This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
I've removed a section titled, "Relationship with the Putin Regime." Beyond the obviously POV title ("Putin Regime" vs. the more neutral "Russian government" or "Putin administration"), the section is based largely on one article in the Guardian. That article ( [1]) misquotes Assange very seriously, completely changing the meaning of what he said to La Repubblica in the original interview ( [2]). In the interview, Assange says that Wikileaks doesn't publish much on Russia because he lacks Russian staff, and because there are other outlets that already do a better job of publishing Russian leaks. The Guardian article twists this statement to say that Assange praised the open journalistic environment in Russia, something he does not do in the original interview. The Guardian's feud with Assange is well known, and we shouldn't rely on one particularly poor example of journalism in the Guardian to write an entire section in this article. It's both undue and POV. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 22:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Volunteer Marek, the Guardian is not a reliable source in this case, as you can see from their blatant misquotation of Assange. And this section is undue, since it is based largely on one article. How many articles have been written on Assange in the last decade? - Thucydides411 ( talk) 22:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
I'll also note that Assange's quote, as it is summarized in this article, is completely turned on its head. Assange specifically praises organizations that leak Russian documents, and addresses the linguistic reasons why Wikileaks is not more active in Russia. This Wiki article changes that into its opposite, saying that Assange said there is no need for whistleblowing in Russia. This is a serious BLP violation, and I would appreciate it if Volunteer Marek would self-revert. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 23:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
this matter is getting very close to attracting a block or two for edit-warring. I'm not going to play out much rope on 3RR. Sort it out here. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 23:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
don't have a big TV channel that might have a mass popular effect, its audience is educated people in Moscow." This is true enough: Novaya Gazeta or Moscow Times can say whatever it wants about MH17, bombing Syrian hospitals, Panama Papers etc. While Navalny was hounded for opposing monstrous corruption, he still has a platform. None of this matters much when propaganda is blaring 24/7, no opposition parties exist, and everyone has gotten so completely used to the notion that the state is built around mega-theft that nobody really cares when crimes are exposed. Due to pervasive cynicism, you cannot have a genuine "scandal" caused by leaks in Russia. The existing state is shameless and can't be shamed. I mean this is a country where Stalin remains popular despite the fact that everyone knows he was a mass-murderer, more or "less". Or take a recent press conference where Putin allowed questions like this. He just BS'ed his way out of it because he knows only an infinitesimally small percentage of the population will be actually moved by the question or his answer to it. As for "competitors": yes and no. People with access to sensitive information in Russia are not Bradley Manning types--they're cynical careerists who "leak" to throw their partners in crime under the bus, and they don't need wikileaks to do that. Concerned citizens who see some low-level corruption usually think about appealing the matter to the Russian press or to higher authorities, not to Wikileaks or western papers. Putin's propagandists will often pat them on the back for it. Opposition figures will often talk to the western press, but they don't have any leaks to speak of. Assange went on to call both China and Russia "authoritarian" societies. As for the stuff about Trump, the Assange actual statements are quite different, both in substance and in tone, from the Guardian headline. He's saying that Trump is less entrenched than Clinton: regardless of how awful/great he may be, his election means the apparat of the American state stands weakened, meaning that it will be easier for citizens to challenge it. Whatever you think about Assange's opinion, it constitutes "praise" (per Guardian headline) only if you're willing to interpret his comments in the most tendentious way possible. You know, when Ernst Thälmann said "after Hitler, our turn!" he was not "guardedly praising" Hitler. Readers may dismiss much of what I wrote here as OR, but I hope they'll absorb the message just the same: what Assange said to La Repubblica is not particularly deplorable, or off the mark.
How much should be written about it and what exactly is of course debatable". I think that's pretty reasonable, but the burden is on VM make an edit that meets basic standards of neutrality and factual rigour . In current form, his POV-section will just poison the well: if it stays, it will be an uphill battle to detoxify the BLP. That's why people have been reverting it on sight. Guccisamsclub ( talk) 11:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
It's not well known or sourced. It has one source, which as I said above and as you can learn from reading the original interview, completely misconstrues what Assange actually said. This is a serious BLP violation, and amounts, in fact, to libel. I expect a self-revert from My very best wishes. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 05:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Assange has said that there is no need for whistleblowing in Russia because of the open, competitive and "vibrant" media environment he claims exists there.v.
In his interview with la Repubblica, he said there was no need for WikiLeaks to undertake a whistleblowing role in Russia because of the open and competitive debate he claimed exists there.(emphasis added). The Guardian also misrepresents the La Repubblica interview - cherrypicking from Assange's responses - and (regardless of how we might view the publisher generally) is not a reliable source in this context. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 06:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
he said there was no need for WikiLeaks to undertake a whistleblowing role in Russia because of the open and competitive debate he claimed exists thereis perverse. The Guardian is not a reliable source for this particular information as a statement of fact; it is clearly, provably, false - there is no divine right of Grauniad which means that The Guardian is exempt from the normal examination of the verifiability of its content. By no policy do we blindly
follow the sources. We rightly, and by policy, exclude information which does not pass examination - a decision which is made, like any other, by consensus (so the reductio ad absurdum is ... frankly ... absurd). You go down this road, and you might end up with a quality encyclopedia. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes, please stop edit-warring and attempting to insert that paragraph. If you attempt to add it again, I will help others here in removing it. I have read both articles just now. The paragraph you are attempting to insert is a point-by-point restatement of what The Guardian's Ben Jacobs (a former Daily Beast reporter) wrote, whose article looks to me like a transparent attempt to spin Assange's Reppublica interview in a negative light. A journalist's editorial spin on a notable person's interview should never be emphasized above the words in the interview itself. There are also several other obviously POV-pushing parts in that paragraph which back up INeverCry's assertion that "Volunteer Marek is a long-time anti-Russian POV-pusher". To be precise, terming RT a "propaganda network" (it sometimes pushes an agenda, but all the other TV news networks have also been accused of that by one party or another) and repeating the Guardian's vague assertion that "journalists are killed frequently in Russia" (it has actually declined a lot, along with the overall crime rate decrease; see the graph here. Russian journalists have actually always had a much lower homicide rate than the general population, which is more than can be said of India, Mexico or Brazil; that quote is an example of counterfactual anti-Russian POV-pushing by the journalist, and it should not be quoted uncritically on Wikipedia). Esn ( talk) 07:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Ok, how about this - it seems the major objection is to that one sentence where Assange praises press freedom in Russia (or however you want to describe his word). But that's just one sentence out of like five. Can we at least agree that the other sentences in that paragraph are fine? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 16:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I've brought this issue to the attention of the BLP noticeboard: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Julian_Assange. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 16:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
There is absolutely no evidence to support Ben Jacobs's extraordinary claim that Assange "long had a close relationship with the Putin regime"; all Jacobs can cite are "eight interviews (by Assange) that were broadcast on RT (in 2012)." This is a WP:BLP violation and a classic example of fake news and citogenesis, and should be removed immediately. As Glenn Greenwald notes: "The absolute last person anyone should trust to accurately and fairly report on WikiLeaks is Ben Jacobs, unless the goal is to publish fabrications that will predictably generate massive traffic for The Guardian. (Recall, for example, Jacobs's belittling Manning's confinement and torture: "And the world's tiniest violin plays a sad song.") Jacobs's lies about the la Repubblica interview—taking Assange's commonplace reference to "opportunities for change in the United States" created by Trump's election and turning it into "praise for Trump" (who Assange actually describes as "part of the wealthy ruling elite of the United States, and he is gathering around him a spectrum of other rich people and several idiosyncratic personalities"), twisting Assange's praise for Russian dissidents into a deranged suggestion "that Russia is too free and transparent to need whistleblowing"—have gone viral, but the objections of la Repubblica's interviewer—Stefania Maurizi—have been mostly ignored: "I am completely furious with how my interview with Julian Assange has been distorted"; "this is completely false: Julian Assange never ever declared that in my interview." While I think WP:TNT would be a more appropriate response, if those eight interviews with RT have to be covered under a section dedicated to Assange's imaginary "Relationship with Russia," we should include some reviews from the time: "Practically speaking, Mr. Assange is in bed with the Kremlin, but on Tuesday’s show he didn't put out ... Unlike RT, Mr. Assange supports the opposition forces in Syria. He took Mr. Nasrallah to task for supporting every Arab Spring uprising except the one against Syria and asked why he wasn’t doing more to stop the bloodshed."—Alessandra Stanley, The New York Times, April 17, 2012; "Assange's questions were grounded in support for the Syrian opposition forces and were hostile to the Assad government: exactly the reverse of the Russian government’s position, which has maintained steadfast support for Assad. ... The media attacks on Assange's show reflect far more about the critics than about him: they assumed that he would slavishly serve the agenda of his benefactors because that’s what American establishment journalists largely do. It’s pure projection."—Glenn Greenwald, Salon, April 18, 2012. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 22:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
In an interesting turn of events, the Guardian has retracted the two claims that were so contentious on this talk page: namely that Assange has a relationship with the "Russian regime" and the paraphrased quotation that suggested Assange thought whistleblowing was not necessary in Russia. Here is the Guardian's statement:
Given that the Guardian article no longer makes the claim about a relationship between Assange and the Russian government, and that it is the main source for that assertion, I'm removing the section on "Relationship with Russia." - Thucydides411 ( talk) 21:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Seriously there is a section on "Anti-semitism accusations" ??? Who is adding these? He is accused by one person, he denies it and gets a "Anti-semitism accusations" section on Wikipedia?
