Talk:Julian Assange

lobbying

This sentence "In 2022, the incoming Labor government of Anthony Albanese reversed the position of previous Australian governments and began to lobby for Assange's release." in the last paragraph of the lead strikes me as undue. It appears to be WP:PROMO for this politician advocating that he had some role in the subject's return. Do we have good sources for this? My understand is that it was more or less that the US DOJ gave up and folded their cards when the supreme court in the UK ruled in the subject's favor, thereby making it very risky that the subject was going to be released and the DOJ would get nothing to show for years of efforts. Its not a big issue, I just don't think we should be promoting politicians that are seeking to promote something (if that is what is going on here). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body and this is not mentioned in the body. The body does say that Albanese's government "indicated that it opposed the continued prosecution of Assange but intended to pursue quiet diplomacy to prevent it". Perhaps we should say that instead and attribute the statement to the government rather than use wikivoice. My recollection is that the government was challenged a number of times about what it was doing for Assange and responded by saying "enough is enough" and it was time Assange was released. As far as I can recall it didn't provide specifics about what it was doing. On the other hand, Assange seems to have been happy with whatever the government did because he "told Albanese that he had saved his life" and "endors[ed] Albanese for the 2025 Australian federal election, expressing gratitude for the Prime Minister's role in his release". Burrobert (talk) 08:45, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My dear Comrade Burrobert, this sentence in the introduction does summarise the body. We note Prime Minister Gillard's branding of Assange's actions as illegal, Attorney General Roxon's so-called "declaration of abandonment", and we used to include the smutty comment that PM Morrison made about Comrade Pamela Anderson (since edited out). We also note the tireless efforts of Andrew Wilkie MP. I suggest you take time over this holiday period to read this article through, perhaps while sitting on a beach in Mexico City! If you did so, you would find that the sentence in question does summarise the body. In addition, we do not say in wikivoice that Albanese got Assange released. As you note, this is a comment that Assange made. Nor do we need to make a judgement about which factor was decisive. We just lay out the facts. It sounds to me as if there was a combination of factors involved.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds to me there was one singular thing, it was the US DOJ giving up after the huge UK court defeat, and they were looking at a total loss after a decade and wanted to save face. This is the reason that I think the current is essentially political puffery by Albanese. Just my view, but good that others have chimed in. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But I'm guessing you're not Australian. Assange is, and so are Burrobert and I. The Australian perspective is relevant, even though you foreigners might belittle us!Jack Upland (talk) 06:17, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a lot of good sources that state that this change in the Australian govt position resulted in his release. The first sentence in this paragraph in the lead implies it was key to his release, almost a key point. Or is this just some synth? Is the summary of the Australian govt change in position even worth of the lead in this location? It does seem to be, as you admit, some sort of Australian position on this, I am not sure these type of positions in the lead are DUE. If you think it is worthy, maybe it should be moved up the preceding lead paragraph so it doesn't give the reader the wrong image of it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:51, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, it was irrelevant. But good luck contradicting any of the mythos promoted by the cult of Assange. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:03, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think much lobbying was really needed at the end! The aim of the americans was to make his life hell keeping him in prison and hounding him through the courts, I think they actually said that at one point. They really did not wish for him to be actually extradited and become their problem in court dealing with the actual issues with an audience in America. NadVolum (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So the Poms and the Seppos don't think us Aussie's matter, but this is about an Australian who resides Down Under, at the arse-end of the Earth. If you don't want to participate rationally, please unfollow the page! Jack Upland (talk) 05:58, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
PS Lobbying works — just look at the successes of Amnesty International! Jack Upland (talk) 05:58, 13 January 2026 (UTC)(talk) 05:56, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
