> Assange blamed former spokesperson Daniel Domscheit-Berg for taking the video, who said he had deleted it along with 35,000 other files when he left Wikileaks in September 2010. To date, the video has never been publicly released.
| In March 2013, Julian Assange said Wikileaks had
| successfully decrypted the video and described it
| as documenting "a massacre, a war crime".
If it was deleted in September 2010, how was it decrypted and still in their possession in March 2013? Why are the possibly outdated and conflicting events listed after future events?
In this case, its a newspaper article that are citing Assange, which is why the sentence beginning with "Julian Assange said". Changing it to "Julian Assange allegedly claim" would make the article worse, as the implied disbelief of using the word "allegedly" is not supported by the source.
Having to base edits around sources is hard, but I think a crucial aspect of any encyclopedia. The alternative is just so much worse, don't you agree?
For example, I recently wrote an article about an ancient Roman politician. A number of sentences are in the form "[Scholar A] argues that the person did X [cite]" rather than "The person did X [cite]". I'll use the second form for uncontroversial facts, but the first form when it's more like a proposal from a particular scholar which isn't necessarily an accepted consensus viewpoint.