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 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
As this issue has come up again, I would like some clarity. The "Category:Australian criminals" says, Australian criminals are Australians who have been convicted of crime of a notable nature or notable Australians who have been convicted of serious crimes
. I don't think skipping bail was a serious crime. However, taking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy for seven years was notable. Hence, I think skipping bail was notable by the way that Assange did it. There is also the 24 hacking charges that he pleaded guilty to in 1996. They are notable, being featured in works such as
Underground (Dreyfus book) and
Underground: The Julian Assange Story. Various sources name him as a former hacker:
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]. He pleaded guilty to hacking when he was 25, having been under police investigation since 1991. He was given a three year good behaviour bond. The Swedish charges arose in 2010. He skipped bail in 2012. Last year he was expelled from the embassy and imprisoned. He is now 48. For only about 10 years of adult life, 2000-2009, was he not in the clutches of a criminal justice system. Criminal charges have dominated his life. I can't see how anyone can say this is
WP:NOTDEFINING...--
Jack Upland (
talk)
03:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define[1] the subject as having. "(career) criminal" is not how reliable sources generally describe the article subject, though I'm sure some could be Googled up with the right search string. Simply being involved with the justice system for extended periods of his life does not make him a criminal nor make him eligible to be categorised as one. - Ryk72 talk 18:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
crime of a notable natureor
a serious crime; and it doesn't mean that reliable sources generally refer to (define) the article subject as a "criminal". - Ryk72 talk 18:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
crime of a notable natureat some stage, and here we are. "Crime of a notable nature" is not "notable crime". It speaks to a quality of the general crime committed, not to a quality of the specific crime committed. Also, to hear him tell it, he didn't want to leave because he feared not an arrest warrant, but extradition, via Sweden, to the US. And, as I'm reliably informed, seeking asylum is not crime. - Ryk72 talk 23:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC) - add Ryk72 talk 23:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Labeling him an "Australian criminal" would be absurd. Please, don't descend to that level. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 23:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
quite serious[7] but ordered him to pay reparations and gave him a three-year good behaviour bond. Those three years bring us up to the end of 1999. Now some editors try to trivialise the hacking convictions, but I think it is clear they had a devastating effect on him personally. In this period he also collaborated Underground (Dreyfus book), published in 1997, which established his first claim to notability. Then Assange had roughly a decade when he had no legal problems, as far as I know. In 2010, the Swedish and US government began proceedings against him. In 2012, he breached bail and faced arrest if he left the embassy, as discussed elsewhere. He was arrested for breaching bail and was convicted of the offence this year and served his sentence. A British judge has declined to give him bail now because of his
history of absconding. [8] So the hacking crimes dominated his life from 1987-1999, skipping bail has dominated it from 2012-2020. That is roughly 20 years, though it don't understand how you arrived at 20. "Most" should mean more than half, so more than 15... My original statement was: "For only about 10 years of adult life, 2000-2009, was he not in the clutches of a criminal justice system", which includes facing charges, being on bail, serving a sentence etc. I think this is clearly true.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 03:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
OR is not okay as a justification for content changes to the article. Being "in the clutches of a criminal justice system" does not make one a criminal. The minor crimes Assange has been convicted of (and which are a very minor part of his biography) do not make him a "criminal", and he is not described as such by reliable sources. It's amazing that you were against labeling him a "journalist", despite dozens of reliable sources, but are now trying to label him a "criminal" without any sourcing at all. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 03:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
The following text was recently removed:
===Catalan independence=== Assange has stated that did not take a position on the outcome of the 2017 Catalan independence referendum. However he believed that Catalans had the right to self-determination. He provided assistance to Catalans in the lead up to the referendum by providing instructions on how to communicate and organise through secure channels, providing historical background on the struggle for Catalan independence, correcting misreporting of events and providing live video updates about Catalan protests and actions by the Spanish police. When the Spanish Government disabled voting apps, Assange tweeted instructions on how Catalans could use other apps to find out information about voting. [1] [2] The Ecuadorian government, responding to pressure from Spain, removed Assange’s internet connection and stopped his access to visitors at the Ecuador embassy. [2] Assange was awarded the 2019 Dignity Prize by The Catalan Dignity Commission for his efforts during the 2017 referendum. [2]
Reasons for adding the text are:
1. Assange received an award for his work 2. His work had severe consequences for him - loss of internet and visitors 3. This is his page. It is about him including work he has done.
Burrobert ( talk) 02:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
In January 2020, the Catalan Dignity Commission awarded Assange its 2019 Dignity Prize for what it described as Assange's role in supporting the Catalan people during the 2017 Catalan independence referendum [11]. Assange's statements during the referendum led to objection by the Spanish government and increased tension between Assange and the Ecuadorian government. [12] [13]
"Assange's statements during the referendum led to objection by the Spanish government, and according to The Guardian increased tension between Assange and the Ecuadorian government."? There are other sources as well but The Guardian is probably strongest. - Darouet ( talk) 21:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Support adding in a neutral way. Jack's proposed text looks fine to me. No full section. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 19:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
References
Currently we have two headings following each other: Breaching bail and political asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy and Asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy. Previously, the second heading has been "Later years in the Ecuadorian embassy" or "Life in the Ecuadorian embassy", but editors keep changing back. Is there a consensus for an alternative, or is repetition OK?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 03:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
What does it mean to "insinuate asylum"? Assange received political asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy.a "straw man"? What actually does it mean to "insinuate asylum"? - Ryk72 talk 23:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
The following paragraph has been just reverted with rather obscure justification "We do not need a list of everything he has ever done" [15]. Certainly we don't have to list everything he has done but frequent travel to Eastern Europe and Russia in 90's is certainly a relevant information in a biography of someone accused of supporting Russian foreign policy in 2000's. The paragraph is also very well-sourced, by both Assange's interview and autobiography:
Cloud200 ( talk) 18:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
References
It was not a tourist trip. He clearly mentions the purpose was to meet with fellow hackers. Not many Australians travel to places such as Irkutsk just to meet some people they knew online. Another part of the autobiography also mentions Assange meeting people from Chaos Computer Club in Germany, both of which are closely related to Assange's presence in the hacker community but not even mentioned in the current version of the article. This is precisely the kind of background information you find in people's biographies. Cloud200 ( talk) 23:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Other than on german language ( www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-spricht-ueber-wikileaks-gruender-julian-assange ), the UN relator Nils Melzer interview by de:Republik_(Magazin) is also in english language:
And there is another (english language) source about this:
-- 5.170.47.204 ( talk) 21:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Assange was recently released from solitary confinement in the medical wing at Belmarsh prison and placed in a wing where he can interact with other prisoners. It seems that this was as a result of the intervention of other prisoners who found Assange's treatment appalling and wrote to the governor. It has been mentioned in a number of places and WikiLeaks Ambassador Joseph Farrell has made a statement that it is a breakthrough. One of the sources had this quote "Julian is finally released from solitary in Belmarsh because the other prisoners in the prison were appalled by his treatment and took up action on his behalf. A small victory for basic humanity – and it took criminals to teach it to the British state."
