Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 20

RFC on Julian Assange location and condition
This edit (which adds below quoted text) is suitable for the lede: Assange is incarcerated in HM Prison Belmarsh, where United Nations special rapporteur on torture Nils Melzer has said Assange's life is at risk.

Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Survey (location and condition)

 * Suitable location and health condition of WP:BLP subject is standard content for WP:LEDE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC) Note additional source has come out after above source, adding additional coverage to the subject as 60 more doctors signed some sort of petition on the subject addressing weight issues some editors have noted. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not suitable Cherrypicked UNDUE opinion.  SPECIFICO talk 04:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not suitable for lead - The special rapporteur's opinion is already mentioned in the body of article, which is more than sufficient. It would be WP:UNDUE for the lead section, as many have pointed out. Neutralitytalk 04:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Suitable, perhaps with modifications: I don't understand the objection to stating that he is in prison and in ill health so long as it is done in a neutral, accurate way.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Location suitable, single opinion not - Mentioning specifically where he is incarcerated is uncontroversial and unobjectionable. Mentioning one specific person's uncorroborated opinion is not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Suitable : I don't think anyone has disputed Melzer's statement. He has the necessary experience to be able to make that assessment. His assessment has been reported in numerous sources (duckduckgoing the phrase 'nils melzer assange life at risk' brings up reports from ABC (oz version), New Indian Express, Yahoo News, MSM, The Statesman and others. Other people who are close to Assange such as John Pilger and Pamela Anderson have said something similar. It is important enough to include in the leading paragraph. Burrobert (talk) 05:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not suitable for the lead, at least as far as the opinion goes; the location alone could be included. If there are other reliable sources saying this, add them; but as presented it's just one person's opinion, and especially when dealing with WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims about high-profile subjects, the requirement for an opinion to be WP:DUE for the lead is very high.  It could be mentioned in the body, but there's no particular indication that this is WP:DUE for the lead given the lack of secondary coverage.  EDIT:  The list of sources below is good, but going over them, most of them (when summarizing Melzer's words) don't even mention the "life at risk" aspect that we're discussing putting in the lead; and the parts that do mention it make the lead summary we're discussing look misleading, since they emphasize that it could be the result of his treatment (whereas the disputed lead wording gives the impression he could be killed, which is not what Melzer was saying.)  It's obviously appropriate for the body - where we can give it more in-depth context - but not the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 06:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not suitable for the lead per Neutrality and NorthBySouthBaranof. --RaiderAspect (talk) 12:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not suitable, as we don't generally provide health statuses in the ledes of BLP articles. Grandpallama (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not suitable Tend to agree it looks like a cheery picked quote form one person.Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Unsuitable: per Neutrality, et al. Seems to also be a deviation from the norm of not providing health statuses in the lead, as Grandpallama notes. &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 15:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * mixed I don't see a problem with mentioning where he is currently incarcerated, or with mentioning that he is in poor health, or even saying that a human rights official has criticized the conditions of his detention, but the phrasing here gives the impression he's at risk of being assassinated. Nblund talk 15:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not just suitable but necessary given that policy requires that relevant material in the lead of a WP:BLP not be suppressed: Assange's deteriorating health is highly relevant to his biography, has now received attention from the United Nations on multiple occasions, and is amply documented by the highest quality news sources in countries all around the world. For example:
 * New York Times
 * The Guardian
 * Reuters
 * The Washington Post
 * Newsweek Op-Ed by Melzer
 * Sydney Morning Herald
 * CNN
 * The Brussels Times
 * Repubblica
 * The Independent
 * Business Insider
 * Al Jazeera
 * The Financial Times
 * The LA Times
 * The Hindustan Times
 * The Times
 * The International Business Times
 * The Irish Times]
 * Express
 * The San Francisco Chronicle
 * The Hill
 * Liberation
 * USA Today
 * La Presse
 * Deutsche Welle
 * Counterpunch
 * Salon.com
 * The Globe and Mail
 * Xinhua
 * Bloomberg
 * Le Figaro
 * Le Monde
 * Der Spiegel
 * France 24
 * Furthermore it is typical that designations ("alleged torture... show trial... political prisoner") by international bodies be noted in the leads of detained political figures, and not uncommon that poor health or alleged torture under detainment be noted as well, typically with appropriate attribution, e.g. Dong Yaoqiong, Gao Zhisheng, Kareem Amer, Gu Zhun, Han Dongfang, Hu Jia (activist), Huang Qi, Liu Xiaobo, Wu Zuguang, Yu Dongyue, Mamdouh Habib, Murat Kurnaz, Anna Politkovskaya.
 * Though I must say, in none of the cases above do you see documentation by international reliable sources nearly as good as in the case of Melzer's statements about Assange.
 * To whoever closes this: please give some regard to policy and extraordinarily flippant attitude being taken by a number of the comments here. -Darouet (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * To whomever closes this, I hope you'll take note that the multiple examples provided by Darouet don't, in fact, provide health statuses of the articles' subjects; they provide relevant details about the nature of the captivity or significant events that occurred during said captivity/imprisonment. Including them as if they are equivalent is, like, flippant. Grandpallama (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , That is WP:SYN. We have no medical evidence, only the opinions of supporters. Guy (help!) 12:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Guy, what is WP:SYN? And are you arguing that the OHCHR text The Special Rapporteur and his medical team visited the imprisoned Wikileaks founder in May and reported that he showed “all the symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture” is incorrect? Do you have any sources or evidence showing that the UN expert and medical experts that accompanied him are supporters, not professionals? I really have no idea where you are getting this from. -Darouet (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * First part (prison name) is OK, "life at risk" is not OK. The first problem is that 'life at risk' suggests that the authorities are harming, torturing or trying to kill Assange, which needs to be much better sourced. Secondly, if Assange's health is merely bad (which seems to be the case), then the text should state that, rather than imply that the authorities are trying to kill him. In other words, the suggested text (which is incendiary) gives an imprecise take on what Assange's situation is like... is he just a prisoner in ill health or is he being killed? Third, the "life at risk" language is one UN rapporteur's assessment. Not only is it undue, but the credibility of this guy can seriously be questioned in the case of Assange. The same UN rapporteur accused the British authorities of "torture" at the time when Assange was holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy, which is very loose and incendiary language: "Mr Assange has been deliberately exposed, for a period of several years, to progressively severe forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the cumulative effects of which can only be described as psychological torture." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * This has been reported all over the news, and your opinion about how newspaper articles and statements by UN officials or their medical teams appear vaguely dubious should not have an impact on content decisions. From the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights:
 * There is no policy basis for trying to exclude this content from the lede. -Darouet (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no policy basis for trying to exclude this content from the lede. -Darouet (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Location (prison name) OK; "life at risk" opinion not OK – per Snoog, who explains it well. – Levivich 17:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I tend to favor ledes that are short and to the point, so I'm already kinda unhappy with the state of the current lede which appears to try to summarize Assange's entire life. That being said, I think it's OK to mention where he is currently incarcerated in the lede and also to document what the UN guy said further down. Omanlured (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Location OK, "life at risk" opinion not suitable for the lede &mdash; there's no policy-based reason to exclude this from the article, but the phrasing of the proposed addition to the lede is sensationalist and misleading by omission. Is he at risk of getting shivved? Of the CIA assassinating him and disguising it as a jail-yard shivving? Or is his health poor, in a way potentially aggravated by his conditions? In addition, the passage in the article which reports Melzer's statement is a copyvio of . It also gives an unbalanced presentation of Melzer's findings. Quoting the Guardian piece linked above, “Physically there were ailments but that side of things are being addressed by the prison health service and there was nothing urgent or dangerous in that way,” Melzer said. [...] Melzer said that Belmarsh was an old prison and had issues about that but he described it as well maintained, adding that characterisations of it as a “supermax” or “the Guantanamo of Britain” were unhelpful. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And, plucking another source from the pile, the CNN story quotes Melzer as saying, My most urgent concern is that, in the United States, Mr. Assange would be exposed to a real risk of serious violations of his human rights, including his freedom of expression, his right to a fair trial and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. That's a serious statement, of course, but it's not fairly summarized by "his life is at risk where he is now". XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Location OK, "life at risk" opinion not suitable for the lead - Life at risk is OK in the body as an opinion along with a response from the authorities. O3000 (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This article gives far too much weight to Nils Melzer's opinion. The entire Imprisonment in the UK section is just Melzer's opinion on the matter, and the third paragraph uncritically repeats his claims in a very unencyclopedic manner. "As predicted by Melzer" and "according to this expert" are technically attributions of opinion, as is proper, but in a way that accords his opinion the status of unquestionable fact. Clearly a lot of sources discuss this guy's comments on Assange's imprisonment, so it should be mentioned in the article, but this is going way too far. Neither he nor his belief that Assange's life is at risk should be mentioned in the lead. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Suitable, but i would only include the fact that he in incarcerated. The rest of the information shouldn't be included in the lede, but it could be included in the body. Cook907 (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not Suitable for the lead to say more than that he is incarcerated. That is ok, the rest, not. The body, yes. The lead, no. POV. Coretheapple (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not Suitable wording for the lead as this psychological assessment seems impressionistic and is prone to error and the wording seems to imply he is being harmed by his incarceration. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not suitable Seems like agenda-driven attempt to make a point in the lead of the article. It's not an important aspect of the man's biography to warrant top placement in the article. Leave it in the body, that is fine. Zaathras (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not suitable Barring any other stances on the risk or non-risk of his situation, adding the opinion of one person, even if that is repeated by multiple RSes, is clearly UNDUE for the lede, lacking any context to be in there. If it were the case that Assange's life has been threatened as to give context to the statement, that might be reasonable. --M asem (t) 18:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't the opinion of one person. It's the assessment of a team led by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture. That assessment was based on a medical examination by "two medical experts specialised in examining potential victims of torture and other ill-treatment" . -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Suitable: This is an assessment by a team led by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, and it's been widely reported. From those saying this is too minor to be included in the lede, I'd like to ask for some consistency. The lede contains excessive detail on the Russiagate scandal, including this factoid which is largely irrelevant to Assange's biography: "twelve Russian intelligence officers, mostly affiliated with the GRU, were indicted on criminal charges by Special Counsel Robert Mueller". I'm sorry to say that I don't think the simultaneous packing of the lede with extraneous Russiagate material and the exclusion of the widely reported expert medical assessment of Assange are unrelated. They both flow from the same political agenda. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Then that also should be removed as irreverent.Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an assessment by a team led by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture &mdash; except it isn't. What the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture said and what the proposal claims he said are completely different. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The proposal nearly directly quotes from the UNHRC press release: "The UN Special Rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer, has expressed alarm at the continued deterioration of Julian Assange’s health since his arrest and detention earlier this year, saying his life was now at risk" . I'm open to improving the wording of the proposed text, but it does correctly represent what the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture said.
 * Can I take it then that you'll support the removal from the lede of clause about GRU agents being indicted? -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Exclude from lead. It's opinion, and it is alarmist (this is England we're talking about, not Kekistan). Guy (help!) 22:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Does the fact that this statement is being made by a UN team that specializes in investigating torture matter? You or I may disagree with the findings of the UN Special Rapporteur and his team, but they do carry some weight in and of themselves, and because they have been widely reported in dozens of highly regarded newspapers around the world. Whether or not you or I (as anonymous Wikipedia editors on the Internet) think the findings of the UN team are "alarmist" is really irrelevant. What's relevant is Wikipedia's inclusion critera: WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, etc. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , it's not "a UN team", it's one person within that team, and it's his opinion not based on medical evaluations. Again, this is an English prison, we're not some banana republic. Guy (help!) 12:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What you're claiming is directly contradicted by the sources: "Melzer was accompanied during his prison visit on 9 May by two medical experts specialised in examining potential victims of torture and other ill-treatment. The team were able to speak with Assange in confidence and to conduct a thorough medical assessment" . Please read the sources before commenting in this RfC. Your (or my) opinion on whether the UN team is correct or incorrect is irrelevant here. To whomever closes this RfC, please discount votes that claim this is one person's opinion, or that there was no medical assessment. The people making these claims have not read the sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Exclude clause about life at risk as worded. As it is currently this is just UNDUE and misleading and would leave the reader with more questions than answers (like what does this have to do with torture?). Melzer is plainly a political sympathizer of Assange and this by his own choice of words colors why exactly he feels the incarceration is unjust. However, since the lead should reflect the overall content of the article and Melzer's opinions do take up a fair amount of space, I might not be opposed to a different phrasing that did not insinuate there is a consensus or accepted evidence that Assange is being tortured to death. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Location acceptable, 'life at risk' unsuitable. Agreed on undue. Ifly6 (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Location suitable. Opinion that life is at risk not suitable. First of all, it's one person's opinion. Secondly, it's WP:UNDUE. Adoring nanny (talk) 04:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Suitable: As it there is significant coverage from RS about Assange's worsening health condition as pointed out by and thus should be noted in the lede.   Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 22:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Suitable if slightly rephrased: I think given that this is a United Nations source, it would be problematic not to include it. That smells to me like we'd be doing that because we happen to think Assange is unsympathetic. However I agree with Nblund that the current phrasing sounds like he is at risk of being assassinated. I would rather say Assange is incarcerated in HM Prison Belmarsh, where United Nations special rapporteur on torture Nils Melzer has said he is being kept under unacceptably poor conditions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LokiTheLiar (talk • contribs) 06:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * suitable it is reliably sourced and there is no reason to remove it. It is not UNDUE.--SharabSalam (talk) 11:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Suitable Thoroughly sourced. The arguments against it are incredibly stupid and biased.GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Location suitable. Opinion that life is at risk not suitable as UNDUE and proposed phrasing is wholly inapt and misleading. It implies risk of assasination or torture, where the actual claim is that the WHOLE process has damaged his mental health (ie including period in embassy, not directly as a result of Belmarsh/British incarceration). Credited the claim could go in body with fuller account. I endorse arguments of Aquillion, Nblund, DIYeditor and others. Pincrete (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not suitable The location of incarceration can be included but the risk to life part is not. There is an Imprisonment in the United Kingdom section, let it be cited there. It appears that this particular information - regardless of the long list of reporting publications - only used one source - the U.N. rapporteur. Second, it is ambiguous. As previous posts stated, it could imply an assassination attempt, suicide, and, of course, physical torture (given the title of the UN official). It leads to a lot of speculation. It will also not strain credulity to say that any prisoner deprived of his freedom and gets interrogated for his crime (since Assange obviously knows a lot of information crucial to security) would suffer psychologically. Darwin Naz (talk) 09:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not suitable - Doesn't belong in the lede. Yes, it's been reported on by multiple reliable sources, but it's still represents a single assessment; belongs in Julian_Assange. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Suitable All Areas. Due weight. ——  SN  54129  15:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Location OK, "life at risk" opinion not suitable for the lede I see no issue inlcuding this information in the body, but one opinion seems a bit undue in the lede. Bonewah (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not suitable for lead as to the rapporteur's opinion on his health risks. Should be in the body. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Suitable  The UN has said similar things HAL  333  16:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Alternate text (location and condition)
I appreciate your comments in that you're trying to engage with the sources. Based on the widely reported upon OHCHR statements on health, arbitrary detention and torture, and today's news that 60 doctors are warning Assange may die in prison , is there text, either for the body or lead or both, that you think these sources (or RS that report upon them) could justify? I'd be really curious to know what specific proposals you'd have. -Darouet (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Note that the previous UN statements on arbitrary detention, torture, and health received support from Human Rights Watch and the ACLU. -Darouet (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not helpful to namecheck the names of other reputable organizations who are not involved in the Assange matter. Also, please place discussion in the section captioned...Discussion. Thanks.  SPECIFICO talk 17:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd like to get the opinions of the editors I pinged, if you don't mind. -Darouet (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I think I said what I have to say about it, if it is worth doing to you then come up with something I might agree with. 's version wasn't bad but I would not be ready to support it without reading more arguments in its favor. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * (responding to ping) I don't see why new wording in the body would be a problem. I believe one of the sources said that JA is currntly being held in the 'medical' wing of the hospital and not in the high security part, which should be included along with the rapporteur's assessment - which along with the medical experts testimony makes clear that any (mental or physical) ill health is as a result of the extended period of stress/isolation, including the time in tha embassy. I think readers can, and will, make up their own minds as to who is responsible for JA having been 'on the run' in the embassy for so long. It is the misleaading and very selective slant to the present wording which is a primary objection of mine.Pincrete (talk) 17:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (location and condition)

