Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

If Assange is a whistleblower, it belongs in the lead

On 17 August 2021, I removed Category:Australian whistleblowers with the edit summary Assange is Australian but this BLP does not assert—much less substantiate—that he is a whistleblower. Jtbobwaysf soon reverted it with the edit summary i disagree. If we are to categorize Assange as a whistleblower, we should describe him that way in the lead and cite WP:RS. The lead presently identifies him as an Australian editor, publisher and activist. Since Australian whistleblowers is a subcategory of Australian activists, the term whistleblower, being more specific, ought to replace activist in the lead. Basketcase2022 (talk) 08:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

As I understand it a whistleblower is someone who reveals things about organizations they work for, not someone who reveals information about others.Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, a whistleblower is usually an employee (emphasis added)—which suggests that outsiders may also be so described. Basketcase2022 (talk) 10:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Then we need RS saying he is one, not our assumptions he is.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I think technically Assange is someone who gives a voice to whistleblowers, rather than being one himself. He is sometimes described as a "whistleblower", but including this in the lead instead of "activist" would lead to confusion.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

All the technical wrangling is cute, but there are too many sources. If you have a problem with it, pick one from the massive list. WP:OBVIOUS applies here. I am ok with someone stating he is a whistleblower in the lede. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: When I clicked your hyperlinked "massive list" Google found 71,800 results. Number 8 was an April 2019 op-ed in The Washington Post by Allison Stanger, professor of international politics and author of Whistleblowers: Honesty in America from Washington to Trump. Her piece is headlined "The Mueller report confirms it: Assange is not a whistleblower or a journalist." When I add whistleblower to the lede, would it be appropriate to include a {Disputed inline} template immediately following that word, and open a talk page section to explain that at least one notable scholar (and I am confident a more refined search would find others) disputes this categorization? Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

An opinion piece wouldnt be an RS on this article. But if you can find other RS it could be stated that the term is controversial, I dont have any objection to it being referred to as controversial (assuming you can find RS to support it). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

My understanding of the terms 'journalist' and 'whistleblower' are that a person can either be one or the other but, unless the whistleblower is blowing the whistle on the internal workings of a news operation, they are mutually exclusive terms. I don't particularly think that Assange is either a journalist or a whistleblower, but I feel strongly that he can't be both, because (approximately) no one can. Rks13 (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Not entirely sure why whistleblower and journalist are necessarily mutually exclusive, but will leave that for a moment. Defining whistleblower is surprisingly complex. I'll have to go back to my local university library, but I recall looking at the International Handbook on Whistleblower Research on this issue, and from memory, the suggestion is made that a whistleblower is some kind of insider disclosing wrongdoing OR someone with inside information disclosing wrongdoing. That is a contemporary understanding. Clearly, a whistleblower cannot merely be someone criticizing an institution or a system. That is far too broad. I will post more here on here when I can reference the exact scholarly discussion on this point of defining whistleblower. Redaction101 (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

From the National Whistleblower Center: ' A whistleblower typically works inside of the organization where the wrongdoing is taking place; however, being an agency or company “insider” is not essential to serving as a whistleblower.' [1] The 'however...' makes it possible to be an outside whistleblower, but the definition makes it clear that that is not the standard circumstance. A journalist is an outsider who writes news stories by finding, verifying, and publishing information about wrongdoing, among other things, often using whistleblowers as sources. Taking the more restrictive and more common definition of a whistleblower as an insider, journalists could only act as whistleblowers when writing stories about wrongdoing within their own journalism operations. I have never read any suggestion that Assange was reporting on wrongdoing within Wikileaks; that's the only circumstance when his actions could qualify him as a whistleblower. Rks13 (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this is simply a matter of RS. The question is whether it is useful for Wikipedia to use the Category:Australian whistleblowers for Assange. If you look at other people on the list they almost all reported on first-hand experience and almost all were supposedly exposing the underbelly of Australian society. Assange just doesn't fit in this group. What useful purpose is achieved by including him in this category? Will anyone who wants to find an "Australian whistleblower" want to find Assange?--Jack Upland (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Editors maligned

This is not the correct page to discuss editor conduct.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
With this edit at his user page, Prunesqualer has impugned the present editors of Wikpedia's Julian Assange: Wiki's Julian Assange article is being compiled for the most part by the prosecution – the rules and courtroom niceties are usually adhered to in the editing, but such is the dominance of negativity towards Assange - that any sense of him as a human being who might just be worthy of a little compassion or empathy is generally kept off the page (usually with the rational [sic] that treating a living subject as human being is somehow "un-encyclopaedic"). I realize that user conduct is not normally discussed on an article talk page, but in this instance I believe everyone actively editing our Assange BLP should be aware of how we're being publicly maligned by a user in our midst as representing "the prosecution" in making our good faith contributions. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Take it wp:ani.Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC) As a Wikipedia editor for only 1 month and 20 days, I do not feel confident in litigating a case at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you feel this matter should be raised to that level, please consider filing it yourself. Thank you. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Better to go to Arbcom Enforcement, I think. You'll have experienced Admins adjudicate. This is part of a larger issue of POV and promotional editing here. Not sure anything will come of your report, but you are free to try. SPECIFICO talk 18:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC) That sounds even more daunting for a newbie. I shall not pursue this further. Basketcase2022 (talk) 18:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC) As you say this is not the place to discuss this.Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC) I must admit to feeling a bit of sympathy. It was fairly evident early on that 'wiki-lawyering' was a necessary skill here so I've looked carefully the various bits that people have pointed at. I really don't like it and will try and do something elsewhere where I'll just have to deal with trying to get a decent aticle that contributes to "a free, reliable encyclopedia." WP:POLICY "there is no need to read any policy or guideline pages to start editing. The five pillars are a popular summary of the most pertinent principles.". Ha! NadVolum (talk) This is the wrong place for anything like this, I agree. Perhaps the village pump would be a better place to grouse. A user page and lonesome moaning isn't right. I would avoid those complaint places unless there is is an absolute need. NadVolum (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC) NadVolum (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC) This is not the place to discuss users' conduct, please stop.Slatersteven (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC) No.NadVolum. OP was citing an enforcement issue, not a chat board proposal. SPECIFICO talk 20:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC) I see you've been subject to various complaints and enforcements. And yet you peppered my talk page with WP:TLAs at the earliest opportunity as opposed to don't bite the newcomers so on that evidence I don't think it is helpful. I don't see a problem which has caused disruption. An editor is unhappy, The only purpose I can see for going to dispute reolution is to drive them away from Wikipedia . My considered opinion is that talking to others on a general forum for Wikipedia affairs would be better for them than putting criticism on their user page and give a much better chance of a useful and long lasting editor. NadVolum (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC) None of this belongs on an article talk page. Please stop. SPECIFICO talk 00:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC) While it is not necessary to read policy before editing, it is necessary to read the information provided at the top of each discussion page. This page says, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Julian Assange article." There are other pages for discussing editor behavior. While AE is probably the best place for discussion, it could be brought to ANI. Just copy your post over there. The editors at ANI are more likely to know whether the user page violates policy and what to do about it. They are also able to take action, which we cannot. Also, if the user page is correct, this would be a biased place to discuss it. TFD (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

interview.de/film/inside-julian-assange

https://archive.is/8qmul .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 10:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. But I can't see it being part of a bio here. I think probably the article should be split a little to be more manageable and then perhaps it could go in one of the parts as an external reference. NadVolum (talk) 10:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Assange as journalist

This may have been covered before, in which case my apologies,but I wonder whether the issue of whether Assange as a journalist has been canvassed previously here. I know this is a controversial issue. I know that in 2011 Assange did win the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism amd I know his supporters use use the slogan that 'Journalism should not be criminalized', that is, implying that Assange is a journalist who is being criminalized for his acts of publication. On the other hand, I know that some journalists don't like Assange being described as a journalist, given that he has no formal qualifications nor accreditation in the field. Any thoughts? Redaction101 (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the article Journalism under demographcs I see '61 percent specialized in journalism/communications at college'. So about 40% would be in the same boat as Assange. So I don't think much credence can be placed on that. Perhaps there's some other grounds for what they say? Is there some sources? 86.20.127.101 (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

