From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Life in Belmarsh prison

This section has been added. We had a section entitled "Imprisonment in the UK" which has been moved to Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange. I don't think it belongs there. I think some of its contents (in a summarised way) could be moved to this new section. Jack Upland ( talk) 00:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I think the personal stuff about him being incarcerated and his reaction to it (illness, etc) is due on the BLP rather than the legal article. Could maybe be life in Belmarsh and that might help limit the scope of what is added here. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 06:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I created that section. It contains three sentences and covers a period of five years in our hero's life. His incarceration in Britain's version of Guantánamo Bay should be mentioned on the Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange page - probably one sentence would be sufficient there. However, the personal information about his incarceration (health, books etc) seems more relevant to his personal page. Burrobert ( talk) 06:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I have no idea what you’re saying. Could you be more explicit? Jack Upland ( talk) 09:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I may have misunderstood what you were saying. I interpreted your comment to be a suggestion that details about Julian's life in Guantánamo should be removed from his bio and placed in a different article, possibly after being summarised. It seems that you were actually suggesting that text from another article should be moved into Julian's bio and placed in the Life in Guantánamo section. If that is the case, then I have no objection. Burrobert ( talk) 10:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Burrobert, I don't think you mean Guantánamo!-- Jack Upland ( talk) 23:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Gulag? Burrobert ( talk) 11:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Makes me Hungary! Jack Upland ( talk) 15:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes, Gulag, they did not even let him have the right kind of Lap top the monsters. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
But isn’t that noteworthy? Jack Upland ( talk) 18:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
THis is what, less than 20% of his life, but 50% of the article? Slatersteven ( talk) 10:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Why was this new section deleted? There's no consensus here!!!-- Jack Upland ( talk) 02:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I was thinking the same thing! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 03:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Do we need more stuff about his time in prison, its not as if this is what he is most famous for, is it? Slatersteven ( talk) 11:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I think he is famous as a so-called political prisoner. Jack Upland ( talk) 11:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I have brought back the "Imprisonment in the UK" section and added the text of "Life in Belmarsh Prison" to it. I think there is consensus for this.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 23:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Removal of Nick Davies

@ Cambial Yellowing: Why did you remove the Nick Davies claim? It is relevant that multiple individuals have accused him of saying this at separate incidents. BilledMammal ( talk) 09:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Davies does not say this is separate; in fact he gives no context at all. It’s also repetitive, the ostensible quote said by Davies is nearly identical to that preceding it. It lacks wide coverage in news sources like the claim by David Leigh. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
David Leigh and Luke Harding did not say they heard it, they said in their book that Declan Walsh had heard it. NadVolum ( talk) 19:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Can you all please quote the text that youse are arguing about? Jack Upland ( talk) 06:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The bit covered by these edits by BilledMammal [1]. Seemingly it is important to them to remove John Goetz and also important to include Nick Davies, - as Cambial Yellowing then did [2] NadVolum ( talk) 10:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
This is hard to follow. For some reason we can't mention a statement by Goetz, who was at the dinner. On the other hand we use David Leigh, Declan Walsh, and Luke Harding for the claim that Assange said "Well, they’re informants, so if they get killed, they’ve got it coming to them. They deserve it". Harding was not at the dinner. As far as I can tell, we don't have a statement from either Leigh or Walsh saying they heard Assange say it. What we do appear to have is a story by Leigh in which Walsh tells Leigh he heard Assange say that. Neither in his book, nor in the linked Guardian article does Leigh say he heard Assange make that statement. A more accurate description of the sources would be "According to Leigh and Harding, Walsh told Leigh that he heard Assange say "Well, they’re informants ... ". Not sure why anyone would bother including that (and omitting Goetz' counter statement) unless ... Burrobert ( talk) 14:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Actually it sounds to me more like Luke Harding than David Leigh, but that's just my feeling. It could very well be an embellishment of something Assange actually said given what he said about it. NadVolum ( talk) 17:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes, the sequence would make more sense if it was Harding telling the story about Walsh telling Leigh something Assange said. Which increases the probability that there was a Chinese whispers effect. Anyway, if we include this, we can't leave it in its current form because it misrepresents the two sources which are being used. Burrobert ( talk) 09:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply
We had an RFC but we’re still squabbling about this… Jack Upland ( talk) 20:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The RfC concluded "there is consensus to include the quote alongside appropriate context, inline attribution (not in wikivoice), and Assange's denial". The discussion above is not about the quote itself but around the "appropriate context" that needs to be included with the quote. Specifically, based on the two sources we are using we cannot say "According to journalists David Leigh, Declan Walsh, and Luke Harding, ... Assange replied "Well, they’re informants ...". We would need to say something like "According to Leigh and Harding, Walsh told Leigh that he heard Assange say "Well, they’re informants ... ". Also, the RfC did not deal with Goetz' statement, so we still need to discuss why anyone would want to exclude it. Burrobert ( talk) 11:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Does it say Walsh told Leigh? Walsh said there was a silence round the table when it was said, but even that is disputed in the OFCOM resolution where they talked about the place being noisy and perhaps that's why Goetz didn't hear it. Yeah we should put it in but removing what Goetz said was over the top. 16:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC) NadVolum ( talk)
The text from the Guardian article by Leigh and Harding says:
Declan Walsh, the Guardian's Islamabad correspondent, recalls one tense evening: "We went out to a Moorish restaurant, Moro, with the two German reporters. David Leigh broached the problem again with Julian. The response floored me. 'Well, they're informants,' he said. 'So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it.' There was, for a moment, silence around the table. I think everyone was struck by what a callous thing that was to say."
