times opinion piece is an acceptable source for a direct quote Softlemonades (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it’s a RS. Jack Upland (talk) 06:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The source is [5] and is clearly marked an opinion piece. According to WP:NEWSORG Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see junk food news).
Despite that personally I'm happy to accept it as a RS for the straightforward statements in it. My objection is why use the quote at all, whose idea is it to include, does it say anything at all? What is the criterion for including this particular tidbit from a pathetically failed enterprise that has little to do with what he is known for? If he'd had a little more savvy he'd have known he didn't have a chance, people only vote for people they think are slightly more intelligent than them, not for someone who'd quote complex things like "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors". NadVolum (talk) 10:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The wikileaks party constitution I found on their website [6] might counter what the article said about that. Its PRIMARY and confusing but it makes me question the article
why use the quote at all, whose idea is it to include, does it say anything at all? I thought his explanation for his role in the WikiLeaks Party was relevant and didnt know how to describe it in wikivoice. He created and ran a political party and ran for office and we spend two sentences on it and one is about the party and not him or his role or campaign
I dont think the article is very important, I found it because CJR linked it [7] but because it is an opinion piece and might be countered by PRIMARY document I dont think we can treat it as RS now, only to attribute opinion Softlemonades (talk) 12:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above comment is incorrect. He almost won a seat and perhaps would have done if he had followed the preference strategy he wanted. Setting up a party and running for the Australian Senate are not trivial details. Assange failed, but he’s failed at lot of things. Jack Upland (talk) 06:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well said and it might be seen as less important outside of Australia because it didnt effect the US or UK but its still important to Australia
I still want to expand WikiLeaks Party but with better sources and relevant information about Assange should be added here too. But not this because the content has an objection and the source has problems when looking again Softlemonades (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Julia Baird is a distinguished, WP:NOTABLE journalist. Per above discussion, the straightforward recitations of fact published by NY Times in her opinion piece are RS for this article. The only dissenting editor above seems to have confused BURDEN of verification with NPOV weight. The question on the table is what weight to give the details of this interesting byway in Assanges's journey. SPECIFICO talk 15:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why have you linked to the policy on notability? It’s for establishing whether a subject ought to have their own article. It has no relevance to trying to make an exception to the general rule that opinion pieces, lacking fact checking, are not used for statements of fact about living people. They can be used to establish the opinion of the author of the opinion piece. Cambial foliar❧ 15:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Trying to help you understand why your concern about her statements of straightforward fact is not shared by the consensus of editors here. We give credence to notable journalists and domain experts as opposed to non-notable op-ed essayists. SPECIFICO talk 16:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As the notability policy is of no relevance here, it cannot help explain your unorthodox gloss on the established consensus on reliable sources. According to the established consensus policies on sourcing, we need reliable sources, not opinion pieces, for statements of fact about living people. Cambial foliar❧ 16:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In evaluating a source for WP:VERIFICATION we routinely evaluate both the publisher and the author of a cited reference. In this case, both are above reproach for straightforward fact. Nobody has proposed adding this journalist's opinions without attribution in Wikivoice. This is such common, widespread practice on hundreds of BLPs, that it should need no further explanation. If you believe this is unorthodox, I repeat my suggestion you go to RSN to prevail over the consensus of your peers here. SPECIFICO talk 17:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The use of opinion pieces by single authors to establish facts that are unavailable in reliable sources is not common, widespread practice on hundreds of BLPs. Cambial foliar❧ 17:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bottom line is -- consensus seems to be against you on this one. SPECIFICO talk 20:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Swedish prosecutors closed/dropped the investigation in 2019[edit]

It's hard to navigate the long talk page discussions but I think the point has been briefly addressed here. The lead reports Swedish prosecutors closed the investigation in 2019. But in many countries there are two ways of closing an investigation, either by dropping it or by bringing charges and starting a trial. So "closed" is not more neutral than "dropped" but rather more imprecise/ambiguous. The quoted BBC says: "Prosecutors in Sweden have dropped an investigation into a rape allegation ... Eva-Marie Persson took the decision to "discontinue the investigation". Other RSs report "Sweden dropped the sex crimes investigations in November 2019" (Washington Post). "Sweden has dropped its investigation" (Independent), "Sweden drops Julian Assange rape investigation" (though title is not RS per WP:HEADLINES) and "Swedish authorities have discontinued an investigation" (Guardian). I suggest we replace the text with Swedish prosecutors dropped the investigation in 2019. Also Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority has As of 19 November 2019 the prosecution closed the case and I'd replace "closed" with "dropped" there there as well. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

dropping an investigation is not an official term or thing in any country that I know about
But in many countries there are two ways of closing an investigation In many countries you can charge someone without interviewing them and Assange would have been charged. Theres an entire article that explains this and a section of this one that explains it.
