![]() | 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 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
Part of the problem above is that it's emblematic of a systemic problem with this article: it devotes an extraordinary amount of text to trivia.
The article is 226,509 bytes. The article on Robert Hooke ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is 76,111 bytes. Hooke came up with the idea of tabulating expected versus achieved results in experiments, built the gas pump and performed the experiments for Boyle's Law, formulated the eponymous law of springs, lectured on how fossils were the preserved relics of extinct creatures before the term extinct existed, founded the science of microscopy, wrote the first great scientific bestseller, Micrographia, coined the biological term "cell", was a founder member of the Royal Society, for whom he was also curator of experiments and, briefly, secretary, conducted half the surveys after the great fire of London, designed the monument to the fire (built as a telescope to observe transits, but his characteristically accurate measurements when built showed that it moved too much in the wind for that to work - but this is why there is no central column to the spiral stariway), along with the dome of St. Paul's, several "Wren" churches and Bethlehem Hospital, the famous "bedlam", wrote Britain's first building controls, invented the sash window, and codified resolving power. Oh, and told Newton that gravity was an inverse square law and that light is formed of waves. Over 300 years after his death we are still discovering significant work by him. An entire museum was inspired by his work. I doubt the same will be true of Assange, who is mainly known for publishing stolen documents, first for whistleblowers and then for the Russian security services, and for running away and hiding from accusations of rape.
If we make the article roughly a quarter of its present size, it will be much better, and the genuinely significant will be easier to see. Guy ( help! - typo?) 18:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
This entire thread is
WP:OR at best, but includes aspersions against editors here (e.g. Assange cultists
, a small number of enthusiasts who for whatever reason sometimes do not see the forest for the trees
), and aspersions against living persons described in the article (e.g. Melzer is a self-selected unpaid volunteer with a limited scope of knowledge
, and Assange a very naughty boy
). We've repeatedly used reliable sources to determine how this article should best apportion content according to
WP:DUE weight, and those sources show that the 2016 election is often not mentioned at all in summaries of Assange's life. By contrast, Assange was not extradited to the US by reason of his health, and multiple international legal and humanitarian bodies have highlighted what they describe as his mistreatment, receiving prominent coverage in the news. -
Darouet (
talk) 22:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
The US government’s unrelenting pursuit of Julian Assange for having published disclosed documents that included possible war crimes committed by the US military is nothing short of a full-scale assault on the right to freedom of expression.
For the first time in the history of our country, the government has brought criminal charges against a publisher for the publication of truthful information.
US and British politicians are abusing the US Espionage Act to criminalise Assange’s revelations of US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
has been indicted in the United States under the Espionage Act for WikiLeaks’ 2010-11 publications of the Iraq War Logs, the Afghan War Diaries, and State Department cables. If convicted, Assange would face 175 years in prison. He is accused by the Americans of encouraging whistleblower Chelsea Manning in 2010 to break into the government’s computer system to provide information containing clear evidence of war crimes, including the publication of the video Collateral murders. The video showed, via an onboard camera on a US Apache helicopter in Iraq, the deliberate shooting on 12 July 2007 in Baghdad of civilians by the US military. At least 18 people were killed in the incident, including two journalists from the Reuters agency. Both the IFJ and its British and Australian affiliates, the NUJ and the MEAA, have repeatedly highlighted the risks to journalism posed by Assange’s threatened extradition.
Remember that little spying case against Julian Assange? The Department of Justice indicted him last year for publishing classified US military and State Department documents leaked in 2010 by Chelsea Manning, who was then a soldier in Iraq... The US’s aggressive efforts to extradite Assange under spying charges for publicly disclosing classified information—in contravention of the political offense exception—could create precedent that affects the US press.
Regarding Melzer, take a look at the list of sources
I posted above, in the "United Nations" discussion thread. Melzer's comments have been covered by the major news outlets in every country I checked (US, UK, France, Spain, Germany, China, Canada, Australia). These articles span the period 2019 to the present, showing that this coverage was not just a flash in the pan, but rather that it has continued for two years. Statements such as, The UN affiliation gets lots of initial press coverage but little serious attention has been given his rather insistent views
simply do not line up with what we actually see from the sources. -
Thucydides411 (
talk) 10:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
little serious attentionto Melzer's views (there has been a huge amount of press attention) and your assertion that there was only
initial press coverage(the coverage spans the last two years). Looking above, I don't see any indication that
most editorsreject what I am saying about Melzer. You've asserted that the Melzer material is undue, while I've shown that there's a massive amount of ongoing press coverage of Melzer's views. If you keep asserting that to the contrary, little attention has been paid to Melzer, and if you don't engage with the sources, I don't see how we can make any progress. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 14:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
"Assange breached bail conditions by staying in the embassy and faced arrest if he left."