It would be appropriate to have a section on accusations, criticism, so on.
That is a serious charge without much evidence to back it up. Shouldnt have a section all to itself.
I suggest deleting or creating a section for accusations/criticism. I lean towards deleting. Paulthemonk ( talk) 04:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is about facts, not opinions. 31.200.155.102 ( talk) 14:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
In the current article, there is a paragraph in which the following sentence is included:
However, Assange has publicly denounced Clinton on multiple occasions, even stating that he will release information that will have Clinton arrested in an interview with ITV.
That is blatantly false. The interview provided is only 3 and a half minutes long and Assange imagines a scenario that could lead to an indictment because of the gravity of the content in the emails Wikileaks has leaked but states himself that it is a highly unlikely scenario due to the fact that Loretta Lynch is the head of the DOJ.
This is patently and absurdly false and requires just a moment of verification. Why is this still up?
This
edit request to
Julian Assange has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Date about John Jones death seems to be wrong. Source ( https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/1138414/britains-top-human-rights-lawyer-who-represented-julian-assange-and-worked-alongside-george-clooneys-wife-amal-dies-in-apparent-suicide/) is from 21 April, but Wikipedia states that he died on 16 August. "On 16 August 2016, Assange's lawyer in the UK, John Jones, was found dead, according to the first reports after being hit by a train in an apparent suicide." should be changed to 21 April and also probably moved up, since rest of paragraph is in chronological order.
2A02:AA16:5300:4E80:F9BF:532:524B:B56B ( talk) 23:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
According to Jones's obituary in the Guardian (text by Geoffrey Robertson QC), his death occurred at West Hampstead station on 18 April.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/may/01/john-rwd-jones-obituary
The Wiki article goes on to say 'The death of both lawyers in such a short period of time sparked conspiracy theories', but the theories aren't cited and it doesn't seem to say who the other dead lawyer supposedly was. Khamba Tendal ( talk) 17:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Julian Assange has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section regarding the death of Julian Assange's UK lawyer, John Jones, for balance it is probably worth noting that while Wikileaks may imply assassination,the actual coroner's verdict specifically states that John Jones intended to end his life and that he acted alone ( http://www.camdennewjournal.com/john-jones-inquest), but that the evidence didn't quite meet the legal requirement for a determination of suicide.
62.255.39.68 ( talk) 08:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
There's also the Ham & High (Hampstead & Highgate Express as was):-
The coroner found as fact that Mr Jones jumped under the train and that no one else was involved. The train driver said it appeared to be a deliberate act. But the coroner said that the state of Mr Jones's mental health was such that he could not have had the necessary intent for a verdict of suicide: that is, legally, he may not have known what he was doing. There was no question of foul play at all and the WikiLeaks tweet, and the internet conspiracist comment that followed it, was disinformation. Khamba Tendal ( talk) 17:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Two editors have deleted the sentence "Assange has never disclosed how much he or Wikileaks were paid for his tv-show" which is sourced to the New York Times [10]. This is noteworthy both because of Assange's alleged connections to Russia and because he and his organization are supposedly dedicated to transparency of this exact kind (the relationships between powerful organizations and powerful state actors). If the New York Times feels that it is worthwhile to mention that Assange has never disclosed how much the Russian government paid him for his services, then this page should too. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 11:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Countless reliable sources find it noteworthy that Assange had a TV-show on a network funded by the Russian government, never mind a network that's widely described by reputable sources as a state propaganda network. I'm curious what the editor's justification for the removal is. [11] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
The content in question relies on multiple reliable sources. I'm curious how the editors who removed this content [12] justify the mass removal. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 19:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
It's not synthesis if it's a description of the content that follows. Nonsense. If no source makes the conclusion, then it's SYNTH; which I encourage all editors to review before commenting further. I also note that the removed section conflates Assange & Wikileaks. They are not the same. This article is about Assange. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I take it that you're now fine with ...Don't do that. Ask. Chafkin & Silver's conclusions in Bloomberg need in-text attribution, at least; to meet NPOV; and probably a second or further source for DUE. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
The claim that Wikileaks' actions during the 2016 presidential race has no bearing on Assange is ludicrous.Thankfully, that's not a claim that I see anyone here making.
Wikileaks' actions during the campaign are absolutely central to Assange. That's a fairly strong claim.
who has made a large number of media appearances representing the organization during the campaign, and who has earned a great deal of attention in the 2016 race due to Wikileaks' actions.Then we should have, and use, sources which discuss Assange, not use those which discuss only Wikileaks. The place to use those is over there. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Assange became even more globally recognised after WikiLeaks published the DNC leaks and the Podesta emails during the United States presidential election, 2016.- no source.
During the election, Assange regularly criticized Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, and repeatedly promoted and popularized conspiracy theories and falsehoods about them.- the bold phrase, if not the whole, is a strong and contentious claim which warrants in-text attribution; the sources also need to be reviewed to ensure that they directly verify these claims. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Analysis of content & sources inside
|
---|
I again note that this is largely information not about Assange, but about Wikileaks, which, if verifiable, belongs in the latter article.