 * This article is subject of WP:POV pushing and it would be useful if it is added to more editors watchlist's. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this issue could be fixed if the statement about Assange's health was attributed to a few reliable sources. I think that could easily be done, because it's not controversial.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

It is also subject to wp:undue, this is one mans opinion which may not (as far as I can see) even be an official statement made in his official capacity.Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * These are official statements made in Melzer's official capacity, published in the news section of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights:,.




 * Unless, Steven, you have evidence that Melzer and his medical team visited Assange on their own time, in a personal capacity, for fun? I can't wait to see those links. -Darouet (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The HRC oversees 44 thematic and 12 specific country mandates for which it can assign special rapporteurs. The UK is not among them.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" is one of those 44 thematic mandates, and Nils Melzer is the special rapporteur responsible for that theme: . The fact that there are specific country mandates in addition to the thematic mandates is completely irrelevant here. The thematic mandates cover all countries, not just countries for which there is also a special mandate. Melzer is the special rapporteur on torture in all countries, not just 14 specific countries. But don't just trust my opinion. This is what the UNHRC says about its mandates:
 * Special Procedures, the largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general name of the Council’s independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms that address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. -
 * What's more, the findings of Melzer and his team were announced in a UNHRC press release, so they're not just some personal opinion he formed in his free time: . -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yet there is not one word form the medical experts, where is this medical report? As I said what we have is one persons opinion. IN fact at no time is there ever "and it is the finding of the UNHCR" type statement either, they never take ownership of anything in that press release.Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Allow me to quote from another UNHRC press release:
 * Melzer was accompanied during his prison visit on 9 May by two medical experts specialised in examining potential victims of torture and other ill-treatment.
 * The team were able to speak with Assange in confidence and to conduct a thorough medical assessment. -
 * It says very clearly that an expert medical assessment was conducted. Re: "they never take ownership of anything in that press release", I don't know what you expect. Nils Melzer is the UN's official rapporteur on torture. The UNHRC has repeatedly publicized Melzer's findings in official press releases. What do you mean by not taking ownership? That just sounds like yet another excuse to try to dismiss this material. See WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT and WP:NOTCENSORED. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I know what it says, I also know it does not contain one quote from the medical experts. As to what I would expect it to say, how about "in a report commissioned by the UNHRCR...", in other words they take ownership of it. In fact there appears to be no report, just a press handout, one that  is worded so at to say "in  Melzer's opinion".Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * What does it matter that the UNHRC press release doesn't directly quote the medical experts? It says that they examined Assange and made an assessment. You're just inventing arbitrary requirements as an excuse to keep this information out of the article. First you made up your objection about there being no special rapporteur for the UK. When I showed that that objection was spurious (there is a special rapporteur for torture worldwide), you moved on to the next spurious objection: your suggestion that there wasn't any real medical examination. When I showed that objection to be incorrect (medical experts conducted an examination), you move on to the next spurious objection: they aren't directly quoted in the press release. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If UNHRC quoted the actual doctor and showed all the test results we could do some WP:OR to determine if the report contained sufficient WP:MEDRS to be an RS for this article ;-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course this is a medical statement made by someone who is not a medical expert. By the way not quoting every objection at once is not the same as moving on to new made up ones. From the start I said this was just his opinion, nothing that has been provided gives any indication that its not just his opinion, the press release even says it is his opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not what the source says. It says the "United Nations special rapporteur visited." It does not say an individual visited. And the opinion of that title is the opinion of an organization, not the opinion of an individual. This is WP:OBVIOUS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Its also a Letter of allegation as far as I can tell. It is not a formal finding (as I said no report has been made yet). In fact (I note) that the Communications report of special procedures for 42nd session September 2019 (which covers the period in question) seems to contain no reference to this.Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "this is a medical statement made by someone who is not a medical expert." No, it's an assessment made by a team that included two medical experts. The UNHRC said, "Melzer was accompanied during his prison visit on 9 May by two medical experts specialised in examining potential victims of torture and other ill-treatment" . -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Except it does not quote (or even name) them, just him. This is my whole point, this is his opinion of what they found.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Comparison of text and interpretation - So "The Special Rapporteur and his medical team" becomes "just him," and their "report" becomes "his opinion." Thanks. -Darouet (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * OHCHR: The Special Rapporteur and his medical team visited the imprisoned Wikileaks founder in May and reported that he showed “all the symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture”
 * it does not quote (or even name) them, just him... this is his opinion of what they found
 * This just deflects from the rejected narrative that Darouet and Thucydides are tag-teaming here. Further, as has been noted, the guy was in self-imposed solitary confinement at the embassy for years. Introducing the mention of the prison is wildly SYNTH and feeds a fringe narrative unstated by any source about various governments that seek to adjudicate various actions of Assange.  SPECIFICO talk 17:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * showed that the sources support the text - by citing the sources directly. Do you have a fact-based response to that? Calling everything "wildly SYNTH" (it's not synthesis - it's a direct comparison of what the source says with what the proposed text says) or "fringe narrative" (it's the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, cited by dozens of highly regarded newspapers around the world) isn't an argument. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * There is nothing mentioned about previous time at the embassy. More WP:OR. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The notice from back in May stated, In the course of the past nine years, Mr. Assange has been exposed to persistent, progressively severe abuse ranging from systematic judicial persecution and arbitrary confinement in the Ecuadorian embassy, to his oppressive isolation, harassment and surveillance inside the embassy . XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * With the relation to location, which few people have commented on, I think it is handy to note where he is imprisoned. He has been in the usual situation of being subject to criminal proceedings from three different governments. His legal team was also asked for bail. It is good for the reader to see at a glance that is he in a British prison at the moment. I think that noting a subject's location is unusual, but this is an unusual situation.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

As we are just going round in circles I will bow our now.Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, one last try. His health declined due to his choice to hole up in the embassy for years on end. His life was at risk by the time he was extricated, before the British prison.  There's plenty of RS reporting about the conditions in which he chose to live.  The mention of the prison in a single lead sentence without that context is a nasty POV push via UNDUE and SYNTH.  SPECIFICO talk 15:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not what RS are reporting, and that argument is directly contradicted by not only multiple UN statements, but also by statements from Human Rights Watch , the American Civil Liberties Union , and other legal experts.
 * According to the HRW general counsel:
 * -Darouet (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, please. not that its WP:RS, but it should illustrate the point]. Please address the only point I made above. The simple fact that there's no statement that his health was AOK and fell off a cliff under the British prison watch. But that is what your proposed text SYNTH and without proper context suggests to the reader. Please respond to the points others have raised and do not introduce names of other organizations that are irrelevant to the specific item under discussion here.  SPECIFICO talk 17:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That article you linked is a good one, and quotes from a series of experts who support what various UN officials, other human rights officials, and doctors are all saying: that prolonged arbitrary detention has caused Assange serious medical and psychological harm. That includes harm endured within the embassy, and now at Belmarsh. Otherwise I don't understand what you're asking for: all I've shown is that international and American human rights groups reject your personal legal interpretation of Assange's condition. -Darouet (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You asked for a link to a source that backs up what everyone knows -- my assertion above that Assange's health declined during his self-imposed confinement in the embassy. The article text you are pushing supports a false POV that it is due to mistreatment by the Brits in their prison. Clear enough?  I'm done. I suggest you carefully review the comments of the many editors who have refuted every single point you have made on this page.  SPECIFICO talk 18:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not attached to any specific article text, and your wholly correct point - that Assange's health was declining long before his incarceration at Belmarsh - does not contradict Melzer's statement that Assange's life is at risk while he is in Belmarsh . However, your additional comments that Assange has imposed this upon himself are rejected by human rights groups . -Darouet (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You stated above that you support the proposed text and that you feel it's "suitable and necessary". When you return to deny that, you should either amend your original !vote, which is no longer credible, or recognize that the contradiction will be noted by all who comment here and by the closer.
 * I support the text because it is accurate: Melzer has said that Assange's life is at risk in Belmarsh. If you wanted to make the text more precise and note other UN and human rights group statements about Assange's long term decline in health, and what they describe as arbitrary detention, I would support that too, since there are abundant references to document it. -Darouet (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately "accurate" is not the standard we work by. In general, SYNTH text is "accurate" and UNDUE text may be acccurate as well. But the context of the RfC proposal leads the reader to an unverified and unintended or extraneous conclusion, not stated by the Rapporteur. To wit: We know his health declined during his voluntary sojourn in the Embassy. When the lead says his health is at risk in the British prison, many or all readers will conclude that its because of his treatment there.  In fact, his health has been at risk for some time now, due to his voluntary confinement at the Embassy.  His health would be at risk in a hospital too, but fewer readers would jump to the false conclusion that his ill health was caused by the hospital.  Many, possibly including yourself, conclude that his ill health is caused by the British government. WP will not publish that nonsense. If it were true, you could have verified that specific assertion with a dozen sources and we all would not have wasted our time on this RfC.  SPECIFICO talk 00:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

It's time you finally read Melzer's statements, because you clearly have no idea what he's actually been saying. "due to his voluntary confinement at the Embassy": Melzer has specifically written that Assange's asylum in the embassy was not self-imposed. So instead of accusing others of engaging in WP:SYNTH (a term which you don't even appear to understand, given the way you're using it here), how about you go read the sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Open letter by 60 doctors: Assange may die in prison
60 doctors have written a letter reiterating Nils Melzer's point: that Assange is and has been in urgent need of medical attention. To quote from The Guardian :

The letter has been covered by news globally:
 * The Independent: Julian Assange 'could die in prison without urgent medical care', doctors warn
 * CBS News: WikiLeaks' Julian Assange "could die in prison" without medical care, doctors say
 * Al Jazeera: Doctors tell UK authorities Julian Assange 'could die' in jail
 * The Daily Beast: Doctors Say Julian Assange’s Health Is So Bad He Could Die in Prison
 * The Irish Times: Assange ‘could die in prison’ without urgent medical care – medics
 * Deutsche Welle: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange 'could die' in British jail: doctors
 * Sydney Morning Herald: More than 60 doctors have written to British authorities asserting that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange urgently needs medical treatment at a university hospital.
 * Washington Post: More than 60 doctors have signed an open letter expressing “serious concerns about the physical and mental health of Julian Assange,” who is being held at a high-security British prison.
 * Also reported by Business Insider, Hindustan Times, The Evening Standard, CNBC, TIME, The Australian, etc.

The doctors' letter notes that the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention determined in 2015 that Assange was being arbitrarily detained, and that "any continued arbitrary detention of Mr Assange would constitute torture... The Working group reaffirmed its stance in 2018 and added "the continued arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Mr Assange is undermining his health, and may possibly endanger his life given the disproportionate amount of anxiety and stress that such prolonged deprivation of liberty entails."

This widely publicized statement by 60 medical experts confirms the report made by Melzer and his UN team, and by other eyewitnesses who have seen Assange's condition. It also contradicts the falsehood, which has been repeated here despite all available text and sources, that the OHCHR report on Assange's health is either UNDUE or nothing more than Special Rapporteur Melzer's "opinion." -Darouet (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * This letter was organized and distributed by WikiLeaks. You can get 60 doctors to sign onto any letter. Also, just to reiterate, this letter claims that it's "arbitrary detention" in 2015 (i.e. when Assange evades extradition to Sweden for questioning on rape charges). Suppose the police wants to question me after a credible accusation of rape... apparently, I'd be "arbitrarily detained" and "tortured" if in the process of hiding from the police, I happened to live in squalid conditions. The UN is also not a neutral arbiter on these issues, it's a political organization. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * is there a source saying this letter was "organized" by Wikileaks? And if the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention is not a neutral body for determining who is arbitrarily detained, whose political interests are they advancing? Do you have a source that indicates they are political partisans of Assange or Wikileaks? Where are you getting this from? -Darouet (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Snoogans I am still unable to find a source stating that Wikileaks "organized" this letter: only that it is distributing it. -Darouet (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The absurdity of the conclusion by the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention is accurately pointed out by Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman here. This Foreign Policy piece also accurately describes the conclusion as shocking to legal experts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The conclusion is backed up by statements by HRW and ACLU senior officials, and was bolstered by a second statement UN in subsequent years that the determination of arbitrary detention was accurate.