Isn't this wording rather derogatory? It goes with the 'spoiled brat' trope, kinda. I suggest replacing "staying in the embassy" with "requesting asylum", which is functionally identical but does not make his actions look arbitrary. Elinruby ( talk)
That makes for an interesting thought experiment but are there any sources which comment on it? Burrobert ( talk) 08:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I tried changing the title of this section to
[13] "political asylum." Jack has objected
[14], writing, "Asylum is only one issue here. We have to acknowledge breaching bail." However, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has stated
[15] that a bail violation in the UK [is] objectively, a minor offense
, and I don't think anyone here would dispute that.
I therefore propose that we acknowledge the more important aspect of Assange's biography — that he was granted political asylum — and change the name of this section to the shorter and more informative Political asylum. - Darouet ( talk) 03:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
objectively minor offenseis totally inappropriate, full stop. A reader should be able to scan the table of contents and quickly find this episode in his life. - Darouet ( talk) 10:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Sources calling so-called political asylum significant? Very few. Sources noting the crime of bail-jumping: Numerous. Let's skip the OR. SPECIFICO talk 13:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I've tried to do this in a modified way [16], transforming "Entering the embassy" into "Entering the Ecuadorian embassy" to keep that section largely as it was before. However, I've changed the broader section title so that it is no longer redundant with the one below, and allows readers to quickly locate the asylum period of Assange's life. - Darouet ( talk) 13:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I see several in this article: a cluster of statements regarding Assange's current mental health, that he is/was a narcissist, and that he is a "spoiled brat". For a start. I also see a lot of ink being spilled on whether a UN rapporteur on torture is a reliable source, or even notable. The argument appears to be that Assange has not been tortured, therefore, Metzger isn't qualified to make statements about him, even to say that he appears to have been tortured.
Meanwhile the opinions of politicians are ok, though? The statements that Assange is "a spoiled brat" and a "narcissist" do meet a minimum standard of being sourced, but if Wikipedia supposedly cannot say he is a suicide or health risk even when a British court has ruled that he is, this does seem POV.
Since this is a story that primarily takes place in English courts, perhaps we should apply a legal standard? In any event, the standard for health opinions should be evenly applied. Elinruby ( talk)
While the term is technically accurate, what he was accused of was initiating a second round of sex with a woman who voluntarily slept with him then fell asleep. The allegation is that he did not properly ensure he had consent the second time, after waking her up. That *is* technically sexual assault but to my mind there is a pretty high presumption that consent exists in those circumstances. I am quite certain that this would never have made it to the criminal justice system if there had not been pressure from the US. This is too nuanced for the lede, so I am not sure how this should be addressed, but I think it is a BLP issue. Also, the change of government in Ecuador had something to do with his change of status at the embassy. I have not read the entire article yet, but am noting these as inaccuracies that I see so far. I will provide sourcing for any changes I propose. Elinruby ( talk) 05:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Elinruby - If you want to propose some specific changes with relevant sources, feel free. I haven't looked at that section recently and it's been some time since I've read about it, though the UN Rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer, does have an in-depth commentary on the topic here [17]. One thing that needs correction in our article is the lead treatment of the case being dropped for the third time. We cite the prosecutor's stated reason for dropping the case, but the defense said it was dropped for very different reasons. If we're going to include the prosecution's stated reason, we should include the defense statement as well. - Darouet ( talk) 21:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Darouet: I agree with that suggestion. After I wrote this, I went down the page, and also read through the spin-off article. There is a fairly extensive exploration of this point there. I am even more convinced that the word "rape" is a misnomer. What he did is certainly not irreproachable behaviour, but when unqualified the word implies a complete lack of consent, and possibly violence, which was not the case here. I do not think it should be used in his BLP, certainly not in its lede. I do not yet have a proposal for this, however. Elinruby ( talk) 23:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Burrobert: I have not really researched this recently; was musing on my recollection of events. Based on that I think what you are saying is largely true, except that the coup d'état in Ecuador probably had as much to do with lithium as Assange. Possibly not however, as Trump was nothing if not personal and petty in his politics, but I do not have a firm opinion on this yet. However, lede does make it sound as though Assange was just a very difficult guest. I have seen news stories that suggest he was, but am pretty sure there is more to the story. Again, this is the tone of the lede I am objecting to; I haven't gone through the section on this in this article yet. Elinruby ( talk) 23:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
