Select Page

Talk:Julian Assange

Revert

@2403:4800:7498:5E14:14CB:4772:FD87:817, you added material at Special:Diff/1249324712 which was challenged by me reverting at Special:Diff/1249325134. Per active arbitration remedies in place for this article "Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page".
You re-inserted the material at Special:Diff/1249346735 without obtaining consensus in the article's talk page and thus you are in violation of the active arbitration remedies. Please revert immediately and then discuss. TarnishedPathtalk 13:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why a primary source couldn't be used.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well for starters if it's not covered by secondary sources it can't really be considered significant enough for inclussion. There's also WP:BLPPRIMARY to consider. TarnishedPathtalk 02:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point of raising the issue of the flight cost and excluding the fact it was paid for.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article already states: "Assange was required by the Australian government to repay the costs of the charter flight for his transfer from the United Kingdom to Saipan and then to Australia as he was not permitted to fly on commercial airlines. The total amount requested by the Australian government for the charter flight stands at US$520,000" which is cited with a secondary source. It pretty much states that the Australian government paid for it in the first instance. If the other stuff was in want of being added so much then there should exist a secondary source to support it. TarnishedPathtalk 02:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also think we can update the text to make it correct. No reason to have text we know to be untrue. This is a very high quality primary source, so it is fine to use, and we can use the other secondary sources around the flight costs to determine it is DUE for inclusion. Lets just update as the IP suggested. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jtbobwaysf there's absolutely nothing incorrect about the current prose. Just because an article doesn't cover absolutely every last factoid, doesn't make it incorrect. If the material is truly significant enough for inclusion then it will be covered by a secondary source. There's no need to rush. TarnishedPathtalk 22:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, you're misusing the word "factoid". I think you mean "trivia". The current text implies that Assange was forced to pay the cost of the charter flight, whereas in fact Wau Holland paid it. Wau Holland being a prominent Wikileaks donor. If this is trivia we should remove all mention of the issue, rather than leave it hanging. And WP:BLPPRIMARY does not apply, if you read it closely.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think that Wau Holland is the correct link, that is a dead person. I thought Assange had a crowd funding campaign that paid for it btw. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant the Wau Holland Foundation--Jack Upland (talk) 06:56, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPPRIMARY absolutely applies:
Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. ... Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.
If there is no secondary source covering this then why should not use a primary source by itself. As stated previously there is nothing incorrect about the current prose. TarnishedPathtalk 09:51, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tarnished, I dont think this is due was we dont have proper sourcing. It is a BLP, we also know there was a crowdfunding that has RS, so this seems to somewhat conflict with that. Or maybe the crowdfunding was done by this foundation, etc. Too much to speculate on without sourcing. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point. Jack Upland (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also note

Please protect… it is a popular page with some vandalism. ComeAndJoinTheMusic (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Examples? Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Jack Upland (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I just don't understand what you mean. ~ [[User:ComeAndJoinTheMusic|Music]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:ComeAndJoinTheMusic|''what music?'']]</sup> ~ (talk) 06:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Give examples of the vandalism.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OkCupid Profile

In Personal life there is a section about an OkCupid profile he had. Is that really relevant? I would recommend that part gets removed. Ericfood (talk | contribs) 21:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Three reputable sources thought it worth mentioning as part of his profile, why do you think it isn't? NadVolum (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It tells us nothing of worth, it is trivia? Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be mistaking a personal value judgement for a universal one, it might tell you nothing of worth but I find it interesting and the coverage strongly suggests that a large portion of the public agrees. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drop the stick. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've made two nonsequential comments, how is WP:DROPTHESTICK relevent? What even is the stick? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources used in the article were The Telegraph, CNN, and Forbes (I checked the Forbes piece and its staff so it counts)... Sources of comparable quality not used in the article that come up in a google news search for "OkCupid profile assange" are NBC, The Guardian, Time Magazine, and The National Post. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that reporting I'd support some coverage in the article but not what was there previously as that seemed excessive.
What we had previously was:

In 2006 Assange created a dating profile on the website OkCupid with the username Harry Harrison. Assange described himself as a "passionate, and often pig headed activist intellectual" who was "directing a consuming, dangerous human rights project" and looking for a "siren for [a] love affair, children and occasional criminal conspiracy". The profile was verified by OkCupid CEO Sam Yagan and last accessed in December 2006.

