Jump to content

Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

Bana?

Did he hire Eric Bana to impersonate him in his ad for the 2013 Senate election campaign? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 08:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

At police station

The text currently reads

The second woman, Miss W, took Assange to her flat and had consensual sex with him using a condom. However Miss W accused Assange of having unprotected sex with her the next day, starting when she was half asleep. Assange again denies these accusation. [247]

Miss W later contacted Miss A compared stories, and went to the police wanting Assange to have a STD test to which Assange did not initially agree.[247]

[Add text here]

On 20 August 2010, Swedish police began an investigation into allegations concerning Assange's behaviour.[247][248]

In light of the info below I suggest we had at "[Add text here]" the info is here [1] by the Australian national broadcaster ABC (From July 2013 and updated in May 2013, "Sex, Lies and Julian Assange"] and at that page, either watch the 46 min video or click on the "Show Transcript" button, this part:

Three days later on August 20th, Wilen, accompanied by Ardin went to the Klara police station in central Stockholm to seek advice about whether Assange could be forced to take an STD test. Ardin had gone along primarily to support Wilen. Sometime during Wilen's questioning the police announced to Ardin and Wilen that Assange was to be arrested and questioned about possible rape and molestation. Wilen became so distraught she refused to give any more testimony and refused to sign what had been taken down.

Remarkable. And, certainly seems relevant - at least for a short addition at [Add text here] to the effect of Woman W "upon hearing this was not just to see if Assange can be forced to take test, but would be arrested, became distraught, refused to testify any more, and refused to sign the police summary" Harel (talk) 07:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Typo corrected Aug 30. Also, in the actual article (as opposed to Talk page) if consensus is that BLP means that (despite fairly widespread coverage of actual names) that the names should not be mentioned, the suggested quote above would say, "[Woman W], accompanied by [Woman A] went to the Klara police station..." etc, in the format of my suggestion in the "conspiracies?" section above

Finally, if we do keep their names anonymous for now, I suggest something like "Woman W" or "Ms. W" rather than the "Miss W", not so much as a feminist issue but as an "out of date language" issue in this context...even if the official translation by Swedish authorities might (I don't know) use that term Harel (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it's fine as it is. Woman W sounds a bit jarring and I've never seen this used in publications written by people who have English as their mother tongue. If a precedent has been set elsewhere, I'm happy to stand corrected. But Woman W sounds a bit like "swenglish" to me. Totorotroll (talk) 09:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The Fifth Estate

A small omission -- where and to what degree should information from the article on the Assange biopic The Fifth Estate be included here? — Catherine\talk 22:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I would say that it is worth mentioning that a film has been made. I don't think anything from the film should be treated as fact worth including in an encyclopedic article. Wikileaks has made it clear that they view the film as a "work of fiction masquarading as fact", with a number of inaccuracies, which are elaborated in detail here: http://wikileaks.org/IMG/html/wikileaks-dreamworks-memo.html#about Totorotroll (talk) 09:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the precedent of the film The Social Network about Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg, mention of the film appears on Mark Zuckerberg, under Depictions in media, and on Facebook under In popular culture. Perhaps this is the way to go here too: a Depictions in media section for this page, and an In popular culture section for the Wikileaks page. Totorotroll (talk) 10:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit clarification

I trust the two edits by Andy the Grump are in good faith but they allow the first paragraph to omit the Manning leaks which are critical to the initial public attention to this article .Manning was convicted of violations of the U.S. Espionage Act. If my grammar is wrong, please fix it rather than delete the facts.Patroit22 (talk) 02:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The lede goes into extensive detail about Manning already. We can't put everything into the first paragraph, and it makes more sense to describe the broad outline ("WikiLeaks... publishes submissions of secret information") first, and the details later. You should also bear in mind that this article is about Assange, rather than about Manning, and that we have other articles (e.g. the one on Manning, as well as Wikileaks, and United States diplomatic cables leak) covering aspects of the topic in greater detail. I can see no particular reason why the specific details of Manning's conviction need to go in the first paragraph of an article about Assange: why do you see it as so important? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The Assange article first paragraph resembles and even uses as an objective reference the Wilkleaks webpage about their sources, which does not mention espionage violators. Espionage leakers are a major source of their disclosures and to hide that with terms like whistleblowers is a farce.Patroit22 (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

If the OP thinks that Assange was a nobody before Manning's escapades, he is really very out of touch. HiLo48 (talk) 04:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

This HiLo48 comment about someone being out of touch sounds like a personal attack rather than a comment on content. If so, please strike it.Patroit22 (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Describing this article as 'a farce' isn't exactly civil. It has had input from multiple contributors, and has been the subject of considerable debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I did not describe the article as a farce. The sentence in the lede that cites the Wikileaks web as a reliable source on its founder makes the sentence a farce, in my opinion. I am being civil and do not invite any personal attacks.Patroit22 (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)



A personal attack, eh? Well, you described the Manning leaks as "...critical to the initial public attention to this article." Sorry, but that's ridiculous. Assange's article is older than Manning's by some time. If you write ridiculous things, perhaps your judgement on what's a personal attack is ridiculous too. HiLo48 (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48 My judgement on what is a personal attack is not subject to your determination that it is ridiculous. Please refrain from personal attacks.Patroit22 (talk) 01:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

LOL. Please give up now. You're just digging a deeper hole. HiLo48 (talk) 01:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48 Calling me ignorant and wondering if I am stupid is persistent personal attacks ..Patroit22 (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at Ignorance. HiLo48 (talk) 01:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Ignorance is used as an insult. Patroit22 (talk) 01:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it can be. But I've pointed out that you displayed the other, more traditional and, fortunately, curable form of ignorance in your suggestion that Assange's fame only came after Manning's leaks. When we're building a quality encyclopaedia it's important to point out when someone has their facts wrong. If you choose to also read my comment as an insult, that's really your problem. HiLo48 (talk) 02:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

No it is your problem. I never said Assange's fame or infamy was due to Manning. I said the Assange article downplays the important role of espionage leaks to the disclosures. My intent is to improve the article by including facts to clarify the self serving descriptions of sources quoted from the Wikipedia web site.Patroit22 (talk) 03:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Oops. I meant Wikileaks web site rathe than Wikipedia in the post above.Patroit22 (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC).

You said "...the Manning leaks which are critical to the initial public attention to this article." My simple point is that Assange already had considerable attention long before Manning did anything of note on the leakage front. It was NOT the Manning leaks that gave this article its initial attention. Do you understand yet? HiLo48 (talk) 03:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I meant initial reader reaction today is often about the espionage leaks of Manning. You have no clue of what I know about international intelligence and count-espionage activities. Do you understand ?Patroit22 (talk) 04:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC) .

Wikipedia bases article content on published reliable sources, and not on the personal knowledge of contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Andy I know that. My point is Wikileaks web site is not a published reliable source. Ciao.Patroit22 (talk) 04:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, so we have a new definition of "initial"? Sorry I didn't know that. Actually, that's crap. If that really is what you meant, you didn't express yourself at all well. And I really couldn't give a rats how much you know "about international intelligence and count-espionage activities". It's completely irrelevant to making this a better article, to which you've so far contributed nothing but confusion and arrogance. HiLo48 (talk) 05:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Name calling and lack of civility adds nothing to making the article better. How about a yes or no answer? Is Wikileaks a reliable published source of information on its founder?Patroit22 (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

If you have questions regarding sources and what defines a reliable source, I suggest the wikipedia policy describe at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. If you have questions regarding how the lead section should be written, I suggest reading Wikipedia:Lead_section. Please note however that "My intent is to improve the article by including facts to clarify the self serving descriptions of sources quoted from the [Wikileaks] web site." is borderline unacceptable behavior for an Wikipedia editor. If you notice that a section is missing something that has been said in reliable sources, you are free to add that, but Wikipedia is not the place to Right Great Wrongs. As a general rule, if you are going to edit a article, start with a source. Belorn (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I have read the guidance and I am not trying to right great wrong. I have a simple question. Is Wikikeaks web site controlled by Julian Assange a reliable published source for citing information on Mr. Assange?Patroit22 (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Your edit added material. It did not remove any existing material. Frankly, I see nothing in the first paragraph of the existing lede that is remotely contentious, and that couldn't be sourced from multiple credible publications. It discusses the outline of what Wikileaks does - The Manning case is covered in detail both later in the lede, and in considerable depth in the body of the article. This is how a lede is supposed to be written. Dumping a poorly-worded statement about Manning into the existing first paragraph does nothing for style or comprehension as I see it. We expect readers to read more than the first paragraph of the lede - though frankly, given the article subject, it is rather implausible that readers won't know about Manning anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Andy-All of this discussion and conjecture on how much of the article readers view or know is not necessary. Forget my edit. A simple yes or no answer of my question will satisfy, Is the cite of Wikileaks web controlled by Mr. Assange a reliable published source in an article about him? I think not. I suggest you or another objective editor remove the Wikileaks footnote and cite one of the multiple credible publications that lists Wikileaks sources and does not include espionage leaks as one of the sources.Patroit22 (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I have replaced the citation with one from the BBC. [2] I see no reason whatsoever why a citation should be selected on the basis of what it doesn't include. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Andy BBC is credible source. Thanks for your generally civil comments and getting rid of this blatant problem with a source that is clearly not objective in spite of several comments of editors that blame the messenger rathe than the message. Wikipedia may need Anger Management section to aid some editors in becoming more civil. Patroit22 (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

LOL. When you learn how to edit here correctly (Heard if indenting?), and stop playing POV games, all of which is quite uncivil, then we can talk about others' alleged incivility. I called you ignorant because you were. Hopefully you are less ignorant now. HiLo48 (talk) 07:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  • In answer to the specific question of whether, and how, to use what Mr Assange has to say about himself -- it is important to properly attribute positions. Suppose Mr Assange had said "the specific acts I am accused of, that triggered the Swedish charges, would not be considered sexual assault in other countries." Suppose Wired magazine paraphrased Assange, we could write "According to Wired Magazine Assange argued against extradition because it is only in Sweden that he would face charges for the acts he is accused of." In no newspapers or magazines had picked up on Assange's position, but WikiLeaks published a press release, we could quote or paraphrase his position, so long as it was prefaced with something like "According to a press release published by WikiLeaks Assange argues..." Geo Swan (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Geo Swan-None of that attribution was done. The WikiLekas references were presented as objective reporting and except for Andy the Grump change of source with no change in the description as a whistleblower with no mention of illegal breach of U.S. Espionage Act. . Wikipedia's reputation for unbiased content is being harmed by uncivil editing.Patroit22 (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

