Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 12

Oh the irony....
For an article concerning a champion of free speech, it's a sharp incongruity that it is blocked to IP editors. Only those who belong to the "party" are given editing rights. Way to go Wikipedia, way to go!109.150.226.145 (talk) 06:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the party of accounts? You're a couple of clicks away from creating an account for free! Only use that account to make edits on semi-protected pages if you have an objection to accounts. I'm curious, what are they? Acoma Magic (talk) 07:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It must take all of 30 seconds to register an account. Big barrier to cross to join the party. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is just silly. If there is a lot of spam and disruptive participants, then Wikipedia protects is articles by require editors to perform one small extra step before editing, which is that they need to create a account Creating a account include no requirements, no political ideals, or anything implicating that its a "party" you need to be part of. Belorn (talk) 09:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ...and despite possible fears to the contrary, it gives you greater anonymity than posting from an IP address. HiLo48 (talk) 09:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Image
Given that an image has an immediate impact on the viewer of an article's subject, it is interesting to see that an image has been chosen to portray Assange as greasy, unkept and seemingly in the dark. Perhaps a more suitable image would be: ?

Best wishes,

--Fountain Posters (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Its a an image from 2010 vs the current one which is from 2009. Both is under a free license. The 2010 image do not include a mic or cables. The 2010 has a whiteish background, while the 2009 has a black background. So based on all that, the 2010 image do look to be preferable based on those date points, but I do not have an opinion on the images artistic look. Belorn (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good work Berlon - much better. Psdie (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I also vote strongly in favour of changing this image. It would be hard to find a more 'furtive' and 'shady' looking picture of Julian Assange if we tried. Given all the slander against him in the press (esp. UK press) I think it's important for Wikipedia to remain neutral and have a more ordinary head shot like the one suggested above, rather than have the current picture, which as has been pointed out above, portrays him as "greasy, unkept and in the dark". 193.61.220.130 (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sarah Palin Quote
The SP quote:
 * On 30 November 2010, former Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin called for Assange to be "hunted down like Bin Laden".

Appears to be inaccurate; the cited article says her actual quote was:


 * "He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders?"

I'm no fan of SP's, but this should probably be fixed. Articles like this one suggest the Bin Laden quote was paraphrasing. For brevity (and verifiability), perhaps:


 * "He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. .. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders?"

Psdie (talk) 03:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed it, thanks for noticing. Acoma Magic (talk) 03:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Quick work thanks :) Psdie (talk) 06:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Removing the "current person" template at the top
I had placed the current person template on 16th August. However, I feel the template should be removed now. The matter involving him is subsiding slowly. HARSH -TALK-  18:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Can I suggest we leave it a few more days just in case the matter gets resolved quickly? There were indications in the UK media this evening that some journalists are expecting a rapid resolution. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense if you read the news - new MSM articles every day, almost hourly. Assange asylum and FCO subsequent threats against embassy has caused major diplomatic incident only last week. The US clearly has substantial interest in PR surrounding Assange, which creates an incentive to massage this article as a popular media resource. Psdie (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Claes Borgström
The article (and his own article) claims that he is representing both women, but this source says one of the women has refused all contact and also refusing to sign any documents of testimonies and police reports. Is there more sources on this subject? Belorn (talk) 23:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the video report itself says that? The page you point to actually calls him lawyer for the named women. There doesn't seem to be much doubt that he represents both. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Sometime during Wilen's questioning the police announced to [Complainant 1] and [Complainant 2] that Assange was to be arrested and questioned about possible rape and molestation. [A complainant] became so distraught she refused to give any more testimony and refused to sign what had been taken down. " There is a loot non-reliable sources discussing what that part mean, many with the claim the Claes Borgström is now only representing [the other complainant]. So far I can not find a single reliable sources going beyond the above quote. Thus the question, are the sources I can't find discussing this (like books).


 * minor update*, the english translation call him their lawyer, but this is technically wrong. He is their Counsel (Målsägandebiträde). He is a lawyer, but his role in this case is counsel. Belorn (talk) 09:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In US English, "counsel" and "lawyer" are the same meaning - in British English also. There don't seem to be any English sources that don't refer to him as their "lawyer" - do you have any? Is there some kind of difference in Sweden between the two? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I could not find any english source, but plenty of swedish ones. The difference in Sweden is that you do not need to be a lawyer to be a counsel, and in my understanding, in the common case this is a person working to be a lawyer but has not got certified. Possible the word paralegal would apply.
 * The goal of a "Målsägandebiträde" is to advise and assist, but is not their legal representative. He can also bring claims additional to the ones the prosecutor does. Belorn (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds like it's worth mentioning (and would put the article in the position of being more knowledgeable than the En-language press, always a good thing), can you point to some Swedish source(s) please? We can use Google translate to take at least an approximate look at them and then do some searching to see if any en sources have it. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The ones I could easiest find was svt (swedish national tv news), aftonbladet 2010, nyheter24, nyheter24 (a bit more recent). There is also this article by Claes Borgström himself, published by dagens nyheter (a well know news paper in Sweden), in which he describe how he got a request to be the Målsägandebiträde by one of the women. Belorn (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I've run through the Google Translate mill and they don't say anything about the precise status of Borgstrom, only that he is representing them, GT sometimes (evidently wrongly) translates Målsägandebiträde as "plaintiff" and sometimes (perhaps also slightly wrongly if you are to be believed) as "lawyer", but those articles don't seem to help your case. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * In Claes Borgström own words, but through Google translator"The same weekend called one of the women to the law firm and searched me. The call was received by the on-call associate Pia Engström Lindgren. I have not, as Bergman / Carlgren says, "self-offering" me to counsel (målsägandebiträde) but have in all other cases approached by prospective clients. After application on 24 August, the second day after the police, acting Stockholm District Me August 25 as counsel (målsägandebiträde)..". To make a better translation and to sum it up: one of the women (plaintiff 1) called Claes Borgström, and after the two days from the point of the police report, the police district of the city Stockholm assigned Claes Borgström as målsägandebiträde to the two women. Belorn (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And that tells us what exactly? What point are you making? All it says is what we already know, isn't it? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Lets back up a bit. Is there a request for sources that shows Claes Borgström is the "målsägandebiträde" for the women, or is there a request for sources that explain what a "målsägandebiträde" is? I assumed the question was to show sources that Claes Borgström is the "målsägandebiträde" for the women, as that fact could have its verifiability challenged or would be likely to be challengedbe (as per Verifiable). What a "målsägandebiträde" is and what legal duty one has, and what sources there is on it, would be a different question/request. The Swedish article on it, Målsägandebiträde, would be the place to start looking. Sadly, all references it has are primary references that directly points to paragraphs in the Swedish law, so it's likely a Google translate will give less than readable output. A library in the UK or US might have a English translation of the "Sveriges rikes lag", which is the common printed version of the Swedish laws. My own attempts to find a English version failed, looking at the local libary and Google. The most direct law paragraph explaining what a "målsägandebiträde" duty is, is described in "Lag (1988:609) om målsägandebiträde". Last, I do notice that google translate sometimes switch the word "counsel" with "Plaintiff attorney". I do not know why it does this. Swedish law on attorney (1942:740#K8) and the law (1988:609) on målsägandebiträde is two completely different concepts. One thing that might explains it, is that in sweden, you are not assigned a attorney - you are assigned a legal defense if you are a the accused, a prosecutor is assigned to the case, and a målsägandebiträde is assigned during the question phase to the plaintiff. Of those 3, I only know of målsägandebiträde that do not requires the person to be a certified attorney, and which role is described to be around counseling and not around representation. But then, I am not a lawyer, and I am not studying to be one. I have asked the WikiProject International law talk for expert advice, so if they have time and the expertise, we might get some better description than mine above. Belorn (talk) 07:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, that's interesting but as you say, it isn't likely to be usable here. It sounds as if the final point is that they don't quite have a "lawyer" as such, but what we would call in the UK a "legal advisor", however the media here don't much distinguish those and people accused of crimes (and victims of crime) are often assisted by paralegals of various kinds. It's not that big a point I don't think. Maybe others will see something in it. I guess there's a slight bias in the media stories in your thoughts, are you thinking that the sources say they have a "lawyer" (in English) but that the reality is a bit less serious? And that therefore the arrest warrant is further exposed as excessive? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I did say it was a minor update about a technicality :). But I think we should avoid saying sentences that implies that Claes Borgström is talking for the two women. When he makes comments in the news, those comments are his and his alone, and as his role as counsel. When a defense lawyer is speaking, it is normally assumed he is talking for the accused as their legal representation. This is in my understanding not the case with a målsägandebiträde, so we can not make assumptions about the plaintiffs' opinions or standpoints based on opinions he expresses in the news. A small distinction, but a distinction. The article about Claes Borgström and Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority also use the word "represent" when describing Claes relation to the two women, something I plan to adjust based on this quite interesting discussion :). We could also change this article to say "Lawyer Claes Borgström, the legal advisor of the two Swedish women" instead of "Claes Borgström, the lawyer of the two Swedish women". Small change, but it should be technically more correct. Belorn (talk) 08:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you'll need en-language source(s) to confirm the changes you suggest. Media sources in en say he "represents" them typically (I just checked some of the quality ones) so it's OK in the article to quote those. Your "legal advisor" change will just come across as a not-needed change because the sources call him their lawyer. Sorry, but it sounds as if whilst there may be an issue here, it's really only demonstrable in Swedish. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So long I made a translation in the footnote, we should be fine as by WP:Verifiability. Would that be fine with you? We could also ask a third-party translator if that make people feel more safe. Belorn (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * update*: I found a article that describe the job of an målsägandebiträde in layman term. sadly, looking what Google translate did to it, I almost started to laugh on how horrible it wrangled and messed it up. A second article, a bit more technical in the language, is this one. Either of them should work fine so long a translation is provided in the footnote. Belorn (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Overlinking issue
The article is messed up due to 'overlinking' (see: 'Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Editing, Creating, and Maintaining Articles/Editing for the First Time' --> 'How to Create Internal Links' --> Box item 'To Link or Not to Link')

I have used the following 'edit summary' while removing those till now:- "Plain, generic terms/words do not require internal links. They have no direct nexus with the context of the article. Such words/terms get italicised if terminology."

Due to a revert of some of my edits, I wish to clarify further:
 * Reader interest must be riveted to the page. We cant have the reader meander away chasing every link to a topic not directly related to this page. He should go to the linked page, be able to quickly find a nugget of information there, which finds a mention in both these pages and then come back here.
 * I opened up the pages leading away from these links. If the words 'Assange' or 'Wikileaks' (with spelling variants) are not present in those articles, clearly those pages have no direct bearing on the topic at hand. The reader is free to explore unrelated topics from the wikipedia main-page search-box. Let him excuse us. We cant provide him links from here for those.
 * For example, most big cities have hundreds of thousands of people living in them, so our protagonist rightly finds no mention on their pages. So those links get deleted. However, names of immediate neighbourhoods are retained. They may have a genealogy leading to our protagonist.
 * Similar is the case with school or college wiki pages. He may be on their alumni lists (Sorry, didnt check just these pages. They have been retained anyway. I leave this work of deleting them for others).
 * Next come media/online organisations. For example, I have retained the link to 'RT' and 'The Colbert Report' while removing those for 'Democratic Now', MSNBC for the very same reason that Assange finds a mention in those pages. The article on 'The Colbert Report' has a very interesting spelling variant called 'wikiality' so it had to be retained.
 * Names of the conferences he attended have been retained, but venues where they were held is of little consequence.
 * Technologies he used for hacking are retained, but not generic platforms/terms like the Linux operating system or web-based search engines. Even a generic term like hacking has been retained being of close interest, but not computer programming.