Perhaps:

In 2006 Assange created a profile on the dating website OkCupid, describing himself as a "passionate, and often pig headed activist intellectual" who was "directing a consuming, dangerous human rights project" and looking for a "siren for [a] love affair, children and occasional criminal conspiracy".

TarnishedPathtalk 00:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me.Jack Upland (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems trivial to me, but given that so many secondary sources covered it, it does seem kosher. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jtbobwaysf I agree that it's trivial. That's why in my suggested wording above I stuck with what Assange had to say about himself and trimmed the rest. TarnishedPathtalk 10:31, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with your proposed wording. It tones down the trivia aspect of it. The content is actually somewhat encyclopedic and nice that we have some personal content on this article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Describing himself as a "passionate, and often pig headed activist intellectual" who was "directing a consuming, dangerous human rights project" and looking for a "siren for [a] love affair, children and occasional criminal conspiracy".", that still seem to be " Assange had to say about himself". Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. This is not a repository for trivia. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For me I am thinking either we include it and that opens the door for the dating profile of the subject. What a subject says about himself is pretty important to dating, thats pretty much all their is. Or if other editors object to that, then we exclude it entirely. It would be silly and undue to simply over summarize and say 'Assange had an OKcupid' dating profile, as that is so-what and really more promotional towards this dating site. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HEB demonstrated above that there is a bit of sourcing in secondary reliable sources. I think we have cover it to some extent. TarnishedPathtalk 12:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability does not dictate inclusion. Trivia does not add to a biography. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources don't treat it as trivia... Objectively it isn't trivia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of a biography it is an entirely trivial detail...objectively it is trivia. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And we can find plenty of sources that Gwyneth Paltrow started eating cheese again. That doesn't make it somehow not fluff tabloid tripe for the purposes of an encyclopedia. GMGtalk 12:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERCONTENT TarnishedPathtalk 23:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a consensus in favour of inclusion.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please take my position as neutral. I would only be not opposed to inclusion if the content is very neutral. I would not support the use of the pseudonym as I think that is trying to position the subject as deceptive. That I am opposed to. If we want to put in the part about him looking for a girl to help him with his xyz, that's kind of encyclopedic and also kind of iffy trivial. I think I also would ideally not support the use of the term criminal conspiracy, as I think that was put in jest or in some sort of puffery. But this ""directing a consuming, dangerous human rights project" is exactly what the subject was doing, and thus it is interesting to note that the subject was aware that his project was dangerous (and look it ended up with him in solitary confinement for about a decade). Maybe if we cut it down to just that, then I would be in support of inclusion. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also not very tied to this as I think it's a bit trivial. However, the sourcing is there. Perhaps posting about this discussion on project noticeboards (e.g., Australia) to get more participation might be in order. TarnishedPathtalk 07:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't reference her article at all. I was referencing the availability of sourcing on trivialities for subjects that are exceedingly well covered. GMGtalk 12:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am Australian and so is Burrobert.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations? GMGtalk 12:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see why people think that something that many people agonize over and can determine their life course is trivial. NadVolum (talk) 07:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are people agonizing over this person's dating profile? GMGtalk 12:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thats the whole reason we're having this discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we mean the same thing by "agonize". GMGtalk 16:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second proposal

I propose the following text:

In 2006 Assange created a profile on the dating website OkCupid, describing himself as a "passionate, and often pig headed activist intellectual" who was "directing a consuming, dangerous human rights project."