It has been discussed a number of times and each time there has been no consensus to use the label "journalist". Here is a link to an RfC.Talk:Julian_Assange/Archive_17#Request_for_Comment_-_Journalist You are able reopen the discussion. I don't think having formal qualifications or accreditation are necessary to being described as a journalist. Can you name names to support your statement that "some journalists don't like Assange being described as a journalist"? Burrobert (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

It's not a matter of credentials, it's a matter of his actions. In the case of his collaboration with Putin to defeat Hillary Clinton, he was not acting as a journalist. In some of his earlier actions, while they may not fit a classical definition of journalism, they may have been motivated by some of the same goals and principles that underlie mainstream investigative journalism. Labels are really not very useful for conveying complex information in this encyclopedia and are easily misinterpreted by our readers. They should be used only where they are clear and unambiguous. We cannot say that Assange is clearly and unambiguously a journalist. And this has nothing to do with the fact that some journalists, like some scientists, attorneys, or members of the US Congress, may also be criminals. SPECIFICO talk 23:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV, which is non-negotiable. Even with a favourable RFC there would be a strong argument against inclusion, to maintain NPOV. Significant number of articles that refer to Assange as a journalist. Significant number of articles which expressly claim he is not a journalist. We do not pick a side in that debate, and except in the context of discussing the fact that the debate was occasioned by his arrest, the term should not be used. I think the only way you could seriously argue for inclusion is if you could show that the most reliable sources (i.e. scholarship) exclusively or overwhelmingly refer to him as a journalist. I don't think there's nearly enough in the literature to make that case, but happy to be proved wrong. Cambial foliage❧ 23:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

This, some say he is, some say he is not.Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• As mentioned above, we had an RfC. It went from May to August 2019. I don't think we should devote any more time to this issue. Reopening the discussion when there is nothing new to say is pointless.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Witness Recants

Let's discuss this text which has appeared in our hero's bio:

On 26 June 2021, Stundin, an Icelandic newspaper, reported a key witness in the United States’ Department of Justice case against Assange had admitted to making up accusations in the U.S. indictment. The witness, Sigurdur Thordarson, told the paper he fabricated accusations that Assange had instructed him to hack into the computers of members of Iceland's parliament and other accusations. Thordarson confessed to working with the Department of Justice and FBI in return for a promise the U.S. agencies would not share with Icelandic authorities information that could lead to Iceland prosecuting him for threatening the "security interests" of Iceland. According to his own admission, Thordarson continued his crime spree while working with the FBI and having the promise of immunity from prosecution.

The text was reverted a while ago with a reason of "Not RS - later corrected by Washington Post. Pertained to Manning, not Assange. Please use RS for BLP". Most of this is incoherent to me but may mean something to other editors. I know nothing about Stundin so can't comment on its reliability. The Stundin report has appeared in other sources. Should this text, or an alternative version of it, appear in Julian's bio? Burrobert (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

What is the article in the WP? If the contradicting article hasn't actually been supplied and its existence only vaguely alluded to the content should be restored. Cambial foliage❧ 18:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

That part wasn't explained and my search didn't bring up any articles in wapo about the Stundin report. The reference to Chelsea is also perplexing. Burrobert (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you know where the interview is published on Stundin? The article says Thordarson "...made the admission in a newly published interview in Stundin" but there is no link to the published interview, presumably published in Icelandic. Cambial foliage❧ 18:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure. There is a subscriber-only Icelandic article, published on the same day as the English article linked here. The text appears to differ from the English article. Burrobert (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Certainly inclusion on the retraction is WP:DUE in the article. I am not sure about the long discussion about it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes the version above is not necessarily the best way of summarising the issue. The main two points are the importance of the witness codenamed "Teenager" to the US case and the retraction. Apparently the story also appeared recently in Private Eye, which has not been particularly kind to Julian previously. Burrobert (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Undue may be an issue here, as none of these are exactly top line sources. Remember this is a BLP.Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think the relatively low profile of reliable sources necessarily means an issue is not important enough to be included. The fact that a key witness in the U.S. case against Assange has said he was lying on significant counts certainly is significant. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

"Due and undue weight: Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. ... Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and use of imagery".

• What are the other significant viewpoints related to this issue? Has anyone said that "Teenager" didn't recant his testimony? Has anyone said that "Teenager"'s testimony was not significant to the US case?
• WP:Due does not mention that due weight for BLP's is any different from due weight in other articles.

Burrobert (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Everything about BLP is different. You will need far better and more extensive sourcing if you believe there should be article content about this matter. SPECIFICO talk 13:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

One reliable source is usually considered sufficient even on a BLP page (indeed many editors get grumpy when more than one citation is put up). This information is newsworthy and appears in a reputable newspaper (even if it is from a small European country) Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPOV and WP:BLP and WP:AC/DS. SPECIFICO talk 14:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment: The WP, in two articles filed by its London bureau chief, reports on the Stundin Thordarson interview; they clearly consider it newsworthy, and consider Stundin reliable. They note that individuals including Edward Snowden have argued that the interview undermines the criminal case against Assange. They also make the incorrect claim that "the Icelandic article...contains no direct quotes from Thordarson". I know standards have been slipping at the WP since the Bo Jones era but such a glaring error is extremely poor. The relatively brief condensed English article doesn't use any translated quotes, but the (4x longer) article in Icelandic contains numerous direct quotes from Thordarson supporting Stundin's reporting. The Wapo reporter's view is that Thordarson's interview "does not touch on the core allegations against Assange." It's appropriate to include a very brief summary of the Stundin article, and the WP's reporting on Snowden's and their own take on its potential legal implications. Cambial foliage❧ 14:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Well done on finding the missing Wapo articles. I am still waiting for an explanation of the rest of this edit note: "Not RS - later corrected by Washington Post. Pertained to Manning, not Assange. Please use RS for BLP". Burrobert (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Burrobert: Why are you waiting for such an explanation? None will be forthcoming, especially given that the latter part of that statement about Manning is clearly a total fabrication. I suggest trimming the final sentence and restoring the text, changing "confessed" to "said", and adding a citation to WP with Snowden's and WP view. Cambial foliage❧ 21:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't have an objection to the sentence, but we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves. At this stage his extradition has been blocked. The trial may never take place.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

We are all hopeful Jack but after 10 years of this process we also need to be realistic. There is a hearing later today to determine the grounds on which the US appeal. Here is a twitter thread from Mary Kostakidis explaining what it is about. She will be live tweeting as an observer in the hearing. Regarding the disputed text, I try to come up with a suitable wording using CY's suggestions. Burrobert (talk) 07:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but we should wait and see if the trial happens.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC

It seems clear from what is said above this was removed on invalid grounds going by the edit comment. There seems to be no Washington Post article relevant to this. Also it is from a reliable source, and it is very relevant to the topic. The only real problem seems to be that it has not been widely reported elsewhere - in fact there is a rather strange lack of interest as far as I can see despite that it would provide a newsworthy item even to debunk. I shall therefore reinstate it and then see about updating according to the comments above. I think also any conclusions should be attributed to Studin because it is not wiely reported. Please provide a reference to the relevant Washington Post article if removing again based on it not being related to Assange. Certainly I fail at the moment to see how that can be so. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 08:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Was the bit in the Washington Post where they say it does not affect the criminal case supposed to be the reason for removal? That is more a case for adding the Washington Post article saying that. Plus the editorial in Private Eye saying the opposite. Not that either of them are lawyers. I do not have access to either so if someone could read them and put in something that would be good. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 08:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

The oral testimony of the Icelandic Interior Minister about the FBI sting mission in consortiumnews certainly is alarming. I'm not sure though about whether that can be used - wouldn't that be considered a primary source and Wikipedia need some newspaper or other reliable source to comment on it to give it due weight? It is incredible there has been so little reporting. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the most noteworthy thing about this looking at the references is that mainstream media have not reported on it. I think I should add that as people might wonder why they don't see it if they search them. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 09:05, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Well I got to see what the Washington Post said. It would be good to include one major media outlet at least commenting on it but as noted above they do say there was no statements by Thordarson in the article - which indicates they did not do any basic research, so it is hard to give the usual weight of Washington Post to their comments. I don't know how to fix up something suitable for inclusion. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 09:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Good work and welcome. You can view the Private Eye article from the source titled "Private Eye story posted to Twitter" in the list below. Burrobert (talk) 12:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I thought the US indictment against Assange was primarily or exclusively related to Assange's work with Manning. I haven't been following this case closely, but I had never heard of Sigurdur Thordarson until I read that he recounted his testimony. Is it possible that the lack of coverage from larger media outlets is because Sigurdur's testimony wasn't important to begin with? If so, this article should note the recanting, but I don't think this article should imply that the US case against Assange is now in danger of falling apart. Rks13 (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

From the various sources below (note that many describe Thordarson as a key witness):

“the initial indictment for Julian Assange related only to the publications back in 2010, 2011, the Chelsea Manning publications. It was a second, superseding indictment, introduced by the Trump administration, which was based upon Thordarson’s evidence”.

