Talk:Julian Assange

family

• https://www.dw.com/en/julian-assange-fathered-two-children-with-lawyer-in-embassy-report/a-53099462

Page length 2

By my calculation, the "prose size" of this article is 76 kB. This is nothing like the size of Trump's article (see previously), but is still over the 60 kB limit proscribed by WP:SIZE. It is worth noting that there is a separate article Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange and that this article's "Reactions to the US indictment" is currently a duplicate of text in that article. In this article mentions of his writings and awards are duplicated or triplicated. Some sections such as "US criminal investigations" are out of date. There is obviously much more of the story to go, so we need to look at further splitting the article or summarising what we have. We certainly cannot include in this article every letter that is written or every court hearing where nothing happens.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

that seems to be a weight issue. We haven’t reached that point in the discussion yet. Burrobert (talk) 05:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't see a discussion. Secondly, the size of this article is a fact, and we will need to start trimming.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

we are still working on the sub-headings above. Once these are finalised the next step is to assign a weight to each sub-section. We can’t start trimming until we know the weight of each sub-section. Burrobert (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll believe it when I see it, but regardless I thought it was important to answer the question that was raised above but never answered.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

As there is clearly no ongoing discussion, I have summarised the "Reactions to the US indictment". As stated, the text removed is duplicated at Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange. There is no reason to complain about loss of information.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

As a result, the "readable prose size" is now 71 kB. This is still over the recommended limit, and it seems likely that the article will continue to grow for years.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions for trimming:

• Removing a lot of quotations — see WP:QUOTEFARM. There are a lot of quotations that are long and unnecessary. They could be summarised. Some of them are from news articles, which is completely inappropriate.
• Removing repetition.
• Removing trivia. We don't need to know everything Assange did.
• Removing information that is out of date. Some information might have been newsworthy when it was published, but it is now unimportant as Assange's situation has dramatically changed.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

You seem to advocating (unless I misunderstand) removing the biographical part of the article. I think we should remove the part about the reactions, all the US focus stuff, and focus on the guy's life. As you pointed out in the start of this thread there is already a US indictment article, so anything duplicate should be deleted here. Then we can look again at article size and go through the other matters. Maybe quotes by assange are useful as part of his biography. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not advocating removing the biographical part of the article (whatever that means). Where did you get that from? I'm merely putting forward suggestions from trimming across the board. The indictment is part of his biography and we have to summarise it here. In any case, the indictment is a relatively small part of this article, much smaller than his time in the embassy. The quotes are by many different people, including journalists. Quotes by Assange are useful if they reveal his opinions etc. I'm only suggesting removing quotes that are unnecessary.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Then I think we are all in agreement here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

This article is already too long, can we please not add material better suited to another article?Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I see we are still trying to add more material, why?Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

There have been a number of editors who have long argued that the material on the 2016 presidential election is entirely overdue. This seems to be especially obvious now, since the election does not figure into the charges for which Assange may be extradited. Slatersteven, Jack Upland, or Jtbobwaysf, would you mind taking a stab at reducing that section down to a single section, instead of 6?

Slatersteven, in this edit [1] you removed the fact that Assange published the Iraq and Afghan war logs with major papers, prior to releasing the larger document lists. However, how Assange released this information is important if the release itself was important, and the issue is even relevant today, as the nature of the releases is be litigated in court.

Jack Upland, in this edit [2] you remove a quote about Winner, and the removal could arguably be justified, though the longer quote from Assange about Clapper and Petreaus contains political commentary describing Assange's beliefs, surely relevant to his biography. The other content removed — chopping down an already short quote — distorts the summary of the statement made by US officials, indicating that not only the NYT, but also the WP and the Guardian are relevant.

In these edits [3], you remove a lot of information from the article, some of your edits are really helpful, but I think you've removed too many of the reactions, many by prominent figures opposed to Assange's treatment. I think it's possible to preserve some of your edits and removals, while also preserving some of the content you've removed, but cutting / summarizing. It's too bad that you're just cutting from statements by public officials who are speaking about Assange's current condition, but are leaving untouched the bloated section on the 2016 elections that is not a part of Assange's prosecution or extradition. -Darouet (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Everyone has different views on what is important. As discussed before, some think the 2016 election is very important. We just have summarise. If we included every tweet by Assange that gives insight into his political beliefs, this article would be gigantic. I have taken the NYT out of the sentence you mention. We don't need to list media organisations here. By the way, that was a quotation from the source, not from officials. We don't need to copy slabs of text. As discussed, the reactions have been moved to the Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange. There is no need to duplicate them here.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Let me start by plagiarising some very sound advice from The Guide - DON'T PANIC!. Grab your towels and I’ll let you know what I have discovered.

• We are over the limit. But being over the limit is not by itself reason to panic because Wikipedia has practically unlimited storage space.
• Did you know that content, especially summary, well sourced and non-tangential information, should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length?
• There is no policy that stops us from adding information to articles that are over the limit. Our hero is only 49 years old. With a bit of luck and a lot of public anger, hopefully he can go on for another 40 years and remake the world a few more times. It would be unencyclopaedic to leave this part of his life out of the article. He is currently involved in the most important trial since Dreyfus. We need to be free to document this so that the public is informed. They expect it of us. We are also constantly improving the article, which sometimes requires adding text. This should not be a cause for concern. Today we had an anonymous editor point out that we had been using a biased title and wording in the “Seth Rich” section. This type of continuous improvement is good.
• Our elders have provided a solution. They say that, when an article is over 100 kB, it should be divided. This is a good idea. The most obvious place to start splitting is the section dealing with the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The space devoted to the DNC leaks is immense in comparison with the space devoted to other publications such as the Collateral murder video and the Iraq and Afghanistan War Logs. Given that an article for the DNC leaks exists, this should be fairly straight forward. The same applies to the Swedish enquiry.
• Regarding another matter that doesn’t seem to be related to article size, there was some concern about including Wikileaks related material in the article. Firstly, it is too late. Secondly, I was trying to provide some information about one of the largest leaks of US military information which currently has half a sentence devoted to it. The space devoted to the DNC leaks indicated that a paragraph devoted to the Afghanistan war logs was not unreasonable.

