Talk:Julian Assange: Difference between revisions
→EIO etc: Comment |
→EIO etc: Reply |
||
Line 130: | Line 130: | ||
:::I thikn there are too many times the articles does the "Wikileaks did..." without focusing on Assange enough but thats a bigger thing than I can edit [[User:Softlemonades|Softlemonades]] ([[User talk:Softlemonades|talk]]) 14:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC) |
:::I thikn there are too many times the articles does the "Wikileaks did..." without focusing on Assange enough but thats a bigger thing than I can edit [[User:Softlemonades|Softlemonades]] ([[User talk:Softlemonades|talk]]) 14:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC) |
||
:::: The negative stuff is already in the article ('''WikiLeaks turned down leaks on the Russian government''' etc.). There appears to be no clear dividing line between Assange and Wikileaks. [[User:Burrobert|Burrobert]] ([[User talk:Burrobert|talk]]) 15:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC) |
:::: The negative stuff is already in the article ('''WikiLeaks turned down leaks on the Russian government''' etc.). There appears to be no clear dividing line between Assange and Wikileaks. [[User:Burrobert|Burrobert]] ([[User talk:Burrobert|talk]]) 15:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC) |
||
:::::I think the foreign policy article cited for turning down leaks does mention Assange but Im ok with removing some of that stuff too, I was just saying that instead of adding a bunch of criticism about the spy files russia I took it out. Im not trying to argue, just explain better the edit summary like you asked. I wont argue if you restore it but I might expand it if you do [[User:Softlemonades|Softlemonades]] ([[User talk:Softlemonades|talk]]) 15:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::{{tq|I have not read the Kunstler page so don't know how much of the Spanish case is mentioned there}} I think you should look at it, theres a lot more than is on the Assange page and it goes into a lot of detail because its background to the American case and has sections and sub sections dedicated to the Spanish case and international requests |
::{{tq|I have not read the Kunstler page so don't know how much of the Spanish case is mentioned there}} I think you should look at it, theres a lot more than is on the Assange page and it goes into a lot of detail because its background to the American case and has sections and sub sections dedicated to the Spanish case and international requests |
||
::{{tq|As the subject of the surveillance and thus the impetus for the case in Madrid was Assange, and specifically illegal eavesdropping on legally privileged conversations between Assange and counsel, it is relevant to his bio}} I agree but thats not what the removed text was about, it was about the legal process of the case and requests for testimony. I was careful not to remove anything about the surveillance or findings |
::{{tq|As the subject of the surveillance and thus the impetus for the case in Madrid was Assange, and specifically illegal eavesdropping on legally privileged conversations between Assange and counsel, it is relevant to his bio}} I agree but thats not what the removed text was about, it was about the legal process of the case and requests for testimony. I was careful not to remove anything about the surveillance or findings |
Revision as of 15:42, 12 December 2022
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Julian Assange article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Julian Assange. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Julian Assange at the Reference desk. |
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
A news item involving Julian Assange was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on the following dates: |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
List of works about Julian Assange was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 25 May 2014 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Julian Assange. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 19, 2022. |
WikiLeaks came to international attention
@Cambial Yellowing Thought you might have issue with the lead and "WikiLeaks came to international attention in 2010 when it published a series of leaks provided by U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning." since you bring it up on the WikiLeaks talk page (I also replied there). Feel free to go ahead and fix it Softlemonades (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
- The body says,
but after it began publishing documents supplied by U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, WikiLeaks became a household name
, without a citation.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
PostFinance account problems
I think we should add a mention of Assanges swiss banking problems, but we need to be careful with how its phrased because of BLP issues. None of the sources uses the word "fraud" and the bank said there would be "no criminal consequences" for misleading authorities so phrasing and attention to detail matters. Sources
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-11929034
https://www.theguardian.com/news/blog/2010/dec/06/wikileaks-us-embassy-cables-live-updates
http://www.postfinance.ch/en/about/media/press/pressrelease/press101206.html
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/06/julian-assange-swiss-bank-account
https://www.thedailybeast.com/julian-assange-sparks-hacker-war-over-wikileaks Softlemonades (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Call to drop charges
Per the NYT, The Times, The Guardian, Le Monde, Der Spiegel, and El Pais have called on the US Government to drop charges against Assange, saying the prosecution under the Espionage Act "sets a dangerous precedent" that threatened to undermine the First Amendment and the freedom of the press.