The superseding indictment was lodged in June 2020 and “refers to Thordarson as a “teenager” and Iceland as ”NATO Country 1” and says Assange encouraged him to, among other things, quote, “commit computer intrusion” and steal audio recordings of phone conversations between Icelandic officials”.

“The aim of this addition to the indictment was apparently to shore up and support the conspiracy charge against Assange in relation to his interactions with Chelsea Manning. Those occurred around the same time he resided in Iceland and the authors of the indictment felt they could strengthen their case by alleging he was involved in illegal activity there as well. This activity was said to include attempts to hack into the computers of members of parliament and record their conversations”.

Burrobert (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

See WikiLeaks Founder Charged in Superseding Indictment. This seems to me to be practically entirely dependent on the testimony of Sigurdur Thordarson. The Assange defence in the extradition hearing tried to contest the testimony but that was ruled out by Judge Baraitser. That was before the retraction but it is entirely possible that it will still not be considered and they'll decide on extradition based solely on the basis of the original hearing i.e. on whether Assange would suffer mental harm. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 11:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I've put a link to a Washington Post article on it which says Thordarson's testimony is just backround to his interaction with Manning. However the superceding indictment clearly talks about criminal hacking charge in a NATO country rather than anything much about the original charge which the Washinton Post seems to be alluding to. The charge is also supposed to back up that he encouraged Manning to crack a password - something Manning denies and seems very improbable from other evidence and there is no evidence of ever having done. I just can't get myself to write something that is clearly wrong into the article based on them even though the Washington Post is mainstream. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 12:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Forced myself to write a short sumary of what the Washinton Post was saying. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Our coverage of the second superseding indictment could perhaps be improved to make the significance of Thordarson clearer to readers. One of the many disturbing aspects of this is that the United States seeks to extradite an Australian citizen for, among other things, acts against the Icelandic parliament that it alleges he did while living in Iceland. Has any source discussed this bizarre scenario? Burrobert (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

There are a few shortcomings on our coverage of the superseding indictment.

• Our coverage is based on a primary document from the US Department of Justice.
• We don't state that the superseding indictment does not add to the charges against Assange (we seem to imply it contains 18 charges). The new indictment only adds detail to the charges by attempting to show Assange is a hacker. This is where Sigurdur Thordarson's is important. It would be worth outlining why the US needed to provide this extra detail. I believe it relates to what has been called the "New York Times problem": It would be difficult for Assange to be prosecuted for publishing classified documents, because the Justice Department would not be able to do so without also prosecuting media organisations who do the same. One way of getting around this problem is to show that Assange was a hacker and this appears to be the intent of the superseding indictment. One part of this strategy involved showing that Assange conspired with Manning to hack a computer. This charge was evidentially weak because Manning courageously would not co-operate. She spent 18 months in prison for contempt and received a huge fine for refusing to testify against Assange before a grand jury. The US obviously believed it needed Thordarson's testimony to strengthen this part of its case. Burrobert (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Burrobert: In extolling Chelsea Manning for "courageously" refusing to testify against Assange before a grand jury, you seem to have missed this in our BLP:

In June 2021, Chelsea Manning said her grand jury resistance was not contingent on Julian Assange being the target, and that she was not even sure he was. "I treated this no differently than if it was for a protest or for some other grand jury—if it was a grand jury in general, I would respond the same way. But it did appear that this one was about, specifically, the 2010 disclosures; the media was speculating, but our legal team and ourselves, we never got full confirmation as to whether that was the case."

Basketcase2022 (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I didn't miss it. I remember when it was recently added.

• I imagine she had a very good idea what the grand jury was investigating. On what planet would you need to be living not to put the two lots of 2 together to get 4.
• Her action was courageous even in the extremely unlikely event that she had forgotten that the man to whom she had leaked her documents was under political asylum in London with a US sealed indictment awaiting him (accidentally revealed in November 2018).
• Her view on the grand jury process is also admirable: "we've seen this power abused countless times to target political speech. I have nothing to contribute to this case and I resent being forced to endanger myself by participating in this predatory practice". She "believe[d] this grand jury seeks to undermine the integrity of public discourse with the aim of punishing those who expose any serious, ongoing, and systemic abuses of power by this government".

Burrobert (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Burrobert: Chelsea Manning's opposition to the secrecy of the grand jury process is a matter of record. What is not supported by WP:RS is that she resisted this particular grand jury expressly to protect Julian Assange. That conjecture should not be introduced without proper sourcing. (As an aside, it's worth noting on this Talk page that Chelsea Manning has never publicly opposed Assange's extradition or condemned his incarceration.) Basketcase2022 (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

My comments above were for the enlightenment of other editors. I wasn't proposing adding any specific information to the article.

• As I stated above, it is almost certain that Manning was aware of the intent of the grand jury. News articles about her subpoena had titles like "Chelsea Manning subpoenaed to testify before grand jury in Julian Assange investigation".
• Whatever Mannings' motive was for refusing to testify at the grand jury, her action was noble and courageous.
• Whatever Mannings' motive was for refusing to testify at the grand jury, the US regime was not getting any evidence from her to help it with its case against Assange.
• "Chelsea Manning has never publicly opposed Assange's extradition or condemned his incarceration": I can neither confirm nor deny this as I haven't made a thorough search. If it were true, I don't think we could draw any conclusions from it.

Burrobert (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Burrobert: A news article titled "Chelsea Manning subpoenaed to testify before grand jury in Julian Assange investigation" in no way demonstrates that she specifically resisted that grand jury in order to protect Assange. As she herself said, If it was a grand jury in general, I would respond the same way. Basketcase2022 (talk) 01:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

This text from the New York Times may give some insight into Mannings decision not to testify in the grand jury:

"During her court-martial, Ms. Manning took responsibility for her actions and said that Mr. Assange had not directed them.

“No one associated with W.L.O.” — an abbreviation she used to refer to the WikiLeaks organization — “pressured me into sending any more information,” she said at the time. “I take full responsibility.”

Because that account would seemingly be helpful to the defense, she said she wondered if prosecutors wanted to try to get her to back away from it. She would not do so, she insisted, while criticizing the secrecy that surrounds grand jury proceedings.

“I am not going to contribute to a process that I feel is dangerous and could potentially place me in a position where I am forced to backtrack on the truth,” she said".

