Talk:Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

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

Neutrality dispute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Melzer's views shd be noted but not presented as truth...--Jack Upland (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Title and definition of the topic of the article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lack of mainstream media coverage of Extradition Trial.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Copy edit

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

Ruptly

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

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

Change of title to US indictment of Julian Assange

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

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

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

Requested move 4 January 2022

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move 26 December 2022

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

  This article should cover something that is clearly finished

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The indictment

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

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

Opening sentence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What if we rewrote it so

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussions are still on this page and I dont want to describe them badly so it might be a good quick read. I think United States v Assange is better because we can include the extradition fight. If we rename it to “The U.S. indictment of Julian Assange” to limit the scope I think we would have to remove a lot more Softlemonades (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Good point on the "States v Assange" title – you have a strong agree from me on that. Prunesqualor billets_doux 19:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Either way though I think the status quo is untenable Prunesqualor billets_doux 19:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't support US versus Assange. That would eaxpnd the scope of this article to cover current affairs for quite a while to come. We already have a section on current developments in the Assange article so both would have people updating at the same time, it would be a bad fork. See below on my proposal to restart the article and set a clean topic. NadVolum (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I propose "The indictment and arrest of Julian Assange ia about The arrest of Julian Assange on indictments by the US and his extradition hearing on those charges". NadVolum (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Restart this article

I think it would be best to abandon this article as is and start from scratch again. Is there anything in this article currently which isn't already properly covered in the Assange article? What I propose we should do is

1. Replace this article by the contents of the Julian Assange article section on Imprisonment and extradition proceedings till just before the section on Appeals and other developments.
2. Fix up the article as necessary with a lead and expand a bit to fix areas to make it self contained but not expand the range.
3. Summarize the contents of this article in the Julian Assange article and link to this for more details.

This would have the following benefits

• it woud set a definite topic for this article - his arrest and indictment. It would not cover appeals which didn't address the substance of the indictments and it wouldn't cover later imprisonment, just the hearings which specifically dealt with the indictment.
• It would make the Julian Assange article shorter and more manageable and leave the section Appeals and other developments for expansion without trying to update this at the same time.
• This article could be expanded relative to what is in the Julian Assange article, in particular more could be put in about the hearing and the points in the indictment. If there is anything salvageabe from this current article it could be put in too.

Thoughts? NadVolum (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

You can offer edits to accomplish whatever focus you feel is appropriate to the topic and you can request a move to a new title, if one better reflects the edited content. It's rarely advisable to throw out the work of all the editors who have devoted time and attention to a page. Even a page with problems. By that standard, we would erase the main Julian Assange page and start fresh. SPECIFICO talk 20:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

You are welcome to propose that but it wouldn't pass so why say it? I don't think the current article as a whole is going anywhere but of course any worthwhile work should be salvaged. However it is not Wikipedia's job to stroke the egos of people who do contributions, as it says in WP:5P "All editors freely license their work to the public, and no editor owns an article – any contributions can and may be mercilessly edited and redistributed." NadVolum (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I dont know where However it is not Wikipedia's job to stroke the egos of people who do contributions is from but SPECIFICO - see WP:TNT I think thats what NadVolum is talking about Softlemonades (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I doubt it. Sounded just like they propose the current tiny group discard whatever good work has been accumulated here. And the subsequent justification makes no sense whatsoever. We don't routinely blow up articles full of content just because some of it is UNDUE for the topic. We fix them. The stuff about stroking is a strawman. SPECIFICO talk 21:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Nadvolum is making proposals which might fix the serious problems inherent in an article which was badly named from the start. A poorly thought out title inevitably invites the inclusion of arbitrary/disorderly content, complete with all the hazards pointed out e.g. WP:COATRACK or excessive, muddled, overlaps with other topics/pages. Prunesqualor billets_doux 22:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

