Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

Awards

Julian Assange was awarded The Economist's New Media Award in 2008. Why doesn't this appear in the section titled Awards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.175.226 (talk) 05:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The Economist New Media Award was given to Wikileaks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.188.21.2 (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Assange "getting down" on the dance floor

Should we mention anything about the viral video showing him dancing in Reykjavik? Himetiny (talk) 08:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I posed a link in the External links to the story on the daily mail, It got pulled within minutes. ("Facile" was the reasoning.) V7-sport (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That is because it was facile. 'Viral videos' aren't valid Wikipedia topics. Stop wasting peoples' time with trivia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If you really wanted to, you could try writing starting a whole article on "Julian Assange trivia" and see how quickly someone nominates it for deletion, but certainly it is too trivial to belong here. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If the video were really "viral" enough to meet the notability criteria for its own article, then it would have its own article and still not be mentioned here. And I doubt it meets those criteria yet. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Meh...That might take up someones time.... which is so valuable that it is devoted to this.V7-sport (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Viral videos are really only notable here once they have been the focus of multiple reliable and independent sources. For now, we'll just have to sit back and wait for that story to grow into something encyclopedic (if it ever does). —Deckiller (t-c-l) 02:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

There's no debate to be had here -- unless someone needs a reference to the fact that Assange has danced at least one time in his life, that vid has no place in this article. (For the record, I must say I think I'd rather be Rickrolled than be subjected to that exceptionally dull video again!)JoelWhy (talk) 07:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Detailed Julian Assange interview. Add to main article as reference if deemed useful.

A very good interview (IMHO) conducted by Hans Ulrich Obrist. It would be useful to add this interview as a reference when it talks about his life/political views/philosophy etc. if others agree? As an aside, I find the Wikipedia comments he makes in the interview to be quite interesting. I am sure this can also be referenced on the WikiLeaks article if one desires. When I see part 2 I will post it here as well. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 03:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to be bold and do you it yourself. Find something in the interview that tells the reader something important about Assange that is not yet included in the article and just stick it in there, with the <ref><ref/> tags.

Hehe I will give it a go. I am always cautious with articles like this that could be controversial. Oh and (Wikipedia technical point): I had to remove the ~~~~ above because it was coming up with my name when I previewed it (should have come up with your username?) but it must have been due to the ref tags not being in the no wiki code.Cheers!Calaka (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

And I didn't even link to it in my comment above. I think I need time out from the computer! [1]. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 10:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Is speculation encyclopedic content?

"Ellsberg said that the arrest of Bradley Manning and subsequent speculation by U.S. officials about what Assange may be about to publish "puts his well-being, his physical life, in some danger now."[69] In The Atlantic, Marc Ambinder called Ellsberg's concerns "ridiculous", and said that "Assange's tendency to believe that he is one step away from being thrown into a black hole hinders, and to some extent discredits, his work."[75] In Salon.com, Glenn Greenwald questioned "screeching media reports" that there was a "manhunt" on Assange underway, arguing that they were only based on comments by "anonymous government officials" and might even serve a campaign by the U.S. government, by intimidating possible whistleblowers."72.187.99.79 (talk) 06:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Assange innocent

Anyways, ive never used this ....request thing before. But i would like to request that Julian Assanges wikipage be updated. As he is no longer under suspicion of having committed rape. The Swedish courts have let him free, dropped everything. If this could be noted on his wikipedia page. Its semi protected so i cant change it myself. But some else?`And since he done so much for the wiki community, its only fair that his name be cleared on wikipedia as well. Thats it, good day. Saintgerty (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you got a link to a news item that states that he has been let off?Owain the 1st (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

yeah, you need to find a source that says he has been cleared of the charges and I'll happily include it. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 08:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2010/08/2010821153010551757.html link from AlJazeera says that saying that Eva Finne, Sweden's chief prosecutor had dropped the charges. Timothy Andux-Jones (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

That is from 2010.They did drop the charges back then but I believe that a new prosecutor reinstated them. As far as I know Assange has not had the charges dropped and is still fighting extradition from the UK, his case comes up in July. Owain the 1st (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Julian Assange Residency

Why has such a large section devoted to Julian Assange's residency? Much of this may be trimmed down? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenEdu (talk • contribs) 18:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Assenge's Accusers

Since all of the sources below (which is just a quick ad-hoc partial list I put together) recognize Julian Assenge's accuser by name, why can't we mention her by name in the article? A search of her name on Google News search archives returns nearly 1000 results from news sources. A google search returns half a million results. Her identity is now common knowledge. How is it a violation of WP:BLP to identify the accuser but not the accused. Why is it okay to have articles about other rape claimants such as Tawana Brawley, Trisha Meili, and Crystal Mangum, but not Assenge's Accuser?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/26/world/europe/26wikileaks.html http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/12/08/1962779/accuser-in-wikileaks-saga-has.html http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20025270-503543.html http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-12-09/us/28247531_1_wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-swedish-women-condom http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/assange-fails-to-manage-his-affairs-111773324.html http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LL16Ak02.html http://www.theage.com.au/national/did-he-or-didnt-he-the-murky-politics-of-sex-and-consent-20101211-18tie.html?skin=text-only http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/09/rundle-r-pe-case-complainant-has-left-sweden-may-have-ceased-co-operating/ http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/10/wikileaks-where-in-the-world-is-miss-a/ http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=198863

Poyani (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I just found this discussion in Archive 3 so I took out the name here. But the issue was not even really addressed there. Poyani (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

We reached a decision, by consensus, and with due regard to policy (WP:BLPNAME in particular) that there is no need to name the alleged victims. This is an online encyclopaedia, with long-term objectives, not a newspaper, and we make our own decisions regarding content. I suggest you read the page archives carefully, and then come back with reasoned arguments (other than 'they do it') if you wish to change this - though given the degree of consensus, I think that this is unlikely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed the name from the above listings (twice). I had preserved the links before (by using the [www.link redacted link] format), but because of an edit conflict, and AndyTheGrump's statement, it is not worth my while to restore that information, which is available in page history. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

ATG and KW. Thanks for the info and clarifications. I would like to make an argument since I believe that firstly, the name of the person in question has been widely disseminated (as per links above) and secondly (and more importantly) omitting it does lead to a significant loss in context. Please give me time to review the archives and I will make an argument later. Poyani (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the clearest explanation can be found in archive 5 here [2]. Unless something significant has changed regarding the women involved, I think it is unlikely that the decision will be revised. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Something has changed, the names are very widely disseminated now, and the women have entire news articles dedicated to them and their biographies, rather than just passing references. In my opinion, there is no longer much support from the BLP policy for continued censorship of these names, even though there was before the names were widely disseminated. You'll note that I did oppose the inclusion of these names before, and I think it was the right course of action at the time, before the names were all over the place. To be honest, the women are probably notable enough for their own articles at this time, but we don't need to take it that far. Gigs (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The existence of Facebook groups named "[a accuser] is a fucking bitch who should be hanged" and similar intimidating websites does not constitute an argument for WP reversing its policy against prolonging the victimization of complainants (victims of alleged crimes). This is an encyclopedia, not a current events blog. Even the committee to defend Assange, whose link appears in the external links section, uses only two initials to refer to the complainants. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Gigs, nobody is 'notable' because they are the alleged victim of a sexual assault - this is basic stuff, see WP:BLPNAME, WP:BLP1E etc. And it is not true that the names weren't 'widely disseminated' when the decision not to include the womens' names was debated here. The reasons why the names aren't included are still valid. And by the way, comments about 'censorship' are usually an indication of a week argument, in my experience. Wikipedia 'censors' all sorts of stuff from the encyclopaedia - for the simple reason that it isn't encyclopaedic. But then, the New York Times 'censors' all sorts of stuff too - for the simple reason that it didn't happen in New York - this isn't 'censorship' at all, it is editorial judgement, and giving readers what they expect to find in a reputable publication. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Being victims didn't make them notable, the extensive coverage did. But this isn't a question of notability anyway, we have a far lower bar here. I suggest you re-read BLPNAME with an eye on what the intention was. The intention wasn't to keep names out of Wikipedia that have been widely discussed all over the media. Gigs (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

How would adding the names improve this article? That's the basic question that should be answered before policy is even considered. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

To that point, I'm not completely sure we should name them here in his main biography. If we decide to include them, the sub page for the case is probably the right place for them. There's no question in my mind that we are leaving out critical information by leaving out the names. There's plenty of coverage now on them, it's no longer just mere trivia, it's important context now that there is tons of material out there for the reader to read about the women. Gigs (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, your abominable proposal to prolong the victimization of the women (at what would instantaneously become the world's number one internet site for outing the victims) should not occur here, but rather at the Assange. v. Sweden page. Of course, you are going to just waste a lot of time and lose, but if you want to proceed, do it in an appropriate place. Disgusted, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I strongly object to your characterization of "outing". Outing implies that this information is not already widely accessible on thousands of sites. Gigs (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Although we may often be guided by the amount of coverage a matter has received in various media, ultimately we retain the right to exercise our own judgment about what is an appropriate way of handling these issues. PatGallacher (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That's correct. Nothing requires us to name them. I don't think there is a strong policy argument for exclusion at this point, but we still retain editorial discretion in the matter. Gigs (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I have gone through the archives as well as other areas where this was discussed and I no longer want to challenge this. I see why the decision was made to exclude the name of the person and the decision seems to be the correct one. I also noticed that the rule is being applied relatively fairly across the board (rape claimants seem to be only named if they themselves publicize their names). I still disagree with the way this article is describing allegations of sexual misconduct. These are very controversial claims against Assenge yet the article seems to present a completely different narrative, essentially tarnishing Assenge. It borders on defamation and cannot possibly be in line with WP:BLP. Poyani (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I should still note that I strongly disagree with KW's tone on this entire issue. He keeps claiming those who wanted the name included are "outing the victim". First, this assumption is an extreme case of assuming bad faith. Those who wanted the name here (including myself) did not want it as a punishment for the claimant, but rather thought it would add perspective and context to the article. Secondly, by assuming that a claimant is a "victim" KW is passing judgment and openly declaring Assenge a rapist (in the Talk-page) which is itself a gross violation of WP:BLP. Poyani (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that to describe someone as 'a victim' (rather than 'an alleged victim') in such situations is incorrect - though I also feel that 'accuser' is a rather loaded term. We all need to remember that nothing has been proven, either way. As for the broader point, it is true that reporting the allegations etc presents Assange in a bad light - but that allegations have been made, and an arrest warrant brought are facts, and we can hardly not report them - it is outside events, not Wikipedia that are the problem. As for what actually occurred, that is for the courts to decide, not us. And as for suggestions that the article "borders on defamation", I do not see how this assertion can possibly be made - what is stated in the article that isn't in line with the known facts, as derived from reliable sources? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I try to use the NPOV language "complainant", and I apologize for any shortcomings with using that consistently. You are welcome to change any mistake of mine to "complainant", if you see an error.

My use of "victimization" is made in reference to the discussion of WP:BLP, which uses that terminology. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This is Europe, where you have the right to life unless the government says you don't and you have the right to freedom of speech unless the government says you can't. Victims' names are one such category. The man in just as innocent as her at the moment, yet his name is fair game and hers is not. I think this is simply an intersection of the age old ideas of chivalry combined with censorship and the traditional European contempt for freedom of speech. Simple but nasty truth no one likes mentioning for reasons of comity, but here it rears it invisible, guiding hand, urging you to "SSSHHHHHH!" Int21h (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You claim to be a wikipedia exclusionist on your page, yet I really don't see what mentioning the names of the two alleged victims add to the usefulness of the article. Concerning Assange, he is a widely known public figure since long before this case, and he has publicly spoke of this case on the medias, there is a lot of difference between him and his accusers. Hervegirod (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

They are notable. Yes, they are notable. He is famous. They had sex with him, from all accounts, which is notable in and of itself, but have also sparked an international legal incident. "They" need name(s). Currently, there is an entire article covering fallout between Assange, "them", and numerous other named parties in this event. Every time I Google "them", Google insists on giving me irrelevant search results... kind of makes it difficult to discern what is happening. If they deserve to have their names stricken from the event, so does Assange; but Assange does not, so neither do they. (Jeez then how would I find new information?) This is a key point: does Assange deserve the same treatment? Does "notability" make it OK to be mentioned by name? (If so, their names should be mentioned.) I think it would be that simple if mentioning their names were not likely illegal (as in illegal speech) in Sweden. There are times for exclusion and there are times for inclusion. Going on a fishing expedition for people's names that are clearly public figures is just plain ludicrous. Int21h (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

This has been exhaustively discussed, and there is a clear consensus not to include these names. Nothing in your arguments is new, so I can see no reason why this consensus would change. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Int21h (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Where are the sandboxes / overflow articles ?