You still haven't learnt how to indent your posts, have you? You claim to be aiming for unbiased content. Until learn the basics of just plain editing here, your credibility will continue to suffer. New editors who come here with particular POV goals but no interest in seeing the broader picture of how the whole of Wikipedia works generally have little to contribute. HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
LOL, Advice from profanity laced and uncivil contributions is not appreciated . Indenting on talk is optional and not mandatory.Patroit22 (talk) 03:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC).
So there's two sets of rules here, those that suit you, and those that don't. LOL. Your credibility is doing a Titanic HiLo48 (talk) 09:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
If Patroit22 want attribution to Assange's position as suggested by Geo Swan, I suggest that Patroit22 create an edit so an WP:EDITCONSENSUS. However, the references to manning is already on the bloated side, and do not need more. Rather, mentioning of those facts should be reduced in the lead section as this is an article about Assange, not Manning. Regarding indentation, I recommend reading Wikipedia:Indentation. Use of normal indentation is a behavioural guideline that editors are expected to follow, and may be enforced by administrative action if experienced users refuse to comply with it. If someone persistently ignores the behavioural guideline, user may be temporarily or indefinitely blocked. Belorn (talk) 11:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
HiLo48 and Belorn cited references on indention are in an essay. This essay is not a Wikipedia policy nor guideline. I suggest your contributions be factual and cite only actual Wikipedia policy and guidelines.Patroit22 (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
From the essay: "Although this example page about how to indent is an essay, it should be noted that the use of normal indentation is a behavioural guideline that editors are expected to follow. Such guidelines may be enforced by administrative action, especially when other editors have been unable to persuade an individual to abide by them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Andy-With all due respect, the box at the top of the essay page state that it is not a policy or guideline. It seems that users pick and choose from conflicting policy, guidelines,essays and now persuasive behavioral guidelines. Anyway, I decided earlier today to fold my hand.take my money and leave Wikipedia.Patroit22 (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
It is correct that its a essay, but its an essay that cites a guideline. The guideline says: Thread your post: Use indentation as shown in Help:Using talk pages#Indentation (or, more specifically, Wikipedia:Indentation) to clearly indicate to whom you are replying, as with usual threaded discussions. Normally colons are used, not bullet points (although the latter are commonly used at AfD, CfD, etc.).. Even if one ignore the essay (which everyone is free to do), one should not ignore the guideline. If one do, administrative attention might happen, and that person can decide how discussion should be handled on this talk page, likely based on consensus and common Wikipedia practice. After that, if a editor still ignore said decision, such editors can be banned. Belorn (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

FP analysis on how Snowden displaced Assange in being known for leaking

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2014

Please add the following to this page, which falls under the 'Depictions in Media', 'Skyfall':

The original reads: "Many commentators believe that the main antagonist in the 2012 James Bond film, Skyfall, is modeled after Assange."

What I believe should be added: "Many commentators believe that the main antagonist, Raoul Silva, in the 2012 James Bond film, Skyfall, is modeled after Assange."

I just want to be of help to improve this well written page. I realise this change is minor to the larger document, yet it still stood out as a major eyesore when reading it.

Thank You, StealthyGripen

StealthyGripen (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done for now: Is the main antagonist not already defined elsewhere on the article? — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 21:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Facing Charges

Julian Assange unlikely to face U.S. charges over publishing classified documents

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/julian-assange-unlikely-to-face-us-charges-over-publishing-classified-documents/2013/11/25/dd27decc-55f1-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_allComments.html?ctab=all_&

I think this is pretty a noteworthy socio-political element, considering the broad implications in journalism and govt power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.208.192 (talk) 06:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Fugitive from justice should be in the heading, he broke his bail obligations.17:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.96.87.26 (talk)

This is not the place for these kinds of discussions that are not NPOV furthermore Wikipedia is not a forumor a Publisher of original thought. You may wish to look at What Wikipedia is not before you make further comments --Orestes1984 (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not POV to state that Assange is a Fugitive he is a fugitive from a extradition request. it should be in ex lead.209.252.250.6 (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Egypt

"At the time of the Egyptian uprising, Mubarak tried to close down the country’s mobile phone network, a service that came through Canada. Julian and his gang hacked into Nortel and fought against Mubarak’s official hackers to reverse the process."

5.81.26.164 (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

2014 Rewrite

This article was a model of Wikipedia entropy. Editors acting in good faith added and added and added until it became an endless, shapeless mess, clogged with as-it-happened minutiae that no doubt seemed important at the time, but which made it impossible wade through from beginning to end.

The version I have posted today is a fraction of the original length and sticks to the main outlines of the story, leaving the rest to the links (this is why they invented Tim Berners-Lee). It benefits (a) from hindsight, which editors working in 2010 did not have; and (b) from the voluminous research done by earlier contributors, which I have simply repurposed, revised where necessary, and augmented here and there to bring the story up to date.

This is such an obvious and sensible solution that I'm sure no one will object. Stan Anson (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I just passed through looking for Assange information and was impressed by the clarity of the article. Looking at edit history, I can see it has had a major clean-up - halving the length. Without being an Assange expert, my quick response is: Well done. Mick gold (talk) 11:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
The main article about Assange v Sweden do not cover any details of what Assange is accused of, so that information is currently missing both from this article and it. It would be nice if the main outlines of that story was included, but it will likely be a hard job given the poor material to work with. Belorn (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Mick Gold: Thank you! Stan Anson (talk) 11:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Belorn: Details of the alleged offences have been omitted here, and I'm guessing also in the article on the case, to avoid salaciousness. They are given in several of the sources cited. On your own edits, I have reversed (a) the deletion of the line about the conspiracy theories, which do not need to be elaborated (as they were in the old version), but do warrant a mention (although you are right about "the usual"); and (b) your revision of the line about the Svea appeal—the "blog post" you object to is by a lawyer, in a reputable publication, whereas neither of the alternative sources your provide refers to the matter. Stan Anson (talk) 11:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories do need to be elaborated, or it become a weasel word label with no content.
The other issue regarding the blog post, is that it not a reliable sources for the extraordinary claim it makes. The several reliable sources I did provide referenced the same court case but said nothing about testing the allegations (which is odd if such testing happened in that case). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources (WP:Fringe), so a single blog post made by a non-Swedish lawyer about Swedish court case is not good enough. If you have collaborating sources that also claims that the allegations was tested, provide those, otherwise, don't include the claim in the article. Last, if you don't like the editorial description of "rape of lesser degree", we can always go back to the Swedish police own definition posted on their authoritative website. There it is called rape (less serious crime), which is 100% likely to confuse everyone not familiar with Swedish grading system of offenses. Picking the authoritative English translation would be more correct, but I strongly favor a more readable "lesser degree" as the legal concept behind the two terms are for most practical purposes the same. Belorn (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Belorn: (a) The Svea quote is from the New Statesman's legal correspondent, himself a lawyer, and it was published on the New Statesman's website. This is a reliable source. The point being made is that the allegations are not just a figment of Ny's imagination, but have been accepted as a basis for prosecution by a court. It is hard to see why this is controversial. Your opinion that it is "wrong" and "fringe" has no authority. If you believe there is more to be said on this, add it with appropriate citations. None of the five references you have provided mentions the Svea appeal. (b) The conspiracy theories are elaborated in the sources, which is precisely why the sentence is there. Stan Anson (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC) PS: I have removed the reference to rape from the intro—it was probably redundant anyway, and, as your references on this topic make clear, it does need to be explained. Stan Anson (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I attributed the blog statement as per WP:NEWSBLOG. The point being made in this article is unclear how it differ from the warrant being upheld. The warrant is valid, so so what ever it include is valid to exist in the warrant. The current phrasing however point that the allegations against Assange was tested, and his guilt. The court decided only if the warrant was valid, and with some modification they decided it was. The long list of reliable third-party newspapers has written exactly that but nothing about any test of the alligations. So what is the theory here? The blogger having insight that no others had? The news articles I sources are all from the main article, and described the svea court appeal decision made on the 24th November 2010. This is the case the blog uses are sources for his statement.
The conspiracy theory is a One-sided accusation of the lawyers and supporters, thus a NPOV problem that do not give the reader a chance to form their own opinion. I have flagged the section accordingly until the dispute is settled by consensus. Since the one source (The Rough Guide to Conspiracy Theories, 3rd edn. (London: Rough Guides)) is not available on-line, it is even more paramount that the reader who comes here can see what the accusation against the lawyers and supporters are. Belorn (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Belorn: I have removed the David Allen Green quote but left him as the source, unless you have another. Once again: None of the references you have so far provided mentions the Svea appeal. The sentence relating to conspiracy theories does not refer to "one source," it refers to twelve sources. That, I think, is plenty. Can we agree now? Stan Anson (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC) PS: I've just checked the page on the court case. It provides four references for the Svea appeal. The two you copied here are spurious—one is a BBC report from 20 November 2010, before the appeal was lodged and decided; the other is a BBC report from 2 November 2011 that also says nothing about Svea. Unfortunately this is all too common on WP. The other two, which you did not copy here, are sound, and I have added them to the Assange article. Stan Anson (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the diligence regarding those 4 sources. It was a wrong assumption of me that they would be a correct source for the statements they did in the main article, so thanks for clearing that up. David Allen Green is acceptable so long we follow policy and be careful with newsblogs.
But, from those 12 other sources you talk about (minus those I can't access), only two mention the word conspiracy theory and none says that about the lawyers. The guardian is the closest that says "What has most engaged the conspiracy theorists and Assange's more excitable defenders ..." which is a bit far from directly supporting the claim that "several conspiracy theories have been promoted by Assange's lawyers and supporters". Depending on interpretation, it could be implied, but it is not directly supported by the source. I suggest rewriting it to similar language as the source which keeps a good distance away directly accuse anyone. The other source simply says "Assange’s conspiracy theory", which is attributed to an article on the gawker. The other 10 sources simply describe different arguments people have made, and defining them as proof of conspiracy theories would be original research. Belorn (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Belorn: Addressed. I have added three other references in support of the Guardian—there are more, but since it is difficult to find anyone who denies the Swedish case provoked conspiracy theories, I don't want to labour the point. It is important that the existing illustrative references remain. I have also removed the POV flag. You are welcome to restore it, of course, but I am reluctant to go further. This material has been a staple of the page for years, and suppressing all mention of it now would be perilously close to airbrushing history. Stan Anson (talk) 07:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC) PS: Most of the Rough Guide is at Google Books, should you be interested. Stan Anson (talk) 08:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The current edit seems a good balance without going into direct details of the controversy (As a minor note, I have re-added the correct list of offenses to this article a few times each year for the last 2 years, because they tend to revert back into incorrectness. I can only hope this time they will stay put). 14:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

2014 Rewrite ... sigh

The page is already falling apart. It was fun while it lasted. All yours. Stan Anson (talk) 08:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

If you have edits you want to make, feel free to do so. Wikipedia is written collaboratively, with no owners to articles. In large rewrites, statements are sometimes not found in sources which makes them unverifiable. Synthesis is sometimes added that advances a position which is not directly supported in sources, and quotes and statements are sometimes dragged out of context. Weasel words and peacock terms are sometimes added to generalize a non-generalized sourced statement.
When that happens, someone will edit it and either remove it, or rewrite it to match the source. In biographies about living people, extra care is placed to make sure everyone side of a controversy is included. Edits are told to be conservative with adding information, and that the burden of evidence for any edit rests with the person who adds or restores material. BLPs is written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. The policy include more so I recommend reading it if one haven't already. Belorn (talk) 23:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

over 30 or over 50?

