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 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
On September 6, 2021, I deleted the following sentence:
My edit summary stated: remove judge's gratuitous insult and "no reasonable excuse" scolding, neither of which add value to his finding of guilt in an uncomplicated proceeding
.
This was reverted by Horse Eye's Back, who stated "edit goes too far."
I concede that the second half of that sentence helps to explain the ruling. However, I see no purpose to the judge calling Assange a narcissist other than to shame the prisoner at the dock.
I request consensus to remove "a narcissist who cannot get beyond his own selfish interest" per WP:NPOV. Basketcase2022 ( talk) 21:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone.According to The Guardian, when District Judge Michael Snow called Assange a "narcissist" whose claim of not having had a fair hearing was "laughable," he also rebuked Assange's barrister for asserting in front of a "packed press gallery" that the chief magistrate who conducted the previous hearing was biased because her husband had been directly affected by the activities of WikiLeaks. "This is grossly unfair and improper," said the judge in open court, "to do it just to ruin the reputation of a senior and able judge in front of the press." To me, Judge Snow sounds like a participant engaged in a heated dispute, indignantly defending his colleague. Accordingly, we should not quote him directly. Basketcase2022 ( talk) 23:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
They are a judge summing up, it is as relevant as half the other stuff we have here. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
“Ex- embassador Craig Murray remarked after the hearing that: “It is clear the judge was extremely prejudiced. It was very short hearing today and he cannot possibly have formed during that time his judgement that Julian Assange is a ‘narcissistic personality’.
Ex- ambassador Craig Murray later commented: “There was nothing that happened in Snow’s brief court hearing that could conceivably have given rise to that opinion” and described the judgement as “a total disgrace”. [1]
References
Basketcase2022 Would you say at present: even if the Craig Murray comments where included to give balance and context you would still be against including the Judges remarks/insults? Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Wp:blp applies to talk pages and judges. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
There is no consensus for the Judges “narcissist” insult to be included in the article why has it been re-instated? Prunesqualor billets_doux 19:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it.Given that policy, I believe Judge Snow's insult of Assange should be removed until consensus is reached to restore it. Basketcase2022 ( talk) 20:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
There are clearly still unresolved issues surrounding the inclusion of insulting statements by Judge Michael Snow. In an attempt to find a compromise/way forward I recently added the following text (after the sentence containing the judge’s remarks):
“However, the Judges comments have been criticised as extremely prejudiced.”
This was essentially text suggested above by Slatersteven above (in this thread) - I personally thought the criticism of the judges words overly mild but hoped that using material from someone usually on the other side of debates may be appreciated as conciliatory. My edit was shortly afterward reverted by SPECIFICO who gave the following explanation:
“No, you have a single opinion piece by a fringe writer, not widespread criticism that is implied by this weasel passive voice "however..." sentence. Nor can it be attributed to Murray, because he is fringe.”
There are several points meshed together here but I’ll try to unpick: On the “you have a single opinion piece...” I would say: a single opinion piece in which someone strongly criticised the Judges remarks as extremely prejudiced (using some harsher words in fact), seems perfectly apt for supporting the statement “the Judges comments have been criticised as extremely prejudiced.” (not trying to be funny or snide here just frank BTW). Next was “...not widespread criticism that is implied by this...” – This I think is a stronger point (though to be pedantic “the Judges comments have been criticised” is ambiguous in that respect) I can try to dig out more criticisms of the Judge’s comments and include the citations in the article if we really think that necessary (I was trying to keep the thing concise but whatever). Next SPECIFICO refers to the reverted sentence as: “...this weasel passive voice... sentence...” – Not sure I get that: What’s weasel about openly saying the Judge was criticised when he clearly was? SPECIFICO finished with: “ ...Nor can it be attributed to Murray, because he is fringe.” First I would like to know in what context Murray is fringe – he has his own reasonable sized Wikipedia page and is a fairly high profile figure as a political commentator and human rights campaigned (among other things) – maybe SPECIFICO just meant his views are not mainstream – I’m not sure that Wikipedia is, as of yet, unable to include the views of commentators who deviate from mainstream. I’m also confused about the “...Nor can it be attributed to Murray” statement. Anyway, I would appreciate other views on the inclusion of the “However, the Judges comments have been criticised as extremely prejudiced” sentence. Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