correction re Ecuador: it seems I conflated it with Bolivia. Still reading. Elinruby ( talk) 03:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
References
following much the same logic I edited "habit of sexually assaulting women", to something like "groping", I believe. Somebody has changed it back. I do believe the several women who have accused Trump of sexual assault, as in rape, but the Access Hollywood tape specifically discusses grabbing and kissing. This is of course also a form of sexual assault, so this is a closer call than it is with Assange, but we are in BLP territory and "sexual assault" is very often a euphemism for "forcible rape". Elinruby ( talk) 17:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't see the point of having so many headings in this portion of the article. Many of the headings are followed by a single short paragraph. It is also illogical to have a section headed "Ecuadorian embassy period" which doesn't actually cover the entire period.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 00:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Actually that might work. One question I have is to what extent Assange=Wikilinks. My impression is not always. I'd be ok with summarizing here and taking the detail there. I would have to look the MOS section up, but I've copy-edited a boatload of bios and I have yet to see one that intersperses affairs and personal status issues throughout a list of works. Thinking here of Marc Chagall and all the other painters who had to flee Paris when the Nazis arrived. For people with a well-defined career path chronology is probably the way to go, I agree, but putting procreation in the same section as an impact on a war or helping a whistleblower to flee kinda trivializes them both, no? It seems to me it turns narrative into a laundry list. Elinruby ( talk) 02:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
So maybe move that bit there? I am thinking I should draftify a copy of this and work on it to the side for a minute, the better to demonstrate what I am suggesting. I am not ignoring the later years section; I stopped to discuss. Currently distracted by something but will get to this soon. I personally am fine with you putting all of the children together, if you want to do that. Elinruby ( talk) 06:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An interesting article has just been published on Forbes. It covers a topic that is not mentioned in the current version of Assange's bio. [1] Here are some quotes:
Assange once commenting that “bitcoin is the real Occupy Wall Street”.
Assange sits in Balmarsh Prison for the third year without an official sentence. This is the harshest prison in the United Kingdom, usually reserved for violent repeat offenders, many of whom have committed rape or murder — it is hard to justify why a non-violent activist would be here aside from sadistic extension of state power.
The threat model for Wikileaks was simple and yet devastatingly powerful: the most powerful state collective in the world was likely to go after them eventually, if not now, then sometime in the future. ... One of the first things he commented on was Assange’s continued belief in bitcoin, his love for a tool that made it possible to do his work. The way he thought about cryptography fighting the inevitable centralization of repression made his thought process a natural complement and extension of bitcoin’s fight to remake classical economic and financial systems.
People who support bitcoin should be concerned about Assange’s imprisonment not only because it reflects the betrayal of bitcoin’s ideals in the specific case of Assange — states tying themselves into pretzel knots in order to undermine a non-violent disseminator of information — it also makes vulnerable the principles of true transaction neutrality that underpin bitcoin, creating the most pressing version of the “wrench attack”. If you cannot go after the system, you must go after the person.
As the Internet’s gatekeepers get more and more actively involved in the Internet itself, often forced by nation-states (such as the United States leaning on payment processors to cut off payments to Wikileaks), the Internet itself becomes a shadow of itself.
The hope remains, as Assange himself noted, that new technologies will be able to mediate the unblunted power of many states — rather than consolidating their ability to control the discussion and their citizenry at scale.
Gabriel Shipton and his father John (who is Julian Assange’s father) are now engaged in a tour of the United States to help unite many different groups dedicated to the freedom of Julian Assange — and as a way to counter the consolidation of analog power online. As a concrete way to support the cause, people are asked to donate money in bitcoin ...