Burrobert (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Burrobert: That text from The New York Times changes the focus entirely. Chelsea Manning's concern is clearly not with Assange, but with how the grand jury's investigation might affect her personally, as with issues of double jeopardy and perjury. Basketcase2022 (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I gave an example of a news article in order to show that the reason for the grand jury was obvious. Why are you focused on the statement that "she specifically resisted that grand jury in order to protect Assange"? Where does it come from? Burrobert (talk) 01:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Burrobert: On 15 August 2021 you commented at this Talk page that Chelsea Manning spent 18 months in prison for contempt and received a huge fine for refusing to testify against Assange before a grand jury. That is false on two counts. First, she was in jail for 12 months, not 18, on the contempt charge. Second, there is no WP:RS that she went to jail for refusing to testify against Assange. Basketcase2022 (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Yes the term of imprisonment was less than I remembered.
• This is what we know:
• 1. Chelsea Manning refused to testify in a grand jury
• 2. The grand jury was investigating Assange.
• I am not interested in playing pointless word games so I'll let you come up with a suitable wording that covers those points.
• I am still not sure where the phrase ""she specifically resisted that grand jury in order to protect Assange" comes from.
• Burrobert (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Burrobert: Please, let's take a step back. I respectfully ask that you state, as succinctly as possible, what you are now recommending to improve this BLP? Basketcase2022 (talk) 02:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The initial point about whether we should mention Thordarson's recanting seems to have been settled. Our coverage of the superseding indictment could be improved to explain its purpose and how Thordarson fits it. I made some comments about that above which could be used a starting point for discussion, including:

• Mentioning that the superseding indictment does not include new charges.
• The new indictment only adds detail to the charges by attempting to show Assange is a hacker.
• Mention why Thordarson's is important to the US case.
• Mention why the US thought it needed to provide the extra detail in the superseding indictment. This relates to

1. the "New York Times problem"

2. that Manning would not provide any testimony against Assange (however you want to word that)

Burrobert (talk) 12:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Manning didn't need any hacking help, she had full access to all the documents she leaked. The case is really qute astonishing. It makes you wonder what kind of stuff is being planned in America to get over the glaring holes in the case, it would need to be held in camera and various bits of testimony disallowed to get anywhere. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Manning may have had full access to all the documents she leaked, but we are talking here about documents she did not leak because she could not access them without Assange's help. In its second superseding indictment (June 2020), the U.S. Department of Justice alleges:

The encrypted password hash that Manning gave to Assange to crack ... was stored as a "hash value" in a computer file that was accessible only by users with administrative-level privileges. Manning did not have administrative-level privileges, and used special software, namely a Linux operating system, to access the computer file and obtain the encrypted password hash that Manning then provided to Assange.

Basketcase2022 (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

So has this development has an impact in court yet?Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

As I said before, we are getting way ahead of ourselves. As it stands now, Assange's extradition to the USA has been blocked. If his trial in the USA ever goes ahead, we have no way of knowing what evidence will be used. In addition, it is somewhat perverse to argue here that "Teenager" was a key witness when (I believe) he hasn't been mentioned here before. There is no point on speculating about this in this article.--Jack Upland (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Yea it is a bit odd he was such a key witness only now are we mentioning him.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

“Teenager” (Thordarson) is mentioned no fewer than 33 times in the 48 page June 2020 U.S. District Court “Second Superseding Indictment” (the current one) (linked found here: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-superseding-indictment ) Whether he’s been mentioned here before (and frankly he should have been) is beside the point – He is a key witness. Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

No, it is claimed he is. One reason why more mainstream RS have not picked this up is (maybe) he is in fact not all that important? Indeed this raises an issue of wp:undue, we have a lot of minor sources saying he is important. Not a lot of major ones. So at best (I would argue) we would need to say "according to... he is a major witness".Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Please be reasonable, only Chelsea Manning is mentioned more often that “Teenager” in the Indictment. Since Manning has refused to testify she cannot be counted as a witness. Here’s the stats: “Teenager” (Thordarson) is mentioned 33 times: “Sabu” 23 times: “Hammond” 22 times: “Laurelai” 15 times: “Kayla” 10 times: “Topiary” 6 times “Jabber” 4 times. The indictment more than once talks about witnesses acting or passing messages “through Teenager” in other words he’s a go between as well as a key actor. It would reasonable to describe Thordarson as the star witness on these grounds let alone just “a key witness”. Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

In one document, out of how many? And no it is not reasonable to call him a star witness unless RS do, and if only some RS do it may be undue to take only a few as the whole. If he was a star witness how many times was he mentioned in court?Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I should have acknowledged Jeremy Hammond, who also courageously refused to testify before a Virginia federal grand jury which was investigating WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange. He was also found in contempt. Regarding the suggestions I made above, some of the points are covered by reliable sources:

• Why are we relying on a press statement from the department of justice to describe the superseding indictment? It should be easy to find a reliable source stating that the superseding indictment added no new charges and only added details to the previous indictment.
• We currently include some text which goes close to describing the "New York Times problem": "The New York Times commented that it and other news organisations obtained the same documents as WikiLeaks also without government authorisation. It said it was not clear how WikiLeaks' publications were legally different from other publications of classified information". Reliable sources have covered the issue and quoted state officials from the Obama regime.
• Regarding the grand jury, we currently mention that "Computer expert David House ... testified for 90 minutes before the grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia in July 2018" and also mention Manning's refusal to testify. We don't mention Hammond's refusal to testify. Reliable sources have covered Hammond's refusal.

Burrobert (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven you said “In one document, out of how many?” But this is not just any old document, we are talking about the District Court “Second Superseding Indictment” the most up to date indictment which details the basis of the US case against Assange. It is just unthinkable that, profound doubts regarding the honesty and suitability of a (perhaps the) the key witness in the proposed case, should not be properly covered in the article Prunesqualor billets_doux 18:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

"perhaps", exactly. We do not really know how important he is to the case, as he has not (as far as I know) even been mentioned (unlike some others) in court. When (and if) the case collapses due to the loss of this key witness this will be significant, until then it's all speculation from some bottom draw sources.Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

baraitser spent quite a lot of space discussing Thordarson's evidence in her judgement. Thordarson is given the code-name "Teenager". He appears in paragraphs 23,24,25, 26, 27, 85, 87, and 100 of baraitser's judgement. In the main paragraph on Teenager she says:

"On or before summer 2010, Mr. Assange put Teenager in charge of WikiLeaks’s Internet Relay Chat (“IRC”) channel. He also asked Teenager to hack into computers to obtain information including audio recordings of phone conversations between high-ranking officials, including members of the Parliament, of the government of “NATO country1”. It is alleged that, in September 2010, Mr. Assange directed Teenager to hack into the computer of a former Wikileaks associate and delete chat logs of statements made by Mr. Assange. When Teenager asked how that could be done, Mr. Assange told him that the WikiLeaks associate could “be fooled into downloading a trojan,” and asked Teenager about the operating system the WikiLeaks associate used".

Burrobert (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Both reliable sources and straightforward logic and court document as shown above show 'key' witnessis correct for inclusion. And it is simply wrongto delete the entire section on the basis of not liking one word. I will reinstate the edit. Judge Baraister saying that and disallowing any questioning of the source is pretty typical of that extradition. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• I support keeping this content [2] and am opposed to removal. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support keeping it too. I see SPECIFICO has removed it with no reason and no comment here. That looks like edit warring to me. I see from his page that he has been topic banned elsewhere. It should be in. It is reliably sourced and very relevant. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I've worked out "wp spa" means that it was reverted because they consider that I am not entitled to reinstate the edit because the main thing I have edited here is this article. Might I suggest that deleting the text hardly shows neutral point of view and that is actually against Wikipedia's policies. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

And yes I was brought here by this rather glaring omission. But it isn't myonly interest in Wikipedia, it did bring me to commenting on the distribution of wealth article, there also seems to be a gaping hole in Wikipedia in it's treatment of recent theory on wealth inequality which is similarly rather strange. 86.20.127.101 (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes SPA stands for Single Purpose Account. The reference at WP:SPA is an essay, not policy. It does have some good advice: "New editors have the right to be treated with respect and civility; but they should also be aware that, while courtesy and a warm greeting will usually be extended, they may be subject to more scrutiny in the early stages of their editing as other editors attempt to assess how well they adhere to Wikipedia standards". Good luck with your editing. Burrobert (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The underlying reason for the revert is obvious: We do not make a contentious edit when talk page discussion is ongoing in an attempt to find valid article text and sourcing. I'm sure Burro will join me in endorsing that principle. SPECIFICO talk 15:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the count below of submissions here show the case for removing was very weak and I'd have expected you to check on that yourself before deleting. If Burro means Burrobert it doesn't look like they agree with you. If people followed that principle there would be very little text in Wikipedia. An article on Trump with nothing contentious in it, wow that would be quite something! :-) 86.20.127.101 (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

References

References fo Stundin Thordarson recant section discussed above

I put in two citations for the section being discussed at #RFC inclusion of Sigurdur Thordarson claims and they were rejected, I'd like to know why and if they can be included as an improvement. They can then be removed if the whole section is removed.