There seems to be a great many editors with a great deal of material coming into a bottleneck here, articles can be written and titled "Miss X and Miss Y" (don't know if it's Miss, don't know a thing about this subject, I was just browsing, nice article everyone). The names don't need mentioning until after the article has been finished, if at all. A sandbox collection of all that material could be assembled by the many editors here, to aid in a discussion about notability of those people in their own right. Even if it fails as notable or private info or something for THIS article doesn't mean THAT article can't be written. If there is a sandbox somewhere, please mention it here, so all the editors can go there, it seems a waste for people to put so much effort into filling up archives with discussion here, rather than just doing the usual wiki thing. 50, or is it 100 or 200 screens full of talk and I don't know how many references you guys have, surely there is a stub class article in there somewhere. Might help this article proceed from it's aug-2011 B-class rating by allowing talk here to focus on improvement.

Please edit below this line to add a link ONLY. (if my text is edited with things other than links, I'll move them for you). Btw, I don't have any discussion about this on my page, I'm not really interested.

(Example just type under this text something like "see my talkpage ~~~~")

And ordinary comments in the usual way, if you like, under this Penyulap_talk 12:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Julian Assange is a political prisoner.

Page needs updating: http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/opinion/1931695/julian-assange-political-prisoner

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.87.177 (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Peer review

Anyways, ive never used this ....request thing before. But i would like to request that Julian Assanges wikipage be updated. As he is no longer under suspicion of having committed rape. The Swedish courts have let him free, dropped everything. If this could be noted on his wikipedia page. Its semi protected so i cant change it myself. But some else?`And since he done so much for the wiki community, its only fair that his name be cleared on wikipedia as well. Thats it, good day. Saintgerty (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Section being reverted

diff Originally an editor was citing BLP concerns, and while this seems like a strong argument, after reviewing the reference and who supposedly was hearing these things, we have a big conflict of interest. The Guardian employs both of these writers and published this book. Do we see this as a self-published source? Or do we see it as merely an expanded version of a normal news story? -- Avanu (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

They were there at the meeting where he made the remarks. What other source could there be which did not derive from it? PS: Were you wondering why other editors have complained that this page is biased when any support is gratefully received but a perfectly well sourced piece of information can't be mentioned? There's no mention of Israel Shamir either. Criticisms can't be deemed inappropriate in the biography of a public figure simply because he complains the sources are biased against him. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't conflate the issues. In the case of BLPs, it is always understandable that we have to be more careful about criticism than praise. And to say that this is an example of non-neutrality is just plain silly - and distracting.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

They are conflated. They are always conflated. No-one has actually cited WP:BLP to remove the section in any case, but WP:BLP does have an uneasy relationship with WP:NPOV and the use of WP:BLP to remove poorly sourced criticism must never result in an article which violates WP:NPOV. To make it absolutely explicit, this article does violate WP:NPOV because it fails to include sufficient criticism. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The quote allegedly from Assange is incredibly strong and needs better sources than this to support it, no matter how we parse the self-published/extended issue that Avanu raises. If the Guardian is so confident of the quote, then let them publish it in their newspaper. Otherwise, just on the face of it, we have the author of the book, Kenber, saying that two journalists, Leigh and Harding, heard Assange say something. That's just too many levels to use this kind of quote.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Re "publish it in their newspaper": They have done, on 31 January 2011. I chose to use The Times write-up as a source because it was independent of The Guardian and a rival and reputable newspaper; there were many others. The book is published by Guardian Books who are their publishing arm so they want to keep details in the book so far as possible to encourage sales; that does not make it any less valuable as a source, and in fact books are generally considered better sources than newspaper articles. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

What Times source? Do you have a link for the January 31 story? What "many others"?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The one I cited in my edit. I'm afraid I do expect you to read it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I've now read the edit twice. You cite the book in the first part and a Guardian article in the second part (that mentions the criticism by various publications, including the Times) - I don't see any other refs.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The first reference says "<ref>Billy Kenber, "Assange 'dodges CIA' in a costume drama", The Times, 31 January 2011, p. 14. See Leigh and Harding, "WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy", Guardian Books, 2011, ISBN 0852652399, p. 111.</ref>". Do you see it now? Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and this is my last interaction with you (absent an apology). Your edit summary and internal comment are obnoxious, and your null edit of the article was childish.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Great restraint led me to a mild degree of twitting. I'm a busy man and you waste my time by twice insisting you have read something you now admit you did not read; perhaps you should reconsider in which direction apologies are owed. And in any case the second section doesn't mention The Times. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, my only question is about whether we are using a primary source, and if that is proper. I'm not pro- or anti- Assange here, just making sure we're doing it according to our own guidelines. The writers are employed by the Guardian who also published the book. Its probably not a big deal. -- Avanu (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way, when I look it up, the authors are listed as Leigh and Harding. link -- Avanu (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Since some people are taking a very restrictive view of this, let me list some of the sources in Britain and Ireland which have reported the quote:

"New book reveals shocking disregard of Julian Assange towards Afghans named in WikiLeaks cables, Daily Mail, 30 January 2011, appears to be online only
"Assange 'dodges CIA' in a costume drama", The Times, 31 January 2011, p. 14
"Deals, disputes, and disguises: WikiLeaks book reveals all", The Guardian, 31 January 2011
"Aha! So that's who did it", Irish Independent, 1 February 2011
"Secret society - Three accounts of the WikiLeaks story reveal the complex motivations of its founder, Julian Assange", Financial Times, 19 February 2011, p. 13
"Confidentiality no longer exists", Sunday Independent, 5 June 2011
"Will you be my Mary Magdalene and bathe my feet at the cross?", Mail on Sunday, 7 August 2011

I think it must also be noted that while the initial media releases did redact, or attempt to, the names of informants, which might justify the quote not being treated prominently, the release recently of the full unredacted cables with informants' names freely available has changed that situation significantly. We must all hope not tragically. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, although the book is the source for the controversial quote, it is there cited neither to David Leigh nor Luke Harding, but Declan Walsh (The Guardian Islamabad correspondent). See this extract from Wikileaks book if you do not have a copy to hand, and also note that The Guardian is willing to stand by their quote as accurate. I'm not averse to including a denial from Assange if an appropriate source can be cited. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a serious problem with the disputed text that hasn't been discussed here. It says that Wikileaks published the unredacted cables, but doesn't provide the context for this. Specifically, there's no mention that the unredacted cables had already been circulating for some time, a fact that came to light the day before publication. When the content is added to the article, and I more or less support its inclusion, this should be addressed. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 21:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to believe that such a statement could be quoted without any response from Assange. causa sui (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Unless, of course, he can't deny he said it or he can't "explain" it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a big "unless". We need sources, not speculation. causa sui (talk) 13:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I was just responding to your speculation.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I suppose the difference is that I'm speculating reasons why we should look for more sources and you're speculating why we shouldn't. :-) causa sui (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Close, but not quite. I was speculating as to why there might not be any sources, but not that we shouldn't search for them. Just call me nit-picker. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Bias

The criticism-versus-support sections are woefully imbalanced. A litany of supportive statements are provided, but the only two criticisms are one that accuses Assange of terrorism (a relatively extremist view) and one (Mullen) for which Assange gets a direct rebuttal for some reason. There are lots of reasonable op-ed articles out there in which Assange has been criticized. If Daniel Ellsberg gets a quote, then so should others who are of the same or higher profile. More space given to awards than to criticism? That's silly, given how controversial the guy is.

Also, I've removed the "retraction of criticism" header. If there is so much criticism that is omitted, then the fact that one criticism was retracted carries much less weight. The header seems to suggest that much of the criticism levied against Assange was retracted, in turn adding to the pro-Assange bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.98.162 (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't notice that the page is semi-protected. Could someone please add an NPV tag and remove the "Retractions of, or apologies for, criticism" header? Also, add a "However," before the second sentence of that paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.98.162 (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the section in question and the content was placed inside the criticism section where it belongs. If you think there's a POV problem, please elaborate and give specific examples. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

"Unbiased" and "balanced" are very different. Neutrality doesn't mean finding the median between the two most extreme viewpoints: it's more like a mean, giving due weight to the preponderance of sources, but adequately covering all significant viewpoints. With that in mind, I don't see anything wrong with the coverage as it is. Regards, causa sui (talk) 17:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This is 97.65.98.162. Balance is part of NPV. The criticism section doesn't cover all significant viewpoints, or even representative ones. There are hundreds of articles criticizing Assange that aren't mentioned and don't fall under the criticisms already described. For example, the New York Times has published multiple high-profile articles critical of Assange and his decisions.

Articles do not double as RS clearing houses. If you know there are (notable) viewpoints in reliable sources that are not represented in the article, add them. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 06:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I never really get these sorts of claims, unless they come from a person who wants to condemn the subject of the article. The article is called Julian Assange, not The complaints of people Julian Assange has upset. The complainers will never be happy with the amount of criticism. I suggest that there be none. Put it in another article. HiLo48 (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This is 97.65.98.162. I do not want to condemn Assange, I just want a balanced article about him. Please respect and don't question contributors' motives. And if you feel that there shouldn't be any criticism of him in this article at all, then are you in favor of removing the support section as well?

Yes. (And I did not say that YOU want to condemn Assange.) HiLo48 (talk) 06:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way, a POV tag simply indicates that the neutrality of the content is IN DISPUTE. You don't have to agree with my assessment to agree that the neutrality of these sections is in dispute. I cannot add a POV tag because of concerns of vandalism. I am not vandalizing and I feel that I am being censored. Please add a POV-section tag so that other editors can review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nstrauss (talk • contribs) 20:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You have to do more than just say it's biased and that the tag permits "other editors" to review it. You have to cite what portions of the section are POV and why. If you can do that, then you can add the tag back.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought I had already done that, but see below for more details.Nstrauss (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we could be less dismissive when we discuss article content with our anonymous friend. That said, I have to agree with ButOnMethItIs' comments above. Currently, the criticism and support section represent the viewpoints of politically significant actors such as heads of state, their representatives, or high-ranking military and civilian officials. If there are other significant viewpoints that you feel have not been adequately represented, please add them to the article, or better yet, propose them here -- for my part, I'll be happy to look over them. Regards, causa sui (talk) 02:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

This is "our anonymous friend." Let's review what I've ALREADY WRITTEN in this discussion:

The criticism-versus-support sections are woefully imbalanced. A litany of supportive statements are provided, but the only two criticisms are one that accuses Assange of terrorism (a relatively extremist view) and one (Mullen) for which Assange gets a direct rebuttal for some reason. There are lots of reasonable op-ed articles out there in which Assange has been criticized. If Daniel Ellsberg gets a quote, then so should others who are of the same or higher profile. More space given to awards than to criticism? That's silly, given how controversial the guy is.

If there is so much criticism that is omitted, then the fact that one criticism was retracted carries much less weight. The header seems to suggest that much of the criticism levied against Assange was retracted, in turn adding to the pro-Assange bias.