PPS If you look at the Guardian source and read it carefully, it does indicate that Albo's position was a departure from the line taken by previous Australian governments. Therefore, if you demand a source for the sentence in the intro, you could cite the Guardian. The Guardian is a reliable source. In addition, we do not at Wikipedia operate according to the principle of one thing at the exclusion of all others. There were several factors in Assange's release, and it appears Albo's intervention was one of them. In any case, the onus of producing a source should be on you. If you think that crediting Albo is just boosterism, then produce a source by a reputable source that says so. Otherwise your self-described opinions are just a mound of horseshit!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 06:24, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've no objection to that. I was just pointing out it was very convenient all round at the end. And he very possibly did do quite a bit of useful work as more political people were needed and they are not the same as the security forces. NadVolum (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the text to: "In 2022, the incoming Labor government of Anthony Albanese reversed the position of previous Australian governments and said it would lobby for Assange's release." I think this deals with objections to the fact that we don't know what the "quiet diplomacy" actually entailed. It would be actually interesting to see analysis of why Assange was released when he was. It appears that the US government, the Australian government, the High Court of England and Wales, and Assange himself all changed their tune. But why? Has anyone seen commentary on this??? Courts are said to be impartial, but a law professor once told me that in reality courts are swayed by public opinion, protests, and lobbying...Jack Upland (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is helpful, I also moved it up one space to be the end of the previous paragraph. Is that ok with you? The reason is that I think in the sentence immediately preceding release, it implies it is related (given it is in the same paragraph). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC states But the origins of the deal – after so many years of deadlock – probably began with the election of a new Australian government in May 2022 that brought to power an administration determined to bring home one of its citizens detained overseas. [1]. We aren't stating in wikivoice that the change in administration position directly resulted in the deal anyways, at most we are suggesting there is some sort of connection by the juxtaposition of those two sentences in the lead. So I don't think the lead has any issues in that regard. Katzrockso (talk) 03:03, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Great the BBC. When the only thing of note to them during the trial was that he got married in prison. Such a strong grasp of what the news was and their duty to convey it. But yes that article is fine to use. NadVolum (talk) 11:04, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on hacking charges in Infobox

Should the 24 counts of hacking that Assange pleaded guilty to in 1996 in Australia be included in the infobox?Jack Upland (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Polling

  • Yes. Please see the above discussion. Assange is described as a hacker multiple times in the article, and there is a substantial section which deals with his hacking activities, his arrest and trial, his conviction on 24 counts of hacking, and his sentencing. We shouldn't include some convictions and not include others. Mentioning hacking in the infobox is longstanding content and should never have been removed.Jack Upland (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • No I would say this penalty is WP:UNDUE as it is old minor event and not really salient to the article summary. It is in fact not well known and is sort of WP:TRIVIA that shouldnt be promoted with such weight as to influence NPOV. Per WP:BLPBALANCE says "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints". I would say the viewpoint that the subject is even a criminal is a POV and the use of criminal infobox and terms is fringe. Thus, I would say remove all the criminal penalties from the infobox (I think that makes me an A, noting I am beyond the all or nothing rationale), I am saying rather remove as it is all undue per WP:BLP reasons. Currently we talk about months of penalties. One of the penalties was simply time served. The subject isn't primarily known for this very old hacking case, nor the penalties, he is known as one of the most notable political prisoners of his time. There is probably a more appropriate way to deal with this in the infobox, and if we cant find a way, then delete it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Options include:
A Removing all charges and penalties from the infobox on the grounds it should be all or nothing.
B Including hacking and the Swedish investigation.
C Leaving the hacking out of the infobox.

