Talk:Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange

Does anyone else think that this page should be protected? This is an ongoing, extremely controversial event. 70.73.72.50 (talk) 06:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

I've added the tag because I believe the article puts too much weight on the American indictment and almost zero weight on the reason he sought asylum in the embassy and was subsequently arrested in the first place; i.e., the Swedish rape allegations and subsequent extradition request. It would be better if these are discussed as well. Sceptre (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe this link could start to help: WikiLeaks Releases Evidence Proving That Assange Was Framed Erick Soares3 (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

... claimed he was framed too. Wikipedia is not a place for conspiracy theories. Sceptre (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd really like to see all those Ardin & Wilen sms messages. How could Assange get justice without them? Accepting everything in Wilen's protocol at face value almost constitutes rape but it doesn't quite make it. There is reasonable doubt that there was implied consent. That added to the rest of the protocols sunk the rape charge and 3 or 4 prosecutors couldn't prosecute it despite intense pressure to do so. Assange came very close to the technical rape of that woman. The preliminary rape investigation has finally ended for good. Hurray! He's served a year in jail for doing nothing other than insisting he be questioned in the UK as is common practice. If Assange ever gets compensation for the wrongs committed against him it will be huge. That's all a different story. Wikileaks wants to move forward to the "belligerant prosecution threatening the 1st Amendment" and so should this article.Nnoddy (talk) 09:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Correction: Assange was jailed for skipping bail and served 25 weeks.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Ive added a brief version but I think we could still expand on the process Softlemonades (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I think I fixed this in the lead, and since its covered in the body, so Im gonna remove the tag Softlemonades (talk) 04:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion was restarated at Opening_sentence @Nnoddy@Sceptre@Erick Soares3 @Jack Upland @Mgcontr Softlemonades (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Prof Melzer concluded the 'systematic judicial persecution' 'oppressive isolation', and 'deliberate collective ridicule' of Mr Assange amounted to 'cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the cumulative effects of which can only be described as psychological torture'. And User:Sceptre is continuing it here! --93.211.218.47 (talk) 04:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Intro section has quite heavily biased text, using heavily loaded language:

On 15 July 2019, documents revealed that Assange had used the Ecuadorian embassy to meddle in the 2016 US Presidential election and had met with Russian and various hackers from around the world to do so.[6]

This page is about the indictment and arrest of Assange in UK relating to criminal charges made against him in the US. The charge by the DNC is unrelated, and not criminal. Also the referenced CNN article is heavily biased. The use of the word meddling also lacks neutrality. I will remove this within a week unless someone here rejects this. This page should be protected! Mgcontr (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC) M

I removed and replaced that whole bit because of the relevance and balance problems. It also wasnt a good summary. Softlemonades (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Title and definition of the topic of the article

The title "indictment and arrest of Julian Assange" doesn't really adequately define the topic of this article, which seems to be exclusively about the indictment in the US. Assange has been indicted in Sweden and the US in unrelated cases, and his arrest in the UK had nothing to do with any indictment in the US. --Tataral (talk) 09:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Assange has never been indicted in Sweden. -Darouet (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Also the notion that "his arrest in the UK had nothing to do with any indictment in the US" is pure OR and blatantly false, as numerous sources covered and discussed the arrest and near simultaneous unsealing of the indictment. Assange is now being explicitly held because of his upcoming hearing for extradition to the US, based on his indictments there. -Darouet (talk) 13:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

We have discussed this at length at the Assange page. Assange was on bail facing extradition to Sweden on accusations of rape. That amounts to an "indictment", even if the Swedish procedure is different. When he was thrown out of the embassy, he was arrested for skipping bail. Then the US indictment was unsealed. He was then convicted for skipping bail (another indictment). You are trying to rewrite recent history. You are also making pedantic points to avoid the substance of the issue.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The source we cite [1] states that British police entered the Ecuadorian Embassy in London on Thursday, forcibly removing the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on a US extradition warrant and bringing his seven-year stint there to a dramatic close. Have you written to CNN to explain to them what they got wrong, and if so how did they reply? -Darouet (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