Balance is part of NPV. The criticism section doesn't cover all significant viewpoints, or even representative ones. There are hundreds of articles criticizing Assange that aren't mentioned and don't fall under the criticisms already described. For example, the New York Times has published multiple high-profile articles critical of Assange and his decisions

If anyone thinks these concerns aren't specific enough, please spell out exactly what hoops I must jump through. In the meantime, since there seems to be a general consensus that I have a responsibility to fix this perceived problem myself (not really sure why), and no one has raised any objection to HiLo48's suggestion, I'm going to "fix" this problem by following through on HiLo48's suggestion. Nstrauss (talk) 05:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you are understanding what I am saying. You should give particular focus to the conclusion of my remarks above. If you think there are sources that should be here that aren't, please point them out here and we will be happy to discuss them with you. causa sui (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not saying that the article isn't complete, I'm saying that it's imbalanced. The support section outweighs the criticism section even though there are, in my estimation, more articles and viewpoints out there that are critical of Asaange than there are that support him (as is the case for any highly controversial figure). That said, here is some specific evidence of bias:

1. We have 7 viewpoints in support of Assange and 2 viewpoints criticizing him. Again, if the article were representative then the ratio would be reversed.

2. The original reason I detected bias is because of 2 notably missing critical viewpoints. First, there is nothing by the New York Times or its editor Bill Keller, who worked directly with Assange on the leaks. The Times and Keller published multiple news stories and editorials that voiced support for WikiLeaks' mission generally but were sharply critical of its tactics and Assange's personality and sharp elbows. Second, there have been criticisms raised by former WikiLeaks members/employees who eventually left WikiLeaks to start their own leaks organizations.

3. Just doing a Google search for "criticisms of julian assange" will come up references to a panoply of critical opinions, most of which do not get any space in the article. Examples here, here, here, here, here. I am not saying that these opinions are representative of what's out there, or that every one needs to be mentioned, but that the approach taken must be balanced so that it does not favor supporting positions over critical ones.Nstrauss (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Cntras has reversed the deletion of both criticism and support sections, originally suggested by HiLo48, citing lack of proper discussion/consensus. Any thoughts on HiLo48's idea?Nstrauss (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The idea that criticism and support aren't relevant to the article is half baked at best. The controversy surrounding Assange and his actions are central to his notability. An argument is often made for weaving criticism into the body of an article rather than segregating it, but I don't think that's appropriate here. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Nstrauss, in regards to "7 viewpoints in support of Assange and 2 viewpoints criticizing him" it seems a poor measure of fairness. If he has won 5 awards and had 50 charges, or 50 awards and 5 death threats, then fairness is more about reflecting those numbers, rather than having 20 comments about 20 different awards mentioned alongside 20 comments about the same single incident. So if he did something that was praiseworthy, it gets mentioned, and something that attracts criticism, that gets a mention too. Roughly equal space for each item according to how much space is available in the article overall. If a LOT of people criticize him for one incident, then a sub-article can hold all the different comments for that incident, and a summary goes into the main article. This may be another way to look at the problem. With the former workmates criticizing him, maybe look at the topic of each of their comments, see if that topic gets a mention, and then if there are a lot of people criticizing him for that topic, pick out the most notable critics and write that up, and the remainder in a sub article. Each topic needs coverage, but not really each critic. Penyulap_talk 13:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your point in principle. I am certainly not saying that each and every criticizer should be entitled to space in the article. The trouble is that the article is not reflective of the basic critical viewpoints out there (see examples above), whereas it contains some surprisingly unimportant supportive viewpoints. For example, the fact that Stary, Assange's own lawyer, called Gillard a sycophant has little or no substantive bearing on Assange himself, and besides, of course a lawyer is going to speak out for his client.Nstrauss (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Assange has been in the news again

Assange has been in the news again as of September 20 2011, so we need to check this has been updated. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Jewish Conspiracy Accusations

It's importent to note in criticism about his accusations of a jewish consipracy to silence him. The Guardian reaveled it, hearing it from assanage directly, while bbc claims he plays remarks like that because he claimed he had a zionist wife (they went through a harsh devorce apperently) http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/01/julian-assange-jewish-conspiracy-comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.55.207 (talk) 00:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope. The article you cite doesn't say that Assange made accusations. It says that Ian Hislop claims that he did, and that Assange denies this. I note that this article is from March. Hardly breaking news - since little else appears to have been written on the subject, I don't see how it is significant. As for what the BBC may have said, you have provided no link. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I would also be cautious about including anything the Guardian writes about Assange, given their troubled history and go so far as to say that the Guardian doesn't constitute a reliable source when it comes to Assange. Totorotroll (talk) 09:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Autobiography

Shouldn't this article mention that Assange's (ghostwritten) "unauthorised autobiography" has just been published (against his wishes)? 86.164.58.15 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC).

Great idea - it will help to keep this article up to date. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This was added yesterday. Totorotroll (talk) 10:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

This article mentions that "Assange and the publisher, Canongate, gave differing accounts of the circumstances around the publication." This point should be further explained. Assange's Press statement was cited perhaps a section could be quoted where he explains that the book is the result of interpretation of conversations he had with the author. Nobly untruthful 04:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobly untruthful (talk • contribs)

The question is how much information needs to be given here and how large this section needs to be in the context of the whole article, and ultimately, Assange's life story. At any rate, the book is a draft of a ghostwritten text, which is, by definition, "the result of interpretation of conversations he had with the author". The controversy is about whether or not Canongate was justified in publishing the book. They base their justification on the fact that Assange never paid them back the advance sum they paid him. Assange says that he never had access to this money. In addition, both of their claims are subjective, and in the absence of an objective, third party, mediating source, it seems best to leave the section as it is. Totorotroll (talk) 08:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I know the publisher has called this book an autobiography, and maybe that was the original intent, but given the circumstances now, it's a bit marginal to call it one in this article. It hardly fits my definition of an autobiography. HiLo48 (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I put the section title in scare quotes (and made some other changes) but am not sure if this is satisfactory if we want to remain unbiased. Putting it is quotes seems to show support for Assange's point of view (this is how he refers to it) while referring to it as an autobiography is the way Canongate refers to it. Totorotroll (talk) 09:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I like the changes you have made. I think it's treading a delicate and tactful middle path. HiLo48 (talk) 09:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

House arrest / detention

I came to this page hoping to read some details about his detention. Surely being detained without charge for over 6 months is a defining event in the man's history and something he is famous for? If you read the page from top to bottom, the first mention is "Prime Minister of Russia, Vladimir Putin condemned Assange's detention as "undemocratic"", which simply mentions this detention in passing, as if it should already be familiar to the reader. Is there a reason that this event is not covered here?

Have you looked at the Swedish Judicial Authority v Julian Assange article, as clearly linked to in the 'Allegations of sexual misconduct' section? His detention etc is discussed there. As for whether it is the detention, or the events that allegedly led up to it, that will be 'a defining event in the man's history', I think that will rather depend on the outcome of any trial. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I added an update, along with refs. (Though it doesn't seem to be showing on the actual page yet - don't know if this is some weird caching problem?!) I think it's reasonable to have the up to date current status listed here. Mdwh (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Assange is not under 'house arrest'. He is on bail with a requirement to reside at Ellingham Hall. There is no provision for house arrest per se in English law enforcement in any event (arguably control orders come very close but Assange is not under one). He is free to leave Ellingham Hall and appear in public, and has exercised this freedom; he is also able to reside at the Frontline Club on set days by prior agreement. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Early life

These lines from the Early Life section could be expressed more eloquently:

Assange claims that his "grandfather was a Taiwanese pirate", but when referring to Brett Assange, Julian says in his autobiography that his "great-great-great-grandfather was a Taiwanese pirate", who settled on Thursday Island "where he met and married a Thursday Islander woman"[27][28]. Assange says Brett Assange "was the descendant of a Chinese immigrant who had settled on Thursday Island, Ah Sang or Mr Sang", "or ah-sang in Cantonese", and that his father is "an amalgam of Brett Assange and John Shipton, created to protect their identities"[29][30].

I would also like to point out that using the Daily Mail's quotes from Assange's "autobiography" and treating these as fact is perhaps not the best idea. The biography is not approved by Assange, and stating that these are his own assertions is misleading.Totorotroll (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Does his "autobiography" indicate where he got his career started? Was he maybe inspired by maybe sneaking peaks at his mother's personal diary? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd be a little cautious about quoting an article titled "The WikiFreak: In a new book one author reveals how she got to know Julian Assange and found him a predatory, narcissistic fantasist" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023140/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-portrayed-predatory-narcissistic-fantasist-new-book.html#ixzz1dx8R0RvW and considering it as a reliable source. Totorotroll (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to tighten things up a bit in the Early Life section now. Totorotroll (talk) 10:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

As I mention in my note, I think it's important to stick to the facts eg the fact of who the Assange ancestor was. Assange clearly had fun with the Daily Mail journalist, telling her all kinds of tall tales eg that his hair became white after a cathode ray experiment - but there's no need to include this is what is after all an encyclopedia. I also think that including these conflicting statements can fill another purpose, implying that Assange is unreliable, and I don't think that these kinds of implications have a place here. Totorotroll (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"It is unclear if he was born with the name Assange or Shipton, or if the name was changed. When he was one year old, his mother Christine married theatre director Brett Assange, "who gave him his surname"." - how could he have beenborn with the name Assage if his mother met Brett Assange when he was one year old? Totorotroll (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC) Oh I see, the implication being that she knew Brett Assange before Julian's birth and they were married a year later? Totorotroll (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Assange Claiming Credit for Starting the Tunisian Revolution

Assange has made a habit of claiming credit for world events - claims which he either cannot really verify (such as the Arab Spring, starting with the Tunisian Revolution which he claims he started with Wikileaks) or has been proven demonstrably false (such as the publication of the university of East Anglia E-mails - "Climategate"). The fact that some publications believe Assange's lies - or choose to publish them for whatever other reason - does not yet prove them: The quoted references for the claim that Assange's Wikileaks caused the Tunisian Revolution (which consequently led to the Arab Spring) are not really supporting it in any verifiable way. The references do not provide any evidence for the claim.Rtmcrrctr (talk) 13:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

our article did not state that Assange claimed credit for starting the Tunisian revolution. It certainly didn't say that he did start it. What it said was that "The WikiLeaks diplomatic cable revelations have been credited with sparking the Tunisian Revolution" - it then provide references to sources which did just that: a direct verification of the statement made by us. It might well be argued that this is an incorrect assertion by the sources - but it is a verifiable fact that the sources said what they did. It isn't up to us to decide whether they are right or wrong, based on nothing but our own opinions. On that basis, I am going to restore the deleted material, and ask that you give a legitimate rationale before removing it again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Strictly speaking your point is valid, as it is true to say that something is "credited" if you find someone (2 refs in this case) who is doing the "crediting". However, saying "is credited" creates a conception - or, rather, maybe in this case, misconception - that the credit is universal (i.e., widely accepted among the public if not downright undisputed). Not only is it not necessarily so (1 of the two refs is obviously very pro-Assange - and as such likely to take his version of things on face-value, while the 2nd ref says that this is only one factor out of many), but common-sense suggests that such an assertion cannot really be verifiable (unless, for example, the Tunisian protesters themselves said that they have read WikiLeaks, which I am sure they have not.) Interesting to go to the Wikipedia entry for the "Tunisian Revolution", which does mention WikiLeaks, but just as a possible additional factor, while the main factor in that entry is listed as undisputably the young Tunisian whom set himself on fire (did he read WikeLeaks?!) In summary, the claim that WikiLeaks was any factor of significance in sparking the revolution in Tunisia (it certainly was NOT the main factor) cannot be really verified, and the fact that out there in cyberspace some have speculated that it may have been an additional factor to the Tunisian Revolution does not make it necessarily true. Put simply, it is not verifiable in any way (regardless of this claim being repeated by some) and as such maybe should be left out, especially when discussing hugely momentous world events such as the Tunisian Revolution which sparked the Arab Spring, in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtmcrrctr (talk • contribs) 15:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, I repeat - our article doesn't state that WikiLeaks started anything. It states that sources have suggested they were a factor. Contrary to your assertions, this suggestion hasn't been confined solely to 'cyberspace' either - it has been discussed in the mainstream media too. I agree that one of the sources cited is less than ideal, and I'll find a better one. As for it not being verifiable, I'd say that this is self-evident: but so are any assertions about the 'cause' of large-scale historical events. I've revised the text to make the assertions being made a little clearer, and will look into this further after checking other sources. Finally, will you please not make assertions (here or on my talk page [3]) about "Assange Falsely Claiming Credit". This isn't his claim, it is a statement made by others, and it is misleading to describe this as some sort of self-promotion. Assange is a controversial character, and while he may possibly be somewhat of an egotist from the evidence available, that is no reason to accuse him of doing things he hasn't (or at least, we aren't giving any evidence that he has). AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