Thank you for your attention to this!--Jack Upland (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack Upland shouldn't this be in the RfC itself? Katzrockso (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. The RfC question should be as simple as possible. I'm just pointing out there are several options. You could nuke the criminal portion of the infobox entirely. After all, the amount of criminal charges he has faced is extensive. 24 counts of hacking, X counts of espionage, one count of skipping bail. That's a valid response: no, it should be in the infobox because no charges should be in the infobox. That is what I have called Option A. Then we have Option B which includes the Swedish investigation which was dropped in 2019. Or there's Option C, which is leaving the hacking out but keeping skipping bail and espionage.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And there might be an Option D which I haven't thought of. Let's let the arguments flow. A simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice for the moment.Jack Upland (talk) 06:19, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Option D would be including the hacking but not the Swedish investigation. Sorry I missed that earlier... Jack Upland (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessary to provide a list of pre-determined options. This is a Wikipedia:Requests for comment, not a "request for votes". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I just read about it again and you're right - a bad mistake on my part. The standard age for youth in most cases is less than 18. After that expunging of minor crimes normally takes far longer like 10 years or even never. I'd thought he'd done them earlier even though the cases were later. NadVolum (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • A, remove all criminal charges from the infobox. My second choice is B, include all criminal charges in the infobox. I don't agree that the earlier conviction are somehow unimportant or undue – nearly the entire Early life section is about his hacking activities, and those charges seem to have been important to that period of his life. However, infoboxes inherently provide a reductionist view of things, and as such I'd prefer if none of the charges were listed there. Toadspike [Talk] 14:44, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I advocate Option A - we should remove all criminal charges and penalties from the infobox. This is because the earlier (1990s) charges are comparatively trivial, and later charges are broadly viewed as retaliation for this publishing activities (see for example, recently: Deepa, D., 2025. Silencing Whistleblowers and Their Allies: The Torture of Julian Assange. In Perspectives on Whistleblowing (pp. 128-158). Bristol University Press, and, Kampmark, B., 2025. Julian Assange and the US Imperium: Targeting the Information Insurgency. In The Political Economy of Dissent (pp. 239-251). Routledge). -Darouet (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please add those titles to "Books and films featuring Assange"? Jack Upland (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Jack Upland: I've added the first, as much of it concerns Assange. In the second book, I believe it's just one chapter. -Darouet (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Darouet, I think the second book would still be relevant. Some of the books include other subjects apart from Assange. That's why I chose the title, "Books and films featuring Assange. Jack Upland (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • No See Template:Infobox (which lists criminal convictions): "it is generally reserved for convicted serial killers, gangsters, mass murderers, old west outlaws, murderers, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 Most Wanted, serial rapists, mobsters, and other notorious criminals....[It] is rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal." It's also a BLP violation to use the template improperly.
There was a similar RfC, Talk:Tommy Robinson/Archive 5#Rfc regarding list of criminal convictions in infobox Robinson is a far right activist who has been imprisoned for crimes unrelated to his political activism. It was decided not to list his convictions in the info-box because his notability was due to his activism, not his criminal activity.
TFD (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Assange was a fugitive. Jack Upland (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One can be a fugitive without being primarily know for criminal conduct. TarnishedPathtalk 03:13, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • B This is a part and parcel of who he is, it's how he first came to notice. Half the article is about his crimes or the court cases surrounding them. Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Slatersteven, are you sure you mean Option C? That means excluding hacking from the infobox... Jack Upland (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Your right. Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE "The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose" I do not see that information as necessary for the info. Tepkunset (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    NO - I would have to agree with @Tepkunset and the MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE policy. Less is more and I don't think I want to set precedence by adding charges and crimes into infoboxes. MaximusEditor (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, my mistake, just been pointed out to me thathe wasn't a youth at the time of the early Australian hacking, he wasn't less than 18. Still think its undue and clutters up the box and better off just in the early life section. It isn't as though hacking was unusual then though it was just about starting to change to its modern association. And it wasn't particularly difficult then either despite the hype. Today it has become an industry done by people with no morals and professionals producing the hacking code. In film terms it was about the end of the War Games era and the start of the Sneakers and Hackers