On 3 February The Guardian published an article by Roy Greenslade who wants to organise a statement by British editors opposing Assange's extraditon before the hearing starts. [1]
Burrobert ( talk) 04:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
References
FAIR has published an article ‘’These are new tactics being employed to silence journalism’’ which compares the Assange and Greenwald prosecutions. [17] Here is one quote referring to an op-ed by James Risen in the New York Times:
Well, James Risen had an op-ed in the New York Times saying that Greenwald's case, and that of Julian Assange—also charged with aiding his source, Chelsea Manning, to access a military database—that “they're based in part on a new prosecutorial concept: that journalism can be proven to be a crime through a focus on interactions between reporters and their sources”; he called it a “detour around the First Amendment.” And what I thought was also interesting, was Risen says governments like Bonsonaro’s and Donald Trump's “seem to have decided to experiment with such draconian antipress tactics by trying them out first on aggressive and disagreeable figures.”
What do editors think about a brief section providing commentary about the similarities between the two cases? Burrobert ( talk) 05:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I'll revise a bit
James Risen stated in op-ed in the New York Times that Glenn Greenwald and Julian Assange, both charged with aiding sources, are “they're based in part on a new prosecutorial concept: that journalism can be proven to be a crime through a focus on interactions between reporters and their sources”; he called it a “detour around the First Amendment.”
I think this is a bit more neutral. The POV editors wont like it anyhow, so we have to see. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 07:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on the 28th of January asked the State members to support Assange, 'cause his detention is a detrimental to press freedom; also UK representants asked for this.
independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/council-of-europe-declares-support-for-julian-assange,13565
www.assangecampaign.org.au/council-of-europe/
assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=28508&Lang=en
-- 5.170.47.185 ( talk) 22:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
The consensus is to exclude the material for being undue weight.
Should the following text be added to the section International Courts and the United Nations?
Nils Melzer, the United Nations special rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, said Assange was as free to leave the Ecuadorian embassy "as someone who is sitting on a rubber boat in a shark pool". [1]
Burrobert ( talk) 15:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
References
@ Jack Upland: you reverted an edit by Nishidani that looked interesting. Your summary was that it was "too POV," and that is not a valid justification for revert. I didnt revert your revert (yet) as I think we also need better RS for this type of statement. Nishidani, do you have any other sources that support these claims? Specifically was Assange charged with rape when only one woman had alleged it? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 11:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Allow me to start at the beginning. I speak fluent Swedish and was thus able to read all of the original documents. I could hardly believe my eyes: According to the testimony of the woman in question, a rape had never even taken place at all. And not only that: The woman’s testimony was later changed by the Stockholm police without her involvement in order to somehow make it sound like a possible rape. I have all the documents in my possession, the emails, the text messages.
On Aug. 20, 2010, a woman named S. W. entered a Stockholm police station together with a second woman named A. A. The first woman, S. W. said she had had consensual sex with Julian Assange, but he had not been wearing a condom. She said she was now concerned that she could be infected with HIV and wanted to know if she could force Assange to take an HIV test. She said she was really worried. The police wrote down her statement and immediately informed public prosecutors. Even before questioning could be completed, S. W. was informed that Assange would be arrested on suspicion of rape. S. W. was shocked and refused to continue with questioning. While still in the police station, she wrote a text message to a friend saying that she didn’t want to incriminate Assange, that she just wanted him to take an HIV test, but the police were apparently interested in «getting their hands on him.» S.W. never accused Julian Assange of rape. She declined to participate in further questioning and went home. Nevertheless, two hours later, a headline appeared on the front page of Expressen, a Swedish tabloid, saying that Julian Assange was suspected of having committed two rapes.
Prof. Nils Melzer is the Human Rights Chair of the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights. He is also Professor of International Law at the University of Glasgow. On 1 November 2016, he took up the function of UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Prof. Melzer has served for 12 years with the International Committee of the Red Cross as a Legal Adviser, Delegate and Deputy Head of Delegation in various zones of conflict and violence. After leaving the ICRC in 2011, he held academic positions as Research Director of the Swiss Competence Centre on Human Rights (University of Zürich), as Swiss Chair for International Humanitarian Law (Geneva Academy)... Prof. Melzer has authored award-winning and widely translated books, including: "Targeted Killing in International Law" (Oxford, 2008, Guggenheim Prize 2009), the ICRC's "Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities" (2009) and the ICRC's official handbook "International Humanitarian Law - a Comprehensive Introduction" (2016), as well as numerous other publications in the field of international law.
"Melzer is very pro-Assange"
: Melzer has publicly stated that he actually had a very negative impression of Assange before he began investigating the case, not that this has any bearing whatsoever on whether his views should be noted. As for the notability of Melzer's commentary, I'd like to bring something new to the attention of editors here. A group of 130 very prominent German politicians, journalists and artists recently issued an appeal for Assange's release, and they prominently cited Melzer. This appeal is kind of a big deal in Germany, given that it was authored by one of Germany's most famous investigative journalists, and signed by a former Foreign Minister, a former Interior Minister and politicians from most of the major political parties. I added a short, solidly-sourced description of this appeal to the article, but it was
reverted a few minutes later on the basis of
the compelling argument, "So what?"