A reference for Assange FALSELY claiming credit for breaking the Climategate story is among others Tim Blair's blog [4]. I also recall hearing him claim responsibility for the Tunisian Revolution (don't have a link for that) and I assumed that such claims as quoted in refs were based upon his own ones. Just an assumption, granted, but at any case Assange no doubt does have a record of very public self-promotion and at least in the case of the Climategate story it has been proven false, and as for the Tunisian Revolution, it can easily be proven I believe that he DID promote himself as the source, and, again, correctly or falsely we (or, for that matter, even him) probably cannot verifiably ever know. Rtmcrrctr (talk) 16:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Given that such matters are unverifiable, it isn't possible to assert that such a claim is false. In any case, when journalists of the calibre of Elizabeth Dickinson of Foreign Policy magazine [5] give credence to the suggestions, it is rather irrelevant who first suggested it - the fact is that it is seen by some as plausible, which is all we state in the article. I have now revised the section, and suggest you address the content of the article, rather than engaging in speculation about Assange's ego. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Just as final concluding remark: If Assange has been shown to falsely claim credit for the Climategate story - another huge monumentous world-event story - and I believe I have established that above, then his credibility is seriously compromised. Add to this his rather obvious love of publicity, and you got a very problematic source. (It is true that we cannot verify that the quoted sources took their claims from him, but with the huge media noise that this publicity-seeker generated, it is not unreasonable to assume that.) My point is that it might have been safer and simpler to drop out any mention of Assange in relation to the Tunisian Revolution (regardless of how keen he obviously was to insert himself to this event!) You said, correctly, that it is practically impossible to know exactly which factors contribute to world events, but at the same time some world events have a quite widely accepted metaphorical "spark" - regardless of the metaphorical "fuel" that this spark "lights up" to a metaphorical "explosion". E.g. in World War I it was an assassination, in the riots in England this year it was the killing of some drug dealer and similarly the Tunisian Revolution was sparked by the self-immolation of the 26 y.o. Tunisian man. Certainly there is a history of events which is the background to the "explosion", but the history cannot be termed as "spark", but rather discussed as hypothesis merely. It may be that Assange was a contributor to this revolution, but there is a question mark over it - which appears, by the way, in the title of the article you quote - so why not leave it out altogether? This is my opinion, but I am leaving it up to you whether you want to mention Assange in relation to Tunisia or - as I think is appropriate - remove this mention altogether.Rtmcrrctr (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

We aren't using Assange as the source. We are reporting what commentators said. It isn't for us to decide whether they are right or not. As for whether this merits inclusion, this can of course be debated - but I think a couple of sentences on a topic that received widespread comment is reasonable enough. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Ancestry claims

I have been watching a large expansion of these claims many of them supported by sources that are not wikipedia reliable and ancestry user trees and primary records that it is unclear what they are actually supporting - there was about twenty of them added recently. What we do at wikipedia is report well known information about living people that has been reported by reliable sources we don't investigate and report our findings supported by such sources. Youreallycan (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Lack of accuracy

Is there any special reason the only place in the entire article the word "rape" actually appears is in the title of the source "Swedish rape warrant for Wikileaks' Assange cancelled"? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

That's an excellent point. I checked several of the cited articles, and all but 1 include the word "rape" as part of the accusation. I think it should be added to at least clarify what it is he has been accused of committing.JoelWhy (talk) 13:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to adapting the following sentence from the main article:

On appeal the Svea Court of Appeal upheld the warrant, on suspicion of rape, olaga tvång (duress/unlawful coercion) and two cases of sexuellt ofredande,[21][22][23][24] which has been translated as "sexual molestation", (in the Certified European Arrest Warrant of 6 December 2010) "sexual assault", (in the Extradition Ruling of 24 February 2011) and "sexual misconduct", "sexual annoyance", "sexual unfreedom", "sexual misdemeanour" and "sexual harassment" in the press.[25][26][17][22][23]

I don't know if the Swedish terms should be included, but the various English translations should be. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree.JoelWhy (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Last call for any objections? Also I assume there's no objection to changing the weasel worded "Allegations of sexual misconduct" section title? Obviously I'll be keeping "Allegations", but "sexual misconduct" is incredibly vague, it sounds more like some employment sexual harassment case where some boss has been making sexually suggestive remarks towards his secretary. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

As its all sub justice and the allegations are quite lightweight as regards understandings of rape which has been well opined in the press and as he hasn't actually been even charged with anything at all yet I am of the position that we should cautiously report this issue for the time being - if or when actual charges are pressed we can be more detailed then - the current position was hotly discussed and arrived at over a lengthy dispute/discussion/consensus and I don't see any value to the reader in altering what has been a stable position for quite some time. We can afford to wait for specific charges if they occur. Off2riorob (talk) 11:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Link for this discussion? And you'll find the reason he hasn't been charged is because under the Swedish legal system he won't be charged until after he's been extradited and questioned. Someone remind me again why he hasn't been extradited yet? Whose fault is that exactly? And is it really your position that it would not benefit the reader for them to know exactly what Assange has been accused of? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Well there is a specific article that outlines the accusations in more detail. Swedish Judicial Authority v Julian Assange - There were many many discussions as I remember and edit wars about this issue and the issue stabilized at this content - , which to be honest I opposed, but having watched and been involved in the discussions I am satisfied that there is enough detail in this BLP for the present time for our readers to understand and be informed what is going on. I have little energy to scour the lengthy discussions but I would likely be able to find a diff of me previously adding the word rape - Feb 26, 2011 - Assange is wanted in Sweden for three allegations of sexual assault and one of rape..... - There is no guarantee that there will be any charges. - first they will question him - until any actual charges are actually pressed I don't support stronger assertions in this BLP - all will be sorted soon enough now. Off2riorob (talk) 12:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

He is not charged with or accused of anything. The Swedish authorities want to question him. Totorotroll (talk) 09:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? He hasn't been accused of anything?? I suppose the two women accusing him, the European Arrest Warrant and the subsequent extradition court cases have all been figments of my imagination then, as well as being figments of the imaginations of all the reliable sources covering them??? Your claim that they want to question him is equally bogus, since it was confirmed in February that the Swedish authorities want to prosecute him, not just question him. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

So despite me asking, there have been no links to provided to prove this so-called consensus exists. Even if they had, consensus can change. So I will ask again, why is the word rape excluded from this article?

You have the ability to search the archives. Off2riorob (talk) 11:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Although WP:BLPPRIMARY needs to be taken into consideration, the extradition case details can be viewed here. I will quote the relevant parts, truncating excessive irrelevant details:

It sets out four offences:
1. Unlawful coercion [on 13-14 August 2010, involving AA]
2. Sexual molestation [on 13-14 August 2010, involving AA]
3. Sexual molestation [on 18 August 2010 or thereabouts, involving AA]
4. Rape [on 17 August 2010, involving SW]

This has also been covered in sufficient detail by secondary sources that we do not need to rely on this anyway, although it can be used to augment secondary sources as the policy permits.

So bearing all this is mind, ie that it is a fact that Assange has been accused of rape and that the Swedish authorities are attempting to extradite him for that and other alleged crimes, should the word rape excluded from the article? It is our responsibility to report facts accurately and neutrally, not present some sanitised version of events. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Its more complicated than you assert - he has not been charged - swedish law interpretation and definition of rape is far more extensive that an English reader would understand, as such rape is in the circumstances undue - its important that these are just accusations - not charges and he is only wanted for questioning. The details of the incidents would need to be explained in depth if the assertion in a BLP of rape is included and the expansion here would be undue, we couldn't just add that he raped someone without explaining the details - remember we have the main article about the extradition. I feel the reporting of the details at present is fully compliant with BLP - its a conservative report of the fact that there are sexual allegations against him - the fact is the Assange has not been charged with anything. If and when he actually is charged we will report clearly what the charges are. What we have in the lede currently imo pretty well represents the current situation - a European Arrest Warrant was issued in response to a Swedish police request for questioning in relation to a sexual assault investigation. - I added Assange is wanted in Sweden for three allegations of sexual assault and one of rape. in feb but consensus was against it. Consensus can change - why don't you just make a bold edit - Off2riorob (talk) 11:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Be it remembered, that Swedish criminal processes do not work in the same way as those deriving from English law. Under Swedish law a person suspected of a crime may not be charged until they have been interviewed by police, and they may not be interviewed until they are in Sweden. The frequent complaint that Assange has not been charged is therefore true but irrelevant: he couldn't have been charged. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a good article from Joshua Rosenberg that details the current situation and ongoing possibilities. - http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/nov/02/assange-sweden-extradition-court-loophole - the especially relevant part being, "You couldn't look at a continental system "through the narrowest of common law eyes". If you viewed it "through cosmopolitan eyes", the court said, you could see that criminal proceedings against Assange had begun." - Off2riorob (talk) 13:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll get round to looking for some sources and try a bold edit later, since I've given more than enough time for objections to be raised. I've not seen a single reliable source that says Sweden's rape laws are seriously out of step with the rest of the world, therefore Wikipedia cannot take the position that an accusation of rape in Sweden is somehow not an accusation of rape. Legal definitions of various offences differ all over the world, but that doesn't mean we can't use the terms as they apply to the jurisidiction in which the (alleged) offence took place. This is the "English Wikipedia", not "Wikipedia using terms only as they are defined by English law". 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I would have no objections to that. As I said I did add it myself previously, at that time consensus was against me but your comments here have not raised any weight of objections. - Youreallycan (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

UK Court judgement includes a lot of detail, including the argument that in UK law, the allegations are rape. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.184.65 (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Is Julian Assange a journalist?