Going through the early life section, I noticed that we got this two non-conflicting but confusing statements. The times said that Assange had lived in over 30 different towns, and Assange said in a later interview that it was over 50. They are technically not conflicting because "over 50" is also "over 30", but it does sound a bit confusing to read. Has anyone more sources than those two? Belorn (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Daughter

I had a look at the three online sources provided and I didn't find a mention of a daughter born in 2006 or a partner called Lisa who is the child's mother. Has anyone else found the reference to this? Totorotroll (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I removed two of the cites because indeed, as you say, they do not support the claims in that sentence. I've no time to look at the other two, so I hope other editors can perform the expected verification. In case it is useful for other citing purposes, the Daily Mail cite I removed is: ""WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has 'fathered four love children' friend claims in tell-all book," The Daily Mail, 12 February 2011.". Also editors should be mindful of Wikipedia content policies. -84user (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
A scan of The Monthly cite writes of an entry in a blog at the paragraph starting "Many blog entries are personal." The statement following a description of a child in a bonnet is "She is his new daughter." but does not elaborate further and does not provide links. This is pretty weak to use as citation in my opinion. -84user (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Partner Sarah Harrison

In the "Personal Life"-section Sarah Harrison is mentioned to be his former partner. The two cited articles seem to be more tabloid than anything else. I think as long as this is not confirmed by a credible news source it should not be in there.

Agreed, I don't know if it's credible. prat (talk) 06:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

Looking at the page's history, the NPOV issue seems to be about the section titled Swedish Legal Position. I had a look and I don't think this section seems biased. It broadly outlines the complaints that the Swedish police want to question Assange over in what I would call a neutral way. I don't think that the section or the page itself warrants the NPOV template in its current form. What do others think? Totorotroll (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I've done a bit of tidying up on the Swedish Legal Position section now to try and make the tone seem more neutral. Totorotroll (talk) 10:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts. I don't think it's really improved. For starters, it should be clear who is doing the accusing. The fact that it wasn't the alleged victims is a very important factor. Then of course we have the nature of how that appeared, and all of the ridiculous properties of the process that led to its sudden spread throughout the media (nearly instant). The compounded evidence along these lines, published by multiple groups, describes how Assange is actually considered a political prisoner and how this group of assertions has been instrumental in imprisoning him. I think this section needs a total rewrite. Some of the appropriate facts were recently outlined over here. prat (talk) 07:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that a balanced account is necessary and appropriate. But a page already exists - Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority - that is supposed to deal with this matter in detail. I would argue that that page would be a better place for this information and that this page on Julian Assange should only describe the matter in broad outline. Totorotroll (talk) 08:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I also agree that there is a lot of misunderstanding and many misconceptions about the case, and that it would be great for a basic account of the Swedish legal system to be given or referred to, so that the non-Swedish public could understand why the situation is the way it is, for example, why the prosecutor insists on interviewing Assange in person. I think that there is a risk that this page will become overlong if all these details are given here though. Totorotroll (talk) 08:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, here's a partial list of things I disagree with.

  • Introduction: In the same year he was accused of sexual offences in Sweden. This makes it sound like someone accused him. Nobody actually accused him: it's blatantly obvious that some bureaucrat on the make decided to assist the CIA with a character assassination. While getting in to the details of this and picking reasonable verbiage is not generally something we are going to be able to do in an introduction-length mention, the current content strongly suggests that he was accused by a person and therefore the assumption in many a reader is that there is validity to the claim and that he is guilty. Frankly, I think this part of the introduction should simply be dropped, and expanded coverage already further down the article should replace it.
    • Edit... I have removed it. I don't think there's any great loss here and it allows a fairer coverage of his lifetime work without the smear of the character assassination. prat (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Swedish legal position section...
    • Assange is wanted for questioning over alleged sexual offences[192][193][194][195][196] committed against two women during a visit to Sweden in August 2010.
      • This is not a fairly balanced statement.
      • In raising the Sweden situation, we should explain who wants him to do what, who is making the allegations, and their nature with regards to law (eg. the fact they were thrown out as baseless, fake evidence was submitted and thrown out, etc.). Not to do so is to mislead the reader.
      • The two women are on record in the leaked Swedish police report as having had consensual sex with Assange, which is a very different reality to that implied by this statement.
    • Prosecutors are seeking to complete their inquiries, finalise charges, and bring him to trial. Under Swedish criminal procedure, formal indictment occurs only at the end of an investigation.
      • If I'm not mistaken there is one prosecutor, she is being deliberately obstructive far beyond any justifiable measure, and he is not charged with anything. The phrase "finalize charges" again fraudulently suggesting an image of guilt where innocence must be presumed, particularly in a politically charged case brought about by state actors that have already been exposed as manipulating due process in this very case.
    • Assange was taken into custody in London on 7 December 2010 under a European Arrest Warrant issued on 18 November that year.
      • This implies that he was grabbed by police. In fact, he voluntarily appeared at a London police station. In thanks for his cooperation, he was placed in solitary confinement... how measured! Perhaps this would be a more realistic set of facts to present.
      • Where does the 18th of November date come from? The summary I see does not have that date, in fact the summary I see shows a rapid, unprecedented, disproportionate escalation by Sweden from an international arrest warrant (November 20) to an interpol red notice (November 30), then somehow backtracking on absolutely no explanation to a European arrest warrant (December 2). (You have to ask yourself here: *Why would they do that? Because it provides a different legal game to play to keep the whole thing kicking deniably while curtailing his freedoms in a wholly extra-legal manner despite no evidence of wrongdoing. But this is interpretation and I am not suggesting its inclusion.*)
    • He was released on bail the following week.
      • Let's clarify here...
        • How long exactly was he imprisoned? 10 days.
        • How much bail was raised? £240,000
        • Who raised it? This is very relevant because representation by people of public standing shows with clarity that Assange's stance in the issue is one with respectable public support.
        • He had to stay in prison while Sweden appealed the decision.
    • The rest of this paragraph, namely Assange had appealed against the European Arrest Warrant, but this was rejected by the Svea Court of Appeal on 24 November 2010... ... is basically one-sided in its entirety and in my view should be dropped. The reality is that the EAW was issued under extremely dubious means, the appeal was well founded (he is on record as having received Sweden's OK to leave and has at all times welcomed standard questioning as befits many other cases) but was dropped because the political nature of the case is at this point clear. He is not facing law, but rather the long vindictive arms of those he has embarrassed (the US). Because it doesn't add anything meaningful to the summary, I would suggest removing it. Particularly the highly suggestive use of vague, non-inline-sourced quotes in careful construction These developments created an atmosphere "in which conspiracy theories, slander and misogyny" became "central to the debate" about Assange. I mean, this reads like a damn tabloid! It's propaganda.
prat (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
A lot of your comment seems to reflect your personal views of the case (eg, 'it's blatantly obvious that some bureaucrat on the make decided to assist the CIA with a character assassination...'she is being deliberately obstructive far beyond any justifiable measure' etc...) We must be careful to represent the sources as they speak for themselves, some of the people who raised his bail have since expressed their dissatisfaction with him. I have reinstated the case to the lead as it is the primary reason that Assange is ensconced in the Ecuadorian embassy. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 01:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
A lot of your comment seems to reflect your personal views of the case... actually no, mostly I am providing verifiable facts. My main problem with the introduction, as outlined, was the false and misleading statement that he has been accused of sexual misconduct. In fact, there is one prosecutor who refuses to drop preliminary inquiries in such a case, where the alleged victims never attempted to press charges, only discussed matters with police on the stated condition that they were not recorded and used for such purpose, and finally 50 respected organizations including a virtual who's who of legal and human rights organizations have asserted is politically motivated. I note that you have reverted my change which was to remove the slanderous and one-sided, highly suggestive summary from the introduction. I do not believe that to be a reasonable course of action, and would ask you to recognize that this man has been providing world-significant work for a career spanning three or more decades and to recognize that these to date wholly baseless accusations are irrelevant to an introductory summary of his person and life's work. Feel free to discuss here further, if there is no reasonable argument for including the slander within the introduction I will remove it again in a few days' time. People seeking a nuanced view of his present situation will no doubt read on, so I do not see its tangential relationship to his current physical location as meaningful reason to include it in the first few sentences. prat (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The accusations are included in the introduction as they are the primary reason for his presence in the Ecuadorian embassy, and so deprived him of his liberty to effectively work. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • That's absolutely false. As stated by Julian multiple times in a variety of forums, such as this recent example from last week, he continues his work from within the Ecuadorian embassy with the benefit of an internet connection and the full protection of Ecuador. (Ecuador in turn enjoys support from a variety of states, particularly South American, and they were recently thanked by Australian Senator Scott Ludlum for their continued efforts at protecting Julian.) Two prominent and publicly verifiable examples of Assange's continued work within the consulate include the saving of Snowden which he has stated in multiple forums that he was involved in organizing (eg. see last week interview), and the release last week of the secret Trade in Services Agreement Financial Services Annex draft... not to mention his numerous public event appearances. prat (talk) 03:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Please read WP:MOSLEDE. The lede is intended to summarise the article content, and as such must clearly include the fact that Assange has been accused of sexual offences, and is currently living in the Ecuadorian embassy. It would be nonsensical to omit such significant matters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Reinstatement of recently added content