• Kristinn Hrafnsson; Ögmundur Jónasson; Bjartmar Alexandersson; Julian Hill; Alexander Mercouris; John Kiriakou (18 July 2021). "Assange on the Brink". Consortiumnews (Interview). Interviewed by Lauria, Joe. Retrieved 5 August 2021.
• Pilger, John (19 August 2021). "Julian Assange: A day in the death of British justice". Mail & Guardian. Retrieved 22 August 2021.

They were attached with the Stundin reference.
The removals said
refs. rm opinion piece and non-RS
not a valid BLP reference. Use talk, don't jump ahead of ongoing discussion

I replied to the first with
Both news source are reliable sources. Both contain some opinion but so does the original and the Washington Post. The interview is a primary rather than secondary source, it contains more from the author about his story plus from an ex-Icelandic interior minister about the facts and a lawyer on the claims. John Pilger is a famous investigative journalist who has attended the hearings

As to the second there was no ongoing discussion about them. I don't know what not a valid BLP reference means but I acknowledge if a second person removes it then it is certainly time to go to the talk page.

So what exactly is the problem with them please? They both discuss the Stundin article and the interview provides a lot of background. Thanks.

until there is consensus, this should be removed, let alone altred.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Lets just be clear about what the RfC is about then. Is it about removing the whole text and not mentioning Stundin and Thordarson at all until such time as perhaps it becomes silly not to? Or is it about some changes wanted in the wording to satisfy neutral point of view or something else like that? If you could explain the reasons for rejection that would also be very good - what is controversial about them? NadVolum (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

When there is an RFC no edits should really be made to any text as it just confuses matters.Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Could you be clearer about what the RfC hopes to achieve? And is there anything controversial about the cites except that you think text under an RfC shouldn't be improved? NadVolum (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The RFC is about including the text in the RFC, but a number of people have expressed the view it should be there at all in any form. As such it is best if we were to stop getting it until the RFC has concluded.Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

So why did you change the text in the article after you raised the RfC? I didn't touch it until I saw you were doing that. And I argued against your change being reverted saying people had been arguing that it shouldn't be there at all rather than arguing about the wording and therefore it was appropriate to improve the text in an effort to make it acceptable. NadVolum (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Any RFC is restricted to precisely what the question asks, because when it is transcluded into the the central RFC repository for that subject it only includes the question inside the RFC, without talk page context. So the RFC is to answer the question "Should the following text be in the article?" and the text is the one given here. Cambial foliage❧ 15:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I believe the 'C' in RfC is Comment and it is a way of resolving disputes. It does talk about not changing text where there is controversy or edit warring which is the subject of the RfC. I don't think it was supposed to support keeping the text static for long periods of time without improvement. So just specifying it as a reason for stopping change without specifying something disputed about the change is just plain wrong. Here no actual dispute was specified for the text. NadVolum (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

That reference was not appropriate for this article in any circumstances. Adding it during the RfC compounded its flaws. SPECIFICO talk 18:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

As Specifico says, the references you added were totally inappropriate. They were not removed because of the RFC, and that played no part in the decision to remove them. The most recent WP:RS/N discussion about Consortium News is here. There was a general consensus in that discussion that it is not considered a reliable source. However, in both the sources you added, the question of the publication's editorial policy is not even the issue. One is a roundtable discussion where several individuals give their view. It is not a published piece of news. The other is expressly framed as an opinion piece: see the url and literally the first word below the website menu bar in block capitals "OPINION". We do not use opinion pieces or individual views with no formal publication process as citations for statements in Wikivoice. Cambial foliage❧ 18:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for explanation. I should have just said the interview was a primary source rather than particularly from a reliable site. Are we saying the interview mightn't be of whom they say or that they are not experts on the subject of the article or what they said is not very relevant? Or how exactly does WIkipedia deal with such stuff? As to John Pilger yes I agree it is an opinion - but he is an investigative reporter who has attended the hearings and can be considered an expert. Could they be cited as what they are rather than this Wikivoice? I'd have though it would be enough to add a note to the citations rather than putting text inline not in Wikivoice. NadVolum (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Even if some people considered someone the world's foremost expert, a text expressly framed as an opinion would not be usable as a reference to support a statement of fact, which WP largely deals in. If, and only if, there are reliable sources that indicate his views on the subject as noteworthy, you could argue for the inclusion of a relevant part of Pilger's view, with the text saying something along the lines of "journalist and author John Pilger commented". It could never support a statement of fact. Read WP:NPOV WP:V WP:NOR; you will find people quickly tire of having to explain policy to you. Cambial foliage❧ 20:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay so that's Pilger. Can a primary source as in the interview be used as a source though for an expert like the Icelandic ex Minister who has previous experience of the incident as described in his bio Ögmundur Jónasson saying anything from "Now, these are serious allegations, but I choose my words very, very carefully. Because I knew this from firsthand from within the Icelandic administration, they were told that the idea was to use Sigurdur Thordarson, an Icelandic citizen, as an entrapment to contact Julian Assange and involve him in a criminal case, to be used later in the United States. This I know for certain, and I have stated this time, and again, in February 2014, before 2013, I say, before, the Icelandic Foreign Affairs Committee and the Icelandic parliament, where this was discussed, and this, in fact, is not disputed. This is what happened." or any of his other statements about his experiences of Thordarson or the FBI? NadVolum (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

As to WP:NPOV etc, thanks for the references but I do not believe a reference to long documents is a good explanation in an editcomment. Those documents have links to individual sections . If a person bothers to research and write something o Wikipedia then I think a person that wants to delete it should have the courtesy to be a bit specific about the reason. Otherwise new editors will be driven away which I see is a problem WIkipedia has. See the first and second problem under Wikipedia:Why is Wikipedia losing contributors - Thinking about remedies#Examples of problems NadVolum (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Experts are academics who have written books and papers for academic publishers and typically teach a subject at a university. Per weight though, there's little reason to use them. We might for example prefer to use a description of the Mars rover written by a NASA engineer than one in a news article. As a general observation, for well covered topics, it's best to rely on major mainstream media and avoid issues of weight and reliability. TFD (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately whilst some things about Assange are covered well, as some media analysis sources and others have said others are subject to corporate bias and Wikipedia amplifies that if it cuts things out that aren't covered by AP and Reuters. My reading of WP:WEIGHT indictes people should not do that. I see no reason for Wikipedia to do or support Self-censorship as well. NadVolum (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Nad, your statements are contrary to settled WP policy. It is that simple. Study our PaG's if you wish to collaborate jer

SPECIFICO talk 22:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

That might as well be SImon Says when it is that unspecific. A collaborator would be lot more specific. NadVolum (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Radical feminist conspiracy

@Jack Upland: This is gutter tabloid journalism. Totally undue btw. The sources [3] and [4] are based on Laura Poitras's documentary Risk (2016 film). The docu is then reviewed in various news sites under their movies sections. The content is appropriate in Risk's article. Not here. - hako9 (talk) 09:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Again we back to, we already have way too many talking heads. Really what does this add?Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh well. Sorry if you're bored. But may I ask what's the reason to keep these tabloid claims? The only reason these are in the article is perhaps because they are published by RS. But the statement cannot be directly attributed to Assange since it was allegedly made in a documentary. These aren't his public statements. - hako9 (talk) 10:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Which part of " we already have way too many talking heads" means "keep"?Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Please point me to a recent discussion on this. - hako9 (talk) 10:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

