Jump to content

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
Line 161: Line 161:
:I have no involvement or much knowledge in/of this article so courtesy ping to @[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]]. Thanks. [[User:GoldRomean|GoldRomean]] ([[User talk:GoldRomean|talk]]) 02:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
:I have no involvement or much knowledge in/of this article so courtesy ping to @[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]]. Thanks. [[User:GoldRomean|GoldRomean]] ([[User talk:GoldRomean|talk]]) 02:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


:We already mention Albanese's quiet diplomacy on behalf of Assange.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 03:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
::We already mention Albanese's quiet diplomacy on behalf of Assange.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 03:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


== Deportation of Assange from usa ==
== Deportation of Assange from usa ==

Revision as of 03:12, 27 June 2024

First sentence

Julian Paul Assange ... is an Australian editor, publisher and activist who founded WikiLeaks in 2006 in order to commit "acts of journalism".[1]

The source doesn't say that WikiLeaks was founded "in order to commit 'acts of journalism'". The way this sentence is phrased makes it sound like Assange said he wanted to commit "acts of journalism". I think we should go back to what we previously had. We go on to show what WikiLeaks was used for. Jack Upland (talk) 01:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support the change and am strongly opposed to "acts of ..ism" in the lead. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"acts of journalism" is a strange phrasing especially for the lead and we should just call it what it is... for example he "founded WikiLeaks to force transparency of large organizations" or "founded WikiLeaks to reveal contradictions and corruption among governments and other institutions". Avoid euphamisms or misleading quotes and just call things what they are. Jorahm (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
totally agree. the acts of ism sounds too/suspiciously close to terrorism... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
agree Softlem (talk) 04:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not matter how you try and reword it, consensus (via RFC) is against calling him a journalist, please stop this. Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support acts of deletionism on edits like that :-) NadVolum (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Stern, Seth. "Is Julian Assange a 'journalist'? Here's why it doesn't matter". Freedom of the Press Foundation. Retrieved May 28, 2024.

Content gap

I am not familiar with the details of this article subject, but when reading today the article goes from:

  • Julian_Assange#Appeals_and_other_developments "On 20 May, the two High Court judges, Dame Victoria Sharp and Sir Jeremy Johnson, found that the assurances regarding the First Amendment and the nationality question were not sufficient and gave Assange leave to appeal against extradition."

to:

  • Julian_Assange#Plea_bargain "Assange agreed to plead guilty to one count of violating the Espionage Act in exchange for release on 24 June 2024."

Was there any activity by the subject or his legal team that can connect these two points? Seems a crucial encyclopedic period of time to cover to explain why the flip flop on the part of the UK and US govts. They were both preparing to extradite, then the court ruling. Was there any filings or due activity in between?

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undoubtedly there was, but it’s not yet been reported in RS as far as I know. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This ABC News source seems to infer it hinged on free speech protections. Comments? Do we have a source tied to Assange that states that non-citizens are not afforded first amendment rights? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This Fox News has some decent coverage of the first amendment issue and also notes that Biden was considering a request from Australia to end the extradition request. Seems both of these would be good to bridge this gap. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RS with some possibly useful detail here. Excellent but not RS summary of the legal context here. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess NOTFORUM but can I comment on that the BBC has this as a front page minute by minute business - whereas they practically completely ignored anything about his extradition case and his most important entry before was his marriage in prison. It just blanks things it doesn't like. NadVolum (talk) 08:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is encyclopedic that we include the legal analysis of why he was released. We include all kinds of other analysis. The craigmurray blog is great, and as Cambial noted, not an RS. Hopefully we can get some RS analysis of this to follow. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New article called "Release of Julian Assange?"

This is one of the biggest stories of the year so far, and presumably will remain relevant. We have Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange, Commentary about Julian Assange, Surveillance of Julian Assange. I'm not sure of the title, but I feel like "Release of Julian Assange" would be sufficient. MarkiPoli (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment there is very little text in this article about the release. If this changes, we can certainly have a new article. If not, I don't think this venture will succeed.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. More text could definitely be added, and I anticipate it will be. MarkiPoli (talk) 04:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TOO-SOON, lets discuss if and when we have sufficient content. This article has long suffered from excessive wikileaks content and lack of BLP content. Now that we have some BLP content, lets rejoice. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see the point. But what could be useful is tidying up some of the stuff prior to his release now that the phase with him in jail awaiting extradition is over. NadVolum (talk) 10:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it, or just one of the biggest relating to him? No we do not need another fork, why is saying a few sentence not enough? Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content questionable