I am rolling back to re-instate recently added content that was removed unilaterally by AndyTheGrump. After doing so, I will be removing less weighty comments in a bid to address his concerns around lopsidedness, and then going on to add today's newer developments. I think this is a reasonable course of action ... please feel free to edit but not remove entirely. Thanks. prat (talk) 08:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've added the new content but lack the time to re-integrate, particularly because the more potent of comments from the new article in The Guardian directly references the body of the content recently added, re: developments within and complaints to the Swedish bar association. However, I do want to come back and put some effort in to compressing and streamlining this section on the proviso that content summarized or removed is shifted to the case-specific page. The unfortunate problem there is that, as outlined in the merger proposal, the scope of the case page does not really involve the Swedish case rather only the UK case which is effectively deadlocked. So at present this is the only place for it. prat (talk) 10:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I haver reverted the material. Please read WP:RS. You are citing an obscure one-man website calling itself the 'Nordic News Network', [3], a press release by Eva Jolly (a primary source, and as such no evidence that her opinions are seen as significant) and similar poor sources. And then read WP:NPOV. You have engaged in blatant spin in attempts to enhance the significance of Bill Van Auken's soapboxing on the issue. This "former US presidential candidate" got precisely 1,857 votes out of 122,295,345 in the election. As I have already explained in my previous edit summary, cherry-picking sources in order to enhance one side of a controversial issue is entirely contrary to Wikipedia policies, and as such unacceptable. If we are to include commentaries, it would of course be obligatory to add others, including the many taking other positions, and inclusion would necessarily have to be determined with due consideration to weight - measured by the coverage such commentaries have received in mainstream third-party sources. And incidentally, per Wikipedia WP:BLP practice, it is entirely normal for a contributor to 'unilaterally' remove disputed content 'unilaterally' added by another contributor - you would do well not to engage in further hyperbolic rhetoric if you wish to be taken seriously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree regarding NNN and Auken, we can drop those. Turns out NNN is misleadingly named, and Auken is not really adding anything objectively. However I do think this content is good...
Retired Swedish prosecutor Rolf Hillegren told Radio Sweden in January 2014 that he believed the case was impossible to move forward, that it had damaged the international reputation of the Swedish legal system, that Assange should have been interviewed by the prosecutor in the Ecuador consulate, and that not to have done so was illegal, indecent and disproportionate. ref: Sveriges Radio [4]
In February, Anne Ramberg, General Secretary of the Swedish Bar Association, concurred. She described the case as a "circus" and commented: "One should have gone to London to interview him. [...] It is not inconceivable that an interview with Assange would result in the case being dropped. But that possibility will be excluded by not taking contact with him". ref: 'nnnrecap' Ramberg had received official complaints from Swedish and international members of the public regarding the prosecution lawyer Ms. Elisabeth Massi Fritz's repeated interactions with the press some months prior. ref: Professors Blogg [5]
... and should be reinstated. This is because the first paragraph provides perspective on the Swedish media's coverage of the event and the perceived effect of the case on Sweden's legal system's international standing, which is a fairly interesting angle we're not otherwise covering. The second paragraph links strongly to the recent article content by BBC with respect to developments at the Swedish Bar Association related to the case. I am therefore adding this stuff again. If you think you'd like to remove it, could you please consider discussing here first? Thanks. prat (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
The further commends by Ramberg were cited to NNN. I put quite some time in online to find the original source in order to keep this quote, but failed. I have left them in there, but commented out, for the moment in case some concerned individual can find the correct source. I think the current version is definitely a big improvement on what was here a few days ago. Thanks for engaging with me in the improvement. prat (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Using <ref>...</ref> on talk pages doesn't work - you need to use [...] instead. The refs cite above are:
(1) sverigesradio.se [6]
(2) 'nnnrecap'
(3) http://professorsblogg.com [7]
(2) is the so-called 'Nordic News Network' we have already rejected, and (3) is a blog, and as such (given the non-relevance of the authors academic fields) probably not RS - and it certainly doesn't establish that the material cited to it is seen as significant. That leaves (1), an article in German on a Swedish Radio website. Assuming it confirms what you've written (I don't have the competence in German to say one way or another, and am going by Google translate for the written section - I've not listened to the broadcast), we are still left with the problem that we don't have any real evidence that Rolf Hillegren's opinions are seen as significant. He seems to have spoken briefly on Swedish radio, but we have no indication that the media have taken further notice. Accordingly the material cited to (2) must be removed, and I can see no justification for keeping the rest without further evidence that these commentaries are seen as significant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I was just holistically pasting the content that went AWOL, not showing it for correct display on the talk page. If you read my comments, I already addressed the NNN issue, on which I agree with you. The location of the content for the public complaint in to the prosecution lawyer's media interactions is pretty irrelevant really, the main thing is it happened, and this location includes the text and signatories, and that this complain was evidently part of the case-specific developments at the Swedish Bar Association. Whether it's 'significant' in someone deemed adequately informed/important's judgement is really secondary and not the sort of thing I think we can make a judgement on. What it demonstrates is that there were complains being made to the Swedish legal body that then turned around to oppose the Swedish prosecutor's position on this case, which I think is an interesting and undeniably relevant fact and one that we should include in its current brief form as part of the developments. prat (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I seem to have got the sources confused - you are also citing the Guardian, which is RS. I'll take another look, and see if we can find a compromise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but looking at this again, we cannot, per WP:BLP policy, include a quotation from Ramberg without citing a source - and the 'Circus' quote from the Guardian is rather meaningless without expansion. Accordingly, I still have to suggest that neither the Hillegren nor the Ramberg paragraphs can be justified. The former lacks evidence of significance, and the latter simply doesn't have the necessary sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I think this was a cross-edit conflict thing, I initially tried to comment it out but it didn't work, but it's commented out now. Hopefully the original source turns up. prat (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
That leaves us with Ramberg's 'circus' quote included twice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. There's no date on the second mention, which is a quote from the Guardian quoting her. I think if someone uncovers the original source it will become more readable. The reference in the Guardian shows the relevance, and the in-depth coverage of further comments at that earlier point would be valuable for greater depth of perspective. Hopefully that will happen... prat (talk) 02:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Lede: "accused by the Swedish police"

The lede now says: "In the same year he was accused by the Swedish police of sexual offences." The wording accused is not useful here. It is better to say suspected or undergoing investigation. --83.250.17.162 (talk) 06:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I thought rather than removing it entirely pending the outcome of the above discussion (still waiting for evidence this should be in the introduction at all) that rephrasing to clarify the source would be a better and less baselessly injurious description than the previously presented text, or indeed that which you propose, both of which imply a person doing the accusing (which is not the case) and therefore some degree of assumed truth to the matter in the minds of readers (which, as it appears to date, is an outright falsity, with 50 international organizations including a roll-call of the world's legal associations and human rights organizations simultaneously damning the situation as equating to taking him political prisoner). In short: your suggestions are slanderous, the facts discount them. By the way, your IP address relates that you are an Israeli from Haifa and allows others to attack your computer... why not register for an account under a real identity? prat (talk) 06:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Frow Haifa, now? Very amusing, you need to read up. No, my suggestions are NPOV and to the point. What facts? --83.250.17.162 (talk) 06:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
The IP address point is that its in your interest to register for an account, just trying to be helpful. Anyway you suggest suspected or undergoing investigation instead of accused. The point of using accused is to clarify that the Swedish state, and not some assumed victim, is the one doing the accusing. The most important property of this Swedish 'case' (previously dismissed, filled with media-opportunism and false evidence, and now internationally recognized as politically motivated by numerous legal associations, human rights organizations, etc.) is that none of the consensual sexual partners ever made these accusations, therefore it is misleading to use the phrasing you suggest, and more honest to use the phrasing I suggest. prat (talk) 07:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
That is complete nonsense. Of course the alleged victims made accusations. And please stop using this talk page as a soapbox. Your personal opinions as to whether the charges were politically motivated' are of no significance whatsoever to the content of this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Of course the alleged victims made accusations. ... actually that's my point: they didn't! Please read the police transcript in its entirety before weighing in with dismissive comments. prat (talk) 08:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
When you mention the police transcript, what are you referring to? Please share the link if possible. Totorotroll (talk) 10:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I also think it is pretty interesting reading about this case and how it was handled at the beginning. This Swedish site, http://samtycke.nu/2010/12/14/forsta-polisforhoren-en-orsak-till-probleme-i-fallet-assange/ which deals with the issue of consent in sexual matters points out a number of issues. 1) The two women's words were not recorded word for word. Instead, they were summarised in what is known as a konceptförhör (something like conceptual interview.) 2) Two different police officers interviewed them, so it was not possible to ask them the same questions to see if answers corresponded 3) There were no audio or audio-visual recordings of the police interviews. What the women said was written down with pen and paper. Totorotroll (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I read it ages ago .. probably the same as this content though I recall those which I read were PDFs. As I recall, and you should have no problems verifying this, the main point was that there were actual recorded statements of not wanting any information from the interview to be shared (it was) or used make accusations or charges (it was also). prat (talk) 10:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I think it complicates things that material which would give "their" side of the story is in swedish and isn't translated. For example, here is a statement from the Swedish eqivalent of the Law Society on why they won't interview (förhöra) Assange in London. http://www.aklagare.se/Media/Assangearendet/Varfor-kan-inte-aklagaren-forhora-Assange-i-London/ I've tried to summarise it: Firstly, they want to put him in a kind of pre-trial custody (häktad). This decision to put him in custody was the basis for the European arrest warrant. The investigation has progressed a long way but the essential interview with Assange hasn't happened. In some cases, the British police could have held the interview. This kind of thing usually takes place when extradition isn't seen as vital, or if the person being interviewed is the plaintiff or a witness. But even if an interview was held with Assange in London, additional investigations would also have to be held, for example, interviews with others involved. There may then be a need for further interviews with Assange. Even if Assange was interviewed in London and the investigation were to lead to a prosecution, then he would still have to come to Sweden so that a trial could take place and any possible sentence be delivered. In summary, interviewing Assange in London wouldn't take matters forward.
It looks to me as if the documents from the police investigation were illegally spread on the internet in .pdf form (I've just found a link to them) and have been unofficially translated - possibly the source of the rixstep information. I'd exercise caution here in using that website as a reliable source. Totorotroll (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
At any rate, if the förundersökningsprotokollet or record of preliminary investigation that is being circulated is to be believed, the women clearly went through official police interrogations that resulted in them laying criminal charges, with one stating that she had been raped in her home and the other stating that she had been subjected to sexually irresponsible behaviour. Totorotroll (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
tl;dr My view, after reading what looks like the authentic police transcript, and which is without question the source for the translation on rixstep, is that Assange was accused of sexual offences, not by the police, but by the two women who made the accusations. I suggest removing the words "by the Swedish police." Totorotroll (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
The thing is, there's basically two different views of the case going on simultaneously. There's the legal situation, and there's the public perception. You are right to say that in public perception he has been accused. The thing is, from the legal perspective the alleged victims have not accused him. Instead, the Swedish police accused him. This is a very strange situation and there are apparently sources from at least one of the alleged victim's claiming this was not their intent and they are horrified at the situation. This is aside from the procedural oddities you outline above. prat (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I thought about something similar. There's the story of how Assange was accused, all the business with leaks to the media, conspiracy theories and so on. And then there's the facts of the case, which unfortunately show that Assange is considered to have possibly broken Swedish law to the extent that he must be put into pre-trial custody (häktad). It may not have been the women's intent to lay charges when they went to the police station (I don't have a reference for this.) But the fact remains that they have laid charges. The two women have laid charges, they have been interrogated, their friends and ex-lovers have been interrogated, and so has Julian Assange himself, along with associates of his. I don't think there is any other way of presenting this other than that the two women laid charges against Assange. They are the ones accusing him of crimes committed against themselves. The police are not charging him with, say, crimes committed against the police. In my view, there is nothing unusual about how the case has been handled. This seems to be standard procedure in Sweden, even if aspects of it may seem odd (eg. inconsistencies in tape-recording statements, a prosecutor re-opening a case after it has been rejected.) Totorotroll (talk) 08:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Statute of limitations