On what? This material was only recently added, we do not have to discuss every single addition before making it. Now if you want to porose that OK.Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Ofcourse you don't have to discuss every single addition. But you need to give your reasoning after the addition is challenged. - hako9 (talk) 11:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Which part of "we already have way too many talking heads" means "keep"? I really think you need to read what I have posted and think about it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

What does "way too many talking heads" mean? - hako9 (talk) 11:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

That (please see many many talk page comments above and in the archive by me about this) we already have way too much bloat due to including any and every opinion said by anyone well known about Assange. That we need to reduce the amount of bloat, not add more of it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Again, please point me to a recent discussion on why the text is justified and in such prominence in the section. I am arguing why my removal of this content was reverted [5] with shoddy reasoning. You are obfuscating with your drivel. What's the reason for this to be kept? Please be on point. - hako9 (talk) 11:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

What the hell are you arguing with me for? I did not revert you, so I can't say why you were reverted. I also suggest you read wp:npa. If you want to know why it was removed, stop asking me and ask the person who removed it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

You quote me NPA for this? What's your intention? Also, I never asked you. Never pinged you. You didn't have to reply if you didn't want to. - hako9 (talk) 11:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

She says he did that while discussing the case with his QC? Who would have leaked that to anybody else for her to know about? That seems very strange. In the article it sounds like the filmmaker heard this herself. I can't say it is unbelievable that he'd say that but that's just not right. NadVolum (talk) 11:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven has made an edit [6] with the edit summary, Lets attribute one person views. Why exactly should keeping one person's view not be undue weight. That too, these statements by Assange were allegedly made in a documentary and were not a public statement by him. This is also a BLP issue. I repeat, keeping this content is akin to tabloid journalism. - hako9 (talk) 11:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, because if we keep it this is how we need to word it. Just like certain other contested material, my editing is not an endorsement for its retention. Now its no less one of his statements than a hell of a lot of material here people have claimed he has said. You are in fact arguing me round to retention.Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, this (Now its no less one of his statements than a hell of a lot of material here people have claimed he has said) is whataboutery. My contention is very specific and I am simply waiting for any editor who disagrees about whether this needs to be kept. Pinging @Jack Upland: again. But thanks for clarifying you aren't endorsing retention. - hako9 (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I think WP:REDFLAG applies to this. She hasn't said herself that he said it, she put it in her film as something he said to his QC and also has him saying he wouldn't say it in public. She hasn't actually said she got it from anywhere. And a QC would be in trouble if they disclosed what was said to them without permission. NadVolum (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• It's been pointed out to me that Risk (2016 film) is an actual documentary using the real Assange. So I withdraw any objection. And I think it should definitely be in! NadVolum (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• I don't see anything wrong with the source. For what it's worth, this has been in article since 2018. Similar comments have been reported: [7], [8]. I don't see how it's "undue" to include Assange's opinion on what was happening in Sweden.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

  Jack Upland, Both of those sources conform to our guidelines much better than all other sources based on Laura Poitras' documentary. In my humble opinion, the current version of the text needs to be replaced with the statements made by him in the above cited. I won't argue or edit further. Thanks for this. - hako9 (talk) 05:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Amnesty international reaction to US assurances

I have been asked by SPECIFICO to seek consensus for the inclusion of a sentence noting that Amnesty international are not satisfied with US “assurances” re. Assange’s prison conditions, should he be extradited. Here’s the whole paragraph (from section: “Appeal and other developments” third paragraph):

Following the decision by Judge Vanessa Baraitser to deny extradition on the grounds that it would be "oppressive to extradite [Assange] to the United States," in July 2021 The Biden administration provided assurances to the UK Crown Prosecution services that: "Mr Assange will not be subject to SAMs or imprisoned at ADX (unless he were to do something subsequent to the offering of these assurances that meets the tests for the imposition of SAMs or designation to ADX)". The United States has also provided an assurance that "the United States will consent to Mr Assange being transferred to Australia to serve any custodial sentence imposed on him." However, an Amnesty International expert responded saying “Those are not assurances at all” because US government reserves the right to break their promise.

Since the first two sentences have been left in place by SPECIFICO in his last (second) intervention I must assume them to be acceptable. So the question is do we keep the Amnesty international sentence? I would say yes because the get-out clause included by the US in their assurances is significant – people need to know that Assange could, after all, be subject to SAMs or imprisoned at ADX if he breaches some, so far poorly defined, conditions. People outside of Amnesty have also criticised the get-out clause in the US “assurances”, however I felt Amnesty international are the go-to organisation for matters of this sort – there opinion is respected and noteworthy. Hence my short sentence on the subject. Prunesqualor billets_doux 19:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to talk. Really, you should self-revert the challenged content until you have consensus. Repeated additions after your edit has been reverted for cause are not constructive. SPECIFICO talk 23:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Just to be clear, I completely rewrote the sentence in question, and replaced the reference, following both the occasions you deleted them. On both occasions I responded, as best I could, to the very short edit summaries you provided. As I explained to you on my talk page I want to leave the sentence in the article for now so people can clearly see what’s being talked about in context – If anyone had put forward a serious problem with the current edit eg that it is factually wrong, infringes copyright etc I would of course have removed it immediately. If you have an objection of that nature, please let me know. Otherwise just for now I’d like to leave it until you have at least fully explained you objections (after all this paragraph has so far caused me quite a bit of work and carefully attempting to meet your needs, whereas you have so far simply erased chunks of work and given two 4 word edit summaries) Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I think this probably should be excluded on the grounds that we don't want excessive commentary.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The standing of Dr Michael Kopelman

Kopelman is described in just two reliable sources as:

“...internationally known for work in Neuropsychiatry”
“...founder member of the Memory Disorders Research Society”
 “president of both the British Neuropsychological Society and the International Neuropsychiatric Association, and is currently Presiding President of the International Neuropsychological Society”

here and [9]| here] He also received a distinguished INS award in 2013 [10]. If anyone wishes me to be tiresome I could big out several other respectable sources which also draw attention to his exceptionally distinguished career and standing in his profession. It is certainly not “Wikipuffery” (as was claimed when the description was deleted from the article) to describe him as an “Internationally recognised neuropsychologist” - if anything it’s rather downplaying his standing. Describing him merely as “a psychiatrist” may be technically correct, in the same way as describing Winston Churchill as “a politician”, but to omit mentioning Kopelman’s high standing is to miss the significance of the judge’s decision to call his evidence into doubt. So I repeat, the term “Internationally recognised neuropsychologist” (or psychiatrist) is accurate, moderate, and relevant and should be reinstated. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Err of those only one has a wiki article, the "International Neuropsychological Society" and its president is Skye McDonald Presidential Term: February 2019 – February 2022 the oncoming president is Ida Sue Baron Presidential Term: February 2020 – February 2023.Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok - Dr Michael Kopelman’s term as president of the “International Neuropsychological Society” is passed. As for the other bodies Wiki does not have sections for every meaningful institution in Science. The point here is: Does the description “Internationally recognised neuropsychologist” fit? The sources say yes. Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Well I suppose, and? What does this tell us?Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

To cut a long story short - It tells us that the Judge stuck his neck out in making this ruling – that is significant. Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Does it, Being an expert and never being wrong or dishonest are not the same thing. His qualifications or awards do not contradict a statement "called "a misleading report" by neuropsychologist Professor Michael Kopelman", and to draw such a conclusion is wp:or via wp:syntheses. We need an RS disputing this statemnt.Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven Seems to me a wee bit of straw man going on here – nobody has said an expert can never be “wrong or dishonest” not even an “Internationally recognised” expert. However, the more eminent the person being accused of being “wrong or dishonest”, the more noteworthy the decision to publicly cast doubt on their judgement, or integrity. Incidentally there may well be RSs out there around the subject – I may look into that – but the only thing being asked for here is the inclusion of the words “Internationally recognised neuropsychologist” which you have already accepted are supported by RS - we can leave the reader to decide the significance. Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Which I do not agree does what you think it does, so I do not see a need for it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not the wording “does what [I] think it does” it is information supported by sources – can you honestly say that the eminence, or otherwise, of a witness who’s evidence has been called into question, on a central point in Assange’s extradition proceedings, is of no importance to our readers? Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Not is RS do not consider it so no. What matters is what the judge said, in a legal case.Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The RS issue is dealt with – several professional sources have described Kopelman as an internationally recognised neuropsychologist – do not try to tell me that hacks at the Guardian etc outrank the expert journalists and peers in Kopelman’s own discipline. Let’s call Kopelman what the experts say and not the hacks – this is an encyclopaedia not a press facsimile. Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