The article does not explicitly identify the person to whom Walsh is "recalling" this story, but presumably it is one or both of the writers of the article, i.e. Harding and/or Leigh. Not sure why Leigh is referring to himself in the third person here. As mentioned earlier, it is also unclear why Walsh needs to be the one relating this story given Leigh was apparently at the same dinner and he is writing the article. I quoted Leigh's book in an earlier section. The text is very similar to that in Harding and Leigh's Guardian article. It quotes Walsh as saying
"I told David Leigh I was worried about the repercussions of publishing these names … That night we went out to a Moorish restaurant , Moro, with the two German reporters. David broached the problem again with Julian. The response floored me …".
So in both the Guardian article and Leigh's book, the story is related by Walsh and there is no mention that Leigh himself heard Assange make that comment. Burrobert ( talk) 04:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
True. I think it should just say thatLeigh and Harding in their book say Walsh said it and include the statement by Goetz. I don't think we should read anything more into the book than it actually says, there's a number of funny things about it so we shouldn't infer anything. NadVolum ( talk) 15:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Just Leigh and Harding said it. No need to go into details. Jack Upland ( talk) 16:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
They didn't though. Their book quotes Walsh saying Assange saying it. NadVolum ( talk) 16:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
We could say they reported it.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 02:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes, we should say that the claim about what Walsh said is from Leigh and Harding, possibly mentioning their book. Not sure we can do it in one sentence given the complex sequence. "Leigh and Harding wrote that Walsh told them Assange said ""Well, they’re informants ..."? Unless someone comes up with an objection, I will make an attempt at improving the way in which this anecdote is related to the reader. Burrobert ( talk) 04:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
You don't need permission to edit the page, comrade. Jack Upland ( talk) 00:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Davies said he heard it, and Davies was not present at the meeting - therefore, he heard it separately. It's significant that multiple people have independently claimed they heard it, and I don't think it's appropriate to exclude this - do we need to hold a second RfC?
Goetz I removed because it has minimal coverage, and there is a lot of context that we need to include - such as the noise level in the restaurant - that wasn't included and would give this section excessive weight if it was included. I think it is sufficient to say that Assange denies it. BilledMammal ( talk) 00:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The discussion is not about whether the quote should be included. That question was decided by the RfC. The discussion is about the context around the quote. The consensus here is that neither Leigh nor Harding can be used as direct sources for the quote since they are passing on something that they say Walsh told them. Burrobert ( talk) 06:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The consensus was to attribute it to the three listed individuals; the new version does not do so, instead saying that Leigh and Harding say that Walsh says that Assange says this. This is against the consensus, and further not supported by the sources; if you look at the sources provided in the RfC, they support saying that Walsh says this in their own voice, and also support saying that Leigh said it. Considering this, I have no objection to removing Harding entirely.