Burrobert (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I have just trimmed DNC leaks section and the readable prose size is 67 kB. Now I await the complaints.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes we were all watching. Sure to be some comments. Anyway we now have 33 kB to play with so let's start adding in more text. There is a lot more that needs to be said and will need to be said over the future course of our protagonist's life. Burrobert (talk) 04:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the trimming I have done could be justified by WP:TOOMUCH. No one is panicking, but we don't have "33 kB to play with". > 60kB probably should be divided. The fundamental issue is readability. See WP:SIZE. We have already effectively split the article by creating the "Indictment" and the "Swedish investigation" articles. I can't see any opportunities for splitting at the moment. Yes, there is likely to be much more for the article to cover, including his trial. That's why we don't want the existing article to be bloated. There are technical limits. The Donald Trump article has reached technical limits, and this is dire.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I have now looked through your redactions. Unfortunately I can't find much to complain about. I am giving you an A. Here are some points that I noticed:

• You removed a phrase that explained what type of neo-McCarthy hysteria that Assange meant. I have re-added the phrase so that readers don't get confused.
• At one point we refer to "claims" that we say Assange made. However, this refers back to the earlier sentence "Assange implied that Seth Rich, ... was the source behind the DNC emails". Implications and claims are not synonymous so if "implied" is the correct term in the initial sentence then we should replace "claims" with "implications" for accuracy. I know you did not introduce this wording so it doesn't count against your overall mark.
• "According to political scientists Matthew Baum and Phil Gussin, WikiLeaks released damaging emails whenever Clinton's lead expanded in the polls". The source discusses why the emails are talked about more when Clinton surges ahead in the polls. They come up with two possibilities. One was that the media like a close race. The other was that Wikileaks may have been releasing the emails when Clinton went ahead in the polls. The wording in the source is "perhaps the real culprit is WikiLeaks, strategically releasing hacked emails, and thereby demanding media attention, whenever Clinton’s lead expands". So we should remove "damaging" as this is not in the source and secondly we should indicate that the source is not definite on the point. Something like ""According to political scientists Matthew Baum and Phil Gussin, WikiLeaks may have been releasing emails whenever Clinton's lead expanded in the polls". Again I am not marking you down for this as you didn't introduce that wording.

Burrobert (talk) 06:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• I have re-edited the sentence about the "neo-McCarthyist hysteria". I think one of the problems with this section was that it kept repeating things. We know what the issues are. They don't have to be spelt out anew in every sentence. Or twice every sentence.
• I have changed "claims" to "comments".
• I can't access the Baum/Gussin article, but based on what you say, I question why we are including this here if it is not definite on the point. Clearly, the emails damaged Clinton. We don't need speculation about the timing...--Jack Upland (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Here is the only paragraph in the story that mentions Wikileaks. It comes after the article has mentioned that the media may have been timing its mention of Clinton's emails to create a close contest. It is speculation and can be removed.

But perhaps the real culprit is WikiLeaks, strategically releasing hacked emails, and thereby demanding media attention, whenever Clinton’s lead expands. For instance, the Oct. 7 release of emails belonging to Clinton campaign manager John Podesta followed a week during which Clinton’s lead in RCP’s polling average expanded from 2.7 to 4.7 points. On the day of the release, stories mentioning “Clinton email” doubled from the previous day. Yet over the next several days, attention to her emails fell off sharply, suggesting that WikiLeaks failed to drive the media narrative, at least beyond a single day.

Burrobert (talk) 09:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

For the moment I have changed the wording to reflect the uncertainty in the WaPo article. The sentence can be removed if appropriate. I think we should mention in the lead that the Swedish investigation was dropped in 2019. We don't need to mention that is was closed and reopened multiple times but the closure is an important point. Burrobert (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I have returned the dropping of the Swedish investigation to the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Harry Dunn

I was reading the Harry Dunn page and found that his parents had contacted the UK government about Assange's extradition. "On 23 February 2020, the Dunn family urged the UK government to refuse the extradition request of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange which was made by the US government until they returned Anne Sacoolas back to the UK. They accused the US government of hypocrisy and said that the US had launched an attack on the Special Relationship between both countries."

Once we get things up and running again, perhaps we could consider adding a sentence about this. Any thoughts? Burrobert (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

It has had some coverage, but not sure its really relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I've seen this in the news as well, but compared to all the other larger issues that we've chosen to keep out of the article, this is a pretty minor one. -Darouet (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Right-o. Burrobert (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Is anyone awake?

There is a lot of snoring coming from this page. Meanwhile the rest of us have been working hard.

Assange has been particularly busy this week, being involved in two separate court cases, one in Spain and the other in a different country entirely. Decisions were made in Spain about who can be called as witnesses in the trial of David Morales. Decisions were not made elsewhere, mainly due to the Americans beginning a “go-slow”. After ten years of investigation they haven’t yet worked out what charges to tell the court they are making against Assange. Of course, the Americans did publish the superseding indictment on the internet so the rest of us have a rough idea of what is happening. Some people think the possibility of having an election in the US later in the year may be affecting the Americans strategy. There is of course the possibility they are worried that Britain may eventually reject the extradition, so the best way to punish Assange and keep him in prison is to take as long as possible with the case.

In other news related to the English hearing, Matt Kennard and Mark Curtis have published an investigative article on Daily Maverick. Some of the conclusions were already known but don’t appear in our Assange article. I'll give a list of the main points below. Some of the points seem significant and would be worth including in the article.

• The United Kingdom’s Ministry of Justice is blocking the release of basic information about Judge Vanessa Baraitser in what appears to be an irregular application of the Freedom of Information Act.
• It appears that Vanessa Baraitser is something of a hanging judge, having ordered extradition in 96% of the cases she has presided over for which information is publicly available, and 26% of her rulings were successfully appealed. 
• Assange is one of just two of the 797 inmates in Belmarsh being held for violating bail conditions. Over 20% of inmates are held for murder.
• The article describes the appointment of Baraitser to preside over the Assange case as controversial and the decision untransparent and says it is likely Chief Magistrate Lady Emma Arbuthnot was involved in the decision to appoint Baraitser to the case.
• Arbuthnot’s family’s has connections to the British military and intelligence establishment which of course were affected by Wikileak’s revelations. Arbuthnot has personally received financial benefits from partner organisations of the UK Foreign Office, which in 2018 called Assange a “miserable little worm”.  Arbuthnot directly ruled on the Assange case in 2018-19 and has never formally recused herself from it. According to a statement given to Private Eye, she stepped aside because of a “perception of bias”, but it was not elucidated what this related to. 
• In a key judgment in February 2018, Arbuthnot rejected the findings of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention – a body composed of international legal experts – that Assange was being “arbitrarily detained”, characterised Assange’s stay in the embassy as “voluntary” and concluded Assange’s health and mental state was of minor importance.
• In a second ruling a week later, Arbuthnot dismissed Assange’s fears of US extradition. “I accept that Mr Assange had expressed fears of being returned to the United States from a very early stage in the Swedish extradition proceedings but… I do not find that Mr Assange’s fears were reasonable,” she said. 
• The UK Home Office is blocking the release of information about home secretary Priti Patel’s role in the Assange extradition case. Apparently Patel has had communications regarding Assange during her tenure as home secretary, but the government is reluctant to disclose this information. Patel is linked to Arbuthnot’s husband, Lord Arbuthnot and will sign off Assange’s extradition to the US if it is ordered by Baraitser.