I think i have been able to show the drift so far. Many more sections to go and clean-up. I hope no one has objections now, as I go back to work on them.

Yaara dildaara (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Yaara dildaara
 * Linking is intended to lead readers to other articles; they don't have to relate directly to the subject to be linked. Please restore the links. --Errant (chat!) 10:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, in fact looking through your removals were very destructive to understanding (e.g. what is TSR??). Definitely put it back - I can't undo it now as other edits have occurred so you will need to go through and restore the majority by hand. --Errant (chat!) 10:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh heck, I've just checked those, some are good, but quite a few are utterly unhelpful. Can you please discuss any further ones here first Yaara? Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Genuine overlinking is endemic on Wikipedia, and is certainly annoying and distracting, so I appreciate Yaara dildaara's removal of a lot of it in this article. But I don't agree with your revert of my re-linking of DARPA. I've never heard of your principle that "Info on the protagonist must be present in the linked article, to be able to be called a 'link'". (I'm sorry, I don't understand what "29" refers to. Overlinking is a redirect to Methods of website linking, not a WP space article, so hardly relevant here.) It seems to be uniquely yours. WP/Manual of Style/Linking, by contrast, recommends in the "Overlinking and underlinking" section that "proper names that are likely to be unfamiliar to readers" be linked. I'm convinced the name DARPA is unfamiliar to the nearly all non-American readers, and to many Americans for that matter, and that the whole sentence consequently will be correspondingly obscure to them. If you insist on unlinking it, I'll leave you to it, but in that case you might consider replacing it with the full name, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, for greater clarity. It's all for the reader, not for the rules, as I'm sure you'll agree. Bishonen &#124; talk 12:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC).

Assange versus Sweden - Allegations of sexual assault
Proverb says Attack is the best form of defense. Please, for the neutrality of this chapter Allegations of sexual assault include the facts, in which way the Swedish justice system investigated the Wikileaks published news of the Swedish politicians. If I understod correct: Wikileaks published pieces of news of the Swedish politicians. If I understod correct according to Finnish media, these Swedish politicians were demanded to resign, if Wikileaks news was correct. Soon after this Julian Assange ivestigation started. However, thereafter I have not read the investigation of the Swedish politicians in concern. Please include in the chapter the investigation of the Swedish politicians by the Swedish justice system after the Wikileaks discoveries. Watti Renew (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you come up with a good source that says all this, we can quote it. Our own opinions or ideas are irrelevant. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Fugitive
Please add to the first sentence that he is a fugitive as there is still an European Arrest Warrant issued for Assange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.82.164.105 (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Disagree - "Fugitive" has unnecessary negative connotations, whereas "subject to an European Arrest Warrant" is neutral. Similar to "criminal" vs "suspect". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psdie (talk • contribs) 03:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reliable source (ie, news paper, book, and so on), calling Assange an fugitive? Wikipedia is not the forefront, and should follow suit first after reliable sources has started using that term. Belorn (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It's pretty self-evident that he is a fugitive from justice in the technical sense, but it took me about 2 seconds to find lots of news sources that call him exactly that and not just casually, for example: FT, Economics Times of India , Washington Post , the Guardian and so on. So yes, it's fine to use the term. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That works for me. Belorn (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per Psdie. Acoma Magic (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your oppose makes no sense. Assange is a fugitive and lots of very good quality sources say he is. "Fugitive from justice" is a technical description, it contains no implicit POV. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fugitive implies guilt or at the very least that he has been charged with something. No charges have been laid against him in Sweden and as long as he is in the embassy he is not liable for deportation. Avoiding a warrant to force him to be questioned is not in the same league as avoiding justice, especially as he has made himself available for questioning. Wayne (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to your opinion - unfortunately, a great many news sources say he is a fugitive. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that many don't. I've been following this case and I must have read dozens of news stories and not once have I seen him referred to as a fugitive. My opinion is that the majority, to say the least, do not describe him as such. Acoma Magic (talk) 21:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you think you're the only person following this story? I just posted four above from major news sources. It doesn't matter that a few of you don't like the term, frankly. Lots and lots of sources call him a fugitive. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What you said isn't a rebuttal to my statement. Acoma Magic (talk) 01:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I get the impression you have quite a limited grasp of logic. You said that you had read many sources and they don't mention his fugitive status, I assume you were stating that he isn't widely known as a fugitive? I then re-explained (and am now doing so again) that he is very widely called a fugitive in the media. Which bit don't you feel is a rebuttal? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a rebuttal, previous comment wasn't. I followed the link and many news articles on that list is actually an article on something completely different, but has different articles on the same page for you to click on. With "fugitive" and "Julian Assange" being in the title/description of different articles to each other. Alternatively, it's an article on Assange, but in on the advertising of other articles, it's got articles on fugitives. Add the exact proposed language and I'll see if I can support it. Your proposal of adding it to the first sentence isn't going to happen. Acoma Magic (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * To start with: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. This lead me to ask, is the word Fugitive prominent used in sources? The second question I would ask is: Has assange been formerly been charged by the UK for bail violation? Belorn (talk) 07:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The article can say "he is called a fugitive from justice by xxxx and yyyy" or similar. It can also say he isn't by other sources, that's OK. I am not endlessly repeating myself on the prominence of the sources - I have already shown them several times, they couldn't be more prominent (the word appears in many titles of news articles in literally dozens of major media articles - you can check them yourself easily enough); your point about bail is irrelevant, "fugitive" does not have a technical meaning relating to bail. It is a general word. The basic definition is anyone fleeing from justice. Assange himself claims he is afraid of US prosecution, which pretty much confirms it. I am not saying the article should be renamed "Assange the fugitive", just that the word can be neutrally used. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good that you say its prominent. It is important that we discuss matters based on policy, and the objection made above was about neutrality. Thus I brought up the question if it was prominent to confirm that the argument made here is that it is prominent. From what I can see, I agree with you, but this will allow others to argue against it if they want to. One could also argue that to be a fugitive you would need to be charged with a crime (thus the question about bail). It can also said that since Assange is not fleeing, running, or hiding from the Swedish government (for the moment), but rather through legal/treaty means fighting their request, he is thus not a Fugitive. Could you give a reason why those arguments is not valid in this case? Belorn (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "It can also said that since Assange is not fleeing, running, or hiding from the Swedish government (for the moment), but rather through legal/treaty means fighting their request, he is thus not a Fugitive." Please read again the definition of fugitive, it says that: A fugitive from justice, can either be a ... or taking refuge in a different country in order to avoid arrest in another country" so you are not right. Moreover considering what is prominent I would say that currently the term fugitive best describes him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.37.196 (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

To end this discussion, lots and lots of quality sources prominently describe him as a "fugitive" and there is nothing in the common dictionary definitions of that word that does not apply. The word can be used as long as it's sourced and used in a neutral manner. I suggest we close this now as there is nothing more useful that can be added. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree on closing, only because negative word "fugitive" hasn't yet been used. I would object to its inclusion because a neutral phrase like "subject to an European Arrest Warrant" does just as well. You wouldn't use the word "criminal" on the bio page of someone that had been convicted of a crime. Ditto here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psdie (talk • contribs) 21:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You haven't visibly agreed, but your objection is incorrect (and pretty self-evidently based on POV), so we'll feel free to ignore it. I prefer WP policies. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Lawyer list
Has anyone managed to source a canonical (cited) list of legal representation? A bit of Googling around Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority turned up James D. Catlin, Ben Emmerson, Baltasar Garzón, Björn Hurtig, Gareth Peirce, Michael Ratner, Geoffrey Robertson, Jennifer Robinson (lawyer), Dinah Rose, Per E. Samuelson, Mark Stephens (solicitor). —Sladen (talk) 11:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It matters because....? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your question James. In Wikipedia we try to WP:CITE wherever possible, and to provide a balanced and complete record per WP:NPOV. Searching for the various legal/spokespersons' names in connection with Assange's name is a particularly effective way of finding WP:V reportage, opening up obscure twists and turns over the last three years that may have been missed otherwise. Having a more complete set of source materials, in-turn assists with providing a more complete set of Wikipedia articles on the subject. —Sladen (talk) —Sladen (talk) 08:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC) aka Paulinnottinghamshire

Page locked?
What's up with the article page being locked?

And for what it's worth, I notice that some person with a POV only noted his "most controversial" guest on World Tomorrow. So much for Wikipedia's edit neutrality. Serious and not called Shirley (talk) 09:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Heard of vandalism? The amount of IP users who love vandalising pages like this, is the reason why pages get protected.--Mjs1991 (talk) 10:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If you think that the page should be unprotected you are free to contact the admin and then post your reason for the same in WP:RFPP under "Current requests for unprotection" section. The better way would be to register your account. HARSH (talk)  16:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed change to the second sentence of the article.
The second sentence of this article currently reads "He is best known as the editor-in-chief and founder of WikiLeaks, a media website which has published information from whistleblowers."

Proposal: Remove the following sentence fragment from this sentence: ", a media website which has published information from whistleblowers."

Because there is a Wikipedia article for WikiLeaks, I feel the second half of this sentence is unnecessary and does not have to provide information about his Web site. Additionally, by only including information about publication of "whistleblower's" information this sentence adds legitimacy to Mr. Assange's Web site, legitimacy that may not be deserved.

The Wikipedia article on whistleblowers seems to me to be written from a neutral point-of-view and treats the whistleblower as one doing 'good' deeds. WikiLeaks accepts and publishes information gathered through legal and illegal means. This sentence fragment puts Mr. Assange in association with those doing good deeds, again something that may not be deserved. FrankTownend (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Disagree with proposal - Wikileaks regularly publishes information from whistleblowers - i.e., info from organisation insiders. There is no question of this. Proposing its removal is like asking for "newspaper" to be removed from the description of a news pub because you disagree with its content. Psdie (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with this proposal. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. It looks coatrackish. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose because a description of Wikileaks is required. Propose a replacement of the description if you want. Acoma Magic (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Obvious Oppose. All the guardian articles calls it "Homepage of whistleblowers' website Wikileaks". Many more reliable sources (cnn, and nytimes also use the word whistleblowers to describe the site. To that point, what else should be required in the words of verifiable Encyclopedic content from third-party sources? Belorn (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's POV-pushing, giving undue credibility to this guy, stretching the idea of "whistleblowing" far beyond what it's normally understood to mean. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense BB - a website publishing information supplied by whistleblowers - i.e., organisation insiders - is clearly a "whistleblowing website". This should remain. Psdie (talk)
 * Its only POV if there is reliable sources, I repeat, reliable sources, that gives the site a other description. This other description would also have to pass WP:WEIGHT, that is: ""Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Beyond that you do not like that reliable sources call the site the whistleblowers homepage, do you have a prominent number of sources to support your dislike? Belorn (talk) 09:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments to date.