|
Assange became even more globally recognised after WikiLeaks published the DNC leaks and the Podesta emails during the United States presidential election, 2016. During the election, Assange regularly criticized Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, and repeatedly promoted and popularized conspiracy theories and falsehoods about them - is laughable. Assange was globally recognized prior to the USA election and a claim as if fact that he "repeatedly promoted and popularized conspiracy theories and falsehoods about Clinton and the democrats is trash. What are the conspiracy theories and falsehoods he repeatedly promoted? Usually I don't bother getting involved but this addition is so disgusting I have bothersome to remove it, I imagine the usual suspects will be around soon to stuff it back in, that won't make it ok or of benefit to a neutral reader. Govindaharihari ( talk) 21:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material.More cynical minds than mine may perceive the inclusion of this sentence to be a hook on which to hang the coatrack; that without the reference to notability, the subsequent information is undue for inclusion the lead. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
During the presidential election, Wikileaks popularised conspiracies about the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton?; which directly supports
tweeting an article which suggested Clinton campaign chairperson John Podesta engaged in satanic rituals?; which directly supports
implying that the Democratic Party had Seth Rich killed? Near enough is not good enough here. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Julian Assange and his WikiLeaks organization appear to be actively encouraging a conspiracy theory that a Democratic National Committee staffer was murdered for nefarious political purposes, perhaps by Hillary Clinton(note how hedged the language is) and
The fact that the idea is so absurd, though, has not stopped Assange from suggesting that Rich was murdered for nefarious political purposes either because he was an informant for the FBI or because he may have been a source in last month’s WikiLeaks release of thousands of DNC emails.(note how non-specific that is) - neither of these are implying that the Democratic Party had Seth Rich killed (though the first, absent the hedging, might seem close), and the source is not reliable for this as a statement of fact. I also note that neither the NY Daily News nor the Slate sources were used as references in the edit warred content. Information needs to be verified by the sources used as references, not by things that happen to exist somewhere in the ether. I challenge any editor who maintains that the sources used in the article do support the information included in the article to quote the sections which they believe do provide direct support; or, if they have alternate sources, to provide those, including quotes, here for discussion. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Ryk that "Wikileaks' actions during the campaign are absolutely central to Assange.".My very best wishes, please re-examine my statement. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
@ Volunteer Marek, Esn, and Ryk72: Best to start fresh. Clipped here for reference.
Relationship with Russia
According to Ben Jacobs of the Guardian, Assange has "long had a close relationship with the Putin regime." [1] He briefly hosted a talk show on the Russian state news network Russia Today. [1] U.S. intelligence agencies claim the e-mails damaging to the DNC and the Clinton 2016 campaign leaked by Wikileaks were provided by the Russian government, [1] which Assange has denied. [2] When asked in a December 2016 interview why Wikileaks does not focus more on Russia, Assange replied that there are already "competitors to WikiLeaks" in Russia which include "many vibrant publications, online blogs, and Kremlin critics such as [Alexei] Navalny", and that "no WikiLeaks staff speak Russian, so for a strong culture which has its own language, you have to be seen as a local player". He further claimed that Wikileaks had published "more than 800,000 documents about or referencing Russia and president Putin". [3] [1] Guccisamsclub ( talk) 21:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Q: These abuses have had a heavy impact in an open and democratic society like the United States and produced 'dissidents' like Chelsea Manning willing to expose them. Why aren't human rights abuses producing the same effects in regimes like China or Russia, and what can be done to democratise information in those countries? A: "In Russia, there are many vibrant publications, online blogs, and Kremlin critics such as [Alexey] Navalny are part of that spectrum. There are also newspapers like "Novaya Gazeta", in which different parts of society in Moscow are permitted to critique each other and it is tolerated, generally, because it isn't a big TV channel that might have a mass popular effect, its audience is educated people in Moscow."A very plausible interpretation is that Assange is here defending Russian civil society against the charge of cynicism and inertia. We don't have to interpret however, we can just quote (what exactly, we can discuss). But VM needs to write a minimally encyclopedic section first, so we know to work with. Guccisamsclub ( talk) 21:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Julian Assange has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
the word organisation in the first sentence is misspelled it should be organization. 73.169.140.17 ( talk) 08:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
One of Assange's fans on YouTube insists that WikiLeaks is preparing to expose "evidence" that the US faked the Moon Landing of Apollo 11 in 1969. I also remember an article from several years ago claiming Vladimir Putin denied that we landed on the moon, and in light of Moscow's attempt to manipulate the 2016 election, it makes me wonder if he's just working for Putin to fabricate this "evidence." It also makes me wonder if this claim about Assange has any legitimacy. --------- User:DanTD ( talk) 14:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Julian Assange has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The "Swedish sexual assault allegations" section currently has a pro-Julian-Assange bias.
I recommend this edit to replace the section:
Julian Assange was in Stockholm in August 2010, during which he had separate sexual encounters with two women. Afterwards, the women made accusations regarding what had happened during some of the sexual acts. One woman claims Assange pinned her down and restrained her from reaching for a condom, and after he did agree to use one, she alleges, he purposefully tore it. The other woman alleges that, after consensual sex with a condom earlier in the morning, Assange later had sex with her without a condom while she slept, despite her previous insistence that she would not consent to unprotected sex. The women went to police, apparently to coerce Assange into an HIV test, but were told their statements would need to be passed to the prosecutor. [1] As a result, the Swedish Prosecutor's Office issued an arrest warrent for two charges: molestation and rape. [2]
The rape charge was briefly dropped, and Assange was questioned by police on the molestation charge. The next week, on appeal from the alleged victims' lawyer, the rape charge was reinstated and two new charges were added: sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. [3]. Assange's attorney was informed on 15 September that he was "not subject to any restraint and could leave Sweden," but further attempts to interview him failed when, according to his attorney, Assange was unreachable for an eight day period. [4] [5] Assange left Sweden the same day the Swedish prosecutor ordered his arrest, and after further attempts to interview him failed, the prosecutor issued a European Arrest Warrant in November 2010. [6]
Assange denies the allegations. He and his supporters claim the charges are part of a larger scheme to discredit him or have him extradited to the United States, although the United States, Sweden, and the United Kingdom all afford legal protections experts claim would make prosecution there unlikely. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Assange unsuccessfully fought extradition through the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, and after his final appeal there failed he entered the Ecuadorean embassy in London where he was granted diplomatic asylum. [12] [13] [14]
Assange claims he has always been willing to be questioned on the charges from the embassy, but multiple negotiations to do so failed. Sweden and Ecuador both blame each other for the delay, which allowed the lesser charges of sexual molestation and unlawful coercion to expire their statute of limitations. [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] The rape charge is still pending, and its statute of limitations will not expire until 2020.
On 14 November 2016, police, Swedish prosecutors, and Ecuadorian officials met with Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London about the sexual assault allegations. [21] Ecuador delivered its report on the questioning to Sweden on 5 January 2017. Sweden is currently in the process of translating the document from Spanish and are expected to make a decision on how to proceed the investigation afterward. [22]
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. --
Dane2007
talk 23:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. You need to re-open the discussion and alert the other participants of your changes.
Aurato (
talk) 21:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
So, the part of consensual sex is not relevant about the rape. It is relevant about the molestation, but thats why its molestation and not rape, so it´s already in there. And you can´t mention the part about condoms ant not mention the fact that he pinned Miss A down. Because, it´s the fact he was holding her down that was criminal. Not the part about the condom. The condom part is just a weird detail that media love, it´s not that interesting in the case. Godfellow ( talk) 00:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Ms. Montgomery [the UK lawyer representing Sweden in his appeals case] disputed this claim in court Monday. She said Mr. Assange's Swedish lawyer, Bjorn Hurtig, was told on Sept. 15 that his client was "not subject to any restraint and could leave Sweden." But sometime after Sept. 15, Ms. Ny contacted Mr. Hurtig and asked him to arrange an interrogation with Mr. Assange. Mr. Hurtig said he could not make contact with his client, according to Ms. Montgomery.
198.244.108.135 ( talk) 22:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, @ Godfellow:! 198.244.108.135 ( talk) 21:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Please consider again this request for an edit. The original request (though it's since been expanded somewhat) has been pending for two months, with only two other users expressing any form of objection. talk has been pinged several times over the past three weeks and appears to have abandoned the change. User talk:Godfellow and I have had a thorough debate over the past several days, and have reached a consensus. Thank you, 198.244.108.135 ( User talk:198.244.108.135) 07:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The case was never closed -- one charge was temporarily dropped. Weeks passed between when he was told he was not restricted from traveling and when he finally did -- during which he seemed to evade multiple attempts to arrest him. There was never a special prosecutor. The current text seems to imply that the prosecutors had closed the investigation for lack of evidence, only to later change their mind for sinister political reasons.