Burrobert (talk) 04:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, we should be focussed on the extradition decision and any appeals which result, not speculating in advance about how biased the decision is going to be. Secondly, we discussed Arbuthnot in April. Given the article is already over–long, I don't see how we can justify including commentary on someone who is not a major figure in the saga. The argument seems to prove too much, as it would apply equally to any case in the Magistrates' Court. Thirdly, Assange has finished his sentence for skipping bail, so that information is out of date.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Not seeing anything we need to discuss is not the same as being asleep.Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Well I think you were asleep because you both sound grumpy. I wasn’t advocating including every one of the above points in the article. However, some seem to be noteworthy. The statistic about bail jumpers being held at Belmarsh seems noteworthy. Yes he is no longer a bail jumper but he was initially so we could include that in an earlier part of his bio. The “go-slow” being applied by the Yanks seems noteworthy though we can’t mention their motive as the source only speculates about one. I wouldn’t mention Patel at this stage though she will become important later. Baraitser’s background as a hanging judge is interesting but would be more relevant on her own wiki page unless it gets more coverage in the context of Assange. Arbuthnot’s role and background is shadowy and important as she is responsible for overseeing Baraitser’s work, has presided on the case and has made some noteworthy remarks while presiding. I don’t think the argument applies to all cases in the magistrates court, as I would expect that not all cases involve people who have published information harmful to the Arbuthnots’ interests. Burrobert (talk) 10:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Bail jumping stats says nothing about him, its irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I think I am going back to sleep zzzzz Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

With regarding extradition statistics, according to this, between 2004 and 2012, 75 suspects were extradited to the USA and only 7 refused.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Re: Seth Rich conspiracy theory

It seems that there's no realization in the public consciousness that you cannot upload to wikileaks unless you are using a privacy protecting system such as TOR; this is an intentional design. The exception is when there is too much data, in which case they then setup some other way to upload the data. This should be clarified in this section. Family Guy Guy (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Source?Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Keystone courts

Anyone looking for a bit of slapstick could have watched Assange’s latest hearing. Apparently the US has filed more charges two days after the closing date for submissions and after the defence had lodged all its documents. It’s very hard to work out what Assange’s current status is. He won’t be charged until 7 September but remains in gaol for “reasons that I told you about before” according to baraitser. Is he still charged from before? Anyway this is what happened.

The case was delayed this morning as Assange’s lawyers initially struggled to contact him at the prison in Woolwich, southeast London. This seems to be normal practice at his hearings.

The court then scrambled to find a US government prosecutor after wrongly listing the 10am hearing for this afternoon. Dobbin, representing the US, dialled in to the court, was cut off, accidentally connected to a different courtroom and re-connected back. She said: “I intended to appear in person at 3.30pm, according to the listing.” The judge replied: “That may be the explanation, but nevertheless it was announced for 10am”.

After the hearing had ended Assange’s legal team asked to talk with their client so the judge asked the defendant: “Do you still have a jailer in the room with you, Mr Assange? Is it possible to arrange a post-court conference today?” The prison guard responded: “Unfortunately not, because you’ve overrun by 35 minutes. It would impact on other cases due to lunch breaks”.

Burrobert (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

We know Assange is in the middle of an extradition hearing and he has been denied bail. There's no mystery.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Your suggested edit is?Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not suggesting we include the comedy capers routine in the article even though it does show the shambolic nature of the proceedings. I also hesitate to suggest any edits lest we upset the page's current state of delicate perfection. However, what about mentioning that "Assange will be re-arrested on the first day of his hearing at the Old Bailey on 7 September under a new indictment drawn up on 12 August". Or "The charge sheet contains further allegations that he conspired with others to obtain US government information by encouraging computer hacking". By the way has anyone else wondered why the US chose the Eastern District of Virginia as the location for his trial if it goes ahead? Burrobert (talk) 11:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Because its not yet September?Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you expand on that answer. I am not sure what question or issue is relates to. Burrobert (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

As it is not yet September we cannot say what will happen in September.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll defer to your greater knowledge of fortune telling. Baraitser thought she could do it. By the way has anyone else wondered why the US chose the Eastern District of Virginia as the location for his trial if it goes ahead? Burrobert (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

We are not a general forum.Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

This must be your day for cryptic comments. I am going to make a guess here (correct me if I am wrong) and assume that the last comment was in relation to the Eastern District of Virginia. Let me put it in a way that is extremely un-forum-like and extremely page-focused. Should we mention why the US has chosen the Eastern District of Virginia as the location for his trial if it goes ahead? Burrobert (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Do any RS speculate as to why?Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes there are a few. Looking at it from the other angle no RS says it was chosen randomly. Venue shopping: "Prosecutors will seek to charge a defendant in the federal district where he or she is most likely to be convicted". The nature of the court and the reason for its nature are quite well known and discussed outside of the Assange case. There are also RS's that mention the nature of the court specifically in relation to Assange. Burrobert (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Care to provide a couple if sources that discus it?Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

This thread is getting a bit long and is under a misleading title. Besides I feel like we are the only two left on the island in And then there were none and I am starting to think you may have killed off all the other editors. I'll start a new topic. Burrobert (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The part that the judge asked to confer with Assange and the jail said no to extra time is encyclopedic and worthy to add. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we add something like: “Julian Assange’s lawyers have been denied face to face contact with him since March 2020. They had a short video link meeting with him prior to the hearing but were unable to speak to him after the hearing because “It would impact on other cases due to lunch breaks.” ”? Burrobert (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I am ok adding the denied face to face contact and that it continued after the court case. I think better to summarize than to use quotes. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Right-o. It might be hard to capture the absurdity of the situation in a summary of that quote but perhaps another editor can think of a way. Burrobert (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

A question, is this unique to Assange or is it a case that no face to face contact have been allowed in court cases?09:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Possibly not unique [[4]].Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

This extradition process has been going on since May last year. There have been various delays, including due Assange's ill health. Yes, mistakes have been made. But I don't see any source saying this is somehow unprecedented. As discussed previously, we shouldn't document every detail of the court proceedings.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The lawgazette reference didn’t mention the situation at Belmarsh. I did a quick DuckDuckGo search but couldn’t find anything specific. It is certain that COViD-19 is having an effect on prison visits. Whether Assange’s treatment is different from other prisoner’s is unclear. It seems notable to me that he hasn’t seen his lawyers since March and there have been hearings during that time. It would be a notable situation for any prisoner. And then someone’s lunch break intervenes. I put forward a suggested wording above which interested editors can play around with. Burrobert (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Any wording must not imply or be worded as to imply this is anything other than just (at this time) a not unusual practice. Moreover I would argue is is undue specifically because it cannot be shown this is unusual or special treatment.Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we are in a position to indicate that it is either usual or unusual at this time. If we were to mention it, we should merely state the facts. I am happy for it to be included in some form. The lunch break quote and telling the judge that she went 35 minutes over time is something that readers will appreciate for its black humour. It shows how thin the thread of justice is. There are other points in the computer magazine reference that need to be added to the article. The US has revealed a third indictment against Assange drawn up on 12 August. The article provides some commentary on that. Burrobert (talk) 11:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The problem is any wording will not give an accurate picture as we do not know. Thus we cannot word it expect as a factoid that adds nothing to our understanding of THIS case.Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

We need to bear in mind that this article is already excessively long. We shouldn't record everything that happens in the courts.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Personal life?