one. NadVolum (talk) 09:23, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny, I thought the Robert Redford character and the Sidney Poitier character and the rest of the gang were the heroes of Sneakers!!! Jack Upland (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, infoboxes have limited space and provide no context; they should be limited to the most significant aspects of the subject. Compared to the other things already there this is not very significant and has received comparatively little coverage. His other criminal charges, however, should be there - they received massive amounts of coverage for years on end (making up something like half the lead) so they can't be excluded. --Aquillion (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A - Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the charges do not seem to due in the info box, as the subject is not notable for them, not primarily at least. signed, Kvinnen (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - The infobox emphasis should should mirror the article's emphasis. Highlighting his criminal record overstates it when compared to the article. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, obviously, snow is falling. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:34, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. I suppose I'm in the minority here but it should be included on the grounds that his hacking convictions are relevant to his later life as a leaker of hacked information. It seems that this would allow a reader to understand more context about how he got to where he became notable. If he had never done the hacking that led to the convictions, he may not have gone down the path of becoming a major government data leaker. We can't really speculate on this of course, but it speaks to the notability of the events that such a question could even be asked. I think that we ought to keep this info in the inbox to provide the fullest picture of Assange's conduct possible. In short: his criminal conduct led to his leaking which is what he is notable for in the first place. Bill Heller (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We do already include that he is a hacker in the infobox, here we are discussing inclusion of the sentence related to the hacking. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Lets see MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE which says "The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article." Assange is mostly known as a political prisoner (or someone who went to extraordinary steps to live in a consulate to avoid being a political prisoner for as long as possible). Worship him or despise him, this is an indisputable fact. We do not equate political prisoner with criminal, and thus the use of criminal terms in the infobox is grossly WP:UNDUE, particularly in terms of the very high WP:WEIGHT afforded by the infobox. Let's look at Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi, Václav Havel, Lech Wałęsa, etc all of them do not have anything about incarceration in the infobox (although I think all were incarcerated, please correct me if I am wrong). Most of Assange's notable time in detention wasn't even incarceration, it was him hiding out at the consulate in London to avoid being sent to the US to face a sealed (but eventually accidentally released) indictment. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Food for thought. Some people say that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist... But the consensus seems to be that he was a political prisoner... I don't know if there is a consensus about Assange though. The Commentary article seems to indicate there is a diverse range of views: anti-Semitic fascist, Russian agent, Trump supporter, crusading journalist etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Some people say that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist" is exactly my point and why we do not cover these things in wikipedia in that weight. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
PS Embassy rather than consulate. Jack Upland (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
+1 TarnishedPathtalk 03:52, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But there is no consensus on Assange, as I said and as you know.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think your arguments appear to be in favor of removal as well as you are also admitting that there is no consensus that the subject is a criminal. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:21, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am on the fence, as I indicated in the previous discussion. I agree with Toadspike above: it is either Option A or Option B. Option C is censorship and horribly misleading. Option A appears to be in the lead at present, and I am happy with that. Assange has faced so many charges we can't possibly fit them all in the infobox!!! Jack Upland (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Jack Upland, the lead certainly details Assange's legal travails. If you mean that the infobox omits all charges and penalties, that is incorrect. It currently includes the following:

Criminal charges: Failure to surrender to the court (2022); Conspiracy to Obtain and Disclose National Defence Information (2024); Criminal penalty: Good behaviour bond and fine (1996); 50 weeks imprisonment (2022); 62 months time served (2024)