The version in this edit request, I believe, contains a lot more information, told fairly, and is more up-to-date. ( Godfellow) and I put a lot of back-and-forth into this, and I think this request is vastly better than the current article. I ask that you reconsider your decision to deny it.
198.244.108.135 ( talk) 00:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
References
The US government is preparing to arrest Assange. JoetheMoe25 ( talk) 00:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Assange is often criticised for leaking only against the US. It needs to be mentioned in this context that Assange does not speak any other languages than English and can therefore only assess material in English. It has been said often that he does not leak against for instance Russia or other countries. This would require very competent translators who translate Russian (or other languages') material into English. This is is not happening for reasons that we do not know, probably the lack of translator funds.
I wonder if this shouldn't be mentioned here in the talk section because it is overlooked but an explanation. 2001:8003:A112:AB00:4DBA:BFF5:71FB:16B7 ( talk) 06:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
PS: Assange's attorneys can be asked if he speaks another language. He'd be able to understand simple Spanish by now after all this time in the embassy, which would be advanced tourist level, I guess. 2001:8003:A112:AB00:AC74:3C37:49B0:432D ( talk) 06:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Julian Assange. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
It seems a bit odd that Assange is credited as journalist, without any verification of that claim. The hyperlink on this page goes to a definition of "journalist", and this description does not comply with Assange's efforts. He's not credited as "journalist" anywhere else, by established journalists. He is also sometimes credited as "editor-in-chief" (on the Sam Adams Award Wikipedia page) which is also incompatible to his work and qualifications. The case is not made in this Wikipedia entry to provide enough information to back the claim that Assange is a journalist, by definition. I suggest it is deleted, and replaced with "activist", "entrepreneur" or other more fitting title.
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Blingladen ( talk) 17:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
References
can someone edit the page? please and thank you 104.33.114.195 ( talk) 09:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the subsection titled, "Allegations of Russian connection" ( diff). First off, most of the section did not mention Assange at all, but was more generally about allegations that Russia interfered in the US Presidential election. However, since some of the material was relevant to this article, I took two paragraphs from that subsection that dealt directly with Assange, and moved them to the "Leaks" subsection. I'd also like to mention that there are problems both with WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT in including such a long subsection on accusations of a "Russian connection." The length of the subsection was completely out of proportion to its relevance to Assange's biography, and moreover, most of the section didn't even deal with Assange himself. The level of mention these accusations receive now, inside the "Leaks" subsection, is appropriate. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 06:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Why is this here? It appears to be discussing a single interview in which he denies the sexual assault allegations and claims there is a feminist conspiracy against him. I'm not entirely sure why this single interview is notable, but even if it is, "comments on women" suggest his comments were about all women, not a particular subset who he believes is out to get him. The section at the very least should be edited to make it clear what he said, not just Poitras' interpretation of it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.46.159 ( talk • contribs)
Please, add (to section Work -> Filmography -> As himself) mentioning and link to documentary "Risk (2016 film)" made by "Laura Poitras".
Proof links:
Risk_(2016_film),
Laura_Poitras#Risk,
www.imdb.com -> Risk (2016)
After adding this information you can delete this section of "Talk". -- 141.101.23.38 ( talk) 17:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Fugitives wanted by Sweden category should be removed since his Swedish case was dropped. 80.98.199.159 ( talk) 16:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
در این فیلم که درباره نسل کشی ارمنیان توسط ترکیه، انکار اسناد تاریخی، توسط ترکیه، کشتارهای صورت گرفته علیه ارامنه در جمهوری آذربایجان در سال 1988 میلادی، حملات جمهوری آذربایجان به روستاهای ارمنی در ماه آوریل 2016 و انکار نسل کشی، از سوی آمریکا می باشد، افرادی همچون "جولیان آسانژ"، بنیانگذار "ویکی لیکس"، "سیبل ادمونس"، خبرنگار و کارمند سازمان "سیا" در آمریکا و "جئوفری روبرتسون"، حقوقدان مشهور بریتانیایی، اظهار نظر کرده اند. "آسانژ" در این فیلم، اعلام نموده است اسناد زیادی وجود دارند که ثابت می کنند آنچه که اتفاق افتاده است، نسل کشی بود. "جئوفری روبرتسون" نیز اظهار داشته است که بی رحمانه ترین روش های نابودی، علیه ارامنه، مورد استفاده قرار گرفته اند. همچنین، "دین کین"، تهیه کننده این فیلم و بازیگر مشهور، اعلام کرده است که نسل کشی ارامنه (توسط ترکیه) باید به رسمیت شناخته شود.
WIKIPEDIA:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. I suggest you read WP:RS/IMDB. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 18:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Checking the first citation regarding Worms Against Nuclear Killers (namely, the newspaper article called "International man of mystery"), the evidence linking Assange to the attack therein can be summarised as: (1) The attack originated in Austalia (2) Assange was in Australia at the time (3) Therefore, chances are it's Assange!
This is flimsy evidence, in light of the fact that there are thousands of cyber attacks on Pentagon every year and that Australia has a population approaching 7% of the United States'. While there are no reliable data about the geographic distribution of cybercriminals, it is well-understood that a compromised Internet-connected machine in any country may be used by cybercriminals remotely.
It could be argued that the fact of the existence of a piece of gossip itself is encyclopaedia-worthy. However, as this gossip isn't connected with any substantial event, group, lawsuit, etc., it appears to be as notable as any of the billions pieces of gossip in circulation, thus, not notable enough for Wikipedia, and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.69.225.23 ( talk) 08:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Any serious info on Assange's Twitter account? Semi-mainstream news media state that it was deleted, e.g. http://mashable.com/2017/12/25/julian-assange-delete-twitter-account . There was a break-in to Baltasar Garzón's office on 18 December and a WikiLeaks tweet including "As CIA threats against @WikiLeaks heat up, ..." - from which WP:OR could lead to quite a bit of speculation (not reliably sourced info). Boud ( talk) 12:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Should we add information to the article infobox on his position in The WikiLeaks Party?
i.e.
Julian Assange/Archive 14 | |
---|---|
Leader of the WikiLeaks Party | |
In office 1 July 2013 – 23 July 2015 | |
Deputy | Gerry Georgatos |
Preceded by | Party established |
Succeeded by | Party abolished |
Julian Paul Assange (/əˈsɒnʒ/;[1] born Julian Paul Hawkins, 3 July 1971) is an Australian computer programmer and the founder of WikiLeaks, an organization which he founded in 2006. He has won accolades including the Sam Adams Award and Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism.
It would appear from the introductory paragraph he is a journalist as that is what he is winning awards for. He could be described as formerly a computer programmer, cryptographer, systems engineer or something else.
While he is the founder of Wikileaks he also appears to be currently the head of the organization, whatever title would describe that.
I understand the use of the word journalist or editor might be controversial.
A sufficiently noncontroversial first sentence might be:
Julian Paul Assange (/əˈsɒnʒ/;[1] born Julian Paul Hawkins, 3 July 1971) is the head of Wikileaks, a multi-national media organization and associated library, which he founded in 2006. He has won accolades including the Sam Adams Award and Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism.
