Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 29

Asylum
Jack Upland has repeatedly objected to my use of the word "asylum" in the article headings, stating that the use of this word would not be neutral. However, the granting of Asylum is merely a fact. It is not neutral to omit the term from the article headings when this is one of the most momentous events of Assange's life, effectively defining his most recent decade.

If there's no consensus here on the talk page about using the term in the headings, I'd like to launch an RfC:

If there's consensus here to make this change, we don't need an RfC. -Darouet (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It is also a fact that he skipped bail. The question is what heading to use. (And please don't confuse this with the issue of the subheadings).--Jack Upland (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I think Ecuadorian embassy period -> Asylum is an improvement. On the other hand, I dislike "entering the embassy" simply because it does not really convey that he not only entered, he stayed. Open to suggestions. Elinruby (talk) 09:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes - Seems to me a good compromise would be keep the main heading title “Ecuadorian embassy period” but rename the first subsection “Asylum”. This gives due weight to a central issue without using the term “political asylum” which some here seem unhappy with. Prunesqualor   billets_doux  14:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Naming the first subsection "Asylum" would be confusing because he was under asylum the whole period. "Entering the embassy" describes exactly what the subject of the first subsection is, which is more than getting asylum. It is patently obvious he stayed in the embassy. "Entering the embassy" does not imply it was temporary.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Omit "asylum" SPECIFICO talk 19:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree.Slatersteven (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Asylum is a central issue in this phase of Assange’s life and IMO deserves at least a sub heading. To dismiss the suggestion so curtly seems a little inappropriate. Prunesqualor   billets_doux  21:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Skipping bail is a central issue in this phase of his life. It is the reason he couldn't leave the embassy for fearing of being arrested. It is the reason that he served a year in prison and the reason he continues to be denied bail. Not every issue needs a heading. "Ecuadorian embassy period" sums up this phase perfectly well. It is neutral as it doesn't favour either the British or Ecuadorian governments' legal position.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * According to Assange he sought asylum, not because he wanted to avoid arrest for skipping bail (which usually involves a short sentence, if any) but to avoid extradition to Sweden and then on to the U.S. where there was talk of very long sentences or worse. Subsequent events tend to support Assange’s claim on this. Prunesqualor   billets_doux  09:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What? Of course, he didn't seek asylum to avoid arrest for skipping bail!!! It was his decision to avoid extradition to Sweden that led to him skipping bail!!! This is a seriously twisted take on events.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Your wording ie: “Skipping bail is a central issue in this phase of his life. It is the reason he couldn't leave the embassy for fearing of being arrested” was perhaps a little vague – it seemed to imply you thought the act of skipping bail was the reason behind his asylum request. Anyway I’m not sure that two sets of rather angry looking three exclamation marks where warranted. Anyway we seem to have had a misunderstanding - back to the issue: “Skipping bail” was merely part of a complex set of events which resulted in Assange seeking asylum – as such I personally don’t see it demands a sub heading but would not object strongly if someone thought such an arrangement could be worded to clarify/focus the narrative. I think the case for an “Asylum” sub heading is stronger as Assange spent several years under the protection of a form of asylum – in that sense it defined this stage of his life in contrast to the preceding period where he was free but subject to the law – and the following phase where he has been/is not free and subject to law. Prunesqualor   billets_doux  21:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The exclamation marks were because it was such a bizarre proposition. The best term for that phase in his life is "Ecuadorian embassy period" (or something similar). "Asylum" implies that he was a refugee from political persecution. That is in the eye of the beholder. We now know there was no US indictment when he entered the embassy (that didn't happen till 2018). He was facing extradition to Sweden regarding allegations by two women. Political persecution? The Ecuadorian government may have thought he deserved asylum, but many more did not. The British government did not accept the grant of asylum, and therefore he was not able to travel to Ecuador and take up asylum there as he had intended. The "asylum" that he had was therefore not universally accepted — in fact, not accepted in the country where he was — and was of a very limited form. He could stay in the embassy as long as the British and Ecuadorian governments agreed to let him stay there. As I said earlier, he did not receive "territorial asylum" because he never never reached Ecuador. Staying in the embassy, he received "diplomatic asylum" which is controversial, unpredicatable, and not generally recognised by international law. "Asylum" is not a neutral term and is potentially misleading. On the other hand, "Ecuadorian embassy period" captures exactly what happened and doesn't imply that Ecuador was wrong to offer him asylum or that the British government was wrong to try to arrest him. It is simply factual, and that's the way we ought to stay.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I accept the “Ecuadorian embassy period” as a valid title, and said so earlier in this debate/section (fourth contribution I think). There I suggested “Asylum” as a sub-heading because of its sheer significance. Hopefully we can agree that the word “asylum” cannot be avoided when dealing with this period? Unless you are proposing to banish the term completely from the article then questions about what the word implies become somewhat moot ie it’s the significance not the validity of the term that is in question here. The use of the word “Asylum” as a sub-title is not an acknowledgment that Assange necessarily qualified for it – that it seems to me is a debate for elsewhere – it is about recognising the key significance of the concept in the Assange story at this time (be you for or against) which surly warrants at least a sub-heading. Prunesqualor   billets_doux  09:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Asylum" appears 14 times in the article. I don't think there is any subsection in the article that is all about "asylum", but if there is I have no objection to it being described as such.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems a very reasonable approach. I, and hopefully others, can look into that as a way forward. Prunesqualor  billets_doux  09:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I oppose the use of "asylum".  SPECIFICO talk 13:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO Perhaps you could give your reasons? Prunesqualor   billets_doux  16:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The WP:ONUS is on you for inclusion of that word. Asylum is a political refuge. That's not what he was hiding out for, just ordinary crime. Pretty simple.  SPECIFICO talk 18:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO Just to be clear - that word [asylum] is already included several times in this article. I have already given good reasons why it deserves to be used as at least a sub-title - the onus, I would suggest, is now on you to refute those reasons or accept them. You said “Asylum is a political refuge.” This statement is not correct: asylum means refuge from harm – you may choose to say, in Assange’s case, that the most serious harms he faced where from politically motivated quarters, or otherwise – but there is no doubting there were plenty of people who wanted him punished – he sought a place of protection from harm ie “asylum”. Terms like “Political Asylum” or “Diplomatic Asylum” have their own specialist legal/technical meanings – the world “asylum” on it’s own does not. So when you say “[Political Asylum’s] not what he was hiding out for, just ordinary crime.” You are inadvertently using a straw man argument (just to be clear, if repetitive, I’m arguing for the sub-title “Asylum” not “Political Asylum”). Prunesqualor   billets_doux  08:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I would completely oppose using "asylum" in an ambiguous or vague sense. Clearly, we are talking about "political asylum" here. The implication is that Assange was a refugee from political persecution.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Any application of "asylum" in this article presents an absurd and misleading narrative -- one that Assange himself has gone to great lengths and lies to promote. WP is not here to promote the false narratives of a fugitive. SPECIFICO talk 11:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO Given that Assange has been, for years, locked in a maximum security facility (along with some of the most dangerous people in the country); that he faces the real possibility of spending the rest of his life in similar conditions; that this situation was initiated, and continued by US government agencies, I cannot see how the narrative, that he faced an extremely grim future at the hands of the US system, can be denied. I think we are beholden to give living people the benefit of any doubts in their Wiki articles – you perhaps should bare that in mind. Prunesqualor   billets_doux  12:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Jack Upland Some of the key themes in Assange’s life and the way it was debated during that period, where questions like: “Should he have sought asylum?”or “Should he have been granted asylum?” Assange and his supporters claimed that if he had not been given “asylum” he would eventually face extradition to the US and potentially very severe treatment at the hands of federal agencies. The actions of the US State since then seem to bear out this claim. The word Asylum has it’s own meaning which is quit specific enough to be used as a subject heading (or sub-heading) there is nothing to prevent further clarification within the article regarding what kinds of Asylum the various actors thought they were dealing with. Prunesqualor   billets_doux  13:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Criminals tend to be imprisoned. Not by Wikipedia, but by the appurtenant jurisdictions. Any conjecture you may have about the US and what might happen if he were to be tried in the US is irrelevant here. SPECIFICO talk 14:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO I responded to your statement “Any application of "asylum" in this article presents an absurd and misleading narrative -- one that Assange himself has gone to great lengths and lies to promote. WP is not here to promote the false narratives of a fugitive.” Subsequent events clearly demonstrate the political appetite, in some parts of the US establishment, to make an example of Assange, so that when he sought asylum, he seems to have assessed and expressed his predicament accurately ie he correctly assessed that he was in danger of harsh treatment. He did not go to “lengths and lies to promote” a “misleading narrative.” I said earlier that Wiki is obliged to give some benefit of the doubt to living people in it’s articles – so far from that, your assessments seem to betray an utter contempt, bordering on hatred, for the man. Prunesqualor  billets_doux  16:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, we don't take the POV of article subjects. I believe this thread has long since exhausted any constructive purpose. I suggest you turn to other areas for article improvement. Perhaps trim the lengthy and redundant text on the UN volunteer "rapporteur" about Assange's health. SPECIFICO talk 17:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We have rather drifted from the issue. Perhaps I could put some questions followed by what I consider to be accurate or reasonable answers:
 * 1/ Did Assange seek “asylum”?: Yes.
 * 2/ Did the Ecuadorian government offer him “asylum”?: Yes.
 * 3/ Was the word “asylum” commonly used in connection with Assange during his time in the embassy?: Yes.
 * 4/ Are people to this day still arguing about whether he should have been granted “asylum”:  Yes.
 * The word “Asylum” links all of these issues and is worthy of at least a sub-heading, I see no reason to step down from that perfectly reasonable position. Prunesqualor   billets_doux  18:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Some editors seem to treat "asylum" as a trump card to be played to advantage. I think it should be used when appropriate, but I don't think it is appropriate in the existing headings.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The accuracy of Assange's narrative has been raised several times. Let's see. He called the Swedish allegations a radical feminist conspiracy and said the women were lesbians. Not many people have endorsed this view. He claimed he faced US prosecution in 2012, but there was no US indictment until 2018. He claimed the US government would find it easier to extradite him from Sweden than from Britain. There seems to be no evidence for that. He repeatedly claimed that because WikiLeaks was a media organisation he was protected from prosecution. This has never stood up in court. He expected to be allowed to travel to Ecuador from London. This never happened. I accept that Assange sincerely believed at least some of this, but to say that it was "accurate" is nonsensical.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Jack Upland I will try to address some of your points: You said “Some editors seem to treat "asylum" as a trump card to be played to advantage.” I don’t think it helpful to repeatedly use accusations of bias. Points should be dealt with on merit unless someone is being grossly unreasonable. Regarding Assange’s “reliability” I don’t wish to hang my case on this, because I don’t know what information he had available at the time – maybe his notion that agencies of the US state wanted him severely punished was just a lucky guess. You said “I think [asylum] should be used when appropriate, but I don't think it is appropriate in the existing headings.” If the word is ok to use repeatedly in the article and in several contexts, I don’t see why it can’t be used in a sub heading that pulls some of those contexts together. Perhaps now I could return to previous post where I: “put some questions followed by what I consider to be accurate or reasonable answers”. You have not addressed any of my four points/questions which, I suggest, demonstrate the central role of “asylum” in tying together several stands of the Assange narrative – and hence the aptness of the word in a subtitle (if not full title). Prunesqualor   billets_doux  08:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have a concrete proposal for improving the article?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I would suggest just swapping the current sub-heading “Entering the embassy” with “Asylum”. This works because four of the six Paragraphs in the sub-section already directly talk about - and use the word - “asylum”. Regarding the remaining two paragraphs (2 & 4) they both refer to events directly related to Assange’s bid for asylum. The material in that sub-section fits more consistently and neatly with the sub-heading “Asylum” than it does with the current sub-heading “Entering the embassy”. Prunesqualor   billets_doux  16:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's already been rejected. SPECIFICO talk 16:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO I believe you are mistaken – the previous suggestion was “Political Asylum”. For reasons gone into elsewhere (and brushed on in this thread) that was considered unacceptable by some editors. I’m proposing simply “Asylum” and have dealt above with the issues for which “Political Asylum” was rejected and how and why the lone word “Asylum” is different and less problematic. As I said in my last contribution: ““The material in that sub-section fits more consistently and neatly with the sub-heading “Asylum” than it does with the current sub-heading “Entering the embassy.”” If you re-read the article sub-section I suspect you will agree, but if not, I’m happy to debate the issue further. Prunesqualor  billets_doux  18:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Nobody agrees with you. You are shouting at the wind here. The article is not going to reflect your POV when you have no consensus. That's about it. SPECIFICO talk 19:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The material in that sub-section fits more consistently and neatly with the sub-heading “Asylum” than it does with the current sub-heading “Entering the embassy”. I think the opposite is true. Only paragraphs 1 and 6 deal with Assange's asylum application in any detail. Assange made the decision to apply for asylum instead of "surrendering to the court" in order to be extradited to Sweden, hence breaching his bail conditions. The asylum bid and the failure to surrender are two different sides of the same decision, but they are conceptually different. The actions taken by the British state against Assange described in paragraphs 3 and 4 relate to his failure to surrender, not to his asylum application. As discussed recently, it wasn't illegal for Assange to apply for asylum. Paragraphs 2 and 5 are explanations for Assange's decision. They can equally be seen as explanations why he failed to surrender, as to why he applied for asylum. In my view, the heading "Entering the embassy" "neatly" sums up the contents of this section, because that is what the section is all about, including various repercussions of this step. The heading "Asylum", on the other hand, would gloss over the issue of his failure to surrender to the court. It would misrepresent the contents of the section. It would lend weight to the misconception that the British state was penalising Assange for seeking asylum. It would also suggest that Assange had achieved what he wanted and that he intended to be holed up in the embassy indefinitely. The overarching fact here is that he entered the embassy.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Jack Upland . I’m not clear why you talk about the concept of “surrender” – I’ve not seen that proposed as an alternative title – If you wish to do so I’m happy to discuss it’s relative merits, but seems a poor contender. On other points: I don’t think that every single paragraph in a subsection has to deal “in detail” with what is in the subheading (I’d have to do a study, but suspect that would invalidate half the subheadings in Wiki). As for the existing subtitle: “entering the embassy”, only one sentence directly mentions “enter[ing] the embassy” and that’s talking about the police entering it, not Assange, none of the paragraphs deal with that activity “in any detail” so by you own reasoning “Entering the Embassy” is a dead loss. In other points you made, it seems to me you are conflating the terms “political asylum” and just “asylum”– every paragraph deals in some way with the latter (the suggested subtitle heading) and as I said four of the six use the word explicitly.  Prunesqualor   billets_doux  08:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Firstly, you seem to be confused between the textual use of words and the content of the section. "Entering the embassy" describes the section. It is irrelevant that the prose of the section doesn't use the phrase. "Early life" never uses the terms "early" or "life"!!! As I said, you seem to think the word "asylum" is a trump card, and that the repetition of the word proves something. It doesn't. Secondly, no one has suggested "surrender" should be part of the heading. That is another red herring. Thirdly, if other headings are misleading, they should be fixed. Yet another red herring. Fourthly, it is clear in this context "asylum" means "political asylum".--Jack Upland (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Your last point first. You said: “it is clear in this context "asylum" means "political asylum”. Yet, in comments made elsewhere on this page, you yourself talk about Assange’s status re. “Diplomatic Asylum” and “Territorial Asylum” as well as “Political Asylum”. On your: “confused between the textual use of words and the content of the section” – I think not: If a word is used repeatedly in a section of text then it is reasonable to assume there is significance to the subject being talked about (unless we are talking surreal poetry maybe) – there are whole branches of studies which analyse how frequently various words are used in various settings and draw conclusions from those stats. So yes, if the word Asylum is used repeatedly in the section I have no difficulty in claiming that adds to the case for it’s use as a title. However I have made a number of other cases in this thread (many of which you have not yet addressed). To those I would add that the phrase “Entering the Embassy”, in it’s most literal sense, describes just a moment in time – it is in no way an elegant description of a whole period/series of events. Asylum on the other hand describes a persistent state and relates to a raft of concepts related to Assange’s position at that time – I typed into Google “Asylum synonym” and in the first entry (dictionary.com) got:
 * “shelter, sanctuary, haven, refuge, mental hospital, preserve, hideaway, harbor, cover, port, safety, den, hole, hideout, security, retreat, institution, madhouse, sanatorium, ivory tower.”