I don't think we should have a "Personal life" section at the beginning. This is confusing because it overlaps the period when he was convicted for hacking. He had a child at that time. I think the other two relationships should be dealt with chronologically.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I am happy for the text to be moved to an appropriate place in the page. However, you won't be able to put Julian's relationship with Stella in one place as they first met in 2011, started a relationship in 2015 and had two children at different times between 2015 and 2020. That time period straddles a number of sections. The one sentence we devote to his relationship with Sarah from 2009 to 2012 straddles the 'Early publications', 'Iraq and Afghan War logs and US diplomatic cables', 'US criminal investigation', 'Swedish sexual assault allegations' and 'Swedish sexual assault allegations' sections. The birth of Daniel when Julian was 18 would go into the hacking section which seems to cover that time period. It's hard to say what chronological section should contain the sentence about Julian's hair turning white or the sentence about him being "Daniel's primary caregiver for much of his childhood". If you are going to start sorting things chronologically you will need to reorganise or merge the Hacking and Programming sections as there is some time overlap. Burrobert (talk) 06:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I have established an "Early life" section which is really about his early life. We can't have everything exactly in chronological order, but I think someone reading about Assange's activities in the embassy deserves to know that (apparently) Assange fathered two kids in his time there. It would be good to include the "Hacking" section in this section, but I can't see how to do it without being confusing.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I have tried to combine "Hacking" and "Programming" into "Early life". It's not exactly chronological but it does show that these events occurred in the same period.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• From 2009 to 2012, Assange was in a relationship with British journalist Sarah Harrison. There are several problems with this. Harrison is hardly a journalist. She is (or was) a Wikileaks staffer. Secondly, as I read the source, the "intimate" relationship started in 2010, and there is no statement about it ending. Thirdly, I question why we mention this. Harrison's work with Wikileaks is noted. Whether she was Assange's girlfriend (or intimate with him in some unspecified way) at some point doesn't seem to matter. They were apparently not publicly known as a couple. They didn't have any children... We don't need to list every one of Assange's girlfriends.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I have removed this sentence. Other sources indicate that the relationship was somewhat casual[5] and that the pair have "never commented" on it.[6] Including it seems gossipy, unless there's something more to say about it.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• The infobox currently says Assange has four children. I haven't seen a source for this. It seems a matter of addition: two children with Stella Moris, one child in France, and Daniel. I don't think we really know how many children he has, but perhaps "at least four" is unencyclopedic. In this source, Sarah Harrison, speaking to Assange in 2011, asks, "Have you been at the births of all your children?" And Assange replies, "All except one". The use of the word "all" implies there was more than two at that point. In this source, dated 2012, Assange says that he has not seen "any of my children" (not either) since being under house arrest and refers to his "eldest son" (as if he has more than one). The description of Assange's "young children" seems to exclude Daniel who was an adult that time and, according to this, he hadn't seen his father since 2007. According to this, Assange had at least four children by 2011. Just to clarify, I am not suggesting we delve into original research about Assange's children. I think a biographical article should note that the subject has children, but in this case we seem to have very limited information.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• I have removed this: Julian was Daniel's primary caregiver for much of his childhood. What Assange said was, "I raised my eldest son as a single father for more than 14 years in Australia". However, the our source says that he reached a custody agreement with Daniel's mother in 1999, that is, when Daniel was around 10. According to this, Julian and Daniel last had contact in 2007, when Daniel was around 18. I don't doubt that Julian looked after Daniel, but not as primary caregiver for much of his childhood.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• I have restored the text saying Julian was married to Teresa, Daniel's mother. There are at least three sources used in the article which say they were married, so I don't think this is in dispute. From what the New Yorker says they were probably married in a registry or something like that. The infobox gives her name as "Teresa Doe". I don't see this in any source. "Doe" might be a pseudonym, as in John Doe. If so, I think it's inappropriate. Also, I don't see a source saying they divorced in 1999. Finally, I have described her as a "girl", not a woman, because she was 17 when she gave birth to Daniel.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• The passage about Assange's hacker handle when he was a teenager correctly says that his handle was Mendax, but then is followed by a comment that the word means "liar." This lacks the necessary context for understanding his choice of handle and is clearly politically motivated. Assange got his handle from Horace's Odes, in which the phrase "splendide mendax" (nobly untruthful) appears. Assange discusses this in his autobiography. I added this to the page today, but the edit bot kicked it back because it did not like the URL for one of the two sources I provided. Onerevolutionary (talk) 04:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

It is not "clearly politically motivated". It is a statement of fact. I have added your information in an abbreviated form.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

References

What does this mean?

What are these sentences referring to?

• Some supported the indictment. (Some what?)
• Assange as an attack on freedom of the press and international law. (it seems to be missing something, possibly a verb)

Burrobert (talk) 06:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Hako9 has provided the missing bits so that the two phrases above now have meaning. Burrobert (talk) 07:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Burrobert and Jack Upland: Content was removed by Jack. Although splitting was necessary, Jack might have inadvertently botched the sentence structure, meaning and context. Please review the old version of the article here and compare with current version to check if content was removed properly. I am on mobile now, maybe I'll check later though. - hako9 (talk) 07:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It looks OK now.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Just took a cursory look at the indictment article and the previous version of this article. Looks fine to me too. - hako9 (talk) 07:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes almost everything was in the indictment article. I added the one missing piece. Burrobert (talk) 07:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Hearings on extradition

As has been pointed out before, there is no point in recording every hearing. So far, there are ten different hearing dates mentioned (and counting). The article generally tells us little or nothing about what happened at those hearings. It is not explained, for example, how the hearing on 19 February differed from the hearing on 24 February. In other words, we are told very little about the process. It's not actually a blow-by-blow account. So what's the point in recording the hearing dates? The most important thing is the decision (still to come) and, then, the arguments for and against. So far, we have only one sentence which mentions argument. If editors feel they need to mention delays, Assange's ill-health etc, this can be summarised.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

wp:notnews we are an encyclopedia, and content must be encyclopedic.Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I suggest something like this: Assange's extradition hearings have been delayed due to requests for extra time from the prosecution and the defence[7] and due the COVID-19 pandemic.[8]--Jack Upland (talk) 03:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

By comparison, we use only five sentences to deal with the Swedish extradition attempt, including two appeals.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the added interest in the UK extradition effort by newspapers results from the near-universal concern of human rights and press freedom organizations, and many prominent editorial boards, that the Assange case likely represents the greatest danger to press freedom since the Ellsberg case. A second factor is the manner in which Assange is being handled by the court. -Darouet (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Or maybe its another reason, Assange gave them lots of copy for little cost. Or maybe must of this comes from his Russian handlers. Or maybe...that's the problem with maybes, there are a lot of them.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

It might be the case that we disagree, Slatersteven, but I think we can both agree that what's published in reliable sources should serve as a guide for content and interpretation. In any event Daniel Ellsberg has also been very outspoken about the Assange case, and his biography could serve as a good template when thinking about Assange's. -Darouet (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

And I am not sure its quite as one sided as you claim.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

As I said, the content of the current section is not about human rights, press freedoms etc. This seems irrelevant to the issue. Ellsberg's life has been totally different from Assange's. The article on Ellsberg is about half the size of this one. I don't think this is a practical suggestion for editing.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I have made the edits mentioned above. This is justified by WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BETTER, and WP:TOOMUCH.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think we need to know who was protesting outside the court. I don't think we need to know which court building was being used. Again, we have the addition of any kind of material other than actual arguments about extradition.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC) Also, we already have a section on the US indictment.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Trump will pardon Assange if he will testify in Seth Rich family v. Fox news case

Just remember it can be again fake news like first time Trump "promised" Julian a pardon to his laywer, that then said it never happened. https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2691XD 91.78.221.238 (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