Under Personal Life: “Assange is the cousin of Australian-British academic and former Iranian hostage Kylie Moore-Gilbert.” If you click over to her page, it looks like this is quite questionable. Should probably be reworded to reflect that? 2600:1700:8B41:A4C0:D085:B718:4B14:5D4D (talk) 04:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears this is a "claim". What kind of cousins are they anyway? First? Second? Third? I don't see what this adds to this article.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

edit

South African-born > South African–born

Thanks. 191.57.6.244 (talk) 06:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: cf. English-born, not England-born; Canadian-born, not Canada-born; American-born, not America-born; French-born, not France-born; etc.... Cambial — foliar❧ 12:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe our anon IP friend was requesting that the dash be changed to an emdash. This would be in the fourth graf of 'personal life', referring to his wife. But yes, also, it would be South Africa—born. I'll fix. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 16:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, her country of birth is entirely irrelevant to this BLP; it's a non-essential factoid, so I removed it. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 16:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal Status

Since he pleaded guilty it's important to list that he is a criminal in the first paragraph. 178.203.13.112 (talk) 06:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. That's not what he's primarily notable for. Riposte97 (talk) 06:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. In fact, it is the only basis of his notability. SPECIFICO talk 14:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RFC on convicted felon in leade?207.96.32.81 (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikileaks, anyone? We have 4/7s of the lede about the persecutions already. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In a technical, legalistic sense he's guilty of a crime, but not necessarily in the commonly understood meaning of words like "guilty" and "criminal". Under the US system, innocent people sometimes plead guilty so as to avoid incarceration either as a possible punishment if their trial results in a conviction or in the form of a long period of pretrial confinement. That's especially true when the defendant can't afford to pay for an expensive private lawyer or when the defendant does not believe that they'd get a fair trial. Assange is clearly in the latter category. NightHeron (talk) 07:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In over 10% of the serious cases they plead guilty to things they are innocent of as far as I can see. Doesn't mean they're not being fitted for something else sometimes of course. Hate to think what the percentage is for minor things. In this case it has been pretty evident the US has been preying on Assanges fears and wanted to keep the case in the UK for as long as possible as it would be a very damaging media circus in the US. Anyway pleaded guilty about covers it I think. NadVolum (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, we dont do that. He is hardly known as a criminal. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be inappropriate, and it's not "important". Cambial — foliar❧ 08:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NO, i do not think so, it seems undue. Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of label up top "felon" "conspiracy theorist" etc. are generally not encyclopedic. But to be clear, there is no question that he is a criminal. He's been fleeing the law for how long, and now cops a plea for time-served. WEIGHT of RS don't say he is not a criminal. SPECIFICO talk 12:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re:there is no question. There is plenty of question about that. Many people around the world consider him a courageous journalist and not a criminal for having exposed massive violations of human rights by the US military. NightHeron (talk) 12:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But in the eyes of the law, he is one, that is not affected by what people think. Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our infoboxes are not required to include all criminal court findings, cf. Hunter Biden, Donald Trump. Britney Griner, Paul McCartney, Phil Spector (while alive).Burrobert (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I had already said we should not include this. Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide your due weights of reliable sources that brand him a criminal. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AT a quick guess weight of RS doesn't say that any of us is not a criminal. NadVolum (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the ″eyes of law″ of which country? The US law Espionage Act of 1917, passed during the height of the patriotic war fever as the US entered the First World War? Assange isn't even American citizen though. He shouldn’t have had to plead to any charges, it was the political persecution of an Australian citizen not even Obama dared. The serious war crimes that he uncovered in 2010 and 2011 remained unpunished. The cause célèbre that this had turned into shows it was a popular cause and that Americans prefer Free Speech. Assange's flight back home was for a period of time the most tracked flight on the planet and even eclipsed Taylor Swift's jet, which is the most tracked jet on the planet, so the amount of interest in Assange's freedom is huge. Maybe Biden did not want to have to deal with this in his debate with Trump this week. We don't want journalists going to prison — that's a very core principle. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is the solid bedrock of the country for a reason. The Pentagon Papers case (New York Times Co. v. United States) defined one of the purposes of the First Amendment: that the American public has the right to know what their government is doing. Assange walked free and US imperialism took its pound of flesh. It ultimately goes to the brutal exercise of US extraterritorial power against any publisher, irrespective of outlet and irrespective of nationality. America’s Espionage Act, for the first time in history, has been given a global reach, and made it a weapon against publishers outside the US, paving the way for future prosecutions. There was another, rather more sordid angle, and one that the DoJ had to have kept in mind in thinning the charge sheet: A trial would have seen the murderous fantasies of the CIA regarding Assange subject to scrutiny. --87.170.199.80 (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:NOTFORUM applies here. please stop. Many editors are not providing RS and are what appears to be going into a discussion of opinions, which is beyond the scope of wikipedia. Please take this discussion over to reddit. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Journalist