It's apparently back now. -
Thucydides411 (
talk)
21:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
melzer interview about assange by german television ZDF:
consortiumnews.com/2020/02/06/ray-mcgovern-german-tv-exposes-the-lies-that-entrapped-julian-assange/
Der Tagesspiegel: www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/schweden-lehnt-kommentar-ab-wie-un-experte-melzer-wikileaks-gruender-assange-entlastet/25517070.html
-- 5.170.44.52 ( talk) 19:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support for Julian Assange, imprisoned in Great Britain: After a UN expert has just exculpated the Wikileaks founder and made serious accusations about his arrest, broad protest is now being organised. More than 130 personalities from politics and culture have signed an appeal for the release of Assange. - Der Tagesspiegel
This is not an article about German punditry. Germany fans are entitled to their enthusiasms, but not to put POV text in Assange's biography here. SPECIFICO talk 13:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The recent appeal by over 130 prominent Germans is manifestly DUE. When perhaps the most famous investigative journalist in Germany writes an appeal calling for Assange's release, which is signed by politicians from across the major parties (including former government ministers, alongside many members of the Bundestag and European Parliament) and dozens of journalists, and this receives coverage across the German press, then it's clearly an event that warrants mention in the article. I added two short sentences about it: [22]. SPECIFICO immediately reverted me ( [23]) and commented "So What?" ( [24]). I find this flippant response troubling, as I suspect many other editors here will. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 23:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
[33]"The letter's signatories include famous German investigative journalist Günther Wallraff, former Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel, and Austrian winner of the Nobel Prize in literature, Elfriede Jelinek."
The German appeal, which is supported by Reporters Without Borders Germany, as well as members of Amnesty International, Transparency International, the German Journalists’ Union (dju), the Whistleblower Network and the writers’ association PEN-Germany, calls on the British Government to “release Julian Assange from prison immediately so that he can recover under specialist medical supervision and exercise his basic rights without hindrance”.
The conditions under which the 48-year-old is being held in the Belmarsh maximum security prison have long been criticized... The behavior of Sweden, which has now closed its case against Assange, is also being questioned by the UN... Well-known supporters of the whistleblower turned to the public in Berlin on Thursday. Investigative journalist Günter Wallraff, ex-foreign minister Sigmar Gabriel, ex-interior minister Gerhart Baum and left-wing Bundestag MEP Sevim Dağdelen called for the federal press conference to release Assange from prison immediately. This was preceded by a public appeal from 130 politicians, artists and journalists, including the writers Eva Menasse and the PEN Center, which appeared on Thursday in full-page in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.
Sigmar Hartmut Gabriel (born 12 September 1959) is a German politician who was Minister for Foreign Affairs from 2017 to 2018 and Vice-Chancellor of Germany from 2013 to 2018. He was Leader of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) from 2009 to 2017, which made him the party's longest-serving leader since Willy Brandt. He was the Federal Minister of the Environment from 2005 to 2009 and the Federal Minister for Economic Affairs and Energy from 2013 to 2017. From 1999 to 2003 Gabriel was Minister-President of Lower Saxony.
an argumentum ad populum [...] is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it
I see no support for putting this in the article. Please don't start proposing detail and ignoring consensus against inclusion. It's not a good look. SPECIFICO talk 16:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
"Please don't start proposing detail and ignoring consensus against inclusion."
"The WP:ONUS is on you to get consensus for inclusion. There is no consensus. Time to move on to something that's constructive."
"Please don't start... time to move on"these are just suggestions? And the linking of WP:IDHT is not an accusation, with the potential for blocks or sanctions? If you're not sufficiently interested in the text or content to discuss its details, but will oppose its inclusion in any form on the basis of W:DUE, just write that. But don't ask other editors not to discuss it. - Darouet ( talk) 20:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Added this about Corybn's comments. I recall there was a second source, but I forgot to save it. I self reverted since I am unclear if this content has been challenged or not (seems like everything gets challenged here). Also used twitter a source for Corbyn's comment today, is WP:SELF ok WP:RS for a notable politician if it comes from his verified twitter account? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 19:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
The infobox states his political party is "Independent" which links to Independent politician. I'm not sure how meaningful this is. Independent politicians have a wide range of views. Has Assange backed anyone in particular? Do we need to mention his party allegiance in the infobox anyway? The Wikileaks Party was just a failure (or perhaps a stunt). This article doesn't mention what happened to it, which is another problem.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 20:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
DW (German public tv) has a documentary out today
Melzer content:
what we saw was that mr. assange was showing all the symptoms a person normally displays when subjected to psychological torture over a long period of time. -Melzer [41]
You can hear the quotes starting around 23:20 in the video. Obvious top shelf WP:RS that lends creedence to inclusion of the Meltzer content in the article, that is often justified to exclude. This documentary shows the view is picked up by mainstream press and given significant weight.
Also gives a lot of time to content about surveillance by the Spanish security firm UC Global and bugging of Assange's room. Notes that broadcasters NDR and WDR are in possession of internal documents from UC Global that details the surveillance. Asserts that this information was handed over to US intelligence.
Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 16:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Deutsche Welle is just one of many major news organizations that has reported on Melzer's assessment of Assange's health and his accusation that Assange is being persecuted for political reasons. Just in the last week, the following news organizations have reported on Melzer's views:
Note that these are just in the last week. If you go back longer than that, you find numerous articles in the New York Times, Le Monde, and many other papers. The articles over the past week show enduring coverage of Melzer's views. Given that enduring coverage, there should be once sentence in the lede about Melzer's views. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 18:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason why these informative articles aren't used as sources?