Burrobert ( talk) 13:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
References
Wrong venue for user conduct complaints; they should be brought to WP:AN/I. –– FormalDude talk 05:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)( non-admin closure) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
“The problem is that it's part of a pattern of minimising information unfavourable to Assange” “Nor should editors try to soften the wording to make Assange look better” “You seem to be editing the article based on your opinion, rather than sources” “It shouldn't be removed simply because it is unfavourable to Assange.” Whilst it is undoubtedly true that there are editors who take sides re. Julian Assange pointing the fact out during debates merely makes matters personal. Let’s, wherever possible, stick to the issues not the personalities. Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
If you have issues with users conduct report then at wp:ani or ask them to defend themselves on their talk page. We comment on content not users. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
|
The intro section includes the following sentence:
The citations provided do not support what is being said here regarding Russian intelligence officers working WITH WikiLeaks. A later CNN article notes:
I consequently changed the intro text from “...and working with WikiLeaks...” to “...using WikiLeaks...” (in line with the evidence/citations). And added the CNN supporting citation. My edit was reverted to the unsound version with the edit summery: “This is not an indictment” (I cannot work out what that has to do with the issue). Seems to me this needs addressing. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
References
This talk page section was created on 5 August 2021, and has attracted considerable discussion. I believe the time is ripe for a tally of where we stand.
INCLUDE
EXCLUDE
Given this headcount, and considering that editors have had 11 days in which to comment, I propose that we acknowledge consensus to include the report that a key witness, Sigurdur Thordarson, admitted in an interview with the Icelandic newspaper Stundin to giving false testimony in the superseding U.S. indictment against Assange. Accordingly, I respectfully ask that the two editors who have previously deleted this content in its entirety—Slatersteven (once) and SPECIFICO (twice)—refrain from doing so again. Naturally they and other editors are welcome to continue editing the text. But I hope we can move past wholesale removals. Basketcase2022 ( talk) 04:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
It may be time for an RFC. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
On 26 June 2021, Stundin, an Icelandic newspaper, reported.... My only caveat is that its final sentence cannot be verified online because the source is a print-only publication, meaning we must rely on the paraphrase of the single editor who added it. (No disrespect intended.) Basketcase2022 ( talk) 19:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
definitely not a vote for removal!So I'm unsure whether to count you in Slatersteven's exclusionary majority by inference or not. It's all rather bewildering. Basketcase2022 ( talk) 00:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Private Eye states. Thank you for the suggestion. Basketcase2022 ( talk) 09:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I recently added a short subsection to the article which listed some high profile supporters of Julian Assange. Here’s the content (which went under the title “Famous supporters”):
My addition was deleted with the following edit summary “:
I accept the need to address those concerns. However, it seems to me desirable to mention these names in the article. After all, the people listed are high profile public personalities who have gone out of their way to make public statements in support of Assange (some might say risking their own reputations by doing so) - surely nobody would dispute that their public support is noteworthy. However, I now accept a need for balance demands that: we also list the names of some high profile detractors. I also accept that the blanket term “supporters” was too vague in this context.
So I would like to offer the following rewording, which I hope addresses the problems:
I am of course open to suggestions here (including more examples of detractors) but strongly feel something of this sort is warranted in the article. Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
References
This article is so far from NPOV that it's no surprise to see a section on his "supporters" without any consideration that the assessments of notable knowledgeable observers over the past 5 years or so has been overwhelmingly negative and condemnatory. When I have time, I'm going to go to WP:NPOVN and WP:RSN and ask for some fresh eyes on this article. SPECIFICO talk 15:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I have made my views clear, I do not see a need for a list of names, either supported or detractors. We need to reduce the amount of fluff in this article, not increase it. So I will now bow out for now. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
talk page discussion that supported itexists only in your imagination. There was no consensus to remove part of said material. Cambial foliage❧ 22:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
verified" - an inacceptable editorial approach on WP. Further, the trim was supported by multiple editors including multiple Admins who reinstated it in the face of an edit war to reinstate the UNDUE text. Next step, I suppose, will be an RfC. SPECIFICO talk 14:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Inacceptable" to you, fine. But that's of no consequence to the rest of us who understand content policy. A wide spectrum of RS establish his view on this subject as noteworthy. The UN (a reliable source frequently used as such on WP) establishes his view as noteworthy. The state parties establish his view as noteworthy (that’s why UK bothered to respond). These sources consider it noteworthy for reasons already given in the previous discussion. It's the attributed view of an individual whose view on this subject is considered important by reliable sources. If he said Assange was tortured, if he said Assange was a banana, it doesn’t matter. It's not presented as fact; it doesn’t need to be "
verified". You are free to continue imagining a consensus for a change you continually bring up but for which there is little interest. In the mean time, life goes on. Cambial foliage❧ 15:39, 20 August 2021 (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 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
Part of the problem above is that it's emblematic of a systemic problem with this article: it devotes an extraordinary amount of text to trivia.