 * The BBC writes that The UN's Working Group on Arbitrary Detention is made up of five legal experts from around the world. Established in 1991, it has made hundreds of rulings on whether imprisonment or detention is lawful . The UN decision was reported upon objectively by many news sources noting opinions of officials and figures supporting or opposing the ruling, e.g. CNN, The Independent, TIME, USA Today, VOX, The Telegraph, The Intercept, The New York Times, Wired, The Sydney Morning Herald, etc.


 * There are critiques of the UN working group decision other than the Op-Ed and Feldman articles you cite, for instance by US political figure Paul Rosenzweig on the Lawfare Blog, and an editorial by the Guardian . However, Feldman’s response is criticized as factually inaccurate by political science professor John Keane , and UN Human Rights Office official Christophe Peschoux among other experts states that the UN group’s decision is based on the international human rights norm.


 * The UN working group decision received further support from Human Rights Watch . HRW general counsel directly challenged the assertion that Assange was a fugitive from justice: Let’s be clear: the issue is not Assange fleeing Swedish justice; he has continually expressed his willingness to be investigated by Sweden. What he won’t do is risk eventual extradition to the United States, which would like to prosecute him under the Espionage Act. That is exactly what has happened. The American Civil Liberties Union executive director said in response to the working group’s decision, In light of this decision, it’s clear that any criminal charges against Mr. Assange in connection with Wikileaks’ publishing operations would be unprecedented and unconstitutional.


