Talk:Julian Assange: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎EIO etc: Comment
Line 143: Line 143:
::::Title of the other page, maybe. You have a point [[User:Softlemonades|Softlemonades]] ([[User talk:Softlemonades|talk]]) 14:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
::::Title of the other page, maybe. You have a point [[User:Softlemonades|Softlemonades]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Burrobert|Burrobert]] ([[User talk:Burrobert|talk]]) 14:47, 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. [[User:Burrobert|Burrobert]] ([[User talk:Burrobert|talk]]) 14:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
:I dont like how much of the page doubles whats on the Wikileaks page but good points [[User:Softlemonades|Softlemonades]] ([[User talk:Softlemonades|talk]]) 17:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:45, 12 December 2022

Template:Vital article

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.news.com.au/breaking-news/assanges-swiss-bank-account-under-scrutiny/news-story/8be9755b1b99f21bfa6d11f6f7a5417e

https://www.thedailybeast.com/julian-assange-sparks-hacker-war-over-wikileaks Softlemonades (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wait for a secondary source. SPECIFICO talk 21:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters, WaPo, The Hill and a bunch more are covering it. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I would support a sentence on the topic.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Have they all not been calling for this for years? Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Well of course they have. It's like McDonalds opposing PETA. SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Assange's prosecution and imprisonment are "about him." -Darouet (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I dont think you understood what I meant Softlemonades (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The Times, The Guardian, Le Monde, Der Spiegel are mainstream, just not American. Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Assange published the unredacted cables which they condemned at the time and plus the original charge Softlemonades (talk) 03:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ok. I did a self revert until then because I wanna be careful with the wording Softlemonades (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Given that the current article contains a lot of text implying or outright declaring that Assange/Wikileaks are in some way connected to Russia, it seems reasonable to include a reference to an important Wikileaks release about Russia. I am aware that someone, somewhere said that the information was released to obscure Wikileaks' connection to Russia. No problem including that as well if it is properly sourced. It is amusing though that Assange is criticised for not publishing about Russia, but, when he does, he is accused of publishing information that Russia can afford to reveal. The proposition that Wikileaks/Assange is a Russian asset is unfalsifiable in the mainstream narrative. An example of the lack of balance in the current article's treatment of Assange and Russia is our mention of his show "World Tomorrow". We say "In 2012 Assange hosted World Tomorrow show, broadcast by Russian network RT". We fail to mention that the show was produced independently of RT. Burrobert (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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
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
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I dont like how much of the page doubles whats on the Wikileaks page but good points Softlemonades (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Julian_Assange&oldid=1127060182"