"multi-national media organization and associated library" is the language wikileaks uses in their about page.
https://wikileaks.org/What-is-Wikileaks.html
The German IT news site heise online (see de:Heise Online) claims "Die britischen Behörden erklärten aber, dass sie ihn wegen anderer Vergehen im Zusammenhang mit den Veröffentlichungen brisanter Dokumente trotzdem festnehmen würden", ie. "however, the british authorities said that they would arrest him because of other offsenses relating to the publication of delicate documents". However, heise doesn't give a source for this claim. Is it true or not? -- rtc ( talk) 23:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
I've removed a section titled, "Relationship with the Putin Regime." Beyond the obviously POV title ("Putin Regime" vs. the more neutral "Russian government" or "Putin administration"), the section is based largely on one article in the Guardian. That article ( [1]) misquotes Assange very seriously, completely changing the meaning of what he said to La Repubblica in the original interview ( [2]). In the interview, Assange says that Wikileaks doesn't publish much on Russia because he lacks Russian staff, and because there are other outlets that already do a better job of publishing Russian leaks. The Guardian article twists this statement to say that Assange praised the open journalistic environment in Russia, something he does not do in the original interview. The Guardian's feud with Assange is well known, and we shouldn't rely on one particularly poor example of journalism in the Guardian to write an entire section in this article. It's both undue and POV. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 22:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Volunteer Marek, the Guardian is not a reliable source in this case, as you can see from their blatant misquotation of Assange. And this section is undue, since it is based largely on one article. How many articles have been written on Assange in the last decade? - Thucydides411 ( talk) 22:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
I'll also note that Assange's quote, as it is summarized in this article, is completely turned on its head. Assange specifically praises organizations that leak Russian documents, and addresses the linguistic reasons why Wikileaks is not more active in Russia. This Wiki article changes that into its opposite, saying that Assange said there is no need for whistleblowing in Russia. This is a serious BLP violation, and I would appreciate it if Volunteer Marek would self-revert. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 23:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
this matter is getting very close to attracting a block or two for edit-warring. I'm not going to play out much rope on 3RR. Sort it out here. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 23:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
don't have a big TV channel that might have a mass popular effect, its audience is educated people in Moscow." This is true enough: Novaya Gazeta or Moscow Times can say whatever it wants about MH17, bombing Syrian hospitals, Panama Papers etc. While Navalny was hounded for opposing monstrous corruption, he still has a platform. None of this matters much when propaganda is blaring 24/7, no opposition parties exist, and everyone has gotten so completely used to the notion that the state is built around mega-theft that nobody really cares when crimes are exposed. Due to pervasive cynicism, you cannot have a genuine "scandal" caused by leaks in Russia. The existing state is shameless and can't be shamed. I mean this is a country where Stalin remains popular despite the fact that everyone knows he was a mass-murderer, more or "less". Or take a recent press conference where Putin allowed questions like this. He just BS'ed his way out of it because he knows only an infinitesimally small percentage of the population will be actually moved by the question or his answer to it. As for "competitors": yes and no. People with access to sensitive information in Russia are not Bradley Manning types--they're cynical careerists who "leak" to throw their partners in crime under the bus, and they don't need wikileaks to do that. Concerned citizens who see some low-level corruption usually think about appealing the matter to the Russian press or to higher authorities, not to Wikileaks or western papers. Putin's propagandists will often pat them on the back for it. Opposition figures will often talk to the western press, but they don't have any leaks to speak of. Assange went on to call both China and Russia "authoritarian" societies. As for the stuff about Trump, the Assange actual statements are quite different, both in substance and in tone, from the Guardian headline. He's saying that Trump is less entrenched than Clinton: regardless of how awful/great he may be, his election means the apparat of the American state stands weakened, meaning that it will be easier for citizens to challenge it. Whatever you think about Assange's opinion, it constitutes "praise" (per Guardian headline) only if you're willing to interpret his comments in the most tendentious way possible. You know, when Ernst Thälmann said "after Hitler, our turn!" he was not "guardedly praising" Hitler. Readers may dismiss much of what I wrote here as OR, but I hope they'll absorb the message just the same: what Assange said to La Repubblica is not particularly deplorable, or off the mark.
How much should be written about it and what exactly is of course debatable". I think that's pretty reasonable, but the burden is on VM make an edit that meets basic standards of neutrality and factual rigour . In current form, his POV-section will just poison the well: if it stays, it will be an uphill battle to detoxify the BLP. That's why people have been reverting it on sight. Guccisamsclub ( talk) 11:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
It's not well known or sourced. It has one source, which as I said above and as you can learn from reading the original interview, completely misconstrues what Assange actually said. This is a serious BLP violation, and amounts, in fact, to libel. I expect a self-revert from My very best wishes. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 05:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Assange has said that there is no need for whistleblowing in Russia because of the open, competitive and "vibrant" media environment he claims exists there.v.
In his interview with la Repubblica, he said there was no need for WikiLeaks to undertake a whistleblowing role in Russia because of the open and competitive debate he claimed exists there.(emphasis added). The Guardian also misrepresents the La Repubblica interview - cherrypicking from Assange's responses - and (regardless of how we might view the publisher generally) is not a reliable source in this context. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 06:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
he said there was no need for WikiLeaks to undertake a whistleblowing role in Russia because of the open and competitive debate he claimed exists thereis perverse. The Guardian is not a reliable source for this particular information as a statement of fact; it is clearly, provably, false - there is no divine right of Grauniad which means that The Guardian is exempt from the normal examination of the verifiability of its content. By no policy do we blindly
follow the sources. We rightly, and by policy, exclude information which does not pass examination - a decision which is made, like any other, by consensus (so the reductio ad absurdum is ... frankly ... absurd). You go down this road, and you might end up with a quality encyclopedia. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes, please stop edit-warring and attempting to insert that paragraph. If you attempt to add it again, I will help others here in removing it. I have read both articles just now. The paragraph you are attempting to insert is a point-by-point restatement of what The Guardian's Ben Jacobs (a former Daily Beast reporter) wrote, whose article looks to me like a transparent attempt to spin Assange's Reppublica interview in a negative light. A journalist's editorial spin on a notable person's interview should never be emphasized above the words in the interview itself. There are also several other obviously POV-pushing parts in that paragraph which back up INeverCry's assertion that "Volunteer Marek is a long-time anti-Russian POV-pusher". To be precise, terming RT a "propaganda network" (it sometimes pushes an agenda, but all the other TV news networks have also been accused of that by one party or another) and repeating the Guardian's vague assertion that "journalists are killed frequently in Russia" (it has actually declined a lot, along with the overall crime rate decrease; see the graph here. Russian journalists have actually always had a much lower homicide rate than the general population, which is more than can be said of India, Mexico or Brazil; that quote is an example of counterfactual anti-Russian POV-pushing by the journalist, and it should not be quoted uncritically on Wikipedia). Esn ( talk) 07:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Ok, how about this - it seems the major objection is to that one sentence where Assange praises press freedom in Russia (or however you want to describe his word). But that's just one sentence out of like five. Can we at least agree that the other sentences in that paragraph are fine? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 16:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I've brought this issue to the attention of the BLP noticeboard: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Julian_Assange. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 16:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
There is absolutely no evidence to support Ben Jacobs's extraordinary claim that Assange "long had a close relationship with the Putin regime"; all Jacobs can cite are "eight interviews (by Assange) that were broadcast on RT (in 2012)." This is a WP:BLP violation and a classic example of fake news and citogenesis, and should be removed immediately. As Glenn Greenwald notes: "The absolute last person anyone should trust to accurately and fairly report on WikiLeaks is Ben Jacobs, unless the goal is to publish fabrications that will predictably generate massive traffic for The Guardian. (Recall, for example, Jacobs's belittling Manning's confinement and torture: "And the world's tiniest violin plays a sad song.") Jacobs's lies about the la Repubblica interview—taking Assange's commonplace reference to "opportunities for change in the United States" created by Trump's election and turning it into "praise for Trump" (who Assange actually describes as "part of the wealthy ruling elite of the United States, and he is gathering around him a spectrum of other rich people and several idiosyncratic personalities"), twisting Assange's praise for Russian dissidents into a deranged suggestion "that Russia is too free and transparent to need whistleblowing"—have gone viral, but the objections of la Repubblica's interviewer—Stefania Maurizi—have been mostly ignored: "I am completely furious with how my interview with Julian Assange has been distorted"; "this is completely false: Julian Assange never ever declared that in my interview." While I think WP:TNT would be a more appropriate response, if those eight interviews with RT have to be covered under a section dedicated to Assange's imaginary "Relationship with Russia," we should include some reviews from the time: "Practically speaking, Mr. Assange is in bed with the Kremlin, but on Tuesday’s show he didn't put out ... Unlike RT, Mr. Assange supports the opposition forces in Syria. He took Mr. Nasrallah to task for supporting every Arab Spring uprising except the one against Syria and asked why he wasn’t doing more to stop the bloodshed."—Alessandra Stanley, The New York Times, April 17, 2012; "Assange's questions were grounded in support for the Syrian opposition forces and were hostile to the Assad government: exactly the reverse of the Russian government’s position, which has maintained steadfast support for Assad. ... The media attacks on Assange's show reflect far more about the critics than about him: they assumed that he would slavishly serve the agenda of his benefactors because that’s what American establishment journalists largely do. It’s pure projection."—Glenn Greenwald, Salon, April 18, 2012. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 22:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
In an interesting turn of events, the Guardian has retracted the two claims that were so contentious on this talk page: namely that Assange has a relationship with the "Russian regime" and the paraphrased quotation that suggested Assange thought whistleblowing was not necessary in Russia. Here is the Guardian's statement:
Given that the Guardian article no longer makes the claim about a relationship between Assange and the Russian government, and that it is the main source for that assertion, I'm removing the section on "Relationship with Russia." - Thucydides411 ( talk) 21:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Seriously there is a section on "Anti-semitism accusations" ??? Who is adding these? He is accused by one person, he denies it and gets a "Anti-semitism accusations" section on Wikipedia?