No they have not, they have talked about his qualifications have they questioned the judge's decision? In this case Lord Justice Holroyde, not the Guardian. But it is time for others to chip in.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

You accept that expert RSs describes Kopelman as an internationally recognised neuropsychologist - but seem to be suggesting the experts (peers at Kings College London etc) must also “question[] the judge's decision” before we can use their description of Kopelman? Agree other opinions would be welcome. Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

We must not embellish the cited source. In its 600-word story, The Guardian refers first to "Assange's psychiatric expert" and in the following paragraph identifies him as "Prof Michael Kopelman." The Guardian saw no need to tout the professor's credentials, and in our single sentence describing Lord Justice Holroyde's ruling, neither should Wikipedia. Slatersteven is right in objecting on the grounds of WP:SYNTH. Moreover, the suggested change implicates WP:NPOV because it would, in Wikipedia's voice, impugn the judge's legal qualifications by insinuating that Holroyde had the temerity to call a report by such a distinguished expert "misleading." Our 42-word coverage of the High Court's decision is sufficient as is, without naming Kopelman or tendentiously advertising his curriculum vitae. Basketcase2022 (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Basketcase2022 Actually we do need to name Kopelman in the text here because, as I said in my edit summary when first posting, “Dr Michael Kopelman was not the only Psychologist to give evidence for the defence at Assange’s 2020 extradition hearing (Dr Quinton Deeley gave testimony on Assange’s autism)” ie people need to know which expert the judge took issue with. I have now found a contemporaneous report from Jacobin (magazine) here which says: “Judge Baraister found the distinguished neuropsychiatrist to be credible and impartial” I can live with “distinguished neuropsychiatrist” (or similar) in the wiki article (hopefully the small addition won’t count as tendentiously advertising his curriculum vitae. Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Prunesqualer: Thank you for the additional contemporaneous source. In the spirit of accommodation, I propose the following revised sentence to replace our existing text:

On 11 August in the High Court, Lord Justice Holroyde decided that Judge Baraitser may have given too much weight to what Holroyde called "a misleading report" by a psychiatric expert, whom Jacobin described as a "distinguished neuropsychiatrist," and that the issue could now form part of the appeal.

References

Please note that it is still not necessary to name Kopelman. Basketcase2022 (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Prof Michael Kopelman was named and styled as such in the article like the judge was. He is an expert in his area like the judge is in his. In a court a judge makes the final decision. There is no need to talk about impugning for either of them. I'm sure they both can make mistakes or be biased and there's no way of determining an absolute truth here. Saying otherwise about the judge is ridiculous when Trump and the republican party put in so much effort getting conservative supreme justices. Just follow the source, even if I think it is a biased in its coverage Wikipedia counts it as a good reliable source. NadVolum (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Err this was a UK court, Trump has no power over who sits on its bench.Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Then how about the Birmingham bombing? I was just pointing it out for judges in general and for Americans to understand. NadVolum (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually Birmingham pub bombings is interesting as the judge ruled confessions as admissable and used them whereas there has been a study showing that having such an admission in a terrorism case make it less probable that the accused committed the offence. NadVolum (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

What has this to do with anything?Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I was giving an English example since you seemed to think what American ones are like didn't apply. The last bit was an example of how a judge can give undue credence to forced confessions and have no feeling for probabilities - which is what one would have hoped they were particularly good at. I think everyone just lost their heads because it was an atrocity. NadVolum (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

And I was asking what does any of this have to do with Lord Justice Holroyd's opinion on the evidence given in this trial?Slatersteven (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I was saying the professor is an expert just like the justice and talking about impugning either was silly. You seemed tto think that I was trying to make some special point by giving the example of American judges rather than British ones having their biases an mistakes. NadVolum (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

to make it clear, I think Prof Michael Kopelman should be named and styled as such in the article. I don't think we need to include his accomplishments. NadVolum (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I can live without his “accomplishments” being adumbrated in the article – as long as we let the reader know this is more than just an ordinary Psychiatric expert – not now calling for big claims just: “distinguished” which I think is reasonable. Prunesqualor billets_doux 21:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

How about this just inserting " Prof Michael Kopelman,"

On 11 August in the High Court, Lord Justice Holroyde decided that Judge Baraitser may have given too much weight to what Holroyde called "a misleading report" by Assange's psychiatric expert Prof Michael Kopelman, and that the issue could now form part of the appeal. The High Court is expected to convene a full appeal hearing on October 27.

References

Pretty much summarizes two paragrahs of the Gurdian into one I think. NadVolum (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• The sources describe Kopelman as a "psychiatrist" or a "psychiatric expert". We should not call him a "psychologist" or a "neuropsychologist". It's not the same thing. We don't need to add his accomplishments. Perhaps someone could write an article about him. However, I think we should name him. He is mentioned under "Hearings", and it looks like Kopelman's report will be an important part of the appeal. We should let readers know we are talking about the same person. Readers should be able to see how the appeal process flows from the extradition decision. The other thing is, the issue with the report is not some advanced neuropsychiatry, it's that Kopelman didn't mention that Assange had a relationship with Moris and two small children. We need to get back to basics and concentrate on the facts of the extradition, particularly the decisions and the reasons for the decisions.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Jack Upland: Kopelman is mentioned only once under Hearings on extradition to the U.S.: Psychiatrist Michael Kopelman said that a hidden razor blade had been found in Assange's prison cell. If you now propose tying this to Appeal and other developments, it will require more than just naming him in the latter subsection. You say the issue with his report on appeal is "Kopelman didn't mention that Assange had a relationship with Moris and two small children." That obviously has nothing to do with a hidden razor blade. To illustrate how the appeal process flows from the extradition decision, as you suggest, we'd have to describe this central issue on appeal that was not worth including under Hearings on extradition. Basketcase2022 (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually what it says is, Other witnesses testified that the conditions of imprisonment, which would be likely to worsen upon extradition to the U.S., placed Assange at a high risk of depression and suicide which was exacerbated by his Asperger syndrome. Psychiatrist Michael Kopelman said that a hidden razor blade had been found in Assange's prison cell. I think this could be better worded. Your understanding of the issue could be improved by a bit more reading, rather than just arguing about it.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Smug condescension aside, there is no mention there of how the eminent and distinguished Professor Kopelman misled the court about Assange's relationship with Moris and two small children. That was not included under Hearings on extradition to the U.S. and would need to be explained under Appeal and other developments. Basketcase2022 (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Seems to me the Jacobin (magazine) article handles all of this quite well – both the prosecution’s contention regarding Kopelman’s failure to mention Assange’s family circumstances, Kopelman’s reasons for doing so (to protect the identity and security of that family) and the defence assertion that Kopelman intended to disclose the information once he had sought legal advice. I would be happy to see these key points touched on in the article.