 * Snoogans: what are you trying to argue? That Wikipedia should take an editorial position against the UN, HRW, and ACLU statements? That it should not report them? Or that the statements and their widespread coverage should be treated as relatively inconsequential and given little space in the article? -Darouet (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm saying that this assessment does not belong in the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Snoogs, this content is undue, of dubious origin, and does not belong in the lede. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Why doesn't it belong in the lede? Because you think it's wrong? Because the UN, HRW, the ACLU and all the newspapers that have been reporting on this don't make it notable?
 * What is dubious about the origin of the letter? It's based on the assessment of the UN, and has been widely covered, just like the UN assessment itself. The question is really how long we're going to ignore the all the coverage of Assange's declining health and the assessment that he's been arbitrarily detained. I know he's not a popular figure around here, but this is really getting absurd. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Now how on earth did 60 doctors examine Assange while he was incarcerated? The letter sounds like a load of WP:OR and unsubstantiated opinions. I read through the Guardian article, and the problem I have with this letter is it does not appear to be based on actual medical evaluations of Assange, but is for the most part speculation and opinions.  I realize that a doctors opinion carries some weight, but how many of these doctors actually examined him?  I think this letter is undue, and it may in fact be politically motivated.  Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * You're misusing the term "WP:OR." That's a policy that says Wikipedia editors can't use their own original research as a source. It has nothing to do with the expertise of outside sources.
 * The letter is based on several accounts of Assange's declining health. This issue has now been raised repeatedly by the UN, and now by a group of doctors, and it has been widely reported on. I think most of the opposition (among editors on this page) to including it is political dislike of Assange, and a general desire to paint him in as unsympathetic a light as possible.
 * I recall back when some of the very same people who now argue for minimizing information about Assange's health were fighting to include a blatant mischaracterization of an interview given by Assange, in order to paint him as a stooge of the Kremlin: . They had exactly one source to go on, an article in the Guardian that cherrypicked a few quotes from an interview. The person who did the original interview even attacked the Guardian for misrepresenting Assange's statements. But now, suddenly, dozens of articles in major newspapers reporting on statements from the UNHRC are not enough. I wonder why. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This letter and article in the Guardian sounds like more political rhetoric of Julian Assange's followers and advocates. I mean, I am fairly certain that there are doctors who provide services to inmates in the prison where he is being held.  A letter that says Julian Assange "will die" unless he is let out of prison sounds incredulous.  What do the prison doctors have to say about this?  Where is their assessments?  Assange is terrified of what will happen next since the US is going to extradite and prosecute him for espionage and hacking US government computers.  I am fairly certain he wants out of prison so he can find another embassy to grant him asylum so he can dodge the next round of indictments.  This letter talks about his mental health as well.  Are prison officials concerned he will attempt suicide?   Assange is a grown man who knowingly published classified materials of the US government, hacking US computers, then disclosed highly restricted materials.  He certainly should have known there would be serious consequences for such conduct.  I certainly would not want to be in his shoes and it's without a doubt he wants to dodge prison and get out so he can attempt to evade prosecution once again.  He has quite the following of fans and supporters and this letter appears to be the work of his advocates.  And what does the UN have to do with the US extraditing him for espionage?  Like the other editors have stated above, this letter is undue, and I question it's accuracy since it's pretty clear 60 doctors have not examined him.  It's a lot of opinions from people who do not have personal knowledge of his condition.  If the prison doctors sent a letter, that would be more credible.  As it stands, I don't consider that political letter all that credible. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And I note that is about his stay at the embassy his... But this is the point. It may be he may die in prison, but it any content must be worded so as not to imply this is solely or even principally the prison authorities fault. I also note this is 60 doctors, none of whom appear to have examined him from 8 countries, that seems to be to be a fringe. I also note that there seems to be a lot out there relating not to his imprisonment, but mainly his stay in the embassy.Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * , according to the UN, Assange's stay in the embassy was imposed on him. He was, after all, there because of credible fears of extradition to the United States for political crimes - fears which have now proven to be true. Also, what makes the doctors' opinions "fringe"? They're based on the conclusions of a UN team (including medical experts) that examined Assange, as well as other witness accounts of Assange's decline in health. The doctors' letter has been widely reported on. "I also note that there seems to be a lot out there relating not to his imprisonment, but mainly his stay in the embassy." The UN found Assange's confinement to the embassy to be arbitrary detention. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Because a fringe is a view held by a minority, last time I checked 64 medical experts are not even a significant minority of the number of doctors in the UK alone. And again, it does not matter why he was "held" in the embassy, when the suggested edit only talks about British jails.Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So only once a majority of all practicing doctors in the UK come out and make a statement about Assange's health will this view stop being fringe? Am I getting this right? Is this really the level of absurdity we're going to stoop to here on Wikipedia?
 * If you don't like that the proposed text specifically refers only to Assange's health in jail, why not propose an improvement? The proposed text isn't set down in stone. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is an RfC and it is set in stone. It looks like the proposal will fail, and I suggest working on other things for awhile and proposing some other language that takes account of the apparent consensus that the health/British prison bit is not going in the article.  SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing at wikipedia is set in stone and specifically RfC's dont rule out that sources might change in the future. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I can think of any number of fringe theories where the professional experts have not come out and passed comment on it (partly that what makes it fringe). Also it is not necessarily down to us to provide "better" text, as some of us do not only oppose for reasons of it being "POV" written. Also it is hard to see how one paragraph can be written as one line without losing nuance, and it is hard to see how one paragraph in the lede is not undue.Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I wish the opinions you've expressed here — condemning the medical experts as fringe, referencing supposedly larger numbers of doctors who must disagree, etc., were supported by text in reliable sources. But that commentary is not present in any news articles on this topic. -Darouet (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not say anyone disagreed, I said they have not agreed. Again we have plenty of arguments made on fringe topics that they are fringe precisely because no other academic has commented on them, I am merely extending that argument to here. These 60 doctors have not examined him, but rather based their judgment on what others have said or what they have observed in videos. One of the problems here is that the hospitals doctors are bound by confidentiality, they are legally disallowed from commenting (the 60 docs are not precisely because he is not their patient and they have not examined him in a professional capacity). Thus we are only getting one side of this.Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I understand what you're arguing on principle, and I do agree with you that when a viewpoint truly becomes fringe, and is furthermore inconsequential, reliable and respected sources of information will ignore it. In that case, it would be unreasonable for us to ask you to produce reliable source critiques of the viewpoint in question.
 * However, there are multiple sources information that should strongly suggest to you that the case here is not only very different, but the opposite of what you describe. First, the doctors' letter was published by global news agencies, who do more than just report that the letter was written, but also solicit feedback. For instance The Independent interviews one of the letter's signatories :
 * The Guardian corroborates this account by adding in their own words that
 * Reporting on the doctors' letter Al Jazeera notes the fairly obvious, that the letter is consistent with the medical assessment made by UN special rapporteur Nils Melzer :
 * Because these assessments are being provided by multiple highly credible authorities, because major papers all over the world report the assessments credibly and do not provide arguments (except by British officials who are incarcerating Assange) to the contrary, it should be obvious to you that there is nothing "fringe" about this. If we used the standard you are advocating, even the most widely reported statements or assessments must be treated as equivalent to statements or opinions that have received no coverage at all. -Darouet (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Fringe does not mean "not widely reported". How many doctors who have actually physically examine Assande have commented on his health? This is the issue here, he has been taken to the hospital wing [], what have they said? That is the point, hew is getting medical care and they are not allowed to discuss their findings.Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , you didn't address what said. Major newspapers are treating the doctors' letter as credible, as the quotes  provided above demonstrate. Do you have an answer to that point? -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Reporting what people have said and treating those claims as credible are not the same. Nor do comments made about his conditions before arriving at Belmarsh have any relevance to text about his condition at Belmarsh. Again we only have one side of this story, and in fact legally can only have one side due to patient doctor confidentiality. The doctors who are treating him (rather then acting as advocates) cannot tell us what they think.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You're still avoiding answering what wrote above, and it's becoming clear why: you don't have an answer to it. If the doctors' view is fringe, why are they being given so much coverage by mainstream publications? Why don't those publications call the doctors' view fringe? Instead, mainstream publications are actually interviewing the doctors and presenting their opinions. The Guardian even makes a statement in its own voice that supports the doctors' view. Your argument against that is to say that only the views of the doctors who are directly treating Assange matter. In other words, you're ignoring the fact that the media doesn't treat the doctors' letter as fringe, and making your own personal argument about why you think the 60 doctors are wrong. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * How do I know, why does keep getting publicity? Or Mazrk Dice or anyone who claims to have seen Nessie? Why (even now) does David Icke still get publicity? Newspapers publish many things, including conspiracy theories and even stories that feature me (that is to say my Wikipedia account). It does not mean the views represented (with the exception of mine) are not a fringe of those who might not (but have no for one reason or another) expressed an opinion. This is why I say it violated wp:undue and maybe wp:fringe because those who have treated him (as doctors) cannot give a counter account, even if they wanted it. To put it another way, this is all the news media have to report.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If the 60 doctors' views (and those of the UN team) were fringe, the mainstream sources covering them would indicate that. When mainstream sources cover people who say vaccines cause autism, the sources categorically state that there's no evidence for that claim. But instead, we see above from the quotes provided that mainstream sources treat the doctors' letter as credible. The Guardian even echoes - in its own voice - some of what the doctors are saying. That's what you're not addressing. You keep saying that unless Assange's prison doctors make a public statement, the 60 doctors and the UN team are fringe. That's a ridiculous argument you seem to have pulled out of a hat. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You're still avoiding answering what wrote above, and it's becoming clear why: you don't have an answer to it. If the doctors' view is fringe, why are they being given so much coverage by mainstream publications? Why don't those publications call the doctors' view fringe? Instead, mainstream publications are actually interviewing the doctors and presenting their opinions. The Guardian even makes a statement in its own voice that supports the doctors' view. Your argument against that is to say that only the views of the doctors who are directly treating Assange matter. In other words, you're ignoring the fact that the media doesn't treat the doctors' letter as fringe, and making your own personal argument about why you think the 60 doctors are wrong. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * How do I know, why does keep getting publicity? Or Mazrk Dice or anyone who claims to have seen Nessie? Why (even now) does David Icke still get publicity? Newspapers publish many things, including conspiracy theories and even stories that feature me (that is to say my Wikipedia account). It does not mean the views represented (with the exception of mine) are not a fringe of those who might not (but have no for one reason or another) expressed an opinion. This is why I say it violated wp:undue and maybe wp:fringe because those who have treated him (as doctors) cannot give a counter account, even if they wanted it. To put it another way, this is all the news media have to report.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If the 60 doctors' views (and those of the UN team) were fringe, the mainstream sources covering them would indicate that. When mainstream sources cover people who say vaccines cause autism, the sources categorically state that there's no evidence for that claim. But instead, we see above from the quotes provided that mainstream sources treat the doctors' letter as credible. The Guardian even echoes - in its own voice - some of what the doctors are saying. That's what you're not addressing. You keep saying that unless Assange's prison doctors make a public statement, the 60 doctors and the UN team are fringe. That's a ridiculous argument you seem to have pulled out of a hat. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion in lede We dont measure by the quantity of the doctors. However, this is a second source that supports the earlier source by the UN person. Thus we have two different independent reports of a similar issue. Above arguments such as 'how many doctors is 60 out of total' or 'arranged by wikileaks' are all baseless. We do weight based on independent reliable sources and add weight for multiple events. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:12, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment, though I raised the doctors' letter and its widespread coverage without asking that we put it in the lead (though I suppose we can look into that in the future). Instead I mentioned the letter here to point out that Melzer's assessment — supported by the medical team that accompanied him, the UN, Assange's family and lawyers, and others — has now received yet further validation from a large number of medical professionals.
 * The letter also demonstrates that international human rights groups — the United Nations, HRW, the ACLU — have been relatively consistent in their view that Assange's incarceration has been arbitrary and illegal, despite the opinions of some editors here to the contrary. -Darouet (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * yes, i also support inclusion in the body. Plenty of RS to include. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Suitable - It's not like the views of United Nations special rapporteur on torture Nils Melzer are just some random vox pop. Bacondrum (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * How come an involved editor close this discussion? The editor has been editing in this U.S. Democrats vs Republicans area all the time and many editors here who voted excluded are always supporting MrX. We should have a new RfC again and uninvolved admin should close the discussion.-- SharʿabSalam▼  (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Block quote for an opinion piece etc
For some reason an editor has highlighted a quote from an opinion piece and not mentioned that it is an opinion piece. The same editor has changed the text from the sources they used. E.g. changing contact that was made "apparently over Twitter" to "direct messages". I tried to repair the damage but it appears there are other editors here who condone that behaviour. Burrobert (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The opinion piece should not be included at all. What's the reasoning for viewing this particular opinion piece as DUE, let alone worthy of a block quote? -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I would not have included the opinion myself and wont defend its inclusion. However, if it is included we need to tell the reader that it is an opinion and who is providing the opinion. It is currently presented as a proclamation having the same force as a commandment brought down from the mountain by Moses. Burrobert (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * It is unfortunate that none of the three editors involved have had the decency to use the talk page to try to defend their actions. Burrobert (talk) 06:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It might help if you'd tell us which quote is under discussion. There are several possibilities. Regardless, per WP:Preserve (a policy), the solution is to fix and improve, not delete, the content. If it needs attribution, then do that. If it belongs at another spot in the article, then do that. If it needs to be worded better, then do that. Do everything possible to preserve properly-sourced content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The opinion piece quoted in this diff. As one opinion piece, without any compelling argument to include it, it's undue. It's certainly far less worthy of inclusion than the appeal by 130 prominent Germans, which has generated extensive press coverage and which was signed by some of the most well-known figures in Germany. By comparison, what secondary coverage has the opinion piece in the Washington Post generated? -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The editor who inserted the quote has, conveniently or otherwise, overlooked the fact that an attempt was made to “preserve” the text. The introductory phrase "In an opinion piece for the Washington Post, Allison Stanger wrote:" was added to alert the reader that this was an opinion and not holy writ. Apparently this addition didn’t suit the agenda of the three amigos, most of whom are still conspicuously silent on the issue. The offending editor has also, conveniently or otherwise, failed to explain how contact that was made "apparently over Twitter" became contact via "direct messages". Burrobert (talk) 01:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Burrobert, I was unsure of what quote you were talking about because you, both in your opening comment and here, seem to be attributing to one editor (me?) actions made by two different editors (I'm not sure who the other one is). It's confusing to me, and besides having other things IRL and here to do, I am careful to not make edits which might trigger DS warnings. I'd rather see how discussions play out before doing much. I also find it hard to keep track of what's happening because I'm not an SPA. I edit and follow many, many, articles. My watchlist (three days are open) is currently at "1,809 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)". At one time I had over ten thousand on my watchlist. That was a bit too much. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's certainly not UNDUE. Please read up on that. I agree with BullRangifer here. If it can be improved, make specific suggestions. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 04:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The "undue" argument is specious and not based in policy or normal practice here. The edit summary provided enough justification for using the quote. Quotes over about two lines are supposed to be in a quote template according to the MoS. It's not "highlighting".
 * We don't write hagiographies here, and actions that might be seen as attempts to keep out properly-sourced content that may reflect negatively on Assange are a violation of NPOV. We don't allow anything that might be seen as whitewashing. All editors should stay far away from such actions.
 * Opinions from RS are perfectly proper content. If controversial (and we give such content more weight), then attribute them. Problem solved. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * With that amount of work on hand I can understand why you find it hard to keep things straight. I’ll try to keep things simple and pass over the edits of the other two editors who don’t seem interested in engaging on the topic. Your initial edit was bold but I believe had some flaws which I tried to correct while preserving the quote and the other items you added. I don’t particularly like the quote you added but am not interested in censoring content that is suitably sourced so am more interested in ensuring it is presented in a fair manner. The issues with the quote are firstly that it is highlighted by separating it from the rest of the text. Secondly it is not presented as an opinion but is thrown at the reader as if it is holy writ (sorry to repeat myself there). The other issue with your edit is that you changed contact that was made "apparently over Twitter" to contact via "direct messages". This is a small change but still I think significant. I attempted to correct these issues but two other editors (not you) intervened. Since you did not attempt to rectify the issues that I identified in my edit (while making other unrelated edits to the page) I assumed you agreed with the actions of the two other editors in leaving the quote and other items in their original states. Regarding the policy about block quoting long quotes, do you have a reference for the policy? I would be interested in looking at it. Burrobert (talk) 06:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Burrobert, thanks so much for the concise reply. Much appreciated. It's so easy to misunderstand each other online.
 * I am still confused when you mention that I "changed contact that was made "apparently over Twitter" to contact via "direct messages"." I don't recognize that. Please help me with a diff to that edit. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * BullRangifer Here is the text from the Washington Post article you used as a source:
 * "June 22, 2016. An unnamed organization, later indirectly identified in the indictment as WikiLeaks, reaches out to Guccifer 2.0 (apparently over Twitter) to request he/they “[s]end any new material [stolen from the DNC] here for us to review and it will have a much higher impact than what you are doing.""
 * Here is how you described this in your edit:
 * "The investigation also unearthed direct message exchanges between Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks, in which they coordinated the release of the shared material".
 * By the way I haven't mentioned your use of the term "unearthed" which I put down to artistic licence on your part. As far as I can tell the WaPo article doesn't mention whether the contact was hidden or conducted in public view. However, it is probably too trivial an issue to be of concern.
 * Did you notice that the WaPo article uses the qualifier "alleged" or "allegedly" 37 times? Whenever the WaPo article discusses contact between Wikileaks and Guccifer it always inserts the qualifier "allegedly"?
 * Burrobert (talk) 05:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Burrobert, now I'm even more confused. Are you certain I am the editor who made those changes? I have only made four edits to this article: . I don't see any edits of mine that even slightly resemble what you're talking about. Please provide the diff to that edit you're talking about. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * You are correct. It is my mistake for which I sincerely apologise. Sorry to waste your time. The text was added by Dead Mary sometime last year. You had moved the text as part of your edit here: but are not responsible for the addition. My criticism of the text stands but I should not have mentioned you in relation to the criticism. Burrobert (talk) 07:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What makes it not UNDUE? It's one opinion piece. Has this opinion piece generated significant secondary coverage? I haven't seen any argument yet for why this piece is DUE. It's especially odd that you're arguing for inclusion of this one opinion piece, when you're simultaneously arguing that an appeal signed by 130 of the most prominent politicians, journalists and media figures in Germany, reported on by dozens of newspapers, is UNDUE. What's the reasoning for treating this particular Washington Post opinion piece as more DUE than the German appeal? -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