If you haven't had the change you could write to the LA Times [2] too: Reporting from Washington — WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was arrested at Ecuador’s embassy in London early Thursday at the request of the United States, and the Justice Department later said he had been indicted in connection with a computer hacking conspiracy, a dramatic development in the nearly decade-long global saga. Or Politico [3], British police arrested WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London on Thursday, a move they made in response to a U.S. extradition request on charges that he aided the hacking of classified material on U.S. government computers in 2010. -Darouet (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

"Amounts to an indictment" is WP:OR and has no place in any article. Jack Upland's edits appear to be WP:POV pushing. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, I have just found some new information here. According to London's Metropolitan Police's statement at the time:Julian Assange, 47, (03.07.71) has today, Thursday 11 April, been arrested by officers from the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) at the Embassy of Ecuador, Hans Crescent, SW1 on a warrant issued by Westminster Magistrates' Court on 29 June 2012, for failing to surrender to the court. According to a later statement: Julian Assange, 47, (03.07.71) has today, Thursday 11 April, been further arrested on behalf of the United States authorities, at 10:53hrs after his arrival at a central London police station. This is an extradition warrant under Section 73 of the Extradition Act. So there were actually two arrests.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Jack, that is actually really helpful! -Darouet (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC):::::Nice work Jack, sources I've looked at don't make this clear. Clearly for once Sweden was not involved.Nnoddy (talk) 08:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Lack of mainstream media coverage of Extradition Trial.

There seems to be no meaningful coverage by mainstream media of the proceedings. European states and organizations have been denied access. This results in an extreme lack of commentary on legal argument and court procedure. Apparently some indictment charges (allegations) have been torn to shreds by the defence witnesses who have a limited time to testify but then are subjected to hours of prosecution cross examination to the point that the judge is forced to move things along. Sounds like Virginia USA. Its been suggested that prosecutor doesn't know how to ask questions. Here we witness a prosecution challenging the 1st amendment(USA), freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the right to be informed. Where is the press that should be yelling and screaming blue murder? How does an encyclopedia record something that isn't happening when by all rights it should be. The general view that the UK is not going to waste the $21 million spent on the stupid siege of the embassy. The USA has probably spent more in their operation going back to at least 2011. Its a bit like the war in Afghanistan. Some ones got to die here. Sorry Julian but you are going to be extradited, gagged, found guilty and disappear along with our freedom. (Such as it is)

Reports describe a list of those with access to Assange's extradition. What about a list of commentators that are taking the time to observe the curt process? "Kevin Goszola" "----Nnoddy (talk) 01:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree the media coverage is not good. In fact, media coverage of court proceedings is not good in general. I am hoping there will be a good summary at the end. I think we have to remember that this is not a trial to determine Assange's guilt. Britain agrees to almost all US extradition requests (85% or more).--Jack Upland (talk) 02:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

If you are interested in finding out what is happening in the Assange extradition hearing you will need to step outside your comfort zone and face independent media. A number of journalists are live tweeting the proceedings. As mentioned, Kevin Goszola is one. Others are Craig Murray (@CraigMurrayOrg) and the great Mary Kostakidis (@MaryKostakidis) formerly of SBS. Tomorrow's proceedings will be interesting. This is Craig's final paragraph from today:

The day concluded with a foretaste of excitement to come, as Judge Baraitser agreed to grant witness anonymity to the two UC Global whistleblowers who are to give evidence on UC Global’s spying on Assange in the Ecuadorean Embassy. In making application, Summers gave notice that among the topics to be discussed was the instruction from UC Global’s American clients to consider poisoning or kidnapping Assange. The hidden firearm with filed-off serial numbers discovered in the home of UC Global’s chief executive David Morales, and his relationship to the Head of Security at the Las Vegas Sands complex, were also briefly mooted.

If you are looking for sources that could be used here, try these.

Burrobert (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Britain agrees to almost all US extradition requests (85% or more).--Jack Upland

:Thanks Jack. Its off the subject but would you have an excellent source on the extradition subject? I note wikipedia article "UK–US extradition treaty of 2003" list a few cases. Most recent seems to date to 2014. Assange should be there. Also one person extradited held in prison for 6 months then released stated there was no evidence and no defence. A 21 day trial for Assange?