As a matter of interest - has anyone really explained why he didn't just go back to Sweden to face the rape charge but went to the Ecudorian embassy? The business about being more likely to be sent to the US from Sweden just doesn't make sense to me. He was just as discredited or more by having the charges outstanding, and even if convicted the sentence would have had to to be pretty small. NadVolum ( talk) 09:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Some of Mr Assange's closest associates first learnt of his decision to seek political asylum when journalists rang them seeking comment overnight[3]. I think perhaps this should be in the article. We have a series of explanations for his decision, which as you say, don't make much sense, but we don't say that this decision was made with minimal if any consultation. After all, this is a pivotal decision in his life and probably deserves better explanation.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 08:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I will try to answer the question about why Assange chose to seek political asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy by listing what he knew at that time:
Burrobert ( talk) 13:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
References
We will not allow Mr Assange safe passage out of the United Kingdom, nor is there any legal basis for us to do so... The United Kingdom does not recognise the principle of diplomatic asylum.[7] Ecuador and Britain have different asylum laws. [8] Assange may have been misled by the fact that he didn't discuss his plan widely. He may have received assurances from the Ecuadorian government that he could get safe passage to Ecuador. But we really don't have enough information to say that.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 05:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
The 11 August High Court hearing was not intended to reach definitive conclusions on the rights and wrongs of Baraitser’s January ruling – it merely ruled on whether the prosecution could later (October 27 th) question Baraitser’s judgements. The Current wording does not make’s that as clear to the reader as it should. Neither does the paragraph give any of the defence’s side of story. It does not give context in that three grounds for appeal had already been granted to the U.S. in July – in other words, the grounds for appeal mentioned in the paragraph are only two among five. Seems to me we should cover the whole U.S. campaign to appeal Baraitser, complete with the defence arguments, or make do with a short summary which touches on the whole picture. If the Latter I would offer up the following as a starting point.
Following Baraitser’s January 2021 ruling, the U.S. asked to appeal the decision on five counts. On the 7th of July the UK high court agreed that three of the counts could be appealed. [2] Further appeals and a High Court hearing resulted in the two remaining counts also being deemed permissible for appeal. The High Court is expected to convene a full appeal hearing on October 27. [3]
References
guardian200612
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
The proposed replacement begins "Following Baraitser's January 2021 ruling…" However, the only previous mention of this ruling is in the preceding paragraph, which does not mention the date. For the replacement paragraph to make sense, the date would have to be added to the preceding paragraph. It could then be omitted from the replacement paragraph.
The proposed replacement also refers to "five counts" on which the U.S. appealed. Again, these five counts are not previously mentioned. The paragraph preceding the proposed replacement says merely that Baraitser denied extradition on the grounds that it would be "oppressive to extradite [Assange] to the United States." This suggests only one count, not five. If the replacement paragraph refers to five counts, we need to explain what those are. We should likewise explain what differentiates the three counts accepted on July 7 for appeal from the two remaining counts that were at some unspecified later date(s) deemed permissible.
This extradition appeal process is vital to Assange's BLP. Its description should not be muddled by being truncated solely to keep down the word count. Basketcase2022 ( talk) 16:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
As far as I can make out the Wikipedia policy WP:NOTPAPER is that Wikipedia not a paper encyclopaedia. If something should be in an article it should be put in irrespective of the total amount of content. If the amount of space taken up by an article is too big then it should be split and subarticles created as described in WP:SPLIT. Then one can reasonably argue against undue expansion of a summary of the subarticle - the summary should not be longer than he intro of the subarticle. NadVolum ( talk) 18:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Rereading the “Appeal and other developments” section it strikes me that we are trying too rigidly to place information/paragraphs in chronological order at the expense of clarity of the narrative. As discussed above I’d like the whole appeal process explained a bit more clearly and think for starters we should try to keep paragraphs directly concerned with the extradition process together. I will do a little reshuffle – hopefully not ruffling feathers. Prunesqualor billets_doux 07:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Title maybe just “Appeal Process”