It would be appropriate to have a section on accusations, criticism, so on.
That is a serious charge without much evidence to back it up. Shouldnt have a section all to itself.
I suggest deleting or creating a section for accusations/criticism. I lean towards deleting. Paulthemonk ( talk) 04:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is about facts, not opinions. 31.200.155.102 ( talk) 14:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
In the current article, there is a paragraph in which the following sentence is included:
However, Assange has publicly denounced Clinton on multiple occasions, even stating that he will release information that will have Clinton arrested in an interview with ITV.
That is blatantly false. The interview provided is only 3 and a half minutes long and Assange imagines a scenario that could lead to an indictment because of the gravity of the content in the emails Wikileaks has leaked but states himself that it is a highly unlikely scenario due to the fact that Loretta Lynch is the head of the DOJ.
This is patently and absurdly false and requires just a moment of verification. Why is this still up?
This
edit request to
Julian Assange has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Date about John Jones death seems to be wrong. Source ( https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/1138414/britains-top-human-rights-lawyer-who-represented-julian-assange-and-worked-alongside-george-clooneys-wife-amal-dies-in-apparent-suicide/) is from 21 April, but Wikipedia states that he died on 16 August. "On 16 August 2016, Assange's lawyer in the UK, John Jones, was found dead, according to the first reports after being hit by a train in an apparent suicide." should be changed to 21 April and also probably moved up, since rest of paragraph is in chronological order.
2A02:AA16:5300:4E80:F9BF:532:524B:B56B ( talk) 23:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
According to Jones's obituary in the Guardian (text by Geoffrey Robertson QC), his death occurred at West Hampstead station on 18 April.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/may/01/john-rwd-jones-obituary
The Wiki article goes on to say 'The death of both lawyers in such a short period of time sparked conspiracy theories', but the theories aren't cited and it doesn't seem to say who the other dead lawyer supposedly was. Khamba Tendal ( talk) 17:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Julian Assange has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section regarding the death of Julian Assange's UK lawyer, John Jones, for balance it is probably worth noting that while Wikileaks may imply assassination,the actual coroner's verdict specifically states that John Jones intended to end his life and that he acted alone ( http://www.camdennewjournal.com/john-jones-inquest), but that the evidence didn't quite meet the legal requirement for a determination of suicide.
62.255.39.68 ( talk) 08:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
There's also the Ham & High (Hampstead & Highgate Express as was):-
The coroner found as fact that Mr Jones jumped under the train and that no one else was involved. The train driver said it appeared to be a deliberate act. But the coroner said that the state of Mr Jones's mental health was such that he could not have had the necessary intent for a verdict of suicide: that is, legally, he may not have known what he was doing. There was no question of foul play at all and the WikiLeaks tweet, and the internet conspiracist comment that followed it, was disinformation. Khamba Tendal ( talk) 17:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Two editors have deleted the sentence "Assange has never disclosed how much he or Wikileaks were paid for his tv-show" which is sourced to the New York Times [10]. This is noteworthy both because of Assange's alleged connections to Russia and because he and his organization are supposedly dedicated to transparency of this exact kind (the relationships between powerful organizations and powerful state actors). If the New York Times feels that it is worthwhile to mention that Assange has never disclosed how much the Russian government paid him for his services, then this page should too. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 11:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Countless reliable sources find it noteworthy that Assange had a TV-show on a network funded by the Russian government, never mind a network that's widely described by reputable sources as a state propaganda network. I'm curious what the editor's justification for the removal is. [11] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
The content in question relies on multiple reliable sources. I'm curious how the editors who removed this content [12] justify the mass removal. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 19:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
It's not synthesis if it's a description of the content that follows. Nonsense. If no source makes the conclusion, then it's SYNTH; which I encourage all editors to review before commenting further. I also note that the removed section conflates Assange & Wikileaks. They are not the same. This article is about Assange. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I take it that you're now fine with ...Don't do that. Ask. Chafkin & Silver's conclusions in Bloomberg need in-text attribution, at least; to meet NPOV; and probably a second or further source for DUE. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
The claim that Wikileaks' actions during the 2016 presidential race has no bearing on Assange is ludicrous.Thankfully, that's not a claim that I see anyone here making.
Wikileaks' actions during the campaign are absolutely central to Assange. That's a fairly strong claim.
who has made a large number of media appearances representing the organization during the campaign, and who has earned a great deal of attention in the 2016 race due to Wikileaks' actions.Then we should have, and use, sources which discuss Assange, not use those which discuss only Wikileaks. The place to use those is over there. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Assange became even more globally recognised after WikiLeaks published the DNC leaks and the Podesta emails during the United States presidential election, 2016.- no source.
During the election, Assange regularly criticized Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, and repeatedly promoted and popularized conspiracy theories and falsehoods about them.- the bold phrase, if not the whole, is a strong and contentious claim which warrants in-text attribution; the sources also need to be reviewed to ensure that they directly verify these claims. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Analysis of content & sources inside
|
---|
I again note that this is largely information not about Assange, but about Wikileaks, which, if verifiable, belongs in the latter article.