There's excellent reporting by Craig Murray for instance but where are the corporate press heavy weights, the bastions of freedom, the government broadcasters etc? There seems to be an almost complete media blackout. A BBC reporter apparently attended court each day but there are no BBC reports. The prosecutors have doggedly relied on inaccurate public perceptions / false news that have been categorically debunked by eye witness and expert witness testimony. The BBC has not reported this? There been criminal surveillance on wikileaks, the Ecudorean embassy, lawyers etc in the heart of London. The BBC has not reported this? The evidence presented by Assange demands a lot of retractions from the press. Where are the retractions? That's what Wikipedia should record. "A media blackout" Worse is to come. Espionage Act of 1917 prosecutions are held in secret except when the prosecutors decide to make the trial public. By definition these are show trials that are held in a completely biased area of the USA where almost everyone is connected to the US administration prosecuting the case. The jury will consist of friends, relatives, contacts, business associates, actual employees etc of the US administrators that have been directly embarrassed by Wikileaks and their own bungling persecution of Assange. Expect more Judge Baraitser, more BBC reporting for Wikipedia to record?

Burrobert (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC) Thanks for the sources 49.199.218.217 (talk) 01:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't have a good source. This is where I got my statistic from: 75 extradited, 7 refused. Out of date information. According to M. Burrobert, Baraitser has found in favour of extradition in 96% of cases. The treaty article probably doesn't list Assange because there's no decision yet.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said Britain agrees to around 90% (based on those limited statistics).--Jack Upland (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Copy edit

I am currently doing a copy edit of this and related pages. I may get into substance next, as there does appear to be some POV pushing, but right now I am just reviewing facts and sources, and improving the writing a little along the way. I have found some things that concern me that should be addressed, however. First, it is generally the custom to treat any crime for which there has not been a conviction as an allegation, not something that is "revealed" or "noted" or that constitutes "information". Second, the capitalization style is inconsistent. "First Amendment" and "Constitution" are generally capitalized, for example, whereas there are any number of grand juries, so it is not a proper noun that should be capitalized. I would say the same for embassy, but some of the sources do otherwise, so I am an agnostic on that, but in general, afaik, it should be a magistrates' court or Westminster Magistrate's Court, etc. Elinruby (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Ruptly

Never heard of them. Do we consider them RS? I don't believe that its parent, RT, is. Elinruby (talk) 02:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Ruptly is a video news service. It was the only news service on hand when Assange was removed from the embassy. It provides unique raw video of events that are ignored by commercial media, e.g. it provided live coverage of the Yellow Vests protests. I am not sure its reliability has been tested in the court of Wikipedia, although some may consider that the decision about RT applies to Ruptly as well. Ruptly isn't used as a source on this page. What were you thinking of using it for? Burrobert (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Change of title to US indictment of Julian Assange

I believe 'the arrest' should be removed from the title, currently the article is currently two topics rather than one and mostly about the indictment. I propose the title be changed to "US indictment of Julian Assange", that would also remove any problems with cofusion with the Swedish sex case. NadVolum (talk) 00:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I see people have added stuff about the extradition which is just a load of trouble as it is duplicating ongoing stuff till the extradition ends. Since the rename restricts the scope, and people could object to the duplicate stuff being removed I'll treat it as a potentialy controversial move. NadVolum (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 4 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The article seems to cover both aspects. (non-admin closure) 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 02:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange → US indictment of Julian Assange – The current title is two things stuck together with the arrest not being even the main effect of the indictment. He is being currently extradited and there may then be a trial. The indictment is interesting in itself and can stand as a sub-article in the Assange article. This article currently also has a bit on the extradition but it shouldn't - that is just trouble as it is ongoing and the Assange article is enough for that till it ends with some result. NadVolum (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The title should encompass all of the page's content, and separate articles should not be created for inseparable associated items. A better title might be US prosecution of Julian Assange, but that one's not on the table. SPECIFICO talk 16:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The page should be on a topic and the idictment and the problems and controversy about it are quite enought for an article rather than stuffing it with ongoing stuff. There's no way to stop the Assange article being the target for most edits about ongoing events and tryingto have this article deal with bits of that is just a funny type of forking, it is far better to wait for a reasonable break point like the end of the extrdition or the trial before splitting off a separate article covering them. Currently this is just not a straightforward topic that can be the target for a main reference in the Assange article. It'll be easy enough to remove the extra bits stuck in here and I don't think many bits need to be considered for inclusion in the main article. That'll leave this a far better article to develop. NadVolum (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Specifico. It seems to cover both aspects.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 26 December 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. There was no consensus prior to the relist, and no further comments were made after the relist. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