I agree Assange is a journalist and news publisher but I wonder the issue of whether he is a journalist has been debated here before. Wikipedia currently describes Assange as a journalist, even though he does not work for a mainstream media organisation and appears not to draw a salary in any formal sense from Wikipedia organisation. What is the standard being applied in describing him as a journalist? Does it apply universally across Wikipedia? --Brandonfarris (talk) 07:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, Wikileaks has no connection with Wikipedia whatsoever, and neither does Assange. As for whether it is correct or not to describe him as a journalist, this has been discussed in the past, and opinions differ - but there are reputable sources that have described him as such. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

There may be reputable sources saying he is, but legal arguments are being made that he is not. It's not exactly NPOV to omit all mention that the prosecutors presented forensic computer evidence in the B Manning case that Assange helped break the passcode. I'm not saying they have made their case, but they have started the process of arguing it. If it's proved that he participated in the leak itself, he is no longer a journalist. There should be some mention of his contested status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.162.161 (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

"If it's proved that he participated in the leak itself, he is no longer a journalist"? Do you have a reliable source for that? It seems a peculiar bit of logic to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

the world tomorrow

http://rt.com/news/julian-assange-rt-exclusive-617/ Please add info. --Insider (talk) 08:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Criticism related to The World Tomorrow

I'm pretty sure that criticism related to The World Tomorrow (see, for example, The_World_Tomorrow_(RT_TV_series)#Reception) at least partially belongs to Julian Assange article: wording of the criticism is aimed at least in part against Assange personally (sources contain quotes like "Shame on you, mister Assange!"), and is substantial enough (at least BBC and Guardian references are provided, quoting several different and rather well-known people expressing criticism in this regard). Therefore, I feel that to satisfy WP:NPOV's "all significant views" requirement, it is necessary to include this criticism into the article (wording is a different story). Relevant quote from WP:NPOV (emphasis is mine): "...representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Ipsign (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Connection to Nortel Networks

Just to explain the reason I added the Category:Nortel : see Nortel#Hackers_Had_Free_Access_For_Years_Without_Being_Detected Ottawahitech (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Given that the article you link makes no mention of Assange whatsoever, I am going to remove this category. If you wish to include it, please provide evidence as to why you think it should be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Nortel#Hackers_Had_Free_Access_For_Years_Without_Being_Detected has been edited to include Assange. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Pentagon papers quote in Criticism section

In answer to this [6], see WP:BTW: "Items within quotations should not generally be linked; instead, consider placing the relevant links in the surrounding text or in the "See also" section of the article". The hazard with wikilinking quotes text is that it can sometimes be misleading, in that it implies that the word or phrase is used in the way our article defines it. Actually, looking at the Biden quote in context, the reference to the Pentagon papers seems to have come first from the questioner - the comparison wasn't originally Biden's. [7] I wonder whether we should really use the quote in the way it is presented at all: it actually doesn't make a lot of sense without the context. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

How about wikilinking outside the quote? "When asked if he saw Assange more as a hi-tech terrorist or as a whistleblower, like those who released the Pentagon papers in the 1970s, Biden said: "I would argue it is closer to being a hi-tech terrorist than the Pentagon papers." Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, much better - it makes it clear that neither 'hi-tech terrorist' nor 'the Pentagon papers' were originally Biden's phrase. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah Sang - Assange

"Assange's ancestor "George Ah Sang (Asange)" was the progenitor of the name - "Ah Sang (aka Sun Tai Lee, Sun Tye Lee; later Asange)". http://www.espace.uq.edu.au/eserv/UQ:70359/Ramsay_2004_Chinese.pdf

Tried to add this, but User:AndyTheGrump, reverted it twice. Should this be added to the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbvoki (talk • contribs) 17:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, the link appears to be broken. Secondly, this is an article about Julian Assange, not about George Ah Sang. I can see no reason why even if this was properly sourced it would be of any significance. Has any reliable source other than the one you cite (if it is a reliable source) actually suggested that this matter is relevant in any way to anything about Assange himself? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

At best, this seems like sheer trivia. I see no reason it should be included.JoelWhy (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The link works, it's not broken..try again (paste this and press enter): espace.uq.edu.au/eserv/UQ:70359/Ramsay_2004_Chinese.pdf. That is not a justification about why that shouldn't be there, almost every article on wikipedia about someone of note explains about their origins, or their surname, their ancestors. The relevance is that it refers to his surname, his ancestors which are mentioned already in the article, this information expounds on that with a record of Asian inhabitants of Thursday Island: "Ah Sang" from Thursday Island is acknowledged by him as being his ancestor, and it is acknowledged by him as being "Ah Sang" originally. Why do you think the reliability of the source is an issue? Other reliable sources other than the one I cite (and it is a reliable source: it is historical record, university published) exist which suggest that this matter is relevant to Assange, wikipedia articles about people are biographies and this information you find in biographies: it has been written about in books, in numerous articles, explained by Julian Assange himself in those. What reasons do you have, what makes it trivia and not information worthy of inclusion in a biography? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbvoki (talk • contribs) 18:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you please cite the book from which this is taken, with the relevant page number(s). A scanned PDF is unacceptable as a source, if for no other reason than that if may be a copyright violation. As for what other sources say on the matter, again we need links. I still see no reason why this is seen as of any significance though - Assange's ancestry is of no relevance to his notability, as far as I'm aware. The article is quite long enough as it is, without going into trivial details regarding the origins of his name. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Ramsay, G. M. (2004). The Chinese diaspora in Torres Strait: Cross-cultural connections and contentions on Thursday Island. In A. Shnukal, G. Ramsay and Y. Nagata (Ed.), Navigating Boundaries: The Asian Diaspora in Torres Strait (pp. 53-79) Canberra: Pandanus Books.

Those other sources you referred to are in the article already in the "Early life" section. If the article is long enough as it is, I would suggest condensing it, removing information found on wikis on specific areas; but not at the expense of material such as this, that is directly related to Assange himself in a biographical sense, and this can go on no other wiki but Assange's. On the point of the trivial details: Smith or Johnson for example do not obviously need detail about the origins of the name, but as for Assange, traced to one person in Australia, which makes it rare and unique, also most Australian's (or many people at all) don't have this kind of background - that sets this apart from normally "trivial details". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbvoki (talk • contribs) 19:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

So the book you cite isn't about Assange at all? (And you haven't given a page number for the part you consider relevant - I'm not reading a whole chapter to find it). And no, this is not "directly related to Assange himself in a biographical sense" unless you can cite a source that says it is. So please do so, citing specific material which directly Relates to Assange, supports your statements, and asserts that this is more than trivia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I wouldn't say I am advocating for it to be added, but I certainly am not vehemently opposed to its inclusion.JoelWhy (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to read the whole thing! Don't you know you can search the term? Control and F then type: Ah Sang - it is mentioned three times, on pages 11-13. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbvoki (talk • contribs) 20:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The PDF is a scanned document, not a text file. Searches don't work. The document starts at page 53. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Pages 11-13 of the PDF. Read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbvoki (talk • contribs) 20:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't open the PDF either. Perhaps its country-restricted?JoelWhy (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/ Search title: Chinese diaspora in Torres Strait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbvoki (talk • contribs) 20:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

That worked, thanks! So, after reviewing the material, I think there's another problem here. Seems to me this would serve as synthesis (or, possibly, just flat out incorrect information.) Based on this article, we know there was someone name Ah Sang whose name was eventually converted to Assange. There is no indication that Julian Assange is a descendant of this Ah Sang, or that his name came from the name Ah Sang. Am I missing something here? I didn't spend much time going through the links, so please correct me if I'm mistaken.JoelWhy (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The pages you indicate are nothing more than a list of Chinese residents. Nothing whatsoever indicates that any of them are related to Assange. This isn't a source for anything. You are wasting our time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Note that this would not be the first time that a single-purpose account inserts claims about Assange's ancestry that are then found not to be supported by the cited references, see User_talk:Iogoay#Citing_sources and User_talk:Ksrjm#ancestry. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Time for a sock-puppet investigation perhaps? If Wbvoki and Ksrjm are the same person, this is a clear policy violation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't cite him personally, but it cites the Assange ancestor referred to in the article, and the first and only Assange ancestor to settle and be naturalised on Thursday Island, then change name to Asange, the Chinese residents are all accounted for there; don't need to cite a source that say it is about Assange himself - it wouldn't of course, but the information reflects what Asssange has said, a source that confirms that it directly relates to him is not necessary, what he has said confirms and there is no other Ah Sang>Assange and this is the person mentioned in the source; put it together:

Assange: "My grandfather was a Taiwanese pirate".."who settled on Thursday Island where he met and married a Thursday Islander"..and.."I've got his name – Assange – an unusual one which comes from Mr Sang, or ah-sang in Cantonese: his great-great-great-grandfather was a Taiwanese pirate." - Julian Assange: The Unauthorised Autobiography' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbvoki (talk • contribs) 21:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

No, we don't 'put it together' - that is original research. And can you please cite page numbers for books.

By the way, to save us the bother, can you confirm whether you are also editing this article under another username? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yea, sorry, but that's synthesis. JoelWhy (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Done contesting. AndyTheGrump really is a grump. If that's a problem, I suppose stuff like this will never be accepted, because no acceptable citations exist that link Assange and George Ah Sang, even though it's undeniable on the basis of the information he has provided and that is available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbvoki (talk • contribs) 21:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You can't blame Andy for this. It's a standard Wiki policy. (And, frankly, I was wrong when I said it was synthesis, as it's based on assumptions, rather than direct statements -- yes, this is probably a valid assumption, but an assumption nonetheless, and definitely not acceptable under Wiki policy.) JoelWhy (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

And we get no answer to my question regarding editing under another name then? Anyway, just to put a finish to this, I'll point out that the Assange 'unauthorised autobiography' is a questionable source, according to Assange himself: "Although I admire Mr. O’Hagan’s writing, this draft was a work in progress. It is entirely uncorrected or fact-checked by me". [8] AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

How can Ah Sang be Julian Assange's ancestor if Brett Assange wasn't Julian Assange's biological father? (as I understand it from the article text). The "early life" section is remarkably confusing because of this... All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 09:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes - except that I've seen attempts before to argue (using dubious WP:OR) that Brett Assange was Julian Assange's biological father - possible of course, but certainly not backed up in any reliable source. It is confusion because we don't know the details, and are relying on a version of events that comes from someone (Assange) who was hardly in the position to be a reliable witness at the time - and who has in any case made clear that the version given in his 'autobiography' may contain errors. If we report the essentials as available from reliable sources, and avoid going into unnecessary detail over things we can't verify, we can avoid a lot of the confusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The article already contains the statement that 'Assange is an angilcization of Ah Sang (Mr. Sang in Cantonese)'. I think this is fitting: origins of name explained (it is a rather unusual name, and I originally guessed it to be some sort of French/Romance name), but without dwelling too much on people of little importance for the article. V85 (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree - it explains the unusual name, without complicating matters unnecessarily. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Photo of Assange as a boy

Anyone want to contact this lady and try to get this photo onto commons? http://twitpic.com/7vh1cp Gregcaletta (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Can't see why - even if it is Assange, he wasn't notable then. How many articles have such photo's? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

True, not many do, though I don't see why, since it performs the same function as the other photos, and most book-length biographies would include such photos when available. Gregcaletta (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Israel Shamir

No mention of Israel Shamir or accusations of antisemitism? I presume this has already been discussed, but can someone confirm? Otherwise I can write a small something based on the below to put in the Criticism section.

His Jewish problem

British magazine: Assange says Jewish conspiracy trying to discredit WikiLeaks

Assange’s Chutzpah

~ Iloveandrea (talk) 04:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

israel shamir is a well-known holocaust denier and right wing lunatic. this op ed piece: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/dec/17/wikileaks-israel-shamir-russia-scandinavia reflects that, and his wiki article has more info - i think there are many, many sources out there that would reflect him as a far from credible source as per WP:FRINGE. Kaini (talk) 05:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry? Who is a 'far from credible source' for what? Are we citing Israel Shamir in the article? As for what Assange was alleged to have said, this seems to come down to an allegation from Ian Hislop that Assange had said something, and a denial from Assange that he said anything of the sort. Maybe Hislop is correct, maybe Assange is - but we don't base articles on unverifiable assertions regarding private conversations. 'Guilt by association' has a long and murky history (and if you are really interested, I could provide plenty of unverifiable assertions regarding 'antisemitism' in Private Eye) - but that is no reason to perpetuate the practice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM

WP:RECENTISM prohibits statements like: "decision is expected within weeks". In fact, the entire paragraph is in violation of WP:RECENT since it'll become redundant detail after the verdict is delivered. It is PERHAPS suitable for elsewhere but it is certainly not suitable for the lede. Gregcaletta (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Since there are no objections, I will move this material into the body of the article. Gregcaletta (talk) 04:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring over minor biographical details

if i was a mod i'd protect the page til this was resolved. take it to the talk page, people. back-and-forthing like this doesn't make a good article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaini (talk) 02:52, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Notable details in the lede

Not sure who removed it but I came to update the extremely high profile details about this person and the details had all been removed from the lede - WP:LEDE objects completely - sad and sorry state for the reader - I will watch this article again because there is no excuse for that imo.Youreallycan 21:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

So when is he being sent back to Sweden? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

He has been granted another optional appeal to reopen - this will be decided in the next two weeks then if they reject the request to reopen , the subjects only avenue of appeal left is the European Court of Human Rights in in Strasbourg, he might ask them to take a case - if he does then he will remain in the Uk till that is resolved. So, no date yet. Youreallycan 15:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge Christine Assange into this article

An article was recently created on Julian Assange's mother, Christine Assange. As her only notability is related to Julian Assange, I propose that her very short article be merged into this one. Kaldari (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Christine Assange (then known as Christine Hawkins) made nationwide headlines in Australia a few years prior to her son gaining notability, as the organiser to the (never held) "Great Bikini March" protest (mentioned in the wikipedia entry on Taj el Din Hilaly where she is referred to as Christine Hawkins - which is what prompted me to create the entry). Her current public profile is heavily connected to her son and to wikileaks, but her extensive campaigning has made her a notable figure in her own right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosabibi (talk • contribs) 00:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Those articles do not say that Christine Assange and Christine Hawkins are the same person, so they can't be used in either article. I support the merging of the material related to Julian unless reliable sources can be found that explicitly discuss Chrisitne Assange in material unrelated to Julian. Gregcaletta (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Disagree on merging - due to JA's limited access to press, Christine has become a vocal free of speech advocate in her own right. E.g., see recent appearances on variety of TV networks, plus meeting with President of Ecuador.