BullRangifer ( talk) 20:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
The structure continues to be problematic. Assange's campaign to be elected to the Australian Senate in 2013 is in the "WikiLeaks" section, subsection "Iraq and Afghan War logs and US diplomatic cables". It isn't clear he was holed up in the embassy in London at that time. There is a huge chronological overlap between the "WikiLeaks" section and the sections relating to his time in the embassy. It seems arbitrary whether information is placed in the "Wikileaks" section or the embassy-related sections (for example, Assange's comments on Reality Winner). I don't think anyone would expect to find information about Assange's Senate bid under "Iraq and Afghan War logs and US diplomatic cables". Obviously a lot of Assange's notability is related to WikiLeaks, including his current imprisonment, but including it all in one section would create a huge and pointless section. I can see two options for improvement. Firstly, my preferred option, get rid of the "WikiLeaks" section, and concentrate on Assange's life, mentioning WikiLeaks when appropriate. Secondly, make the "WikiLeaks" section into an overview of the information published by WikiLeaks, and moving personal information about Assange elsewhere.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
In general, present a biography in chronological order, from birth to death, except where there is good reason to do otherwise. Within a single section, events should almost always be in chronological order.Also, if Assange and Wikileaks are "very tightly connected", which I agree with, then it makes no sense to have a "WikiLeaks" section here. It's almost like having a "Julian Assange" section.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 10:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I think there is some relevant sources about USA extradition request cause on Mr. Craig Murray website, that need to be read, and rightly implemented in the article:
www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/assange-in-court/
www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-1/
they are quoted on other internet place:
www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/10/24/pers-o24.html
morningstaronline.co.uk/article/british-state-destroying-assange
consortiumnews.com/2020/02/25/assange-extradition-your-man-in-the-public-gallery-day-no-1/
www.legrandsoir.info/compte-rendu-du-proces-assange-1er-jour.html
-- 5.171.0.17 ( talk) 11:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Craig Murray writes a blog, so it's not a good source to use here (despite the fact that it is the clearest daily account of the extradition hearing). Most of the major points from his blog that one might consider including in this article, however, are covered by regular news sources. The issue about Assange being separated from his lawyers during the proceedings, for example, has been covered by both Reuters ( [52]) and The Guardian ( [53]). - Thucydides411 ( talk) 06:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
The Consortium News and Le Grand Soir pieces were written by Murray. The material looks good, but Murray's articles appear to qualify as primary sources because they are first-hand accounts not written by journalists from reliable publications. The best approach for including the information is to find reliable secondary sources that contain the same information in non-opinion pieces. They may have gotten the information from Murray's first-hand accounts, but that is OK because it will have gone through a filter checking the truthfulness of the information Murray provided. Websurfer2 ( talk) 02:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Most of these pop-up issues fail DUE WEIGHT and are forgotten by all but the partisan Assange fans. Typical of such situations, it's possible to point to RECENTISM and coverage in the press outlets, but they lack ongoing coverage or commentary to establish anything more than passing interest. News media report on events. It's not their job to make real-time evaluations of long-term significance such as would establish weight in an encyclopedia. Flash in the pan stories about minor events -- this one or the 150 Germans or the UN health guy -- are par for the course, but without anything to suggest they're DUE for an encyclopedia. SPECIFICO talk 03:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Other on-site source on Julian Assange’s US extradition hearing from 24-27 February 2020, by RSF/Reporters Without Borders:
rsf.org/en/news/uk-legal-arguments-during-first-week-julian-assanges-extradition-hearing-highlight-lack-us-evidence
-- 5.170.44.129 ( talk) 10:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
The UK and US are respectively ranked 33rd and 48th out of 180 countries on RSF’s 2019 World Press Freedom Index.
(RSF) was concerned by the clear lack of evidence from the US for its charges against Assange. RSF also remains concerned about Assange’s wellbeing and inability to participate properly in his hearing, following reports of mistreatment at Belmarsh prison and the judge’s rejection of his application to sit with his lawyers in the courtroom.
In the course of the prosecution’s argument, it became clear that the US still has no evidence for its claim that Assange had put sources at “serious and imminent risk,” but are pursuing the charges based on the risks that he is accused of knowingly causing.
They outlined that Wikileaks had worked for months with a partnership of professional media organisations to redact the leaked documents. The defence explained that as redaction was in progress, one of the media partners had published a book containing the password to the unredacted dataset, which led to its access and publication by other parties. The defence outlined how Assange had attempted to mitigate any risk to sensitive sources by notifying the White House and State Department that publication outside of Wikileaks’ control was potentially forthcoming, imploring them to take action to protect the named individuals.
On day two, Assange’s lawyer reported that he had been mistreated at Belmarsh prison; after the first day of the hearing, he was strip-searched twice, handcuffed 11 times, moved holding cells five times, and had his legally privileged documents confiscated on entering and exiting the prison. The judge stated it was not a matter within her jurisdiction. On day four, she rejected his application to be allowed to sit with his lawyers in the courtroom when evidence is given in May, despite the fact that the prosecution did not object to the request.
Sources
|
---|
|
Jtbobwaysf just deleted content with one of the most bizarre edit summaries I've seen in a long time: " i think King Trump often refers to "obtained exclusively by CNN" as a fake news. regardless it is not reliable without more sources."
Trump is probably the least RS known, and CNN is definitely a RS. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 06:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
@ Bishonen: after you blocked Jtbobwaysf for reinstating challenged material, @ Calton: did the very same thing, adding back a block of opinion text to the article [54] that was only just added that day [55], but had been contested by reversion [56]. The text Calton restored has also been challenged on the talk page [57], and they have not attempted to defend it there. The added text is particularly egregious from a content perspective because it expands an already bloated article section with a block quote from an opinion piece that doesn't even receive in-text attribution (though there is a reference). As far as consensus and conduct are concerned however, Calton's addition goes against the sanctions on this page.