Why it could be mistaken for a poem about Assange’s predicament at that time. Sorry but “Asylum” is just better. Prunesqualor  billets_doux  23:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, "asylum" is not a trump card as I said, but a talismanic term to be sprinkled over the article while you conduct your druidic rituals and mutter your Icelandic surrealist poetry. It is clear there is no agreement about what "asylum" means in this context, no agreement about the function of headings in the article, no agreement what this article is actually about, and no agreement about the function of language in general. Given this, I can only hope you and the pixies live long and prosper and that the dolphins carry you to an affordable motel. All we have achieved in this conversation is that we both disagree with 's original proposition.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Jack Upland I don’t particularly “disagree with 's original proposition”. My first contribution to this debate was an attempt at compromise. I remain open to input from other parties but it seems that you and I have reached an impasse for now. Prunesqualor   billets_doux  07:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You and Darouet have no consensus in favor of either "proposal." Quite the opposite.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * How about "Asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy" (first heading); "Skipping bail" (second heading)? Without prejudice.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No. Asylum in an embassy implies political asylum, which is just Assange's self-serving claim.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO I accept that “Asylum”, in the context of this most recent suggestion, implies “Political Asylum” (though not exclusively). However the term “Political Asylum” already appears in the article and will almost certainly stay put. The question of whether a term happens to suit Assange’s interests is not the overriding concern; otherwise the terms like “sexual assault” would not appear in subheadings. Prunesqualor   billets_doux  10:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That is utterly unresponsive to the point I made above. "Asylum" is Assange's claim. Ecuador did not state it granted Assange political asylum. The article text does not say Ecuador granted political asylum. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 12:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, on reflection I accept that the suggestion "Asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy" is a poor option. I’ll stick with my short and simple “Asylum” as my nomination (I’ve explained why it’s less problematic above). If nobody else likes it/agrees I’ll just have to live with that (for now). Prunesqualor   billets_doux  16:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Good. You already know that nobody agrees with you. How about "refuge" "hideout" "avoiding arrest" -- much more descriptive.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Re: 'Asylum' is Assange's claim. Ecuador did not state it granted Assange political asylum. The Ecuadorian government granted Assange asylum. In its official statement explaining why it granted Assange asylum, the Ecuadorian government repeatedly referred to political persecution. For example,

Here's how the AP described this decision:

I have no idea where got the idea that Ecuador did not grant Assange asylum, or that it did not do so because of possible political persecution, but SPECIFICO is simply wrong here. The Ecuadorian government and countless news articles (just a few: BBC, NPR, WaPo) refer to Assange's asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy, so that's obviously how we should refer to it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I wonder if we might consider one of the suggestions has just made? Namely: "refuge". Seems to me it has many of the advantages of “Asylum” regarding Assange’s predicament at that time. Hopefully, since it came from one of the main opponents of using “asylum” we might make progress – just a thought.  Prunesqualor   billets_doux  20:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I would oppose that wording. It is simply a fact that Assange was granted political asylum in the embassy, and news articles consistently refer to Assange's "asylum" in the embassy. The argument being put forward above, that we should avoid using the word "asylum" because that might reflect positively on Assange, is just not grounded in any way in Wikipedia policy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I too would rather use “Asylum” in the subheading and I dislike the current "Entering the embassy” but was getting nowhere with consensus. Prunesqualor   billets_doux  21:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Asylum" is obviously the correct word, and those arguing otherwise have to provide a legitimate reason for not using the word. Saying it reflects positively on Assange is not a legitimate reason not to use the word, and outright denying that Assange received asylum is frankly bizarre. So unless some new, compelling argument is brought up, I think we should all agree to title the section something like "Asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy". -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that works for me Prunesqualor   billets_doux  22:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course, nobody except Thuc has said such a thing. Since when is a rape indictment a political persecution? The weight of RS discussions of his refuge in the embassy do not describe it as political asylum. Refuge is descriptive and NPOV. Asylum is the narrative of interested parties. WP goes with NPOV.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Asylum is factually what happened. If you have an issue with Ecuador's decision to grant Assange political asylum, take it up with Ecuador, but we can't change what happened because you disagree with Ecuador's reasoning. Ecuador granted political asylum, the media widely referred to it a such, and that's the word we should use. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think "refuge" is a sensible compromise (for the first heading in question).--Jack Upland (talk) 08:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually factually: Our job here is to inform readers with all degrees of prior knowledge or understanding. Asylum is a loaded word that will mislead a substantial proportion of readers among all the people of Earth. Refuge is NPOV and does not adopt the dubious and/or false POV that Assange is a political prisoner -- contrary to the beliefs of some editors here (see recently added film link on article page).<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 11:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Compromise between what two positions? Assange was granted political asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy. That's simply a fact. Neither you nor anyone else has yet given a reasonable argument as to why we should avoid the word "asylum". If I've understood your argument, you're saying that the word reflects positively on Assange, and should therefore be avoided. Since when is it our job to censor facts that might reflect positively on the subject of a BLP? SPECIFICO, meanwhile, has denied that Assange even was granted asylum, despite the fact that - you know - he was granted asylum. I'm sorry, but "asylum" is the correct word, and the one that's used widely in the press and by the Ecuadorian government itself. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

It's been more than a week, and still, no even halfway reasonable rationale for not using the word "asylum" in the section title has been given. Assange had political asylum. The news media widely described his "asylum" in the Ecuadorian embassy. "Asylum" is simply the correct word here. Unless there are objections (please, only real objections with some sort of plausible reasoning), I will change the section title to "Asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy" in the next few days. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus for that, so any such edit would be reverted. Feel free to mount an RfC if you feel strongly.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I see a rough consensus here for using the word "asylum" in the section title. Remember that consensus is not a vote, and that simply saying "no" is not an argument. If you can present actual reasons why we shouldn't use the word "asylum", then by all means, please do so, but the arguments you've given so far are transparently false (e.g., claiming that only Assange has called his stay in the embassy "asylum"). Unless there's any serious objection, we have a consensus here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Surely, you do not expect to close a discussion and declare consensus as an involved editor here. Seek uninvolved review if you are set on pursuing this. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have an objection to using the word "asylum" that is based in fact, then you're free to raise it. But simply saying "no" (or even worse, raising objections that are clearly factually incorrect, as you have done above) and then demanding an RfC is disruptive.
 * Above, you claimed that "asylum" is only Assange's description of the events. I quoted not only the Ecuadorian government's own announcement that it was granting "asylum" to Assange, but also newspaper articles that discussed Assange's "political asylum". I would think that after being shown that your objection was incorrect, you would change your position and drop your objection. But instead, you continue to object, for unclear reasons, and demand an RfC. I'm sorry, but this just looks like a blockading tactic. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * i support the use of asylum in the heading: it is what everybody called his stay there (as has already been stated and documented by Thucydides411) and so I think it is just natural to refer to that period of his life this way. "Asylum" is not "loaded", it's what he asked for, what he was granted, and what was later revoked. So please name it as it is in the article and use adequate titles for sections and subsection. --Qcomp (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The term "asylum" is used multiple times in the article. However, it is a loaded term, as the British government did not accept his claim of asylum and under British law he was treated as a fugitive from justice. He only had "diplomatic asylum" within the embassy, not "territorial asylum" in Ecuador. "Ecuadorian embassy period" neatly sums up this portion of his life. I haven't heard many objections to this. It seems to me the only reason to put "asylum" in the heading is to give Assange's move more legal legitimacy, to deny that he had committed any crime, and generally to confuse readers.--Jack Upland (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "Asylum" is not a loaded word. Assange had asylum. That's simply a fact. News articles repeatedly discuss Assange's "asylum" or "political asylum". The Ecuadorian government announced that they were granting Assange "asylum". You're explicitly arguing that we should avoid using the word "asylum" because you think that might grant "legitimacy" to Assange's actions. That's a purely political objection, and it has no place here. Assange was granted asylum, regardless of how you feel that reflects on him or might make readers view him. We don't obfuscate central facts about the subject of a BLP because we're afraid readers might view those facts positively, and any suggestion that we should is outrageous. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Since you've not gained consensus on this talk thread, I suggest you waste no further effort before launching an RfC. You would need fresh eyes to present a more persuasive rationale than has been mounted here thus far.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The only objections that have been voiced here to using the factual description "asylum" are Jack's complaint that doing so might reflect positively on Assange (which is obviously not a valid objection that we can take into account) and your false claims that Assange was not granted asylum (which are easily disproven by reading any news article on the subject). I see a consensus here in favor of using the factual description "asylum". Again, I'm open to hearing any policy-based objections, but nobody has raised any yet. Just saying "no" and demanding an RfC is disruptive. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You've disregarded my view, stated clearly and repeatedly above. You will need either a third party close or an RfC. The latter is a better more enduring resolution. I suggest you launch it so that your concern can be addressed at the earliest feasible date.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've disregarded your view because your stated view is that Assange didn't receive asylum, and that "asylum" was just a word that Assange used. I and other editors have cited the Ecuadorian government and numerous news articles discussing Assange's "asylum". I still haven't seen you acknowledge that your earlier claims were false. If your objection is based on an obviously false claim, then of course, I and everyone else should disregard it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not what I've said. Please give a more careful review of this discussion. Anyway, no evaluation of yours will provide an unbiased conclusion. That's why I suggested you devise your RfC rather than go around in circles.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * You did say that:
 * You made that false claim, and now you're falsely claiming you didn't make this claim. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Please review what I have said above. Now you've misrepresented Jack Upland as well. It's pointless.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I not only reviewed what you said, but I also quoted it back to you. You're denying having said the exact thing that I directly quoted back to you above. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I not only reviewed what you said, but I also quoted it back to you. You're denying having said the exact thing that I directly quoted back to you above. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you still object to the word "asylum"? With all due respect, I don't think you've articulated a reason for not using the term that we, as Wikipedia editors, can take into consideration. The media widely refers to Assange's "asylum", and just as a purely factual matter, he did indeed have asylum. Whether you think the fact that Assange received asylum will cause readers to view him positively cannot impact whether or not we use the word "asylum". I don't see any other objections to using the word (other than the obviously spurious claims put forth by one editor that Assange did not receive asylum). So I'll just ask you directly: do you have any objection, other than the objection about asylum bearing positive connotations? If not, we should just go ahead and change the section title. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Clearly, there are objections. We have been discussing this since June. You should take note of NPOV.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Saying that a fact will reflect positively on Assange is not an objection that we, as editors, can entertain. I'm asking whether you have any objection that goes beyond this - an objection that is based on Wikipedia policy. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I'll add that NPOV does not say we should omit facts that might reflect positively on the subject of a BLP. In fact, avoiding use of the factual word "asylum" because it might reflect positively on Assange is itself a breach of NPOV. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The article does not avoid the term "asylum". The question is about the article heading. I don't see that you — or others — have objected to the current heading, so it should say.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * We've objected to the current section heading because news media widely refers to Assange's "asylum". "Ecuadorian embassy period" is an obvious euphemism, and you yourself have said that the point of that title is to avoid the word "asylum", which you view as having positive connotations. That itself is a violation of NPOV - we can't intentionally avoid factual descriptions because they might be viewed by some as positive. I think this is a straightforward issue, and I would hope that we can resolve it here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the point of the heading was to describe the period, which it does rather well. There have been many alternative headings suggested over the years, but I think this one's the best. I'm not sure who came up with this heading but I'm pretty sure the motive was just to give a general heading for this section. Assange's attempt to get asylum in Ecuador was one thing that happened in this period. He also breached bail, which he's still dealing with. And the fact is he never got to Ecuador but instead spent seven years holed up in the embassy, which is not "asylum" by any straightforward, factual definition. I don't think making fallacious summaries of other people's arguments is a way of getting through this impasse.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Jack, you can't substitute your own personal legal interpretations for what reliable sources report. Assange was granted asylum by Ecuador. I could cite literally hundreds of news articles to substantiate this, but I think a few will be enough to make the point:
 * The Guardian: "Julian Assange granted asylum by Ecuador - as it happened"
 * The BBC: "Ecuador has granted asylum to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange two months after he took refuge in its London embassy while fighting extradition from the UK."
 * The Washington Post: "WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was granted asylum on Thursday by Ecuador, raising the possibility of a diplomatic showdown between British and Ecuadoran authorities."
 * NPR: "The government of Ecuador on Thursday granted asylum to Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks."
 * The New York Times: "Ecuador Grants Asylum to Assange, Defying Britain"
 * Assange was granted asylum, and that's substantiated by so many reliable sources that it's not worth discussing further.
 * Re: Assange's attempt to get asylum in Ecuador was one thing that happened in this period. The entire reason why Assange spent seven years in the embassy is that the Ecuadorian government granted him asylum. What was he doing in the embassy? He was being sheltered by the Ecuadorian government - something which is both commonly and legally referred to as "asylum".
 * I don't see how I'm fallaciously summarizing your argument. You've said above that the reason you don't want to use the word "asylum" is that it supposedly carries positive connotations. I'm sorry, but we can't elide facts because we fear they may reflect positively on the subject of this BLP. That would be a clear breach of NPOV. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