 * I really propose to revise the sentence to put a period after WikiLeaks. The new sentence would read "He is best known as the editor-in-chief and founder of WikiLeaks."
 * Examples of this style are all over Wikipedia, such as:
 * Alan Roger Mulally (born August 4, 1945) is an American engineer and business executive who is currently the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Ford Motor Company.
 * Katharine Bouchage Weymouth is an American publisher of The Washington Post and chief executive officer of Washington Post Media.
 * The first example does't say "Ford Motor Company, an automobile manufacturer which has made an automobile called the Mustang".
 * The second example doesn't say "Washington Post Media, publishers of The Washington Post, washingtonpost.com, Express, etc." FrankTownend (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is fine, Wikileaks is famous enough now and it's dull and repetitive to have it explained every time it's mentioned. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The first example does't say "Ford Motor Company, an automobile manufacturer which has made an automobile called the Mustang".
 * The second example doesn't say "Washington Post Media, publishers of The Washington Post, washingtonpost.com, Express, etc." FrankTownend (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is fine, Wikileaks is famous enough now and it's dull and repetitive to have it explained every time it's mentioned. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is fine, Wikileaks is famous enough now and it's dull and repetitive to have it explained every time it's mentioned. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion


 * I'll put this to bed by making my proposed change and we can go on doing more productive things. I thank all of you for your comments and hope to continue work with you all. Thank you. FrankTownend (talk) 00:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Now I am more confused than when I started


 * I changed it and someone said a description is required. I thought my examples dispute this?
 * I give up, have it your way. FrankTownend (talk) 10:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I give up, have it your way. FrankTownend (talk) 10:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The difference is the companies you cited are all household names. Wikileaks is well known in some (mainly online) circles but not necessarily with casual home readers. Thus an extremely short description to give context is useful. Psdie (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not many people here in the UK won't have heard of it now, Assange's posturings have made it a household name. I suspect it's the same in the US, Canada and Australia. As that covers most of the English-speaking world, I think you need to come up with a better reason. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Psdie needs to come up with a better reason also. Thank you Jamesinderbyshire. FrankTownend (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation of surname
I would like to correct the pronunciation of this name, but am not sure how to do it. Can a more experienced person help?

The name as given this page is incorrect " /əˈsɒnʒ/ ə-SONZH ". This pronunciation is also used by some newcasters (eg BBC's Charlotte Green).

Mr Assange gives his name here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMIDuLA57Kg

In his pronunciation, the second 'a' is not pronounced as 'O', but A as in 'bath'. The final consonant is not pronounced ZH, but as a hard J, as in 'edge'.

In IPA I think this would be /əˈsɑːndʒ/ but I don't know how to do the 'respell' bit.

Thanks, Alison Blenkinsop (founder of GASP - Grammar And Spelling Pedants [and pronunciation too!])Fit2Bust (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead section
I've noticed certain articles have a habit of describing their subject by referring to everything they've ever done. Is it currently correct, for example, that Assange is a journalist, computer programmer and/or publisher?
 * Journalist - The only active link is to a website for a summer school. That's pretty much advertising supposed speakers, so I don't think it fulfils Wikipedia's criteria re reliable sources. The dead links are from 2010 and 2009. Has he done any journalism since then?
 * Computer programmer - What has he programmed even vaguely recently? If it's purely a historical thing, surely the current explanation of the fact he did it before moving on to Wikileaks is sufficient.
 * Publisher - The works section of the article only refers to one book, from 1997 where he was a "researcher". The other works are essays. I've written essays - does that make me a publisher?

Surely the reference to him being an "editor" should be clarified to make it clear that he does/did this for Wikileaks. "Editor" by itself is too ambiguous.

One last thing, how many shows did he do of his TV show? Is he still doing it?

I think slimming down the first line would actually enhance the article, as it would focus on what's important about Assange - that he's an activist and editor for Wikileaks. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I am wondering about this, I hadn't got round to challenging it yet but I'm glad it's being discussed. At present, it sounds a bit over the top and slightly hagiographical, as if we are talking about the many gifts of a saint. :) I think it might best say something like "journalist and political activist" or similar. Also note that some of the refs in the Lede are not needed and some are unrelated to the material - I am going to take a run through these soon. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd say that in the modern context, Wikipedia is a publication. Surely that makes him a publisher. Similarly, he has been described as a journalist in that context on many occasions. Unless he tells us, we won't know whether he has written any computer programs lately, but a lot of the nerds I know don't ever really stop. And remember, a lot of the programming he did in the past was not for an employer. This should be one where we depend on the sources. HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the lead is supposed to be the most notable elements of the story - is he really notable for being a programmer? Plenty of people hack away - that doesn't mean they should get an entry in the lead. The big problem with this article is the fawning tone towards Assange - this issue is part of that. I'm surprised it doesn't say he's also a snappy dresser and has featured hairstyles. If this was any other article, that other stuff would be out, but this being wikiland.... Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, he' s a very successful man, who's been convicted of no crimes. So we're in no position to include much of a negative nature. What do YOU think we should be saying? And why? HiLo48 (talk) 11:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't say he'd been convicted of a crime. I said the tone of the article is fawning, which it sometimes is. "Successful" is in the eye of the beholder - he's certainly succeeded in making himself famous. The proposal is to reduce the number of things he is. I would suggest something like:


 * Julian Paul Assange (born 3 July 1971) is an Australian web-based political activist and publisher, best known for founding and editing Wikileaks, etc...


 * Objections to some of the other identifications are (1) "talk show host" - this is only a very recent thing and may be temporary, it also isn't what he's most notable for, (2) "computer programmer" - not what he's notable for and (3) "journalist" - he's never had a job in journalism and Wikileaks isn't really a journalistic website, it's a leaks website - he resents the role of journalist and has frequently scorned the work of journalists, has he not? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd agree that "talk show host" doesn't belong. The programmer role was perhaps an essential stepping stone towards Wikileaks, but maybe not so important today. But I thought he'd actually embraced the journalist title. Just my impression though. HiLo48 (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * When people hear the word "journalist" they think of people publishing articles in newspapers and news magazines. Has Assange done that? It would assist if you could explain in what ways Assange can be considered a journalist. Cheers! John Smith&#39;s (talk) 10:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, he isn't a "journalist" in the normal sense of the word. He's essentially a hacktivist/political activist with a bent towards anti-Americanism and Libertarianism. Anyway, there seems to be consensus that we should remove "talk show host" and "computer programmer" now. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and must have a historical perspective. See Recentism. That means that when we describe what he "is" it actually should include any profession that is notable. He has his own TV show, an there are enough sources for the show that he would meet the criteria for notability purely on the basis of being the host of that show, so it should be included. "Computer programmer" is also central because he wrote the code for WikiLeaks, and that is his main profession. Mr G (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * However, I agree that we don't have to put it in the first sentence. The talk show should be mentioned somewhere else in the lead. The programming is already mentioned in the second paragraph, which is sufficient. Mr G (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * On the question about Assange as an Journalist. Before all the Allegations of sexual assault, he was, or was to be writing for the swedish newspaper Aftonbladet ref. If he did end up writing anything for them, I do not know. Belorn (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, but is he currently a journalist? If not, the reference should be removed. And I don't think he has done any journalist stuff for a while. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 07:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hackers Down Swedish Websites In Support Of Julian Assange
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/04/hackers-swedish-sites-julian-assange_n_1852125.html Ottawahitech (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it might be better to find further sources for this before considering whether anything needs to be added to the article. What have the Swedish media reported? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The major Swedish media base their articles on this article from The Local. It says that, Therese Fagerstedt of the Swedish Armed Forces Communications and Public Affairs department said: it is suspected that the attack was carried out by a Free Assange group, claiming responsibility via Twitter..
 * Additionally, in the day after, SvD (a Swedish news paper) reported that the British MI5 and MI6 has both been disrupted. The news paper wrote that: A twitter user under the username "Anonymous Sky" tweeted ”#TANGO #DOWN and it seems legit. #FREE #ASSANGE #mi5 #mi6”. Belorn (talk) 06:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Since hacks or site takedowns seem to be happening all the time "on behalf" of Assange, we shouldn't use the article to keep up the news on them - Wikipedia is not a branch of Wikileaks and this is not the location of the Assange supporters club report page. We could have a general piece giving examples of site hacks on his behalf. There is already far too much serial reportage of trivia surrounding who has spoken on Assange's behalf, who likes him, etc, in the article and not nearly enough "other opinion" on his actions. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The above event of hackers takeing down swedish websites is indeed of recentism quality, and is unlikely notable enough for inclusion. But What kind of "other opinion" do you mean? Criticism? If so, what enduring notable criticism do you want to include that has not yet already been included? When doing a WP:BLANCE or WP:NPOV complain, please provide what you want to include, as often there is a reason why there aren't already included (ie, they do not exist). Belorn (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Back to the 1st para
An attempt to take another look at the Lead intro paragraph. At the moment, this sounds trite and patronising, as if most of the planet hasn't heard of Wikileaks and what it roughly is. It also reads like an attempt to turn Wikipedia into a propaganda tool for the Assange faction and is not neutral, as regardless of the "stated purpose" of Wikileaks, there will be many who disagree or who have other opinions.

I therefore propose we replace the current opener:


 * Julian Paul Assange (born 3 July 1971) is an Australian editor, activist, publisher and journalist. He is best known as the editor-in-chief and founder of WikiLeaks, submissions of secret and classified media from anonymous whistleblowers. The site acts as a conduit for worldwide news leaks, with a stated purpose of creating open governance.

With this (or something close to it):


 * Julian Paul Assange (born 3 July 1971) is an Australian editor, activist, publisher and journalist. He is best known as the editor-in-chief and founder of international site WikiLeaks, which publishes submissions of private, secret, and classified media from anonymous news sources, news leaks, and whistleblowers.

This version is more in line with the Wikipedia definition given at Wikileaks, is more neutral and is less trite. It is also more accurate, because Wikileaks is not really a "media website" as stated in the current version and the "open governance" bit is dubious, since Assange appears to have mixed goals politically. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Spot on. Agree 100%. More focused, and, just as you say, less trite and propagandistic. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC).