Just thought I would mention that I used the word "crimes" here not because of any personal bias towards believing Assange is guilty of a crime, but because crimes have statutes of limitations attached to them, not allegations. The statute of limitations on the crimes that Assange is alleged to have committed expires in 2020, according to the Guardian. Totorotroll (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Marianne Ny's statement

I've read through the pdf with her full statement, pulled out the essential bits and summarised them in the article. It's a pretty comprehensive outline of exactly why she is refusing to interview Assange in England and why she believes he should be kept in pre-trial custody in Sweden, and I've explained in broad outline why. She is also repeating the reasons her office has already given, which I summarised above, basically that he is needed in Sweden in case a trial commences and a sentence is given. Totorotroll (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Duty to prosecute

This is worth reading to understand how it works that charges may be filed that a victim didn't initially intend to file: http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/The-role-of-the-prosecutor/Decision-to-prosecute/Duty-to-prosecute/ If the prosecuter believes a crime was committed, he or she has a duty to file charges. Totorotroll (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC) This is relevant to the discussion about the lede and who it was that is accusing Assange of having broken the law. Totorotroll (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The list of charges keeps getting reverted to the old non-current version

About once every month or so someone changes the list of charges back to the early state before the courts changed them. I have had to restore the correct list of charges over, and over, and over again and its getting tiresome. The prosecutor charged Assange on the suspicion of rape, unlawful coercion and three cases of sexual molestation. The second highest court, which decision became final, changed this to suspicion of rape of a lesser degree, unlawful coercion and two cases of sexual molestation. This is what the Assange is wanted for questioning about. The initial list is historical interesting, but not not current, and if used should include the relevant context of being historical. Please, try to keep the list from reverting or atleast give a argument why the old non-current list should be used without any context. Thanks. Belorn (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Politician

This is in the article: "They were thrown out of court once before being re-instated by politician Claes Borgström, who was subsequently denounced by his own client as more interested in media attention than providing legal representation." Claes Borgström is a member of Sweden's left party, but the "re-instatement" (if the case was indeed thrown out of court) wasn't 1) a political decision 2) made by him, but prosecutor Marianne Ny (see the BBC]). If Borgström should be mentioned in this paragraph, he should be described as "lawyer Claes Borgström", not "politician Claes Borgström". Either way, saying he reinstated the case is patently unfalse.81.229.126.156 (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The line about "the client" being unhappy with Borgström should also be re-sourced to this: [8], because that's the source RT itself cites. RT rehashes and respins it to make it more headline grabbing without access to the classified document SMH apparently was able to get their hands on. Cf. SMH: "Ms Ardin complained that she found Mr Borgstrom spent much more time talking to the media than to her, referred her inquiries to his secretary or assistant, and that she had lost faith in him as her legal representative." RT: "Ardin charged that Borgstrom was more interested in being in the media spotlight than providing her legal counsel, and has often referred her inquiries to his secretary or assistant." 81.229.126.156 (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
From the attorney department own website:
25 August 2010: The prosecutor takes a decision to terminate the preliminary investigation concerning suspected rape.
27 August 2010: Lawyer Claes Borgström, legal representative of the women who reported Julian Assange, requests a review of the prosecutor's decision to terminate the preliminary investigation concerning rape. The review request is sent to the Prosecution Development Centre in Gothenburg.
1 September 2010: Marianne Ny, Director of Public Prosecution, takes a decision to resume the preliminary investigation concerning the suspected rape. The preliminary investigation on sexual molestation is expanded to cover all the events in the crime reports.
So the truth is somewhat in the middle. People suspect that it was his role as Social Democratic Party's spokesperson on gender equality that resulted in Marianne Ny, Director of Public Prosecution, to reopen the case. But since he was also the lawyer of the women, it is very much open to interpretation. Thus, for a good Wikipedia article, we should put it all in the open and let the reader decide how to interpret the situation. I hope the changes is solves the issue you brought up. Belorn (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the names of the two women should be kept out of the talk page and article, as they are kept out of all journalistic sources. Totorotroll (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I also agree that is false to say that Borgström reinstated the case. Only a prosecutor can do this. As stated above, it was Borgström's appeal that led to the prosecutor taking the decision to review the case. Then she decided to reopen it. These are the facts anyway, independent of speculation about what motivated her decision. Totorotroll (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed as oppose. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I propose that Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority be merged into Julian Assange. I think that the content in the Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority article can easily be explained in the context of Julian Assange, and the Julian Assange article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. In addition, there is already a lot of crossover with respect to the UK/Sweden situation, third party commentary on that and US interests, all three or four factors of which have content already in the Julian Assange page. Finally, the Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority page has a scope that does not match the context from which it is linked, is about an ongoing legal case, and the scope if held to rigidly is merely masking the broader context of the accusations. prat (talk) 13:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now, per WP:WEIGHT. I can't see how we could cover the case in the necessary encyclopaedic detail to do it justice without skewing the balance of this article. If anything, I would suggest that it might be better to remove some of the material in the main Assange article, and place it in the A v SPA one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • What are your thoughts on breaking out the legal cases in to two; ie. one for the UK and one for Sweden, and keeping extra-legal developments in the main article? We could conceivably do that, but it may take a lot of work and lead to significant duplication. prat (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The more I read about this, the more complex the case appears. As we discussed above, it's not just about the legal facts of the case, it's also about how the case was represented in the media, as well as conspiracy theories and misconceptions about the justice systems in the countries involved. Trying to represent all this on the Julian Assange page alone would make that page far too long. Totorotroll (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The case is too complex to be described only on Assange own article. A separate article is definitely needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There is already too much weight put in this article on the court case. Doing a google test, this court case only rank about 10% of the articles about julian assange. Proportionally this case is taking way more than that of this article.Belorn (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

Assange denies the allegations as politically motivated

This needs to be fleshed out. Assange has reconsidered his earlier suggestion that the women were part of a political conspiracy. Thankcleat (talk) 06:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

In today's Guardian there is a mention of this: "The anti-privacy campaigner, who denies the accusations, fears he is at risk of onward extradition to the US to face as yet unspecified charges relating to WikiLeaks publications, a concern which prompted the central American country to grant him asylum status." http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/aug/17/julian-assange-human-rights-violated-ecuador Totorotroll (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Good, but not on the talk page, in the article. Also, a better quote may be needed. This one does not actually say the allegations are politically motivated, just that they expose him to the risk of extradition. Thankcleat (talk) 05:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I find it amusing to see him described as an "anti-privacy campaigner". HiLo48 (talk) 07:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
This isn't a quote for him saying that the accusations were politically motivated. This is an unsourced statement that could easily be a subjective opinion of the editor that wrote it. What the sources show is that Assange thinks is that the extradition ruling is politically motivated, not the allegations of sexual assault. They also show that he denies the accusations, as in the quote above. I suggest shortening the sentence to "Assange denies the accusation." in the light of this, and I'll go ahead and do that now. Totorotroll (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Of course there is nothing wrong with talking about political motivation as long as the discussion is clear and properly sourced. It was the vague generalisation I had problems with. PS: Totorotroll, I was referring to the quote you provided from the Guardian. PPS: HiLo48, the Guardian has corrected this, with a suitably red face, to "anti-secrecy campaigner". Thankcleat (talk) 09:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah, that's a bit better. HiLo48 (talk) 10:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Reasons for Assange leaving the embassy.