Confusing wording

Hi, the following passage in the lead section is a bit confusing:

"On 30 May 2012 Assange lost his Supreme Court appeal in England to avoid extradition to Sweden though the court gave Assange a stay of 14 days on the extradition order.[12][13] This final appeal to the Supreme court was rejected and barring any appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, extradition will take place over a ten day period commencing on 28 June 2012.[14]."

If "This final appeal to the Supreme court was rejected" is talking about the same appeal as the one just mentioned, then it should be deleted. The article has already said that he lost the appeal, so it is confusing to repeat the same thing again as if it was new information. If, on the other hand, it is talking about something different then the article should explain more about the nature of this second appeal. 86.181.202.123 (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of confusing / misleading wording; someone has reversed my edit where I corrected the claim that ASsange is of "Taiwanese descent". Assange took the name of his stepfather - these are not his ancestors! Could a moderator please resolve this issue? The article should be referring to his STEP-grandfather. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LyndellaLee (talk • contribs) 09:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Statute of limitations?

I don't see any discussion of this in the article. I've read that in Sweden for these sorts of crimes it is typically just a few years. If that's the case, then it seems to me a very relevant fact, as he could just stay in the embassy and let the clock run out. Count Iblis (talk) 19:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

A good question for the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities so that we could better understand Statute of limitations in Sweden (here). As far as this article is concerned I searched for Assange + Statute of Limitations and only found unreliable blogs or forums discussing the question (I also part-searched Assange + Limitations). If anyone finds reliables sources please contribute. I also searched for Assange + Preskription but my lack of Swedish stops me from determining what's reliable and what's not. (Off topic: my wholly non-expert opinion (i.e. wild guess) is that the Statute of limitations in Sweden does not apply once legal proceedings have started.) -84user (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

About his children.

I've been using the webpage for research and I noticed today, that his daughter was added, but really he doesn't want them to be added due to the threats that they've been getting.

Here's the video explaining that, go to Youtube and put in "Swedish channel TV4.- Wikileaks founder Julian Assange interviewed by Malou Von Sivers (7-XII-2011) around the 19:20 mark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afrofreedom87 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The status of Assange's children has nothing to do with the reason we have an article on him. Any mention should be absolutely minimal, if do it at all. HiLo48 (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The Contribution I am considering

I am new user for the Wikipedia, and I love to make my first contribution about the topic I am really interested. I am considering to add more information about the the election of Austrian Senator that Assange was trying to run. I think this is a very interesting topic and currently there are not many information about the that topic. There are only two sentence under the "Running for Australian Senate". I find some really good news articles about Assange running for the Senate , and I hope I can edit about this ares.Thylakoidd (talk) 04:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Although the date for the next Australian Senate election has not yet been set, it almost certainly won't be for at least another year. Nominations have not yet been called. Given these uncertainties, I believe anything more than the current content on this matter would be undesirable at this stage. But don't let that put you off. Find other areas where you can contribute. And I like your approach of discussing it here first. HiLo48 (talk) 05:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

and what is "the current content on this matter" exactly ? Penyulap ☏ 07:06, 18 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Hi - the whole issue is self promotional nonsense - if he stands for election we will report it then - until he does is WP:CRYSTAL and pre - recentism - lol - Youreallycan 20:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it has little to do with CRYSTAL and more to do with the obvious "ask for a source if you do not know what the editor is talking about", or do some research, either one is good. _{strange, something so obvious it doesn't have a page (and yes I realise that you know of his announcement)} Penyulap ☏ 06:54, 18 Jun 2012 (UTC)

It is relatively rare, though not unheard of, for Australian high profile sports or media or union personalities to announce their intention to run long before any actual election date. Maxine McKew, for example. There were years of speculation and a full eight months between her actual specific announcement and the election. American political candidates do it all the time. Whether Assange will run or not for the next Senate election is still a matter for the future, but he has announced his intention and we can give that a line, perhaps including the additional news from the same source that Wikileaks plans to run a candidate against the sitting PM - just like Maxine[9]. --Pete (talk)

well, that's getting there, as far as i can find out, it's not possible to do anything more than make your intention known, there is nothing to sign up to prior to the opening date is there ? It seems that an announcement from someone like assange that has been well documented is well over the line for inclusion in the article. what next, keep out everyone who didn't win ? Penyulap ☏ 08:26, 18 Jun 2012 (UTC)

(off topic, but it is precisely the sort of thing that is popular in australia afaik. chaser apec stunt shows just how popular subversives are in their public spotlight. I expect that new laws or technicalities will be found to stop him.) Penyulap ☏ 08:33, 18 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Formal nominations for candidature are not made until a few weeks before an election, which in most cases is not announced until a month or so beforehand. Political parties "pre-select" their candidates on their own schedule, typically a year or so in advance of the next election date. Once pre-selected, they are almost certain to nominate at the formal time. The last class of senators took their seats in July 2011, so the next class will take their seats in July 2014, meaning a normal half-senate election will occur between July 2013 and June 2014, most likely in the latter half of 2013, to coincide with the next house of representatives election due then. There is a remote chance (given the current state of the parliament) of an early representatives election at any time followed by a possible full-senate election six months later, which takes us into 2013, anyway. So nothing's going to happen officially for at least six months and more likely a year. He's announced an intention, but nothing may come of it. I've heard nothing about the formation or registration of a Wikileaks party, which would be the logical next step, if he is serious. The only thing we know for sure is that he's announced his intention to run. --Pete (talk) 08:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

has there been mention of any party ? if there was no mention of a party, then editors may well have their crystal party, but not until then :) what you have said seems to fit with what i have found about the candidacy for government in australia, that is, it's a matter of announcing. I guess they have no trains there with hot air being exhausted out the caboose for them to festoon with ribbons and so on. So I guess, right now, he is as good as campaigning in some ways, or at least the way they do things down under. Penyulap ☏ 09:15, 18 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I haven't heard of a Wikileaks party being registered. You could check the Australian Electoral Commission website - they handle party registrations. Usually if it's newsworthy, we get to hear about it, like Bob Katter's recent moves. It's not a big story at the moment, and probably won't be. If Assange was serious, he'd be in Australia stitching up preference deals with the Greens and other minor parties. But what I've heard is very little, and that's from the same news sources available to everybody else with access to Google. The bottom line is that nothing is going to happen quickly on this. It's no big deal anyway. Not yet. If it becomes more important, we'll know about it and we'll cover it. Assange isn't going to slip into the Senate without anyone noticing and should that happen, we'll write about it. --Pete (talk) 11:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikileaks is not running Julian Assange is running. Why is this not in the article ? is it as simple as not understanding Australian politics ? I must say I don't take an interest in it, but I do know the difference between an independent and a party. Where do we stand on mentioning his announcement ? Penyulap ☏ 17:36, 23 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Awards

Does anyone know when and why his awards were removed from the lede and the infobox? It is standard practice to mention awards in the lede for biography articles, since it establishes the level of notability, and it is even stranger to remove them from the infobox. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

That got lost two days ago in this edit, probably unintentionally; I have restored it here. -84user (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Great. Infobox section for "awards" is still gone though. I don't know if that was agreed on or just an accident. Gregcaletta (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Not n the lede - not notable enough

While in England under house arrest, Assange hosted a political talk show called The World Tomorrow, which was broadcast in 2012.[15][16] Hassan Nasrallah, Slavoj Žižek, David Horowitz, Moazzam Begg, Alaa Abd El-Fattah, Nabeel Rajab, Moncef Marzouki, Rafael Correa, David Graeber, Jacob Appelbaum, Jérémie Zimmermann, Andy Müller-Maguhn, Imran Khan, Noam Chomsky, Tariq Ali and Anwar Ibrahim appeared on the show.[17]

Basically a spaming of internal links - ( I have removed them all from my post here so as not o repeat the problem) please do not add it to the article again at all - its just not notable at all - never mind to the WP:lede - I suggest you create an article for it if you think its notable - The World Tomorrow, ow its already got one - so just add a simple comment somewhere in the Assange bio - in the see also section perhaps - ow look - on forcing myself to read through the POV trollop see there is a secton already - Julian_Assange#The_World_Tomorrow - so its all good - as long as users stop removing the facts - the main details from the lede we will be all good - eg - his arrest and imprisonment in Wandsworth Prison- its notable for the lede - as are the major Supreme court details and appeals, please don't remove them and replace the facts/notable facts that readers are looking to be informed about with promotional fluff and support - you that do that do the en wikproject and its readers a disservice. - Youreallycan 02:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Damages (TV series) information

A lengthy section has been added discussing a character in the Damages TV show similar to Assange. Apart from being very lightly sourced; why is this an important facet of Assange's life to be documented in his biography? Certainly it seems relevant in articles about the TV show, but here? And to cap it off the second half of the new section seems like a rather sly attempt to slander Assange and get away with it. I'll certainly be removing at least that latter portion, but an explanation/defence would be interesting. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to keep that section. Assange has nothing to do with the series other than maybe being some kind of an inspiration for it, so Assange should maybe be linked from the series' article but not vice versa, which would in my view be purely promotional and possibly even BLP-y, if the picture of the wanna-be Assange turns out to be negative. There was not even a link to The Great Dictator from the devil's article when I just checked, and such a link would be much more reasonable than a link to that novel series from here. I thus will remove the section until there is a consensus if and/or how much of the material should be re-added. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, here's the section that I appended to the article:

Assange-like character in drama series

In the fifth and final season of the American television drama series Damages, which began airing in July 2012, actor Ryan Phillippe portrays an Assange-like character, Channing McClaren, which heads a whistleblower website, McClarenTruth.org. In a promotional interview one of the show's executive producers uses the phrase "very loosely inspired by," however Phillippe says in the same segment that he studied all the material about Assange that he could get to, both before and after he got the part.^[1] The character played by Phillippe nurtures an enigmatic public image. His reign over his associates is capricious and dictatorial, and he apparently has abusive sexual relations with a female whistleblower who ends up being killed, possibly at the fault of the website having compromised her identity and private information. The Assange-like character displays a callous and pragmatic attitude towards trust and truthfulness in his relations to his legal counsel, and the WikiLeaks-like organization he operates depends on anonymous financial support from questionable donors with agendas of their own.