 * ✅ Done, as there were no objections. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (first off, 10hours and 30m is not much time to check for objections/consensus, but WP:BOLD do apply which say you do not need to ask permission before posting). The "which publishes submissions of private, secret, and classified media from anonymous news sources, news leaks, and whistleblowers" part do not work. From the "private, secret, and classified media" sentence; what is private media or did you mean private information, and if so, please provide a source for that statement. Same goes from secret (information?), through here I think it will be easier to find a source but I personally do not have one at hands. Second, "from anonymous news sources, news leaks, and whistleblowers." is also not good. What anonymous news sources? Second, how can a News leak send a submission, and how can a news leak be by itself anonymous? All above is also not supported by the nytimes article. I removed the confusing bits above, and left the rest. Belorn (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I left it overnight (Europe time) because generally the recent pattern here is for discussion between Australia-based and Europe-based editors. On the points you raise, you clearly have problems with the whole arena of how Wikilinks is represented - I would suggest this isn't the right article, you should be arguing these points at Wikileaks, which is of course where the snippets you arbitrarily deleted without discussion come from. Also, since you were previously arguing in favour of the word "whistleblowers", why are you against it now? TBH you seem quite confused and not just on this point. I don't think we should take your edits. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Edits are viewed as they are made. That the wikileaks article has the same lead is interesting, but it does not change the above complaints. Will do a change there too. I also re-added information that I could find a source for. Also, I did not touch the word whistleblowers, so I honestly do not know what you are talking about. I discussed the word anonymous news sources, the word private used as a subject, and unsupported claims without a source, which is mostly now fixed. Belorn (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A lot of editors try to act as if it's irrelevant what the key article says, but it isn't. This bit is about Wikileaks, so clearly there needs to be some kind of harmonisation between what it says there, even if it's only that they don't disagree as to the facts. I don't see any need for the extra sourcing you did, lead sections don't in fact even need sources if they refer to material in the main article, which this do. Anyway, glad you've ended up agreeing with the basic edit. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It can sometimes look like editors care more about verifiability and sources than what the article actually say, and I am not sure if that is good or bad. In some articles I personally do focus more on verifiable than text editing, mostly because I want to avoid editorial biases. As for leads, like you say, only if they are not in the main article. Secret information exist only in the wikileaks article, so we need to copy one source here. I did not find any references to news leaks or news sources in the main text here or at wikileaks. Belorn (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

House Arrest
My edit got reverted, but I'm not going to get into an edit war. Best to get agreement first. The comment on the revert was: "on bail with a curfew and residence requirement" is a very convoluted way of saying "under house arrest". that's exactly what "house arrest" means. i've added several references

The references were all to media reports, which used "house arrest". The question is: is the definition as stated by Gregcaletta? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julian_Assange&diff=500689100&oldid=500555173

The definition of house arrest in US law is: "The judicial obligation upon an individual that she/he be forbidden to leave his or her place of residence except for limited, specified circumstances... On good behaviour for a stated period of time, some bail or conditional sentences replace house arrest with a final period of a curfew." From http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/H/HouseArrest.aspx

Or, if you prefer Merriam-Webster: "confinement often under guard to one's house or quarters instead of in prison" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/house%20arrest

What about the UK? Cambridge dictionary has: "legally forced to stay in your house as if it were a prison" http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/house-ar-rest

Collins has: "confinement to one's own home" http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/house-arrest

Finally, the definition of house arrest is given here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/23/notes/division/2 "A derogating control order was one that imposed obligations that amounted to a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 of the ECHR. An example of such a control order would have been one that imposed a 24 hour curfew – i.e. house arrest. By way of contrast, a non-derogating control order was one in which the obligations imposed did not amount to such a deprivation of liberty. Before the Government could have imposed a derogating control order, it would have needed to derogate to the extent strictly necessary from Article 5. No derogation from Article 5 was ever made in relation to control orders; only non-derogating control orders were ever made. "

So. House Arrest is, I think I have shown, very much different from conditional bail with a curfew and a tag. Lots of media outlets calling it the wrong thing doesn't mean that everyone else should call it the wrong thing IMO.

But feel free to provide a link to a legal definition which differs; I read all the ones I could find, but didn't find a single one to support Gregcaletta's definition. Oh: the National Post (!) and the NY Times both get other facts wrong, so I wouldn't consider them reliable (Mr Assange has been formally accused and isn't wanted for questioning - source: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-summary.pdf).

I probably shouldn't have used the BBC as a link myself - that was lazy of me.

Sorry to bang on about two words, but house arrest is a serious breach of human rights, and campaigns against it are not helped if people think that "house arrest" means "go anywhere you want to, talk to who you want to, but be back home by 9pm please."

That is conditional bail. House arrest is when you are under arrest in your house. Hence the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.141.238 (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The term is used quite a lot to describe Assange's bail, despite it being misleading. As other sources point out, it's "which included an overnight curfew at a registered address", and although I wouldn't use it as a source in the article itself that "is rather different from house arrest". Rather than the vague "house arrest" which means many different things, it'd be better to say he was on bail with a curfew. 2 lines of K  303  13:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There's also "a limited form of house arrest in Britain, staying mostly with friends and under a strict evening curfew" from the Washington Post, and "effective house arrest" from the New York Times, and more crucially "Since his detention, Assange has mostly been living under strict bail conditions at the country mansion of a wealthy supporter in eastern England. His associates say that amounts to 540 days under house arrest without charge. Breach of bail conditions is potentially a criminal offence" from Reuters. 2 lines of K  303  13:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't consider the National Post and the New York Times reliable sources (for everything) either. Nothing is a reliable source for everything. But Wikipedia policy is fairly clear that if a multiple generally reliable news sources such as Reuters all describe the situation as "house arrest" then we can and should use that term here. Specific U.S. legal definitions are irrelevant since we are looking for common usage definition across all English-speaking people, not the definition of one particular legal jurisdiction. If we look at the element common to all the definitions you gave, Assange's predicament actually fits the definitions you gave except that it is not his own house but a friend's house, because he does not own a home in England. Clearly it is still house arrest whether it is your own home or someone else's, so I think the dictionary definitions are imprecise on that point. Otherwise he has been confined to a single private property, and meets all the common usage (and common sense) meaning of "house arrest". Gregcaletta (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Reuters don't describe it as house arrest, at least not in the article I provided. They in fact say it's Assange's associates who claim he's under house arrest. Various other sources use the term house arrest with qualifiers too, enough that it becomes a breach of NPOV to simply state it as "house arrest". You've got policy completely backwards, since if there's objection you don't get to state it as fact. There's no such thing as house arrest in the UK legally speaking (although the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 act does possibly define it as a 24 hour curfew, ie not being able to leave the house at all which obviously isn't the case). There is such a thing as bail though, which is what he was released under, with certain terms attached which isn't unusual for bail. So what's the objection to simply starting the fact that he was released on bail with a curfew etc. instead of the vague term "house arrest" which means different things to different people? You talk about "common usage definition" yet fail to answer my point about "house arrest" having any number of different meanings. In many cases it means people can't even leave their house, that's the common definition that most people think of and it doesn't apply to Assange. 2 lines of K  303  19:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The BBC link I originally put up listed his bail conditions. Can you indicate the condition which confined him to a single property, or point to a better source? I see a curfew and that he must be at a specific address at night, but nothing to prevent him popping out to the shops, or even a day out to (say) London, Birmingham, or anywhere else had he so chosen. Never mind, found the answer myself: the BBC link was correct. Assange faces arrest for "breaching one of the bail conditions imposed on him by the High Court, which was to stay at his bail address between 10pm and 8am.". It was fine for him to be in London, but he hadn't returned to his registered address by 10pm.


 * I say "common usage" because I think your interpretation is a small minority. I'm quite certain that when most people read "house arrest" they interpret it quite literally: being arrested and confined to a house (meaning any private property). "In many cases it means people can't even leave their house" is false. I doubt there has ever been a case where a prisoner cannot enter the garden of the house. The garden is always considered part of the house in "house arrest". He was strictly confined to the property and only left the property for his daily report to a police station. A you have pointed out "house arrest" is rarely used as legal term; it is almost always used as it is used here as a literal (and in this case accurate) description of a person's situation. He has been prevented by law from leaving the designated property except with express permission. That's what I mean by common usage or common sense definition. Gregcaletta (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You're talking rubbish. Assange was not strictly confined to the property at all. He was confined to the property at certain times of the day only, the rest of the time he was free to go anywhere he chose. Or are you suggesting that Wikileaks were lying when they offered a chance to dine with Assange at "one of London's finest restaurants"? If you have a source that says he couldn't even leave the property except to go to the police station go right ahead and provide it, but there's none I can see. Or how about this public appearance he made? Or this one? Or how about this which says "Barrister and legal commentator Carl Gardner said that although Assange's freedom of movement is constrained, "he can move around, he can make public appearances. He is at liberty in the most basic sense of the phrase", after noting his actual bail conditions which "require him to observe an overnight curfew, wear an electronic tag and report to police daily". He was never confined to the property, as the evidence shows. 2 lines of K  303  06:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * One more search seems to have resolved this issue. There has been some exceptionally vague and bad reporting in the press, but I found the "original judgment". Para 122 is pretty clear: movement was indeed restricted to the residence, and I accept that this would indeed amount to some form of house arrest. I shall add this document as a link to the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.228.192 (talk) 06:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It does amount to some form of house arrest. However it's far more sensible to describe the basic facts of him being bailed to reside at a given address with a curfew, which is a basic fact any reader can understand. 2 lines of K  303  06:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