You seem to be arguing that other editors aren't reading the page. What they are saying however is that the charges are either relatively trivial, or politically motivated and thus improper to be included in the infobox. -Darouet (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be confused. I am well aware of what is in the infobox, I have been editing it recently, and edit conflicts led to this RfC. You have just proved my contention that other editors are not reading before writing! Jack Upland (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Jack Upland I am not confused, unless your statement Option A appears to be in the lead at present is not referring to "the lead at present," is not referring to the infobox at present, or, is not referring to "Option A." -Darouet (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are confused. "Lead" has at least four meanings in English. When I said Option A appears to be in the lead I meant that it was winning. I suggest you read before editing! Jack Upland (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. There's no reason why one or multiple readings of truly polysemous text is will resolve this kind of problem. But I can see you did not intend to cause this confusion. -Darouet (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is editing of the infobox continuing after the RFC as well? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:11, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you're driving at. Editing of the infobox will continue as long as editors want it to. After the RfC the infobox should be adjusted to take note of the consensus, and I hope all editors are mature enough to abide by the consensus!--Jack Upland (talk) 04:21, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
About that he probably would not be treated leniently in America, that is one of the harshest justice systems in the world. However even in America one can apply to have a crime committed in ones youth expunged from police records - in fact it is pretty standard to do so automatically after a term like three or five years for convictions below the age of 18 throughout the world except for quite serious ones like mamslaughter. I don't think Wikipedia should have infoboxes which are harsher than common justice practice. NadVolum (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the USA is one of the harshest justice systems in the world. But it is certainly harsher than Australia in many respects. If Assange's hacking convictions were expunged that would be a valid argument to remove from this article, but they haven't been!!! And anyway Assange has said he has been reading general's emails since he was 17. That sounds boastful to me. He worked on the book Cypherpunks. He doesn't shy away from the fact that he was a teenage hacker!!! Please take time this holiday season to read through the article from top to bottom!!! Jack Upland (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Australian states can release the details in more cases than many other places but for general purposes his should have been automatically considered spent after five years. As to being harsh see for instance List of countries by incarceration rate. NadVolum (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that the US has a high rate of incarceration and also a high rate of plea bargaining. But I think you're overgeneralising.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
PS The question of whether the hacking conviction appears on Assange's criminal record is a weak point. The hacking conviction is covered by multiple reliable sources (and by Assange's comments as well). He now has a criminal record for skipping bail and espionage as well. I am a bit surprised he is allowed to fly to France at least twice. NB that he had to fly back to Australia on a charter flight because he couldn't fly on a commercial airline. Again, you're motivation seems to be to airbrush inconvenient facts out of the article using legalistic debating points and bureaucratic subterfuge. Please read the article before commenting further! Jack Upland (talk) 05:23, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The question here is whether it should appear in the infobox. He is a public figure and I agree it is fine in the text with the context. The description of how crime should be treated in the infobox is something I agree with. This is a biography of a living person and we should not stick stuff in as 'info' about him that is not generally accepted as info we should put into a short description of anyone even if true. It is generally accepted that many youths commit minor crimes and that should not be part of standard information that follows them throughout their lives. And as to reading the article I contributed to it a number of times before he was freed and am quite familiar with its contents. NadVolum (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So you haven't read the article from top to bottom. Case closed! Jack Upland (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think the example of Tommy Robinson is inapposite. Unlike Robinson, Assange's criminal convictions relate pretty closely to his activism and computer programming. The Swedish investigation into alleged sex crimes was also pivotal in Assange's decision to take refuge in the embassy and was widely believed by Assange and his supporters to be connected with the US indictment. As Slatersteven said, half the article is about criminal investigations and convictions. This continual argument that Assange is known for WikiLeaks and not for the various criminal investigations which saw him fined, seek refuge in the embassy, and jailed in Belmarsh prison, seems to me just biased denialism. As stated ad nauseum, various sources do mention his hacking conviction, which after all he pled guilty to! So why would a bona fide editor deny this???Jack Upland (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has policies and it isn't Musk's X. What I would remove from the infobox is "Good behaviour bond and fine (1996)" as it was a youth crime and not major and those are normally expunged within a few years in law. And I wouldn't stick a criminal charge that was not supported by a conviction into an infobox either, the template specifically says the parameters should only be used for actual convictions. There's loads of text space to put in such things with appropriate context in the article under the public figures clause of WP:BLP. NadVolum (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The "Good behaviour bond and fine" should be there actually, as the hacking charges were removed. Once again there was an edit which was performed without reading the context!