Content deleted Content added
→Neutrality dispute: missed one |
Prunesqualer (talk | contribs) →Opening sentence: Reply |
||
Line 202:
:Also no one has cited sources that mention only the indictment from the US that wasnt real and no mention of the assault case or charges. {{tq|Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.}} and {{tq|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.}}
:{{tq|(I note that until October 9th 2022, it did not)}} Yeah and [[Talk:Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange#Neutrality dispute|that was marked as a problem in 2019]] [[User:Softlemonades|Softlemonades]] ([[User talk:Softlemonades|talk]]) 12:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
::Could you please avoid using ad-hominem comments like “... you might not like that but we have to match facts.” Which in this instance misrepresents what I said. Please re-read my above comments and try to address what I actually did say i.e.: “Since there is much controversy surrounding the Swedish allegations... <i>The first sentence of the article is not the place for that</i>." [[User:Prunesqualer|<span style="font-family:Times;color:#105570;">Prunesqualor</span>]] [[User talk:Prunesqualer|<span style="font-family:times;color:#FF7070;">billets_doux</span>]] 13:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
| |||