I asked Calton here on talk to self-revert [58] based on page sanctions, and they were also asked to do so on their talk page [59]. Calton continues to edit [60] and has ignored their DS violation. - Darouet ( talk) 15:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
This is not the place to discus user actions. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at ANI relating to this article. See here. SPECIFICO talk 22:36, 7 March 2020 (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 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
As this issue has come up again, I would like some clarity. The "Category:Australian criminals" says, Australian criminals are Australians who have been convicted of crime of a notable nature or notable Australians who have been convicted of serious crimes
. I don't think skipping bail was a serious crime. However, taking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy for seven years was notable. Hence, I think skipping bail was notable by the way that Assange did it. There is also the 24 hacking charges that he pleaded guilty to in 1996. They are notable, being featured in works such as
Underground (Dreyfus book) and
Underground: The Julian Assange Story. Various sources name him as a former hacker:
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]. He pleaded guilty to hacking when he was 25, having been under police investigation since 1991. He was given a three year good behaviour bond. The Swedish charges arose in 2010. He skipped bail in 2012. Last year he was expelled from the embassy and imprisoned. He is now 48. For only about 10 years of adult life, 2000-2009, was he not in the clutches of a criminal justice system. Criminal charges have dominated his life. I can't see how anyone can say this is
WP:NOTDEFINING...--
Jack Upland (
talk)
03:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define[1] the subject as having. "(career) criminal" is not how reliable sources generally describe the article subject, though I'm sure some could be Googled up with the right search string. Simply being involved with the justice system for extended periods of his life does not make him a criminal nor make him eligible to be categorised as one. - Ryk72 talk 18:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
crime of a notable natureor
a serious crime; and it doesn't mean that reliable sources generally refer to (define) the article subject as a "criminal". - Ryk72 talk 18:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
crime of a notable natureat some stage, and here we are. "Crime of a notable nature" is not "notable crime". It speaks to a quality of the general crime committed, not to a quality of the specific crime committed. Also, to hear him tell it, he didn't want to leave because he feared not an arrest warrant, but extradition, via Sweden, to the US. And, as I'm reliably informed, seeking asylum is not crime. - Ryk72 talk 23:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC) - add Ryk72 talk 23:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Labeling him an "Australian criminal" would be absurd. Please, don't descend to that level. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 23:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
quite serious[7] but ordered him to pay reparations and gave him a three-year good behaviour bond. Those three years bring us up to the end of 1999. Now some editors try to trivialise the hacking convictions, but I think it is clear they had a devastating effect on him personally. In this period he also collaborated Underground (Dreyfus book), published in 1997, which established his first claim to notability. Then Assange had roughly a decade when he had no legal problems, as far as I know. In 2010, the Swedish and US government began proceedings against him. In 2012, he breached bail and faced arrest if he left the embassy, as discussed elsewhere. He was arrested for breaching bail and was convicted of the offence this year and served his sentence. A British judge has declined to give him bail now because of his
history of absconding. [8] So the hacking crimes dominated his life from 1987-1999, skipping bail has dominated it from 2012-2020. That is roughly 20 years, though it don't understand how you arrived at 20. "Most" should mean more than half, so more than 15... My original statement was: "For only about 10 years of adult life, 2000-2009, was he not in the clutches of a criminal justice system", which includes facing charges, being on bail, serving a sentence etc. I think this is clearly true.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 03:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
OR is not okay as a justification for content changes to the article. Being "in the clutches of a criminal justice system" does not make one a criminal. The minor crimes Assange has been convicted of (and which are a very minor part of his biography) do not make him a "criminal", and he is not described as such by reliable sources. It's amazing that you were against labeling him a "journalist", despite dozens of reliable sources, but are now trying to label him a "criminal" without any sourcing at all. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 03:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
The following text was recently removed:
===Catalan independence=== Assange has stated that did not take a position on the outcome of the 2017 Catalan independence referendum. However he believed that Catalans had the right to self-determination. He provided assistance to Catalans in the lead up to the referendum by providing instructions on how to communicate and organise through secure channels, providing historical background on the struggle for Catalan independence, correcting misreporting of events and providing live video updates about Catalan protests and actions by the Spanish police. When the Spanish Government disabled voting apps, Assange tweeted instructions on how Catalans could use other apps to find out information about voting. [1] [2] The Ecuadorian government, responding to pressure from Spain, removed Assange’s internet connection and stopped his access to visitors at the Ecuador embassy. [2] Assange was awarded the 2019 Dignity Prize by The Catalan Dignity Commission for his efforts during the 2017 referendum. [2]
Reasons for adding the text are:
1. Assange received an award for his work 2. His work had severe consequences for him - loss of internet and visitors 3. This is his page. It is about him including work he has done.
Burrobert ( talk) 02:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
In January 2020, the Catalan Dignity Commission awarded Assange its 2019 Dignity Prize for what it described as Assange's role in supporting the Catalan people during the 2017 Catalan independence referendum [11]. Assange's statements during the referendum led to objection by the Spanish government and increased tension between Assange and the Ecuadorian government. [12] [13]
"Assange's statements during the referendum led to objection by the Spanish government, and according to The Guardian increased tension between Assange and the Ecuadorian government."? There are other sources as well but The Guardian is probably strongest. - Darouet ( talk) 21:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Support adding in a neutral way. Jack's proposed text looks fine to me. No full section. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 19:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
References
Currently we have two headings following each other: Breaching bail and political asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy and Asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy. Previously, the second heading has been "Later years in the Ecuadorian embassy" or "Life in the Ecuadorian embassy", but editors keep changing back. Is there a consensus for an alternative, or is repetition OK?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 03:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
What does it mean to "insinuate asylum"? Assange received political asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy.a "straw man"? What actually does it mean to "insinuate asylum"? - Ryk72 talk 23:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
The following paragraph has been just reverted with rather obscure justification "We do not need a list of everything he has ever done" [15]. Certainly we don't have to list everything he has done but frequent travel to Eastern Europe and Russia in 90's is certainly a relevant information in a biography of someone accused of supporting Russian foreign policy in 2000's. The paragraph is also very well-sourced, by both Assange's interview and autobiography:
Cloud200 ( talk) 18:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
References
It was not a tourist trip. He clearly mentions the purpose was to meet with fellow hackers. Not many Australians travel to places such as Irkutsk just to meet some people they knew online. Another part of the autobiography also mentions Assange meeting people from Chaos Computer Club in Germany, both of which are closely related to Assange's presence in the hacker community but not even mentioned in the current version of the article. This is precisely the kind of background information you find in people's biographies. Cloud200 ( talk) 23:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Other than on german language ( www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-spricht-ueber-wikileaks-gruender-julian-assange ), the UN relator Nils Melzer interview by de:Republik_(Magazin) is also in english language:
And there is another (english language) source about this:
-- 5.170.47.204 ( talk) 21:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Assange was recently released from solitary confinement in the medical wing at Belmarsh prison and placed in a wing where he can interact with other prisoners. It seems that this was as a result of the intervention of other prisoners who found Assange's treatment appalling and wrote to the governor. It has been mentioned in a number of places and WikiLeaks Ambassador Joseph Farrell has made a statement that it is a breakthrough. One of the sources had this quote "Julian is finally released from solitary in Belmarsh because the other prisoners in the prison were appalled by his treatment and took up action on his behalf. A small victory for basic humanity – and it took criminals to teach it to the British state."
