Talk:Julian Assange

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)

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)

It tells us nothing of worth, it is trivia? Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

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)

• Also agree it is not worthwhile content and lets remove it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Disagree. The fact that he used the pseudonym "Harry Harrison" is significant. Harry Harrison was a famous science fiction writer who wrote the Stainless Steel Rat series. Perhaps Assange thought of himself as a contemporary Jim Digris. The other details are interesting too and give us insight into Assange's personality.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

  This is an encyclopaedia. Claimed or actual "insight into Assange's personality" is not what we are aiming for. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

  Eh? It is an encyclopaedia so we should not try to give a rounded view of the topic? Instead we should remove anything like that? Perhaps [[WP:BLPN] is the best place for a question like this, ask them if they think Wikipedia should not contain anything like that. NadVolum (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it isn't relevent... And the coverage would suggest that it is relevant. Is there a policy or guideline based reason you think it shouldn't be covered? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Drop the stick. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

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)

• How many secondary reliable sources cover it (not just those used in the article)? TarnishedPath^talk 08:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

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)

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".

TarnishedPath^talk 00:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.Jack Upland (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

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)

@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. TarnishedPath^talk 10:31, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

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)

"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)

Exactly. This is not a repository for trivia. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

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)

HEB demonstrated above that there is a bit of sourcing in secondary reliable sources. I think we have cover it to some extent. TarnishedPath^talk 12:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Verifiability does not dictate inclusion. Trivia does not add to a biography. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

The sources don't treat it as trivia... Objectively it isn't trivia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

In the context of a biography it is an entirely trivial detail...objectively it is trivia. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

That isn't how the word "objectively" works. We cearly have sigcov of it. Unless you have a source calling it trivia you've conclusively lost this argument. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

That isn't how this website works. The consensus, including wider community perspective at the relevant noticeboard, recognises this as a trivial detail inappropriate to the site. Sigcov is for article notability, it does not apply to content within articles. I used the word "objectively" as a satirical reference to your own misuse of the word. Please don't read too much into it. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes it is... You are in general expected to provide sources which support your assertion. Significant/feature coverage is a concept that extends beyond notability, its particularly relevant when determining due weight... Things which have received significant/feature coverage are almost always due for inclusion somewhere on wikipedia. In this context significant/feature is the opposite of trivial, so you need to either demonstrate that it did not receive such coverage or provide a source which calls it trivial. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not proposing article content, so I don't need to demonstrate nor provide. You are in general expected... By whom? You? I don't care. WP:NOR does not apply to talk pages. You need to try to obtain a consensus for inclusion. Unlikely, given the proposed material is pathetically inappropriate to a serious encyclopaedia. Feature coverage is your own value term; I disagree with that characterisation of the few, mostly very short, contemporary news mentions of the dating website profile found by reddit users. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Those aren't mentions and they aren't short or very short, they are the core subject of the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• This is tabloid trivia. Pointing to a few sources might be more meaningful if it wasn't a subject that has been covered by tens of thousands of sources. GMG^talk 12:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

  It's not a few sources and the references cited above are not WP:Tabloid media. TarnishedPath^talk 12:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

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. GMG^talk 12:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCONTENT TarnishedPath^talk 23:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I think there is a consensus in favour of inclusion.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

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. TarnishedPath^talk 07:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I didn't reference her article at all. I was referencing the availability of sourcing on trivialities for subjects that are exceedingly well covered. GMG^talk 12:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I am Australian and so is Burrobert.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Congratulations? GMG^talk 12:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

Are people agonizing over this person's dating profile? GMG^talk 12:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, thats the whole reason we're having this discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we mean the same thing by "agonize". GMG^talk 16:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that NadVolum and I mean one thing and you mean another. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I have no argument against this proposal. TarnishedPath^talk 08:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Still trival,s silliness.Really what does this tell us we need to know? Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Agree with Slatersteven. This is a totally insignificant event in the subject's life. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Nobody has made that argument unless I'm missing something. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

• Still puff trivia. GMG^talk 16:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

I agree. Jack Upland (talk) 05:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

