Talk:Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Actual claims

The actual claims of "misconduct", brought by these women, need to be in the article. I see that someone above attempted to do just this, and more, but was reverted and perhaps gave up. It is an eyesore for the article to not have this information in it. Hopefully someone with more time than I have can rectify this. Willyfreddy (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, wtf? I'm going to root around in the article history for something to be restored. causa sui (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

A useful source: [1] causa sui (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You got it quite wrong, of course: the actual claims in THIS case, heard in the UK, where Assange lost his appeal on four counts today, are about the issue of warrant by the Swedish authority, double criminality, proportionality and whether the alleged conduct is an offense. KathaLu (talk) 10:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

.....

20/03/2020: An interview with Nis Melzer, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, on the 31st Jan. 2020 published here should be included. This is a legitimate source. He was asked by Assange's lawyers to investigate. The details given in that interview are enlightening to say the least (and also provides some evidence within the limited remit of the article). It has ramifications for the entire affair and elements need to be incorporated into the main text here and on the main page 'Julian Assange'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.134.50.144 (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Names of victims

OK Lets try again. Sofia Wilen engaged a lawyer Ms Massi Fritz and had the "investigation" opened again in 2019 well after there was any reasonable chance to get Assange prosecuted and even less chance of him being convicted. The original prosecutor dropped the investigation in 2010 having reviewed the police investigation and determined there was no crime at all. This decision proved to be the correct one as despite the "investigation" being reopened 3 or 4 times no charges were ever laid. There was no rape and therefore no rape victims. In any case all names have been in the public domain since 2010. There has been an attempt to claim Wilen was never identified. Assange is associated thousands of times with sexual offences he did not commit. Purportedly accused by shadowy faceless figure (although this is doubtful) who seek to avoid the reality of what occurred which is probably ok except that they aided Assange's vilification for over nine years. After a long campaign they deserve due recognition.

Hello World Wake up. Is there consensus that Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen should be named? Neither Ardin or Wilen wanted to file a complaint against Assange. All three have been vilified. The original prosecutor was correct in dropping the investigation and even Ny wanted to and eventually did. It seems to me that there are three victims here and a couple of government perps.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnoddy (talk • contribs) 11:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC) The times they have a changed. AA has publicly commented and criticized others for their opinions. (On other pages right here) She has outed herself and entered the public arena.

There's evidenced collusion between SW & AA right from the original joint complaint. They are not rape victims in any ordinary sense of the word. These are world wise instigators of sexual encounters with a at the time famous revolutionary in desperate circumstances. They have much to tell us.

The alleged crimes took place on 13 & 16/17 August 2010. On 18 August AA & SW discovered they had both seduced the same charismatic man. On 20 August AA & SW jointly asked police to force Assange to undergo STD tests wherein the whole sordid affair was sent to a prosecutor. AA alleged that Assange deliberately tore a condom that apparently broke and SW alleged that a condom wasn't used on one occasion when she was asleep. In any case the charges were never laid and Assange has effectively been imprisoned for the last 10 years.

Lets put the names in to record this part of the Wikileaks history as it happened. Consensus?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnoddy (talk • contribs) 13:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I have once again removed the names of the involved women. The previous consensus on the talk page has been that adding the names violates BLP. Please discuss here before adding names again. 85.224.102.92 (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to mention that I disagree with this "consensus". Naomi Wolf argues the case better than I could: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/05/julian-assange-sex-crimes-anonymity Gregcaletta (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

We are not naming the victims at this time - as per the quality sources (Naomi Wolf's opinionated input is not one of them) - such as the BBC who have a very good record of following wp:blp - - please don't see this comment as an opportunity to post sources that do name them - we are not naming them - if and when a case actually occurs we can look at it again - Youreallycan 19:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