^ "Damages Bonus Video: Channing McClaren". Damages – The Official Blog. DirecTV. July 20, 2012. Archived from the original on August 13, 2012. Retrieved August 13, 2012. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

I will assert that this should be included in the article with an urgency because of the way it clearly encroaches on Assange's ongoing legal challenges, and in so doing gives a heavily partisan depiction of him, basically promoting every pejorative stereotype about him being circulated by his detractors. Millions will watch and absorb these impressions while simultaneously or subsequently being exposed to news coverage of his lingering struggles with those who have an agenda to bash his persona. That makes this a far more important "portrayals in popular culture" episode than any satires of long-gone despots and mass-murderers. __meco (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says that? Or do you have even an independent source? Given your argument; why does the section you wrote repeat all those stereotypes/pejoratives? --Errant ^(chat!) 07:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I wrote a description of the Channing McClaren character just as anyone would write about characters in a work of fiction. Writing that "it fits the negative image being projected onto Julian Assange by his detractors" would obviously be grossly original research. That, however, does not mean the description of the character cannot be given to speak for itself. __meco (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It can if that description looks simply like an underhand way to slander him. But that's a side point; you still need independent sourcing to back up your claimed significance. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

An independent source is needed for the information and only a sentence, not a paragraph, is appropriate to be included. Silver seren^C 10:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Chinese immigrant

asange doesnt even know who he is. he has a cantonese name but he's taiwanese. come on, make up your mind — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.163.7.55 (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the article is confused on this point. It says he has Taiwanese ancestry, but then the quotes about this refer to Brett Assange's ancestry. Brett is his stepfather (and maybe adopted father?) not his biological father - so strictly speaking, Assange doesn't have Taiwanese ancestry himself. Unless his biological father happened to be part Taiwanese as well. The claim about Torres Islanders also refers to his stepfather.... 94.174.108.74 (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The quotes do not all refer to Brett Assange. The first quote is what Julian Assange says himself:

My grandfather was a Taiwanese pirate..He was a pirate and landed on Thursday Island where he met and married a Thursday Islander woman. They went to Queensland. - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023140/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-portrayed-predatory-narcissistic-fantasist-new-book.html#ixzz1yH0tzJ6S

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LyndellaLee (talk • contribs) 11:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

That quote does not refer to Brett Assange, it refers to himself and his background, but he also says Brett has that background in the quotes following that:

According to what Julian told Khatchadourian, Brett was the descendant of a Chinese immigrant who had settled on Thursday Island, Ah Sang or Mr Sang. - Making Trouble: Essays Against the New Australian Complacency, Robert Manne (Page 195)

Basically, regardless of who is his father may be, he says he has Asian and Australian Aboriginal or Torres Islander ancestry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbvoki (talk • contribs) 20:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I have just read this article and it seems that the categories are not apropos. Au Sang/Ah Sang / Assang / Assange is the surname from his step-father, but not from his father, who isn't Chinese (or Taiwanese)–Thursday Islander. His mother certainly isn't either of these ethnicities. Furthermore, the name "Ah Sang" in Cantonese is certainly not "Mr. Sang"; if anything at all, it's simply "Sang" (ah, 阿, is a particle common in spoken Chinese dialects, often of the south, such as Hokkien or Cantonese). Pardon me if this sounds incredible and suspect but it seems as though Assange's family history has been and is being rewritten, and that this is further perpetuated by sources. I would recommend removing the categories that are not substantiated, namely "Category:Australian people of Taiwanese descent". It's not as though this article is tagged with "Category:Indigenous Australian people‎" or "Category:Torres Strait Islanders"; let's be consistent and not inappropriate tag the article. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 10:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The fact is that the first quote is what Julian says himself - he says "my grandfather", not Brett's grandfather; the second quote is what Julian says about Brett's ancestry; also in one of the citations there is quote from a Wikileaks associate in which he mentions what Julian told him about his ancestry - "at least ten ancestors from various corners of the globe, from the South Sea pirates to Irishmen." The sources substantiate this and that's all that matters.

Actually just Assange's own claims about his ancestry don't substantiate anything. His biological father is a chap called I think Shipton. Probably worth investigating whether ASsange is fantasising about his ancestry - as many people do. If he is telling untruths about his ancestry, that's not a good look for someone whose life work is built on truth and transparency, and could well be redolent of the narcissism and hubris tht people accuse him of.

or he could have been taking the piss out of a tabloid reporter, see below. I don't really see how an article with the title 'The WikiFreak: In a new book one author reveals how she got to know Julian Assange and found him a predatory, narcissistic fantasist' can be taked as a reliable source. Totorotroll (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Can we please get the facts straight about Julian Assange's ancestry claims?

Hi Wikipedians - I've had mild factual corrections removed now several times - and I think it's time Wikipedia arrived at a consensus on Julian Assange's false claims (IMO) about his ancestry. Basically, even adding "step" to "father" to clarify that Brett Assange is Julians's stepfather, has been censored. Why? To further a conceit?

His name, Assange, a Chinese-origin name, is the name of his STEP-parent Brett Assange.

Brett ASsange has Taiwanese and Australian Indigenous Ancestry. Julian Assange does not.

The fact that Julian Assange has STATED (IMO fantasised) this romanticised version of his background does not make it fact.

Julian Assange's biological father is of Anglo-Celtic ancestry and there is NO evidence anywhere on the record that either Julian ASsange's mother or father have provided him with "pirate", "South Seas", "Taiwanese", "Thursday Island" ancestries.

Wikipedia should not be treated as a forum for allowing personal fantasies to over-ride the facts. There is no public interest (unlike the topic of avoiding mention of Assange's children for security reasons).

Frankly, I think the people who are censoring my amendments are very much flying in the fact of Wikileaks transparency. If Julian Assange and his folk don't care to substantiate these "pirate ancestor" claims, they should be expunged.

Lyndella Lee — Preceding unsigned comment added by LyndellaLee (talk • contribs) 11:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned before, I think the Daily Mail reporter got it wrong. There is only one source quoted where he says that he has Torres Strait Islander etc ancestry and it reads like a tabloid article. Even a glance at the headline would suggest that it isn't a reliable source. I suspect that Assange was making fun of the journalist by joking about his ancestry. At any rate, I suggest the stuff be taken out of his early years section. Totorotroll (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

One reason why I think he was making fun is this "When I asked if it (his hair) had always been white he said no. ‘It went white as a result of a childhood experiment with a cathode ray tube that went wrong.’ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023140/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-portrayed-predatory-narcissistic-fantasist-new-book.html#ixzz23kQQqwMr Totorotroll (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for political asylum

While it's NPOV to give the British government's response to accusations that it threatened to invade Ecuador's embassy in London, the current lines seem to be original research based on source documents. Editors can't speak for the British government (even if they are agents or officials of that government). You should source this on a news article that reports the British government's response, and use the reported response, not make up your own. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Diff of edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julian_Assange&diff=507653508&oldid=507652537 Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought the same, but there is a proper source, this one, in yet another footnote, at this moment number 256. Perhaps somebody who's on top of those fiddly cite templates could add a pointer to it at the edit Ghost mentions. Bishonen | talk 13:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC).

First paragraph in "Allegations of sexual assault" section needs to be edited or removed

The first paragraph in this section simply duplicated information in the rest of this section, for example

1st paragraph: In 2010, a European Arrest Warrant was issued for Assange in relation to allegations of rape and sexual assault by a lawyer representing two women in Sweden. Assange was arrested in the United Kingdom, and was freed on bail after ten days in Wandsworth prison.

2nd paragraph: In 2010, a European Arrest Warrant was issued for Assange in response to a Swedish police request for questioning in relation to a sexual assault investigation. Assange voluntarily attended a police station in England on 7 December 2010, and was arrested and taken into custody. After ten days in Wandsworth prison, Assange was freed on bail with a residence requirement at Ellingham Hall in Norfolk, England.

There is no need for the first paragraph and second paragraph to say the same thing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.157.199 (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. Formerip (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Nominated for a prize he didn't win

There is no reason to mention the fact that an obscure parliamentarian proposed him for a prize he didn't win in the lead. Virtually anyone can propose ("nominate") anyone for the prize in question, nominees hold no official status, and in fact the committee does not comment upon the proposals it receives, so we can't even verify whether the committee even received such a proposal. Had he won the prize, we would have mentioned it. A failed proposal doesn't belong in the lead. Even Bush and Hitler have been nominated, but it isn't mentioned in the lead sections of their articles. Josh Gorand (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree; I've removed it. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Unbalanced lede

The lede at the moment is incredibly unbalanced, as can be clearly seen. Now, i'm not asking for the paragraph on the extradition to be removed, but there should be two other full paragraphs around the same size as it describing everything else in the article, which is not currently being summarized in the lede when it should be. Silver seren^C 22:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Unfortunately, it is impossible to represent the situation accurately using only a few words, without misleading the reader, so the paragraph either needs to be included in full detail or removed completely. For example, it currently says he was "freed on bail", which leaves out the unusual conditions of his bail (electronic tagging, curfews, daily reports to the police, etc.), and the fact he is not an English citizen and that he was not allowed to return to Australia, which is makes it disgracefully misleading and biased.

I agree that the main solution is to include more stuff relating to the rest of his career. There was a lot of good material that has been removed from the lead. I don't know who did it or what excuse they gave. Mr G (talk) 01:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll look into past versions of the article and see if there's anything good there. Silver seren^C 03:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

There, that's slightly better now. Not great, but better than before. Silver seren^C 03:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Political and Economic views - relevancy?

Who cares if he is a libertarian? What has that got to do with anything that is currently making him notorious? He didn't get a page named after him for being a libertarian!--96.244.244.244 (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

He has a page because he is an activist who has drummed up a lot of attention for himself. His supporters revere him as a political force; hence his politics is relevant.89.168.180.105 (talk) 10:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting that you know what (all?) his supporters think. What is a supporter of Assange anyway? He's not a football team. HiLo48 (talk) 10:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Punishments under the Espionage Act can include the death penalty

I am not sure why it states at the end of the section headed Members of U.S. Congress call for Espionage Act prosecution (of Assange) that punishments under the Espionage Act can include the death penalty. The relevant part of the Act quoted in the section provides for a fine or a term of imprisonment of not more than 10 years or both. If other offences in the Act carry the death penalty that cannot be relevant unless there is some reason to conclude that there may be a prosecution under those provisions. I suggest that the actual maximum punishment under the relevant provision be quoted in place of the death penalty reference. --ErnstR (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

He claims to "fear for his life", which is hype. The US federal government hardly ever executes anyone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Just don't let him get taken to Texas. Silver seren^C 04:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Claiming to "fear for his life" is hardly hype. To much of the world the United States is notorious, rightly or wrongly, for executing people on the flimsiest of excuses. Even with execution off the table Assange may genuinely believe in the possibility that he may dissapear into guantanamo like conditions for the rest of his life. Wayne (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The press chief of the Swedish foreign ministry said on Thursday that the fear of Ecuador's foreign minister that Assange would be sent on to the US by the Swedes, and even be executed, are utterly groundless. Both Swedish law and Sweden's obligations under the European convention on human rights mean Assange could not be extradited to the US if he were wanted for a crime which might lead to the death penalty. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 09:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The above is perfectly correct, Assange could not be extradited from a signatory Nation to the European Convention on Human Rights for a crime punishable by death, it would be a contravention of their article 3 rights. Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits torture, and "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ^[1] RobNaylor452 (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, what seems to be a standard procedure in cases such as that is the country wishing to extradite has to agree in advance if convicted they won't face the death penalty, it isn't a get out of jail free card to avoid extradition in cases involving capital crimes. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The sentence looks out of place. In the case of Assange, is there a reliable source making the case that assange can potentially get the death penalty? If the answer is yes, then rewrite it to include who, and put it in the time-order of when the source said it. If there is no source, then its original research and should not be there. The above forum discussion if Assange *can* get the death penalty is surely interesting, but I am not sure if anyone but maybe a historian law professor can really, truthfully, give a good answer to the question. Belorn (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Forum discussion? If you're referring to me, I'm quoting a reputable Swedish journalist's article translated by the Guardian which says the Swedish foreign ministry said Assange couldn't be extradited to the US if he was facing the death penalty. My comment is a link to the article in question. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Espionage Act US Code, Title 18, Ch. 37, Sec. 794 provides for the death penalty if the breach involves "communications intelligence" or "results in the identification of an individual acting as an agent of the United States and consequently in the death of that individual." I'm assuming that the Wikileaks can be classed as communications intelligence and even if they are not they did reveal the names of people that the Taliban said they would hunt down and punish so if a single Afghan named in the Afghan war logs was executed by the Taliban, Assange indisputably faces the death penalty.
If the breach is in time of war the death penalty is extended to anyone who "collects, records, publishes, or communicates, or attempts to elicit any information with respect to the movement, numbers, description, condition, or any information with respect to the movement, numbers, description, condition, or disposition of any of the Armed Forces...or with respect to the plans or conduct, or supposed plans or conduct of any naval or military operations." I checked for ammendments and the latest to section 794 was 1994 when a full stop was inserted in the text. From what I have read on the way the prosecution system works in the U.S. the prosecution could arguably stretch the definition to say that the U.S. was technically, if not in fact, at war at the time. Wayne (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course, the espionage act was only ever meant to be applied to citizens of the US. Since applying it to people outside of the US means that we would also have to apply it to any action taken by anyone in another country in relation to communications intelligence. Not to mention that we would have to prosecute any of our own agents that are involved in espionage against other countries that results in the death of someone. Only if we meant to be fair, of course. Silver seren^C 19:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry One Night In Hackney, since the whole comment was one large link, I must somehow missed it was a link. At any rate, the press chief of the Swedish foreign ministry (Carl Bildt) do only indirectly say that the Espionage act can be used to give the death penalty to Assange. While not unusable, a source that directly state that the espionage act can be used to give the death penalty to Assange would be better. [10] phrase it a bit more directly, by saying that "charges of treason or espionage and, if convicted, be sentenced to death". Doing some googling, it looks more and more article are bringing up the question. Belorn (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