On 6 January, Assange was denied bail on the grounds that he was a flight risk, pending an appeal by the United States. [1] The US prosecutors lodged an appeal on 15 January. [2] A spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice confirmed in mid-February 2021 that it would continue the appeal under the new Biden administration. [3] On July 7 2021 The UK Crown Prosecution Service released an email which listed the five grounds, (labelled “a” to “e”) on which the U.S. were appealing against Baraitser’s January ruling, and stating that two of those ground where refused. The two grounds refused where later ruled permissible in the high court, so that all five grounds for appeal were to be heard in the High Court in October 2021. The first three bases for appeal centre on Section 91 of the 2003 Extradition Act, which states that extradition should be barred in circumstances where “the physical or mental condition of the person is such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him.” Basis for appeal “a”, contends that Baraitser had made errors of law in her application of Section 91 and that “Had she applied the test correctly she would not have discharged Mr Assange.” Basis for appeal “b” contends that the judge should have notified the U.S. of her concerns around Section 91 giving them the opportunity of offering assurances to the Court. Basis for appeal “c” concerned the admissibility of evidence given by expert witness for the defence, psychiatrist Prof Michael Kopelman. The U.S. appeal asserted that Kopelman had mislead the judge and that therefore his evidence should have been deemed inadmissible or failing that the judge should have given less weight to the professor’s opinions. In basis for appeal “d” the U.S. contends that Baraitser “erred in her overall assessment of the evidence going to the risk of suicide.” Basis of appeal “e” again addresses the Baraitser ruling that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite Assange pointing out that the United States had by now provided the United Kingdom with assurances that "Mr Assange will not be subject to SAMs or imprisoned at ADX (unless he were to do something subsequent to the offering of these assurances that meets the tests for the imposition of SAMs or designation to ADX)". The United States also provided an assurance that it "will consent to Mr Assange being transferred to Australia to serve any custodial sentence imposed on him." [4] However, an Amnesty International expert on national security and human rights in Europe said "Those are not assurances at all. It’s not that difficult to look at those assurances and say: these are inherently unreliable, it promises to do something and then reserves the right to break the promise." [5]
References
bail
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).theduran.com
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- On 11 August 2021 in the High Court, Lord Justice Holroyde decided that Judge Baraitser may have given too much weight to what Holroyde called "a misleading report" by an expert witness for the defence, psychiatrist Prof Michael Kopelman, and that the contested risk of suicide could now form part of the appeal.[453] The High Court is expected to convene a full appeal hearing on October 27.[454]
We have a section "Writings and opinions", but the only thing it says about Assange's opinions is that In 2010, Assange said he was a libertarian and that "WikiLeaks is designed to make capitalism more free and ethical"
. In the first sentence we describe him as an activist
, but we don't explain what he is an activist for. I would question whether we need the section "Writings and opinions". The writings could be covered by the "Bibliography" section, I think. He did not actually write Cypherpunks or Underground, and they are mentioned in the text earlier anyway. When Google Met WikiLeaks seems to be essentially the transcript of a discussion. Alternatively, if this section is important, it needs more information about his notable opinions. Also, if Assange is just a publisher of leaks - if as he said in relation to the 2016 US election We publish material given to us if it is of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical importance and which has not been published elsewhere. When we have material that fulfills this criteria, we publish.
[9] — then I don't think he should be called an activist.--
Jack Upland (
talk) 08:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
“Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence and thereby eventually lose all ability to defend ourselves and those we love.” “What are the differences between Mark Zuckerberg and me? I give private information on corporations to you for free, and I'm a villain. Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he’s Man of the Year.” “Secrecy breeds incompetence because where there is failure, failure is kept secret.” “Society develops a type of self-censorship, with the knowledge that surveillance exists - a self-censorship that is even expressed when people communicate with each other privately.” “It is the role of good journalism to take on powerful abusers, and when powerful abusers are taken on, there's always a bad reaction. So we see that controversy, and we believe that is a good thing to engage in.” “If wars can be started by lies, they can be stopped by truth.”
Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
He was especially angry about a Private Eye report that Israel Shamir, an Assange associate in Russia, was a Holocaust denier.(Emphasis added for this talk page only.) Basketcase2022 ( talk) 22:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Irrespective of whatever content we settle upon, the placement of "Writings and opinions" as a section is less than elegant. It's jarring to see it separated from "Works" by two sections—"Children" and "Honours and awards"—that are unrelated to Assange's literary oeuvre. I like Jack Upland's idea of making "Writings" a subsection of "Works". We could then use NadVolum's {wikiquote-inline} template to direct the reader to the richer compilation of Assange quotations at our sister site, and bypass the need to offer only a few quotations in this BLP, sadly limited by space restrictions. (And really, does any mere selection do justice to the Quotations of Chairman Julian?) Basketcase2022 ( talk) 12:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Basketcase2022 “the Quotations of Chairman Julian” – Really? I think your slip is showing a little there. Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
WikiLeaks has faced charges of anti-Semitism before. In 2013, former WikiLeaks volunteer James Ball explained that he left the group over what he said was Assange’s close relationship with the Holocaust denier Israel Shamir... Former WikiLeaks spokesperson Daniel Domscheit-Berg raised similar concerns about Shamir.and
would-be ghostwriter of Assange’s autobiography, Andrew O’Hagan, said that, amid preparations for the book in 2011, Assange had "uttered, late at night … many sexist or anti-Semitic remarks"When people close to him are raising the issue, it can't lightly be dismissed.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 22:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I think it’s one of the weaknesses of the libertarian tradition: that they will go to bed with anyone, metaphorically. Julian has always claimed the relationship of WikiLeaks to its sources as being an invisible one, including to me. Look at his recent comments on the character of the sources. “It’s not Russia, I can say categorically!” he says. How can he say that if he doesn’t know? In other words, he is freely aware of the sources in both cases. And freely employing his skills as a selector and editor of materials; he’s shaping the material and shaping its public perception. I feel absolutely bamboozled that anyone would be as naive to imagine that promoting Donald Trump, seemingly in league with Russian forces, would be a freedom-fighting act. … This is the kind of person Julian decides to campaign for. And it is baffling and ruinous to the cause, his cause.[13] Is "libertarian" the only thing we can say about his "cause"? What is he shaping the material in order to do?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 01:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
We go with what RS say, not what we think is true. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I guess we should have Andrew O'Hagan's Secret Life in somewhere. And so should WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy. The bibliography with The Unauthorized Autobiography sounds wrong - where should they go? NadVolum ( talk) 11:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
<ref name="Jewish Conspiracy">{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/world/europe/02assange.html |title=Report Says Assange Cited Jewish Conspiracy |work=[[The New York Times]] |date=1 March 2011 |accessdate=12 September 2021 |author=Somaiya, Ravi |quote=He was especially angry about a Private Eye report that Israel Shamir, an Assange associate in Russia, was a Holocaust denier. Mr. Assange complained that the article was part of a campaign by Jewish reporters in London to smear WikiLeaks.}}</ref>
part of a conspiracy led by the Guardian [emphasis added] which included journalist David Leigh, editor Alan Rusbridger and John Kampfner from Index on Censorship – all of whom 'are Jewish'. As the alleged leader of this Jewish conspiracy, The Guardian is not an impartial source. We should cite it only if The Guardian directly denies or refutes Assange's accusation. Basketcase2022 ( talk) 17:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
It has been suggested we include this., how? Slatersteven ( talk) 12:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
And this is why I asked you to be carefully David Leigh and Luke Harding, WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy, Guardian Books (1 February 2011), ISBN 978-0-85265-239-8 is already used as a source, we do not need it in the Further reading section. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I have added a tag following the Bibliography item Julian Assange: The Unauthorised Autobiography.
{{Disputed inline|Talk:Julian_Assange#Unauthorised_Autobiography|for=Assange has renounced this book|date=September 2021}}
I do not request that this book be removed from the Bibliography, but readers must be cautioned that it was immediately disowned and denounced by its purported author, who accused Canongate Books of "screwing people over to make a buck" by having published this work "against my wishes" and "entirely uncorrected or fact-checked by me." Basketcase2022 ( talk) 23:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
who accused. You seem to have either missed that or not bothered to read Assange's statement. In its second paragraph, he declares:
- I am not "the writer" of this book. I own the copyright of the manuscript, which was written by Andrew O'Hagan.
Absent an explanation in the body of the BLP, I do not support removing this book from the Bibliography. I trust that no editor will disappear it without consensus. Basketcase2022 ( talk) 12:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Is this such a major biography we have to have a discussion of it in the article? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
This is just more words, that tells us nothing about him or his actions. We need to stop adding everything ever said about Assange. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia lists Julian Assange: The Unauthorised Autobiography as one of the notable publications of 2011 in Australian literature.
Three years later, Julian Assange: The Unauthorised Autobiography gained renewed attention when Andrew O'Hagan wrote an account of his experience as Assange's ghostwriter, published in the London Review of Books.
This in turn generated coverage by
Julian Assange: The Unauthorised Autobiography is noteworthy enough to merit a 74-word paragraph in his BLP. Basketcase2022 ( talk) 15:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
But I have had my say, I do not see why we need this or what it adds. It is just more bumpf, and so I will draw a line under this. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:34, 18 September 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 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
On September 6, 2021, I deleted the following sentence:
My edit summary stated: remove judge's gratuitous insult and "no reasonable excuse" scolding, neither of which add value to his finding of guilt in an uncomplicated proceeding
.
