Talk:Julian Assange

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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

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

Partner Sarah Harrison[edit]

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

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


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

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

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

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

Lede: "accused by the Swedish police"[edit]

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

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

Merger proposal[edit]

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

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

Reinstatement of recently added content[edit]

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

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

Statute of limitations[edit]

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

Marianne Ny's statement[edit]

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

Duty to prosecute[edit]

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

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

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


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

The line about "the client" being unhappy with Borgström should also be re-sourced to this: [4], because that's the source RT itself cites. RT rehashes and respins it to make it more headline grabbing without access to the classified document SMH apparently was able to get their hands on. Cf. SMH: "Ms Ardin complained that she found Mr Borgstrom spent much more time talking to the media than to her, referred her inquiries to his secretary or assistant, and that she had lost faith in him as her legal representative." RT: "Ardin charged that Borgstrom was more interested in being in the media spotlight than providing her legal counsel, and has often referred her inquiries to his secretary or assistant." (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
From the attorney department own website:
25 August 2010: The prosecutor takes a decision to terminate the preliminary investigation concerning suspected rape.
27 August 2010: Lawyer Claes Borgström, legal representative of the women who reported Julian Assange, requests a review of the prosecutor's decision to terminate the preliminary investigation concerning rape. The review request is sent to the Prosecution Development Centre in Gothenburg.
1 September 2010: Marianne Ny, Director of Public Prosecution, takes a decision to resume the preliminary investigation concerning the suspected rape. The preliminary investigation on sexual molestation is expanded to cover all the events in the crime reports.
So the truth is somewhat in the middle. People suspect that it was his role as Social Democratic Party's spokesperson on gender equality that resulted in Marianne Ny, Director of Public Prosecution, to reopen the case. But since he was also the lawyer of the women, it is very much open to interpretation. Thus, for a good Wikipedia article, we should put it all in the open and let the reader decide how to interpret the situation. I hope the changes is solves the issue you brought up. Belorn (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the names of the two women should be kept out of the talk page and article, as they are kept out of all journalistic sources. Totorotroll (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I also agree that is false to say that Borgström reinstated the case. Only a prosecutor can do this. As stated above, it was Borgström's appeal that led to the prosecutor taking the decision to review the case. Then she decided to reopen it. These are the facts anyway, independent of speculation about what motivated her decision. Totorotroll (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)