Talk:Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange

Introductory section

In some instances, an introductory section is the only part of an article a casual reader will look at. The introduction to this article lists accusation, after accusation, made against Assange – that is all well and good – however, in some instances there are significant controversies surrounding these accusations (eg evidence from, convicted criminal Sigurdur Thordarson). An opening section should be kept concise, however that cannot be at the cost of fair treatment of persons concerned. Listing accusations without mentioning significant disagreements or counter accusations amounts to bias - simply including the odd alleging/alleged won’t correct this. I accept there is more balance at the end of the section, where we broach whether it was right for the US to bring the indictments at all, however, that does not address the questionable nature of specific accusations. Please note: I am not asking that every accusation we mention in the intro be followed by counter arguments, however, the reader should be made aware, from the start, that there are real controversies and some highly unusual circumstances involved. Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I think thats fair. It cant only be accusations.

Ill wait to make any edits or other comments until youre done everything. Softlemonades (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks – I’m not looking for big changes, just a more balanced feel to the intro, so I may not add much more material (if anything). Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

There's plenty of RS discussion of Thordarson and he is not disparaged by the WEIGHT of RS that verify his actions and credibility. No WP page, including talk pages, should disparage or denigrate him or his actions, per NPOV and BLP. The epithet "convicted criminal Thordarson" is no differnt than the epithet "convicted criminal Assange". Thordarson has not been convicted of perjury. SPECIFICO talk 17:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I thought there was some mention of Thordarson there but I can't find it now. Yes the intro could be culled I bit I think. As to Thordarson the interesting bit is that so many sections of the indictment seem to depend on him. And he has retracted his evidence. He has been thoroughly unreliable to everybody, is the US going to really argue that the bit he testified to them is actually reliable in some way? There's no confirmatory backup that I know of. Anyway if we merge in the bits of the Assange article dealing with the extradition hearing with Baraister that should also cover the indictment well. NadVolum (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The article didnt quote but I think it said some of it were lies. He had chat logs and copies of hard drives, and they took computers of hackers they raided so who knows what theyll try to use. But apparently none of the charges depend on anything from him in the indictment, so maybe the US will drop it Softlemonades (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Have a look through the indictment for 'Teenager' and judge for yourself. NadVolum (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Its WaPo https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/julian-assange-extradition-appeal/2021/07/07/41bc3914-df2e-11eb-a27f-8b294930e95b_story.html

In the indictment, Thordarson’s claims are used not as the basis for charges but as background for what Assange told Chelsea Manning, who as an Army soldier exposed classified information through WikiLeaks in 2010. Softlemonades (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I know but it's not exactly true and you'll notice they never actually published it in America. The whole point of all that business with Thordarson is to establish that Assange actively helped hack systems which is needed as a basis for many of the charges. This is also why so much is made of the allegations about Chelsea Manning sending Assange a password hash and him failing to crack it. NadVolum (talk) 08:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Assange campaign

We could split the Assange campaign and extradition fight into a new article. Theres lots of coverage of the Assange campaign that doesnt belong in the Assange article or this one, and some of the details of the extradition fight that could go there too. Most of the Assange campaign isnt on wikipedia anywhere Softlemonades (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to fix up this article and chop down the Assange article a bit first? NadVolum (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Relevant things chopped out could go into a stub or draft article. I think you wanted to keep extradition stuff out of this article and didnt like the extradition stuff that had been added. Softlemonades (talk) 23:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Assange is a controversial figure, and for that reason, it’s important that cases for and against him are represented in all articles, and even sections within articles. Some article titles may make that difficult: An article titled say: “Assange campaign and extradition fight”, will probably lean toward featuring information supporting Assange, and as a by-product, draw that information away from other articles. Certainly I don’t want to see a situation where there is hardly any information about the campaign to free Assange on his main page (it’s becoming a significant movement worldwide and deserves more than being largely tucked away in a side article). Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't want exerything replicated everywhere! I want the various sections have only one article dealing with them. This article and the proposed article though have the nasty problem of potentially covering current events - that should very much be avoided and just left to the main article. When Assange is sent to America or freed then that will be a phase over with a nice cut off point. The Assange campaign article is just forking yet again unless it is campaign for a particular purpose which ends before current events. NadVolum (talk) 11:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Assange's early life for instance in the main article is getting to the size where it is ideal for splitting off and having a short summary in the main article and has no problems aboutdplicating current events. NadVolum (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I was for having the extradition hearings under Baraister here. Ar you mixing up what I said about the High Court which did not deal with any of the points in the indictment? I said they could all be left to the main article for the momentif this is about the indictment rather than the extradition. That way also this article wouldn't become a fork where every current action got duplicated. Only deal with the indictment. This article does not do that all that much currently - it is more about responses. NadVolum (talk)

While I think this proposal is well-intentioned, I don't think it is possible to have an article about the man which doesn't deal with the campaign, his legal battles etc. It is also very hard to separate Assange from WikiLeaks. As that article makes clear, since Assange has been in prison, WikiLeaks has not been publishing very much. I have never seen a source which said that WikiLeaks was separate from Assange. Assange is clearly the boss.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Could you please link to the section "Assange Campaign" that you are referring to? We have another discussion above about a merge and this suggests a split. I suggest these discussions proceed one by one and not in parallel. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Back in the news

I agree with those who say the article is getting unwieldy - but we've got 'new' news, including calls from Australian lawmakers and Justice Caucus Democrats for his release. --Edwin Herdman (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Is that anything to do with the indictment though? NadVolum (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Article split discussion

Discussion of article split at Talk:Julian Assange#Suggested split and issues. Information of split request confusing. Disregard: Otr500 (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 17 July 2024

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 (non-admin closure) Quadrantal (talk) 09:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

---

Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange → United States v. Assange – Assange pleaded guilty and the case is over. Page should be about US case and arrest and bail should stay for background Softlem (talk) 08:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose the article relates to much more than the US, and much of it (or the majority) is related to EU and UK. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Politics and WikiProject Law have been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Yes I would concur with Jtbobwaysf that this article is about more than just the American criminal case and is in majority related to cases in europe. Jorahm (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose In addition to the reasons already given, the article is as much about the detention and extradition proceedings in the United Kingdom (and reactions to the entire matter) as it is about the indictment by the US authorities. A parallel to consider in terms of naming and article structure (though obviously factually very different) would be Indictment and arrest of Augusto Pinochet and the related case of R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet (which is separated in part because of the constitutional significance—the legal debate on universal jurisdiction, and the appearance of bias issue regarding Lord Hoffman). In the former article, a similar amount of words are spent discussing the arrest and extradition proceedings in the UK as are then spent on the substantive criminal trials in Chile. Given the fact Assange got a plea deal from the US which was nodded through by a judge extremely quickly before sending Assange on to Australia, there's likely even less to say about the American side of this case than there is for the trial of Pinochet in Chile. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2024 (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.