This was reverted by Horse Eye's Back, who stated "edit goes too far."
I concede that the second half of that sentence helps to explain the ruling. However, I see no purpose to the judge calling Assange a narcissist other than to shame the prisoner at the dock.
I request consensus to remove "a narcissist who cannot get beyond his own selfish interest" per WP:NPOV. Basketcase2022 ( talk) 21:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone.According to The Guardian, when District Judge Michael Snow called Assange a "narcissist" whose claim of not having had a fair hearing was "laughable," he also rebuked Assange's barrister for asserting in front of a "packed press gallery" that the chief magistrate who conducted the previous hearing was biased because her husband had been directly affected by the activities of WikiLeaks. "This is grossly unfair and improper," said the judge in open court, "to do it just to ruin the reputation of a senior and able judge in front of the press." To me, Judge Snow sounds like a participant engaged in a heated dispute, indignantly defending his colleague. Accordingly, we should not quote him directly. Basketcase2022 ( talk) 23:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
They are a judge summing up, it is as relevant as half the other stuff we have here. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
“Ex- embassador Craig Murray remarked after the hearing that: “It is clear the judge was extremely prejudiced. It was very short hearing today and he cannot possibly have formed during that time his judgement that Julian Assange is a ‘narcissistic personality’.
Ex- ambassador Craig Murray later commented: “There was nothing that happened in Snow’s brief court hearing that could conceivably have given rise to that opinion” and described the judgement as “a total disgrace”. [1]
References
Basketcase2022 Would you say at present: even if the Craig Murray comments where included to give balance and context you would still be against including the Judges remarks/insults? Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Wp:blp applies to talk pages and judges. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
There is no consensus for the Judges “narcissist” insult to be included in the article why has it been re-instated? Prunesqualor billets_doux 19:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it.Given that policy, I believe Judge Snow's insult of Assange should be removed until consensus is reached to restore it. Basketcase2022 ( talk) 20:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
There are clearly still unresolved issues surrounding the inclusion of insulting statements by Judge Michael Snow. In an attempt to find a compromise/way forward I recently added the following text (after the sentence containing the judge’s remarks):
“However, the Judges comments have been criticised as extremely prejudiced.”
This was essentially text suggested above by Slatersteven above (in this thread) - I personally thought the criticism of the judges words overly mild but hoped that using material from someone usually on the other side of debates may be appreciated as conciliatory. My edit was shortly afterward reverted by SPECIFICO who gave the following explanation:
“No, you have a single opinion piece by a fringe writer, not widespread criticism that is implied by this weasel passive voice "however..." sentence. Nor can it be attributed to Murray, because he is fringe.”
There are several points meshed together here but I’ll try to unpick: On the “you have a single opinion piece...” I would say: a single opinion piece in which someone strongly criticised the Judges remarks as extremely prejudiced (using some harsher words in fact), seems perfectly apt for supporting the statement “the Judges comments have been criticised as extremely prejudiced.” (not trying to be funny or snide here just frank BTW). Next was “...not widespread criticism that is implied by this...” – This I think is a stronger point (though to be pedantic “the Judges comments have been criticised” is ambiguous in that respect) I can try to dig out more criticisms of the Judge’s comments and include the citations in the article if we really think that necessary (I was trying to keep the thing concise but whatever). Next SPECIFICO refers to the reverted sentence as: “...this weasel passive voice... sentence...” – Not sure I get that: What’s weasel about openly saying the Judge was criticised when he clearly was? SPECIFICO finished with: “ ...Nor can it be attributed to Murray, because he is fringe.” First I would like to know in what context Murray is fringe – he has his own reasonable sized Wikipedia page and is a fairly high profile figure as a political commentator and human rights campaigned (among other things) – maybe SPECIFICO just meant his views are not mainstream – I’m not sure that Wikipedia is, as of yet, unable to include the views of commentators who deviate from mainstream. I’m also confused about the “...Nor can it be attributed to Murray” statement. Anyway, I would appreciate other views on the inclusion of the “However, the Judges comments have been criticised as extremely prejudiced” sentence. Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