The article is 226,509 bytes. The article on Robert Hooke ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is 76,111 bytes. Hooke came up with the idea of tabulating expected versus achieved results in experiments, built the gas pump and performed the experiments for Boyle's Law, formulated the eponymous law of springs, lectured on how fossils were the preserved relics of extinct creatures before the term extinct existed, founded the science of microscopy, wrote the first great scientific bestseller, Micrographia, coined the biological term "cell", was a founder member of the Royal Society, for whom he was also curator of experiments and, briefly, secretary, conducted half the surveys after the great fire of London, designed the monument to the fire (built as a telescope to observe transits, but his characteristically accurate measurements when built showed that it moved too much in the wind for that to work - but this is why there is no central column to the spiral stariway), along with the dome of St. Paul's, several "Wren" churches and Bethlehem Hospital, the famous "bedlam", wrote Britain's first building controls, invented the sash window, and codified resolving power. Oh, and told Newton that gravity was an inverse square law and that light is formed of waves. Over 300 years after his death we are still discovering significant work by him. An entire museum was inspired by his work. I doubt the same will be true of Assange, who is mainly known for publishing stolen documents, first for whistleblowers and then for the Russian security services, and for running away and hiding from accusations of rape.
If we make the article roughly a quarter of its present size, it will be much better, and the genuinely significant will be easier to see. Guy ( help! - typo?) 18:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
This entire thread is
WP:OR at best, but includes aspersions against editors here (e.g. Assange cultists
, a small number of enthusiasts who for whatever reason sometimes do not see the forest for the trees
), and aspersions against living persons described in the article (e.g. Melzer is a self-selected unpaid volunteer with a limited scope of knowledge
, and Assange a very naughty boy
). We've repeatedly used reliable sources to determine how this article should best apportion content according to
WP:DUE weight, and those sources show that the 2016 election is often not mentioned at all in summaries of Assange's life. By contrast, Assange was not extradited to the US by reason of his health, and multiple international legal and humanitarian bodies have highlighted what they describe as his mistreatment, receiving prominent coverage in the news. -
Darouet (
talk) 22:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
The US government’s unrelenting pursuit of Julian Assange for having published disclosed documents that included possible war crimes committed by the US military is nothing short of a full-scale assault on the right to freedom of expression.
For the first time in the history of our country, the government has brought criminal charges against a publisher for the publication of truthful information.
US and British politicians are abusing the US Espionage Act to criminalise Assange’s revelations of US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
has been indicted in the United States under the Espionage Act for WikiLeaks’ 2010-11 publications of the Iraq War Logs, the Afghan War Diaries, and State Department cables. If convicted, Assange would face 175 years in prison. He is accused by the Americans of encouraging whistleblower Chelsea Manning in 2010 to break into the government’s computer system to provide information containing clear evidence of war crimes, including the publication of the video Collateral murders. The video showed, via an onboard camera on a US Apache helicopter in Iraq, the deliberate shooting on 12 July 2007 in Baghdad of civilians by the US military. At least 18 people were killed in the incident, including two journalists from the Reuters agency. Both the IFJ and its British and Australian affiliates, the NUJ and the MEAA, have repeatedly highlighted the risks to journalism posed by Assange’s threatened extradition.
Remember that little spying case against Julian Assange? The Department of Justice indicted him last year for publishing classified US military and State Department documents leaked in 2010 by Chelsea Manning, who was then a soldier in Iraq... The US’s aggressive efforts to extradite Assange under spying charges for publicly disclosing classified information—in contravention of the political offense exception—could create precedent that affects the US press.
Regarding Melzer, take a look at the list of sources
I posted above, in the "United Nations" discussion thread. Melzer's comments have been covered by the major news outlets in every country I checked (US, UK, France, Spain, Germany, China, Canada, Australia). These articles span the period 2019 to the present, showing that this coverage was not just a flash in the pan, but rather that it has continued for two years. Statements such as, The UN affiliation gets lots of initial press coverage but little serious attention has been given his rather insistent views
simply do not line up with what we actually see from the sources. -
Thucydides411 (
talk) 10:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
little serious attentionto Melzer's views (there has been a huge amount of press attention) and your assertion that there was only
initial press coverage(the coverage spans the last two years). Looking above, I don't see any indication that
most editorsreject what I am saying about Melzer. You've asserted that the Melzer material is undue, while I've shown that there's a massive amount of ongoing press coverage of Melzer's views. If you keep asserting that to the contrary, little attention has been paid to Melzer, and if you don't engage with the sources, I don't see how we can make any progress. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 14:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
"Assange breached bail conditions by staying in the embassy and faced arrest if he left."