|
Assange became even more globally recognised after WikiLeaks published the DNC leaks and the Podesta emails during the United States presidential election, 2016. During the election, Assange regularly criticized Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, and repeatedly promoted and popularized conspiracy theories and falsehoods about them - is laughable. Assange was globally recognized prior to the USA election and a claim as if fact that he "repeatedly promoted and popularized conspiracy theories and falsehoods about Clinton and the democrats is trash. What are the conspiracy theories and falsehoods he repeatedly promoted? Usually I don't bother getting involved but this addition is so disgusting I have bothersome to remove it, I imagine the usual suspects will be around soon to stuff it back in, that won't make it ok or of benefit to a neutral reader. Govindaharihari ( talk) 21:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material.More cynical minds than mine may perceive the inclusion of this sentence to be a hook on which to hang the coatrack; that without the reference to notability, the subsequent information is undue for inclusion the lead. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
During the presidential election, Wikileaks popularised conspiracies about the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton?; which directly supports
tweeting an article which suggested Clinton campaign chairperson John Podesta engaged in satanic rituals?; which directly supports
implying that the Democratic Party had Seth Rich killed? Near enough is not good enough here. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Julian Assange and his WikiLeaks organization appear to be actively encouraging a conspiracy theory that a Democratic National Committee staffer was murdered for nefarious political purposes, perhaps by Hillary Clinton(note how hedged the language is) and
The fact that the idea is so absurd, though, has not stopped Assange from suggesting that Rich was murdered for nefarious political purposes either because he was an informant for the FBI or because he may have been a source in last month’s WikiLeaks release of thousands of DNC emails.(note how non-specific that is) - neither of these are implying that the Democratic Party had Seth Rich killed (though the first, absent the hedging, might seem close), and the source is not reliable for this as a statement of fact. I also note that neither the NY Daily News nor the Slate sources were used as references in the edit warred content. Information needs to be verified by the sources used as references, not by things that happen to exist somewhere in the ether. I challenge any editor who maintains that the sources used in the article do support the information included in the article to quote the sections which they believe do provide direct support; or, if they have alternate sources, to provide those, including quotes, here for discussion. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Ryk that "Wikileaks' actions during the campaign are absolutely central to Assange.".My very best wishes, please re-examine my statement. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
@ Volunteer Marek, Esn, and Ryk72: Best to start fresh. Clipped here for reference.
Relationship with Russia
According to Ben Jacobs of the Guardian, Assange has "long had a close relationship with the Putin regime." [1] He briefly hosted a talk show on the Russian state news network Russia Today. [1] U.S. intelligence agencies claim the e-mails damaging to the DNC and the Clinton 2016 campaign leaked by Wikileaks were provided by the Russian government, [1] which Assange has denied. [2] When asked in a December 2016 interview why Wikileaks does not focus more on Russia, Assange replied that there are already "competitors to WikiLeaks" in Russia which include "many vibrant publications, online blogs, and Kremlin critics such as [Alexei] Navalny", and that "no WikiLeaks staff speak Russian, so for a strong culture which has its own language, you have to be seen as a local player". He further claimed that Wikileaks had published "more than 800,000 documents about or referencing Russia and president Putin". [3] [1] Guccisamsclub ( talk) 21:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Q: These abuses have had a heavy impact in an open and democratic society like the United States and produced 'dissidents' like Chelsea Manning willing to expose them. Why aren't human rights abuses producing the same effects in regimes like China or Russia, and what can be done to democratise information in those countries? A: "In Russia, there are many vibrant publications, online blogs, and Kremlin critics such as [Alexey] Navalny are part of that spectrum. There are also newspapers like "Novaya Gazeta", in which different parts of society in Moscow are permitted to critique each other and it is tolerated, generally, because it isn't a big TV channel that might have a mass popular effect, its audience is educated people in Moscow."A very plausible interpretation is that Assange is here defending Russian civil society against the charge of cynicism and inertia. We don't have to interpret however, we can just quote (what exactly, we can discuss). But VM needs to write a minimally encyclopedic section first, so we know to work with. Guccisamsclub ( talk) 21:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Julian Assange has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
the word organisation in the first sentence is misspelled it should be organization. 73.169.140.17 ( talk) 08:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
One of Assange's fans on YouTube insists that WikiLeaks is preparing to expose "evidence" that the US faked the Moon Landing of Apollo 11 in 1969. I also remember an article from several years ago claiming Vladimir Putin denied that we landed on the moon, and in light of Moscow's attempt to manipulate the 2016 election, it makes me wonder if he's just working for Putin to fabricate this "evidence." It also makes me wonder if this claim about Assange has any legitimacy. --------- User:DanTD ( talk) 14:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Julian Assange has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The "Swedish sexual assault allegations" section currently has a pro-Julian-Assange bias.
I recommend this edit to replace the section:
Julian Assange was in Stockholm in August 2010, during which he had separate sexual encounters with two women. Afterwards, the women made accusations regarding what had happened during some of the sexual acts. One woman claims Assange pinned her down and restrained her from reaching for a condom, and after he did agree to use one, she alleges, he purposefully tore it. The other woman alleges that, after consensual sex with a condom earlier in the morning, Assange later had sex with her without a condom while she slept, despite her previous insistence that she would not consent to unprotected sex. The women went to police, apparently to coerce Assange into an HIV test, but were told their statements would need to be passed to the prosecutor. [1] As a result, the Swedish Prosecutor's Office issued an arrest warrent for two charges: molestation and rape. [2]
The rape charge was briefly dropped, and Assange was questioned by police on the molestation charge. The next week, on appeal from the alleged victims' lawyer, the rape charge was reinstated and two new charges were added: sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. [3]. Assange's attorney was informed on 15 September that he was "not subject to any restraint and could leave Sweden," but further attempts to interview him failed when, according to his attorney, Assange was unreachable for an eight day period. [4] [5] Assange left Sweden the same day the Swedish prosecutor ordered his arrest, and after further attempts to interview him failed, the prosecutor issued a European Arrest Warrant in November 2010. [6]
Assange denies the allegations. He and his supporters claim the charges are part of a larger scheme to discredit him or have him extradited to the United States, although the United States, Sweden, and the United Kingdom all afford legal protections experts claim would make prosecution there unlikely. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Assange unsuccessfully fought extradition through the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, and after his final appeal there failed he entered the Ecuadorean embassy in London where he was granted diplomatic asylum. [12] [13] [14]
Assange claims he has always been willing to be questioned on the charges from the embassy, but multiple negotiations to do so failed. Sweden and Ecuador both blame each other for the delay, which allowed the lesser charges of sexual molestation and unlawful coercion to expire their statute of limitations. [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] The rape charge is still pending, and its statute of limitations will not expire until 2020.
On 14 November 2016, police, Swedish prosecutors, and Ecuadorian officials met with Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London about the sexual assault allegations. [21] Ecuador delivered its report on the questioning to Sweden on 5 January 2017. Sweden is currently in the process of translating the document from Spanish and are expected to make a decision on how to proceed the investigation afterward. [22]
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. --
Dane2007
talk 23:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. You need to re-open the discussion and alert the other participants of your changes.
Aurato (
talk) 21:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
So, the part of consensual sex is not relevant about the rape. It is relevant about the molestation, but thats why its molestation and not rape, so it´s already in there. And you can´t mention the part about condoms ant not mention the fact that he pinned Miss A down. Because, it´s the fact he was holding her down that was criminal. Not the part about the condom. The condom part is just a weird detail that media love, it´s not that interesting in the case. Godfellow ( talk) 00:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Ms. Montgomery [the UK lawyer representing Sweden in his appeals case] disputed this claim in court Monday. She said Mr. Assange's Swedish lawyer, Bjorn Hurtig, was told on Sept. 15 that his client was "not subject to any restraint and could leave Sweden." But sometime after Sept. 15, Ms. Ny contacted Mr. Hurtig and asked him to arrange an interrogation with Mr. Assange. Mr. Hurtig said he could not make contact with his client, according to Ms. Montgomery.
198.244.108.135 ( talk) 22:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, @ Godfellow:! 198.244.108.135 ( talk) 21:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Please consider again this request for an edit. The original request (though it's since been expanded somewhat) has been pending for two months, with only two other users expressing any form of objection. talk has been pinged several times over the past three weeks and appears to have abandoned the change. User talk:Godfellow and I have had a thorough debate over the past several days, and have reached a consensus. Thank you, 198.244.108.135 ( User talk:198.244.108.135) 07:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The case was never closed -- one charge was temporarily dropped. Weeks passed between when he was told he was not restricted from traveling and when he finally did -- during which he seemed to evade multiple attempts to arrest him. There was never a special prosecutor. The current text seems to imply that the prosecutors had closed the investigation for lack of evidence, only to later change their mind for sinister political reasons.