Further, there was no consensus to include Goetz, and definitely no consensus to include it in the manner done here which omits considerable context. BilledMammal ( talk) 06:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The RfC decided "there is consensus to include the quote alongside appropriate context, inline attribution (not in wikivoice), and Assange's denial". The closing editor did not say who the quote should be attributed to, presumably that is part of the "appropriate context". If you want to attribute the quote to Leigh, Harding and Walsh, you would need a source that says Leigh, Harding or Walsh heard Assange make that statement. Since Harding was not at the dinner, you won't find a source saying he heard the quote. As mentioned a number of times above, the two sources that are being used do not say that Leigh heard the quote, they say that Walsh told him that he (Walsh) heard the quote. Hence, this is how Nad has described the incident. Regarding Goetz, why would you exclude his statement given he was at the dinner? According to NPOV, we "should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another". What context would you like to add? Burrobert ( talk) 07:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The RfC decided "there is consensus to include the quote alongside appropriate context, inline attribution (not in wikivoice), and Assange's denial". See the RfC question, which was to attribute to the three named individuals.
two sources that are being used That is easy to fix; we can add sources from the list provided above, although I note that some of the other sources already there support this.
Since Harding was not at the dinner, you won't find a source saying he heard the quote. As I said above, Considering this, I have no objection to removing Harding entirely.
Regarding Goetz, NPOV also tells us An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. The Goetz quote appears sourced only to an opinion article and two primary documents; by including it we are giving it undue weight. BilledMammal ( talk) 08:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
What source are you using for your claim that Leigh said he heard the statement?
I disagree that Goetz' statement is "undue weight". Burrobert ( talk) 11:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
There's several; CBS, NBC, etc. BilledMammal ( talk) 12:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Both the CBS and NBC article's do say that Leigh claimed Assange made the disputed statement so there should not be a problem amending the sentence appropriately. Not why Leigh would then need to use Walsh as the source for this both in his book and in the Guardian article, but nevertheless ... You would need to add the CBS and NBC sources to Julian's bio as support. So we have Leigh saying Julian made that statement and we also have Leigh saying Walsh told him Assange made that statement. Any ideas on how that should be described? Burrobert ( talk) 12:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
We also have sources for Walsh, including The Guardian and South China Morning Post. BilledMammal ( talk) 12:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Both of those sources are excerpts from the book WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy by David Leigh and Luke Harding. Burrobert ( talk) 13:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Can you clarify your point? BilledMammal ( talk) 14:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The two sources use Leigh's book as their source. Burrobert ( talk) 14:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I still don't see your point. Our sources say, in their own voice, that Walsh said this - what else is needed? BilledMammal ( talk) 14:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The Guardian article is sub-titled "Extract from the Guardian book ...". The SCMP is a review of Leigh's book from which the writer has selected passages. Notice the quote marks around some of the phrases. It says at one point "The Guardian's account, quoting Walsh, says ... ". These sources support the statement that Leigh said Walsh told him Assange said something. Burrobert ( talk) 15:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
My point is that at no point do the sources say "Leigh said Walsh said Assange said something"; they say "Leigh said Assange said something". We can, of course, cite the book directly if that is your concern - and we already do that. BilledMammal ( talk) 15:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Disagree with the first part and agree with the second. Burrobert ( talk) 15:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I also disagree. There are numerous sources that refer to Goetz denial, and the Nation says of the Leigh claim “something many witnesses, including Goetz, who was present at the dinner, said is not true.” It’s appropriate and neutral to include it. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Only Nation link that is I can find is the one I provided in the RfC, and it doesn't include that quote. Can you provide it? Further, assuming that the Nation article is suitable, that leaves us with only one source for the claim that contributes towards WP:BALASP; I don't think that is sufficient. BilledMammal ( talk) 12:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I think you should look at [3] first before going on and on about Assange not caring about informants. At the very least it is another journalist Mark Davis (journalist) whose story casts doubt on what the book and Nick Davies say. NadVolum ( talk) 13:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Well that was a waste of my time, what exactly was I supposed to learn from that besides the fact that Davis is a well meaning fool and Consortium News is a joke? Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 14:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Davis is a respected reporter with awards. Consortium News is marked as generally unreliable but that doesn't mean that what it says can'tbe okay for other reasons. I'm not proposing putting the video into the article. Did you not see the bit from four minutes in that Nick Davies was lying when he said Assange had a cavalier attitude to life and that it was the Guardian journalists that had such an attitude with things like if they die they die, and that Assange was the only one to express any concern whatsoever about the lives of people. He later goes on about the NY Times wanting Assange to publish first but no-one being interested in helping Assange to mark what should be redacted in the database they set up together or extend the timeline to allow more time for redacting it. That's why Assange had to do so much of the work of redaction himself. NadVolum ( talk) 16:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Why do you say Consortium News is a joke? I've looked up some media monitors andyes there are some problems okay but they just classify it as left wing and seem to think it is fairly reliable. My major problem with it is not marking things as opinion. THe major thing people seem to have said about it in the various RSN discussions is that it doesn't agree with the mainstream sources and is therefore fringe - when not repeating the mainstream is practically its reason for existence in its about page. I saw a couple of stories by Robert Parry (journalist) whch are certainly dubious but he's dead now and they have some famous contributors. NadVolum ( talk) 17:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The Nation - What’s At Stake in Julian Assange’s Extradition Trial Cambial — foliar❧ 20:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
"Strangely, Leigh and Harding weren’t called to testify in court on this". Burrobert ( talk) 06:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
It wasn't a trial on the facts. They were just seeing if the extradition request was in order and there were no factors stopping him being extradited. NadVolum ( talk) 09:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Swedish sex crime allegations in the intro

If we don't mention the nature of the allegations it sounds like they were computer-related. What are we trying to hide? The body of the article makes the nature of the allegations clear in any case. Jack Upland ( talk) 04:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

RFC: Calling Assange a journalist

Should we refer to Julian Assange as a journalist? Wikinetman ( talk) 03:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply


Discussion (journalist)

I suggest you come forth with some new sources or a new argument as outlined at Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 17#Request for Comment - Journalist. Moxy🍁 03:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Document the dispute There is a real dispute, I don't think it can be said without attribution. Changed from yes but attribute, with a real dispute weshould document it. NadVolum ( talk) 20:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment What sources support the claim that Assange is a journalist? My understanding is that most sources reject the claim, including the Committee to Protect Journalists. In addition, where do you propose including it? We currently note a few times in the body that some individuals have called him a journalist (Assange's defenders have responded to U.S. accusations, describing him as a journalist who did nothing more than publish leaked information that embarrassed the U.S. government., O'Hagan refused the request and said to he "would not give a witness statement against a fellow journalist".) and that there has been a debate about whether he is one (After Assange's arrest in 2019, journalists and commenters debated about if Assange was a journalist.) If the proposal is to add it to the lede then I think that would be WP:UNDUE, given the lack of support for this claim. BilledMammal ( talk) 08:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • No I seem to recall the last time we had this some sources were brought forth saying he was a journalist, and other saying he was not. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Not without reliable sources: this isn't just a poll for Wikipedia editors; our personal opinions are not relevant. Wikipedia:Verifiability applies: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations." As well: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 14:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Status quo (summoned by bot). Per Moxy and BilledMammal above, I don't see any reason to alter the status quo from the previous RfC that we don't call him a journalist in Wikipedia-voice or in the lede, but we can document the controversy in the article body, to an encyclopedically appropriate extent. -- Visviva ( talk) 02:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • No this is not a description that is used by there is no consensus amonsgt reliable sources, therefor it would be WP:UNDUE. TarnishedPath talk 09:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Status quo I don't see a compelling reason to make this change or an argument for what has changed since the last RFC. Nemov ( talk) 19:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • No ( Summoned by bot): Per Moxy, BilledMammal, Nemov, and Visviva (maintain status quo). Nothing has changed since previous RfC -- Otr500 ( talk) 01:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • No, keep the status quo: I don't want to repeat my lengthy answer in the previous RfC, but the points remain valid. It remains controversial whether Assange is a journalist: see for example, [4]. He does not fit the conventional definition of a journalist which involves producing written and photographic content for news publications. This does not preclude us noting that he has been hailed as a journalist or noting his awards for journalism. What it does preclude is describing him as a journalist in "Wikivoice".-- Jack Upland ( talk) 02:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