Please look at the sources before reverting my revisions. It was speculation that Assange is leaving the embassy for health reasons. He specifically stated that changes in UK law are motivating his decision. He also stated that he is not leaving the embassy for reasons that media outlets had suggested, eg. "lack of spirit." I don't want to engage in some sort of to-ing and fro-ing. Please read in particular the Sydney Morning Herald article that I referred to. Totorotroll (talk) 07:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't realize that your source was debunking any previous reports. I've revised the paragraph to note that a little more emphatically. -- Bittenfig ☆ | ✉ 15:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Not at all. I just think it's important to keep to what Assange actually says, as opposed to assumptions being made by media outlets based on the statements of others or Assange's physical appearance. Recently Ecuador's foreign minister issued this statement: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/17/julian-assange-ecuador-political-asylum-stalemate where he writes about the conditions Assange is living under and the effects on his health. But Assange himself is not talking about his health as a reason to want to leave the embassy beyond saying that the embassy is "an environment in which any healthy person would find themselves soon enough with certain difficulties". The media, including the tabloid media is making this assumption. http://www.smh.com.au/world/julian-assange-to-leave-ecuadorian-embassy-soon-20140818-105h8n.html Assange has clearly stated that he is hoping that changes to UK law will allow him to leave the embassy without repercussions beyond fallout from his having skipped bail.Totorotroll (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Just made a minor edit to clarify that this is, indeed, Assange's hope, and not a given. Apart from anything else, the UK's withdrawal from the EAW system is only meant to be temporary. Thankcleat (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
In which connection, I've also corrected "recent withdrawal" to "possible withdrawal"—and even that is stretching it. The UK government announced its intention to opt out of the EAW system and opt back in on revised terms in July 2013 (i.e. not that recently); the opt-out does not take effect until December 2014 (i.e. there has been no withdrawal); and the government told parliament in July this year that it had already "reached an in-principle deal" with the EU on new terms (i.e. the withdrawal will probably never happen). Assange is not a reliable source on legal questions. Thankcleat (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree that this isn't really a big story or development. Nothing is really changing. Totorotroll (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Condensed and replaced paraphrase with quote. Thankcleat (talk) 06:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality

Can anyone point me to the section in the Talk archive where the editor who added the NPOV tag gave their reasons? If not, inclined to remove. Thankcleat (talk) 06:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It was here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Julian_Assange/Archive_13#NPOV Totorotroll (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I also think it is fine to remove the tag now. A lot of work has been done by many different editors and it looks like the reasons that were given have been addressed. Totorotroll (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed as not merged. Also, please don't reopen the same discussion a month later, canvass us editors who made one edit to the page, and then expect a different result. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I propose that Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority be merged into Julian Assange. I think that the content in the Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority article can easily be explained in the context of Julian Assange, and the Julian Assange article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Further, a lot of good content that was cited here was recently deleted (see for example this change with a misleading summary, this POV deletion, this deletion of reasonable cited content, this removal of critical and well cited context, this inaccurate summary (personal movements != wikileaks business), this removal of significant content, etc.). I believe the underlying problem is the fact that there are different articles covering essentially the same topic: Julian Assange's legal status. This is reflected both in the structure of the current Julian Assange article (many 'Legal status in x Jurisdiction' sections) and in the existing articles. In theory, Julian's legal status. Due to his movements and activities, this is necessarily in places as diverse as Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, the United States, the United Kingdom, the EU as a whole and his native Australia which could all be separate articles; in practice keeping the content oriented towards a timeline of developments is more realistic and reflects the emergent structure of all existing content and the types of international law (real or asserted) under evaluation as a result of the various actors involved. Therefore, I suggest we merge all Assange related legal information here despite the article growing in length as a result. I further suggest we restructure the current article away from jurisdictional legal status, because this has been meaningless for the last 1300+ days, whereas a depiction of developments over time is comprehensible and ensures correct and meaningful context remains visible. There are many far longer articles already (eg. history of any country, political movement or many significant historical persons). prat (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The proposed merge was discussed above, and closed as oppose. Given that nothing substantive has changed since the proposal, I see no reason to discuss it again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Opposed The court case article is notable and well sourced. Assange is not synonymous with this particular case and is more known (pro or con) for releasing government. That being said, the biography article could provide more of a summary to reduce overlap but that's not a problem with this article. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Opposed Agree with both views above. A merge could also make this section in the Julian Assange page overlong (as stated in the previous merge discussion). Totorotroll (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC) Would also point out that the Assange article has been extremely long in the past, and was subjected to a lot of editing, which is why it is the reasonable size it is currently. Totorotroll (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I have made a comment about the conduct of the editor who started this discussion, suggesting that there are processes rather akin to canvassing and forum shopping. Anyone interested in reading my comment can see it here. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

Further comments

I do not wish to reopen the merge discussion, but I would have supported a merge. Assange is notable for reasons beyond the court case, but the court case is the most important issue.

A major problem with both the articles is that for all the procedural woffle neither addresses the known facts of the case. I had put some in some time ago but it faded away. 118.208.118.3 (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I am absolutely aghast that within hours of opening this discussion, less than a handful of people, including those making the edits called in to question, have decided to close the discussion pre-emptively. To be clear, I was unaware there was a recent merger proposal (Edit: Woah! seems I opened it .. honestly I'd completely forgotten) but the situation has changed since, regardless:

  • Significant, cited content has been deleted without explanation
  • The proposal also addresses altering the structure of the current (destination) page.

I would motion that closing the discussion was improper and that, much as the commenter above chimed in, there is probably a lot of support for synthesis of the various waffles in to a coherant argument... if discussion of such is given a fair venue. prat (talk) 04:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

"I was unaware there was a recent merger proposal"? Really? You were unaware that you yourself had began a merger discussion on 23 June - a discussion still visible at the top of this page? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, really. prat (talk) 05:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
And despite being unaware of your earlier merge proposal, you managed to start this one with exactly the same sentence as the first one? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Please stop playing dumb to the situation and stop trying to merge the articles. Two discussions in two months have been opened, with me closing the recent one because there was not enough support to begin with, and you had also opened one three months prior. Please come back in a year or so and try again, as I don't believe that you will get a different result within a year. The first two sentences are exactly the same here, so I have a hard time believing that your prose would duplicate exactly on a merge discussions as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
What would make more sense, in my opinion, would be to rename the page that deals with the court case and the events surrounding it. The scope of the page has widened, and it's no longer about the extradition hearing, but is about the legal proceedings in both Sweden and the UK, that were precipitated by the visit to the police station by the two plaintiffs. It includes the details of both cases, as well as misconceptions around the case. Totorotroll (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

When Google Met WikiLeaks

Assange has a new book out, e.g. written up in the Guardian [9] - I don't have the book, nor time to review it, but it should be added to his list of Writings. Arided (talk) 11:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference #156 correction

Reference #156 should be updated to http://nyti.ms/1p5nSA9 jasper jon (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion

Suggestion regarding the § Personal life section. Change "[...] until 1999." to "[...] until they worked out a custody agreement in 1999." This way readers will know what the result of the custody fight was without having to check the The New Yorker source article. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Stickee. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 00:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Early life

A comment on his early life, as the page has, quite rightly, been protected, so can't edit. Brett Assange, JA's step-father, who, it seems Julian refers to as his father, is the child of George Assang, who has his own wikipedia page as you can see. An article that came out in 2012 quotes JA discussing his father and his ancestry, see https://indymedia.org.au/2012/06/02/rights-campaigner-julian-assange-acknowledges-his-torres-strait-islander-form-and-content (accessed Invasion Day, 26th January 2015) for original, see http://treatyrepublic.net/content/julian-assange-affirms-his-torres-strait-islander-heritage (accessed ditto) for some additional reproductions of source material and photograph — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunswicknic (talk • contribs) 10:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

A fraudulent article from an unusable source. Let's not waste any more time on this crap. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Citizen of Ecuador?

There was a lot of talk in 2012 about Assange being fast-tracked for Ecuadorian citizenship. Did this ever happen? Google is undecided. He was evidently still an Australian citizen (or dual citizen) when he ran for the senate in 2013. Worth clarifying if anyone can. 86.187.6.31 (talk) 11:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

This article could now do with updating but how do we do it objectively?

As was foretold, the Swedish legal system is playing a political game-play, not a justice based one. They have been sitting on their hands for a long time now until six month before the statute of limitations expires. Now they are moving again. I can not work out how to update this article without my POV showing, because the Swedes like fish and it smells ever so more strongly like putrid fish. People who know me, will say I'm never lost for words but here I am – I am dumbfounded... Why doesn't the British and Swedish governments get together and in the spirit of entente cordiale and agree to stop corrupting the use and purpose of our laws.Julian Assange case: Sweden U-turn on questioning. It debacle hasn't been costing the Swedish government a Krona but the UK tax paxer have been paying millions of euros to plasat the swedish political-judicial-system. Which would be fine -if it was in the pure cause of justice. Even the two female individuals themselves, have distance themselves as far as possible from this political-judicial cat-fight. Never-the-less the article is out of date and I would like some uninvolved editors inputs on these latest news reports.--Aspro (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Your point of view, which shows you should edit it by the way Empeorersclothes (talk) 11:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Please mention which parts are outdated? I am also not sure what you mean by input. Do you mean discussion? Totorotroll (talk) 11:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I dont think discussion is possible on this page. No offence meant at all, but looking at archives etc, I think the Assange party hold power over what is put on this page. If he ever decides that proving his innocence is the best way forward, and the trial goes against him, it will be fun seeing how it is reported on here! Empeorersclothes (talk) 11:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

edit request

One of the allegations is that, during consensual intercourse, Assange ejaculated inside of one of the women against her wishes.[123] Assange denies the allegations.[124]

The same ref states the following as well, think some of which should be added, as this sentence sounds very biased?

also mentions pinning the lady down, ripping her clothes, her begging him to let her go so she could at least get a condom, that another lady was afraid of him and asked to leave, him forcing sex on her while she was asleep (this if true, im afraid all you assange groupies, is RAPE) but just this one sentence that is implying that he hadnt really do anything wrong.Empeorersclothes (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd avoid calling someone a rapist if they haven't been convicted of rape. Otherwise it is slander. Totorotroll (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I didnt call him a rapist, but one of the charges is rape and is even mentioned in the article. I have ammended what I put above to make this clear. But I do think this one line from the ref quoted is very very biased, im sure you can see that?Empeorersclothes (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

From the article: Assange is wanted for questioning over one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation, and one count of lesser-degree rape (mindre grov våldtäkt)[118]Empeorersclothes (talk) 11:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

That's right, that's exactly what the prosecutor is going to interview him about when she makes it to London. And that, as you note, is what stands in the article: the facts of the matter, written in a neutral way. Totorotroll (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
so you are trying to sound superior, AFTER you removed the biased line that I mentioned? Hows that working out for you? Empeorersclothes (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
This article was flagged for a long time as not showing a neutral point of view. It was argued that the article was biased against Assange, and that it gave too much weight to the allegations of sexual crimes. It's taken a lot of work from many editors to achieve consensus over a neutral tone befitting an article about a living person in an encyclopedia. If you have found specific examples of how the article is not neutral, or seems biased, either list and discuss them here or go in and edit the article yourself. Totorotroll (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Sydney Peace Foundation Gold Medal

This was won by Stéphane Hessel in 2013, so the list here is incomplete. Rather than making it longer, I suggest dropping the reference to the other winners. 109.144.227.91 (talk) 06:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Minor point

Lower case for the heading "U.S. criminal investigation". 109.144.227.91 (talk) 07:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Article Does Not Meet Standards of Other Biographies

This article does not meet the standards of other Wikipedia biographies. It contains a lot of hearsay and focuses on personal life over work, giving it the feel of a tabloid as opposed to an encyclopedic article.