On 3 February The Guardian published an article by Roy Greenslade who wants to organise a statement by British editors opposing Assange's extraditon before the hearing starts. [1]
Burrobert ( talk) 04:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
References
FAIR has published an article ‘’These are new tactics being employed to silence journalism’’ which compares the Assange and Greenwald prosecutions. [17] Here is one quote referring to an op-ed by James Risen in the New York Times:
Well, James Risen had an op-ed in the New York Times saying that Greenwald's case, and that of Julian Assange—also charged with aiding his source, Chelsea Manning, to access a military database—that “they're based in part on a new prosecutorial concept: that journalism can be proven to be a crime through a focus on interactions between reporters and their sources”; he called it a “detour around the First Amendment.” And what I thought was also interesting, was Risen says governments like Bonsonaro’s and Donald Trump's “seem to have decided to experiment with such draconian antipress tactics by trying them out first on aggressive and disagreeable figures.”
What do editors think about a brief section providing commentary about the similarities between the two cases? Burrobert ( talk) 05:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I'll revise a bit
James Risen stated in op-ed in the New York Times that Glenn Greenwald and Julian Assange, both charged with aiding sources, are “they're based in part on a new prosecutorial concept: that journalism can be proven to be a crime through a focus on interactions between reporters and their sources”; he called it a “detour around the First Amendment.”
I think this is a bit more neutral. The POV editors wont like it anyhow, so we have to see. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 07:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on the 28th of January asked the State members to support Assange, 'cause his detention is a detrimental to press freedom; also UK representants asked for this.
independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/council-of-europe-declares-support-for-julian-assange,13565
www.assangecampaign.org.au/council-of-europe/
assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=28508&Lang=en
-- 5.170.47.185 ( talk) 22:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
The consensus is to exclude the material for being undue weight.
Should the following text be added to the section International Courts and the United Nations?
Nils Melzer, the United Nations special rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, said Assange was as free to leave the Ecuadorian embassy "as someone who is sitting on a rubber boat in a shark pool". [1]
Burrobert ( talk) 15:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
References
@ Jack Upland: you reverted an edit by Nishidani that looked interesting. Your summary was that it was "too POV," and that is not a valid justification for revert. I didnt revert your revert (yet) as I think we also need better RS for this type of statement. Nishidani, do you have any other sources that support these claims? Specifically was Assange charged with rape when only one woman had alleged it? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 11:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Allow me to start at the beginning. I speak fluent Swedish and was thus able to read all of the original documents. I could hardly believe my eyes: According to the testimony of the woman in question, a rape had never even taken place at all. And not only that: The woman’s testimony was later changed by the Stockholm police without her involvement in order to somehow make it sound like a possible rape. I have all the documents in my possession, the emails, the text messages.
On Aug. 20, 2010, a woman named S. W. entered a Stockholm police station together with a second woman named A. A. The first woman, S. W. said she had had consensual sex with Julian Assange, but he had not been wearing a condom. She said she was now concerned that she could be infected with HIV and wanted to know if she could force Assange to take an HIV test. She said she was really worried. The police wrote down her statement and immediately informed public prosecutors. Even before questioning could be completed, S. W. was informed that Assange would be arrested on suspicion of rape. S. W. was shocked and refused to continue with questioning. While still in the police station, she wrote a text message to a friend saying that she didn’t want to incriminate Assange, that she just wanted him to take an HIV test, but the police were apparently interested in «getting their hands on him.» S.W. never accused Julian Assange of rape. She declined to participate in further questioning and went home. Nevertheless, two hours later, a headline appeared on the front page of Expressen, a Swedish tabloid, saying that Julian Assange was suspected of having committed two rapes.
Prof. Nils Melzer is the Human Rights Chair of the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights. He is also Professor of International Law at the University of Glasgow. On 1 November 2016, he took up the function of UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Prof. Melzer has served for 12 years with the International Committee of the Red Cross as a Legal Adviser, Delegate and Deputy Head of Delegation in various zones of conflict and violence. After leaving the ICRC in 2011, he held academic positions as Research Director of the Swiss Competence Centre on Human Rights (University of Zürich), as Swiss Chair for International Humanitarian Law (Geneva Academy)... Prof. Melzer has authored award-winning and widely translated books, including: "Targeted Killing in International Law" (Oxford, 2008, Guggenheim Prize 2009), the ICRC's "Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities" (2009) and the ICRC's official handbook "International Humanitarian Law - a Comprehensive Introduction" (2016), as well as numerous other publications in the field of international law.
"Melzer is very pro-Assange"
: Melzer has publicly stated that he actually had a very negative impression of Assange before he began investigating the case, not that this has any bearing whatsoever on whether his views should be noted. As for the notability of Melzer's commentary, I'd like to bring something new to the attention of editors here. A group of 130 very prominent German politicians, journalists and artists recently issued an appeal for Assange's release, and they prominently cited Melzer. This appeal is kind of a big deal in Germany, given that it was authored by one of Germany's most famous investigative journalists, and signed by a former Foreign Minister, a former Interior Minister and politicians from most of the major political parties. I added a short, solidly-sourced description of this appeal to the article, but it was
reverted a few minutes later on the basis of
the compelling argument, "So what?"