Have a look at [1] for instance. NadVolum (talk) 08:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes it is, we have a number of such sources already provided. Also just a note that FART is an essay, it doesn't need to be overcome. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I think it is interesting to note he describes himself as a "pigheaded activist intellectual", which is borne out by many examples including his ill-fated tilt at the Australian Senate. He has insight into himself there. I think it is also interesting he describes WikiLeaks as a dangerous project (and suggests that it might include criminal conspiracies). I agree it sounds light-hearted, but adventurous people are often light-hearted. Did he know what he was getting himself in for? Did he have any inkling that he would be stuck in an embassy for years and then serve a jail term before pleading guilty to espionage and being sent back to Australia, a homeland he had left decades before? These are interesting things to reflect on and our readers should be given to opportunity to learn about the personality of the younger Assange.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

And since we’re on the topic of sex, does anyone remember that Sarah Harrison was listed in the infobox as his partner? So far, the Personal life section includes Teresa, the mystery mother of his daughter, the Frenchwoman, and Stella. Then there is the Korean mother who for some reason was excluded from the section. Then there’s the two Swedish women whom he was two-timing. Anyone who thinks he might be an incel hasn’t read the article and knows zero about Assange! Jack Upland (talk) 08:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Seth Rich

I know that American editors have fought for this section in the past, but I think, given the passage of time, and given that we have a very lengthy article, and given there is a separate article on the Murder of Seth Rich, I think this section could be reduced to one sentence (along the lines of the first sentence in the section). I don't want to do this right away in case there is an outcry. Jack Upland (talk) 05:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I also know that some editors have insisted we make Seth Rich a major topic of this article, but given all other topics to be covered, this just isn't justified. I agree with Jack Upland's shortening of this content. -Darouet (talk) 03:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:People convicted of cybercrime and inclusion of hacking conviction in the infobox

This category has been deleted on the grounds of previous discussions. This implies that the category relates to the hacking conviction in Australia, but I think it also relates to his American espionage conviction. In either case it is a relevant category. I also think the hacking conviction in Australia should be added to the infobox. It was earlier argued that this was a minor offence. However, now that the American espionage conviction has been added to the infobox, it doesn't make much sense to exclude earlier convictions. In any case, I don't think a hacking conviction is minor in the course of his life when he has been continually accused of hacking. Jack Upland (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

The espionage conviction is not a conviction for cybercrime. The legislation makes no mention of the term cybercrime. RS that report on the conviction do not characterise it as cybercrime. The standard we are obliged to follow is a. whether RS characterise his 1996 conviction under the Crimes Act 1914 as cybercrime and b. whether it is an incident that is relevant to the person's notability. A survey of comments representative of the consensus view the last time wider input was formally sought on the latter question: "Assange is not at all known for his long ago guilty plea for hacking."; "does not really seem a major part of or article or his life"; "It isn't really all that relevant to his later career"; "not of primary importance"; "as others have said, not of sufficient importance"; "not remotely key to his notability; I just looked at a handful of randomly-picked news articles about Assange, none mention this" Cambial — foliar❧ 04:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

The charges of espionage accused Assange of hacking, which I would see as a cybercrime. I don't think "cybercrime" is a legal term, and is probably not referred to in any legislation. In terms of reliable sources, the BBC [2] in a short section entitled "Who is Julian Assange?", says, "In 1995, he was fined for hacking offences". The Guardian [3] under a similar section entitled "Who is Julian Assange?", says, "by the early 90s he was considered one of Australia’s most accomplished hackers". This links to an article entitled, "Julian Assange: the teen hacker who became insurgent in information war" which gives details of his crimes. The Independent [4] under another section called "Who is Julian Assange" says, "In 1996, he pleaded guilty to 24 hacking charges in Australia before being fined, only avoiding a prison sentence after promising not to do it again." I think it is clear that reliable sources think his hacking conviction is important to his life. In any case, we mention Assange's first wife Teresa in the infobox, because she is after all his first wife. Similarly we should mention his first conviction because it is his first conviction. And by the way you are quoting from an "RfC", which isn't a real RfC.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

You write "The charges of espionage accused Assange of hacking". Firstly that doesn’t make sense. The charge – singular – of espionage was an accusation of espionage. Secondly, charges and accusations are irrelevant. The category is for convictions. Subject was not convicted of any of the computer-related charges filed, on fraudulent evidence, alongside the espionage charge.

I didn’t comment on whether it was an RFC nor use the term RFC. The quotes I refer to are all quotes from other users and they represent the consensus view, just as I said. That view is that Assange is not at all known for his long ago guilty plea for hacking. We only include criminal categories if they are part of what subject is known for, as per the site wide consensus WP:BLP policy. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:11, 3 October 2025 (UTC)