No Sawitontwitter ( talk) 14:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • No He is not a journalist by any conventional definition of the world. Simply winning awards for breaking a story does not a journalist make. Avgeekamfot ( talk) 19:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Yes Julian Assange is a journalist. What exactly is a conventional definition of 'journalist,' and why would a journalist be required to meet such a definition before being called such? The Internet has changed how such things get defined. There are millions these days who perform journalistic functions online but whose content isn't produced for mainstream media organizations. Does that make their content any less journalistic or them less than journalists? I think this gets into opinion territory, so it would seem to be a discussion that may not come to a point of consensus, but it seems to me that someone who has performed the role of a journalist, as I believe Mr. Assange has, cannot be said to be anything other than a journalist. Coalcity58 ( talk) 01:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • No. He is not trained as a journalist and has not performed normal journalistic work. In fact, his actions violate journalistic ethics. He's something else. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 01:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    What in Journalism ethics and standards has he violated? NadVolum ( talk) 09:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    "Assange presents a particularly painful example of journalistic misconduct"; [5] "Julian Assange is not a journalist, said Kathy Kiely, a veteran reporter with four decades of experience in newsrooms and classrooms. He’s a broker of information, often motivated by his own political interests and rarely adherent to a code of ethics." [6] The following article shows why the question of whether Assange's actions are good or bad is not a settled one, and thus why we should present both sides here, without taking sides. It's complicated. (The article doesn't take a clear stand on whether or not he's a journalist.): "Why Journalists Aren't Defending Julian Assange"
    Whether he is or is not a journalist is not always relevant to those issues, so that makes this question a potential red herring in some cases. Whether he's a journalist and whether his actions are defensible are two different matters. This RfC is about whether he's a journalist, and I say he isn't. It's possible to take that position and still defend some of his actions, but that's not the purpose of this RfC. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 15:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Well at least that is something citable even though it is stupid. That Kathy Kiely should have been aware of what happened about the release of the unredacted files and not used it to back up an allegation of not having ethics. If anything it was the newspapers attacking him for doing it particularly the Guardian which lacked ethics. NadVolum ( talk) 17:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Could people come up with something objective that can be reasonably easily checked thanks if they want to say a definite yes or no. NadVolum ( talk) 09:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • No, keep the status quo: per reasoned, detailed argument of Jack Upland. He does not fit the conventional definition of a journalist which involves producing written and photographic content for news publications. This does not preclude us noting that he has been hailed as a journalist or noting his awards for journalism. What it does preclude is describing him as a journalist in "Wikivoice". Pincrete ( talk) 06:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply
This is WP:OR, we dont do our own interpretations of what a journalist is. We just follow what the sources say. This statement in fact indicates how weak the argument against using the journalist term is. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 05:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • No I do not see sources that support this claim and at most this is disputed. Perhaps we could document the dispute maybe but we would need to see more quality sources. Jorahm ( talk) 19:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, in some way The article subject has won multiple awards for being a journalist, so there is no reason for us to downplay that. We can certainly state that the term is controversial. We see sources such as this that state explicitly that the subject's critics dont want him to be called a journalist freedom of press foundation, US Govt, and PBS. All of these over the top statements that 'black is not black' from our encyclopedic perspective lends a lot of weight that something might be black, and thus makes it WP:DUE. Here at DUE we read "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources", therefore it is contrary to policy that we exclude this discussion/controversy. It is easy enough for us to summarize the topic and note the term is controversial or in dispute, but to whitewash it, is contrary to policy. Should we call him a journalist in wikivoice? WP:DUE says: "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. " Therefore, we would not say the subject is a journalist in wikivoice without qualification/clarification, but we also would not remove that many newspapers take the position that he is not a journalist, nor would we ignore the multiple notable journalism awards, therefore we should include both sides of the discussion to provide WP:BALANCE. I think a lot of this discussion above misses this point, and that policy here trumps the opinion of the editors that seem to want to line up on party lines. This article is often one of frequent disputes, and this dispute should probably be covered according to policy to end the journalist discussion Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 05:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    You write "All of these over the top statements that 'black is not black' from our encyclopedic perspective lends a lot of weight that something might be black, and thus makes it WP:DUE". That is an argument from original research. We should not be stating that because quite a number of sources disagree with the attribution, that therefore it must be true. To do so is specifically not allowed according to WP:NOR. The fact of the matter is that there is no agreement amongst reliable sources and if there is no agreement we should not be saying it in wikivoice in the lede. TarnishedPath talk 05:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
No its not even remotely OR, you yourself admit the controversy and confirm my point, stating "quite a number of sources disagree with the attribution." Who are they disagreeing with? ;-) You also dont address the journalism awards the subject has won. There cant be controversy when there is consensus, the two concepts are diametrically opposed. The very point that, & according to you, many sources "disagree with the attribution", demonstrates according to you at least, that a controversy exists. WP:QUACK applies here and there is nothing here that prevents us from covering the controversy. Your suggestion to just make it go away, saying 'nothing to see here' is flawed at its very root and contrary to wikipedia policy. I also dont see that this RFC relates to the WP:LEAD. Did I miss something? Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 08:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