It's apparently back now. -
Thucydides411 (
talk)
21:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
melzer interview about assange by german television ZDF:
consortiumnews.com/2020/02/06/ray-mcgovern-german-tv-exposes-the-lies-that-entrapped-julian-assange/
Der Tagesspiegel: www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/schweden-lehnt-kommentar-ab-wie-un-experte-melzer-wikileaks-gruender-assange-entlastet/25517070.html
-- 5.170.44.52 ( talk) 19:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Support for Julian Assange, imprisoned in Great Britain: After a UN expert has just exculpated the Wikileaks founder and made serious accusations about his arrest, broad protest is now being organised. More than 130 personalities from politics and culture have signed an appeal for the release of Assange. - Der Tagesspiegel
This is not an article about German punditry. Germany fans are entitled to their enthusiasms, but not to put POV text in Assange's biography here. SPECIFICO talk 13:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The recent appeal by over 130 prominent Germans is manifestly DUE. When perhaps the most famous investigative journalist in Germany writes an appeal calling for Assange's release, which is signed by politicians from across the major parties (including former government ministers, alongside many members of the Bundestag and European Parliament) and dozens of journalists, and this receives coverage across the German press, then it's clearly an event that warrants mention in the article. I added two short sentences about it: [22]. SPECIFICO immediately reverted me ( [23]) and commented "So What?" ( [24]). I find this flippant response troubling, as I suspect many other editors here will. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 23:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
[33]"The letter's signatories include famous German investigative journalist Günther Wallraff, former Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel, and Austrian winner of the Nobel Prize in literature, Elfriede Jelinek."
The German appeal, which is supported by Reporters Without Borders Germany, as well as members of Amnesty International, Transparency International, the German Journalists’ Union (dju), the Whistleblower Network and the writers’ association PEN-Germany, calls on the British Government to “release Julian Assange from prison immediately so that he can recover under specialist medical supervision and exercise his basic rights without hindrance”.
The conditions under which the 48-year-old is being held in the Belmarsh maximum security prison have long been criticized... The behavior of Sweden, which has now closed its case against Assange, is also being questioned by the UN... Well-known supporters of the whistleblower turned to the public in Berlin on Thursday. Investigative journalist Günter Wallraff, ex-foreign minister Sigmar Gabriel, ex-interior minister Gerhart Baum and left-wing Bundestag MEP Sevim Dağdelen called for the federal press conference to release Assange from prison immediately. This was preceded by a public appeal from 130 politicians, artists and journalists, including the writers Eva Menasse and the PEN Center, which appeared on Thursday in full-page in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.
Sigmar Hartmut Gabriel (born 12 September 1959) is a German politician who was Minister for Foreign Affairs from 2017 to 2018 and Vice-Chancellor of Germany from 2013 to 2018. He was Leader of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) from 2009 to 2017, which made him the party's longest-serving leader since Willy Brandt. He was the Federal Minister of the Environment from 2005 to 2009 and the Federal Minister for Economic Affairs and Energy from 2013 to 2017. From 1999 to 2003 Gabriel was Minister-President of Lower Saxony.
an argumentum ad populum [...] is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it
I see no support for putting this in the article. Please don't start proposing detail and ignoring consensus against inclusion. It's not a good look. SPECIFICO talk 16:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
"Please don't start proposing detail and ignoring consensus against inclusion."
"The WP:ONUS is on you to get consensus for inclusion. There is no consensus. Time to move on to something that's constructive."
"Please don't start... time to move on"these are just suggestions? And the linking of WP:IDHT is not an accusation, with the potential for blocks or sanctions? If you're not sufficiently interested in the text or content to discuss its details, but will oppose its inclusion in any form on the basis of W:DUE, just write that. But don't ask other editors not to discuss it. - Darouet ( talk) 20:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Added this about Corybn's comments. I recall there was a second source, but I forgot to save it. I self reverted since I am unclear if this content has been challenged or not (seems like everything gets challenged here). Also used twitter a source for Corbyn's comment today, is WP:SELF ok WP:RS for a notable politician if it comes from his verified twitter account? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 19:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
The infobox states his political party is "Independent" which links to Independent politician. I'm not sure how meaningful this is. Independent politicians have a wide range of views. Has Assange backed anyone in particular? Do we need to mention his party allegiance in the infobox anyway? The Wikileaks Party was just a failure (or perhaps a stunt). This article doesn't mention what happened to it, which is another problem.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 20:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
DW (German public tv) has a documentary out today
Melzer content:
what we saw was that mr. assange was showing all the symptoms a person normally displays when subjected to psychological torture over a long period of time. -Melzer [41]
You can hear the quotes starting around 23:20 in the video. Obvious top shelf WP:RS that lends creedence to inclusion of the Meltzer content in the article, that is often justified to exclude. This documentary shows the view is picked up by mainstream press and given significant weight.
Also gives a lot of time to content about surveillance by the Spanish security firm UC Global and bugging of Assange's room. Notes that broadcasters NDR and WDR are in possession of internal documents from UC Global that details the surveillance. Asserts that this information was handed over to US intelligence.
Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 16:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Deutsche Welle is just one of many major news organizations that has reported on Melzer's assessment of Assange's health and his accusation that Assange is being persecuted for political reasons. Just in the last week, the following news organizations have reported on Melzer's views:
Note that these are just in the last week. If you go back longer than that, you find numerous articles in the New York Times, Le Monde, and many other papers. The articles over the past week show enduring coverage of Melzer's views. Given that enduring coverage, there should be once sentence in the lede about Melzer's views. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 18:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason why these informative articles aren't used as sources?