To put it simply, no matter how news media (and it seems mostly non-UK media) may describe it, there is no such thnig as house arrest in England and Wales. A court may either grant bail or remand in custody. The assumption is that bail is always granted unless there are good reasons not to (e.g. likely not to surrender to court, may interfere with witnesses, serious nature of alleged offence, breaches of previous bail etc). When bail is granted, the assumption is that it will be unconditional. If conditions are imposed, they must be proportionate, must not amount to a punishment, and must be given for good reasons. Typical conditions include not to contact witnesses, to report to police, to reside at a specified address, to obey a curfew (which may but need not be electronically monitored), surrender of passport, co-operation with probation service or drug treatment agenceies. The exact conditions will depend on the nature of the offence, the person's record, etc, and must be stated by the court with reasons. Assange is quite clearly subject to a conditional bail. For further detail, see any of several guides to court procedure in England & Wales. Emeraude (talk) 08:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Minor correctoin, Assange WAS 'quite clearly subject to a conditional bail', which he has since violated. The police are currently stationed outside of the embassy and as of my writing this, and the post above, if Assange leaves the building he will be subject to arrest and no bail. To be precise the statement would be 'Assange was subject to conditional bail, but is currently facing arrest related to extradition'. It is essential also to cover the fact that he is now in violation of his bail and faces arrest by the UK authorities. I was just there and there are generally 2 to 3 police on the embassy 24 hours now. One covering the only side entrance and 1 to 2 in the front. Use of the term 'prisioner' might be appropriate but a bit loaded. Essentailly Assange is no longer at liberty, he can't leave the embassy without being arrested. But these are also temporary pieces of the story. At any moment he could be arrested. So maybe it would be best to keep changing facts light? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.228.120 (talk) 11:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think someone else responded to this already with the official details, but will outline main misunderstanding here on the facts is that "He was confined to the property at certain times of the day only, the rest of the time he was free to go anywhere he chose" in which case it would be appropriate to use the word "curfew". In fact, the opposite is the case. He was restricted to the property at all time except when given express permission (for example if he had a fundraising or speaking event to attend, or for his daily obligation to visit the police station). He needed to have express permission to attend these. The fact the "house arrest" does not exist in English law is all the more reason we can use the term here in it's practical and literal (rather than legal and technical) meaning: he has been arrested and confined to a private property, i.e. "arrest"+"house"="house arrest" Gregcaletta (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To the most recent comment, you are correct: it is all past tense now. Gregcaletta (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There's no evidence he needed "express permission" to go anywhere or was "restricted to the property at all time", that's a fabrication. 2 lines of K  303  10:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That was what I believed. I'll check. Gregcaletta (talk) 11:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears he was allowed to do as he liked between 8AM and 2PM and between 5PM and 10PM (he had to be prepared to meet with the police at their request at any time between 2PM and 5PM, and it had to be the same specific police station near the house of arrest, not just any station). It does not appear he needed express permission to rush to London and back in that time, though it can't have been easy, and I believe he had to report to the police where he had been. His report could be roughly checked using the GPS on the electronic ankle bracelet, which was designed to monitor his whereabouts not only during the curfew but also during the gaps between curfew and reporting to the local police. It appears to me that "house arrest" is an accurate enough term for this (I don't know what to call the electronic tagging other than "Orwellian arrest"), but call it what you like. Gregcaletta (talk) 11:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no concept of 'house arrest' in England and Wales law (although some of the terrorist restrictions in practice approach it, but that's not relevant here). Bail with an overnight residence requirement is manifestly not the same thing. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Since there appears to be confusion about the circumstances leading up to his bail, I'll give it with sources. He was initially refused bail after giving an address in Australia. It's hardly unreasonable for the courts to want to know where a non-UK citizen will be staying if bailed, the courts do like to keep track of people you know. Indeed it is remarked that "Last week Mr. Assange was refused bail after he unwisely gave an Australian postal address as his place of residence. This time his legal team would allow no such mistake". The source further states that "Geoffrey Robertson QC (Assange's barrister) announced that “Captain Smith” was now ready to put Mr. Assange up at his rambling country home, Ellingham Hall, near Bungay in Suffolk—that is, should he be granted bail." When bail was granted, ""We're utterly delighted with the result here today," Stephens (Assange's lawyer) told reporters, adding: "He will not be going back to that Victorian prison." So you'll forgive me for not having much sympathy about the inconvenience about him not having much time to get to London and back, when it appears that the residence in question was one selected by Assange and his legal team not the courts in Britain (although they had to approve him living there obviously) and Assange's legal team were "utterly delighted with the result". His bail conditions were initally a 10am-2pm and 10pm-2am and to report to the police station at 6pm, were changed a couple of days later due to the police station being closed at 6pm, so he had to report between 2pm and 5pm. To the best of my knowledge, when Assange reported each day was entirely up to him, there wouldn't be a phone call or anything saying "we want you in at 4.47pm today", he could just turn up any time between 2 and 5. So, although the change was due to the police station not being open at 6pm, the change did give him greater flexibility. The time of the curfew does seem to have been changed as well, with the judge saying "There will then have to be an adjustment in relation to the curfew. I do not understand the basis for having the curfew ending at 2 o'clock in the morning as opposed to 6 in the morning..." but annoyingly not saying what he changed it to, but it seems to have been changed to 6am from 2am. Hopefully that straightens a few things out, especially how he came to be "forced" to live at that address. 2 lines of K  303  11:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed. He was also allowed, by arrangement with the court, to stay some nights in the Frontline Club. Also worth noting that in the last months, the residence address was changed (at Assange's request). He moved away from Ellingham Hall to a lodge in Eridge Park, East Sussex. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Obviously he would be "delighted" that his legal team succeeded in moving Assange from prison to a private residence. That doesn't mean he is delighted that Assange is still under arrest and not able to return to his country. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If he is under house arrest, who has made the situation of house arrest? As far as the British feel concerned, he is welcome to step outside the premises of the Embassy. Whats more, is that the UK has no authority within the Embassy, and if Assange is chummies with the Minister (head of that Embassy), then no one is under house arrest. --82.134.28.194 (talk) 06:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Purported sources for 'house arrest' nonsense
Let's leave aside for the moment the unchallengeable fact that 'house arrest' means a detained person is unable to leave their house, and that Julian Assange was always able to leave his house during the daytime as proved by the fact that he actually did so frequently. There are five purported sources for describing Assange's bail with a residence requirement by the tendentious term "house arrest". But none of them will do.

Source one is the High Court judgment from December 2010, in which Assange was granted conditional bail. The term "house arrest" does not appear. This source in fact supports describing Assange as being on conditional bail and undermines use of the term "house arrest".

Source two is a BBC News profile of Julian Assange from May 2012 which does use the term (twice, actually). However it is a piece specifically from the World section of the BBC News website: note references to "the UK's Leveson inquiry". It is an adaptation for the BBC World website of a UK Radio 4 programme, and in that programme the term is never used. In essence, the terminology has been designed to suit a world audience unfamiliar with the legal terminology of England and Wales. We have the ability to explain fully the difference.

Source three, a New York Times news story not directly about his bail conditions, refers in passing to Assange being "under effective house arrest" (my emphasis). The qualification is necessary because the literal description is inaccurate.

Source four is a very short magazine article in which the term only appears in the headline. The magazine in question is a lifestyle magazine rather than a hard news one, and is hardly suitable as an authoritative source for accurate legal terminology in a foreign jurisdiction.

Source five is a BBC News article from December 2010 when Assange was bailed; as in source one the term 'house arrest' never appears.

Against these sources may be placed this article which points to the hyperbole from Assangeites desperate to exaggerate their man's plight: ".. claiming that he has spent the 500+ days he's been avoiding extradition to Sweden as "virtual house arrest" (he was under curfew to be home at 10pm for most of that time, which is rather different from house arrest)." And here's the BBC News website arguing that in fact not even Control Orders are really 'house arrest', so that the concept is unknown in English law. I'm sure there are other sources. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As I already pointed out in the section above, other sources choose to use the more accurate "which included an overnight curfew at a registered address", and although I wouldn't use it as a source in the article itself that "is rather different from house arrest". There's also "a limited form of house arrest in Britain, staying mostly with friends and under a strict evening curfew" from the Washington Post, and "effective house arrest" from the New York Times, and more crucially "Since his detention, Assange has mostly been living under strict bail conditions at the country mansion of a wealthy supporter in eastern England. His associates say that amounts to 540 days under house arrest without charge. Breach of bail conditions is potentially a criminal offence" from Reuters. It's an inaccurate term, there are plenty of sources that use it with qualifiers ("virtual house arrest" is another common one), it's an utter breach of NPOV to ignore all those sources and just use ones which supposedly source "house arrest". It isn't a fact, what is a fact he was released on bail with certain conditions and the article should state just that. It's ludicrous that an editor who hasn't even taken part in the recent discussion has reverted claiming lack of consensus for change. Nobody has refuted that "house arrest" isn't a fact and they won't be able to either. 2 lines of K  303  18:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the Assangeites, and the man himself, have been using the term in a loose and imprecise way to bolster their case, and have convinced themselves it must be accurate. It is good that Wikipedia listens to the strength of argument rather than weight of numbers. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It would appear the media tend to refer to bail more often as well.
 * assange bail from 2010 - 1,350 results
 * assange "house arrest" from 2010 - 30 results
 * assange bail from 2011 - 620 results
 * assange "house arrest" from 2011 - 78 results
 * assange bail from all archived dates - 2,820 results
 * assange "house arrest" from all archived dates - 773 results
 * Obviously those searches could be refined more, but not many people seemed to be calling it house arrest in December 2010, certainly not to those calling it bail. 2 lines of K  303  20:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources are not all there to verify "house arrest". They have been added by people on both sides of the debate because they are a useful range of relevant statements. Please see my comment below on replacing all those citations with a note tag. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for a compromise

 * I have a suggestion. Let's place a note after the term "house arrest" linking to the bottom of the article where his situation can be described in accurate detail. I understand that "house arrest" is not a perfect description, but "on bail with a curfew and residence requirement" is much more inadequate: vague and misleading, it leaves out the more extreme conditions: electronic tagging, daily police reports to the police station (at a time and location which required Assange to spend almost the whole day in the vicinity of his curfew house) and the fact he is not allowed to simply return to his own country. If we really want to be accurate we have to say "on bail, restricted by curfew between 10PM and 8AM to a designated residence, electronically tagged with a GPS ankle bracelet so that his location can be monitored, and required to report daily each day to a specific police station local to the curfew house between 2PM and 5PM, and not allowed to return to his home country". Since this is clearly too long and too much detail for the lead, I suggest the imperfect "house arrest" as roughly accurate abbreviation of his situation, with a note linking to specific details with citations. The exact conditions will also be included in the body where there is room. We could included a note linking to the bottom of the article in place of the excessive number of assorted citations that are now being used. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What "extreme conditions"? That's nothing but your opinion, Assange's legal team were "utterly delighted with the result" when he was granted bail. It's hardly unreasonable that someone subject to a European Arrest Warrant isn't permitted to return to their home country either, and no sources seem to be saying otherwise. No sources seem to be saying that his curfew required "Assange to spend almost the whole day in the vicinity of his curfew house" either, since he had up to 8 hours each afternoon/evening to do as he chose and, lest we forget, the location of the residence was of his choosing. Your entire post it based on your own opinion of his bail conditions, not opinions of reliable sources. If you want to simplify it we'll just say he was released on bail, since that's a fact. 2 lines of K  303  06:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have an alternative suggestion. Let's remember WP:NPOV, and say that Assange was released from jail on condition he lived at a designated address; that the conditions including an electronic tag and a lengthy curfew were described by his supporters as a form of house arrest, but in English law were a form of bail. That way the controversial term 'house arrest' is not in Wikipedia's voice. Will that do? Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced the opinion of Assange's supporters on his bail conditions belongs in the lead. Put it in the article by all means. 2 lines of K  303  08:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sam, I basically agree. I thought that was too lengthy for the lead, which is why I suggested it in a note and in the body, but we can try it if you like. I do need to point out that it is not only his supporters but some media sources that have described it as "house arrest" or "effective house arrest". We also need to mention that he is not allowed to return to Australia. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Mr. 2 lines, I'm didn't suggest that we use the word "extreme" in the article. I simply pointed out that we can't leave out the electronic tagging, the police reports, and the inability to return to his own country, (all of which is reliably sourced) since if we leave those details out then then the description is even less accurate than "house arrest". Gregcaletta (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * @ both of you: I'm about to make a change as a compromise. Let me know what you both think of it. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've made the changes. It is a bit long and I still think "house arrest" would be better as an approximate abbreviation, but I think it's a very good compromise. Your thoughts? Gregcaletta (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's far too excessive for the lead. Unless there are any objections I'm going to move the full details down to the relevant section of the article itself, and simply say "bail" (or whatever grammatical construction I need depending on the sentence) in the lead. 2 lines of K  303  20:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I do object strongly to using "bail" without describing the conditions that are clearly not the most common conditions of "bail". Without the details, "bail" is much more misleading than "house arrest". Not even a tiny fraction of people described as on "bail" are subjected all four of the conditions Assange has to meet: (1) 10 hour curfew, (2) daily police reports to the police station, (3) electronic tagging, (4) not being allowed to return to one's home address. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The lead is supposed to summarise the article, which is what it'll do. Quit with the "not being allowed to return to one's home address" violins, per the source at passports and bail surrendering your passport is often a condition of bail. That's even more the case when dealing with a foreign national likely to abscond. The same essentially applies to the rest. The bail conditions were imposed due Assange being likely to abscond, so jolly nice of him to prove the conditions were totally justified by absconding. 2 lines of K  303  14:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is important to get the article right (as per BLP), thus the lead must not be able to mislead the reader. Unclear statements are better to be put in context where they are clearly explained. A short correct lead is to prefer over a long lead that is misleading.
 * The use of the word bail without explaining in more details the additional restrictions would be misleading, as it would give the reader the suggestion that he is not restricted in movements and living arrangements. House arrest might be closer (for example, if he ever get sentenced in Sweden, the time serving will be reduced in relation to the "house arrest" duration), but has it own set of issues made above in this thread. on the upside for the current wording, stating that others have reported the situation as a form of house arrest helps to lower what is being said in the wiki-voice.
 * A compromise could be to not include either words, and just describe in short the restrictions he is put under and leave the press descriptions and the rest to be described later in the article. Belorn (talk) 10:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that his time on bail would be deducted from any sentence in Sweden. While an electronically tagged curfew would appear to affect any sentence in the UK (which obviously isn't relevant), the key part is whether the Swedish legal system considers time on bail to be part of his sentence. To give one example, Howard Marks was informed that any time spent in prison in Spain while contesting extradition was effectively dead time, the US government didn't consider that to be part of his subsequent sentence. So do you have a source for that, as it may be true but it equally may not be. 2 lines of K  303  11:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Trying to find the article, but I cant find it. To that point, I can now only speculate. Time spent in pre-trial detention do count towards jail time in Sweden (actually, it counts 2x), and that electronically tagged curfew is used as a form of penalty in sentences. On other hand, Sweden do not have bail, so if bail should count the same as pre-trial detention or not would be up to the court to decide. Since Sweden do not use electronically tagged curfew with pre-trial detention, that complicate things to a point where I agree its about 50/50 what would happen :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belorn (talk • contribs) 20:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've implemented your suggestion anyway, since the mere inclusion of "bail" is pretty much redundant with what's currently left. 2 lines of K  303  21:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Arrest warrant withdrawn/not in the embassy anymore (?)
Apparently the Swedish police have withdrawn the warrant for Mr. Assange. He has also apparently left the embassy recently to travel to Sweden. Could the entry be updated to reflect this?