I suggest the editors take a critical look at this article and edit it in line with other biographies e.g. Kofi Annan, Angela Merkel, or any other political figure.

Here are some examples of some of the issues:

1) Compared to other biographies there is an emphasis of Assange's personal life over his work, and a portion of the information about his personal life is unverified. Further reasearch should be done on his work and sources need to be double-checked with regard to personal information.

2) "Work in the Ecuadorian Embassy" – most of the information contained here isn't "work". WikiLeaks' publications, assistance to Edward Snowden etc should be included here instead of things such as TV guest appearances and celebrity encounters.

3) Wording needs to be reviewed e.g. "The allegations relate to "non-consensual behaviour within consensual sexual encounters." Using "the allegations relate to" implies the information in the quotes is a factual occurrence, rather than the allegations themselves.

4) "Political Asylum in Ecuador" – There is no information about the reasoning why Ecuador granted asylum to Assange (see: http://web.archive.org/web/20130309122018/http://www.mmrree.gob.ec/eng/2012/com042.asp). It is extraordinary that this information is left out, yet a quote from an attorney contesting it is included in its place.

5) "See Also" – Matt Dehart should not be here as he has no links to Assange. Instead should be articles such as WikiLeaks, Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, and so forth.

6) Other political figures have "Awards" sections on their article, yet for some reason Assange is seemingly undeserved of this section. See: http://wikileaks-press.org/category/news-around-the-web/accolades/

Thank you for taking the time to read this critique. I hope the editors of this article will take the time to look over and make changes to this article to the standards of other Wikipedia biographies.

Cirripedia (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome to have a go yourself; why not make some changes and edits and see how they are received? There was a period of a lot of revision and shortening of the article, and it has been stable for some time now. Personally I disagree with your point 3 and I think the phrasing implies the opposite of how it reads to you. But if you can come up with better, even more neutral phrasing, why not try it out? Totorotroll (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
If an awards section is merited, it needs to be cited to significant secondary sources - avoiding the situation where an organisation makes an award for publicity purposes, and then gets cited on Wikipedia. I've seen this sort of thing in several articles, and it doesn't look good. The appropriate standard for inclusion of such sources is probably mention in multiple mainstream media sources. We don't necessarily have to cite them all, but evidence that the award is actually seen as worth commenting on in such sources should be available. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
(1) WikiLeaks has its own article, which should not be duplicated here. (2) Assange's awards are covered in the brief WikiLeaks section of this article. Not everyone agrees that having a separate Awards section is a good idea. It tends to exaggerate the significance of accolades that are now a dime a dozen, that are rarely based on objective criteria, and that are often intended primarily to promote the group giving the award. 109.144.236.253 (talk) 08:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I changed the allegations line, I think that's a valid critique of the phrasing. Gigs (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest removing the line altogether. It's not in the link supplied, which gives a list of articles, some to do with Assange. It's not clear who is being quoted. Totorotroll (talk) 08:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
so you want the one line in the lead that explains why he is currently wanted for questioning and why he lives hidden where he does removed? So don't mention the allegations of rape and sex crimes at all? Can you explain your thinking re this please, surely this needs to be in the article?Empeorersclothes (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The link to Guy Rundle's article still works, so I'm not sure what that's all about. Not fussed about the quote. 109.144.227.91 (talk) 07:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Admission of involvement in the Evo Morales scandal

Does this deserve mention?

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Bolivia-Accuses-Assange-of-Putting-Evo-Morales-Life-at-Risk-20150413-0024.html

Bolivia is demanding that Assange apologize for putting their president's life at risk after he admitted in the documentary "Terminal F" that he deliberately leaked the false information to the US that Morales was smuggling Snowden out of Russia, leading to the Evo Morales grounding incident.

Normally one would consider deliberately causing a major international diplomatic incident cause for a one-sentence mention  ;) -- 213.176.153.100 (talk) 08:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Done New paragraph added to end of section Political asylum and life at the Ecuadorian embassy. Kent Krupa (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Sweden

The section on the Swedish allegations is starting to grow again, after an earlier decision -- correct in my view -- not to duplicate here what is already in the Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority article. 109.144.227.91 (talk) 07:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

What do you suggest? Should the extra two sentences be deleted, or moved to another section? Totorotroll (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
In my view it's sufficiently significant that the Swedish prosecutors have decided to interview Assange in London after all, to warrant inclusion in the main article. Totorotroll (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Happy to go with your judgement, Totorotroll. Just something to be aware of. 86.189.5.92 (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Julian Assange. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2015

first paragraph says Chelsea Manning  should read Bradley Manning

Wordwoman2u (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: see Chelsea Manning Cannolis (talk) 01:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Chelsea has chosen to be Chelsea. Bruce Jenner has also ceased to exist. Stat-ist-ikk (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

ITN Note

I nominated the fact that Julian has won his appeal with the UN as 'in the news' item to appear on the front page. prat (talk)

Opened and closed a little prematurely. The issued decision needs to be incorporated into the articles before an "in the news" item would be appropriate. It could be the basis for further legal action in Sweeden, as that body is recognized as an authority on what "detention" is even though they have no power to act.66.19.93.253 (talk) 11:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Am I to think their actual authority is to be more than noticed? We all seem to know the official authority of the panel. Stat-ist-ikk (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

He has promised major consqeunces. The weekend is going to prove him wrong, but what is happening by middle of the next working day (monday, that is)? Stat-ist-ikk (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[clarification needed]

Professional Hacker Should be included in his generic occupational description

Regardless of whether a Wikipedia editor is pro-Assange or anti-Assange, the fact that he is a professional hacker, having done so since he was 16 years old, ought to be enough to establish his credentials as one. It is also something that he has boasted about for many years, so to present his summary in terms as simply a "computer programmer, publisher and journalist" seems to make his activities and publishing stolen documents entirely legitimate, which of course is a matter of opinion, depending on which of the side of the issue you reside. This is not to say he is wrong or that he is right, but not including mention of his being a hacker as part of the characterization of his career in the opening statement, seems deliberately misleading... Stevenmitchell (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

biased beyone belief

The UN bodys statement doesnt deserve to be in the opening, but there is no mention of what the legal proceedings are, ie RAPE. Love-in as much as you want, most of the world know what this man is and he is still rotting away in his self made cell for many years to come. Julian who??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.234.143 (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

UN Decision Binding not Non-Binding

Website, Justice for Assange states;

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has found that Julian Assange is arbitrarily detained. The UK and Sweden must immediately release and compensate him. The decision is BINDING, as the UN Office of the Hight Commissioner for Human Rights has <explained> (link in web site to web site).


Website, Wikipedia states;

UNWGAD opinion

On 5 February 2016, a UN panel issued a non-binding legal opinion...

[1]Dvdfrntzs (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

This is not the case according to this source, which quotes "Mark Ellis, executive director of the London-based International Bar Association", who states that the decision is not binding on UK law: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/feb/04/what-happen-julian-assange-detention-ruling-officially-announced Totorotroll (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Did American politicians call for Assange's assassination, and did that have anything to do with his Ecuadorean asylum?

The article currently says "On 16 August 2012, Foreign Minister Patiño announced that Ecuador was granting Assange political asylum because of the threat represented by the US secret investigation against him and several calls for assassination from many American politicians." None of the four citations contains any mention of any call for Assange's assassination. A cursory web search shows a Canadian ex-politico named Mike Flanagan, as well as some private commentators, calling for Assange's assassination in 2013. Since this was the year after asylum was granted, it obviously could not have caused the asylum decision. Nor do I see any mention of any American politicians calling for Assange's assassination (as opposed to his arrest and prosecution for espionage, hacking, treason, or other crimes). Can this sentence be sourced? 68.100.9.169 (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to add an archived link to a dead reference but I'm failing at it. Should I simply replace it? I'm not sure if I'm following WP:WBM correctly, can someone help me or point me in the right direction?

Kripmo (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Figured it out. Diff. Kripmo (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

UNWGAD "ruling"

Given that the status of the UNWGAD decision is disputed, it would be more neutral to call it a finding than a ruling. 217.38.82.84 (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Article needs updating

Not a word of his recent activities.Wikidgood (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikidgood Maybe this helps:
Julian Assange: Swedish court upholds arrest warrant for WikiLeaks founder over rape claims Australian Broadcasting Corporation, (Reuters, AFP). 16 September 2016
220 of Borg 12:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2016

Julian Assange was accused for not wearing a condom when requested to do so, not rape. That is a lesser charge in the Swedish criminal system.

Thorfjalar (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. So what do we do? VarunFEB2003 08:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion - Murder of Seth Rich (Second nomination)

Currently, there is a second nomination for deletion (an AfD) - taking place here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Seth Rich (2nd nomination) ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

  • By the way, this post is appropriate per WP:APPNOTE. ---~~

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2016


http://www.smobserved.com/story/2016/10/18/news/report-bahamas-to-indict-julian-assange-on-sexual-solicitation-of-an-8-year-old-girl/2141.html

Report: Bahamian Police Investigating Julian Assange for Online Sexual Solicitation of an 8 Year Old Girl

Bahamian police confirm they have received such a report, but say they have no evidence on which to proceed.

October 19, 2016

Julian Assange cutof from internet for soliciting sex from an 8 year old girl

The owners of a dating website claim they hired Wikileaks founder Julian Assange as a programmer, but that he used the platform to solicit sex from an 8 year old girl. Assange says he was set up by Clinton partisans, and did nothing of the sort.

According to the website "Bipartisan Report," the Commonwealth of the Bahamas is investigating Assange on charges of allegedly soliciting sex from an 8 year old girl. The report says this is the real reason why Ecuadorian embassy cutoff internet access to Wikileaks founder. http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/10/18/just-in-wikileaks-julian-assange-caught-in-alleged-sex-chat-with-child-reports/

"It seems a Canadian family on vacation in the Bahamas contacted the police on Sept. 28. They said Assange “sexually molested online” their 8-year-old daughter, while he was on the ToddandClare.com site," says Bipartisan Report. It is not entirely clear how a child can be molested online, but that is the allegation.

WikiLeaks denies the story. BuzzFeed says that while the Bahamian police did receive such a report, no one followed up on it and they are not investigating it because they have no victim, hence nothing to investigate. https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/the-bizarre-story-of-how-a-tiny-online-dating-site-accused-j

It should be noted that WikiLeaks has in effect allied themselves with the Trump campaign and against the Clinton campaign, by the serial release of administration and State Department emails by and about Hillary Clinton and her campaign.