If you think discontinued is more clear or that adding something like with no charges I think thats fine but
dropped implies it was because they decided he was innocent and not because he made himself unavailable while the limitations expired and time past Softlemonades (talk) 10:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I dont have a problem with using dropped per the sources. The postulating about closed being a more legal term without sources is just WP:OR. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The postulating about closed being a more legal term without sources is just WP:OR. It was a response to But in many countries to point out its OR but I didnt do a good job of it.
I dont have a problem with using dropped per the sources. The problem is this isnt the body, its the lead. Gitz also pointed to the RS language Swedish authorities have discontinued an investigation which is used in the body. If we want to use discontinued here too thats fine Softlemonades (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
there are two ways of closing an investigation, either by dropping it or by bringing charges and starting a trial This isnt right, investigations can continue after charges are brought and probably after a trial starts. The FBI is still investigating Julian and there have been three indictments. The investigation wasnt closed, you can see that by reading this wiki article Softlemonades (talk) 11:27, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've no problem with dropped or discontinued per thre RS. As to dropped not being a valid term the Wikipedia standard is 'verifiability not truth'. It saves a lot of bother agonizing about what is really true, anything else needs some importance and a good rationale. Saying the BBC and Washington Post don't know English over something that will have zero impact hardly fits that. NadVolum (talk) 11:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Glad we agree on discontinued
As to dropped not being a valid term To clarify I didnt mean to say it wasnt a valid term, I meant it was a misleading term without the context that wont be in the lead like that according to the prosecutor it was due to the long period of time that has elapsed Softlemonades (talk) 12:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see why you attach any great importance to the context they asserted. They tried to drop or discontinue or whatever the case a couple of times previously but were pushed to continue with it. NadVolum (talk) 12:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All context which is better explored on the main article, because trying to summarise it gives people the wrong idea. They only tried to drop it once the other time was CPS replying to a rumor
In August 2012, a CPS lawyer handling the case sent an email to the Swedish prosecutors about a news article which suggested that Sweden could drop the case against Assange, writing: "Don't you dare get cold feet!!!". Marianne Ny replied "no cold feet (yet)" and another email from the Swedish prosecutors said "it is not very likely we would get cold feet, as the weather is still rather warm and all Swedes have warm winter boots!". The prosecutor added that their webpage was "perhaps not as satisfying/revealing as the journalists would want, but that is what we can provide at the moment" Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority#Role_of_the_UK_Crown_Prosecution_Service
So context makes me want to avoid some language especially in the lead
I think matters now is we have language we that I think you, Gitz and I agree on discontinued without charges and if no one else pinged disagrees I think we can change it Softlemonades (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The quoted BBC says: "Prosecutors in Sweden have dropped an investigation into a rape allegation That part of the quote is from the subheadline which is also covered by WP:HEADLINES
The "discontinue the investigation regarding Julian Assange" is a quote from the Swedish Prosecution Authority
The Independent source you cited also quotes them using the language "discontinued" The preliminary investigation has now been discontinued
so discontinue seems to be the official language and also neutral Softlemonades (talk) 12:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re That part of the quote is from the subheadline which is also covered by WP:HEADLINES. Yep, but BBC also reports "Prosecutors told reporters the decision to drop the inquiry had been taken after interviews with seven witnesses in the case", so it's fair to say that "dropped" is widely used by sources with "discontinued" being a viable alternative (possibly adding "with no charges"?). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