References

Prunesqualor billets_doux 05:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Just to expand on that. The August appeal ruling had some unusual aspects aside from the general significance of the Assange case. For example - whether we get to say so in the article or not - Dr Michael Kopelman is eminent in his field and as such, for his judgement, or integrity to be called into question publicly is an issue. Also, as Jacobin puts it; “...it is exceedingly rare for a higher court to second guess a judge’s rulings on matters like [the validity of expert witness testimony]” and also “...under most circumstances a judge’s decision about an individual risk of committing suicide would not be appealable”. I do understand concerns about article bloat but seems to me this ruling is unusual and noteworthy enough to give at least a few extra details - more than our current two sentence paragraph anyway. Prunesqualor billets_doux 06:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Holroyde himself said it was unusual. However, I think we should bear in mind this should all be aired in October. I don't really see how Kopelman's eminence is really relevant to the question of whether he should have disclosed Assange's family circumstances.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Baraitser's judgment (p 107) says Kopelman's non-disclosure was "misleading and inappropriate", but that she was aware of Assange's family circumstances in April 2020, before she had read his report. Under these circumstances, I don't believe it is necessary to air the issue under "Hearings on extradition", as Baraitser nevertheless accepted Kopelman's opinion. However, the US prosecutors are revisiting this issue in order to overturn Baraitser's decision. I think it should be made clear what they are trying to do, which is not very complicated. However, as I said, the details can wait to October.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Jack Upland On your first points - I accept that “Kopelman's eminence” is something of a side issue in regard to the appeal ruling - that should not debar it being mentioned, as it would add very little to the length of the paragraph - but I’ll leave that aside for now. Regarding: “Holroyde himself said [questioning Baraitser’s judgements] was unusual... this should all be aired in October” Why wait till October? The decision to allow an appeal on “unusual” grounds is noteworthy and should IMO be in the article. Re. it is not being necessary to air the issue under “Hearings on extradition" - that may be true but some coverage in the “Appeal and other developments” section would defiantly be in order. I note with interest your later, statement; “However, the US prosecutors are revisiting this issue in order to overturn Baraitser's decision. I think it should be made clear what they are trying to do, which is not very complicated. However, as I said, the details can wait to October.” This seems to be arguing that the only important POV here is that of the US prosecutors – It may be that the judge in this instance found in favour of the US prosecution arguments, it does not follow that everyone should agree with the judge’s conclusions, or that the unusual nature of the ruling should not be acknowledged in the article. Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I was just saying that we should bear in mind that this will be covered more fully in October. I wasn't saying that the US prosecutors' POV is the "only important POV", just that we should note what their strategy is, in the interest of readers understanding what is happening.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• I think Jacobin's article should be cited as well as the Guardian's. They are both strongly biased in different directions but including both will I think give a more balanced view if a reader bothers to read the citations. Any more text and the whole or a couple of sections will need to be broken out into another Wikipedia page, possibly it should be but even so this bit will then just be a summary. NadVolum (talk) 09:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Note he was not a court-appointed psychiatrist, he was a defence appointed one. So if we are going to have the context that also needs adding. So let's stop adding stuff until it is agreed what we should say.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Not exactly sure what you're saying. Are you saying we should not add a citation because the text can be cited to just one biased report? NadVolum (talk) 10:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

No I am saying we should not alter the text until we have an agreement on what it should say. And if we want context we need to give all context, including who was paying him for his medical opinion, and let the reader decide.Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Please note the text already makes it clear who is “paying [Kopelman] for his medical opinion” . by saying “Assange's psychiatric expert”. Incidentally I changed the article text to “one of Assange’s psychiatric experts” (as explained in my edit summary and on your talk page) and for some unaccountable reason you changed it back to the patently misleading earlier version. Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Err no it does not, as he might have been under court-appointed (or even NHS) care or observation (he was not), this was a defense witness. Nor does it matter if Assange had more than one, we do not say "all psychiatric evidence" just this one witnesses.Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: less of the “err” stuff please – it’s obnoxious and unnecessary. Yes it is possible to read “Assange's psychiatric expert” and not take away take away the fact that Assange’s team hired the man, however most readers I think would take the correct interpretation – so I don’t know if we really need stipulate. Regarding the use of more than one defence psychiatric expert, why on earth would we want to mislead the readers in order to avoid using 7 extra characters – makes no sense at all. Kindly revert. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Yet they can't figure out he was called because of his expertise? Or that only his evidence was called into question?Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: This is getting silly - Please refer to comment on your talk page. Prunesqualor billets_doux 11:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Sounds bit like puffery to me. Do we really need to say he is renouned, etc? Why not just name the guy and wikilink to an organization he is affiliated with if he doesnt have his own wikipedia article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok looks like references to Kopelman’s distinguished career won’t be making the cut – however “expert” really should stay, as it is used repeatedly in the source and in many (I’m guessing nearly all) other RS Prunesqualor billets_doux 14:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Swedish charges?

It has been said repeatedly — and just now — stated that Assange wasn't charged in Sweden. However, this says that There is no such thing as being charged in Swedish law. If so, the statement that there were no Swedish charges is rather hollow and misleading.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

seems valid, we need to make this clear.Slatersteven (talk) 08:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The statement is in a Guardian blog and is being made by "Dan Lucas who used to be the UK correspondent for Dagens Nyheter, the leading morning paper in Sweden. He covered the Assange extradition drama, but notes that he is NOT a lawyer or legal expert." The process for investigating a crime in Sweden seems to commence with a preliminary investigation. A preliminary investigation may result in the prosecutor deciding to prosecute a person for the crime, which means there will be a trial. This is what did not happen in Assange's case. Whether you call it being charged, prosecuted or something else does not matter. Burrobert (talk) 11:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is a statement by a journalist. But is he wrong?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

What does he mean by "charged"? The word "charged" presumably does not appear in Swedish law since the law would be written in Swedish. If he means that an investigation does not lead to someone being tried in court then he is wrong. Burrobert (talk) 04:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

A different explanation is given by Mark Klamberg, a Swedish law professor, who says, Lastly, some words about the concept of 'indictment', it is a term used both in Swedish and English law. The indictment comes at the very end of the investigation in Sweden. He quotes the English High Court: Although it is clear a decision has not been taken to charge him, that is because, under Swedish procedure, that decision is taken at a late stage with the trial following quickly thereafter. In England and Wales, a decision to charge is taken at a very early stage; there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced. If the commencement of criminal proceedings were to be viewed as dependent on whether a person had been charged, it would be to look at Swedish procedure through the narrowest of common law eyes. Looking at it through cosmopolitan eyes on this basis, criminal proceedings have commenced against Mr Assange.[11] It is clear that the claim that Assange wasn't "charged" is misleading. It is exploiting the differences in procedure to imply that the allegations had not reached a point where charges would have been laid if he was in England etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• The word "charges" does not appear in Assange's bio in relation to Sweden. We only mention that an investigation was being conducted and was eventually dropped, which is consistent with the legal opinion you have received from your friend Mr Klamberg. There is no need to change anything we have written about the Swedish process as far as I can see.
• If you are talking about how we describe the situation on the talk-page, when an editor says Assange was not charged, they are saying Assange was not charged under Swedish law. How else can the situation be described? The Swedish process did not progress beyond an investigation.

Burrobert (talk) 06:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no valid reason to say he wasn't charged in Sweden. It's not applicable to the Swedish legal system. Can editors please stop saying this?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

What exactly are you trying to change in the article? Also, just stop quoting blogs. - hako9 (talk) 08:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I think charged is appropriate even if the precise meaning of the actual word differes in England and Sweden. However I must take exception to "there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced". Under English law even now and discounting that it is terrible at prosecuting rape case I don't see that it would satisfy Rape in English law. That is definitely not the same as Rape in Sweden. I believe that professor was talking about the meaning of charge if the laws were the same. The title of the article was "Setting the record straight how detention and indictment works in Sweden – as illustrated by the Assange case" Personally I think Swedish Law is better here as English Law just isn't working. NadVolum (talk) 13:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

So the High Court got it wrong?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I've had another look and found a better analysis which pretty definitely shows I'm wrong okay. I don't think it would actually work out as they say with that evidence though. NadVolum (talk) 11:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Assange was never charged in Sweden. He was, however, granted political asylum by Ecuador (see the above discussion about whether to use the word "asylum" in a section title). -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

It sure seems like the concept of "charging" someone with a crime exists in Sweden:

• BBC: Sweden charges man over 1988 Iran prison massacre
• Reuters: Iranian charged with war crimes by Swedish court for 1988 prison killing
• Al Jazeera: Sweden charges man with spying for Russia
• Euronews: Swedish rappers jailed on kidnapping charges in major organised crime trial
• The Globe and Mail: Former top Bombardier employee charged in Swedish corruption probe

These are all recent news articles. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I think we're agreed charge is an appropriate word to say they formally wanted him for an offence even if the Swedish system does do things differenly. NadVolum (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)