As a matter of interest - has anyone really explained why he didn't just go back to Sweden to face the rape charge but went to the Ecudorian embassy? The business about being more likely to be sent to the US from Sweden just doesn't make sense to me. He was just as discredited or more by having the charges outstanding, and even if convicted the sentence would have had to to be pretty small. NadVolum ( talk) 09:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Some of Mr Assange's closest associates first learnt of his decision to seek political asylum when journalists rang them seeking comment overnight[3]. I think perhaps this should be in the article. We have a series of explanations for his decision, which as you say, don't make much sense, but we don't say that this decision was made with minimal if any consultation. After all, this is a pivotal decision in his life and probably deserves better explanation.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 08:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I will try to answer the question about why Assange chose to seek political asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy by listing what he knew at that time:
Burrobert ( talk) 13:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
References
We will not allow Mr Assange safe passage out of the United Kingdom, nor is there any legal basis for us to do so... The United Kingdom does not recognise the principle of diplomatic asylum.[7] Ecuador and Britain have different asylum laws. [8] Assange may have been misled by the fact that he didn't discuss his plan widely. He may have received assurances from the Ecuadorian government that he could get safe passage to Ecuador. But we really don't have enough information to say that.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 05:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
The 11 August High Court hearing was not intended to reach definitive conclusions on the rights and wrongs of Baraitser’s January ruling – it merely ruled on whether the prosecution could later (October 27 th) question Baraitser’s judgements. The Current wording does not make’s that as clear to the reader as it should. Neither does the paragraph give any of the defence’s side of story. It does not give context in that three grounds for appeal had already been granted to the U.S. in July – in other words, the grounds for appeal mentioned in the paragraph are only two among five. Seems to me we should cover the whole U.S. campaign to appeal Baraitser, complete with the defence arguments, or make do with a short summary which touches on the whole picture. If the Latter I would offer up the following as a starting point.
Following Baraitser’s January 2021 ruling, the U.S. asked to appeal the decision on five counts. On the 7th of July the UK high court agreed that three of the counts could be appealed. [2] Further appeals and a High Court hearing resulted in the two remaining counts also being deemed permissible for appeal. The High Court is expected to convene a full appeal hearing on October 27. [3]
References
guardian200612
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
The proposed replacement begins "Following Baraitser's January 2021 ruling…" However, the only previous mention of this ruling is in the preceding paragraph, which does not mention the date. For the replacement paragraph to make sense, the date would have to be added to the preceding paragraph. It could then be omitted from the replacement paragraph.
The proposed replacement also refers to "five counts" on which the U.S. appealed. Again, these five counts are not previously mentioned. The paragraph preceding the proposed replacement says merely that Baraitser denied extradition on the grounds that it would be "oppressive to extradite [Assange] to the United States." This suggests only one count, not five. If the replacement paragraph refers to five counts, we need to explain what those are. We should likewise explain what differentiates the three counts accepted on July 7 for appeal from the two remaining counts that were at some unspecified later date(s) deemed permissible.
This extradition appeal process is vital to Assange's BLP. Its description should not be muddled by being truncated solely to keep down the word count. Basketcase2022 ( talk) 16:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
As far as I can make out the Wikipedia policy WP:NOTPAPER is that Wikipedia not a paper encyclopaedia. If something should be in an article it should be put in irrespective of the total amount of content. If the amount of space taken up by an article is too big then it should be split and subarticles created as described in WP:SPLIT. Then one can reasonably argue against undue expansion of a summary of the subarticle - the summary should not be longer than he intro of the subarticle. NadVolum ( talk) 18:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Rereading the “Appeal and other developments” section it strikes me that we are trying too rigidly to place information/paragraphs in chronological order at the expense of clarity of the narrative. As discussed above I’d like the whole appeal process explained a bit more clearly and think for starters we should try to keep paragraphs directly concerned with the extradition process together. I will do a little reshuffle – hopefully not ruffling feathers. Prunesqualor billets_doux 07:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Title maybe just “Appeal Process”