You ought to read your linked story more closely. It reports a meeting at the Ecuadorian embassy in London in 2017 between Assange and Republican then-U.S. Representative Dana Rohrabacher. That is not a new promise in 2020; it's the first (and only) one made three years ago. NedFausa (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Except now we have "His lawyer, Jennifer Robinson, said in a witness statement to the court that she observed a meeting at the Ecuadorian embassy in London in 2017 between Assange and Republican then-U.S. Representative Dana Rohrabacher" under oath. And also that Seth Rich lawsuite. While Dana Rohrabacher still denies it in writing. 91.78.221.238 (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

It's a statement under oath by his lawyer. What possible significance could that have? It proves nothing. NedFausa (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Of course it proves nothing moreover I think it is fake news in some way. But the point here is that government of USA will try to get that info, even Clintons can be in play and we can get that info even before extradition because of Fox news case. 91.78.221.238 (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Rohrabacher has confirmed that he made an offer to Assange. That's not in question. What we don't explain in the article is how this relates to the extradition case.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

What?? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Steele_dossier/Archive_19#Assange_fake_news Here Will copy paste from there (Dana Rohrabacher): My Meeting with Julian Assange

​There is a lot of misinformation floating out there regarding my meeting with Julian Assange so let me provide some clarity on the matter: At no time did I talk to President Trump about Julian Assange. Likewise, I was not directed by Trump or anyone else connected with him to meet with Julian Assange. I was on my own fact finding mission at personal expense to find out information I thought was important to our country. I was shocked to find out that no other member of Congress had taken the time in their official or unofficial capacity to interview Julian Assange. At no time did I offer Julian Assange anything from the President because I had not spoken with the President about this issue at all. However, when speaking with Julian Assange, I told him that if he could provide me information and evidence about who actually gave him the DNC emails, I would then call on President Trump to pardon him. At no time did I offer a deal made by the President, nor did I say I was representing the President. Upon my return, I spoke briefly with Gen. Kelly. I told him that Julian Assange would provide information about the purloined DNC emails in exchange for a pardon. No one followed up with me including Gen. Kelly and that was the last discussion I had on this subject with anyone representing Trump or in his Administration. Even though I wasn't successful in getting this message through to the President I still call on him to pardon Julian Assange, who is the true whistleblower of our time. Finally, we are all holding our breath waiting for an honest investigation into the murder of Seth Rich. Now, compare this to “They stated that President Trump was aware of and had approved of them coming to meet with Mr Assange to discuss a proposal – and that they would have an audience with the President to discuss the matter on their return to Washington DC,” she said.2A00:1370:812C:DACF:2D69:C13F:5652:4F70 (talk) 02:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see your point. Also, this is not a forum for discussing Assange.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Swedish pretext

Assange denied the allegations, and said they were a pretext for him to be extradited from Sweden to the United States because of his role in publishing secret American documents.

I have taken the second part of this sentence from the lead. I don't see this in the body of the article, and I don't see this in the citations provided. I believe that Assange said this, but if we are going to air extreme claims like this, I don't think it should be in the lead without any support. Since there is now an extradition process from Britain, I don't think this claim makes much sense in retrospect. We don't have to repeat every conspiracy theory.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is in the body in a different form: "Assange and his supporters said he was not concerned about any proceedings in Sweden as such, but believed that his deportation to Sweden could lead to politically motivated deportation to the United States, where he could face severe penalties, up to the death sentence, for his activities related to WikiLeaks".

I think you are doing our main character a disservice to call the claim "extreme" and a "conspiracy theory". His analysis of his situation has been quite accurate over the years. If you remove this from his bio, you remove his motivation for entering the Ecuadorian embassy. He has indicated many times that he was not concerned about the Swedish case. He visited the Swedish police prior to leaving the country. He surrendered himself to the British police after the Swedish arrest warrant was issued. And he was proved right about there being a US extradition request waiting in the wings. His argument was that extradition from Sweden would be easier than from the UK. Here are a few references and quotes where he and others have put that view:

... the “sex scandal” in Sweden was a set up and an American hellhole was the ultimate destination. And he was right, and repeatedly right".

"From the outset of Sweden’s preliminary investigation, Julian Assange’s expressed concern has been that waiting in the wings was a United States extradition request that would be unstoppable from Sweden – and result in his spending the rest of his life in a US prison".

"He expressed fears that the extradition proceedings to Sweden were "actually an attempt to get me into a jurisdiction which will then make it easier to extradite me to the US".

Burrobert (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see what makes this claim "extreme," and calling it a "conspiracy theory" is unnecessarily belittling. It's Assange's widely publicized view of the reasons for the allegations in Sweden. This played a major role in the Swedish extradition attempt, as Assange very publicly asked for a guarantee that he would not be extradited by Sweden to the US.

This sort of major deletion should have been discussed before it was carried out. I think it was clear that it would be controversial. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I made deletion because I didn't see the idea of a "pretext" supported by the article. I still don't. The sentence quoted by Burrobert doesn't mention that it was a "pretext".--Jack Upland (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources for the "pretext" claim: [9] [10] [11] [12]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

But they are not in the article. Which is the point I made in the first place.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

We now have a source (the NYT article cited by Thucydides) which says almost exactly what had been in our article: "Mr. Assange and his supporters have long maintained that the accusations were attempts to discredit him and said that the efforts to extradite him to Sweden were a pretext to send him to the United States". One of the functions of a bio is to accurately present the views of its subject. If there are sources which describe his view as "extreme" or a "conspiracy theory" then these can also be included in the bio with attribution. I haven't been able to find a policy on longstanding content. Given there is opposition to the removal, it seems reasonable to leave this text in the article while a discussion occurs on the talk page. Burrobert (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The lead should summarise the main points. It is hard to see that the "pretext" claim is a main point if it is not mentioned in the body of this article (and only mentioned briefly in the Swedish allegations article). The paragraph in question already mentions "fears" of extradition to the US. I think it is reasonable to include this claim in the article (with a citation), but I don't think it belongs in the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

It's also a very vague statement. Who fabricated this pretext? Why would it be easier to extradite Assange from Sweden than Britain? I don't think it's good to leave the reader wondering. In fact, it seems like the reader is being fobbed off with a superficial explanation: Assange says this is a pretext.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

This is Assange's much publicized view on the allegations in Sweden. This BLP lists the Swedish allegations very prominently (at the top of the second paragraph of the lede), and it must also give the Assange's response to those allegations. Saying that "Assange denied the allegations" is not enough, because it does not capture the main thrust of Assange's response - which is that the allegations were politically motivated. Whether or not you find Assange's response convincing is completely irrelevant. What's relevant is that that is how he responded, and that his response has been widely reported. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned by Thucydides an editor’s opinion of Assange’s response isn’t relevant. One of the function of a bio is to present the subject’s views. His view of the Swedish enquiry is notable and reported in reliable sources.

There is now a hole in the narrative in the lead. We say: “After failing in his battle against extradition to Sweden, he breached bail and took refuge in the Embassy of Ecuador in London in June 2012. He was granted asylum by Ecuador due to fears of political persecution and extradition to the United States”. So, seemingly, Assange entered the embassy to escape a Swedish extradition and was then granted asylum for a completely different reason. It doesn't hold together and I know you are greatly concerned with reducing the number of fobbing off's that we inflict on readers.