If you have an issue within user's conduct take it to their talk page or ANI, not ehre.Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

As we stand, there are two objections to using the word "asylum" in the section title: The arguments in favor of using the word "asylum" in the section title are: Others can judge how these arguments stack up, but my own evaluation is that the arguments against using the word "asylum" in the section title are obviously spurious. One objection is just factually wrong (and I haven't yet seen an admission on the part of the person who made the objection that it's wrong, which is disturbing), and the other is just WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) That Assange was supposedly not granted asylum, and that "asylum" is just Assange's claim. This objection is just plain wrong on a factual level.
 * 2) That using the word "asylum" might reflect positively on Assange and give him "legitimacy".
 * 1) The word "asylum" is used extensively by reliable sources reporting on Assange's time in the embassy (See above comments in this talk section, which have documented what RS say).
 * 2) Assange did, as a matter of fact, have asylum. Whether or not that reflects positively on him or grants him "legitimacy" is totally irrelevant, unless our purpose is to manipulate his biography in order to make him look worse.
 * 3) The whole reason Assange was able to stay in the embassy was that he had asylum. "Asylum" is absolutely central to this their period in Assange's life.
 * You have again misstated the issues, and we already knew you think your position is the only correct one. Repetition doesn't help.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 10:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. The arguments do look like WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT to me. We should go by what the sources say. Is there a strong case for anything besides asylum in the sources and how do they compare with the case for asylum? Going against that is rewriting the sources and should require wide Wikipedia support like an RfC. And on the bias side there's a good indication from media critique sources that newspapers are already biased against Assange, even so we should follow them in in general - but there's no need to amplify the bias. NadVolum (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The strong case, in RS and here among editors, is for "refuge".<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * in my view, the facts and RSs are here clearly on Thucydides411 side. In this whole long thread the arguments against the use of the word that RS regularly use to describe Assange's stay in the embassy have been "I am against it". We should follow the sources and call the stay what it was asked for granted and seen as: Asylum. (I gave German and Spanish RS this time since we've already had plenty of English ones; and the use of the word has absolutely nothing to do with how Assange was viewed by the author/the newspaper. --Qcomp (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are not prepared to address the views of other editors, and if instead you just personalize without addressing those views, you are not going to advance the discussion here.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , you earlier argued against using the word "asylum" by claiming that only Assange had used the word. That was false. I'm honestly disturbed that you haven't yet acknowledged that. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The arguments here against using asylum aren't wonderful, but exactly what is the argument for using it in the heading? "Ecuaorian embassy period" seems a good descriptive title and putting in asylum would make it either longer or less specific. NadVolum (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposals regarding section 4.5 “other developments”
It seems to me that, the three subsection titles within section 4.5 are not necessary, or helpful. The “La Repubblica”, “UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention” and “Chelsea Manning” subsections each contain just a single paragraph in which the title subject appears within the first sentence – the titles are not index linked to the contents at the article head, so there’s no browsing or navigational benefit in keeping the titles – so I suggest just deleting the titles. Also – regarding what’s in the “Chelsea Manning” subsection: The story of how Assange offered to serve US prison time in exchange for granting Chelsea Manning clemency seems a little inconsequential, and far back in history, to merit seven sentences and seven citations. Had the U.S. openly responded to the offer, then this would have been a big deal, but as it is, we just have Obama essentially saying that the early release of Manning had nothing to do with Assange, so that Assange’s offer, sincere or otherwise (and nobody can definitively prove ether way) amounts to little. I propose trimming to:

“In September 2016, Assange declared that he would agree to US prison in exchange for President Obama granting Chelsea Manning clemency. However when Manning was released in May 2017 Obama stated that Assange’s offer had not been a consideration.”

I appreciate that using the phrase “declared that” might skirt close to weasel words but wanted to implicitly concede Assange’s offer was not taken at face value by everyone – whilst at the same time keeping things short. Regarding the final Assange - balcony scene sentence. It should have it’s own paragraph, and be worded so as to not to conflate Manning’s release with Assange’s announcement – Thus:

“On the 19th of May 2017 Assange emerged on the embassy's balcony and told a crowd that, despite no longer facing a Swedish sex investigation, he would remain inside the embassy to avoid extradition to the United States.” Prunesqualor  billets_doux  10:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Whilst we are dealing with the “other developments” section: do we really need the second paragraph about the UN's Working Groups accusation of Arbitrary Detention? These events date back more than 5 years and have little current relevance - The accusation, as far as I can see, was never acted on by anyone and seems to have had no practical impact on events. Any thoughts? Prunesqualor   billets_doux  17:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree those tiny subsections were pointless.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Razor blade
All the "Hearings" section currently says about Kopelman is: Defence psychiatrist Michael Kopelman said that a hidden razor blade had been found in Assange's prison cell. This is only mentioned briefly in the source. It is mentioned only three times in Baraitser's 132 page judgment, while Kopelman is mentioned 43 times. I think the article gives a distorted impression of what Kopelman's testimony was and how important the evidence of the razor blade is.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * A search of “Assange razor blade” on Google comes up with over a hundred results including quite a few mainstream sources. The razor blade is only mentioned once in our article and strikes me as quite a significant thing (I’m pretty sure if someone close to me was in prison, had talked of suicide, and then a razor blade was found hidden in their cell I would be pretty concerned). Prunesqualor   billets_doux  06:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source that says it was the key thing Kopelman said?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The razor blade information does not need to be “the key thing” thing Kopelman said in order for it to be noteworthy enough to include. Prunesqualor   billets_doux  10:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Assange's own expert, paid by his defence, asserting that a razor blade had been found hidden in Julian's cell is not the same as a WP:RS reporting such an actual discovery by prison authorities, which Wired fails to do. As is, without a better reference, we're giving too much weight to Kopelman's reputation. It's conceivable that Assange planted the razor blade so as to ensure its detection, as a way to bolster his threats of suicide—which are often used by manipulative individuals to get their way. A gullible psychiatrist on Assange's payroll should not be our only source on whether or not Assange was at that time genuinely suicidal. We should remove all mention of this razor blade on grounds of WP:NPOV. Basketcase2022 (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We could say "according to..." as long as it has had significant coverage. But it does seem a bit undue especially as his evidence has been criticised.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Surly nobody is suggesting that Kopelman made up the finding of the Razor blade? The finding of a hidden razor blade in Assange’s cell, whether it was smuggled there to attempt suicide, or to pretend to do so, is noteworthy. Prunesqualor   billets_doux  20:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What you say about manipulative people is true, but on the other hand Sadam Hussein was not sending weapons of mass destruction around in ice cream vans. We should not be basing what is said upon our personal beliefs and imaginings about what kind of a person Assange is or what he would do. We have to assume Kopelman told the truth that there was a razor blade and the other fact is that it was his considered opinion that Assange was suicidal. And by the way the only people we have definite evidence of being manipulative is the FBI. NadVolum (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Prunesqualer, you're right: nobody is suggesting that Kopelman made up the finding of the razor blade. He accepted Assange's word on that, since there's no evidence the prison authorities found a razor blade hidden in his cell. Whether or not Assange fabricated the story, or planted a razor blade so it would be discovered, is unknown. But we have only Kopelman's testimony to this effect, apparently relying solely on Assange. Given that Kopelman is suspected of having misled the court about Assange's suicide risk, this is a flimsy foundation for incorporation into Wikipedia's BLP. Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not encyclopedic content, and the facts and significance have not been established. Googling for sources is just mechanized lazy person's cherrypicking and is the opposite of how we filter and source content.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Kopelman seems to have been a respected figure in his field up until recently - but after a few months working for the Assange team his name is apparently mud. Prunesqualor   billets_doux  21:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * SPEC Seems to me too often Wiki-editors filter and source content by reading mainstream establishment news sources, which are owned by the rich and powerful with vested interests – and then we just re-word what those organisations have to say. Prunesqualor   billets_doux  21:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I certainly hope so! You'd do well to read our Policies and Guidelines, basically from A to Z.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

With apologies for creating a mess, I have struck through my two previous comments on this thread. In her ruling dated January 4, 2021, District Judge Baraitser wrote that a solicitor representing Assange had "produced a copy of the prison adjudication report, which confirmed that, on 5 May 2019 at 15.30 during a routine search of the cell solely occupied by Mr. Assange, inside a cupboard and concealed under some underwear, a prison officer found 'half of a razor blade.'" I also note that Wired, which we reference to support the finding of a razor blade, additionally reports Kopelman's assertion that multiple potential suicide implements were confiscated from Assange. I recognize that since Baraitser's ruling is a primary source, editors may resist citing it, and that expanding half a razor blade to Wired′s multiple potential suicide implements may likewise prove untenable. But these items change my own view that we should remove all mention of the razor blade, and I wanted to bring them to everyone's attention. Thanks for bearing with me. Basketcase2022 (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's right. But I think that if we mention the razor blade we should mention the other things Kopelman said. Otherwise it could be taken that Kopelman's testimony was mainly about finding a razor blade, which it wasn't.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

All of the Kopelman materials needs to be together as we say he found one, but then elsewhere say his evidence was called into question. So it all needs to be in one place for context.Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We do not say that Kopelman found the razor blade (to the best of my knowledge he did not) – he merely made the discovery public (which is all the article suggests). If necessary we can detach the Razor blade incident from Kopelman and just say the razor blade was found during a search of Assange’s cell Prunesqualor   billets_doux  10:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Which would be worse, as there would be no way of the reader knowing that the evidence had been case into doubt. We need to out the claim of a Razor blade in that context if we include the claim.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven Just to be clear – the issue here is not whether a razor blade, or other suicide related articles were found in Assange’s cell – it’s a matter of record that they were. The issue that’s questioned by the prosecution is: whether Assange genuinely considered killing himself with them – the attempts by the prosecution to discredit Kopelman are in essence motivated by the professors assertions that Assange really was suicidal. Prunesqualor   billets_doux  10:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it is a matter of record that a defense appointed expert claims they were found. An expert whose use has been cast into doubt by the courts. Nor was it "the prosecution" it was a judge.Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven You are in error – please read Baraitser’s Judgment (which Basketcase2022 has already linked to and referred to) find the following:

328. Mr. Guedalla is a solicitor at Birnberg Peirce Ltd. He produced a copy of the prison adjudication report, which confirmed that, on 5 May 2019 at 15.30 during a routine search of the cell solely occupied by Mr. Assange, inside a cupboard and concealed under some underwear, a prison officer found “half of a razor blade”.
 * Note the razorblade was found by a prison officer and officially reported and documented. Prunesqualor   billets_doux  11:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Then there is a major issue as RS said it was Kopelman, and so do we. I think this needs removing until we can have new wording proposed. We (and this refers to the thread above) seem to give undue weight to Kopelman.Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No major RS problem, just a misreading of the RS. He observed signs of suicidal risk in Assange, the RS never said he actually found the razor himself. The wording in the article doesn't say that either. So no need to go around deleting everything in sight on that account. Not that I think there would be anyway even if the RS had made that mistake, any press report about anything I've known about has had some mistake, some quite large and annoying. NadVolum (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Err, we say he said it. That confuses the issue as it was nothing to do with him, as I said we give his opinion too much weight.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Enough with the insulting "Err" (again) - just to reiterate - at no point does the RS, or our article, say that Kopelman found the razor. Regarding the significance of Kopelman’s evidence surrounding the razorblade please note in Baraitser’s ruling (linked to above) the following    “...the US submitted that it was strange that the finding of a razor blade should only be recorded as a disciplinary infraction rather than related to a suicide attempt, and that “enormous” weight had been given to the incident by Professor Kopelman. However, I [Baraitser] noted that Professor Kopelman recorded this incident faithfully and without embellishment.”  (emphasis mine) this should be born in mind if anyone wants to change the wording  Prunesqualor   billets_doux  12:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And in the appeal, Holroyd said Baraitser had given undue weight to Kopelman's opinions.Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * He said the case was "at least arguable". That's quite different and he'd probably be in a lot of hot water if he'd gone any further. NadVolum (talk) 13:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The article said " Defence psychiatrist Michael Kopelman said that a hidden razor blade had been found in Assange's prison cell". I'm pretty certain that does not say Michael Kopelman found the blade. So I don't know what the "Err, we say he said it" is about. What else does "it" mean if it does not refer to that? NadVolum (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Nor does it say who did, thus the implications the reader might draw is it was him who found it. As I said, we give his opinion too much weight.Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven Your current edit does address the “over coverage” given to Kopelman but I now realise it has it’s own problems – Here’s the current wording “The defence produced a prison service report which documented finding a hidden razor blade in Assange's prison cell.” It now occurs to me that saying “The defence produced a prison service report...” might be ambiguous (to a lay audience anyway) i.e. maybe implying the defence actually created the report. Also the phrase “that said” about the report, might be a little weasel words given that the report came from the actual prison authorities. Could I suggest: “A prison service report confirming that a razor blade had been found hidden in Assange's prison cell was shown to the court by Assange’s defence.” Prunesqualor  billets_doux  17:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

So we are back to saying it was Kopelman who found it, we just do not name him ". With it was a prison guard who found it and Kopelman talked about it, or Kopelman found it, it can't be both. The trail records say it was a prison guard. So I go back to this needs to be removed until we can decide what to say and why as right now it seems to contradict a court statement.Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I support saying a prison guard found it, but only if we include a citation to that effect. Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I oppose any more changes without consensus, and I said it needs removing until we have such consensus. It is time for an RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Here is a completed citation template to facilitate reference to the prison adjudication report, which confirmed that, on 5 May 2019 at 15.30 during a routine search of the cell solely occupied by Assange, inside a cupboard and concealed under some underwear, a prison officer found "half of a razor blade." Please note this is a primacy source.

""
 * Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And this is way too much for something that a subsequent appeal having called into doudt. At best this warrentes a short line, not more words being added. So at this stage I have to oppose what seems to be being susegsted.Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Slatersteven Following my suggested wording:

“A prison service report confirming that a razor blade had been found hidden in Assange's prison cell was shown to the court by Assange’s defence”
 * You replied: “So we are back to saying it was Kopelman who found it, we just do not name him” – please re-read my suggested text and you will find it says nothing of the sort. Also re. your last comment “And this is way too much for something that a subsequent appeal having called into doudt” could we be clear: The finding of the razor blade was never called into doubt - not by the Judge or even by the prosecution – what was called into doubt was the significance of the finding – did Assange genuinely intend using the blade to harm himself or attempt suicide? We can go into the courtroom arguments on that subject in the article if there is consensus – or we can just leave it to the reader to conjecture – but let’s put to bed the notion that the razor did not exist or that it’s not significant - it was after all debated and disputed over in court and referred to more than once in Baraitser’s ruling.  Prunesqualor   billets_doux  20:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC) (seems comments wearn't directed at me)
 * If still not happy perhaps the following would be more acceptable (hopefully leaving no doubt about who did what)?

“During the court proceedings, defence drew attention to a prison service report, which confirmed that a hidden razor blade had been found by a prison officer during a search of Assange's prison cell.”
 * Prunesqualor  billets_doux  20:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * PS here’s an RS for the suggested wording   Prunesqualor   billets_doux  21:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Prunesqualer, just to be clear, you are proposing that
 * During the court proceedings, defence drew attention to a prison service report, which confirmed that a hidden razor blade had been found by a prison officer during a search of Assange's prison cell.
 * should entirely replace
 * A defence psychiatrist testified that he observed in Assange signs of suicidal risk including "the concealment of a razor blade as a means to self-harm."[448]
 * Is that correct? If so, I support this change, as sourced to the Press Gazette story you referenced, with one exception: instead of "which confirmed" please substitute "stating"—confirmed is the wrong word if this is our first mention of the razor blade. Basketcase2022 (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was my suggested wording, and I’m happy with your suggested word substitution - I initially chose the word “confirmed” because that was the word used in the Baraitser ruling (it was the first mention of the razor there too, but clearly they had a less rigorous proof reader). Prunesqualor   billets_doux  07:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

The into section Clinton emails paragraph
The into section currently contains a three sentence paragraph dealing with the Clinton DNC leaks. I recently removed the last two sentences leaving only: “During the 2016 U.S. election campaign, WikiLeaks published confidential Democratic Party emails, showing that the party's national committee favoured Hillary Clinton over her rival Bernie Sanders in the primaries.” The sentences I removed where these: “ In 2018, Special Counsel Robert Mueller charged twelve Russian intelligence officers with computer hacking, using WikiLeaks and other organisations to disseminate the material. However, Assange said that the Russian government was not the source of the documents.” The sentences have since been reinstated by SPECIFICO. I don’t think those sentence belong in the intro because whilst Wikileaks undoubtedly published the hacked e-mails, Muller was never able to prove (despite all the many months of effort and expense) that Wikileaks actually colluded with the Russians – please note pages 177 and 178 the second (less redacted) issue of the Muller Report | Here. In essence we are left with the fact that Wikileaks did publish the emails (that info’s already in the untouched sentence), but then so did other organisations – Yes there are detailed controversies around the issue – but the intro section is not the place to be unpicking those – that long story belongs in the “2016 U.S. presidential election” section, not the intro. Prunesqualor  billets_doux  13:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * OK - Just for the record it seems that SPECIFICO manually deleted the reinsated sentences putting them down in the relevant section – that’s fine – just wish I spotted it before typing all this - but at least a chance to explain the edit.  Prunesqualor   billets_doux  14:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "Mueller was not able to prove" is your misunderstanding of his mandate and report. No prosecutor's investigation will "prove" the facts. That would be up to a jury. The conclusions of the Mueller Report are clear and detailed.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO The edit in the intro section is the one you self-reverted so we can talk about that another time – I’m fine with the material being moved (as you did) to the main section for now (and have already said as much)
 * Regarding the other lets say “stealth” edits, here’s my statement on them:
 * Turns out several previous edits where manually chopped and changed (in different parts of the article) by SPECIFICO all in the space of one edit with one edit summary – this cannot be good practice. Regarding the manual reverts he performed, only one is currently in place, but I should deal with all of them here:

"Upon learning of the Access Hollywood tape, Roger Stone worked to get WikiLeaks to release email messages to counter the impact of the tape.[citation needed] Eric Lutz wrote in Vanity Fair magazine: "Apparently sensing the cataclysmic damage the comments would wreak, Stone—self-styled dirty trickster and unofficial Trump adviser—spoke by phone to the conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi, directing him to get in touch with Julian Assange, whose organization, WikiLeaks, had obtained Russian-hacked emails from Democratic Party staffers, including Clinton campaign chair John Podesta. 'Drop the Podesta emails immediately,' Stone instructed, seeking to 'balance the news cycle' after the release of the Access Hollywood tape. Thirty-two minutes later, WikiLeaks followed through"" There are just too many controversial points being made in one go here, all leaning on the say so of one journalist and one citation. If we really need to go into detail about 5+ year old events, given that there is already ample information about the DNC leak in the article (it’s currently the longest section in the article) we should at least make sure the facts are individually cited to by RS.
 * The vanity square material I removed (and SPECIFICO reinstated) read as follows:

On 4 October 2016, in a teleconference with Assange, reporters spoke of a promise to reveal further information which would bring Clinton's candidacy down, calling this "The October Surprise". Rightwing pundits as well as Trump campaign staffers like Roger Stone also hinted at further imminent releases. I explained in my edit summary: What the source actually quotes Assange saying is: “If we’re going to make a major publication in relation to the United States, we don’t do it at 3 a.m,” Shortly after this quote the source describes Assange’s statements as a “drawn-out nonrevelation” – the press may have anticipated more but that’s not newsworthy. - In other words this 5+ year old story was pretty lame stuff even at the time and really not worthy on inclusion now.
 * Reinstaded at the same time by SPECIFICO was:

“Political scientists Matthew Baum and Phil Gussin, wrote that WikiLeaks may have released more emails whenever Clinton's lead expanded in the polls.” Matthew Baum and Phil Gussin are both academics who work in the field of journalism – they are not statisticians and their ability to reliably draw inferences from a handful of release dates that “WikiLeaks may have released more emails whenever Clinton's lead expanded in the polls” is questionable – and frankly it’s another story that was barly woth drawing attention to even at the time let alone 5+ years later Prunesqualor  billets_doux  15:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Also reinstaded at the same time by SPECIFICO was:


 * I also removed the bit about the contacting Assange to do a drop of the Podester emails. It is not anywhere near a fact that Assange or Wikileaks was contacted. Costi denied contacting WAssange despite being offered a plea bargain if he implicated Assange. Also It had already been announced that Wikileaks would be doing drops ofthe emails aroundf then.
 * Plus I removed the bit again which implied Assange favoured Trump over Clinton. The citation said it was Roger Stone made the assertion not Assange. NadVolum (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Things like some political scientists saying what they thought Assange was doing is I suppose admissable if it is reported in reliable sources. Seems more like talking heads gossip to me though and I'm surprised anyone wants it with the complaints about the article size. NadVolum (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * NadVolum Will see how things pan out with the other edits but you’re right the Baum and Gussin piece is just inconsequential fluff (and 5+ years old fluff at that) Prunesqualor   billets_doux  16:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't disagree with you on this edit, but I wanted to point out that the fact that something is "5+ years old" or not "current" is not a reason to remove it from the article. This article is about Assange's life, not just the "current" stuff.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I hear you Jack Upland, but I think it healthy in an article that, as events move further into the past the bar for including material needs to change – details that seemed noteworthy at the time are less so viewed in a longer time scale, in other words it’s natural that in an article about a living person new material comes in and some of the older less noteworthy stuff moves out. Prunesqualor   billets_doux  23:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And the more consequential content such as this stays front and center. As a matter of fact, there will be more information available after all applicable investigations are concluded. This was, of course, delayed by Barr's management of the Justice Department in the US.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO it you examine the exchange above you will see that Jack’s comment, where he says “I don't disagree with you on this edit” was almost certainly referring to the Baum and Gussin piece - That’s the singular edit that the conversation had turned to. So, in that context it appears when you piped in with “the more consequential content such as this stays front and centre” you are claiming the Baum and Gussin piece is particularly consequential. You yourself did put the sentence back into the article (after I had removed it) but I honestly cannot believe you are claiming the Baum and Gussin piece is particularly important? You must surely have misunderstood which edit we were talking about? As explained above the Baum and Gussin piece is just fluff and really should go. Some sidelining about general good practice and policy as we are doing here is fine - but then when it comes to adding to the article, or removing material, I hope we are careful to specify which specific edits we are talking about.  Prunesqualor   billets_doux  08:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't post snide or insulting remarks on the article talk page. My comment speaks for itself.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 09:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please point to exactly what “snide or insulting remarks” you are talking about? I see none, just a call for more clarity – surely that’s not snide or insulting? I would like though to stick to one issue though - Is the Baum and Gussin piece the one you where referring to, and do you still think it worth keeping? Prunesqualor   billets_doux  09:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

As explained earlier on in this thread, a few days ago I removed the sentence beginning “"On 4 October 2016, in a teleconference ..." I gave good reason for doing so in my edit summary (further explanation above) – none the less SPECIFICO chose to manually reinstate the sentence whilst in the same single edit, adding and removing other text from different parts on the article, then giving a single inadequate text summary to cover the lot - a less than transparent way of deleting hours of work and carefully researched and explained edits. Another editor shortly after re-deleted the sentence (giving their own reasons) – then earlier today SPECIFICO reverts that edit saying “This removal of longstanding text has been challenged” – he then goes on to revert his own edit saying “undo edit conflict for 1RR” and then another editor (not recently active on the page) comes in and reverts his revert with the edit summary “What SPECIFICO said.”  -  in fact  What SPECIFICO had said was “This removal of longstanding text has been challenged” - as far as I can make out:  no - the removal has NOT been challenged in any meaningful way - No explanation as to why the sentence belongs in the article except to say it’s “long standing” and nothing has been offered in this thread (which  SPECIFICO has read and posted in) where the validity of the sentence has been discussed - What is going on here? Prunesqualor  billets_doux  15:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