ToddandClare.com decided to participate in the UN Global Compact program. This required its owners to release their records to the UN. Those records included any legal interactions with Assange. Supposedly, the UN informed them of the Bahamian allegations.

Immediately following the publication of this story, Wikileaks tweeted a link to a variety of documents in an attempt to show “an elaborate plot to falsely claim that Julian Assange received US$1M from the Russian government and a second plot to frame him sexually molesting an eight year old girl.”

In a statement, UNGC Communications Chief Carrie A. Hall explained the organization's decision to delist T&C: "The company was removed from the initiative for violating our Integrity Measures, including misuse of our name and logo. The document that ToddandClare.com reference is not a UN report. It was produced by ToddandClare.com, and solely represents their views. This document was removed from the UN Global Compact website for violating our integrity measures. We are not a party to the dispute between ToddandClare.com and Julian Assange."

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal is reporting a different reason for the internet restriction:

Ecuador’s pulling the plug on Julian Assange’s internet connection highlighted the isolation of WikiLeaks, the organization he founded to expose the inner workings of governments and other powerful institutions.

Ecuador said Tuesday that it restricted access to private communications at its embassy in the United Kingdom, where Mr. Assange lives, on concerns that he was meddling in the U.S. presidential election.

In a statement, the Foreign Relations Ministry said the decision to cut off communications at its embassy was to prevent interference in the “internal affairs of other states.”

Some former allies and observers say that after four years confined to the Ecuadorean Embassy in London, Mr. Assange is alienating former supporters and undermining WikiLeaks’ relevance. They cite a series of leaks that they say supported Russian efforts to disrupt the U.S. election and carelessly promoted Turkish government documents exposing the personal information of thousands of ordinary citizens.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/wikileaks-founder-julian-assanges-isolation-deepens-1476832302

Julian Paul Assange, 45, is an Australian computer programmer, publisher and journalist. He is editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, which he founded in 2006.

On November 2010, Assange was requested to be extradited to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning concerning an allegation of rape. Assange denied the allegation and has expressed concern that he would be extradited from Sweden to the United States due to his perceived role in publishing secret American documents.

After exhausting his legal options in the United Kingdom, Assange did not surrender for extradition. Rather, he sought and was granted asylum by Ecuador in August 2012. Assange has since remained in the Embassy of Ecuador in London, and is unable to leave without being arrested for breaching his bail conditions.

This is the mysterious reason why Ecuadorian embassy cutoff internet access to Wikileaks founder

The United Nations' Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found, by a majority, that he has been "arbitrarily detained" and that his detention should be brought to an end. UK Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said the UN conclusion was "ridiculous", that the group was "made up of lay people", and called Assange a fugitive from justice.[7] On October 17, 2016, the state of Ecuador cut Assange's internet access in the embassy.

The Bahamas, officially the Commonwealth of the Bahamas, is an archipelagic state of the Lucayan Archipelago consisting of more than 700 islands, cays, and islets in the Atlantic Ocean; north of Cuba and Hispaniola (Haiti and the Dominican Republic); northwest of the Turks and Caicos Islands; southeast of the US state of Florida and east of the Florida Keys. Its capital is Nassau on the island of New Providence. The designation of "The Bahamas" can refer to either the country or the larger island chain that it shares with the Turks and Caicos Islands. As stated in the mandate/manifesto of the Royal Bahamas Defence Force, the Bahamas territory encompasses 470,000 km2 (180,000 sq mi) of ocean space.

2602:306:35AC:8B00:40C3:977D:38AE:FCA7 (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Anup [Talk] 22:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Citations are extremely misquoted in places. Must change

I dont use an account, this page is semi-protected so I cant do it myself.

"During this time he hacked into the Pentagon and other US Department of Defense facilities, MILNET, the US Navy, NASA, and Australia's Overseas Telecommunications Commission; Citibank, Lockheed Martin, Motorola, Panasonic, and Xerox; and the Australian National University, La Trobe University, and Stanford University's SRI International.[30] "

This citation states that "Assange allegedly used a modem to access other computers. Among the places targeted were an Australian university, a telecommunications company and the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. He even taunted police investigators looking into the hacking, according to the government."

This citation doesnt even mention US DoD, Pentagon, MILNET, US NAVY....etc.

Clean this up, someone. Anyone with an account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.163.64 (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Only thing that should be on that list are Australian University, a telecom company, and the Royal MIT.

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2016

In the "Swedish Sexual Assault Violations" section: The statement "Assange visited Sweden in August 2010, where he became the subject of sexual allegations from two women with whom he had consensual sex" implies innocence on Assange's part, which is in dispute. This should probably be changed to "...with two women with whom he had sex."

Jmoriart (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Done -- Dane2007 talk 23:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Presidential Election 2016 secition one sided quotes

There is quote from Podesta emails on HRC saying she had warned ... But there was so much more and relevant quotes including actual speech segments. I did not find the quote that was used in debate on having a public and private positions,...

If segments of actual emails are going to be placed in this article, it needs to have some sort of balance. It seems biased to put just a quote that favors HRC

I suggest adding the private/public position... quote as well or removing quotes all together Paulthemonk (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

No proof of life since 16 October 2016

I suppose it's too early for Wikipedia to become a trusted source about the potential extradition of Mr. Assange between October 17th and October 21st? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:1080:5600:A0A2:34DC:BC0C:5A1D (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is never "trusted source". Trust_but_verify WP requires edits to cite reliable sources. Enforcement and compliance vary. Wikidgood (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

More sources on Putin and Assange

  • [10] "Julian Assange has kind words for Donald Trump, says Russia has “vibrant” criticism of Vladimir Putin’s government"
  • [11] "A few months ago, such an accusation seemed like “an entirely unfounded conspiracy,” Navalny said. “But now, given how apparently synchronized Wikileaks is with the false propaganda of Russian media like RT and Sputnik, there are reasons to assume that such cooperation is likely.”" (this one would have to be attributed)
  • [12] "Julian Assange is a Russian Front-Man, not a Freedom Fighter"
  • [13] "Notably absent from Mr. Assange’s analysis, however, was criticism of another world power, Russia, or its president, Vladimir V. Putin, who has hardly lived up to WikiLeaks’ ideal of transparency. Mr. Putin’s government has cracked down hard on dissent — spying on, jailing, and, critics charge, sometimes assassinating opponents while consolidating control over the news media and internet. If Mr. Assange appreciated the irony of the moment — denouncing censorship in an interview on Russia Today, the Kremlin-controlled English-language propaganda channel — it was not readily apparent."
  • [14] "documents that independent analysts as well as the US government say were most likely hacked by, or on behalf of, Vladimir Putin’s Russia" and "Others suspect the heart of the matter is the Russian connection: Assange, like Trump, seems strikingly comfortable with Putin. A former host of a talk show on Putin’s propaganda channel, Russia Today, Assange once requested his own private security detail within the Ecuadorian embassy, nominating Russians for the task."
  • [15] "Within weeks, contacts commenced between WikiLeaks and elements favorable to Putin’s ruling party. The promised damning documents about Russia never saw the light of day. The Moscow Times article also recounted how the Russian Reporter, a Putin-friendly publication, had gained “privileged access” to “hundreds of [American diplomatic] cables containing Russia-related information.”"

Etc. etc. etc. So it's pretty disingenuous to say that this material is "UNDUE" (at least we've moved past the "The Guardian is not a reliable source" nonsense. I think)Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are not reliable sources for anything other than the opinions of the authors. By my count, four of six links you posted are op-eds (the Salon, Federalist, NY Books and New Republic pieces). One of the remaining articles (in the Independent) quotes Navalny as suggesting Assange might have a link to the Russian government (rather than saying so in the voice of the newspaper). So you have one news article on that list that makes these insinuations. Given a public figure as notable as Assange, that's undue. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
That's not quite right. It's correct with respect to the opinions in opinion pieces. But reputable publications which are generally RS on a subject do not print opinion pieces that include misstatements of fact. SPECIFICO talk 17:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Reputable publications certainly include misstatements of fact, as a matter of course, in their opinion pages. And in even less reputable sources, like Salon, the Federalist or New Republic, I would expect the op-ed sections to contain many misstatements of fact. Just open up the Federalist piece Marek wants to cite:
"No patriotic American should be celebrating the career of Julian Assange. His dissemination of others’ secrets has nothing to do with democracy and transparency, and everything to do with the sordid underworld of international espionage." (article)
Does that sound to you like a reliable source that would never misstate a fact in its op-ed pages? -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, some of these are opinion pieces. Others aren't. The Guardian isn't. The New York Times isn't. The Independent isn't. The New York Review of Books isn't either (it's an indepth analysis, which is investigative reporting not opinion piece). The New Republic is a perfectly fine source. Etc. Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
The NY Review of Books piece is an opinion piece, written by a columnist who regularly writes opinion pieces for that publication. The New Republic article is also an op-ed, as even the title makes obvious: "Would You Feel Differently About Snowden, Greenwald, and Assange If You Knew What They Really Thought?" You posted four opinion pieces, one piece that attributes the assertion to Navalny, and the NY Times piece. Even the Guardian article is not clearly a news article - it's in their "Media" section. So you're trying to build an entire subsection here out of a Guardian article that we know misrepresents Assange's position, and a single NY Times article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
No, actually all these sources can and should be used here with appropriate attribution per WP:RS [16] if we do not claim anything as a fact. My very best wishes (talk) 01:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @Volunteer Marek: This is much better. I took a cursory read of all the pieces and, while there is some clear trash in VM's list, some of it certainly can be used to start a section: The NYT, New Republic, NYRB, and Navalny (who is continuing the disgusting tradition of Russian dissidents smearing foreign dissidents, but he's notable, so whatever). Wasn't so hard was it? Please revise the section by including the what you consider to be the key facts of the "relationship", and include the substantive commentary. Others can then balance it out by adding other sources and perspectives, where applicable. Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

About trifles

Like most post-election discussions, this Talk section seems to have deteriorated into rehashing trifles. Is there any up-to-date information on Assange? What about his internet connection? What was the result of his interview with the Swedish legal system? Is Assange going to be impacted by Obama's National Defense Authorization Act? Is he even still alive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Santamoly (talk • contribs)

Hi User:Santamoly

  1. ^ https://justice4assange.com/UN-Working-Group-on-Arbitrary.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Julian_Assange/Archive_13&oldid=1146509558"