Isn't this wording rather derogatory? It goes with the 'spoiled brat' trope, kinda. I suggest replacing "staying in the embassy" with "requesting asylum", which is functionally identical but does not make his actions look arbitrary. Elinruby ( talk)
That makes for an interesting thought experiment but are there any sources which comment on it? Burrobert ( talk) 08:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I tried changing the title of this section to
[13] "political asylum." Jack has objected
[14], writing, "Asylum is only one issue here. We have to acknowledge breaching bail." However, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has stated
[15] that a bail violation in the UK [is] objectively, a minor offense
, and I don't think anyone here would dispute that.
I therefore propose that we acknowledge the more important aspect of Assange's biography — that he was granted political asylum — and change the name of this section to the shorter and more informative Political asylum. - Darouet ( talk) 03:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
objectively minor offenseis totally inappropriate, full stop. A reader should be able to scan the table of contents and quickly find this episode in his life. - Darouet ( talk) 10:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Sources calling so-called political asylum significant? Very few. Sources noting the crime of bail-jumping: Numerous. Let's skip the OR. SPECIFICO talk 13:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I've tried to do this in a modified way [16], transforming "Entering the embassy" into "Entering the Ecuadorian embassy" to keep that section largely as it was before. However, I've changed the broader section title so that it is no longer redundant with the one below, and allows readers to quickly locate the asylum period of Assange's life. - Darouet ( talk) 13:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I see several in this article: a cluster of statements regarding Assange's current mental health, that he is/was a narcissist, and that he is a "spoiled brat". For a start. I also see a lot of ink being spilled on whether a UN rapporteur on torture is a reliable source, or even notable. The argument appears to be that Assange has not been tortured, therefore, Metzger isn't qualified to make statements about him, even to say that he appears to have been tortured.
Meanwhile the opinions of politicians are ok, though? The statements that Assange is "a spoiled brat" and a "narcissist" do meet a minimum standard of being sourced, but if Wikipedia supposedly cannot say he is a suicide or health risk even when a British court has ruled that he is, this does seem POV.
Since this is a story that primarily takes place in English courts, perhaps we should apply a legal standard? In any event, the standard for health opinions should be evenly applied. Elinruby ( talk)
While the term is technically accurate, what he was accused of was initiating a second round of sex with a woman who voluntarily slept with him then fell asleep. The allegation is that he did not properly ensure he had consent the second time, after waking her up. That *is* technically sexual assault but to my mind there is a pretty high presumption that consent exists in those circumstances. I am quite certain that this would never have made it to the criminal justice system if there had not been pressure from the US. This is too nuanced for the lede, so I am not sure how this should be addressed, but I think it is a BLP issue. Also, the change of government in Ecuador had something to do with his change of status at the embassy. I have not read the entire article yet, but am noting these as inaccuracies that I see so far. I will provide sourcing for any changes I propose. Elinruby ( talk) 05:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Elinruby - If you want to propose some specific changes with relevant sources, feel free. I haven't looked at that section recently and it's been some time since I've read about it, though the UN Rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer, does have an in-depth commentary on the topic here [17]. One thing that needs correction in our article is the lead treatment of the case being dropped for the third time. We cite the prosecutor's stated reason for dropping the case, but the defense said it was dropped for very different reasons. If we're going to include the prosecution's stated reason, we should include the defense statement as well. - Darouet ( talk) 21:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Darouet: I agree with that suggestion. After I wrote this, I went down the page, and also read through the spin-off article. There is a fairly extensive exploration of this point there. I am even more convinced that the word "rape" is a misnomer. What he did is certainly not irreproachable behaviour, but when unqualified the word implies a complete lack of consent, and possibly violence, which was not the case here. I do not think it should be used in his BLP, certainly not in its lede. I do not yet have a proposal for this, however. Elinruby ( talk) 23:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@ Burrobert: I have not really researched this recently; was musing on my recollection of events. Based on that I think what you are saying is largely true, except that the coup d'état in Ecuador probably had as much to do with lithium as Assange. Possibly not however, as Trump was nothing if not personal and petty in his politics, but I do not have a firm opinion on this yet. However, lede does make it sound as though Assange was just a very difficult guest. I have seen news stories that suggest he was, but am pretty sure there is more to the story. Again, this is the tone of the lede I am objecting to; I haven't gone through the section on this in this article yet. Elinruby ( talk) 23:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