 * What exactly is being still disputed here? I see @SPECIFICO an have reinstated bits I removed but have not come here to say why. I said why I removed them in my edit comments and above.  All SPECIFICO says is that they are long standing and challenged but IU see no challenge except that they're long standing. Where is this 'DISCUSS' part that I was told about on my talk page? NadVolum (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The content is well-sourced, very widely covered in media and analysis sources, one of the primary factors in Assange's current fame and reputation. That's why it's longstanding -- because NPOV readers and editors value this NPOV coverage of the topic with DUE WEIGHT to RS narratives. It would be up to you to establish a new consensus to remove it.  Start an RfC if you feel strongly.  The issue is sourcing and content, not your fellow editors.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Then the new consensus is established per WP:BRD. It has been discussed here, reasons have been given for the removals. Tey do not satisfy WP:NOV because they say or imply things which are not supported by the source ANd because there is good evidence that's what implied is simply false. A bit of time has been give for discussion, and no good reasons to include them in the article have been put forward except that it was in the aricle for a while. It might be possible to rephrase what is said to be suitable for inclusion but I see little point in that, without the strong link to Assange they don't say very much. NadVolum (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * (just figured out the template) NadVolum (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Your next step would not be just to reassert your opinon. You can list an RfC and get an uninvolved close. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have a point to make about why those bits should be included then just go ahead and make it. What bit of what I said do you think is wrong or why do you think it should be disregarded? As WP:BRD which you very helpfully pointed me to says "BRD is especially successful where: ... people are only discussing policy or theory, and are not applying reasoning or trying to negotiate consensus." NadVolum (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've commented repeatedly on the substance of the issue, most recently at 16:06 above. It is up to you to show why longstanding well-sourced, significant, consensus content should be removed. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And I said at 16:11, 6 September 2021 why the bits should be removed. They both imply that Assange said or dd something that is not supported by the sources. In the first case it was somebody else who said the headline remark. In the second the person who was contacted denied he talked to Assange or Wikileaks. WP:BLPRS says it should be removed and being longstanding does not override that. You need something much better. NadVolum (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, I suggest you start an RfC and perhaps your views will be vindicated. Nothing I've seen from the current small group of editors is going to overturn longstanding consensus over a period when many dozens of editors worked on the page. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO The WP:ONUS is on you for inclusion – I have given good reasons why each of these sections of text where removed (please see the bullet marked comments above - I can expand on the points or explain them more fully if you wish) – I would be very grateful if you could address some of the specific issues I have raised.  Prunesqualor   billets_doux  08:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And I'd appreciate it if you'd deal with the specific points I raised rather than just saying some invisible mass of editors from the past supported putting in the bits and you're standing up for them. Is there some talk page discussion where these past editors came to a decision about the points I raised? NadVolum (talk) 09:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Read WP:CONSENSUS.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 09:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO Sharing entire help pages is less helpful than pointing to specific policies – Regarding the help page you linked to, did you intend drawing attention to the principle that: “All edits should be explained” If so it should be noted that all of my edits where carefully explained, whereas your bulk manual reversion of those edits was not. Or perhaps you referring to the “through discussion” section where we are encouraged to “work out the dispute through discussion, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense” again sorry but that’s something you have until recently refused to do and, it seems to me are still not engaging with the specific issues motioned above. Prunesqualor  billets_doux  10:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Assange's calls to suicide prevention charity should be in intro
I recently added to the intro section the information that Assange “has made several calls to suicide prevention charity the Samaritans whilst in the prison.” I think the information deserves to be in the intro because: it should be pointed out prominently that Assange’s mental health has suffered during his imprisonment – the “calls to suicide prevention charity” information hint’s at that side of Assange’s predicament, is a documented incontrovertible fact, and was properly cited. My edit was been removed by Jack Upland who commented in the edit summary “This doesn't belong in the introduction. It is already alluded to in the extradition ruling”. I believe I am right in saying that - every single fact in the current intro section also appears further down in other parts of the article, ie saying that the material “is already alluded to in the extradition ruling” is not really consistent or relevant. No other reason is given for the material not belonging in the intro so unless there is some more pertinent objection, I would like to reinsert the sentence in the intro. Prunesqualor  billets_doux  22:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I meant that the introduction already mentions concerns about Assange's mental health. We could mention many other things, but the introduction is supposed to be an overview. We previously had an RfC on a similar topic where some editors argued against including health status in the introduction. I would say that any information should be generalised rather than specific.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The intro section does not really describe Assange’s health status – it merely quotes Baraitser saying that to extradite him to the US would be "oppressive" given his mental health. That’s about as vague as it could be regarding his current health condition (which by many accounts is pretty poor). Frankly the intro, for the most part, reads like a worlds most wanted report – I would like to see a much stronger acknowledgement that we are dealing with a human being - not just the subject of a court charge sheet. Prunesqualor   billets_doux  06:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Although subsection 5.4 Imprisonment in the UK repeatedly mentions Assange's health (physical, mental, and emotional), it says nothing about suicide. Wouldn't that be the appropriate place to introduce his calls to a suicide prevention charity? Shoehorning it into the lead with no presentation in the body—and with no recognition that he might be gaming the system—seems WP:UNDUE. Basketcase2022 (talk) 07:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The man has spent well over two years in a prison designed for the UK’s most serious criminals – he has been diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome – he faces possibly 175 years in high security prisons – he’s surrounded by murderers and terrorists – he and his family face regular death threats and you want to talk about him “gaming the system” – sorry but the man is in a position that would have finished most people off – it seems some editors are determined that the man should receive as little human sympathy as possible – but my view of the world says he should be seen as a vulnerable human being and that the intro section should at least somewhat reflect that view. Prunesqualor   billets_doux  07:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * PS nothing to say the “calls to Samaritans” can’t go in the main section too – as stated earlier all of the other material in the intro also appears in other sections. Prunesqualor   billets_doux  07:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you're auditioning for the 4th chair in Davide Dormino's itinerant "monument to courage" Anything to Say? The only thing standing in your way is WP:SOAPBOX. Basketcase2022 (talk) 09:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Just for once it would be nice to talk about the merits of a case in a human common sense way without somebody throwing out WP:THIS and WP:THAT. The intro lacks the human touch - I think that is a valid point and not soap-boxing – I would be grateful if editors could address the sincere and commonsense points I’m making about the tone of the intro without resorting to the harshest possible interpretations on WP guidelines. Prunesqualor   billets_doux  09:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia. The introduction is not a notice board for the latest news about Assange. I don't think the phonecalls that he made belong in an overview of his life. I don't see any evidence that he is gaming the system. Given the wreck that his life has become it's not surprising that he's suicidal. But that's not the point. There are websites where you can express your support and sympathy for Assange. This isn't one of them. Here, we document his life, for better or for worse.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyone would think I’ve asked for a Mills and Boon purple prose style intro – I’ve asked for the inclusion of a short sentence telling people that Assange has made several calls to a suicide help line – ie just a hint that there might be a real human being behind the dour, world’s most wanted, list of charges and accusations that currently make up the bulk of the intro section. As for - “we document his life, for better or for worse” it seems we don’t - if the part of life to be documented might possibly give the impression he’s suffering or worthy of compassion. I’m asking for that small part of his “life” to be “documented” in the intro as a representative nod to Assange’s suffering Prunesqualor   billets_doux  11:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Why? the lede is a summary of the article, does this take up a significant part of the article?.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * To answer both questions in one - issues surrounding Assange’s mental health do take up substantial parts of the article, and have become increasingly significant over the past few years. Prunesqualor   billets_doux  13:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And it is, but needs rewording to something like "his mental health has been called into question, as he suffers form aspergers."Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It should not be in the article, let alone the lead. An encyclopedia does not publish a "hint" as you call it. Maybe he is a donor and was inquiring whether his cheque had arrived? Maybe his uncle works there and he wanted to discuss the football matches. Mabye who knows? If you have a direct source that Assange called in order to solicit their suicide prevention services, then that would perhaps go in the article. Otherwise, no.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 13:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m guessing that, in her official published summing up, Judge Baraitser didn’t just invent the fact that Assange called the Samaritans on several occasions - and also guessing that Assange didn’t chat with the Samaritans about the football scores. A perfectly good citation (ant there are plenty more out there) plus a judges written word are sufficient to evidence he made the calls and that’s all the currently omitted sentence says. Prunesqualor   billets_doux  14:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Instead of wasting your time with snide asides, why don't you simply respond to the point I clearly articulated in the immediately preceding post above? Thanks.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Address you points? Ok let’s do that – you firstly took my use of the word “hint” in a misleading context - then went on to make ludicrous suggestions about why Assange may have called the Samaritans (presumably intending to be funny or “snide” as you call it) – In your third point you suggest that in order to be included in an article I need a “direct source that Assange called in order to solicit their suicide prevention services.” As I hinted in my response no reasonable person would conclude he had called a suicide help line on numerous occasions to talk about anything but suicide – whether he was sincere in his calls is not at issue - as it’s not claimed in my currently omitted sentence. However I would say under his dire circumstances it’s pretty heartless to not concede there’s an extremely good chance he is suicidal – but I repeat the sincerity of the calls is not asserted in the missing sentence. Prunesqualor   billets_doux  17:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We do not make inferences from our sources and we certainly do not ask our readers to join us in speculation, inference, interpretation, or the like. We write clear, specific, unambiguous, well-sourced text. And this ain't that. My alternative possibilities were counterexamples to demonstrat that your Original Research inference was unwarranted, thus refuting your claim that it meets WP content standards. Now, you may in fact be able to find a source that says the man was "on the brink". If so, use that. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO Please answer this: Do you accept that Assange is known to have called the Samaritans many times from prison (as evidenced in several sources and Baraitser’s Judgment)? Prunesqualor   billets_doux  20:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not the issue under discussion here.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Getting away from all that ELIZA type dialogue - I'd have to say I really don't think the suicide calls should be in the intro. The summary by Judge Baraister is quite enough and readers cam look down into the article if they are interested in more about that. NadVolum (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Nad - I don’t come from a computing background so the ELIZA reference is a bit lost on me – I appreciate your opinion on the Samaritans intro inclusion – clearly we’ll have to differ on this – I wonder though if you could re-read the intro section some time and reflect on the impression it gives to the significant number of casual Wiki users, who will get little or no further into the article than the intro. As I’ve said above – seems to me the general tone is reminiscent of a courtroom charge sheet or world’s most wanted poster – any indication that Assange is a man in a pretty dire position facing appalling conditions and prospects at the hands of powerful enemies is missing. I wanted to in some way redress that imbalance. However there are several people editing here who most certainly do not think the same way. Prunesqualor   billets_doux  21:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ELIZA, the original Chatbot. The Wikipedia policies force a bias towards corporate media to some extent, but I don't think the intro is too bad, It lists the basic facts and doesn't go into reasons and its about the right size for a person to read as a summary. NadVolum (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Re. the ELIZA reference I guess it’s a more nuanced version of “talk to a brick wall” (seems apt anyway). Re the intro – it’s quite short - which it should be within reason - but could afford another couple of sentences – aside from the existing mostly courtroom charge sheet - about his human predicament but I’m getting repetitive so will leave it (for now) to each editors conscience. Prunesqualor   billets_doux  08:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

“He attributed the allegations to radical feminism in Sweden”
Jack Upland Recently re-inserted the above into the Assange article | here saying in his edit summary: “There seems to be consensus for adding this back in”. Yet I can find no discussion on the talk page within the last couple of months to confirm this. I may be missing something but - presumably there was a reason the material was taken out in the first place - should we not talk about this now to confirm there really is consensus. Prunesqualor  billets_doux  09:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well he did say that didn't he and it made the news? What do you think is wrong with it being in or do you want to expand on it? After all it wasn't a totally unfounded belief but really I think anything like that could go into the separate subarticle. NadVolum (talk) 09:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you seen ?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * OK Jack thanks for the link – sorry, hadn’t spotted that – Not sure I’d exactly call it consensus, but if nobody’s currently objecting, your edit should probably stay. Prunesqualor   billets_doux  10:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a misleading summary of the source, "Assange talks to Helena Kennedy QC, who is advising him on how to deal with the allegations. Assange says, as if to excuse himself, that it is a “radical feminist conspiracy.” The text presents something Assange said in the heat of the moment in a private conversation with his lawyer about people who have made accusations about him as his official statement. So you might want to add some context. TFD (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * TFD: Neither the two sentences you quoted from The Guardian nor their surrounding context support your characterization of Assange as speaking in "the heat of the moment in a private conversation with his lawyer." The Guardian is in fact recounting what it calls an "astonishing scene" from Laura Poitras's documentary Risk, but without describing it as heated. Moreover, the conversation was obviously not private; both Assange and his lawyer the Baroness Helena Kennedy were undoubtedly aware that they were being openly filmed for eventual public exhibition. Basketcase2022 (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As you agree, he was talking to his lawyer about two women who had accused him of a criminal offense. The article is very clear about this. That's different from saying the same thing in a press conference. While it does not justify what he said, the circumstances in which statements are made are relevant to their severity. This was the type of documentary btw where the documentarian follows the subject around for an extended period of time which has the effect of people speaking more openly. While that's fine and Assange agreed to it, it is relevant to note the circumstances in which the comments were made, just as the source does. TFD (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Which means anything, as it was his lawyer, rather than him thinking about his image. So whilst we could say "during an private interview with his lawyer" it's hard to see what else we could say.Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven: In order to justify using the word "private" we would need a different source than The Guardian, which neither mentions nor implies that the conversation was held in private. Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Whoever in their right mind would think a dscussion in front of a reporter with a camera is private whatever assurances they might have been given? Well people do I suppose but they deserve what happens. It certainly wasn't the privacy of a talk with a lawyer. NadVolum (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If a documentarian followed you around for an extended period of time, you would begin to behave as if they were not there. That incidentally is why obervational documentarians spend lengthy periods of time with their subjects. They expect their subjects to let their guard down and speak candidly. David Simon for example spent time with both Baltimore's homicide squad and its drug dealers, which led to the TV series Homicide and The Wire. My question would be who in their right mind would agree to this? TFD (talk) 10:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I also cited The Times, and there is an article from The Australian in the previous discussion that could also be used.Jack Upland (talk) 04:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC).
 * I did a word search for The Times and for The Australian on this talk page but could find neither reference. Are you alluding to an archived discussion? In any case, if you'd please be so kind as to hyperlink those for us on this thread, it would help move us forward. Thank you. Basketcase2022 (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , . The Times article is used as a citation and I don't understand how you can't find it or the discussion above.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Jack Upland: Thank you for the links, which proved most helpful. I took the liberty of replacing in our BLP the reference to The Guardian that concerned TFD in this thread, with references to The Australian and The New Yorker. Hopefully, this will resolve the matter discussed in this talk page section. Basketcase2022 (talk) 08:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier: I can live with the inclusion of the “He attributed the allegations to radical feminism in Sweden” line in being in the article – however I’m not so happy with its current positioning and lack of context. I would say it looks rather tacked on to the first paragraph, and it’s prime position in that opening paragraph rather implies it’s an important definitive assessment from Assange – rather than what it actually was (as TFD put it earlier: “The text presents something Assange said in the heat of the moment in a private conversation with his lawyer about people who have made accusations about him as his official statement”). If the line is to be kept in, it should be moved further down the section and should be given some context showing it was remark from an interview and not Assange’s considered official stance – To put it in a human context - Yes a person’s off the cuff remarks can be telling, but personally I would hate to be definitively judged, for the rest of time, based on any of the silly, or ill considered remarks I have thrown out over the years. Prunesqualor  billets_doux  09:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The Guardian article which mentions the conversation is not currently cited in the article. There are in fact many sources which record Assange voicing this opinion.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I object to the current text which suggests this was one comment that Assange made. It wasn't. It was a well-developed opinion that Assange had that he voiced on many occasions.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * OK Jack I take your point, and I’ve changed the edit to make clear he repeated the claim. Prunesqualor   billets_doux  12:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * PS Just for the record I can only find three instances where Assange made reference to Sweden’s “radical feminist ideology” (They are of course quoted in numerous articles) so not sure if “many occasions” is quite the right phrase - but then I may have missed some in my brief search. Prunesqualor   billets_doux  12:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually his defence team went so far as to accuse the prosecutor Marianne Ny of being a malicious radical feminist.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually Brita Sundberg-Weitman was not a member of Assange’s defence team but was flown over by them to speak as an expert witness – It should be noted also – P.C. or not - that as well as unpleasant men who dislike women there also unpleasant women in this world some of who dislike men – I have no Idea if ms Ny is one of them but Ms Sundberg-Weitman clearly thinks she is Prunesqualor   billets_doux  21:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * They chose to run with that under Assange's instructions.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry I don't know what that means - could you explain more fully? Prunesqualor   billets_doux  22:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I won't elaborate because this is a side issue. Suffice it to say that Assange has blamed "radical feminists" several times.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Here is some background to Assange’s statement. I don’t think it was an off-hand remark. At the time there was a political push to strengthen the rape laws in Sweden involving several players in Assange's Swedish drama. Note that general elections were held in Sweden on 19 September 2010. Firstly the dramatis personae:
 * In 2010, Claes Borgström successfully appealed the decision to close the sexual assault case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and became the legal representative of the two Swedish women against whom the Swedish police have accused Assange of sexual misconduct.
 * Thomas Bodström and Claes Borgström were partners in the legal firm which took on this role.
 * Ms A was one of Assange’s accusers.
 * Marianne Ny was the Director of Public Prosecution who, on 1 September 2010 (a few weeks before the election), decided to resume the preliminary investigation concerning all of the original allegations.