BullRangifer ( talk) 20:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
The structure continues to be problematic. Assange's campaign to be elected to the Australian Senate in 2013 is in the "WikiLeaks" section, subsection "Iraq and Afghan War logs and US diplomatic cables". It isn't clear he was holed up in the embassy in London at that time. There is a huge chronological overlap between the "WikiLeaks" section and the sections relating to his time in the embassy. It seems arbitrary whether information is placed in the "Wikileaks" section or the embassy-related sections (for example, Assange's comments on Reality Winner). I don't think anyone would expect to find information about Assange's Senate bid under "Iraq and Afghan War logs and US diplomatic cables". Obviously a lot of Assange's notability is related to WikiLeaks, including his current imprisonment, but including it all in one section would create a huge and pointless section. I can see two options for improvement. Firstly, my preferred option, get rid of the "WikiLeaks" section, and concentrate on Assange's life, mentioning WikiLeaks when appropriate. Secondly, make the "WikiLeaks" section into an overview of the information published by WikiLeaks, and moving personal information about Assange elsewhere.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
In general, present a biography in chronological order, from birth to death, except where there is good reason to do otherwise. Within a single section, events should almost always be in chronological order.Also, if Assange and Wikileaks are "very tightly connected", which I agree with, then it makes no sense to have a "WikiLeaks" section here. It's almost like having a "Julian Assange" section.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 10:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I think there is some relevant sources about USA extradition request cause on Mr. Craig Murray website, that need to be read, and rightly implemented in the article:
www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/assange-in-court/
www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-1/
they are quoted on other internet place:
www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/10/24/pers-o24.html
morningstaronline.co.uk/article/british-state-destroying-assange
consortiumnews.com/2020/02/25/assange-extradition-your-man-in-the-public-gallery-day-no-1/
www.legrandsoir.info/compte-rendu-du-proces-assange-1er-jour.html
-- 5.171.0.17 ( talk) 11:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Craig Murray writes a blog, so it's not a good source to use here (despite the fact that it is the clearest daily account of the extradition hearing). Most of the major points from his blog that one might consider including in this article, however, are covered by regular news sources. The issue about Assange being separated from his lawyers during the proceedings, for example, has been covered by both Reuters ( [52]) and The Guardian ( [53]). - Thucydides411 ( talk) 06:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
The Consortium News and Le Grand Soir pieces were written by Murray. The material looks good, but Murray's articles appear to qualify as primary sources because they are first-hand accounts not written by journalists from reliable publications. The best approach for including the information is to find reliable secondary sources that contain the same information in non-opinion pieces. They may have gotten the information from Murray's first-hand accounts, but that is OK because it will have gone through a filter checking the truthfulness of the information Murray provided. Websurfer2 ( talk) 02:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Most of these pop-up issues fail DUE WEIGHT and are forgotten by all but the partisan Assange fans. Typical of such situations, it's possible to point to RECENTISM and coverage in the press outlets, but they lack ongoing coverage or commentary to establish anything more than passing interest. News media report on events. It's not their job to make real-time evaluations of long-term significance such as would establish weight in an encyclopedia. Flash in the pan stories about minor events -- this one or the 150 Germans or the UN health guy -- are par for the course, but without anything to suggest they're DUE for an encyclopedia. SPECIFICO talk 03:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Other on-site source on Julian Assange’s US extradition hearing from 24-27 February 2020, by RSF/Reporters Without Borders:
rsf.org/en/news/uk-legal-arguments-during-first-week-julian-assanges-extradition-hearing-highlight-lack-us-evidence
-- 5.170.44.129 ( talk) 10:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
The UK and US are respectively ranked 33rd and 48th out of 180 countries on RSF’s 2019 World Press Freedom Index.
(RSF) was concerned by the clear lack of evidence from the US for its charges against Assange. RSF also remains concerned about Assange’s wellbeing and inability to participate properly in his hearing, following reports of mistreatment at Belmarsh prison and the judge’s rejection of his application to sit with his lawyers in the courtroom.
In the course of the prosecution’s argument, it became clear that the US still has no evidence for its claim that Assange had put sources at “serious and imminent risk,” but are pursuing the charges based on the risks that he is accused of knowingly causing.
They outlined that Wikileaks had worked for months with a partnership of professional media organisations to redact the leaked documents. The defence explained that as redaction was in progress, one of the media partners had published a book containing the password to the unredacted dataset, which led to its access and publication by other parties. The defence outlined how Assange had attempted to mitigate any risk to sensitive sources by notifying the White House and State Department that publication outside of Wikileaks’ control was potentially forthcoming, imploring them to take action to protect the named individuals.
On day two, Assange’s lawyer reported that he had been mistreated at Belmarsh prison; after the first day of the hearing, he was strip-searched twice, handcuffed 11 times, moved holding cells five times, and had his legally privileged documents confiscated on entering and exiting the prison. The judge stated it was not a matter within her jurisdiction. On day four, she rejected his application to be allowed to sit with his lawyers in the courtroom when evidence is given in May, despite the fact that the prosecution did not object to the request.
Sources
|
---|
|
Jtbobwaysf just deleted content with one of the most bizarre edit summaries I've seen in a long time: " i think King Trump often refers to "obtained exclusively by CNN" as a fake news. regardless it is not reliable without more sources."
Trump is probably the least RS known, and CNN is definitely a RS. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 06:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
@ Bishonen: after you blocked Jtbobwaysf for reinstating challenged material, @ Calton: did the very same thing, adding back a block of opinion text to the article [54] that was only just added that day [55], but had been contested by reversion [56]. The text Calton restored has also been challenged on the talk page [57], and they have not attempted to defend it there. The added text is particularly egregious from a content perspective because it expands an already bloated article section with a block quote from an opinion piece that doesn't even receive in-text attribution (though there is a reference). As far as consensus and conduct are concerned however, Calton's addition goes against the sanctions on this page.
I asked Calton here on talk to self-revert [58] based on page sanctions, and they were also asked to do so on their talk page [59]. Calton continues to edit [60] and has ignored their DS violation. - Darouet ( talk) 15:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
This is not the place to discus user actions. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at ANI relating to this article. See here. SPECIFICO talk 22:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)