with "discontinued" being a viable alternative (possibly adding "with no charges"?) I think discontinued with no charges is neutral and clear Softlemonades (talk) 13:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Trying to ping everyone from the last discussion that Gitz mentioned in the first post sorry if you saw this or commented I didnt want to miss anyone
@Valjean @Jtbobwaysf @Slatersteven @Jack Upland @Horse Eye's Back @NadVolum @Cambial Yellowing Softlemonades (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We go by what RS say, if RS say dropped there is a reason for it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Either "dropped" or "discontinued" is fine, but the addition of "without charges" or similar is undue/redundant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No strong opinion; I concur with others that we ought to follow the preponderance of reliable sources. I'm not familiar enough with the sources to determine what that is. Cambial foliar❧ 18:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In American English it is very common to say "charges were dropped" the "investigation was dropped", etc. I would think that we just follow the RS. On the other hand, I would think an investigation could be closed, and that could result in a charge. Seems to me cleaner and easier to use dropped if the preponderance of sources does the same. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For reference, the preponderance of French sources use the term "classé(e) sans suite" which is translated at WordReference as dropped, dismissed or closed (in that order). Usually the term is case closed, or charges dropped/dismissed. Investigation is the confounding variable here. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 23:08, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Key point is we need to be abundantly clear and obvious in the LEAD of this BLP eventually the investigation was ended/closed/dropped an no charges were ever brought. As a BLP we need to err on the side of caution on this point. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support dropped. Do not say "without charges": this is unnecessary and sounds pointed.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support dropped. Discontinued implies to me the possibility of guilt and WP:BLPCRIME is quite specific 'A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.' NadVolum (talk) 11:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Discontinued implies to me Discontinued is the exact language used by the officials involved as reported by RSes. I dont see how that could imply a conviction
I have new signature, still Softlemonades Softlem (talk) 11:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was referring to how I felt. And as I have said before I see no reason to suppose what the Swedish police said refects any sort of reality rather thn some political decision. They were being pushed to keep the charges open even though Britain had no obvious legitimate interest in the case. Dropped has been used by English language RS's and is good enough as far as I'm concerned.NadVolum (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see no reason to suppose what the Swedish police said refects any sort of reality rather thn some political decision You see no reason to think that what the prosecutors said about they did about the investigation reflects the investigation and you think its a political decision instead? Thats OR or I didnt understand what you mean
They were being pushed to keep the charges open Theres no RS that says they were pushed to reopen the case in 2014 2015 2016 or 2017 before it was closed the first time because it was impossible to serve notice while he was in the Embassy and that they "cannot expect to receive assistance from Ecuador" or that they were pushed to reopen it in 2019
Dropped has been used by English language RS's So has discontinued and its the used by the official source Softlem (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. Nobody pushes the Swedish Police. SPECIFICO talk 20:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no requirement on us to treat what the police say about their actions in wikivoice as if it reflects any reality. They are a primary source, not an independent source and would have to be attributed. They have to interact with the public in a diplomatic fashion and this case had a political side. The simple fact without attribution is they dropped the case as reported in secondary sources. NadVolum (talk) 10:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are a primary source, not an independent source and would have to be attributed. The simple fact without attribution is they dropped the case as reported in secondary sources.