There is quite a bit worth keeping I think. But it should be put into a better framework and the Juslian Assange has had much better development. So yes I think it is better to copy the stuff over and then start copying content back in. So it wold be more of merge but the content in the Julian Assange article setting the framework. It would still be very valuable to identify the bits from here which should be kept in that scenario. NadVolum (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

It looks to me like WP:Merging is the appropriate guide for this sort of business and a bit put in the Julian Assange article so people there are also asked about how they feel about part of the article being moved here for a merge and just a summary left there. NadVolum (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Could I suggest re-title first – once the new title is agreed hopefully the rest can follow. I’m back with a preference for: “The U.S. indictment of Julian Assange”, it’s focused, and I now think: "States v Assange” has too many misleading connotations. Prunesqualor billets_doux 08:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

"States v Assange” has too many misleading connotations I dont understand, can you explain or give an example? Softlemonades (talk) 09:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, retitle the article and edit, but don't blow it up entirely!!! And don't overburden the JA article PLEASE!!!

I don't think retitling is necessary for the proposed merge and it would involve discussion and time to no great purpose. Whereas a merge has easily identifiable benefits to both this article and the Julian Assange one. NadVolum (talk) 12:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The “arrest” of Assange is tied up with skipping bail and the Swedish enquiry. The U.S. indictments deal with espionage and hacking. These are completely different things. Why do you wish these disparate subjects linked in one article? Prunesqualor billets_doux 23:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

They're linked in time and the main article is structured that way. We don't have to deal with the various things outside that time here otherwise you end up dealing with his childhood. I was hoping ths article originally could be restricted to the indictment but as you can see from the RfC above some people had stuck other things here and objected to their work being removed. If the lead is very clear about just covering the corresponding sectio in the main articl ethis article can be stopped from forking like that busines about sticking the sex charge in the first sentence and actually become a useful addition rather than alwayds being a potential coatrack fork. NadVolum (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

You say “the main article is structured that way”, but it seems to me it’s structured that way because the article was poorly named from the start.

At the very least, the title should be altered on the grounds of simple accuracy, since Assange has been arrested on two occasions (not counting his early Australian experience) and on a different charge on each occasion (in December 2010, based on the European arrest warrant issued by Swedish Prosecutors, then in April 2019 for "failing to submit to court"). Therefore, in the name of accuracy, I shall alter the title to: “Indictment and arrests of Julian Assange”. However if someone later decides the article should only deal with one of the attests we can insert the date of the chosen arrest into the title e.g. “Indictment and 2019 arrest of Julian Assange”. Prunesqualor billets_doux 06:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

BY the main article I meant the article Julian Assange. It has had more people looking at it and editing it and it is the article where this one could be used as a subarticle. If this article cannot be used easily there then this article should be deleted as being too liabe to being used as a coatrack. NadVolum (talk) 13:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

The appropriate policy is WP:Preserve. Tweak, not delete. The idea of a title change is sometimes a good solution. An article can start with one good title, but over the years the content develops and morphs enough that the original title no long accurately describes the contents. Then change the title, not the article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose merging part of Julian Assange#Imprisonment and extradition proceedings into Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange. The bits merged would be the sections "Arrest in the embassy", "Conviction for breach of bail", "Espionage indictment in the United States", "Imprisonment in the UK", "Hearings on extradition to the US", and any bits in "Appeals and other developments" directly related to the indictment but excluding things like appeals which just deal with health matters or prison conditions.