, that's not an "opinion piece", it's a concise summary of what Mueller found, specifically in relation to Assange. It is highly relevant and, being independent, it's better than us dreaming up our own summary. I am concerned that you give a very strong appearance of denying the established facts that Russia interfered in the 2016 US election, and that the GRU used Assange as a conduit to publish stolen information. Guy (help!) 10:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The article is in the "Opinions" section of the Washington Post, and is titled, "The Mueller report confirms it: Assange is not a whistleblower or a journalist". -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I would support the inclusion of the piece. It is in a reliable source, penned by Allison Stanger, a notable political scientist and member of Council on Foreign Relations. Stanger is well-credentialed and is speaking on her area of expertise. That it is in the opinion section of the WPost doesn't invalidate its inclusion. ValarianB (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The "News" section of the Washington Post is a reliable source. The "Opinions" section is for opinions, and there's no implication that the Washington Post newsroom or editors stand behind the veracity of the opinions offered. As WP:RSEDITORIAL states, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." If the opinions are particularly noteworthy, (often evidenced by significant secondary coverage, which hasn't been shown in this case), then there's a good argument that they're DUE. If there is eventually a consensus here for inclusion, the quotation will have to be given with appropriate inline attribution (in accordance with NPOV), and not written in authoritative Wikivoice. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So, attribute it. O3000 (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me refer you back to the start of this topic. Attribution was attempted but was rejected by a trio of editors. And it seems that a fourth has now joined the group. Burrobert (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I am fine with the quote returning in its most recent format, attribution is unnecessary. Russian interference in the '16 US election is established fact, long with Wikileaks and by extension Assange's, involvement therein. This quote is a summation of what we know, as written by an expert in the field of geopolitics. ValarianB (talk) 14:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, summaries and analysis by notable experts are exactly the kind of tertiary source that help give NPOV balance to these current events articles. They give a considered overview of the significant facts that's far preferable to WP editors cherrypicking daily reports and breaking news articles. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Opinion sources are just as legitimate as fact sources. They are just treated slightly differently. We don't attribute facts, and that includes when those facts are in an opinion article. Attributing a fact is a not-so-subtle means of shedding doubt on the statement, and we are not allowed to do that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Here's the quote again, and the following paragraph: "The report by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III released this past Friday amply documents that Assange, with the support of Russian intelligence, played a critical role in the 2016 presidential election. He is a potential missing link in the chain of understanding the extent to which foreign intervention affected the American electoral process."
 * Oppose block quote: this gives to much weight to one point of view. Assange has not be convicted of anything in relation to this, and has denied many of the accusations made against him. This is inappropriate in BLP article.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant arguments not based in policy. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Bureaucratic subterfuge.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The next paragraph: "This is not a partisan issue. Democrats certainly would have agreed with Mike Pompeo, speaking in 2017 as CIA director before becoming secretary of state last year, when he said, “It is time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is: a nonstate hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia.”"

The quote in question isn't even an opinion, but a statement of fact. Anyone who searches the Mueller Report for Assange and WikiLeaks will read about all the proven scheming, secret communications, planning, coordinating, and lying by Assange, all between him and the G.R.U. agents. The evidence is there. Whether he knew they were Russians or not is a different matter. The evidence shows that he did these things, so that quote is a short summary of the facts, and Mike Pompeo knew it too, and his quote is also worth including.

The author is actually being generous to Assange, because he isn't a "missing link", he's a proven link, a key link, an essential link. The stolen documents were worthless without his distribution of them at the exact right times. A highly regarded subject matter expert has stated the uncontroversial facts, and the quote is very due.

The fact that it's in a quote template is a requirement of the Manual of style for anything longer than about two lines:


 * "Format a long quote (more than about 40 words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation, indented on both sides."

Depending on how one counts the words, we are at just over 40 words, so we might be able to deviate from this MoS requirement if editors truly want to bury the quote from view. I have never made a big deal about it. Let consensus rule about its format here, but that consensus should follow the MoS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Stanger is not neutral. She is closely associated with the American establishment and the Democratic Party. If we have a block quote from her, we should have block quotes from Nils "Rubber Ducky" Melzer, John Pilger, Barnaby Joyce, and Comrade Pamela Anderson. They are all prominent in their respective fields.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Jack Upland: "Stanger is not neutral." So what? What's that supposed to imply? You've been here long enough to know that neither sources nor article content must be "neutral". We use biased sources all the time, and they are considered RS as long as they are still factual. When their bias becomes extreme, that tends to affect their factuality and they end up at RS/Perennial and/or blacklisted.
 * The subject of using biased sources is so fundamental to all we are supposed to do here that I have written a very well-sourced essay on the subject. I suggest you study it:
 * NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content
 * Stop objecting and blocking RS that are biased. We use them all the time, so learn how to do it properly. Your objections are directly against NPOV policy. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Haven’t seen that policy before but it seems to apply here if we decide to include the quote. Does WP:otherstuffexists apply to decisions within the same page? There are other quotes in the Assange article over 40 words that haven’t been blockquoted. Burrobert (talk) 09:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Stanger is not a politician, nor is she non-neutral, you can't just assigned a concocted "bias" to a credentialed expert in the field of geopolitics just because you disagree with her positions on the issues. ValarianB (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * You make a good point comrade Jack. There is plenty of scope for blockquoting there. In fact Stanger is a stranger to me which made it even stranger to see her words (but not her name) up in lights on the page. Burrobert (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:otherstuffexists wouldn't apply, but rather the MoS does apply. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The use of blockquotes helps to visually break up an otherwise boring article. There is a situation where their use can be seen as a violation of NPOV, and that is by highlighting only the longer quotes from one POV, or by using a different template for one quote than the template used for all the others. All longer quotes should use the same template, and their POV should make no difference in their treatment. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * It's absolutely ridiculous to have this quote. The opinion piece is totally undue.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you please support this statement with some facts or analysis that might provide a basis for you to engage with and possibly convince other editors as to your opinion. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , sure, the op-ed author claims that the report concluded that Assange with the help of the Russian government played a crucial role in the US election. However, this is just the op-ed claim nothing more or less. I mean no other sources are offered here except the op-ed. I can't find any support for his claim in the report that the author based his claim on. His own conclusion is not noteworthy to be included let alone be highlighted. The quote is not even with attribution! its just quote in the middle, just like that!. This is obviously an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary sources, not op-eds per WP:EXCEPTIONAL and also this is a biography of living person, per WP:BLP, challenged material should be removed during the discussion yet editors are adding it.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have pinged you above because you have not replied to my documentation that the Mueller Report has considerable content about Assange. (Please reply to my ping there.)
 * The quote under discussion is a simple statement of the facts in the Mueller Report, and we really prioritize the use of secondary source commentary from notable subject matter experts:
 * "The report by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III released this past Friday amply documents that Assange, with the support of Russian intelligence, played a critical role in the 2016 presidential election. He is a potential missing link in the chain of understanding the extent to which foreign intervention affected the American electoral process."
 * BTW, the quote is not in the article because it's under discussion here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have recently disabled all types of notifications (except my talk page) because I can't easily mark the notifications as read. I have added this article to my watchlist.
 * I have many objections about that quote, first, it's not attributed. If its a fact then it should be paraphrased and not inside quotations. This seems like disruptive highlighting without any reason. Second, if it's a simple statement of the facts in the Mueller Report then why can't we have other sources making the same claim?. Why are we using an op-ed? As I said extraordinary claims requires extraordinary sources. Fourth, it's not related or contradicting to Julian Assange's claim in the next paragraph which is that the, the quote is not about the DNC or the Podesta emails its about the election in general. Juxtaposing these paragraphs imply that Assange was denying that the "Russian intelligence played a critical role in the 2016 presidential election".-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Several of your objections are already discussed above. We are discussing how to properly use the quote, and attribution may be one of the solutions, so don't get worried. We'll work it out.
 * Assange's role in the election is solely in relation to those emails, not the election in general, so the quote is right on target. It states the findings of the Mueller Report, which, if you read it, describes in detail the evidence for Assange's coordination with Russian GRU agents, and his lies about it. That's why Assange's denials are so clearly false, and rather conveniently are denials which Trump, through Rohrabacher, had requested, in exchange for a presidential pardon if Assange covered-up Russian involvement. Assange did exactly that. (Search for "pardon" in the article.)
 * Also, please answer my question immediately below. Maybe you can enlighten me, and I'll thank you for it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer most of my questions. I don't want it to be attributed, in fact I don't want it to be included as it serves no purpose. My question was why if its a fact we don't have other reliable sources for it. Could you quote where it says in the Mueller report that Russia is who leaked the DNC and Podesta emails? Also, you should be careful with the inflammatory language that violates BLP like "his lies about it" or "rather conveniently are denials which Trump, through Rohrabacher, had requested, in exchange for a presidential pardon if Assange covered-up Russian involvement" this is unconfirmed conspiracy theory and not related to the current discussion.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We have lots of other sources for it and have at least one article about who stole the emails. You'll find many of those sources there. Here's one article here: 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak. That Assange lied about it is common knowledge. He even lied about Seth Rich, trying to claim that it wasn't the Russians, but Seth Rich, who sent him the documents, except that Assange got the documents four days after Rich was shot, so it couldn't have been Rich. The Seth Rich conspiracy theory is just a ploy to deflect attention from the fact that it was the Russians who hacked and stole the emails. The part about the offer of a pardon is from Assange's lawyers in court. Yes, very on-topic here. They described how Rohrabacher tendered the offer of a pardon from Trump, if Assange would deny that the Russians were involved in the theft of the emails. Assange obliged, IOW he lied. There are lots of RS for this. Here's one.
 * Now, please explain what part of this quote is an "extraordinary claim".
 * "The report by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III released this past Friday amply documents that Assange, with the support of Russian intelligence, played a critical role in the 2016 presidential election. He is a potential missing link in the chain of understanding the extent to which foreign intervention affected the American electoral process."[1]
 * BullRangifer (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