---

Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange → United States v. Assange – Case and the article have moved past the arrest and indictment. Theres lots of extradition stuff, witnesses like David House have testified and Assange is getting extradited. The article needs to talk about the whole case not just the arrest and indictment Softlemonades (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support: the title of this article was always problematic.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)civil
• Wait Assange should be close enough to when he is either sent to America or released. I see no point in this article till that is done now it has sprawled into not dealing with the indictment properly. It can become where a big chapter of Assange's life can be moved once that is done and the title probably can be adjusted for whatever the actual decision is. NadVolum (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

  Assange should be close enough to when he is either sent to America Thats now. Every decision is that hes going, and even if hes not its the name of the case Softlemonades (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

• Them I'll change to Oppose. IfThe proposed title would put stuff here in competition with the Assange article if he is extradited to America. That's just duplicating work. If Assabge is freed or sent to America this article can be a proper subarticle with chunks of the Assange article moved to it and the on-going stuff put into the Assange article. I'd then support it being called something like Extradition of Julian Assange. NadVolum (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

  would put stuff here in competition with the Assange article What competition? Softlemonades (talk) 00:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

  What we have here currently is a WP:FORK rather than a subarticle. If it was a subarticle we could have most of the stuff here and have a summary and a link in the main article. But that's not going to happen because what this covers now is an ongoing situation so the Assange article will mostly be looked at and updated. Starting to cover anything tafterwards in America would be to compound the problem. I pointed this out before but people just insisted on extending the scope of this article and making it unsuitable for inclusion as a subarticle. The Julian Assange article should have more subarticles and have bits moved to them. Doing this makes that messy. What would you have thought if I set up an article on the indictment when thei article supposedly covered that? It would be annoying and mess things up. This article should cover something that is clearly finished and I would support a new title which stopped it getting current events stuck into it so it coulkd be used in the main article. NadVolum (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

  This article should cover something that is clearly finished

  I dont understand this. Wikipedia has articles about stuff thats still happening all the time Softlemonades (talk) 21:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

  It's a question of how to do the business cleanly. If people insist on having multiple articles dealing with the same current events you have a mess. If you can put an end time to a section then that can be split off and cleaned up and becomes suitable for use as a subarticle for the main article. It modularizes the work. Yes Wikipedia has articles about things that are happening all the time. But having multiple articles dealing with the same thing is WP:FORKing. NadVolum (talk) 03:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  Do you mean WP:Content_forking? Thats acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage. I dont think its WP:REDUNDANTFORK but there isnt much guidance on that Softlemonades (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  What is encouraged if you would read a little further down is having subarticles which are summarized in other articles. As it says in the sentence before the one you quoted 'On the other hand, as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked articles for related material.' In this case having an article like this summarized in the Julian Assange article rather than them both covering the same business in detail. To do that properly you need to figure out a preoperly delineated section of the main article which shuld be a subarticle. And having the subarticle cover current events just makes a mess of that. NadVolum (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  I guess you mean WP:SPINOFF and I did read it, just because someone disagrees with you doesnt mean they dont read or you should take a tone. But if you think someone missed something and you have time, direct links or quotes are more helpful than vague things like "a little further down"

  To do that properly you need to figure out a preoperly delineated section of the main article which shuld be a subarticle Right now that would be Julian_Assange#Imprisonment_and_extradition_proceedings or Julian_Assange#Espionage_indictment_in_the_United_States, probably not hard to sort out on that pages Talk

  And having the subarticle cover current events just makes a mess of that I think youre overly caught up in procedures. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