On 6 January, Assange was denied bail on the grounds that he was a flight risk, pending an appeal by the United States. [1] The US prosecutors lodged an appeal on 15 January. [2] A spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice confirmed in mid-February 2021 that it would continue the appeal under the new Biden administration. [3] On July 7 2021 The UK Crown Prosecution Service released an email which listed the five grounds, (labelled “a” to “e”) on which the U.S. were appealing against Baraitser’s January ruling, and stating that two of those ground where refused. The two grounds refused where later ruled permissible in the high court, so that all five grounds for appeal were to be heard in the High Court in October 2021. The first three bases for appeal centre on Section 91 of the 2003 Extradition Act, which states that extradition should be barred in circumstances where “the physical or mental condition of the person is such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him.” Basis for appeal “a”, contends that Baraitser had made errors of law in her application of Section 91 and that “Had she applied the test correctly she would not have discharged Mr Assange.” Basis for appeal “b” contends that the judge should have notified the U.S. of her concerns around Section 91 giving them the opportunity of offering assurances to the Court. Basis for appeal “c” concerned the admissibility of evidence given by expert witness for the defence, psychiatrist Prof Michael Kopelman. The U.S. appeal asserted that Kopelman had mislead the judge and that therefore his evidence should have been deemed inadmissible or failing that the judge should have given less weight to the professor’s opinions. In basis for appeal “d” the U.S. contends that Baraitser “erred in her overall assessment of the evidence going to the risk of suicide.” Basis of appeal “e” again addresses the Baraitser ruling that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite Assange pointing out that the United States had by now provided the United Kingdom with assurances that "Mr Assange will not be subject to SAMs or imprisoned at ADX (unless he were to do something subsequent to the offering of these assurances that meets the tests for the imposition of SAMs or designation to ADX)". The United States also provided an assurance that it "will consent to Mr Assange being transferred to Australia to serve any custodial sentence imposed on him." [4] However, an Amnesty International expert on national security and human rights in Europe said "Those are not assurances at all. It’s not that difficult to look at those assurances and say: these are inherently unreliable, it promises to do something and then reserves the right to break the promise." [5]
References
bail
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).theduran.com
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- On 11 August 2021 in the High Court, Lord Justice Holroyde decided that Judge Baraitser may have given too much weight to what Holroyde called "a misleading report" by an expert witness for the defence, psychiatrist Prof Michael Kopelman, and that the contested risk of suicide could now form part of the appeal.[453] The High Court is expected to convene a full appeal hearing on October 27.[454]
We have a section "Writings and opinions", but the only thing it says about Assange's opinions is that In 2010, Assange said he was a libertarian and that "WikiLeaks is designed to make capitalism more free and ethical"
. In the first sentence we describe him as an activist
, but we don't explain what he is an activist for. I would question whether we need the section "Writings and opinions". The writings could be covered by the "Bibliography" section, I think. He did not actually write Cypherpunks or Underground, and they are mentioned in the text earlier anyway. When Google Met WikiLeaks seems to be essentially the transcript of a discussion. Alternatively, if this section is important, it needs more information about his notable opinions. Also, if Assange is just a publisher of leaks - if as he said in relation to the 2016 US election We publish material given to us if it is of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical importance and which has not been published elsewhere. When we have material that fulfills this criteria, we publish.
[9] — then I don't think he should be called an activist.--
Jack Upland (
talk) 08:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
“Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence and thereby eventually lose all ability to defend ourselves and those we love.” “What are the differences between Mark Zuckerberg and me? I give private information on corporations to you for free, and I'm a villain. Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he’s Man of the Year.” “Secrecy breeds incompetence because where there is failure, failure is kept secret.” “Society develops a type of self-censorship, with the knowledge that surveillance exists - a self-censorship that is even expressed when people communicate with each other privately.” “It is the role of good journalism to take on powerful abusers, and when powerful abusers are taken on, there's always a bad reaction. So we see that controversy, and we believe that is a good thing to engage in.” “If wars can be started by lies, they can be stopped by truth.”
Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
He was especially angry about a Private Eye report that Israel Shamir, an Assange associate in Russia, was a Holocaust denier.(Emphasis added for this talk page only.) Basketcase2022 ( talk) 22:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Irrespective of whatever content we settle upon, the placement of "Writings and opinions" as a section is less than elegant. It's jarring to see it separated from "Works" by two sections—"Children" and "Honours and awards"—that are unrelated to Assange's literary oeuvre. I like Jack Upland's idea of making "Writings" a subsection of "Works". We could then use NadVolum's {wikiquote-inline} template to direct the reader to the richer compilation of Assange quotations at our sister site, and bypass the need to offer only a few quotations in this BLP, sadly limited by space restrictions. (And really, does any mere selection do justice to the Quotations of Chairman Julian?) Basketcase2022 ( talk) 12:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Basketcase2022 “the Quotations of Chairman Julian” – Really? I think your slip is showing a little there. Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
WikiLeaks has faced charges of anti-Semitism before. In 2013, former WikiLeaks volunteer James Ball explained that he left the group over what he said was Assange’s close relationship with the Holocaust denier Israel Shamir... Former WikiLeaks spokesperson Daniel Domscheit-Berg raised similar concerns about Shamir.and
would-be ghostwriter of Assange’s autobiography, Andrew O’Hagan, said that, amid preparations for the book in 2011, Assange had "uttered, late at night … many sexist or anti-Semitic remarks"When people close to him are raising the issue, it can't lightly be dismissed.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 22:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I think it’s one of the weaknesses of the libertarian tradition: that they will go to bed with anyone, metaphorically. Julian has always claimed the relationship of WikiLeaks to its sources as being an invisible one, including to me. Look at his recent comments on the character of the sources. “It’s not Russia, I can say categorically!” he says. How can he say that if he doesn’t know? In other words, he is freely aware of the sources in both cases. And freely employing his skills as a selector and editor of materials; he’s shaping the material and shaping its public perception. I feel absolutely bamboozled that anyone would be as naive to imagine that promoting Donald Trump, seemingly in league with Russian forces, would be a freedom-fighting act. … This is the kind of person Julian decides to campaign for. And it is baffling and ruinous to the cause, his cause.[13] Is "libertarian" the only thing we can say about his "cause"? What is he shaping the material in order to do?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 01:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
We go with what RS say, not what we think is true. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I guess we should have Andrew O'Hagan's Secret Life in somewhere. And so should WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy. The bibliography with The Unauthorized Autobiography sounds wrong - where should they go? NadVolum ( talk) 11:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
<ref name="Jewish Conspiracy">{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/world/europe/02assange.html |title=Report Says Assange Cited Jewish Conspiracy |work=[[The New York Times]] |date=1 March 2011 |accessdate=12 September 2021 |author=Somaiya, Ravi |quote=He was especially angry about a Private Eye report that Israel Shamir, an Assange associate in Russia, was a Holocaust denier. Mr. Assange complained that the article was part of a campaign by Jewish reporters in London to smear WikiLeaks.}}</ref>
part of a conspiracy led by the Guardian [emphasis added] which included journalist David Leigh, editor Alan Rusbridger and John Kampfner from Index on Censorship – all of whom 'are Jewish'. As the alleged leader of this Jewish conspiracy, The Guardian is not an impartial source. We should cite it only if The Guardian directly denies or refutes Assange's accusation. Basketcase2022 ( talk) 17:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
It has been suggested we include this., how? Slatersteven ( talk) 12:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
And this is why I asked you to be carefully David Leigh and Luke Harding, WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy, Guardian Books (1 February 2011), ISBN 978-0-85265-239-8 is already used as a source, we do not need it in the Further reading section. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I have added a tag following the Bibliography item Julian Assange: The Unauthorised Autobiography.
{{Disputed inline|Talk:Julian_Assange#Unauthorised_Autobiography|for=Assange has renounced this book|date=September 2021}}
I do not request that this book be removed from the Bibliography, but readers must be cautioned that it was immediately disowned and denounced by its purported author, who accused Canongate Books of "screwing people over to make a buck" by having published this work "against my wishes" and "entirely uncorrected or fact-checked by me." Basketcase2022 ( talk) 23:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
who accused. You seem to have either missed that or not bothered to read Assange's statement. In its second paragraph, he declares:
- I am not "the writer" of this book. I own the copyright of the manuscript, which was written by Andrew O'Hagan.
Absent an explanation in the body of the BLP, I do not support removing this book from the Bibliography. I trust that no editor will disappear it without consensus. Basketcase2022 ( talk) 12:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Is this such a major biography we have to have a discussion of it in the article? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
This is just more words, that tells us nothing about him or his actions. We need to stop adding everything ever said about Assange. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia lists Julian Assange: The Unauthorised Autobiography as one of the notable publications of 2011 in Australian literature.
Three years later, Julian Assange: The Unauthorised Autobiography gained renewed attention when Andrew O'Hagan wrote an account of his experience as Assange's ghostwriter, published in the London Review of Books.
This in turn generated coverage by
Julian Assange: The Unauthorised Autobiography is noteworthy enough to merit a 74-word paragraph in his BLP. Basketcase2022 ( talk) 15:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
But I have had my say, I do not see why we need this or what it adds. It is just more bumpf, and so I will draw a line under this. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)