What are you talking about? Discontinued was reported in secondary sources. Thats part of my point. It was used by RSes and official sources Softlem (talk) 11:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Saying dropped is better because secondary RSes use it seems odd when the same RSes use discontinue like CNN BBC Insider Financial Times Sydney Morning Herald Al Jazeera Independent and Gitz said that in the orignal post and other RSes only use discontinue like Guardian Washington Post
It also the word used in the official press release and the official translation
The simple fact with attribution is they "discontinued" the case as reported in secondary and primary sources Softlem (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as I can see most of those RS use drop in their own voice and discontinued when quoting the Swedish prosecution. NadVolum (talk) 23:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CNN, Financial Times, Sydney Morning Herald, Al Jazeera, Independent, Guardian and Washington Post all used discontinue in their own voice. I only linked to two that only quoted the Swedish prosecution Softlem (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I support dropped. Lets just be brief and use plain language in the lead. Also agree that the discontinued is a potential BLPCRIME issue, as it is ambiguous and also has implications. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    use plain language in the lead What about discontinued isnt brief and plain language? Explain how its less clear than any definition of dropped, which I had to look up to see how it applied and was still confused because the law enforcement definition was about hanging [8]
    also has implications So does dropped and thats why I always opposed it. Unlike dropped, discontinued is the official term. What you think the implications of the official and term and status are is not as important as it being official and reported by RSes
    It doesnt matter how many RSes use a WP:EUPHEMISM or WP:SLANG its still not WP:WIKIVOICE and we should describe it clearly and directly and WP:Call a spade a spade with the brief plain language used by RSes and official sources Softlem (talk) 11:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You said dropped implies it was because they decided he was innocent and not because he made himself unavailable while the limitations expired and time past. That sounds to me like you want discontinued in despite it being a jargon word because it could imply to some people that he is guilty. As far as WP:BLPCRIME is concerned we should treat him as innocent unless he is convicted. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction NadVolum (talk) 11:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That sounds to me like you want discontinued in despite it being a jargon word because it could imply to some people that he is guilty I want the official word that doesnt imply anything. If a reader decides something after reading the section or the page they can. We shouldnt push a POV in the lead
As far as WP:BLPCRIME is concerned There is no read of policy where using the official status of the investigationas reported by secondary RSes and primary sources is a violation of BLPCRIME Softlem (talk) 12:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Also support dropped. Discontinue is not a suggested translation of "classé(e) sans suite," a very standard term, like "dropped", present in all these secondary sources referring to the affair. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 12:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Why are we translating Swedish to French to English to decide what words to use?
    present in all these secondary sources A lot of those are from 2017 and this happened in 2019 Softlem (talk) 12:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because it shows that the international press is not buying that there is a distinction worth making between jargony/POV "discontinued" and standard "dropped". Notice also "abandonne les poursuites" in the many headlines. "Discontinue" is not a translation of abandonner. A closed case can of course be reopened, just as a dropped investigation can be reopened. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 12:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because it shows that the international press is not buying that there is a distinction worth making between jargony/POV "discontinued" and standard "dropped" That would be a good argument if you were citing sources in English and not from a third language and then translating it and if you werent citing sources from the wrong year and event Softlem (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Number of occurrences of Assange "interrompre les poursuites" in all of Google: 0... translation of "discontinue" (arrêter/interrompre/arrêter la production/etc.). The fact that when the investigation was dropped in 2017 the same language was used shows that indeed the case could have been reopened... except, of course, the prosecutor knew that the statute of limitations was soon to be reached... so the term "discontinue" might have been chosen as a way to insinuate guilt despite the stated judgment that there was not enough evidence to go to court... You have now made your opinion known, as have I. Let's drop it discontinue this discussion. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 12:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(conflcited) I'm not a proficient English speaker and so I'd better refrain from having an opinion on the dropped/discontinued alternative. The choice is mainly a matter of style because we all agree on the facts (the investigation was closed and no charges were filed) and on the opportunity of making them clear to the reader. However, some of our readers speak English even worse than me, so perhaps my opinion is not totally irrelevant. Here it is: "discontinued" seems more bureaucratic and less clear to me. Perhaps that's the reason why most of our RSs use "dropped" in the title. I know, titles are not RSs, but they might provide a clue to the best stylistic choice. "Dropped" (the investigation) is a message that everybody understands immediately. Since it is also supported by sources, my first choice would be "dropped", second best "discontinued without charges". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"discontinued" seems more bureaucratic and less clear to me I agree we should make it clear but the case was very bureaucratic, thats probably the only thing we might have immediate consensus on