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11049316 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.50.235.108 (talk) 23:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. That should be a good source, but it's a poor article. The third paragraph says "The warrant was issued late on Friday." What? Let's await more sources. HiLo48 (talk) 00:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The 2010 event you link to is covered. -- ELEKHHT 03:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup. It is dated "21 August 2010" - 2 years ago. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I got fooled by it for a moment as well. It was one of those wierd cases where an old BBC news article suddenly and inexplicably pops up in the "Most Popular Shared or Read" sections of the front page - sometimes they are really old and bizarre. I emailed them once about it and the helpdesk told me it was either a software fault or the article had been referenced on the sidebar of a contemporary story. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

marriage in Oz

 * His mother, Christine, married theatre director Richard Brett Assange and Patricia Lavinia Assange (née Glasson), when Julian was one year old.

Really? —Tamfang (talk) 05:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Per this edit it appears that it should have read "When Julian was one year old, his mother Christine married theatre director Richard Brett Assange, son of George Franklin Assange and Patricia Lavinia Assange (née Glasson)". However, the sourcing for Brett Assange's parents looks a little questionable (a marriage certificate? - if so it is a primary source, and best avoided per WP:RS/OR considerations), so I'll delete any reference to them for now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Asylum
I don't think we need his asylum in the first, defining sentence, as it is already addressed in the lead section. Also, "asylum in Ecuador" is misleading as he is in the UK, not in Ecuador. He is granted asylum by a country on a different continent that there is little chance he will ever see, effectively asylum in an embassy in London for the time being. He will either stay in that embassy building for the rest of his life, or be arrested the moment he leaves. Josh Gorand (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I left a comment here with references relating to the legal use of the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act of 1987 which someone has simply deleted without explanation? How rude!RobNaylor452 (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've had a quick look through the edits and can't see who deleted yours; if you carefully check the History above your edit you should be able to find when it was deleted. Sensible commentary should not be deleted by others if it meets the various guidelines about it not being a forum, etc. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * An IP editor removed it not long after it was added; mostly because it wasn't discussing any improvement to the article, but music on the topic of embassies etc. RobNaylor452 please take a look at WP:NOTFORUM - comments not related to article changes are likely to be deleted or archived. --Errant (chat!) 21:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not discuss any music and I was making a suggestion to improve the article, you must have what I wrote confused with something else - that is not correct at all. I guess this is an emotive subject for some and I suppose resorting to underhanded tactics is inevitable. RobNaylor452 (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * IP editors often make mistakes (they are often new to Wikipedia). If ErrantX isn't correct, repost the text here so we can take another look. I couldn't see anything in it that made sense to retain as talk to do with improving the article though, which is the main criteria for keeping stuff in talk pages. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply James, however, I don't think there is much point as anything off message will be deleted again and I have better things to do than check back every few days to repost items or defend my character. I have worked as an International legal Analyst for 23 years and thought this page might benefit from some clear explanation of the law and legal terms as the media haven't fully understood the various processes, treaties or statutes. I think I will continue editing elsewhere where things aren't so emotionally and politically charged. Please feel free to delete my existance here in entirety.RobNaylor452 (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

UTC)
 * A question. Does being granted asylum effectively change his nationality? (Svend)- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.61.222 (talk) 10:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * No - see Right of asylum. But please note that this page is for discussions concerning changes to our article. Such questions are best asked at the reference desks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

As printed in The Guardian. UK
Note: This section originally consisted of an article from The Guardian, copied in full. I have deleted it as a clear copyright violation. If the person who posted it wishes to propose a change to the article, they are free to do so - but note that it is neither necessary nor proper to copy source material here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Assange's Essays
Since the article is semi-protected, I'm hereby posting additional information about Assange's essays on this talk page. Currently, only the names and publication years of the essays are listed in the Assange section. The 2008 essay was published in Guernica Magazine on 29 April 2008 here. The 2006 essays are not two entirely separate/different essays. The second essay, Conspiracy as Governance, is from 3 December 2006 and is a partially rewritten and expanded version of State and Terrorist Conspiracies that was published on 10 November 2006. You can verify this yourself by comparing the text version - not the PDF that was added later - of the first publication here with the second publication that can be found on the website of El Mundo (Spain) here and at the Internet Archive here. Anyways, suggestion: let's add links to the essays, either in the aforementioned section about his works, or by adding references in that section so the essays are linked in the References section. This would also add WP:V. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestion. I've included some of the information as you suggest.    Sailsbystars (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

University studies...
Re the sentence...

There are four passing grades in the Australian university system -- "pass", "credit" or "merit", "distinction" and "high distinction"; in most of his maths courses, he received "pass" (50-65%).

This is only true of some Australian universities and not true of the university Assange mainly attended (Melbourne U). The sentence in the Wikipedia article is incorrect but the cited source is correct.

Suggested change...

In most of his maths courses he received a "pass" grade (50-65%) without higher distinction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.217.72.44 (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 October 2012
[Replace]-

Punishments under the Espionage Act can include the death penalty, although in practice the US has not executed anyone for a crime other than murder since 1962.[citation needed]

[with]-

Punishments under the Espionage Act can include the death penalty, although in practice the US has not executed anyone for a crime other than murder since 1964 when Alabama executed convicted robber James Coburn (c. 1926 – September 4, 1964).

[cite Capital Punishment in the United States, and Beyond, by Paul Marcus, William & Mary Law School, 2007, note 5; http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1068&context=facpubs; and http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aHrqKVhZujJE; and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Coburn_(criminal)]

Bherdliska (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

✅The first ref was the best one so I've just used that. I also reworded what you suggested slightly. ˜danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 10:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:Cite quick
Oops. Actually, this is discussed at Template talk:Citation. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Scare quotes
In "Early Life" why the scare quotes on "was a specialist in medieval literature"? Surely she either was or wasn't - it seems odd to quote it here but make it look dubious. Do we suspect it's a lie and she was really in some other business? Cheers 138.37.199.206 (talk) 08:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 October 2012
It is stated that Julian Assange was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. This is incorrect, as it was WikiLeaks that was nominated.

I suggest this line be removed: Snorre Valen, a Norwegian parliamentarian, told media he had proposed him for the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize.

The nominator, Snorre Valen, writes of the nomination on his blog: 

The nominee is correctly stated to be WikiLeaks in most news articles, including these:  

AbuJazar (talk) 00:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ❌ The citation provided to RT (TV network} backs up the article text. The text in question appears to have been inserted a long time ago and has been quite stable. If any other auto-confirmed user thinks it should be removed, please do so. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The RT_(TV_network) article is incorrect. The citation from Valen's blog on http://rt.com/politics/assange-nominated-nobel-prize/] is taken out of context and refers to WikiLeaks; not Julian Assange as the article suggests. Snorre Valen's (the nominator's) official statement about the nomination makes no mention of Assange.


 * Also:
 * Snorre Valen's Wikipedia page correctly cites the nominee as WikiLeaks and points to an article that backs this up.


 * The RT_(TV_network) is affiliated with Julian Assange through the World Tomorrow show.
 * AbuJazar (talk) 02:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done I feel enough clarification has been made, and I will complete the suggestion. Mdann52 (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry to restart a closed(-ish) one but how can you have "The citation provided to RT (TV network)" - surely Wikipedia articles cannot cite other Wikipedia articles as their sources, as Wikipedia is not itself a RS? Apologies if I am missing the point here but I'd be grateful for a steer. I know it is resolved by later editing anyway but I am interested in the principle and in the fact that this statement was made and left unchallenged, which is why I'm worried I've misunderstood something. Thanks 138.37.199.206 (talk) 08:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think User:Nathan Johnson was referring to the article on RT's web site,, which is erroneous, and not the article about RT on Wikipedia. AbuJazar (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Forbes Reference in "Political and economic views" Section
The "Political and economic views" Section has a reference to. However, there are two references in the article by that name. MediaWiki apparently picks/uses the first, which has a link to page 6 of an interview. However, the reference in aforementioned section should either go to the main page of the interview (as the other reference by the same name is doing) or should go to page 5 (that contains the cited material). --82.170.113.123 (talk) 10:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Done - It seems the ref had been duplicated - I could only see one active use of it, so I removed one and changed the remaining one to p5. Please let me know if that's not correct. Begoon &thinsp; talk 12:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Sexual allegations
A few points regarding the section Allegations of sexual assault and political refugee

Both Eva Finné and Marianne Ny are stated to be Chief prosecutors (sv: chefsåklagare)
 * The correct title is Chief public prosecutor (http://aklagare2.episerverhotell.net/PageFiles/3464/Engelska%20titlar.Titles%20in%20English.pdf)
 * Only Finné us a Chief public prosecutor, Marianne Ny is a Director of public prosecution (sv: Överåklagare) -a more senior office (http://www.aklagare.se/Sok-aklagare/Utvecklingscentrum/Utvecklingscentrum-Goteborg/ http://www.aklagare.se/Media/Nyhetsarkiv/Uttalande-av-chefsaklagare-Eva-Finne/ Unfortunately both pages is in Swedish, but the Swedish title can easily be found, and translated with the translation sheet above.)

The text makes it sound like Marianne Ny decided on her own accord to reinstate the rape-investigation.
 * The decision to close the rape-investigation was appealed by the målsägarbiträde (~counsel to the plaintiffs). When such a decision is appealed, the case is transferred to a Prosecution Development Centre (in this case to the PDC in Gothenburg, which is responsible for sex-crimes). Marianne Ny is a Director of public prosecution at that PDC, and that's why the case ended up with her. (http://www.aklagare.se/Aklagarens-roll/Atalsbeslutet/Overprovning/ In Swedish. I cant find an English translation, but Google translate should do it.)