After the merge and a tidyup the Julian Assange article the plan is to have the sections that were wholly merged shortened into summaries which refer to corresponding parts of this article. The Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange article will deal in more depth with the arrest and indictment as related to the extradition hearing. NadVolum (talk) 13:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange article will deal in more depth with the arrest and indictment as related to the extradition hearing Does this mean more or less focus on the extradition hearing? Sorry Softlemonades (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes exactly. Well the hearing under Judge Baraister which brought up various points about the indictment, plus the contents of the indictment and various assessments of them. And include the bit where he was taken out of the embassy and jailed for breaking bail but that's really to make it cover a reasonable portion of his life and the title talks about arrest. He is in jail now and the recent hearings haven't really dealt with the indictment as such but the ins and outs of extradition. NadVolum (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok thanks for clarifying. I think I understand. Ill think about it and look at the parts you want to merge Softlemonades (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• I have been advocating for at least a year that the BLP article should focus on his life and the arrest article should contain the arrest and wikileaks issues. The overlap is too much, and I have seen over the last year or two that some editors push hard to put wikileaks content on the biography stating it is all one and the same. We could always run an RFC on this if we cannot find consensus here (as I think the same regular editors might return arguing that wikileaks=assange and thus it all goes here as well. As you point out the duplication is absurd. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

  I have seen over the last year or two that some editors push hard to put wikileaks content on the biography stating it is all one and the same Agree theres too much wikileaks stuff in the blp Softlemonades (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe the general agreement at the Assange article is that only the things that involved Assange personally would be put in the Assange article, but that one could list and link major leaks that occurred with him managing WIkileaks. If you see bits in the Assange article where it starts talking about things which didn't involve him personally then you're free to remove or discuss removing them there. NadVolum (talk) 10:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I have to admit I responded to the talk page comment without looking at the article and I apologize for that. The article looks far different today than when I made my earlier comments (must have been a year or more). The article looks greatly improved now and all the leaks content seems to have been moved off. I agree this article should focus on his biography, as we do have wikileaks articles to cover the rest. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I think this is impossible — unfortunately — because inevitably people will place the latest extradition news on the JA article. It would be possible to move some info here, but not as much as seems to be being proposed.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

we should try Softlemonades (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus for trying. @NadVolum can you suggest text to remove from Julian Assange? I think we can agree on something if we know whats going where. But its an important change

I want to start a SPLIT about the Assessments section on Assange because weve all talked about it in a few discussions but I dont want to start a SPLIT when theres still a MERGE happening Softlemonades (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I agree with Jack Upland that people will place the latest news about the extradition at the Julian Assange article. And I think that is the right and proper thing to do. What I think should be dealt with more fully here is the actual indictments and Judge Baraister's hearing and the judgements upholding that. It should not cover his health or anything like that except insofar as it has an actual bearing on his case in court. Appeals by his family, politicians round the world etc should be left at the Assange article at least until such time as he is actually extradited or released. This article can then be referred to by the other for a more in-depth about the actual case. NadVolum (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok I think thats all good. If you want to quote the text here before changing it thats good, or if you want to be bold im okay with that but i might do a partial restore to talk about part of it more Softlemonades (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@NadVolum Do you want to try or wait for the last appeal now? Softlemonades (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I've had rather a lot put on my plate for the last while so I can't spend all that much time on Wikipedia. I'd been hoping to spend most of my time on some economics and maths issues but have dropped that practically completely now unfortunately and probably for the next year. So basically however you'd like to do it. NadVolum (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I hope youre good

I think we close and wait because no one is doing it and articles are saying extradition will happen very soon or be denied. Whatever one happens the section and this page will be changed or moved and I think we are better deciding this after we know Softlemonades (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The current title is broken

Aside from the problems already discussed, regarding the article title, it should be recognized the existing title contains a very significant ambiguity: Assange has been arrested on two occasions (not counting his early Australian experience). The arrests where nearly nine years apart, and on a different charge on each occasion (in December 2010, based on the European arrest warrant issued by Swedish Prosecutors, then in April 2019 for "failing to submit to court"). To which of these arrests is our title referring, 2010, 2019 or both?