This is complete OR and just for the sake of trivia, really. It's often thought that the European Convention on Human Rights bans the extradition of people from Europe to the US if they might face the death penalty. However, strictly speaking it doesn't. The relevant case is Soering v United Kingdom, which ruled that extradition to the US of a person wanted for murder breached Article 3 of the ECHR because being placed on death row constituted "inhuman and degrading treatment". But it explicitly stated that execution itself was not "inhuman and degrading treatment".

The difference between the UK and Sweden is that the UK has a right under its extradition treaty with the US to deny extradition where the death sentence is a possibility. In political terms, it is inconceivable that it would ever waive this right. Sweden has no similar right in its extradition treaty. So, following the conspiracy theory, if the US can get Assange into Sweden then promise the Swedish authorities that he will somehow get his full appeal rights but no stay if sentenced to execution (how that could be done I have no idea) and also convince a Swedish court that execution would not be disproportionate in view of his alleged crimes then, technically, it can be argued that Sweden would be obliged to extradite him. But, mainly because of Protocol 13, which has happened since the Soering case, extradition would probably be blocked in Strasbourg. Although, who can say for sure?

Thank you for your patience. Formerip (talk) 01:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Since Assange was outside US juridiction territories at the time of receipt of the leaked documents, then most countries would consider that the US would not have jurisdiction, so Sweden should be able to quash any extradiction request on those grounds. (as is happening on the Kim Dotcom case, where it is being claimed that since none of the servers were in US jurisdiction territory, it can't be a US crime; seems to be having traction with the NZ judge.) -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That may be true in New Zealand, but for reasons that can only be guessed at (slavishness towards the US?), the UK is fully willing to extradite people to the US to face charges that are not offences in the UK - see for example Gary McKinnon - the Home Secretaries in the UK have acted like eager representatives of US law enforcement in these cases. To my mind the weak point in Assange's PR theatricals is that it's probably much more likely he would be extradited from the UK to the US than from Sweden, where there is a history of defiance of the US pretence that their laws apply globally. Assange plainly wants to not face his accusers in Sweden, to my mind a sign of guilt and he is manipulating the current popularity of anti-British attitudes in S. America, deriving mainly from Argentina. The Ecuadorians may be getting more than they bargain for. :) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

References:

^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_3_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights

-84user (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

USA extradition

Can someone add the USA extradition to Julian Assange article? It seems relevant because of the high public interest and Ecuador's granting asylum to Julian Assange, citing USA's extradition concerns.

My contribution:

There was an indication of Subpoena by a grand jury served to an individual linked to Wikileaks in relation to Espionage Act (18 U.S.C. 793) due to Guantanamo Bay files leak and also focuses on Bradley Manning. The Subpoena is investigating those who helped Bradley Manning release classified diplomatic cables under 18 U.S.C. 371. Another charge is those that "embezzle, steal, purloin, or knowingly convert ... any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States." under 18 U.S.C. 641. The charges strongly indicate a criminal investigation against Wikileaks^[1].

Stratfor's emails leaked by Wikileaks have discussions surrounding a secret grand jury^[2] with a secret indictment^[3]. Later, a media organisation received declassified diplomatic cables that confirm a secret indictment exists. The documents go on to state that Australia has no objection to a potential extradition to USA. The Australian government confirmed the possibility of extradition but stated that it wasn't unusual as there was an ongoing investigation about Wikileaks. They point out that USA may not intent on extraditing Julian Assange^[4].

121.44.67.223 (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Someone mentioned the article wasn't locked, so I moved my contribution below 'Autobiography' section as it relates to his work on Wikileaks. I didn't put it under 'Members of US Congress call for Espionage Act prosecution (of Assange)' as this section goes beyond 'criticism', but into charges. I'm not sure if this is the most appropriate section. 121.44.67.223 (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

2.121.243.21 (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)Is the article from today's Sydney Morning Herald admissable under the guidelines?2.121.243.21 (talk) 12:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

References:

^ FBI serves Grand Jury subpoena likely relating to WikiLeaks. Salon.com. Retrieved on 2012-08-18.
^ USDOJ: US Attorney's Office - District of Minnesota. United States Department of Justice. Retrieved on 2012-08-18.
^ WikiLeaks Stratfor Emails: A Secret Indictment Against Julian Assange?. RollingStone. Retrieved on 2012-08-18.
^ Assange refused offer of assistance from Australia. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved on 2012-08-18.

-84user (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hostilities between Ecuador and Britain

Closing this down; questions such as the one(s) posed are better placed at the reference desk - this page is for discussing specific improvements to the article. And now it has descended into dodgy territory r.e. comments. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Shouldn't this diplomatic row have a separate article? If Britain does invade the embassy, then it is an act of war. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 12:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

In your mind maybe. But no, I highly doubt Ecuador would go to war with the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth, aswell as the European Union, the United States of America and face ramifications, even possible exclusion, from the UN. Most likely Ecuador will make some disapproving noise and carry on. There is no need for an article about a diplomatic row. Aldwynson (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The invasion of the sovereign territory of one country by the forces of another under arms would usually constitute an act of war, regardless of whether war is declared or enjoined or not. The armed British police invading the embassy would be such an act (so it could be a very short war, composed of a single British police action). -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope. The Ecuadorians have agreed to an embassy on British soil in full understanding of British Law - they've had plenty of time to close it down in face of the known British law, and continued to maintain the embassy. No act of war, by law. Aldwynson's prediction of the probable response is no doubt spot-on. HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

An embassy is the sovereign territory of the nation who's embassy it is. That's under international law, and common practice, including common English practice. Violating the embassy would be an invasion, since the police will be armed, it would be an armed invasion. British Law no longer applies once the embassy was granted, since it is no longer the sovereign territory of Britain. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 05:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You need to carefully read the British statute that the UK are citing to use to go in and get him VERY carefully. This supercedes international law. HammerFilmFan (talk) 05:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Many things "supercede" international law, but then tend to lead to international court actions, and other such things, like war crimes tribunals. Though in this case, Ecuador can file abduction charges against the entire assault team, in Ecuadorian courts, and have Interpol run it up the flagpole. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 10:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I read an analysis that Britain could simply break off diplomatic relations with Ecuador and expel the ambassador and his staff, where upon the building would lose its diplomatic status and the police would be free to move in and arrest Assange. Diplomatic relations would then be restored sometime later. --Nug (talk) 08:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The building is not an embassy! Ecuador's budget does not stretch beyond one flat. There are some other embassies by banana countries that cannot afford London property prices in the same building. The corridors and stairways are British. If the British weren't being so nice about it, they could make his life very nasty.89.168.180.105 (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hans Crescent is the official Embassy of Ecuador in the UK, regardless of size - an Embassy can be a garden shed so long as it's accepted by the host state. Perhaps you are confusing their embassy with their Consulate in Uganda House where they provide consular services? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

There is Foreign relations of Ecuador which now has a brief section on Anglo-Ecuadorian relations, sadly concentrating on the Assange incident for want of any other significant issues. By the way, foreign diplomatic premises are merely regarded as sovereign territory of the country concerned, rather than actually becoming foreign territory - a subtle distinction, but otherwise it would be impossible for the host country to reclaim the territory if the embassy ever moved. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The embassy building is the sovereign territory of the United Kingdom. They have merely agreed to grant it extraterritorial status, but they can revoke this at any time, within a week's notice per British law, which Ecuador was fully aware of when they established their embassy there. Diplomatic and extraterritorial status is granted by the host country (the United Kingdom). For any "hostilities" to arise, the banana republic in question would have to declare war on not only the United Kingdom, but automatically its military allies, the NATO. If Ecuador wants to declare war on the NATO, go on. Its entire territory will be NATO territory within days, and Assange will have no Ecuador to go to. Josh Gorand (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not like Ecuador has a right to have an embassy in that particular building for eternity. There are many different reasons a host country could determine that an embassy would have to move or close. This doesn't affect the diplomats who have been granted diplomatic status, but Assange has not been granted diplomatic status by the British government. Josh Gorand (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

What's with the outright contempt for Ecuador being shown here by some editors? Any post describing the country as a banana republic is obviously so non-objective as to be worthless. Such posts should be universally condemned in the same way as BLP breaches. HiLo48 (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I was going to ask the same question. Are you guys calling it a "banana republic" solely because of this Assange affair, or that you've had some unpleasant encounters with people from Ecuador, or something else? I can understand if you criticize President Correa for the decision but badmouthing the entire nation simply doesn't make sense to me. --BorgQueen (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It is a spectacularly clueless term to apply anyway - the term 'banana republic' was first applied to countries run by local gangsters/oligarchs in the interests of foreign (i.e. U.S.) monopolistic primary-sector traders. Whatever its faults, Ecuador can hardly be seen as a puppet of the United Fruit Company or similar. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The regime in Ecuador is hardly a model of democracy and human rights. But that's not the point of contention here, the issue is the British law allowing, under certain circumstances, the denial of political asylum granted on their territory (for instance, if ANY embassy had granted asylum to a world-reknowned terrorist such as an Al-Quaeda leader, that would no doubt be overruled and the UK gov't would go get that person.) HammerFilmFan (talk) 05:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

In any such case, it would still be an attack on the territory of another nation. Remember when alQaeda attacked the American embassies in Africa, the US government stated it was acts of war against the US, and not against the host countries. So, if Britain invades an embassy, it would similarly be an act of war. It would certainly be a causus belli. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 10:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

[1] "Damages Bonus Video: Channing McClaren". Damages – The Official Blog. DirecTV. July 20, 2012. Archived from the original on August 13, 2012. Retrieved August 13, 2012. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

[2] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_3_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights

[subpoenamanning-3] FBI serves Grand Jury subpoena likely relating to WikiLeaks. Salon.com. Retrieved on 2012-08-18.

[secretgrandjury-4] USDOJ: US Attorney's Office - District of Minnesota. United States Department of Justice. Retrieved on 2012-08-18.

[stratforindictment-5] WikiLeaks Stratfor Emails: A Secret Indictment Against Julian Assange?. RollingStone. Retrieved on 2012-08-18.

[cablesindictment-6] Assange refused offer of assistance from Australia. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved on 2012-08-18.

[1]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]