I think discontinued without charges is best for the lead and make it clear in the section that the last statute of limitations expired in 2020 after it was discontinued Softlem (talk) 13:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Saying "without charges" is misleading as in Sweden they don't lay charges until just before the trial.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you from Sweden or an expert on Swedish law? Seems we are off into the weeds here. Although if you have some detailed knowledge, might be interesting to update this to the article if we can find sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jtbobwaysf, please see the following [9] Jack Upland (talk) 02:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jack Upland Thanks, that was interesting! I read "On 3 June 2019 the Uppsala District Court decided that there is probable cause for the suspicion of rape, less serious incident." I read this to mean that the courts were using a lower threshold which is probably cause to seek his extradition? This is akin to a police officer searching a vehicle in the US. Is this your understanding? This would be quite far from charge, (or even an arrest in US matters). I don't have much understanding of UK law. I do know that in some countries like China, there is no concept of probable cause, and police will simply search if they want to (might be just in practice, maybe there is an actual law regarding this in China which I have no knowledge). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure what lower threshold you mean. What that was saying is that a formal Swedish 'decided that there is probable cause for the suspicion' is functionally equivalent to British 'charged'. Anyway this should all be in the sub artcle. Their 'less serious incident' is one of their classifications of types of rape. Britain does not have much distinction at this level, possibly following Sweden with types of rape would help in fixing the abyssmal record of the police in Britain in dealing with cases. NadVolum (talk) 08:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I suppose I misunderstood what the author was saying. I thought the author was saying it was just a probable cause investigation. Anyhow, agree this can be in the sub-article. Kinda off in the weeds here. Key point is most the RS state the charges were dropped, rather than closed. Probably I should stay on topic ;-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Isn't all this getting into too much detail and legalese in this article? We should be following WP:SUMMARY. The section about all this has got far larger in this article than the lead in the sub-article whereas they should be quite similar. I think the current lead in Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority is fine for use as a summary here. NadVolum (talk) 09:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the current lead in Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority is fine for use as a summary here So we can keep closed which is what we have had here for a while. Im okay with that too Softlem (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the whole section should be chopped down to like the lead section of that other article following what WP:SUMMARY says. NadVolum (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consensus counted wrong and BLP Restore doesnt work that way[edit]

BLP restore does not apply when consensus is incorrectly claimed. The user specifically said Everyone agrees that "closed" is unclear. but that it s not true and I am not the only editor to say so, see NadVolums comments [10] [11] which would mean still using closed. Their other counts of editors were also wrong and missed @SPECIFICO and made other mistakes. Reverting edits based on bad facts is not a violation of BLP Restore

BLP Restore simply does not apply. In case you didnt read it when you read it, When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. This doesnt violate the content policies and consensus didnt say what the user said. That doesnt mean I need to drop the stick, that means they made a mistake.

If a change wants to be made, it needs a good RFC to change it to a term with negative connotations like dropped has Softlem (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you think that "dropped" has negative connotations? Besides, I don't understand why you mention BLP Resore. Nobody says you violated WP policy by reverting my edit [12] but I really don't see the point in keeping "closed" in the lead. It's clearly less clear and informative than "dropped" and "discontinued without charges". While the choice btw "dropped" and "discontinued without charges" (both supported by RSs) is just a matter of taste, "closed" is clearly worse than the alternatives, is not supported by RSs and (if I'm not mistaken) has no consensus. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you think that "dropped" has negative connotations? Yes about the investigation
Besides, I don't understand why you mention BLP Resore. Nobody says you violated WP policy I thought Jtbobwaysf did when they reverted my revert WP:BLPRESTORE applies here [13] Softlem (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What negative connotations about the investigation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A RFC isn't required, whatever gave you such a ridiculous notion? Note that we do appear to decent support for "dropped" and "discontinued without charges" with "dropped" appearing to be consensus... We have almost no support at all for "closed" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"dropped" and "discontinued without charges" with "dropped" convey the same meaning and both are supported by RS. SPECIFICO talk 15:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Clearly WP:BLP rules applies on this article, as well as the sub-policies in that article including but not limited to BLP restore. If it is your position that the consensus was incorrectly summarized, I would suggest to run an RFC and seek wider community feedback. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I haven't been involved in this except to affirm the obvious, above. But Jt it is you who would need to demonstrate affirmative consensus at this point. Meanwhile, you may just need to remove it entirely because from from what I can see there are two entrenched camps bickering to the death over nothing. SPECIFICO talk 21:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doctors for Assange petitions[edit]