  I think we might just disagree on this, and our thread might not be productive

  We need more opinions or an outside closer Softlemonades (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  Yes I think talking to an experienced editor would be a good idea okay. WP:Help desk could probably do that I think. NadVolum (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  I wish I could get through to you but it seems I can't. Well it is your time to waste but you'll be wasting other peoples' time as well.<

  Nice civil tone, helps discussion and a great response to someone saying direct quotes and links are better than vague things. Thanks for deleting it at least Softlemonades (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  I believe it is true but deleted it because I could see it would not do any good with you. NadVolum (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Dont see a reason to jump the gun on this. There is no case against Assange yet, only the US pretending he is a spy. If he gets extradited and the case starts, then we can revisit this. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support as the proposer. US v Assange is the most recognizable, natural, precise, concise, and consistent name which are WP:CRITERIA. Search shows more than 500 articles use the US v. Name title format or have redirects from it. Only Indictment and arrest of Augusto Pinochet and Julian Assange use that kind of name. And the grand jury, other witnesses and problems brought up at Talk:Indictment_and_arrest_of_Julian_Assange#The_indictment arent covered by an article that limits the scope this much Softlemonades (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Softlemonades (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. (nominator)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The indictment

This article purports to cover the indictment of Assange but it does not actually go through the indictment. It has citations about it but they are a bit of a mishmash and it doesn't cover Thordarson's retraction which puts a big question mark over many of the points in the indictment. I'd have thought if this article is going to be any use a bit better effort should be spent on the things it says it covers and it should have those bits that are relevant from the main Assange article for at least the early stages. The later bits of the story after the extradition hearing under Judge Baraitser could be left out for the moment. Or even permanently and this article referred to from the main article a bit sooner. NadVolum (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Thats not about the indictment and arrest itself, thats about the case. Would be good to include in US v Assange though. We could add about the other witnesses who cooperated from the grand jury too Softlemonades (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Opening sentence

Assange and his legal team have always contended that Assange entered the Ecuadorian embassy in order to avoid extradition to the U.S.. Why have we chosen in our opening sentence to ignore this fact, and to publish the more negative narrative forwarded by his detractors? It is not essential that an encyclopaedia gives the benefit of the doubt to a living person – it is however expected that we treat the claims of both sides on a disputed issue, with equal due scepticism. Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you please propose a change? You could even WP:BRD change it and then if someone reverts it we discuss it here. Or change it and self revert and post the diff here if you are concerned the change is controversial. Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority uses accusations of sexual offenses late in the first sentence as well. Given that the allegations were dropped, they might be WP"UNDUE weight. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The change was made on 9 October 2022.[4] Prior to that date, the article started:

Julian Assange was investigated by the Eastern District of Virginia grand jury for US computer-related crimes committed in 2012. His request for political asylum was granted by Ecuador and he remained in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London from 2012 until 2019.

The current version is one-sided. As mentioned by Prunesqualor, it does not explain why he sought asylum or the reasons why Ecuador granted the asylum. Readers are left with the impression that he sought asylum to avoid the sexual assault investigation. The "elephant in the room", that remains unmentioned, is the threat of being extradited to the US. The sexual assault investigation needs to be mentioned at some point. I am not sure of the best approach or whether 2012 is the best place at which to start the article.Burrobert (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this analysis and we should restore the earlier version. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Please use the existing discussion about this already, it was cited in the change from three months ago and was the reason for it. Splitting the discussion only makes it more confusing and hides that several users objected to the text that was there before

And the source cited doesnt support the original text. Softlemonades (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The "Neutrality dispute" section is hard to follow. It is not specifically about the lead or the first sentence, although that is mentioned a few times. The discussion starts in 2019 with a few years' gap before starting up again in October 2022. Some of the responses in 2022 are to issues raised in 2019. Burrobert (talk) 13:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The "Neutrality dispute" section is hard to follow Yes but splitting it in to different sections makes it more confusing I think.