In this statement, the subject's attorney repeatedly refers to Assange as a Journalist. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did the prosecution though? NadVolum (talk) 10:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His attorney is not third party. Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have had two RfCs about this. Can we move on?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legalese

Currently (emphasis added): "Assange's agreement with the plea deal evades the possibility of an endorsement from the Supreme Court of the United States based on the case". Would "leaves open" would be better than "evades"? And what does "endorsement" mean? That the Supreme Court would somehow rubber stamp the deal? RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"leaves open" would be the opposite meaning. The concern is that SCOTUS will further argue that there is no press freedom based on the case, and since the case ended in a plea, SCOTUS will not be able to do that based on this case. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this could be improved.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's workshop a better way. "...evades the possibility of [SCOTUS] endorsing such prosecution" sounds a bit awkward to me. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subtle bias in this article

The article does not mention as in source that the count is a felony.

In a plea bargain agreed on 24 June 2024, Assange would plead guilty to one count of violating the Espionage Act in exchange for immediate release.

Change to "felony count" as the source describes. Multiple RS refers to the count as a "felony". 207.96.32.81 (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object if this change were to be implemented, but is this really necessary? It's for violating the Espionage Act, which is federal law, so ofc it's a felony. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how you can come to the conclusion that this is self-evident. Not all federal crimes are felonies. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 02:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Rudd's Involvement

Can we add a section describing how the former prime minister Kevin Rudd was involved with the return of Assange to Australia? 178.203.13.112 (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source? GoldRomean (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We already mention this.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Sorry, and thanks. My bad. GoldRomean (talk) 01:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please add: Prime Minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese, leader of the Labor government in Australia that came to power in mid-2022, had changed almost a decade of official passivity on the Assange case by the conservative governments that preceded him.[1] Australia's US ambassador and former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd accompanied Julian Assange to the US court on the Mariana island of Saipan - a US territory in the Western Pacific - after his release from British custody. At that court hearing the US deal on Assange's release, for which the Australian government of the Labor left of Prime Minister Albanese had campaigned, was ratified.[2][3][4] --91.54.30.174 (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no involvement or much knowledge in/of this article so courtesy ping to @Jack Upland. Thanks. GoldRomean (talk) 02:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We already mention Albanese's quiet diplomacy on behalf of Assange.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deportation of Assange from usa

We need to add details of how Assange was deported from the USA to Australia and whether or not he was handcuffed on the plane. 2A02:3037:60F:F73E:B06E:9425:6380:3700 (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: We don't include unsourced bullshit on Wikipedia. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should definitely be added since as a criminal he was deported immediately from the US. 2A01:599:404:FFB4:B886:C7E4:B6A:E1EE (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source? Aaron Liu (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He had no handcuffs leaving court and the plane was not American so I believe the answer is no, he wasn't handcuffed. And as said source please for any other ideas that occur to you while eating eating your breakfast. NadVolum (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gender pronouns

The article is missing information about Assanges preferred gender pronouns. Please add them. 2A01:599:404:FFB4:B886:C7E4:B6A:E1EE (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a joke? It's obvious. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not obvious what Assange's preferred gender pronouns are and it should definitely be part of the article. 178.203.13.112 (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you (178.203.13.112) the same person as 2A01:599:404:FFB4:B886:C7E4:B6A:E1EE? If so, I recommend making that clear, so that editors don't get confused over how many people they're discussing with/how many people support/oppose something. GoldRomean (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Julian Assange arrives in Australia". El País. June 24, 2024.
  2. ^ Spionageprozess gegen Wikileaks-Gründer Julian Assange ist ein freier Mann, Rheinische Post, 26 June 2024
  3. ^ Australiens Premier: Assange unterwegs, SWI swissinfo 26 June 2024
  4. ^ US ‘very aware’ of Australian government’s stance on Julian Assange’s extradition, Albanese says, ABC News (Australia), 24 June 2024
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Julian_Assange&oldid=1231214744"