These cases are public and assanges name is well known, why should not these women be named? Also the crime is alleged until proved otherwise. I think it's in interest of clean and fair trial to name both sides. It's not a secret either, so.. why not. T.P--94.112.108.225 (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This has been repeatedly discussed in the past - see the archives. Per long-established WP:BLPNAME policy, the consensus is that we won't name the alleged victims in this article. As for 'a clean and fair trial', the contents of our article are irrelevant - it wouldn't be presented as evidence in any trial, though at the moment, there is no decision on whether there will even be one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Just thought I'd give some reasoning for never mentioning the victims of Rape. The names of rape victims are never given out because it otherwise causes women to hardly ever report the crime. Rape is a massively undereported crime and the main reason for the lack of reporting was due to the stigma/shame/humiliation/embarassment that comes when mentioning it. It is hard enough for women to report this crime to a female police-officer with anominity let alone to report it and have their name freely available. This is the reasoning behind why names are not given for this crime, something that Naomi completely forgets to mention (and would rather randomly blame on men being sexist). I do agree that this should also go towards the accused but thats not for a wikipedia talk article to discuss. Long Story short, if we start posting the names of victims than you are contributing to the reason why women don't report Rape. Mishka Shaw (talk) 10:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

"if we start posting the names of victims than you are contributing to the reason why women don't report Rape" -- that may or may not be the case, but it's irrelevant. Wikipedia's purpose is to be a compendium of human knowledge, not to encourage people to report crimes. -- Cabalamat (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia's purpose (per WP:5) is to be an encyclopedia. While some human knowledge is certainly grist for inclusion, not all of it is. In this case, the names of the alleged victims is not appropriate for inclusion. aprock (talk) 23:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME says:

"Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context."

I think WP:BLPNAME doesn't require anonymity because:

(1) The names have been widely disseminated.

(2) Omitting it results in a significant loss of context.

They should be included because, according to many WP:RS, all of which have named the accusers, "Accuser 1"

(1) worked with CIA-sponsored anti-Castro organizations in Cuba.

(2) posted a blog entry advocating revenge when a man cheats on her. I think that also raises legitimate suspicions. Does anybody disagree?

(3) tweeted messages after the supposed rape that indicated she was happy about her relationship with Assange. She didn't accuse him of rape until she found out that he had sex with "Accuser 2".

I think each of these charges raise legitimate suspicions, and together they provide context. "Victim 1" might have a political or personal motivation to punish Assange and have him extradited to the U.S. It's not certain, but neither are any of the charges against Assange. A reader must know these facts in order to evaluate the credibility of the charges against Assange.

Can somebody give me a good statement of why they disagree with those 3 points? --Nbauman (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Where is the consensus that we won't name the alleged victims in this article? I don't see it here, or in the archives. I see disagreement. Can you give me a link to the place that found consensus? --Nbauman (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME is policy. Policy overrides consensus unless there is consensus to change the policy. aprock (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Someone made a claim that there was consensus. If there is, I want to see the link to the consensus. Is there a consensus? Does everybody agree that there is no consensus? --Nbauman (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

[2]. aprock (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, any claim of a consensus is complete nonsense - if there was a consensus, there wouldn't be discussion about it with many editors expressing dissenting views to the so-called consensus. Count Truthstein (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is good. Policy gets interpreted, and the interpretation is decided by consensus, and consensus is reached by discussion. Aprock, if you can point in the policy of a black and white rule that, in a obvious and clear way forbids the names, please provide it. Belorn (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

For WP:BLPNAME not to apply, there would have to be evidence that "Omitting it results in a significant loss of context". There is no difference in context between "[real name 1] alleged Assange...." and "Miss A alleged Assange....", and obviously the same applies for the other victim. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

References

Statements

@Jack Upland: You reverted my addition of the text

Melzer published a statement in which he tries to resolve misunderstandings and hopes that they will not divert attention away from the problems in the case of Assange. Later the woman said, that Assange's action has not been a crime for her and that she has "long forgiven" Assange.

with the comment "Removing slab of pro-Assange slab of text that is not in correct English". Could you please explain why being "pro-Assange" warrants removal. Additionally, if my english is not correct, please feel free to correct it. Nuretok (talk) 10:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

It felt easier to remove it rather than correct it. I think the pro-Assange tone doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining it. With that view in mind I understand why you removed the text. What do you think about theses (hopefully) more neutral wordings:

However, she does consider Assange's action a crime. Melzer tried to resolve the misunderstandings publicly.