This is a pretty bold move that probably deserves some coverage in article. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Wait for a secondary source. SPECIFICO talk 21:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- This is a key paragraph from the letter for balance
This group of editors and publishers, all of whom had worked with Assange, felt the need to publicly criticize his conduct in 2011 when unredacted copies of the cables were released, and some of us are concerned about the allegations in the indictment that he attempted to aid in computer intrusion of a classified database. But we come together now to express our grave concerns about the continued prosecution of Julian Assange for obtaining and publishing classified materials.
Softlemonades (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)- May develop into a notworthy story. It will need lots of independent RS to frame the narrative neutrally. The press that publishes such information is a party at interest and frequently takes stands for the publication of confidential and controversial material. Its defense of press freedom and its economic interest in doing so must be described by independent voices. SPECIFICO talk 00:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- There have been calls for years to drop charges, but seem to fall on deaf ears. Wikipedia will probably also be equally deaf to the issue. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- I would support a sentence on the topic.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with Mr Ernie, Jack Upland, and Jtbobwaysf that this is important and Wikipedia should cover it. The Washington Post's comments [1] are excellent. While some media organizations have criticized aspects of Assange's work, they argue,
much of Assange’s indictment focuses on his 2010 and 2011 disclosure of thousands of pages of classified military records and diplomatic cables about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq... The news organizations said that they partnered with Assange more than a decade ago to reveal “corruption, diplomatic scandals and spy affairs on an international scale,” and that the trove of records he made available is still being mined by journalists and historians.
- The WP also notes that the prosecution of Assange is dangerous enough to First Amendment and press freedoms that there is conflict within the US Justice Department itself over the case:
The indictment has stirred controversy inside the Justice Department... Two federal prosecutors in Virginia who were involved in the Assange case argued against bringing charges under the Espionage Act, concerned that, among other things, it posed risks to First Amendment protections.
- Many other newspapers have criticized the prosecution of Assange, including the editor of the WP, who stated that the US Government's case against Assange
is advancing a legal argument that places such important work in jeopardy and undermines the very purpose of the First Amendment.
- Al Jazeera reports [2] on the letter and notes that the ACLU and Amnesty International have also, alongside some world leaders, recently urged the Biden Administration to drop the charges. The story has been reported by papers all over the world, including Reuters [3], Deutsche Presse-Agentur [4], and other papers around the world often reprinting these stories, plus the additional coverage cited above by Ernie. -Darouet (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- Have they all not been calling for this for years? Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- Slatersteven, yes - most big papers internationally, and American and international rights groups, have all been saying this for years. It's remarkable how consistent that has been. -Darouet (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- Well of course they have. It's like McDonalds opposing PETA. SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- The United States Department of Justice isn't PETA and the news organizations that we depend upon as reliable sources aren't McDonalds. -Darouet (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- I conclude the analogy was too obscure. The corporate media defend their business interests and reflect the personal beliefs of management who have devoted their careers to spreading information. Just like the managers of fast food chains have devoted themselves to factory slaughter of animals. That is not to say that the press may also have a legitimate point or a point that is proven noteworthy by independent endorsement of academic or non-profit commentators, but in itself, this is dog bites man. News media want more news. SPECIFICO talk 20:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- The United States Department of Justice isn't PETA and the news organizations that we depend upon as reliable sources aren't McDonalds. -Darouet (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- It better fits on Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange especially since its about the case and not about him or something he did Softlemonades (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- Assange's prosecution and imprisonment are "about him." -Darouet (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry I dont think you understood what I meant Softlemonades (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- I see that other article as being a bit of a fork at the moment causing trouble by there being differences between it and here as it deals with the same ongoing events. When/if Assange is sent off to America or released then it can become a major subarticle of this one and a lot of the stuff here merged into it. So I don't see there being any particular different topic involved except for it being a subtopic. NadVolum (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry I dont think you understood what I meant Softlemonades (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- Assange's prosecution and imprisonment are "about him." -Darouet (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- Well of course they have. It's like McDonalds opposing PETA. SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- Slatersteven, yes - most big papers internationally, and American and international rights groups, have all been saying this for years. It's remarkable how consistent that has been. -Darouet (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- Have mainstream corporate news media (CNN, Fox, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS) called for the charges to be dropped, too? GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- The Times, The Guardian, Le Monde, Der Spiegel are mainstream, just not American. Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- They are the newspapers that worked with Wikileaks to publish the stories originally coming together to defend their actions as newspapers. There's not an awful lot of difference between what they did and what Assange did. NadVolum (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Assange published the unredacted cables which they condemned at the time and plus the original charge Softlemonades (talk) 03:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Assange use of surveillance equipment
@SPECIFICO There are two parts of it that are significant:
1 its part of a pattern of Assanges use of surveillance equipment in the embassy, which we can create a small subsection of if youd prefer. The article talks about several
2 this is the incident of Assange fighting with a security guard that was also reported on by many outlets but without context, just saying things like he hit a guard and was a "spoiled brat" https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-11/-spoiled-brat-assange-hit-our-embassy-guards-ecuador-says Softlemonades (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick reply. WRT #1, I would suggest making it more explicit that he used it often or continually, and include any information about his authority to do so. WRT #2, I didn't see that context. Of course, captivess would all like to hit their guards every so often, and in a minimum security confinement with no consequences, this may be dog-bites-man? I have no concern about whatever can be well-sourced. SPECIFICO talk 18:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- I see you've added references. I think it would be good also to address #1 above with a text edit or expansion if you are so inclined. SPECIFICO talk 20:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Ok. I did a self revert until then because I wanna be careful with the wording Softlemonades (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
EIO etc
The EIO passage https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julian_Assange&curid=26033941&diff=1126909696&oldid=1126892911 was because it wasnt actually about Assange, it was about the case and the process and the whole affair is covered in more detail in the main article which is linked at the top of the section, Kunstler v. Central Intelligence Agency. I dont object to it being put back but I dont thikn it needs to go there and that was my justification for it, sorry I didnt explain well enough in edit summary Softlemonades (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining SL. As the subject of the surveillance and thus the impetus for the case in Madrid was Assange, and specifically illegal eavesdropping on legally privileged conversations between Assange and counsel, it is relevant to his bio. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Re: Specifico’s removal with a notional appeal in edit summary to consensus required. Content is long-standing; added by @Burrobert: in 2019. There is a clear edit consensus for its inclusion. Consensus is required for its removal; CR is not an opportunity for POV-pushing editors like Specifico to rmv any sourced and neutral content they wish to and then try to demand other editors demonstrate again the consensus for its inclusion. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- I was a little surprised to see that material was removed because the "details ... are about the cases and not the surveillance ... ". As mentioned by @Cambial Yellowing: the text is long standing so consensus is required for its removal. Just as importantly though, it contains information that is relevant to the subject of the bio. For example, the phrases,
- - for permission to question Assange
- - Assange was the victim who had filed the complaint
- - the microphones used to spy on Assange were bought in Spain,
- - Spanish judicial bodies were upset at having their EIO request denied by UKCA and believed the British justice system was concerned by the effect the Spanish case may have on the process to extradite Assange to the US.
- Btw, the article Kunstler v. Central Intelligence Agency is not the main article about surveillance of Assange in the embassy and the consequent arrest of David Morales in Spain. The Kunstler article relates to a much later case that arose out the the surveillance. I have not read the Kunstler page so don't know how much of the Spanish case is mentioned there. Nevertheless, a main article about the surveillance would have a title like "Surveillance of Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy" or maybe "Kingdom of Spain vs David Morales" (if that is the legal title of the Spanish case). Burrobert (talk) 08:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- On a related note, I have not been able to decipher the edit summary for the edit after that one that removed the surveillance information. The edit removed some interesting information about a release by Assange related to Russia. The edit summary says "Assange is not WikiLeaks and more sources criticize it for being mostly public than praise it".[5] The "Assange is not WikiLeaks" part is clear but the rest is unfathomable. Regarding the "Assange is not WikiLeaks" part, the sentence that was removed does not mention Wikileaks and says the release was by Assange. Even so, this bio contains a huge about of material that is about Wikileaks. We have a huge section about accusations that Wikileaks and Russia somehow collaborated to interfere in a foreign election. We include sentences such as
- - A 2017 article in Foreign Policy said that WikiLeaks turned down leaks on the Russian government ...