Why have we chosen in our opening sentence to ignore this fact, and to publish the more negative narrative forwarded by his detractors? and Readers are left with the impression that he sought asylum to avoid the sexual assault investigation. I edited it to say what the sources said. There was no indictment in 2012, or 2013 and the page even says that

Given that the allegations were dropped, they might be WP"UNDUE weight Its not undue and they were dropped because they became too old. If you think its undue because the charges were dropped then why do you say we should replace it by talking about charges that didnt exist?

If the focus in the first sentence needs to change it should be about this indictment and this arrest. But the arrest would not have happened without the sex crime charges and "failing to appear in court" so it must be included. We can mention the fear that hed be "extradited by the US in 2012" in the beginning but not as fact that it was about to happen and we have to follow RS. Heres how the New York Times did describes it:

In 2012, Mr. Assange entered the Ecuadorean Embassy in London to escape an extradition request from Sweden, where he faced rape accusations. He spent seven years in the embassy, but was arrested by the British police in 2019, and later sentenced to 50 weeks in prison for skipping bail when he entered the embassy.

The charges in Sweden have been dropped, and Mr. Assange has completed his 50-week sentence. He is not accused of any crime outside the United States, but he remains at the Belmarsh prison in London while Britain decides on his extradition. His bail requests have so far been rejected.

Softlemonades (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree the opening is far from neutral. Assange had good reason to fear a secret indictment from America, the sentence against him in Sweden even if he lost it would very probably be for less than a year though the maximum is four. NadVolum (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Assange had good reason to fear a secret indictment from America That shouldnt be the question because different sources disagree and then we have to get into that, and the article says there was no indictment in 2012 and 2013. We should just add his reason, without saying its a good one or not. Or it becomes a debate and coatrack Softlemonades (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

His reason was he feared an indictment from America. He said that and we have no reason to dispute it. NadVolum (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

{Sorry I misunderstood and thought you were saying the article should say it was a good reason instead of just a reason.

we have no reason to dispute it we could find sources that dispute it but I agree it should be mentioned and I dont think we should

I tried to fix it with a quick edit, I hope that its better Softlemonades (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

You might think it was not a good reason but a year in jail in Sweden compared to any number in an American one could well have sounded reasonable to Assange. And especially if they were consecutive. No the lead still looks unreasonable to me and downplays his reason. His reason should come first. NadVolum (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

You might think it was not a good reason Not what I meant, I meant the article shouldnt judge the reason Softlemonades (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

An article titled: “Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange” needs to mention the Swedish arrest warrant, but there is already a article dedicated to the (now defunct) Swedish case against Assange - so in theory we don’t need to give any details at all about the accusations, but can simple link to that article. Since there is much controversy surrounding the Swedish allegations, what details (if any) we decide to give need to be properly explained, with balance and context. The first sentence of the article is not the place for that. If the article must begin with Assange’s entry into the Ecuadorian embassy (I note that until October 9th 2022, it did not) I would suggest we find a factual and neutral and non controversial wording for the first sentence. While that is threshed out, as a holding measure I will slightly tweak the wording in order to tone down the controversial material in the sentence - but I’m really not happy about this touchy subject being unnecessarily introduced right at the start of the article. Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

so in theory we don’t need to give any details at all about the accusations No

being unnecessarily introduced right at the start of the article Its why he was arrested and we have to match facts

I edited it to follow MOS. "Any prominent controversies" need to be included. The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies

Also no one has cited sources that mention only the indictment from the US that wasnt real and no mention of the assault case or charges. Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. and An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.

(I note that until October 9th 2022, it did not) Yeah and that was marked as a problem in 2019 Softlemonades (talk) 12:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Could you please avoid using ad-hominem comments like “... you might not like that but we have to match facts.” Which in this instance misrepresents what I said. Please re-read my above comments and try to address what I actually did say i.e.: “Since there is much controversy surrounding the Swedish allegations... The first sentence of the article is not the place for that." Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the assertion that the sexual assault charges were: ”why [Assange] was arrested”. A team of United Nations experts have since pointed to “a lack of diligence by the Swedish Prosecutor’s Office in its investigations [which] resulted in Assange’s lengthy loss of liberty”. In other words it could also be said that: Assange was arrested because of incompetence (or worse) on the part of the Swedish Prosecutor’s Office. Pointing to that fact might provide some balance and context when we mention the Swedish charges. Again I would say details, on both sides, belong further down the article were they can be given the proper space for context and balance. Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Again I would say details, on both sides, belong further down the article were they can be given the proper space for context and balance I agree but this isnt a detail. What we say in the lead needs to match the balance of sources but it doesnt all have to be part of the opening sentence.