I am also curious to know whether you consider the view that Seth Rich was responsible for the DNC leak as “extreme” and “a conspiracy theory”?

Burrobert (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The fact that the United States began investigating Assange and WikiLeaks in 2010 has also been removed from the lede (in my view, it's important enough that it should be put back in the lede), further removing context for Assange's views on the Swedish allegations. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

You are avoiding the main issue, that the "pretext" claim is not a main point in this article. Previously, the lead had seven sentences relating to the US case against Assange. I think that's a bit repetitive. There is nothing to stop you adding to the lead, but the lead has to reflect the body.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Pretext is now in the body. What about the hole and Seth? Burrobert (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. That is an improvement, but I would like something more specific. I have tried to plug the "hole". With regard to Seth Rich, I don't really understand the question. As far as I can see, his death is an unsolved murder. It would probably be reasonable to call the idea that he was killed because of the leak a "conspiracy theory". Regarding the Swedish pretext, if Assange is saying he was "set up" (see quote above), then I think that is a "conspiracy theory" (even if it's true). But there is no reason we can't include "conspiracy theories" in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: If the problem is that it's not in the body, the solution is to add it to the body (as Burrobert has now done), not to remove it from the lede. Removing this from the lede was a BLP issue, in my eyes, since it removed the central response by Assange to quite serious accusations made against him. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, now that everyone seems to be in agreement about the "pretext" claim being admissible in this article, let's put it back in the lede. It was central to Assange's response to the allegations in Sweden. We can add this Deutsche Welle source as a reference, since it uses the word "pretext" directly: [13]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure it belongs in the lead. MOS:LEAD says the lead should summarize the most important points and As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic. If a reader reads the lead and thinks, "I would like to know more about the pretext", he or she would search in vain for more information in this article and in Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority. As I've said before, it's hard to claim that this is one of the most important points based on the articles as they stand.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: This belongs in the lead and should remain there. Assange's view of the political character of the Swedish case is absolutely one of the most important points of this article. The case is the origin of his present legal and physical condition. Assange's view on it is widely reported upon and is shared by the UN Special Rapporteur on torture. The exact phrasing that you've removed was in the lead for over 18 months, and text highly similar, expressing his views on the matter, were in the lead for over four years until just now. -Darouet (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I've restored this information to the lede, with two new sources that explicitly use the word "pretext." -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

It is UNDUE now as ever. It never should have been there, and there is no consensus to put it there now. Please remove it and seek consensus here or at NPOVN. SPECIFICO talk 22:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

It's been there a long time, and your opinion if unsupported by arguments or sources is irrelevant. Seek consensus if you want it removed. -Darouet (talk) 01:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS is on you to demonstrate consensus for inclusion. Moreover per @JzG:'s page restriction, it was a violation to reinsert it without consensus. See my comment above. SPECIFICO talk 01:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The text has been here for 18 months narrowly defined, or four years if we accept paraphrase. Are you suggesting that any text in the article can now be removed by any editor, and once removed that text cannot be restored, unless a consensus for restoration is demonstrated?

By the very metric you're advocating, a number of your own edits here are DS violations, namely:

• [14][15] your restoration of a longer description of Russian intelligence officers into the lead, after that longer description was removed.
• [16] Your restoration of a long quote from the Washington Post.

So, are you also guilty of "a violation to reinsert [text] without consensus", or how does that work? -Darouet (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:ONUS. For valid content, it is an easy test to meet. There is currently no consensus for this bit in the lead. It is WP:UNDUE. SPECIFICO talk 02:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Your argument, insofar as it is described, suggests that material may be added back if it is "valid content". Does valid content trump consensus? Wikipedia's policies aren't actually that complicated. What's complicated is an interpretation of policy that does worse than change with the winds, but wholly reverses itself from one post to the next. So you can add back removed content to the article because it is "valid content", but none of us can add back removed content because it would be "a violation to reinsert [text] without consensus"? -Darouet (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

That is deflection. Just read ONUS and establish consensus and due weight for the lead. It's not a difficult matter for appropriate content. SPECIFICO talk 02:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Coming back to your earlier edits: you didn't have consensus to restore this content, yet did so anyway [17][18][19]. Were you guilty of, in your own words, "a violation to reinsert [text] without consensus"? How do your edits conform to WP:ONUS? -Darouet (talk) 02:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comments above imply that the "pretext" claim was Assange's defence against the Swedish allegations. However, as far as I can see, he didn't mention this in extradition hearings. With regard to political motivations behind the extradition, Judge Howard Riddle said, "This has been hinted at, but no evidence has been provided". As far as I can see, the "pretext" claim comes from Assange, not from his high-powered legal team, and is just something he's said to journalists. As far as I can see, no evidence has been presented to court. With regard to Darouet's assertion that this has been in the lead for over four years, the previous sentence did not mention "pretext" or anything like it. As discussed previously, there is a difference between referring to the possibility of extradition from Sweden to the USA, and saying that the Swedish allegations were a "pretext", a "set up" etc, to bring that extradition about. "Pretext" is the key concept here. So the "pretext" claim was not long-standing content (no more than 18 months), and it has never been part of his legal defence, as far as I can see.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The word "pretext" has been in the text since at least April 2019, which certainly makes it long-standing. I have to say that I find the claim that this was not a major part of Assange's objections to extradition to Sweden absurd. This reason has been reported over and over again:

But Mr. Assange and his supporters have long maintained that the accusations were attempts to discredit him, and he had maintained that the efforts to extradite him to Sweden were a pretext to eventually send him to the United States.

-New York Times

The Wikileaks founder claims the Swedish allegations against him were politically motivated and a pretext for his transfer to the US over the Pentagon leaks.

-Deutsche Welle

He has long claimed the allegations were a pretext for possible extradition to the US, where federal prosecutors investigating WikiLeaks have filed sealed charges against him.

-Al Jazeera

The 47-year-old has claimed the Swedish allegations were a pretext to transfer him to the United States, where he fears prosecution over the release by WikiLeaks of millions of classified documents.

-France 24

Mr. Assange and his team of lawyers say that criminal inquiry is a pretext for prosecution, and that Mr. Assange is essentially a political prisoner, targeted by the United States and its allies because of WikiLeaks’ role in publishing more than 250,000 leaked State Department diplomatic cables — a deep embarrassment for the Obama administration — starting in 2010.

-New York Times

Assange apparently fears that Sweden would send him to the United States. He is said to believe he might face a trial there for espionage, although the US has made no announcement to this effect. Sweden is seeking Assange's extradition from the UK in connection with alleged offences of sexual molestation and rape. If it turned out that this was simply a pretext for handing him over to the Americans, Sweden would risk breaching article 28 of the EU framework decision that forms the basis of the European Arrest Warrant.

-The Guardian

Assange, 46, denies the accusations and argues that the extradition was a pretext for his transfer to the United States to face justice for publishing secret documents on WikiLeaks.