For the sake of basic grammatical accuracy, as a holding measure, the article should refer to “arrests” rather than an “arrest” singular, and, for now be renamed “Indictment and arrests of Julian Assange” (if editors later decide the article should only deal with one of the arrests, the date of the chosen arrest can be inserted into the title e.g. “Indictment and 2019 arrest of Julian Assange”). Prunesqualor billets_doux 07:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Should it be Indictments because of the superseding indictments? Softlemonades (talk) 07:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I don’t know - what is your opinion on that? What I do think is, that serious errors on the page should not be left to stand because other errors may or may not exist. We should get on and take action on the issue I’ve pointed out – if you can point to other serious issues, regarding the title, they can be dealt with later (better to correct a known error than to get bogged down trying to deal with multiple issues and end up correcting nothing). Prunesqualor billets_doux 07:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I sometimes see this sort of stuff on other articles, people proposing writing the article into the title. See WP:PRECISION "Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that". Was he indicted more than once? No he was indicted and the indictment charges were updated. Nobody goes around calling the warrant from Sweden an indictment. Does arrest refer to his boyhood hacking or the sex charge from Sweden? No indictment and arrest is obviously not either of those though there were two arrests in the proposed merge, one for breaking bail and the other for the indictment but they're close enough in time and the indictmentwas obviously waiting for the first arrest. So the title is sufficiently precise and won't be confused with any other titles. If somebody can come up with an alternative succinct title title then fine but itisn'ta high priority compared to stopping the article going all over the place and dragging in the kitchen sink as it were. NadVolum (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I see your point, to the extent that: To a person who understands the background , an article titled: “Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange”, only makes sense as a reasonably discrete unified theme, if we assume the "arrest" in the title refers only to the 2019 one. However - will the average person, coming across the article, assume that the “arrest” we are refer to in the title, is the 2019 one? I suspect not. I would also point out that: other editors appear to believe the Swedish/UK arrest, and it’s background, are of high importance to the article (that, despite the subject already having it’s own page, and being covered in the main J.A. page). If they wish to continue giving prominence to the 2010 arrest, as well as the 2019 one, then pluralising the word “arrest” in the title seems the way forward. Personally, I’d rather we found a way of keeping the subject matter focused around the U.S. indictments (avoiding unnecessary duplication of Swedish material). Re-titling to: “Indictment and 2019 arrest of Julian Assange”, would help there. Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

PS The fact that editors seem determined to place details about the Swedish/UK 2010 arrest, right in prime position, in the first sentence of the article, illustrates the difficulty. It can’t be argued that the "Arrest" in the title refers only to the 2019 one when the article begins with the 2010 one. Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

If this article is tied in with the Julian Assange Article instead of being a practically inependent fork I think the problems can be dealt with adaquately by RfC's if necessary to stop people using this as a coatrack. I'm afraid editing can be a very non neutral business on Wikipedia when people feel strongly about a subject and they'll twist their minds to believe that the thing they want to put in is right to put practically anywhere. Just tweaking the title isn't going to change their minds. NadVolum (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like a strawman objection, unless you can provide a quote of anyone artguing that the title refers only to 2019? SPECIFICO talk 14:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Are you really trying to argue that indictment and arrest refers to his arrest on to be extradited on a sex charge to Sweden in 2012 plus his indictment for espionage by the US in 2019? Tha hardly seems like a well formed topic to me. Perhaps you'd like to make a decent case for it that wouldn't at the same time cover his arrest for hacking in Australia or do you think we should have a complete article just dealing with all the arrests of Assange, in which case the word indictmnt should be taken out and it all called the Arrests of Julian Assange. NadVolum (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

No. That's why your comment above is raising a strawman objection to something that I have not seen anybody say here. SPECIFICO talk 15:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Just change to "US indictment of Julian Assange". He was arrested twice in 2019, firstly for failing to surrender to the court, secondly for the purpose of extradition to the US. But let's not go astray.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I support this. The bail arrest can be Background Softlemonades (talk) 01:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit reverted without explanation

Earlier today, I removed controversial material from the opening line of the article. I had two days previously, explained the rationale behind the removal of that material, in the “Opening Sentence” section of this talk page, as well as giving an explanation in my edit description. However, another editor has chosen to simply reverted my edit, with no meaningful explanation, or any attempt to engage with me on the subject. This strikes me as disrespectful and surly cannot be considered good practice. Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