Now some background:
 * “The election is approaching and the two ministerial candidates Thomas Bodström and Claes Borgström have once again spoken out on their favorite issue - violence against women”.
 * Ms A, Borgström & Borström belong to the same “political and ideological feminist cohort” that have profited in their campaign for a “further radicalization of the rape-laws” by making a “symbol” out of Assange.
 * ““Prosecutor Marianne Ny, Thomas Bodström, formerly at the Ministry of Justice, and Claes Borgström, formerly the Gender Equality Ombudsman, together constituted the core of the governmental committee set up for the promulgation of the new Swedish 2005 rape legislation. At the bottom of that radical-feminist constellation we found at the time the Social Democratic Christian organization called the Brotherhood, of which Ms A was then the political secretary”.”
 * “The prosecutor leading the rape and sexual assault case against Julian Assange is a "malicious" radical feminist who is "biased against men", a retired senior Swedish judge has told the hearing into Assange's extradition to Sweden.”
 * Alongside the obvious questions of freedom of information and criminal justice, the Julian Assange affair has also made visible a multitude of contemporary anxieties concerning sex and gender. This was brought into sharp relief by claims that Assange's prospects of a fair trial might be compromised by the possibility that Sweden's chief prosecutor Marianne Ny is a "malicious radical feminist" with a "bias against men".

Burrobert (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I had thought that radical feminism was a slur against feminists but apparently it is a neutral term for a strand of feminism with its own Wikipedia article that includes some of Assange's accusers. According to an article in Guardian, it studies "the role of male violence against women in the creation and maintenance of gender inequality." Eva Lundgren is described in the PROFESSOR'S BLOG as a "Professor in Radical Feminism." So it seems that Assange was referring to a specific group of people by their correct name, rather than slurring feminists in general. TFD (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is NOT A FORUM to discuss various editors' views about women.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * TFD: Here is the sentence under discussion in this talk page section, as it appears in its latest incarnation in the BLP (minus inline citations).


 * Assange told journalist Raffi Khatchadourian that Sweden has a "very, very poor judicial system" and a culture of "crazed radical feminist ideology", a view that he repeated in later interviews.


 * The reliably sourced quotation attributed to Assange significantly begins with the adjective crazed, which obviously precludes his opinion in this instance from being called neutral. He may have been referring to a specific group of people by their correct name, but he was at the same time slurring them. Basketcase2022 (talk) 02:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I assume the term crazed is a slur, but that doesn't mean the term radical feminist is not any more than the term feminist is. TFD (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * TFD:Thank you for assuming the obvious. Given that the term radical feminist appears only once in the BLP—in the reliably sourced quotation attributed to Assange beginning with crazed—I trust you have no further concerns or suggestions on this point. Basketcase2022 (talk) 03:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it matters for our purposes whether Assange was neutral or accurate. He said it several times and it expressed his public view of the Swedish case, though his defence might have modified its approach as the legal process progressed .--Jack Upland (talk) 04:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I for one found the material from Burrobert interesting – actually I would go so far as to say his whole description should be lifted and put in the article, as it explains a set of events far more clearly than much of our editing has achieved. Prunesqualor   billets_doux  06:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding our current wording – I must take a chunk of responsibility for that and I now see I may have produced a wording which wrongs Assange. He did not use the damning adjective “crazy” on the other occasions he attacked Sweden’s “radical” feminist culture – we have simply: “radical feminist conspiracy” – a statement which at least a case could be made for – and: "Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism... I fell into a hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism." Again, under the circumstances, not as unwarranted as the under-informed might jump to conclude - and frankly it is our job to inform people of all the relevant facts as best we can – it’s fine to include Assange’s harsh views on Sweden but we also need to clearly explain the context in which he said what he did.  Prunesqualor   billets_doux  07:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If so, you should also include more information about what Assange was actually accused of.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Provided the information is noteworthy and has good solid evidence suggesting it’s accurate (not just “he said she said”) accompanied by context and a fair airing of Assange’s counter claims – then yes. Seems after further reflection that Assange’s remarks about Sweden should not be included at all without the background information which at least partly explains his P.O.V. Burrobert explained some of the background to Assange’s remarks extremely well, and I genuinely would be happy to see his contribution above placed into the article (with some minor tinkering so it fits in properly  Prunesqualor   billets_doux  10:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned earlier: I now not happy with my edits which include Assange’s “crazed radical feminist ideology” quote followed by: “a view that he repeated in later interviews”. I now realise this is somewhat misleading as the other two known similar comments did have some differences - notably they did not say “crazed” (see above). So I’m removing the crazed part of the quote as the remaining “radical feminist ideology” is reflected in the other cited quotes. If someone prefers to take out the “a view that he repeated in later interviews” thus resolving the issue I’m fine - but we can’t say both and be true to the sources. Later I’d like to look at adding context for Assange’s remarks as discussed above Prunesqualor   billets_doux  15:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The times headline includes "crazed feminism".Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This edit by Prunesqualer is completely unacceptable. Note that he removed the telltale word crazed from the reliably sourced, directly attributed quotation "crazed radical feminist ideology" despite its being immediately followed by this reference, which reiterated the quote:
 * Basketcase2022 (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a good point, we do not alter quotes without good reason.Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * THius is also why this article is too large, we have to go into uneeded detail all the time.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * THius is also why this article is too large, we have to go into uneeded detail all the time.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Did anyone actually read my explanation for the edit made on this thread shortly before making the edit (and refered to in my edit summary)? I’ll repeat it in case not : “As I mentioned earlier I now not happy with my edits which include Assange’s “crazed radical feminist ideology” quote followed by: “a view that he repeated in later interviews”. I now realise this is somewhat misleading as the other two known similar comments did have some differences - notably they did not say “crazed” (see above). So I’m removing the crazed part of the quote as the remaining “radical feminist ideology” is reflected in the other cited quotes. If someone prefers to take out the “a view that he repeated in later interviews” thus resolving the issue I’m fine - but we can’t say both and be true to the sources...” Prunesqualor  billets_doux  16:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And as I pointed out one of them did say it "Julian Assange referred to the two Swedish women who accused him of sexual assault as “treacherous” and claimed that the allegations were the result of “crazed radical feminist ideology”, from the Times.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I urge you to abandon this approach, which is verging on Disruptive editing. Basketcase2022 (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven please note the Times article you mention directly quotes from the Raffi Khatchadourian, The New Yorker magazine piece (already cited after the “crazed” quote) so we only have one occasion on which Assange used the word “crazed” in this context – making the following ““a view that he repeated in later interviews” misleading. One of them should go  Prunesqualor   billets_doux  17:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Which is why I have now reworded it. But if that was your objection you should have removed the part that was not accurate, and not altred a quote (that was).Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The rewording makes the article still longer but as long as the extra length is only taken up adding seemingly Assange incriminating quotes, with no mitigating context, then I guess few on here will object.  Prunesqualor   billets_doux  20:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I do object, but as I said have no choice.Slatersteven (talk) 08:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)