-NBC News

Shall I go on? There's no consensus for removing this material. It's a central reason given by Assange for fighting extradition to Sweden, and removing it would be a serious BLP issue. It's important to include the response by Assange to serious accusations made against him. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any sources where Assange has given this "central reason" to a court?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a complete red herring. If you have a reason for excluding this material, Jack, then explain it. Thucydides411 (talk) 10:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The ONUS is on you to demonstrate consensus to include. There has not been consensus for this since Jack first spotted it sitting inexplicably in the lead and did us all the service of removing it. That's why I removed it the first time it was reinstated, and that is why it needs to come out now. Editors who favor including it can pursue the various channels available for that purpose. We do not push every claim made by an accused criminal in the lead of his bio. And at this point, Assange's self-serving conspiracy theorizing is widely noted. SPECIFICO talk 20:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Can you elaborate on why you think this material is undue? You haven't yet explained your reasoning - you've just stated again and again that it's undue. I just quoted 7 reliable sources above that discuss Assange's "pretext" claim, and you yourself state that his claim is widely noted. The fact that this is Assange's widely noted response to serious allegations made against him makes it due, in my view. As for onus, you have it wrong: you're trying to change long-standing content, so the onus is on you to make the case for that change. Explaining why you believe this material is undue would be a start. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I've explained it repeatedly. I did not say this claim is widely noted. I said his conspiracy theorizing and self-serving statements are widely noted. That is why we mustn't amplify the less noteworthy among them in the lead. Kindly remove per DS. SPECIFICO talk 21:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Here is the sum total of your explanations about why the material is undue:

It is UNDUE now as ever.

-[20]

It is WP:UNDUE.

-[21]

Those are repeated assertions, not explanations. The closest you came to an explanation was this:

We do not push every claim made by an accused criminal in the lead of his bio. And at this point, Assange's self-serving conspiracy theorizing is widely noted.

-[22]

You state that his claims are widely noted (which is actually an argument for them being DUE). You call them "self-serving conspiracy theorizing" (your own opinion, which you're entitled to, but which is irrelevant here unless backed up by reliable sources). You also state that not every claim has to be included, but you make no argument as to why this widely reported claim (as shown by the numerous reliable sources I gave above that discuss it) should be removed from the article.

This is why I've asked you to elaborate on your views about why this material in particular should be removed. So far, you've asserted that it's UNDUE, stated generally that not everything merits inclusion (without addressing this material), and called this material "conspiracy theorizing" (your own opinion). As I and others have explained, this material has been in the article for a long time (since April 2019, if I'm not mistaken), so the onus is on you to argue for removal. Assertions and vague generalities are not an argument. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Swedish sexual assault allegations.

Edit09/24/2020 Assange visited Sweden in August 2010. On 20 August 2010 two women, then known only as AA and SW, went to a police station in Stockholm ‘to inquire whether Mr Assange could be compelled to take an HIV test’.[173] Consequently he became the subject of sexual assault allegations from two women.

Reverted to: Assange visited Sweden in August 2010. During his visit, he became the subject of sexual assault allegations from two women.

The revert removes the critical information of how the allegations were initiated and removes the relevant date and reference without any reason.

So apparently this article is not asleep. Without a civil response we can assume that the reversion was merely an inadvertent error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnoddy (talk • contribs) 10:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Read the edit summery, it explains some of the reasons why.Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Cool just enjoy retirement :) If reducing size means removing all relevant detail why not revert the whole article. To me detail is critical in understanding the event. Its extremely unusual in Western society for 2 woman AA & SW to go to the police to ask if someone can be forced to undergo STD tests. Perhaps if you read Assange's statement and reports of the allegations of AA & SW you would realise that the devil is in the detail. Assange was in an extremely vulnerable/desperate position and at the mercy of AA & SW. There's probably enough material here for another article after all the allegations allegedly cost UK taxpayers as much as $30,000 pounds for the sole benefit of some what silencing free speech. What this cost the Swedish citizens and AA & SW is not known. Its a major embarrassment to us all to watch Assange's slow execution by bureaucrats costing perhaps billions world wide because he provided a service to people with some conscience to disclose atrocities. Anyway Assange is locked away unable to defend himself and thus deserves fair commentary. As they say dead man walking although he doesn't get to walk much.

What details will you accept? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnoddy (talk • contribs) 11:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Assange is not "locked away unable to defend himself", he can do so in court, and his lawyers are not locked up. Also p[lease read wp:not. Nor do I see how this allegation (and that is all it is) they wanted to have him tested for aids tells us anything (see wp:undue. Nor am I sure that unsubstantiated allegation shave a place (see wp;blp).Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

We have a whole article dealing with the Swedish allegations. We only need a summary here.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Last I heard Assange is locked in maximum security for 23hours 30 minutes with no resources. Assange's lawyers are exactly that "Lawyers" What purpose is there in locking a non violent person in maximum security? Is Assange even a serious flight risk. Where would he go? "Sweden"

You and I are his voice if you would let us hear you? The point of the std test is that neither Anna or Sophia wanted Assange charged. Sofia was making a report and Anna piped up to support Sofia which inadvertently triggered a complaint and investigation that injured all three. Of course you know this already or should do having edited here for years but its not obvious to a new reader.

Interesting Jack please specify the whole article title.

Well as he has tried to flee justice at least once, yes it would be reasonable to assume he might try it again.Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The other article is Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority. It could do with some improvement. Adding the STD test here doesn't explain much to our readers. And I don't understand the comment about lawyers. Regarding Belmarsh Prison, we don't have an official account of why he is there. He is clearly a flight risk. He has been accused of sex offences, and they are violent crimes. He has now been indicted for espionage, which is a serious crime.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Interesting Jack thanks for the response.

"The other article is Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority" is the name of an English court case internationally condemned as disgraceful or worse.

.

"He has been accused of sex offences, and they are violent crimes."

You've pinpointed a serious problem with this article. Even you (a long time editor) draw the conclusion of violence from the AA & SW inquiry of police about ordering a STD test. The worst violence that can be gleaned from the 12? statements (Protocols) is that Assange was on top of the 31 year old AA during consensual sex and held her arms near her ears which she found unpleasant. Even this is doubtful given AA's other statements. If you've had sex with anyone its likely you would have found yourself in a some what similar position either on top or underneath. AA clearly was not impressed and did not engage in further copulation while Assange shared AA's bed for the next few days. AA described the experience as "The worst lay ever".

There is a report that Assange's confinement in super max ?? eventually caused serious discontent among other prisoners and he has been removed from solitary confinement. There is also a report that during a court day Assange is handcuffed 11 times and stripped naked twice. Assange is not Hannibal Lector (from silence of the lambs) who might feast on our brains nor is he responsible for any terrorist attack or murder.

In tabloid vilifications he is described as smelly, an enormous turd, a narcissist,an egomaniac a perve etc but never as violent as you have inferred.

Assange's espionage was Wikileaks assistance to courageous whistle blowers trying to keep you, Jack and the rest of us informed. The Guardian published the encryption key to the diplomatic cable file entrusted to them by Assange himself. This security breach by a Guardian journalist meant that Wikileaks lost control of the cables and was not able to redact the files as was Wikileaks usual practice. The result was that the governments of the world had full access to the files while the people named in them did not.