correction re Ecuador: it seems I conflated it with Bolivia. Still reading. Elinruby ( talk) 03:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
References
following much the same logic I edited "habit of sexually assaulting women", to something like "groping", I believe. Somebody has changed it back. I do believe the several women who have accused Trump of sexual assault, as in rape, but the Access Hollywood tape specifically discusses grabbing and kissing. This is of course also a form of sexual assault, so this is a closer call than it is with Assange, but we are in BLP territory and "sexual assault" is very often a euphemism for "forcible rape". Elinruby ( talk) 17:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't see the point of having so many headings in this portion of the article. Many of the headings are followed by a single short paragraph. It is also illogical to have a section headed "Ecuadorian embassy period" which doesn't actually cover the entire period.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 00:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Actually that might work. One question I have is to what extent Assange=Wikilinks. My impression is not always. I'd be ok with summarizing here and taking the detail there. I would have to look the MOS section up, but I've copy-edited a boatload of bios and I have yet to see one that intersperses affairs and personal status issues throughout a list of works. Thinking here of Marc Chagall and all the other painters who had to flee Paris when the Nazis arrived. For people with a well-defined career path chronology is probably the way to go, I agree, but putting procreation in the same section as an impact on a war or helping a whistleblower to flee kinda trivializes them both, no? It seems to me it turns narrative into a laundry list. Elinruby ( talk) 02:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
So maybe move that bit there? I am thinking I should draftify a copy of this and work on it to the side for a minute, the better to demonstrate what I am suggesting. I am not ignoring the later years section; I stopped to discuss. Currently distracted by something but will get to this soon. I personally am fine with you putting all of the children together, if you want to do that. Elinruby ( talk) 06:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An interesting article has just been published on Forbes. It covers a topic that is not mentioned in the current version of Assange's bio. [1] Here are some quotes:
Assange once commenting that “bitcoin is the real Occupy Wall Street”.
Assange sits in Balmarsh Prison for the third year without an official sentence. This is the harshest prison in the United Kingdom, usually reserved for violent repeat offenders, many of whom have committed rape or murder — it is hard to justify why a non-violent activist would be here aside from sadistic extension of state power.
The threat model for Wikileaks was simple and yet devastatingly powerful: the most powerful state collective in the world was likely to go after them eventually, if not now, then sometime in the future. ... One of the first things he commented on was Assange’s continued belief in bitcoin, his love for a tool that made it possible to do his work. The way he thought about cryptography fighting the inevitable centralization of repression made his thought process a natural complement and extension of bitcoin’s fight to remake classical economic and financial systems.
People who support bitcoin should be concerned about Assange’s imprisonment not only because it reflects the betrayal of bitcoin’s ideals in the specific case of Assange — states tying themselves into pretzel knots in order to undermine a non-violent disseminator of information — it also makes vulnerable the principles of true transaction neutrality that underpin bitcoin, creating the most pressing version of the “wrench attack”. If you cannot go after the system, you must go after the person.
As the Internet’s gatekeepers get more and more actively involved in the Internet itself, often forced by nation-states (such as the United States leaning on payment processors to cut off payments to Wikileaks), the Internet itself becomes a shadow of itself.
The hope remains, as Assange himself noted, that new technologies will be able to mediate the unblunted power of many states — rather than consolidating their ability to control the discussion and their citizenry at scale.
Gabriel Shipton and his father John (who is Julian Assange’s father) are now engaged in a tour of the United States to help unite many different groups dedicated to the freedom of Julian Assange — and as a way to counter the consolidation of analog power online. As a concrete way to support the cause, people are asked to donate money in bitcoin ...