The section regarding the allegations in the EAW are somewhat wrong. Especially that rape is not mentioned, although it is one of the offences. The allegations are (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-judgment.pdf pages 2-3):
 * Unlawful coercion "Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party's arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting."
 * Sexual molestation "Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge."
 * Sexual molestation "Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body."
 * Rape "Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state. It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party's sexual integrity."

83.254.161.146 (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Assange's "Cypherpunks" book
I've just created a page for Assange's new book: Cypherpunks (book). Contributions to it are welcome. —sburke@cpan.org (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Support group???
Hi. I came here to find the whereabouts/contact details of the support group that organizes the rallies for Julian Assange such as the one that just took place here in London for Christmas. There is nothing on this site to give me a reference. I am sure I will find the contact details, but it would have been a courtesy to have it placed at the bottom under "References". Thanks for nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.66.186 (talk) 06:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This is Wikipedia, an online encyclopaedia - we aren't here to provide contact details for support groups, regardless of how worthy we consider the cause. Have you tried Google? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Assange to run for Senate in Victoria
According to The Age newspaper Julian Assange will be nominating for a Senate position in the state of Victoria in the upcoming September Federal election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.200.33 (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * There's already a mention of this right at the end of the lead. Until he is a definite candidate (he seems to be working on it, but it hasn't happened yet), there's really little we can sensibly add at this stage. Wait. HiLo48 (talk) 07:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Surety
In the Forfeiture of sureties section, maybe internally link the first mention of "surety", instead of linking sureties near the end of the first paragraph. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Good point - done. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Edit request on 30 April 2013
The name Suelette Dreyfus should be a link when first mentioned. At the moment it is a link only very near the end of the article. Explicitly, please change the first appearance of Suelette Dreyfus to Suelette Dreyfus (This is just a routine detail edit of the kind I like to do.Thank you.)

Dratman (talk) 02:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 May 2013
In the introductory section, at the start of the third paragraph, the text reads: "WikiLeaks became internationally well known in 2010 when, with its partners in the news media, it began to publish U.S. military and diplomatic documents."

I am requesting that this sentence be changed to "WikiLeaks became internationally well known in 2010 when it began to publish U.S. military and diplomatic documents with assistance from its partners in the media" for flow-improvement purposes.

Extflowex (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The page protection has been reduced, so you should be able to edit it yourself now. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 10:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Now semiprotected
The fullprotection has now expired and I have reinstated semiprotection. I was a little surprised that there was no attempt at discussion during the week of fullprotection, compare my post above, but of course that's up to each editor. Please be aware that if edit warring without discussion breaks out again, I'll reprotect, and it won't be for a mere week. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC).

Edit request on 4 May 2013
Hello! I noticed in the "Julian Assange" page in the "Allegations of possible extradition to the United States" topic, a little mistake " a media organisation" instead of "the media organisation" and moreover after the note n. 172 the note " citation needed" that should be integrated with the Assange's statement on the secret indictment "http://wikileaks.org/Stratfor-Emails-US-Has-Issued.html" and with two articles: http://www.salon.com/2011/04/27/wikileaks_26/ - http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/wikileaks-stratfor-emails-a-secret-indictment-against-assange-20120228.

Clelia albano (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to explain myself further. The sources I suggested are already mentioned in the note 171 and 172, as I noticed "citation needed" I thought it should be better to mention here the Stratfor Emails US Has Issued (note 172): "Later, a media organisation[who?] received declassified diplomatic cables that confirm a secret indictment exists.[citation needed]". And I think the little mistake, the lapsus " a media organisation" as it is referred to the WikiLeaks organisation itself, should be replaced with "the media organisation". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clelia albano (talk • contribs) 08:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The protection has been reduced to semi-protection, and you are now autoconfirmed, so you should be able to edit it yourself. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 10:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * May I edit? Thank you. --Clelia albano (talk) 10:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request (moved from User talk:Bishonen)
I would like to correct an inaccuracy on Julian Assange - the source doesn't state that he is living on a diet of pizza and takeaway food. It states that he has received takeaway food, which isn't the same thing. If I receive a takeaway pizza now and then it doesn't mean that I live on a diet of takeaway pizza. the source also states that he has a microwave and a kitchenette, and that his mother says that he is eating well.. At any rate, if the article wasn't protected, I would remove this error, so I suggest that it be removed as inaccurate. Totorotroll (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I take your point, Totorotroll, but I don't think I can remove that. Reuters does say "living on takeaway meals"—only in the subheader, admittedly, but Reuters is such a good source that I guess we probably have to trust subheaders also. And the other source mentions "deliveries of pizza and other take-out food". I don't like it any more than you do that the article text conflates the sources and makes it "living on pizza" etc, because that makes a subtly different impression. But it's not such an obvious problem that I can remove it uncontroversially — and I don't want to make any controversial edits through protection. I would encourage you to change it yourself when the protection expires. (If I let it expire, I haven't decided yet. Weirdly, there has been no discussion on this page between any of the people who were so anxious for their own version that they were prepared to edit war.) Preferably with an explanation here on talk. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC).


 * Thanks, Bishonen. I am sure you understand that to say someone is living on takeaway food amounts to a subtle criticism of that person (they can't cook for themselves, can't look after themselves etc.) I also think it is sensationalist, and above all unlikely. He's been stuck in there for almost a year now, hopefully he has had more than pizza every night for dinner. It doesn't fit in with other facts we know about his life in there, that he is keeping healthy by working out with a personal trainer, has a sun lamp and an exercise bike. Totorotroll (talk) 07:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request of 19 May 2013
Current page provides cost estimates from February 2013. Updated cost information has just been published & should be incorporated... - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/10066084/Julian-Assange-vigil-costs-taxpayers-4million.html

Julian Assange vigil costs taxpayers £4million 19 May 2013

The cost of policing the Ecuadorean embassy in Knightsbridge while the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange takes refuge inside has now risen to £3.3million, Scotland Yard has disclosed. [...] The price to the taxpayer of all this, as well as policing the demonstrations that take place in the street from time to time, is now around £11,600 a day. [...] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.189.230 (talk) 02:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Removal of "citation needed" regarding Australian Federal Police investigation
At the end of the first paragraph under "Release of US diplomatic cables", there is a cited statement claiming "The Federal Police inquiry found that Assange had not committed any crime.", via. Later, in the second to last sentence in the first paragraph under "Comments by the Australian government", a synonymous statement is made to the first about the AFP investigation, and should not require the [citation needed] notation. The statement has already been cited. Either that, or the citation listed above should also be linked to the second statement. The high density of citations intensifies the presence of any such [citation needed], and a reader could misconstrue that lack of due diligence to imply illegal activity by Mr. Assange in Australia, which, according to the above citation, was not found to be true by the AFP. This should be corrected, as it is misleading; if I could correct it, I would have already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.7.7.75 (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Not neutral
This section is a mess.

''An extradition hearing took place on 7–8 and 11 February 2011 before the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court. At the hearing, Assange's defence raised a variety of objections, including mismatches between the EAW and the original accuser statements to the Swedish police that exaggerated the nature of the complaints. In particular they argued the original police reports showed - contrary to the EAW - absence of alleged rape; absence of alleged force or injury; admission in both cases of consensual sex on the same occasions as the allegations; and splitting of a condom used with plaintiff 1 rather than failure to use one.

The defence also highlighted evidence that: plaintiff 2 had later admitted to being "half asleep" after consensual sex, rather than "asleep"; that the plaintiffs had originally been seeking to compel Assange to take an STD test rather than prosecution; and that plaintiff 1 had thrown a Crayfish party for Assange at her home the evening after the alleged incidents, from which she tweeted: "Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world's coolest, smartest people! It's amazing!" and invited Assange to stay in her room afterwards''

It's one sided and a strange cross-examination of the alledged victims which doesn't seem to present anything but vague information (half-asleep after consensual sex? So raped when half-asleep?). In the entire section the word "rape" seems to be downplayed, despite the arrest warrant being in place, with probably cause, on suspicion of rape, unlawful coercion and two cases of sexual molestation.

I don't see any reason why this isn't mentioned, and I don't see why only the defenses objections are being raised in this paragraph that, frankly, doesn't seem to hold much purpose and definitely isn't neutral. Pluvia (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You have either ignored or chosen to not tell readers about the EAW's (prosecution) case being presented in the immediately preceding paragraph. This somewhat negates your claim that "It's one sided." The material about the defence case is well sourced. The defence case is going be just that, a defence of the accused. But getting to the real point, Talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles. What would you propose? HiLo48 (talk) 05:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That I did miss, but this part needs changed: "half asleep" after consensual sex, rather than "asleep". Half asleep after she consented? Half asleep after they previously had consensual sex? What time after? Immediately? The morning after? Another part that needs to be added is what the warrant is for: rape, unlawful coercion and two cases of sexual molestation. That seems like pretty important information being left out. Pluvia (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Two points... Firstly, if you have reliable sources to support what you want to add, it could be acceotable. Just show us your proposed wording here and we can proceed. Secondly, your approach seems intended to paint Assange in a more negative light than the article does now. Be careful about (your motives in) this. It's not our job to decide that a person is bad (or a saint) and needs negative (or positive) material written about them. Our job is to simply reflect what the sources say, writing as neutral an article as possible. HiLo48 (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It's been over a month, I was away. I don't really know why I'm being asked for a reliable source here, it's right there on the page about this entire allegations and it should be well known information, but for some reason Wikipedia has made it so this information remains in 3rd party links only, but here it is anyway: Link. It's our job to simply reflect what the sources say, writing as neutral an article as possible, therefore I will be adding he is wanted on suspicion of rape, unlawful coercion and two cases of sexual molestation. That is plain simple, and incredibly important, facts. And for the life of me I have no idea why this information isn't on Wikipeddia. Pluvia (talk) 23:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * If you want to reflect what the sources say, you need to include what they say (also, see the second source for more direct explanation). Sweden degree system for crimes is called under the names of "less serious crime", normal, and "serious crime". Thus, if we want to reflect the sources, then we need to use those names. Thanks. Belorn (talk) 08:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It's also covered in the English source. It needs to be clear what the arrest warrant is for, this information shouldn't be covered up or hidden in confusing grammar, which is why I've made edits that relays this information clearly. This sentence for example: "The suspected rape was changed to an lower degree, called in Swedish law as "less serious crime", and one of the cases of sexual molestation was rejected." That's confusing for anyone not aware of Swedish law, and begs the question, what less serious crime? Was the rape case dropped? Was it changed and now no longer there? Is it still suspicion of rape but now a less serious version? All of this can be easily avoided by simply posting what the arrest warrant is for: suspicion of rape (less serious crime), unlawful coercion and two cases of sexual molestation. I don't really understand why this simple piece of incredibly important information is seemingly being hidden on wikipedia of all places. It shouldn't be this difficult to find what the warrant is for, and we shouldn't expect anyone searching for this information to try and figure it out through strange grammar. Pluvia (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't have an issue with clearing this section up. However, your proposed change is no clearer than the text you've replaced.  (The reader should not be assumed to have a familiarity with the Swedish legal system.)  If you feel that getting a consensus is a pressing issue, flag this discussion for third opinions.  Carrying on a revert war will get us nowhere.  --Nixin06 (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Article protected
Frankly, I have trouble understanding why people find it necessary to edit war over the proposed changes, why one editor is being accused of POV-pushing, and what is the significant difference between the two versions. (All I can see is that the phrasing "The suspected rape was changed to an lower degree, called in Swedish law as 'less serious crime'" is a bit Swinglish, but that's presumably not the point here, and easily fixable.) They seem so similar that this can surely be thrashed out right here on talk. I've protected the article for a week, but hopefully a consensus version will be found sooner. I'll try to keep an eye on what happens here, but if I miss a resolution of the problem, then please drop me a line on my talk and I'll unprotect right away. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC).