Wikileaks response was to notify the State Department that the files would have to be made available unredacted at short notice. The Guardian and other media joined in general condemnation of Assange personally for this breach of Wikileaks security by a journalist at the Guardian. Forgive my disbelief that this is any reason to keep Assange in solitary confinement in super max? Maybe in the medium security general population but super max no way!

All that needs to be recorded about the current attack on free speech and freedom of the press and persecution of Assange won't fit into Wikipedia without more articles and restructuring the subject. Assange himself says, "this is bigger than me" and Wikipedia articles also need to be bigger than Assange.

Nnoddy: first, we are here to neutrally report on what sources tell us, and not to act as advocates for or against Assange. Second, please make arguments that are supported by reliable sources. Otherwise this is a waste of time. -Darouet (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Reminder

There was a RfC about the sentence about Russian intelligence officers in the lead. The consensus was to keep.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The lede has been significantly shortened since that RfC. The RfC had a small majority in favor of keep, but no policy-based argument was advanced to back up that position. In particular, no argument was made as to why this information is relevant in Assange's biography. The GRU indictments have very little to do with Assange's biography. There's no possible sane justification for giving them more space in the lede than Cablegate, for example. Given the weakness of the arguments made in favor of the "keep" position and the substantial shortening of the lede, the RfC close should be revisited. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Introduction

"In November 2010, Sweden issued an international arrest warrant for Assange over allegations of sexual assault.[8] Assange denied the allegations. After failing in his battle against extradition to Sweden, he breached bail and took refuge in the Embassy of Ecuador in London in June 2012.[9] He was granted asylum by Ecuador on the grounds of political persecution, with the presumption that if he was extradited to Sweden, he would be eventually extradited to the US.[10]"

This paragraph is over long, prejudicial, salacious, misleading and reiterated later in the article. I suggest.

In November 2010 a Swedish prosecutor based in Gothenburg acting on a request made by a political colleague, lawyer and friend reopened an investigation that had been closed in Stockholm. After some weeks Prosecutor Ny gave Assange permission to leave Sweden. During the flight from Stockholm to Berlin Assange's checked in luggage was stolen. Ny then issued an international arrest warrant for Assange culminating in him being granted asylum in an embassy.

Please don't dismiss the above because of the lack of references. It is all verifiable and factually describes the event. Unfortunately it is not short enough. Its kind of important that a politician lawyer friend asked to reopen an investigation on the other side of Sweden and NY did it. A bit like a case being closed in London and then reopened in Manchester. Kinda crazy right. (I believe that Ny transferred to Stockholm at some time.)

I anticipate that the fact that Assange's luggage disappeared in this political climate won't go down well but it adds to Ny's crazy behaviour. Why did the politically motivated Ny let Assange leave? Crazy right? Suddenly his luggage containing sensitive information disappears. Is this coincidence or an easily executed intercept of sensitive information? This raises the question whether you would meekly return to any country after this had taken place? Not me brother.

Ny's persecution cannot be adequately addressed without the mention of the euphemism "RENDITION" This is the kidnap, transport, imprisonment, torture and sometimes murder of people in foreign state by the USA, Israel and maybe other resourceful countries. Rendition of foreigners had already been tolerated by Sweden on a number of occasions.

"Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery, two Egyptians who had been seeking asylum in Sweden, were arrested by Swedish police in December 2001. They were taken to Bromma airport in Stockholm, had their clothes cut from their bodies, suppositories were inserted in their anuses and they were put in diapers, overalls, hoods, hand and ankle cuffs, they were then put onto a jet with American registration N379P with a crew of masked men." Source Wikipedia

After Ny got Assange to leave Sweden she issued an arrest warrant supposedly to question Assange and then refused to do so for many (9) years before dropping the investigation. No charges were ever laid. The evidence (Protocols) speaks for itself. Ny's behavior has been internationally condemned. Wikipedia should record this accurately

Ny then disappears and a new prosecutor drops the investigation yet again (It was only an investigation)after the USA extradition proceedings began stating total nonsense:

Deputy Director of Public Prosecution Eva-Marie Persson took the decision to "discontinue the investigation regarding Julian Assange", the Swedish Prosecution Authority said. "The reason for this decision is that the evidence has weakened considerably due to the long period of time that has elapsed since the events in question,".

Really! There's enough evidence on record in the public domain to determine the matter. 12 Original statements (protocols),multiple posts, attempts to remove posts, sms messages with held from Assange's lawyers because he wasn't entitled to them until "charged". How can this evidence get weaker over time? Assange admits copulating with both AA & SW. The only holdup has been the prosecutors disgraceful delay to either charges Assange or permanently end the investigation.

Assange has been totally vindicated in his fear of extradition to USA now the proceeding is in process. That is what weakens the Ny's evidence or rather negates its usefulness. Poor SW must regret ever hearing the name Assange after being used and spat out during this international political attack on truth.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnoddy (talk • contribs) 12:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources?Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven: I'm glad that your only concern is sources. Mainstream media has not published an account of the political nature of Ny's prosecution so little details like the location of prosecutor Ny in Gothenburg need to be gleaned from biased articles. You are clearly much more experienced than I am at editing Wikipedia. Please help identify what facts need support from sources.

"In November 2010 a Swedish prosecutor based in Gothenburg acting on a request made by a political colleague, lawyer and friend reopened an investigation that had been closed in Stockholm." are facts referred to in the same BBC Source [23] Except for the relationship between Anna Ardin's lawyer/political candidate Claes Borgstrom and Prosecutor Ny that was not reported. Claes Borgstrom has a wikipedia page as well.

"After some weeks Prosecutor Ny gave Assange permission to leave Sweden." [24]

During the flight from Stockholm to Berlin Assange's checked in luggage was stolen." [25]

Ny then issued an international arrest warrant for Assange culminating in him being granted asylum in an embassy.

[This disgraceful dirty trick is apparently not mainstream reported. What is available is an uncontroversial account by Wikileaks and a Wikipedia link to Swedish paper The Local that denies me access. The warrant was issued by a prosecutor. The prosecutor was Ny. This hardly needs a source]

Thanks for comments.Nnoddy (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Dead Mary's recent edits

After Jack Upland's monthlong effort [26] to reduce the size of this article, Dead Mary has selectively restored [27] a great deal of material about the 2016 elections. Dead Mary's edits bloat this section, giving it weight that is WP:UNDUE in the context of Assange's whole life and current prosecution:

• The BBC's recent summary articles on Assange at the time of his arrest don't mention the elections once [28][29].
• The Guardian doesn't mention this either [30].

The sole case against Assange for the 2016 elections was thrown out of a US court [31]. Since those Guardian and BBC overview pieces were written, coverage of Assange has been dominated by his indictment under the US Espionage Act of 1917:

• The Columbia Journalism Review calls his current legal predicament a terrifying threat to press freedom [32], and
• The New Yorker calls it an offensive on the first amendment [33].

Media discussing Assange today or introducing him to readers don't discuss the 2016 elections. For this reason, adding back all this content [34] after Upland trimmed the whole article [35] — he also removed a lot of "international support" for Assange — has turned Assange's biography into a WP:COATRACK to recapitulate the 2016 US elections. Some amount of material should obviously be there, but what Dead Mary has added is far too much. -Darouet (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)