- - After the 2010 leaks, the United States government launched a criminal investigation into WikiLeaks.
- - During the 2016 U.S. election campaign, WikiLeaks published confidential Democratic Party emails ... etc.
- The text that was removed has been in the article since at least September 2021.
- Burrobert (talk) 09:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- I didnt see it attributed to Assange, and instead of adding negative stuff about the release for balance I just took it out.
- I thikn there are too many times the articles does the "Wikileaks did..." without focusing on Assange enough but thats a bigger thing than I can edit Softlemonades (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- The negative stuff is already in the article (WikiLeaks turned down leaks on the Russian government etc.). There appears to be no clear dividing line between Assange and Wikileaks. Burrobert (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think the foreign policy article cited for turning down leaks does mention Assange but Im ok with removing some of that stuff too, I was just saying that instead of adding a bunch of criticism about the spy files russia I took it out. Im not trying to argue, just explain better the edit summary like you asked. I wont argue if you restore it but I might expand it if you do Softlemonades (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- The negative stuff is already in the article (WikiLeaks turned down leaks on the Russian government etc.). There appears to be no clear dividing line between Assange and Wikileaks. Burrobert (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
I have not read the Kunstler page so don't know how much of the Spanish case is mentioned there
I think you should look at it, theres a lot more than is on the Assange page and it goes into a lot of detail because its background to the American case and has sections and sub sections dedicated to the Spanish case and international requestsAs the subject of the surveillance and thus the impetus for the case in Madrid was Assange, and specifically illegal eavesdropping on legally privileged conversations between Assange and counsel, it is relevant to his bio
I agree but thats not what the removed text was about, it was about the legal process of the case and requests for testimony. I was careful not to remove anything about the surveillance or findings
- Assange was the victim who had filed the complaint
This is important and its included in text earlier in the section. Softlemonades (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)- - Regarding the Kunstler page, if you have included background information about the Spanish case, why not cover the whole episode and have a more expansive title such as "Surveillance of Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy"? Anyway, that is a side point.
- - Yes, the point about Assange initiating the investigation of UC Global is included elsewhere. It is included for a second time for a different purpose - justifying Spain's need to question Assange.
- - It is also important to the Assange bio that "Spanish judicial bodies ... believed the British justice system was concerned by the effect the Spanish case may have on the process to extradite Assange to the US". Burrobert (talk) 14:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- I still dont agree that its needed here after it was moved to another page but like I said I dont have a problem with it being re added.
- Title of the other page, maybe. You have a point Softlemonades (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- While you are here, can you have a look at my comment above which begins "On a related note, I have not been ..."? I can make neither head nor tail out of your edit summary. Burrobert (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- Wikipedia articles that use Australian English
- Wikipedia In the news articles
- Biography articles of living people
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Low-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Arts and entertainment work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class Australia articles
- Mid-importance Australia articles
- B-Class Australian crime articles
- Mid-importance Australian crime articles
- WikiProject Australian crime articles
- WikiProject Australia articles
- B-Class Freedom of speech articles
- High-importance Freedom of speech articles
- B-Class Human rights articles
- High-importance Human rights articles
- WikiProject Human rights articles
- B-Class Journalism articles
- Mid-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- B-Class law articles
- Low-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles
- B-Class Media articles
- High-importance Media articles
- WikiProject Media articles
- B-Class International relations articles
- Mid-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- B-Class Sweden articles
- Low-importance Sweden articles
- All WikiProject Sweden pages
- B-Class Ecuador articles
- Low-importance Ecuador articles
- B-Class United Kingdom articles
- Low-importance United Kingdom articles
- WikiProject United Kingdom articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class Espionage articles
- Low-importance Espionage articles
- B-Class Computing articles
- Mid-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- Selected anniversaries (June 2022)