Hi @SPECIFICO, regarding this revert, The Lancet is a very authoritative outlet (our article describes it as "the world's highest-impact academic journal"), but you are right that the June 2020 petition, signed by 216 physicians, did not receive much media coverege, so its inclusion may be UNDUE. However, a few months earlier, in February 2020 there was another petition from Doctors for Assange, also published in the Lancet, here, which was signed by 117 physicians. That petition received some media coverage, e.g. ITV News [14], Sky News [15], Evening Standard [16], Swissinfo [17]. An earlier petition from November 2019 (here), signed by over 60 physicians, got even more traction, e.g. New York Times [18], The Guardian [19], CBS News, [20], Al Jazeera [21], The Independent [22], Australian Broadcasting Corporation [23] and many more. So the point is whether and how we should include that, between November 2019 and June 2020, concerns about Assange's health and the conditions of his detention in the UK were raised (in addition to the UN Special Rapporteur on torture and Assange's lawyers) by members of the medical profession who signed petitions on his behalf. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doctors For Assange signers included fake names and people with no relevant training [24]
The list of names, which can be viewed publicly on the Doctors for Assange website, includes many that do seem to correlate with legitimate doctors. Others, however, claim to belong to those whose professions have little bearing on Assange’s health status.
Doctors For Assange said they verified everyone But alleged dentists, midwives, chiropractors, and self-described “visionaries” can be seen throughout. One signatory even appears to have no medical background and instead lists their job as “movie director and script writer.”
Although the website’s submission form asks that only medical professionals sign, the Daily Dot was able to confirm that any name could be added with an entirely fabricated email address. More than 50 of the entries appear to be openly fake, while another nine are linked to those without any medical training or affiliation.
The website is spam now [25] but its archived [26] Softlemonades (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see a "Dr. Boner" among the signatories of the June 2020 petition (here). Is it possible that Daily Dot (no consensus it is an RS per WP:DAILYDOT) is referring to the "official list of signatories" to Doctor for Assange's website? I read on the website (here) that "The below list of signatories may contain signatures still pending verification". Be that as it may, it doesn't seem very relevant. The international press reported that Assange was ill and that physicians were signing petitions for his release on madical grounds. None of this information was false: he was indeed ill in October 2019 and in the following months and groups of physicians were signining petitions on his behalf, as was widely reported by the press (see also Reuters [27]). The sentence Between November 2019 and June 2020, concerns about Assange's health and the conditions of his detention were raised by members of the medical profession who signed petitions on his behalf could be backed with high quality RSs (as detailed abouve) if there's consensus this is relevant enough. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see a "Dr. Boner" among the signatories of the June 2020 petition Not relevant to the issue or quotes I brought up and their verification issues go back
Be that as it may, it doesn't seem very relevant Its relevant to citing exact numbers of doctors and countries
I agree that Between November 2019 and June 2020, concerns about Assange's health and the conditions of his detention were raised by members of the medical profession who signed petitions on his behalf is better than giving exact numbers. Thats where the verification issues come in and avoids the need for context or bringing up Daily Dots report in the article
if there's consensus this is relevant enough I dont think it is for the main article but didnt want to revert it. The campaign to free him has so much that it should be a separate article, but no one seems to support that. If we included everything about it that was rported by RS here the article would be 1000 pages. Softlemonades (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Lancet is fine, but this was not Lancet editorial content It was correspondence. SPECIFICO talk 18:45, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Lancet can be considered a primary source, the RS would be secondary sources like NY Times, CBS and The Guardian. It is rather easy to add fake names to such things but the quoted bit seemed ro be saying about 20% were probably fake and 100%-20% is still a high percentage. So the real questio i think is whether it is undue. It seems due to me given that his illness was relevant and due and doctors' opinions are relevant to illness. NadVolum (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Lancet can be considered a primary source, the RS would be secondary sources like NY Times, CBS and The Guardian I think this is right