, now I'm really curious. What part of that quote is an "extraordinary claim"? -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of chronology of Seth Rich murder and documents
Jtbobwaysf deleted my addition of this content from the source: with this edit summary: The deletion also left an incorrect quote I had fixed.
 * Mike Gottlieb, a lawyer for Rich's brother, noted that WikiLeaks received the file of stolen documents from the Russian hackers on July 14, four days after Rich was shot. Gottlieb described the chronology as "damning".
 * (Undid revision 944406852 by BullRangifer (talk) adding more non assange content, contrary to talk discussion)

Please explain. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Jtbobwaysf is right. This is the biography of Julian Assange, not the Wikileaks article. I think there has been discussion about this per what Jtbobwaysf said? why are you adding irrelevant content?-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Feel free to fix your quote issue mentioned. But dont add more Wikileaks content and dont combine those two issues. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Who acts for Wikileaks that is not named "Assange"? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Kristinn Hrafnsson. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No agency. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk
 * Are you suggesting that we merge the article Wikileaks to this article?- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I asked you a question.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have sources to support Assange=wikileaks? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you define any real difference? Sometimes we put content in the WikiLeaks article, sometimes here, and sometimes both places, since Assange=WikiLeaks. The overlap makes it hard to distinguish them.
 * The content I added was directly on-topic for the section, so the deletion is improper. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, we will take that as you dont have any evidence that assange=wikileaks. Next, why are you adding this content on this article and not on the Murder of Seth Rich article? I am not very familiar with this murder, but I dont see the word damning on that article nor mention of this Mike Gottlieb. Curious why it is relevant here when you are not adding it on that article first. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That is no argument against inclusion here. Sure it can be added there as well. I'll do it now. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Your edit summary is factually wrong: "...adding more non assange content, contrary to talk discussion." The content is directly about Assange and is on-topic for the section. Also, what "talk discussion" had decided this new content should not be included? -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The text in question is as follows: "Similarly, according to Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report into Russian interference in the 2016 election, Assange knew Seth Rich could not have been his source for the hacked emails, because he continued corresponding with the Russian hackers after Rich's death. Mike Gottlieb, a lawyer for Rich's brother, noted that WikiLeaks received the file of stolen documents from the Russian hackers on July 14, four days after Rich was shot. Gottlieb described the chronology as "damning". Of course it is about Assange (whose name is noted), and 2nd phrase is important for explaining the controversy. Please include. My very best wishes (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody should be editing the Assange page or discussing Wikileaks if they are not familiar with the Seth Rich lies and the Mueller Report. You're not obligated to follow these matters, but it does become necessary if one chooses to edit this particular article. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. When one admits one does not know about the subject, one should not make substantive or controversial edits on the subject. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No, this is US centric bias, as discussed above. Assange is an Australian who set up WikiLeaks in Iceland and who took refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London after sex crimes allegations were made in Sweden. His involvement in the 2016 US election is just one incident in his life. The article should not be focussed on this, and editors do not need to be familiar with it to edit this article.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Our language (and personal political) bias should be the same as found in RS. It just happens to be (!!!) that most of the RS for the English Wikipedia are English language sources. It can't be any other way. There is, of course, nothing against translating and using other sources here. Go for it. That does not mean we should downplay what RS say about Assange's key role in the Russian election interference. Their hacking and theft of documents would have had minimal effect if not for Assange's willing role in coordinating and facilitating the dissemination of only the stolen documents that could hurt Clinton and the DNC, while withholding documents that could hurt Russia and the GOP. That makes him a key figure in that whole affair. We will not ignore what RS say.
 * Editors are welcome to edit the article, but should be cautious about edits on subjects and aspects of which they are ignorant. They may not intend to cause disruption, but that is often the effect of such editing. That is just common sense advice. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Jack, that doesn't pass muster. WP does not have articles on every accused rapist and every fugitive from justice. Nor does it matter what domiciles he chose for his entity's interference in the U.S. elections. That's like saying you used a credit card issued in Switzerland to purchase an Italian automobile, so we shouldn't say it was a Fiat. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

This is properly sourced material that is apropos to the location it was added to. The first sentence should be kept. However, while Gottleib's description of the chronology is appropriate in the cited article, the brief mention in the second sentence doesn't add much and gives the appearance of undue weight. I can see how Assange supporters would view it as bias. Websurfer2 (talk) 07:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Disagree, the election hack incident has its own wikipedia article and detailed coverage can be put there. What we cover on this BLP is only that directly relating to Assange in summary format. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly: Assange's actions using his position as the leader of WikiLeaks to promote a Seth Rich conspiracy theory. Websurfer2 (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The election hack, and Assange's role in it, are probably the most notable events in Assange's life. Geogene (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Notable by what measure? Google Trends shows worldwide interest in Assange peaking in 2010, when WikiLeaks published documents on the Iraq and Afghan wars and US diplomatic cables. The second most significant peak is in April 2019, when Assange was arrested and the US government announced it would seek extradition for the publications in 2010. There are lesser peaks in August 2012, when Ecuador granted Assange political asylum, and in late 2016, when WikiLeaks published the DNC and Podesta emails. By this measure, the two things Assange is best known for are the publications in 2010 and the ongoing legal battle related to those publications.
 * Restricting Google Trends to the United States, however, the 2016 US Presidential election increases in importance, to second place after the 2010 publications, just ahead of the ongoing legal fight. I personally think this article should use worldwide interest and media coverage when weighing balance, both because Wikipedia is a global project and because Assange is an internationally known figure (an Australian who has published documents about many governments around the world, who received asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London while facing accusations in Sweden, and is now fighting extradition to the US).
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've only ever heard of one statement that Assange made about Seth Rich, and I know of at least one other statement that WikiLeaks made about Rich. Has anyone done media analysis to assess how much weight the Seth Rich issue should get in this article? It currently gets two full paragraphs, which seems way more than WP:BALASP would suggest. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Assange implied that Seth Rich was the leaker (and was knowingly BSing, as the Mueller report makes clear). According to a study by Yochai Benkler, Robert Faris, and Hal Roberts of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, Assange's BSing was the main driver behind attention to the Seth Rich murder. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Assuming that all to be true, for the sake of argument, it doesn't answer the question about proportion in the Julian Assange article. It would be an argument for giving weight to Assange in the Seth Rich article, but not the other way around. Has anyone done any analysis to show that Seth Rich is this significant in Assange's biography? Google Trends suggests otherwise, and I strongly suspect that an analysis of newspaper articles would as well. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Raw data suggest nothing. Google suggests nothing. It's just appropriating google software to support Assange's attempt to deflect from Russia's culpability. We don't know all the reasons Assange perpetrated this deception, although there's plenty of circumstantial evidence relating to his relationships with Trump and with the Russians. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You'd like us to accept your speculations over quantitative analyses of newspaper article references over time? -Darouet (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying that the data supports a conclusion directly opposed to Thucydides411's assertion. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The corrected quote should be added back into the article. As for the additional comment from the lawyer of Seth Rich, my view is that the sentence itself is fine in sourcing and content, but as many editors have noted above, there is already too much weight being given to this topic in the article. So we need to decide what, regarding the 2016 election publications, is absolutely necessary to keep in the biography, and what is not. Seth Rich conspiracy material falls into this category. -Darouet (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please specify the category? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * 2016 U.S. Presidential Election, here, and see section above here with comments from , , etc. -Darouet (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