The version in this edit request, I believe, contains a lot more information, told fairly, and is more up-to-date. ( Godfellow) and I put a lot of back-and-forth into this, and I think this request is vastly better than the current article. I ask that you reconsider your decision to deny it.
198.244.108.135 ( talk) 00:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
References
The US government is preparing to arrest Assange. JoetheMoe25 ( talk) 00:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Assange is often criticised for leaking only against the US. It needs to be mentioned in this context that Assange does not speak any other languages than English and can therefore only assess material in English. It has been said often that he does not leak against for instance Russia or other countries. This would require very competent translators who translate Russian (or other languages') material into English. This is is not happening for reasons that we do not know, probably the lack of translator funds.
I wonder if this shouldn't be mentioned here in the talk section because it is overlooked but an explanation. 2001:8003:A112:AB00:4DBA:BFF5:71FB:16B7 ( talk) 06:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
PS: Assange's attorneys can be asked if he speaks another language. He'd be able to understand simple Spanish by now after all this time in the embassy, which would be advanced tourist level, I guess. 2001:8003:A112:AB00:AC74:3C37:49B0:432D ( talk) 06:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Julian Assange. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
It seems a bit odd that Assange is credited as journalist, without any verification of that claim. The hyperlink on this page goes to a definition of "journalist", and this description does not comply with Assange's efforts. He's not credited as "journalist" anywhere else, by established journalists. He is also sometimes credited as "editor-in-chief" (on the Sam Adams Award Wikipedia page) which is also incompatible to his work and qualifications. The case is not made in this Wikipedia entry to provide enough information to back the claim that Assange is a journalist, by definition. I suggest it is deleted, and replaced with "activist", "entrepreneur" or other more fitting title.
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Blingladen ( talk) 17:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
References
can someone edit the page? please and thank you 104.33.114.195 ( talk) 09:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the subsection titled, "Allegations of Russian connection" ( diff). First off, most of the section did not mention Assange at all, but was more generally about allegations that Russia interfered in the US Presidential election. However, since some of the material was relevant to this article, I took two paragraphs from that subsection that dealt directly with Assange, and moved them to the "Leaks" subsection. I'd also like to mention that there are problems both with WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT in including such a long subsection on accusations of a "Russian connection." The length of the subsection was completely out of proportion to its relevance to Assange's biography, and moreover, most of the section didn't even deal with Assange himself. The level of mention these accusations receive now, inside the "Leaks" subsection, is appropriate. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 06:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Why is this here? It appears to be discussing a single interview in which he denies the sexual assault allegations and claims there is a feminist conspiracy against him. I'm not entirely sure why this single interview is notable, but even if it is, "comments on women" suggest his comments were about all women, not a particular subset who he believes is out to get him. The section at the very least should be edited to make it clear what he said, not just Poitras' interpretation of it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.46.159 ( talk • contribs)
Please, add (to section Work -> Filmography -> As himself) mentioning and link to documentary "Risk (2016 film)" made by "Laura Poitras".
Proof links:
Risk_(2016_film),
Laura_Poitras#Risk,
www.imdb.com -> Risk (2016)
After adding this information you can delete this section of "Talk". -- 141.101.23.38 ( talk) 17:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Fugitives wanted by Sweden category should be removed since his Swedish case was dropped. 80.98.199.159 ( talk) 16:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
در این فیلم که درباره نسل کشی ارمنیان توسط ترکیه، انکار اسناد تاریخی، توسط ترکیه، کشتارهای صورت گرفته علیه ارامنه در جمهوری آذربایجان در سال 1988 میلادی، حملات جمهوری آذربایجان به روستاهای ارمنی در ماه آوریل 2016 و انکار نسل کشی، از سوی آمریکا می باشد، افرادی همچون "جولیان آسانژ"، بنیانگذار "ویکی لیکس"، "سیبل ادمونس"، خبرنگار و کارمند سازمان "سیا" در آمریکا و "جئوفری روبرتسون"، حقوقدان مشهور بریتانیایی، اظهار نظر کرده اند. "آسانژ" در این فیلم، اعلام نموده است اسناد زیادی وجود دارند که ثابت می کنند آنچه که اتفاق افتاده است، نسل کشی بود. "جئوفری روبرتسون" نیز اظهار داشته است که بی رحمانه ترین روش های نابودی، علیه ارامنه، مورد استفاده قرار گرفته اند. همچنین، "دین کین"، تهیه کننده این فیلم و بازیگر مشهور، اعلام کرده است که نسل کشی ارامنه (توسط ترکیه) باید به رسمیت شناخته شود.
WIKIPEDIA:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. I suggest you read WP:RS/IMDB. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 18:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Checking the first citation regarding Worms Against Nuclear Killers (namely, the newspaper article called "International man of mystery"), the evidence linking Assange to the attack therein can be summarised as: (1) The attack originated in Austalia (2) Assange was in Australia at the time (3) Therefore, chances are it's Assange!
This is flimsy evidence, in light of the fact that there are thousands of cyber attacks on Pentagon every year and that Australia has a population approaching 7% of the United States'. While there are no reliable data about the geographic distribution of cybercriminals, it is well-understood that a compromised Internet-connected machine in any country may be used by cybercriminals remotely.
It could be argued that the fact of the existence of a piece of gossip itself is encyclopaedia-worthy. However, as this gossip isn't connected with any substantial event, group, lawsuit, etc., it appears to be as notable as any of the billions pieces of gossip in circulation, thus, not notable enough for Wikipedia, and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.69.225.23 ( talk) 08:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Any serious info on Assange's Twitter account? Semi-mainstream news media state that it was deleted, e.g. http://mashable.com/2017/12/25/julian-assange-delete-twitter-account . There was a break-in to Baltasar Garzón's office on 18 December and a WikiLeaks tweet including "As CIA threats against @WikiLeaks heat up, ..." - from which WP:OR could lead to quite a bit of speculation (not reliably sourced info). Boud ( talk) 12:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Should we add information to the article infobox on his position in The WikiLeaks Party?
i.e.
Julian Assange/Archive 14 | |
---|---|
Leader of the WikiLeaks Party | |
In office 1 July 2013 – 23 July 2015 | |
Deputy | Gerry Georgatos |
Preceded by | Party established |
Succeeded by | Party abolished |
Julian Paul Assange (/əˈsɒnʒ/;[1] born Julian Paul Hawkins, 3 July 1971) is an Australian computer programmer and the founder of WikiLeaks, an organization which he founded in 2006. He has won accolades including the Sam Adams Award and Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism.
It would appear from the introductory paragraph he is a journalist as that is what he is winning awards for. He could be described as formerly a computer programmer, cryptographer, systems engineer or something else.
While he is the founder of Wikileaks he also appears to be currently the head of the organization, whatever title would describe that.
I understand the use of the word journalist or editor might be controversial.
A sufficiently noncontroversial first sentence might be:
Julian Paul Assange (/əˈsɒnʒ/;[1] born Julian Paul Hawkins, 3 July 1971) is the head of Wikileaks, a multi-national media organization and associated library, which he founded in 2006. He has won accolades including the Sam Adams Award and Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism.
"multi-national media organization and associated library" is the language wikileaks uses in their about page.
https://wikileaks.org/What-is-Wikileaks.html
The German IT news site heise online (see de:Heise Online) claims "Die britischen Behörden erklärten aber, dass sie ihn wegen anderer Vergehen im Zusammenhang mit den Veröffentlichungen brisanter Dokumente trotzdem festnehmen würden", ie. "however, the british authorities said that they would arrest him because of other offsenses relating to the publication of delicate documents". However, heise doesn't give a source for this claim. Is it true or not? -- rtc ( talk) 23:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)