What if we rewrote it so

Sentence 1-2: Why Assange was arrested and then the reason for the first indictment EDIT or all the charges but I think that means rewriting more of the lead

Sentence 2-3: Explain relevant parts of Assanges WikiLeaks work

Sentence 3-5: Sweden case, fear of extradition and asylum history

I dont think the Sweden case has to be emphasized but it has to be mentioned Softlemonades (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. I said what I meant wrong and it did come out that way. I selfstriked it. Softlemonades (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't the opening sentence describe or at least relate to what the article is about? NadVolum (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

What do you think of the idea I wrote just above? I think it fits what youre saying Softlemonades (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I would have thought with the title it should cover the bits at most in the Assange article in Julian Assange#Imprisonment and extradition proceedings and end when Assange is sent to America for trial or freed of the indictment or dies. No need to cover anything about his time in the embassy except in so far as it is in the indictment. If it could be ended erlier at the hearings in Britain that would be best so it can be used as a clean sub-article in the Julian Assange article. NadVolum (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I’m struggling to see why we have an article titled “Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange” at all – I doubt there is any important information, in this article, about the “arrest” of Assange, which is not covered in Assange’s main page or in the “Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority” article. We should re-title the article “US Indictment of Julian Assange” and deal only with that issue, which, due to it’s complexity, does warrant a separate article. Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

The main article is a bit big so if that section could be condensed down and a reference put there to go here for more details it makes sense. Othewise yes I agree with you and have been struggling to try and stop the extension of this article from being a fork rather than a potential subarticle. NadVolum (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Othewise yes I agree with you and have been struggling to try and stop the extension of this article from being a fork rather than a potential subarticle That might be a good new topic in a new section. You said this before and I still dont understand but it looks like they might Softlemonades (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

We cant give half a reason and if we say he was arrested for bail we should say what the bail was for.

Can you suggest alternate text or out line? I want to make sure i understand the change you want and look for a way to consensus and not just argue Softlemonades (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

No I don’t wish to “just argue” as you put it – but I would like to improve a problematic article.

I just wonder if you, or anyone else here, can give a good reason why this article deals with Assange’s arrest, since that is dealt with elsewhere (in at least two other articles). Also note, unless we accept that the U.S. government conspired with the Swedish authorities in order to try to get Assange over to America, then the Swedish charges and the U.S. indictment are not particularly related subjects (except under the general umbrella heading of “Assange’s legal battles”). Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah this article is looking more an more like a WP:COATRACK. NadVolum (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, though at least a coat rack has the virtue of being a flexible repository for storing a wide range of misfit/overflowing material. – instead this article artificially draws in material from two seemingly arbitrary and disparate topics (arbitrarily rejecting others) and, worse still one of those topics is already covered elsewhere. Prunesqualor billets_doux 19:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you suggest a specific change or RS that cover the indictment and arrest but dont mention the bail or the case? Thats how balance and DUE is decided so we should focus on that Softlemonades (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I just wonder if you, or anyone else here, can give a good reason why this article deals with Assange’s arrest I tried to rename the article after the US case to focus just on that and got no consensus. Before that there was another RfC about dropping "arrest" from the title and it didnt get consensus either. If you want to re discuss either thats fine with me

No I don’t wish to “just argue” as you put it – but I would like to improve a problematic article. I didnt say you were just arguing I asked for specifics so I could do more than just argue

then the Swedish charges and the U.S. indictment are not particularly related subjects

No one said they are. I said that the reason for the arrest does. Softlemonades (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok - so we seem to have some agreement – sorry, I had no idea you had previously championed similar arguments to the ones I’m now making. Do you remember any good arguments against, or should we go ahead and work toward changing the title to “The U.S. indictment of Julian Assange” (and removing material which rightly belongs in the “Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority” article)? Prunesqualor billets_doux 19:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)