My goal of the sentences is to put the (currently) last sentences of the article ("One of the women interviewed by Melzer later sharply criticised him and demanded his resignation. She said that by defining how a "proper rape-victim" should act, Melzer was engaging in victim blaming and that his report was partially "untrue and defamatory".") into context.--Nuretok (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Poll: Should the fact that one of the accusers against Julian Assange was once working as a contractor for the CIA be included?

Talk:Julian_Assange#Poll:_Should_the_fact_that_one_of_the_accusers_against_Julian_Assange_was_once_working_as_a_contractor_for_the_CIA_be_included?

Happydaze1 (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Please point to exactly where in your citations this is sourced. Softlemonades (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

References

"No one disagrees"

When the the initiators of the open letter welcomed Melzer's clarification, presumably they were responding to both parts of Melzer's statement, i.e. the part about brave victims as well as the part about insufficient evidence. Burrobert (talk) 10:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I think the brave victims part is something everyone agrees with and is obvious, Id say they were responding to the part about Melzer sharing their legal opinions Softlemonades (talk) 10:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Any response? I still think its about Melzer sharing their legal opinions Softlemonades (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

What happened?

I was replying to a comment about Kate Harding's article in Salon and the comment disappeared. Here is what I was going to say:

You introduced an article which you used to provide Kate Harding's opinion about an article in CounterPunch. I then used the same article to provide another of Harding's opinions. She does not shy away from that opinion by the end of her article. Her point was that, the timing of the charges was suspicious but that there was no public evidence of a relation between the charges and Wikileaks publications. She criticised her fellow journalists for jumping to conclusions without evidence. I have now included both parts of her opinion. Btw, I can't see why you described the Shamir CounterPunch article as retracted. Burrobert (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Her point was that, the timing of the charges was suspicious thats not support for the conspiracy theory or the claims made. the section isnt about Assange and his lawyer saying "this is suspcious" they went a lot further

Btw, I can't see why you described the Shamir CounterPunch article as retracted. it looks like counterpunch deleted it which was how wikipedia defined retracted Softlemonades (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't write that she supported the idea of a connection. You could describe her as agnostic. I used her exact words. It is a quote that is directly relevant to the title you chose for this section.

The "retraction" point is minor. Do you have a source which says the article was deleted? Burrobert (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

It is a quote that is directly relevant to the title you chose for this section. but not the content, but your second edit was better, which is why i deleted my comment

Do you have a source which says the article was deleted? its skyblue and not worth arguing Softlemonades (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Burrobert Thanks for improving my recent edits. I think youre still editing, and so far I agree with them except for the Sexual abuse category being Controversial given the investigation was dropped but I understand and unless consensus says its not controversial it is now i guess. I did see a category for sexual abuse cases that wasnt convictions or people charged, which he wasnt because they couldnt get to him. I was trying to add a category for the kind of case or investigation

The reason I took out inconsistent from Assange's supporters have accused the CPS of being inconsistent in its description of the status of the case. was I didnt see that in the the source, but might have missed it. So I showed the difference instead. If you saw where the source said supporters said it was inconsistent thats ok, thanks for finding it Softlemonades (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• Regarding "inconsistent", the Guardian source says "Assange’s supporters allege that the CPS has been inconsistent in declaring whether or not the case was live".
• Regarding the Sexual Abuse category, the category says "Sexual abuse (also referred to as molestation) is a general term used defined as the forcing of undesired sexual acts by one person to another". We can't make any judgements about what happened as the case was dropped. It may be appropriate to include this page in a category about Sexual abuse cases that did not proceed, or even just criminal cases that were dropped, if such categories exist. Burrobert (talk) 06:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  1 Thanks

  2 Disagree but wont argue

  I did see a category for sexual abuse cases shouldve been I didnt see Softlemonades (talk) 06:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

CPS email sent to

The CPS email was sent to two of them. Till means To and Kopia means Copied. The CPS lawyer names both of the prosecutors but the second name is deleted, and it ends Hope you are both well. [3] I restored that it was sent to prosecutors [4] but left other edits [5] Softlemonades (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, that makes sense. The significance of the sentence beginning "The prosecutor added that their webpage was ... " is that it is in reply to the CPS' complaint about journalists running to story about Sweden dropping the case ("Journalists!!!"). Perhaps we should spell out that connection. Burrobert (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Im not sure what text youre proposing but WP:Be bold Softlemonades (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)