US centric bias
you added the US centric bias to this page. Thank you for doing that, and I support this tag. I also see this article as focusing on Assange and the US election, and excessive justification of wikileaks as related to us elections being inserted here. This article is a BLP and should focus on Assange's life. Just my thoughts. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for saying at least part of what I think many of us have been feeling for some time. HiLo48 (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should go contribute to RUWiki, then? English Wikipedia, hosted in the US, funded primarily by the US. A leaning towards covering us is natural and expected. Julian Assange's role in the meddling of the 2016 election is critical and noteworthy, coverage of that here is appropriate. Zaathras (talk) 12:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that because the US is funding Wikipedia we should be biased towards the U.S.?-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry but leaking US documents and the extradition are what he is most notable for.Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree but the content is presented from the American government POV. It's not neutral. None American would say Assange exposed the wrongdoings of the U.S. government a U.S. government official would say he attacked the U.S.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * In what way does this take some US POV?Slatersteven (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If anyone cares to look at the list of most notable leaks by WikiLeaks, it strikes that all of them are directed against the US government. This is not a bias, but the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Such an emotional none objective argument.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's an ad-hominem and an inaccurate one at that. Guy (help!) 20:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with the tag. It has became an attack article.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We document what primarily English sources say, this being the English Wikipedia and all that. The Russian Wikipedia will cover this subject differently. So be it. There is no attempt to harmonize and duplicate formats or content across the various languages. There will also be considerable differences in what are considered RS. If one wishes to edit here, one must submit, yield, and resign oneself to the rules and norms here, just as one must do there.
 * This article, according to primarily English RS coverage, should document the evolution of Assange=WikiLeaks from a non-partisan journalist/whistleblower to a dedicated and scheming (with the Russians) Russian asset who now selectively and partisanly releases only some content, and now always in a manner to damage America and cover-up Russian involvement in its interference in U.S. elections. "CIA Director Mike Pompeo blistered WikiLeaks in a speech Thursday, calling WikiLeaks a "hostile intelligence service" aided by Russia and accused WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange of making "common cause with dictators.""
 * That's the narrative and historical development painted by RS, so that's what the article should document. Your quibble is with RS, not with editors or the English Wikipedia. We just follow the policies and document how RS describe the evolution of all things Assange=WikiLeaks. Sometimes we put content in the WikiLeaks article, sometimes here, and sometimes both places, since Assange=WikiLeaks. The overlap makes it hard to distinguish them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is US centric bias. One example is the material on the 2016 US election. As discussed previously, many sources don't think this is important in Assange's life.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem with those obsessing about Assuage being an evil anti-American is that they also felt the need to bring the evil Russians into this discussion. Totally irrelevant to the matter at hand and demonstrating the lack of rational thought on display in this article. To much hate guys. Stick to facts, from ALL over the world. As for ever expecting balance here, I gave up long ago. HiLo48 (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The Russians are only brought into it because RS, cybersecurity companies, and allied and U.S. intelligence agencies all are agreed that all the evidence shows that the Russians illegally interfered in the U.S. elections, and are still doing it. The Mueller Report found that the Russian government "interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion" and "violated U.S. criminal law".
 * Since our content is based on RS, we have no choice but to document it. HiLo48, are you implying that they did not interfere in the elections and/or that RS don't say that? You seem to be downplaying what is accepted fact. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ha ha. Did you even realise that your justification for mentioning Russia in Assange's article did not mention Assange? Even more writing of the style "Assange is evil. Russia is evil. Therefore...." It's pathetic really. HiLo48 (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's only because you complained about Russia being mentioned, so your objection makes no sense. RS mention the nexus of Assange and Russia a whole lot. If you hadn't griped about Russia, the response wouldn't have mentioned Russia. It's hard to describe Assange's role in coordinating and facilitating the distribution of stolen documents without mentioning that he was working with the Russians who stole them. Details without context is not how we work here.
 * This type of griping is not helping us improve the article and is getting into notaforum territory, so let's just stick to the topic of this thread (US centric bias). Okay? -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously I wasn't the first to mention Russia, so drop the irrational abuse. Acting as if there is some automatic connection between Assange and Russia that "everyone" simply knows about it is idiotic, and only comes from American haters of both. HiLo48 (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The connection happens to come from RS, the Mueller Report, etc. Don't get upset with me or other Wikipedia editors. Now please don't continue this line of thought, as it's not on-topic and will only get this hatted. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You mean US-centric RS. I'm from the city Assange is from. We laugh when we see obsessed Americans thinking that all he has done in life is somehow rig an election there. Please look wider. HiLo48 (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Is Assange mentioned in the Mueller report? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Many times. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Jtbobwaysf, the noun Assange is mentioned 40 times, and the noun WikiLeaks 200 times in the Mueller Report. There is lots of evidence there of his lies and coordination with GRU agents and their cutouts Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * BullRangifer, thank you for clarifying that Assange and wikileaks were mentioned in the Mueller report. This means the content should be summarized on this article as it relates directly to Assange. However, it should not be in detail as the election Russian meddling issue has its own article and it can be covered there in detail. It only gets summarized on this article. Nor should it be covered as it relates to wikileaks and not to Assange. You advocate for inclusion of this content, please ensure that it is sourced by RS that directly mention Assange. Advocating using WP:SYNTH that suggests it is related to Assange because he is mentioned by Mueller or because the source mentions wikileaks does not meet the standard for inclusion per WP:BLP. I think if you really want to continue to push for expanded election coverage relating to Assange you should follow WP:NEGATIVESPIN and create a sub-article. But here on the BLP main article it is creating a weight problem and your only response to it is essentially you think it is important (eg WP:RGW). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand and agree with several of your points. That's basically what this discussion needs to work out. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Robert Mueller was the FBI director who, in February 2003, went before Congress to help the Bush administration spread the "Iraq has WMDs" lies and "America is under attack by evil Muslims" paranoia. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, but many others grew rich and Mueller’s career continued to advance... Over and over we have heard from the United States about evil Muslims, evil Russians, evil Republicans, evil Democrats, evil Mexicans, evil Iranians, evil Chinese... Seems to me there's too much hatred, xenophobia, Cold War paranoia and warmongering in your country. It should stay out of Wikipedia. -- Tobby72 (talk) 08:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Which begs the question: what is xenophobia? This is generalized accusation of people who belong to a certain ethnic group, a country, etc. In this regard, that your statement is an example of xenophobia. Over and over we have heard from the United States about evil .... What do you mean by "United States"? Robert Mueller? State Department? Publications in NYT? Publications in Breitbart News? Public opinion? There is no such thing as "views by the USA". "Views by the USA" is a propaganda stunt by people who invented "main adversary". Yes, these people are xenophobes. As about staying "out of Wikipedia", no, we have big Category:Xenophobia. My very best wishes (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What is xenophobia? Definition of xenophobia: "fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign." A few examples of xenophobia: Donald Trump, James Clapper, Rachel Maddow, My very best wishes, Jeanine Pirro, The New York Times, The New Yorker, Fox News, Politico. -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is just an attempt to smear Mueller, as if a mistake (made by many at the time) forever discredits everything else a person does after that.
 * Even more important is that this isn't just about the Mueller Report (which involved one of the best legal teams and group of researchers ever assembled), but the consensus of cybersecurity professionals, numerous allied intelligence agencies, U.S. intelligence agencies, and even some prominent Republicans. They all agree that the evidence shows that Russia (with the help of Assange), not Ukraine, the DNC, or Seth Rich(!), interfered in the U.S. elections. So dissing Mueller doesn't affect that fact at all. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Mueller's "mistake" has cost at least 400,000 lives. Maybe Putin also made a "mistake". At least nobody died. -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just for the sake of accuracy, yes, that was a mistake of enormous scale, but not by Mueller because he did not make such decision. Here is his presentation about the threat of terrorism. Apart of a few things he did not knew about, that was mostly a correct assessment. I responded on your talk page if you wish to continue. My very best wishes (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

We seem to be drifting into forum land.Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, as I mentioned above. We need to stay on-topic. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Mueller Inquiry, consider whether there might be some validity in Craig Murray;s criticisms: "The Real Muellergate Scandal" (reposted by Consortium News), "Muellergate and the Discreet Lies of the Bourgeoisie", "In the World of Truth and Fact, Russiagate is Dead. In the World of the Political Establishment, it is Still the New 42".  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  20:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)  (Etended: 22:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC))
 * Ummmm....nope, won't consider it. I only "consider" RS. The weight of evidence proves Russian interference on a large scale. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Might have to wait a while for some truly worthwhile RSs to be published. The weight of evidence or the weight of conclusions from a botched inquiry?  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  22:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Our content is based on currently available RS, not on what is hoped will come. We also revise our content as new information comes along. We do not put off documenting current realities or refuse to use current RS based on the hope that wishes, based on what is now found in unreliable sources, will somehow come true in the future. If their views are later shown to be true, we will include it. We document the flow of history here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Since you created your account 13 days before I created mine, I suppose that gives you some entitlement to teach me about policy, though note that my comment, "Might have to wait," doesn't mean, "We should wait." There are different degrees of reliablility and the mainstream media, which you're depending on, are the bottom-feeders of the reliable source world. They are good for simple facts, but, on controversial topics, they can be abysmal (I've even come across "highly reliable" newspapers obviously cribbing from stuff that I've written on Wikipedia ... and getting it wrong).  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  00:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)