--Jack Upland (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is silly, this 'good behavior and bond' isn't remotely compliant with MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Its going to be time to drop the stick pretty soon, look to me like the horse has already collapsed under the weight of the SNOW. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant to say, "The 'Good behaviour bond and fine' should not be there actually, as the hacking charges were removed. My mistake! My point was that the editor removed the charge but neglected to remove the penalty. As to SNOW, I am now inclined to Option A: remove all criminal charges and penalties from the infobox. Assange's history of criminal investigations, charges, and convictions cannot be summed up and there is clearly vast divergences of opinions and editorial practices on the issues. If not Option A, I would go with Option D.Jack Upland (talk) 05:30, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to me that you are a No vote, and the A distinction is irrelevant. I am confused why you have now recently added a D distinction. I commented above that the A vote was not relevant to me as an additional distinction beyond the No !vote. I am a No !Vote and I rejected the all or nothing criteria and other letter based criteria you proposed. It is also not how wikipedia works, we determine if something is DUE and if it is NPOV. This infobox criminal content is neither. Adding this low quality content that is somewhat trivial thus not compliant with INFOBOXPURPOSE. Thus seems very snowy for nothing in the infobox, especially given that your more recent comments seem to be a NO vote in conflict with your above yes !vote. Anyhow, it is great that you brought up this subject, as I suppose the dispute had been ongoing for some time. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:46, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

10 of 12 participants thus far (~83%) think this should not be in the infobox. I wonder if they are all part of the cabal determined to airbrush inconvenient biographical facts follow BLP policy. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:46, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a cabal of Assangists who now dominate the page. The anti-Assangists who viewed him as a fascist have left the stage. The Assangists are Knights Templar (see WP:TEMPLAR) on a crusade to rescue a man they describe as a "hero" or even the "Son of God" and rant that the BBC is a biased source. They have attempted to airbrush inconvenient biographical facts out of the article, with some success: the Swedish sex crimes investigation, the hacking convictions etc, etc. People like me who want a neutral article, a warts-and-all biography, face a uphill battle against a wall of text from the same cabal who don't read the article and go off half-cocked at any whisper of criticism of St Julian. Jack Upland (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a wp:soapbox please stop. Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am entitled to stand up for WP:NPOV and combat WP:BIAS. I don't think WP:SOAPBOX is relevant to my behaviour.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:15, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Assangists have now conceded that Assange's conviction in 1996 was not juvenile offence, as he was around 20 at the time — 18 being the cutoff for juvenile offences. Moreover, it should be noted that Assange married his girlfriend Teresa and had a son Daniel in 1989, having moved out from his mum's place at age 17. Hence he was taking full responsibility as an adult from an early age. It is patronising and unfair to say that in 1996 Assange wasn't a full adult. He was married and had a child. Then he fought for the custody of Daniel until winning it in 1999. In the middle of this he was charged with 31 counts of hacking and ended up pleading guilty to 24. Seriously the Assangists have not read the article. This is paralleled by the above discussion about Assange's sex life where it was seriously argued that readers might have the impression that he was an "incel" (involuntary celibate). In fact, there is copious evidence that St Julian had sex, notably his copious childen and the two Swedish women who complained about him. That is why I say read the article. I have read it multiple times. Why didn't you crew???--Jack Upland (talk) 05:29, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Assangists also say that 24 counts of hacking was a minor offence in 1996. I don't think that's true, and naturally the Assangists provide no sources for their assertions. I think based on the sources in the article that Assange was one of the first hackers to be put on trial in Australia. This is bound out by his own claims. Again, read the article and look at the cited sources. He portrayed himself as an "ethical hacker" and, OK, the judge gave him a lenient sentence because of his disrupted childhood and his lack of mercenary intent. But nevertheless reading generals' emails is a crime! There is a history of treating criminals as heroes, from Robin Hood to Ned Kelly, but no sensible historian says they weren't criminals. We now have the situation where the Assangists are trying to airbrush out references to St Julian as a hacker because they know that doesn't sit well with their claims that he is as pure as the driven snow. On the contrary it dovetails with the US charges of espionage which did indeed accuse Assange (who boasted about being a hacker) of conspiring with Manning to hack. Again, if you doubt me, read the article! Hacking is a serious crime — though some people think it shouldn't be — and any serious hacker (such as St Julian who claims he was reading general's emails from the age of 17) knows they are breaking the law. And he was not a juvenile, as stated above. He was just treated leniently. So all the above arguments about not including the hacking in the infobox fall apart due to their internal contradictions and inherent hypocrisy. Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED. That only leaves Option A. I recall that Assangists objected to the bail skipping being included in the infobox. Now that seems to be accepted. But if you include some convictions you should include all. It is an all or nothing issue, as I said before.