I removed the offensive text, maybe we can find consensus on this. It removes the trivia of who he is looking for, the mention of the NPOV content, etc. This is neutral and gives readers insight into the subject's self-view, which I think is encyclopedic. Sometimes shorter is better. Most of the proposed text (he used a pseudonym, who he was looking for, that the ceo approved the profile, etc) is all trivial. But the subjects view of himself prior is due (in my opinion). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with him talking about criminal conspiracy in a profile like that. Who are we to start changing it - it is concise, the context is clear, and to me his statement seems well written for its purpose. It's not a po-faced political briefing! NadVolum (talk) 08:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the word criminal and the word conspiracy as this is the use of trivial text to push a POV. I only support the text I have proposed. If you would like to propose something else go ahead. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no argument against this proposal. TarnishedPathtalk 08:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still trival,s silliness.Really what does this tell us we need to know? Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Slatersteven. This is a totally insignificant event in the subject's life. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Opposing a person's own words? Trivial? when it is clearly enough for reliable sources? This is an encyclopaedia not a hagiography, I'll raise this for more input from WP:BLPN. NadVolum (talk) 12:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with an imagined hagiography. Where did you get that notion? The content isn't even negative – as you point out, it's his own words. The issue is that its significance is somewhere between negligible and none at all. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On a dating site, which are well known for being fonts of honesty about the subject of an entry (so unduly self-serving, thus is fails wp:blp?). Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've raised it at WP:BLPN#Is a self description for a dating site trivial if noted in many reliable sources?. On the business about being fonts of honesty that's what I meant about context and not being po-faced. But what exactly is your argument about the honesty of what he wrote? Do yu think he was in essence being deceptive? NadVolum (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one, hope that nobody at all has cringe shit they said 19 years ago on a dating profile immortalized on an encyclopedia. This is clearly trivia; it tells us nothing except that Assange was aware in 2006 that Wikileaks had at least a mystique of danger about it that he might be able to use to find a partner. Hardly ground-breaking information. Simonm223 (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If his mother dressed him in girls clothes when he was three there might be a case that it was not relevant but one still gets photos of people like that being put out. This was when he was over thirty at the time and even if it was cringe worthy - which I completely disagree with - that would be irrelevant. Not everything needs to be ground breaking to make a rounded biography. NadVolum (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you getting 19 from? Assange was 19 in 1990, in 2006 he would have been around 35. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2006 was 19 years ago. That's what I was getting at. Not his age in 2006. Simonm223 (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point then? Are we supposed to exclude it because its old or because its tawdry? Neither of those have a basis in P+G. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The case needs to be made why it is sufficiently significant to include. We don't operate by include every news story ever written about a person unless there is a case to exclude. It's not tawdry - fairly run-of-the-mill internet activity - it's just the kind of triviality inappropriate to anything purporting to be a real encyclopaedia. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That case is made by the feature coverage. Where is the source which calls this trivia? Remeber that something which receives feature coverage is by definition not a triviality, even if you feel it undue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the case is not automatically made by a few contemporary news articles reporting what some people on reddit found. I'm not proposing to include the fact this is trivia in the article (nor is anyone). I follow the policy that trivial things ought not to be mentioned at all. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it receives feature coverage it isn't trivial, it could still be undue but in order to argue it was trivial you would need a WP:RS calling the coverage trivial (it would need to be at issue). What does reddit have to do with this? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Something can receive "feature coverage" at some point in time and still be trivial. It is in this case. I do not need a RS calling it trivial. RS are for article content. If you read the articles you posted they describe how the profile with Assange's picture was dug up by reddit users. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it can, those do seem to be mutually exclusive... But something can receive feature coverage and still be undue at a later day, its uncommon but its a valid path forward... The insistence on "trivia" rather than "undue" as the magic word confuses me, its just a weak argument which even a child could counter. And I'm still not seeing the relevance of Reddit, it doesn't appear to matter at all for our purposes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The weak attempt at an argument is that it was "featured" in a source so therefore it must be included. That doesn't even need a child to counter, as it has no merit in the first place. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has made that argument unless I'm missing something. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven: "unduly self-serving" only applies to BLP WP:ABOUTSELF. Its completely irrelevent here because we aren't using the dating profile itself as a source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No just repeating what it says, which is hagiography. But lets allow some fresh opinions shall we?Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stuff repeated in reliable sources does not fall under WP:ABOUTSELF or WP:BLPSELFPUB. Your claim is objectively false and if you disagree you actually need to argue that position. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]


What does it tell us we need to know that we do not already say? Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do we 'need to know' anything about him? It shows he Likes women and definitely isn't an incel. It shows that he has some insight into himself and can write a proper self profile for a dating service that has a decent chance of being attractive which is a good sign of social intelligence. I think it tells a lot about him and rounds out the biography as a human being rather than some weirdo. NadVolum (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of that is already covered with what we have (maybe all of it) He has children, implying sex, does it show inside or self-knowledge, or self-delusion?. Slatersteven (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here from WP:BLP/N. Is it covered by sources in the context of his biography, as opposed to stand-alone reporting? Find me a source that not only verifies that this happened but verifies that it is significant enough to his life or career that it overcomes WP:BALASP and WP:FART. Until then, I say exclude it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at [1] for instance. NadVolum (talk) 08:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]