It seems due to me given that his illness was relevant and due and doctors' opinions are relevant to illness I think Wikileaks/Assange released medical information and reports on him before. That and the reports about the stroke could make a section about his health. I think he needed a scan in the embassy too Softlemonades (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The much heralded UN Rapporteur has made the claims about Assange's health. A list of maybe doctors who did not examine the bloke and wrote a letter that received little lasting notice, that's nothing much. SPECIFICO talk 21:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support one sentence about the Doctors for Assange. We don't need a blow-by-blow account of every letter they publish.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, no need to make an essay about it. NadVolum (talk) 10:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about the following text? It uses two secondary RSs (New York Times Nov 2019 and ITV News Feb 2020) and one primary and non-independent source (letter in The Lancet, July 2020) making it clear that the latter is "correspondence". I think the letter in The Lancet falls under WP:PRIMARY (reputably published + statement of fact) and if we drop it we are left with no source about the campaing lasting until at the least July 2020. If you agree, I would insert it in Julian Assange#Imprisonment in the UK following the sentence On 17 February 2020, Australian MPs Andrew Wilkie and George Christensen visited...
Doctors for Assange

Between November 2019 and July 2020, concerns about Assange's health and the conditions of his detention were raised by members of the medical profession who signed petitions on his behalf.[1][2][3]


  1. ^ Yeginsu, Ceylan (25 November 2019). "Julian Assange 'Could Die' in U.K. Jail, Doctors Warn". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 25 November 2019. Retrieved 2023-09-25.
  2. ^ "Doctors call for end to 'torture and medical neglect of Julian Assange'". ITV News. 17 February 2020. Archived from the original on 18 February 2020.
  3. ^ "The ongoing torture and medical neglect of Julian Assange". The Lancet (Correspondence). 396 (10243): 22–23. 4 July 2020.
--Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems fine to me. NadVolum (talk) 09:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page history related to health[edit]

After seeing a lot of over-heated discussion on the t/p about how to characterize Assange's health while he was emprisoned in Belmarsh, I added "reportedly in ill health" to the lede on 25 November 2019. This managed to keep the peace for a while.

Jack Upland removed it on 7 January 2021, with the edit summary "Lead - removing repetition about health".

Today, there is no mention of Assange's health history in the lede. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 21:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When I removed that, the introduction included, "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" by reason of his mental health; the United States has 14 days to appeal." That was in turn removed recently in favour of a one sentence summary of the extradition battle. I don't think that phrase in the intro kept the peace. The issue remains how much information about his health we include in the body of the article. That being said, I don't object to the phrase being re-added to the intro. However, "reportedly" should not be included as there is no reputable attack on numerous accounts of his ill health.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Language lasting over a year on this particular page is usually peace-keeping language, IMO. I did understand your reason for removing it. Feel free to add "in ill health" after the mention of Belmarsh prison in the introduction. As you say, it's not controversial. It's also short. :) -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 13:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thumbs up for short, particularly in the lead! NadVolum (talk) 10:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The primary source is OK for verification of the fact that the petition was published, but we still need subsequent, and not just immediate contemporaneous, secondary or tertiary sources that establish the significance of this event. If there are such sources from later years, this should be easy to find. I'll note that Assange is still apparently alive and intact, so the years-old concerns about his health appear to have been overly dramatic. SPECIFICO talk 15:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fact that he is still alive doesn't mean he is in ill health.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jack Upland: I think you may have read my comment backwards. His robust survival suggests that the concerns most likely were overstated. SPECIFICO talk 12:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I meant “isn’t”. Jack Upland (talk) 05:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whether years-old concerns about his health have been overly dramatic or not is not for us to say - we don't know anything about this actually, and we should not be interested in WP:TRUTH. Even if those concerns were overly dramatic (which I don't know) the fact that physicians signed petitions on his behalf might be in itself worth mentioning in an article about Assange. I think that the primary source Lancet is legit and meaningful because it allows an interested reader to do some research on their own about that campaign for Assange. However, it's true that the July 2020 campaign did not get much media coverage: I can only find minor and/or unreliable sources such as Consortium News, International Association of Democratic Lawyers, South China Morning Post, NYC Free Assange. So if you think that that makes the info WP:UNDUE we can drop the source Lancet and have "Between November 2019 and February 2020" in the text. I don't think it's an improvement but I'm OK with that. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would support removing all the instances, e.g. the dubious "rapporteur" et al, and simply stating that concerns about Assange's health and wellbeing were voiced by various observers who had not medically examined him im the 2019-20 period. That would be encyclopedic information and due weight NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 12:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. The "dubious" repporteur is the UN official? What is dubious about him?