It's pretty obviously incorrect before any question of bias, even the main article this artile links to states "On 18 November 2010 the Stockholm District Court upheld an arrest warrant against Assange on suspicion of rape, unlawful coercion and three cases of sexual molestation.[2] "

So it would be fair to suggest a bias that the section doesn't read allegations/charges of RAPE. As it stands it is clearly misleading as at least in the UK there is a big legal distinction between rape and sexual assault. It should be changed immediately to 'rape' 92.40.254.138 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Interpol arrest warrants do not exist
Section Public appearances and residency, paragraph 8 states: In December 2010, it was reported that the US Ambassador to Switzerland, Donald S. Beyer, had warned the Swiss government against offering asylum to Assange, citing the arrest warrant issued by Interpol.[143]. While referenced source does state so, it is false. Interpol does not issue arrest warrants. Interpol does issue however, an Interpol notice. Answers to FAQ's are at Interpol's official website. Tjlynnjr (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC).
 * The source uses the term arrest warrant. The article on Interpol notices states they are not warrants. I am just going to add (sic) to it for now.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The Wikileaks Party — please update the article
The Australian Wikileaks Party was registered on 1 July, and the lead has been updated to reflect this, but the party remains a mere intention on Assange's part in the relevant section below, "Political activities". Could somebody who's more knowledgeable about these matters than me port the new information there, please? Bishonen &#124; talk 08:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC).

Asylum
Perhaps the original editor could clarify the matter of asylum. According to all the reports I have been able find, Ecuador granted Assange "diplomatic asylum". "Diplomatic asylum" is not the same as "political asylum". "Political asylum" is recognised across the world. It relates to "refugees" who fear persecution of protected grounds. Protected grounds include race, caste, nationality, religion, political opinions and membership and/or participation in any particular social group or social activities. Wouldn't apply to Assange as he's a fugitive from justice. "Diplomatic asylum" is a peculiarly South American institution. It can be found at The formulation allowed Ecuador to grant "diplomatic asylum", probably on the grounds as defined thus "save when the acts giving rise to the request for asylum, whatever the case may be, are clearly of a political nature." That provides Ecuador with an excuse. They think the "acts" were political. That enabled Ecuador to overrule UK and international law. Important point to note here is that the UK is not a signatory to Convention on Diplomatic Immunity and is not obliged to respect it. Ecuador is relying solely on the "inviolability" of embassy premises. I suggest that the article needs to be revised. There may be a need for a separate article on "diplomatic asylum" so that it is not confused with "political asylum" and defining those states in which it might be recognised. Agent0060 11:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent0060 (talk • contribs)

Brief summary of Sex events
I added one, largely taken from the Guardian article. No doubt people will scream that any details provided are NPOV for whatever POV they want to push. But something like this is needed. I do not think that the bits I added are in serious dispute. Below is the added section. Tuntable (talk) 04:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Assange is accused of sexual misconduct with two women while in Sweden in August 2010. The first woman, Miss A, had allowed Assange to stay at her flat while she was away.  When Miss A returned she accused Assange of aggressively pursuing sex with her on 13 August, to which she reluctantly agreed.  She also accused Assange of not properly using a condom.  Assange denies these accusations.  Miss A put on a party for Assange the following day and continued to let him stay in her flat.


 * 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.


 * 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.

Political and economic views
The whole paragraph regarding his interview with Hezbollah leader Hassan Nassrallah seems biased. By stating he "accepted Nassrallah's answer", it implies that he agrees with the answer. It is foolish to infer from the transcript that he agrees or disagrees with the answers given. He is merely asking the question and receiving the answer. Even if a questioner were to challenge an answer, it does not mean they disagree with it. This is an interview, not a debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitaeterna (talk • contribs) 05:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree and have accordingly reworded here to avoid the word "accept". The paragraph now does not really describe Assange's views, so editors may wish to move it, maybe to above the views section. -84user (talk) 07:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories on US extradition?
I see little evidence from credible RS that Assange's fear that Sweden will extradite him to the US is anything but a convenient conspiracy theory. The article should reflect the simple facts: that was accused of sexual assault in Sweden and refused to appear before a court to answer these allegations. These conspiracy theories can be mentioned, but it's absurd to mention them in an unchallenged fashion, in the lede, when reliable sources don't support them. Steeletrap (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Steeletrap - there have been several well documented but rarely reported (in U.S. mainstream media) facts. I agree with you that withinout these facts just a general statement about "fears" may sound like a conspiracy theory. I also agree with you that such facts as are stated need to be cited - what authorities admit, what newspapers have (even if on infrequent occasions) stated, etc - These should be added to the article. These include:


 * * 1 Assange stayed in Sweden and offered to answer any additional questions and stayed for many days. His offer was declined despite what were (I believe) several times he offered to do this. They said no we do not have questions for you/won't meet with you.
 * * 2 Finally he asked them something else: he asked the prosecutor (staying so many extra days in Sweden when he has a busy international schedule as he has long had) if it was ok to leave
 * * 3 The prosecutor said, yes, you may leave


 * * 4 Assange has in the UK offered to be questioned electronically, and Swedish officials have refused to do this.
 * * 5 Assange has in the UK offered to be questioned in person at the Ecuador Embassy, and Swedish officials have refused to do this
 * * 6 Another fact - these above two methods have been used in the past with other people who were "wanted for questioning" (Swedish law does not require custodial orders in relation to the allegations)


 * * 7. It is also extremely rare (if not unique) to issue an interpol Red Notice for someone facing the allegations Assange faced (not Genocide or Crimes Against Humanity etc, but in this case, consensual sex, but later waking up at night and sex while the other was not fully awake, and accused by one of deliberately breaking the condom..) to have such a notice issued for questioning, in light of the person already willing with multiple offers to make themselves available for questioning.


 * Recall that the extradition to Sweden is supposedly to question Assange. If this is the reason, item 1 is strange, and the combination of items 1, 2&3, and 4-5-6 in combination particularly make one wonder. Does this "mathematically prove" they are trying to bring Assange to Sweden with political motives? Nothing is provable to such a 100% certainty in human affairs, and the article should not claim it is a *fact* that they are doing this with political motives. However, the article could (and imo should) cite the above items, with references and citations (I can provide some but am a bit too busy at the moment - perhaps the above list will inspire some - drop me a note at my Talk if you need help) and say something along the lines of, "'in light of the above, Assange and his lawyers, and many his supporters feel, and some[cite who] analysists/reporters have publicly suggested that, political considerations are likely to be at least *part* of the motive ' for demanding Assange physically go to Sweden."


 * Of course citations would be needed for "some have argued" or "many supporters have stated"...I believe some of the above items (certainly item 5) are in the article - a brief summary with citations of them together, would accompany a statement similar to the one in italics, suggested above, and would, yes, avoid any statement of being "sure" and avoid any statement as "fact" but also not be worded as some conspiracy theory, either, but a summary of the specific facts behind why many feel there is a very real concern about motives behind the request (about the wisdom of Assange complying with it) that Assange must only be questioned in Sweden and not in any other place or any other format.


 * I will of course not add any items above to the article unless/until I have time to get references, but it does address your implicit request for knowing what the specific factual concerns are. I hope some will have the time (before I do) to locate references (the UK's The Guardian, and DemocracyNow.org, and RT.com are three sources that have covered a lot of this) Harel (talk) 05:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC) (I think item 8 I forgot is that were Assange to go to Sweden, it is now such that he would be put in prison so could not even take the legal steps to challenge things that, those who criticize Assange's refusal to be questioned in Sweden have said, he should "just challenge it when you arrive")


 * P.S. It may take the efforts of several of us editors to gather up the citations. One of (several) citations which together point at item 7 for example is namely that by comparison Libya's Gadaffi got a "Code Orange" but Assange a "Code Red" a higher (the highest) Interpol_notice. In 2010 an Assange attorney stated ""it is highly unusual for a red notice warrant to be issued in relation to the allegations reported as having been made, since Swedish law does not require custodial orders in relation to the allegation - indeed to our knowledge this is a unique action by the Swedish prosecuting authorities in applying for a red notice on the basis of these allegations...We are also investigating whether the Prosecutor's application to have Mr. Assange held incommunicado without access to lawyers, visitors or other prisoners - again a unique request - is in any way linked to this matter and the recent, rather bellicose US statements of an intention to prosecute Mr. Assange.”

As far as reasonable concerns about possibly unfair treatment by Sweden (in general, not necessarily extradition to US) one can also add item 9 that police leaked to the press that Assange would be arrested, before they even notified Assange himself that he was "arrested" technically - "He was arrested in his absence, but he... they never got in... got in contact with him so, but he was arrested in his absence. It's a technical... technical thing in Sweden, Swedish law, yeah."" said police so he found out only upon reading some headline in the Expressen Tabloid  with front page  "Assange hunted for rape in Sweden" rather than, and before, being notified by police. Possibly illegal "leak" but certainly....prejudicing press, much?

Regarding another "conspiracy theory" (to some) or "raising concerns" (to others) about - motives of accuser(s)
I add this in case someone asks about those. Although the sex was said by all to be consensual, that does not mean Assange behaved well. Although it is not illegal to do so, is it not nice behaviour, in fact not decent many would say, to say you're "too busy" to take an STD/STI[UK term] test (he eventually agreed, but by then it was  Sat, the clinic closed, and the women had gone to police - initially with the intention of not filing charges but just to ask a simple question: "can we legally force him to take the STD test?")  At the same time, as the for personality of the first woman (do not click on this link if you don't want to know her name - it has been reported in many many news outlets though) she had posted a blog later deleted, but saved by many others, a blog posted not long before she met Assange, called "7 Steps to Legal Revenge" for example if the boyfriend cheats on you or leaves/breaks up with you..she says it's usually better to forgive, and that revenge should be proportional..but then suggests '' "For example if you want revenge on someone who cheated or who dumped you, you should use a punishment with dating/sex/fidelity involved." and then "Send your victim a series of letters and photographs that make your victim’s new partner believe [falsely] that you are still together which is better than to tell just one big lie on one single occasion...The ideal, of course, is a revenge as strong as possible...Step 7...Get to work. And remember what your goals are while you are operating, ensure that your victim will suffer the same way as he made you suffer.'' She ("Woman A") posted this in January 2010 " and also  ..seven months later in Aug 2010 she had sex with Assange and later found out that the second woman did too, and that both of them were told (initially) he was too busy to take an STD test. If one takes the women's statements, as true, then Assange does not behave nicely: getting consent first, yes, but very sexually pushy, and bossy, telling her what refreshments to fetch him after sex and initially, for a while in fact, "too busy" to take STD test..not admirable qualities. The above about Woman A are not nice either, to say the least..but what's relevant here is, it does make at least raising questions about her motivations far from "conspiracies" either (although again, either both women or at least the second woman W, initially just went in to merely ask police whether they can force Assange to take the test. Woman A claimed to Woman W that that was her (Woman A's) motives, too).