We do mention all of this, just not as one word in the lede. Slatersteven ( talk) 08:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
When I do a search for the term "journalist" in my browser on the article, I saw only one mention referring to the subject as a journalist (I found many hits, but most were not related to the subject), and the hit I found was "Assange's defenders have responded to U.S. accusations, describing him as a journalist who did nothing more than publish leaked information that embarrassed the U.S. government.[428][429]" The only result that I found in the article seems to allege that only Assange's defenders refer to him as a journalist, and this statement appears to be non-neutral and conflicts with all the awards. Again, this RFC doesn't mention WP:LEAD so it seems you are alleging the RFC is based on the lead, I would like to see some evidence of this other than just your assumption. You and the editor above are putting forth this claim, but that is not part of the RFC. Do you have any evidence that the the subject of this RFC is the lead, or are you just arguing (without evidence) that point? Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 09:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
So as I said we do mention he is described as a journalist, what we can't do it put it in our words. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I was going to respond the same as Steven however the Android app sucks so I had to wait until I got home. @ Jtbobwaysf there is material about it being a matter of debate in the Julian Assange#Commentary about Assange section. Now if you wanted to add to that, that would be an entirely different discussion. You are correct that this RfC is about whether we should refer to him as an journalist in article voice anywhere in the article, my apologies there. However it still comes down to the same situation where there is no agreement amongst the reliable sources and no one during this RfC has presented any analysis to demonstrate how the discussion amongst reliable sources has changed since last time. Given that there is no agreement amongst reliable sources it would be WP:UNDUE to call him a journalist in article voice. TarnishedPath talk 10:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
As NadVolum says above, we can document the dispute/controversy and there should be no prohibition against using wikivoice in this description. A blanket ban on it is incorrect and against policy. We dont need agreement in RS to use that term in wikivoice if it is properly attributed, there is no such policy that states this, WP:BALANCE covers this. Too many opinions on this article talk page if Assange is or is not a journalist, this is not the point. The point is if our ban on use of the term in wikivoice adheres to policy, and I say it does not. Maybe we need to amend this statement "After Assange's arrest in 2019, journalists and commenters and wikipedians debated about if Assange was a journalist." I am joking here, we will not cover this, but it does forward my point that we are debating if he is a journalist here, and that is not the point. The point is if DUE and BALANCE allow us to use it in wikivoice and what circumstances. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 10:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't see any argument against documenting the dispute/controversy. The question asks, should we call him a journalist, with the implication being that we do so in article voice. Now the answer to that question is simple and I'll repeat myself again. There is no agreement amongst reliable sources so no we shouldn't call him a journalist.
Now if you want to further document the dispute/controversy, I'd recommend suggesting edits in another thread because this isn't it. TarnishedPath talk 10:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Here in this RFC we are discussing if use of the journalist term in wikivoice is allowed/prohibited. My position is that "prohibited" is against policy. The arguments above that this RFC relates to LEAD are a convenient way to strawman that RS consensus is required to use the term in wikivoice. This position is false and against policy. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 10:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
No, it is an assumption of where we would say he is a Journalist (where else would we say he is a journalist?), based on past edits. And wp:npov is clear, we do not say something is a fact that is contested, RS contests the idea he is a journalist. So its an opinion, not a fact. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
You and Tarnished are making the argument that for wikivoice we must have RS in alignment. WP:BALANCE states "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint" and WP:WIKIVOICE (under NPOV which you quoted) states "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them" as well as plenty of other text to that characterizes this discussion, but none of it offers up your view that we need consensus in the RS to use it. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 11:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Exaclty "describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint", not take a side in the said dispute. So we would say "has been called...but other disagree not "is". Slatersteven ( talk)
Per Slatersteven, if you want to flesh out why there is disagreement, then certainly there are already others saying to discuss it. However that is not what is being asked here. TarnishedPath talk 11:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • No. the term has a specific defined meaning relating to principles, practices, and procedures. Assange's work does not stay within or observe those limitations to his chosen mission. Use of the term would confuse or mislead our readers. Description is more valuable than labeling. SPECIFICO talk 16:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Julian_Assange&oldid=1221722117"