  2. Do you have an RS about Assange not having been medically examined at the time?
Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Au contraire, what's your WP:V source for thinking that the hoard of doctors and others who signed the Lancet letter each examined Assange in his refuge? What's your thinking that the volunteer attorney and UN human rights rapporteur was medically qualified to give such an opinion? SPECIFICO talk 12:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't say anything (either here on this talk page or in my proposed edit) about whether the doctors had examined Assange or whether the UN rapporteur had medical qualifications. You're the one who seems to have information on this, therefore I asked. Anyway the Lancet letter says that Niels Melzer and "two medical experts visited Mr Assange in prison in May, 2019". It's possibile but it would be surprising (and worrying) if they had prevented all contact between Assange and the doctors for nearly two years. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps I did not express myself clearly. You asked me to provide a source stating that events did not occur. I was reminding you that the WP:BURDEN is on you to provide sources for what we would state did occur. Otherwise, without sourcing, we cannot suggest that such events occur. SPECIFICO talk 15:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
perhaps we are speaking of two different things here and it's just a misunderstanding. You said I would support ... stating that concerns about Assange's health and wellbeing were voiced by various observers who had not medically examined him im the 2019-20 period. Obviously to state this ("...had not medically examined") we need a source and the WP:BURDEN is on you. We can say (because we have RSs) "physicians signed petitions on his behalf" or "physicians raised concerns about his health". We cannot say (unless we have an RS on this) "physicians who had not medically examined Assange signed petitions/raised concerns, etc." Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We know he saw a psychiatrist Michael Kopelman, as noted on the article. Jack Upland (talk) 08:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We do not need "secondary or tertiary sources" to state the article subject is in ill health. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, of course we do. And per the Goldwater rule we don't publish health speculation. SPECIFICO talk
His extradition was originally blocked because of concerns about his health and enough evdence was given in court about it which shows there is a real problem. The UN rapporteur should be treated as a reputable and reliable source whether you think he is right or wrong. They were responding to reports about Assange's health and treatment, not giving an opinion about what was wrong with him. NadVolum (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rapporteur is established consensus text and it is sufficient. SPECIFICO talk 13:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I see it, this was rejected on appeal, and thus without a new (medical) diagnoses this is in fact just a rejected opinion. Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They didn't reject her assessment of health, just said that the US prison was okay for him because america said so. NadVolum (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So they rejected the claim it was bad for him on health grounds to be extradited. Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As the article says "The Lord Chief Justice and Lord Justice Holroyde ruled that, in line with previous judgements, when the US administration gives a promise of fair and humane treatment its word should not be doubted". They didn't say anything about the assessment of his health. NadVolum (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which means it also ended up having no impact on his extradition, so why is it relevant? Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article is about Assange, and besides it has had impacts in the extradition process so far. You might as well ask why document the hearing under Judge Baraitser as the decision was overruled. Wikipedia is not for speculation as to whether it may or may not have consequences in the future. It is documenting things that have some lasting merit in RS. We don't delete the article on Nero because he has practically no relevance nowadays. NadVolum (talk) 14:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's clearly disagreement and no consensus to include the letter to Lancet, so it would be more productive to focus on other potential improvements to the article. SPECIFICO talk 15:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]