Burrobert ( talk) 13:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
References
Wrong venue for user conduct complaints; they should be brought to WP:AN/I. –– FormalDude talk 05:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)( non-admin closure) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
“The problem is that it's part of a pattern of minimising information unfavourable to Assange” “Nor should editors try to soften the wording to make Assange look better” “You seem to be editing the article based on your opinion, rather than sources” “It shouldn't be removed simply because it is unfavourable to Assange.” Whilst it is undoubtedly true that there are editors who take sides re. Julian Assange pointing the fact out during debates merely makes matters personal. Let’s, wherever possible, stick to the issues not the personalities. Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
If you have issues with users conduct report then at wp:ani or ask them to defend themselves on their talk page. We comment on content not users. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
|
The intro section includes the following sentence:
The citations provided do not support what is being said here regarding Russian intelligence officers working WITH WikiLeaks. A later CNN article notes:
I consequently changed the intro text from “...and working with WikiLeaks...” to “...using WikiLeaks...” (in line with the evidence/citations). And added the CNN supporting citation. My edit was reverted to the unsound version with the edit summery: “This is not an indictment” (I cannot work out what that has to do with the issue). Seems to me this needs addressing. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
References
This talk page section was created on 5 August 2021, and has attracted considerable discussion. I believe the time is ripe for a tally of where we stand.
INCLUDE
EXCLUDE
Given this headcount, and considering that editors have had 11 days in which to comment, I propose that we acknowledge consensus to include the report that a key witness, Sigurdur Thordarson, admitted in an interview with the Icelandic newspaper Stundin to giving false testimony in the superseding U.S. indictment against Assange. Accordingly, I respectfully ask that the two editors who have previously deleted this content in its entirety—Slatersteven (once) and SPECIFICO (twice)—refrain from doing so again. Naturally they and other editors are welcome to continue editing the text. But I hope we can move past wholesale removals. Basketcase2022 ( talk) 04:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
It may be time for an RFC. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
On 26 June 2021, Stundin, an Icelandic newspaper, reported.... My only caveat is that its final sentence cannot be verified online because the source is a print-only publication, meaning we must rely on the paraphrase of the single editor who added it. (No disrespect intended.) Basketcase2022 ( talk) 19:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
definitely not a vote for removal!So I'm unsure whether to count you in Slatersteven's exclusionary majority by inference or not. It's all rather bewildering. Basketcase2022 ( talk) 00:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Private Eye states. Thank you for the suggestion. Basketcase2022 ( talk) 09:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I recently added a short subsection to the article which listed some high profile supporters of Julian Assange. Here’s the content (which went under the title “Famous supporters”):
My addition was deleted with the following edit summary “:
I accept the need to address those concerns. However, it seems to me desirable to mention these names in the article. After all, the people listed are high profile public personalities who have gone out of their way to make public statements in support of Assange (some might say risking their own reputations by doing so) - surely nobody would dispute that their public support is noteworthy. However, I now accept a need for balance demands that: we also list the names of some high profile detractors. I also accept that the blanket term “supporters” was too vague in this context.
So I would like to offer the following rewording, which I hope addresses the problems:
I am of course open to suggestions here (including more examples of detractors) but strongly feel something of this sort is warranted in the article. Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
References
This article is so far from NPOV that it's no surprise to see a section on his "supporters" without any consideration that the assessments of notable knowledgeable observers over the past 5 years or so has been overwhelmingly negative and condemnatory. When I have time, I'm going to go to WP:NPOVN and WP:RSN and ask for some fresh eyes on this article. SPECIFICO talk 15:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I have made my views clear, I do not see a need for a list of names, either supported or detractors. We need to reduce the amount of fluff in this article, not increase it. So I will now bow out for now. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
talk page discussion that supported itexists only in your imagination. There was no consensus to remove part of said material. Cambial foliage❧ 22:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
verified" - an inacceptable editorial approach on WP. Further, the trim was supported by multiple editors including multiple Admins who reinstated it in the face of an edit war to reinstate the UNDUE text. Next step, I suppose, will be an RfC. SPECIFICO talk 14:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Inacceptable" to you, fine. But that's of no consequence to the rest of us who understand content policy. A wide spectrum of RS establish his view on this subject as noteworthy. The UN (a reliable source frequently used as such on WP) establishes his view as noteworthy. The state parties establish his view as noteworthy (that’s why UK bothered to respond). These sources consider it noteworthy for reasons already given in the previous discussion. It's the attributed view of an individual whose view on this subject is considered important by reliable sources. If he said Assange was tortured, if he said Assange was a banana, it doesn’t matter. It's not presented as fact; it doesn’t need to be "
verified". You are free to continue imagining a consensus for a change you continually bring up but for which there is little interest. In the mean time, life goes on. Cambial foliage❧ 15:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)