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    'Good behaviour bond and fine' is the evidence it was minor, you might think the judge was too lenient but that is what happened. As to all this Assangists business, could you just cut it and take it done a couple of rungs thanks. The discussion is about the infobox not the article. NadVolum (talk) 07:58, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I will not cease to call out the Assangists who worship the cult of St Julian, because they violate WP:NPOV. The infobox is an "at a glance" summary of the article, so what happens in the infobox affects the whole article. I never said the judge was "too lenient"; I just said the judge was "lenient". According to the sources in the article, St Julian was facing 290 years in prison. You and your (Personal attack removed) co-thinkers pretend that this is a minor sentence! Whatever, dudes! You NadVolum have openly admitted you edit the article without reading it, QED. I would again urge all participants to actually read the article and edit according. This article could be great, but biased, fly-by-night editing doesn't cut the mustard. --Jack Upland (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF also applies to the general average sum of the participation on this article and the consensus that has emerged over the years. The apparent allegation that some sort of cabal exists here I don't think is consistent with AGF. I don't think it is true that such cabal exists and at least I haven't personally seen it here. Also be aware that WP:BLP also applies to this talk page, in addition to the article mainspace. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the article a number of times over the years, I'm not sure were you got the idea I hadn't. And if you knew it so well you should have caught my mistake. NadVolum (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for making that assumption. To be honest I couldn't quite follow your argument. I think if this is an important point we need a legal commentary from a lawyer based in Victoria. I have worked in the Australian court system, but this doesn't give me confident to pronounce on the issue, rather it makes me more wary. I think we go with what the sources say and there are plenty of sources which say Assange was a leading hacker — including Assange himself. It would be different if there was little or no coverage of Assange's hacking convictions, but there is a lot.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Be advised of WP:OWN. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a case of "ownership"; it's a case of standing up for WP:NPOV and WP:RS. We have to represent the views of the American, Swedish, British, and Australian governments as well as the opinions of Assange and his supporters. WP:OR about whether Assange's hacking convictions were minor offences etc has no place in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We do not "have to represent the views of the American, Swedish, British, and Australian governments" as you allege. We follow WP:DUE and MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. We don't need to consult with an attorney nor do we need the advice of a legal expert in Australia. Your comments are starting to dominate this talk page, and some of them are just blantently wrong (such as this assertion that we need to refer to a legal expertise need stating "I have worked in the Australian court system"). In some cases above also please be advised of WP:NOTFORUM. Let's just give it a rest please, this RFC is really snowy at this point in time. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's a big responsibility you've taken on yourself to represent Fourteen Eyes 🕵️ or however many it is now versus the benighted editors on Wikipedia. 😀 NadVolum (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Better than being one–eyed, I guess!Jack Upland (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

@Cambial Yellowing: Please familiarize yourself more with SD conventions before throwing around vague links with no elaboration. Biography SDs always include the birth and/or death dates except in limited circumstances. Due to WP:SD40, Australian editor and founder of WikiLeaks can't both be included, so as Assange is more notable for the latter, the former should be excluded. Thanks, HKLionel TALK 18:18, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if you didn't follow me around to revert my edits. You do have the right to do so, but you used a generic edit summary for each revert without addressing the specific SDs individually, straining my assumptions of good faith. Anyhow, let's discuss John Shipton and WikiLeaks Party here as well for convenience. For Shipton, once again, the birth and/or death dates should be included per WP:SDDATES, but his status as WikiLeaks Party founder is essentially insignificant—the lead states, first and foremost, that he is best known as the father of Julian Assange. Yet that isn't the only thing Shipton's notable for either, so using the basic SD format is the best choice (Australian activist), which—incidentally—is the exact format you linked to, so again, please familiarize yourself with the guidelines you use to justify your edits. For the WLP: WP:SDAVOID former, Australian is shorter than in Australia, and minor is right in the lead. HKLionel TALK 18:45, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Cambrial Yellowing is a long standing contributor to articles related to Julian Assange, there is no following around that I can see. NadVolum (talk) 23:56, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I respect their work, but the issue lies more with them using the same generic edit summary for all 3 reverts. HKLionel TALK 08:35, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Given your close familiarity, you'll know that SD40 is not a strict limitation. Assange is notable as the editor and/or publisher of Wikileaks. It's therefore inappropriate to fail to include the word "editor" or "publisher". No objection to a change to "Australian publisher of WikiLeaks (b 1971)" or "Australian editor of WikiLeaks (b 1971)". The self-aggrandising belief that your edits are so interesting I might choose to "follow [you] around" does not merit a response. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:15, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's a useful guideline to follow and remains something to be aimed towards. I'll do as you suggest. I only said so because the reverts were made within minutes of each other and with the same edit summary. HKLionel TALK 17:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On WikiLeaks Party - the addition of a value judgment is not an improvement to a short description. As per my edit summary, the prior version was better. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:20, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Again, former should be avoided, so I'll add the date range instead as you find labels disagreeable, which I can agree with. You haven't addressed Shipton. HKLionel TALK 17:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, your proposed compromise is not acceptable. Self-revert to what it was before and then we can discuss here. We have had a lot of discussions and probably RFCs on this (to get wider consensus). There is no consensus to simply refer to the subject as wikileaks founder and exclude the term editor or journalist. You might be new to this article, but this is viewed as NPOV. You are already off to a bad start here, showing up and changing long standing content (that is ok and happens all the time, sometimes as a mistake), but to go on and make it personal (saying the Cambial is following you around reverting) is really more of a personal attack. I think you can see in the lead that the subject has won like two dozen awards on journalism, so it should be clear to you now (if it wasnt earlier) you are trying to make a change that is a clear violation of NPOV and now I am advising you this is not local consensus in this case. I would take a step back, read through the talk page archives about the many many discussions on this, and then maybe seek a different approach (or drop it). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why it is unacceptable when it is not something that anyone has expressed opposition to, hence the start of a new BRD cycle. I see no need to self-revert until you have an actual rationale for opposing the change, apart from not being the consensus, which I would have no way of knowing. If you could link to any of these discussions/RFCs, and maybe put them in a talk page banner for future reference, that would be helpful.
Reminder that NPOV stands for neutral point of view, so technically you said that I'm doing the right thing, but I'll assume you meant a NPOV violation. That is not a personal attack because I am basing the assumption on the clear successive reverts within minutes with the same edit summary, which you can easily find and is indisputable evidence. I clearly stated that Cambial had the right to do so, and that I would appreciate it if they expressed a clearer rationale for their reverts, so it is not an attack but rather a suggestion and/or reminder.
As far as I'm concerned, the subject won that many awards in journalism because of Wikileaks (and their activity in it), but I don't see what that has to do with the latest change, which Cambial themself suggested. HKLionel TALK 14:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't want to get involved in your editor reverts issue that is beyond the scope of this talk page. If you think there is some sort of behavior issues, WP:ANI is the venue for that. I'm not an admin, and while I have been around a while, other editor's behavior has never been much of an interest to me (I do make a report here and there, but generally just leave it be). I noted that Cambial also denied it above and didn't want to engage with you on that either. I have had editors go through and revert a few of my edits in a flurry, probably someone that looked at my contributions. But I have done the same thing a few times as well, when I have noticed what I thought was an editor pushing some sort of odd POV or maybe spamming (I am not accusing you of this, I am talking about when I have done it). I think we all might have looked at other edits from time to time, but I haven't looked at your edits or those that you claim were reverted by the editor, so I have no idea really what is being discussed. Next, there really isn't much to discuss here about your idea that Assange isn't a journalist and is just the founder of wikileaks, this has been covered ad nauseum on these talk pages, so its a waste of time to discuss it one by one going forward. I would point you to the existing talk page archives on this subject. This is a weird article where certain subjects just come up again and again. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is going to prevail here, meaning we have had RFCs on it and probably discussions on noticeboards on exactly this subject, so no manner of discussion with me is going to overturn that. This sort of subject I have seen on other broader areas editors are sick of it, so it ('hey I think Assange isnt a journalist' and want to overturn consensus) wont go well, its already been decided and put to bed. Given that the subject is now free from his lockup and back to activism (or journalism whatever we want to call it) very very little chance that this article is going to get turned into a wikileaks article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any behavior issue; again, they have every right to look at my contributions and revert edits they disagree with, especially as the scope of the pages is within their expertise, which I respect. I just believe they can make better use of the edit summary.
Before I came along, the SD already stated Australian editor and founder of WikiLeaks, so Cambial's suggestion only removed founder and added his birth year, which I don't think propagates the idea that Assange isn't a journalist. If you have issues with their suggestion, take it up with them, not me. HKLionel TALK 06:41, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Julian_Assange