PS, for the record, my edit summary said:

“The charges brought against Assange by the Swedish prosecution service have since been dropped and are still regarded as controversial. Any specifics should not be broached without balance and context, the opening sentence is not the place for that.” Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

The revert posted before I completed it. We can't omit the fact that explains why Sweden sought to question him. And "controversial" facts are not censored on WP. There is no doubt that he was accused and wanted for questioning in the matters of sexual assault and sexual harrassemnt. SPECIFICO talk 13:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping in to offer some explanation for you edits (if belatedly). Your explanation, fails to address my central point i.e.: “controversial... specifics should not be broached without balance and context, the opening sentence is not the place for that Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Mr./Ms. Dude, 15 minutes is not "belated". Patience is a virtue. In general, I think it would be productive if everyone tried to put this article into proper English, as I have been attempting in a the current series of edits. As it stood it was quite incoherent. I think that will be more constructive than immediately jumping into meta-discussions about topic and title, etc. SPECIFICO talk 14:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

As I just said above your latest comment, the fact that he was alleged to rape and harass is not controversial. It was one of the most widely publicised facts on earth at the time. SPECIFICO talk 14:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

The fact that Assange was wanted for questioning by the Swedish prosecutor, regarding alleged claims of Sexual assault, is not in dispute. However fairness dictates that: at the same time we inform readers of the nature of the accusations, we need readers to understand some other things. For instance: there are several very serious questions surrounding the behaviour of the Swedish prosecutors’ office during this period. If we simply mention what Assange was accused of, without this accompanying context, we are no better than mud-slinging. I have said; the first sentence of the article is not the place for that. However, I would like to extend that to the whole introductory section – for the same reasons. At the start of an article, in which the Swedish case is only tangentially relevant, simply mentioning that Assange was wanted for questioning by Swedish authorities is perfectly adequate. I repeat: the nature of the allegations against Assange should only be brought up where there is space to simultaneously give context and balance. Prunesqualor billets_doux 16:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

It is also pretty much irrelevant to the topic of this article and so should not appear prominently in the lead. The closest to it is that he was arrested for breaking bail and the bail was while facing an extradition warrant to Sweden. NadVolum (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Prunesqualor billets_doux 17:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

we dont give weight like this to allegations only, certainly not the first line of the lede. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Moved before consensus

SPECIFICO, why did you move the page before there was clear consensus on the new title and focus? Its still being talked about and the new title has problems like what about third indictment from 2020 or the second indictment thats from 2019 too Softlemonades (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

You're free to challenge it and revert, but the new title is IMO clearly better, closer to the content of the page, and more reflective of the talk page concerns. It may not be perfect and may further evolve. I think it's better to try to make incremental changes than to have extended meta-discussions here among a small number of editors who are not really rolling up their sleeves and doing the hard work of organizing, trimming, and strengthening the article. The recent addition of one editor's preferred meta-description of the page at the top of the lead just looked like another big step in the wrong direction. SPECIFICO talk 15:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

but the new title is IMO clearly better And other editers think the same thing about their ideas that are or were discussed in move and merge proposals. But we didnt move it without discussion.

I think it's better to try to make incremental changes than to have extended meta-discussions here among a small number of editors They might have been shorter and clearer if more people, including you, were part of them.

Please would you self revert until its discussed? Softlemonades (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it confuses the verb and the noun, indictments is a plural noun and they are US indictments of Julian Assange, he was indicted. And I'd prefer the extradition hearing bit was left in to delimit the scope as I don't think for instance the High Court hearing dealt with any of the indictments at all. Overall though perhaps it might stop people sticking in 'In 2012... at the top so I'm happy with it. NadVolum (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

It shouldnt have been done without consensus or when there are other move discussions held.

Overall though perhaps it might stop people sticking in 'In 2012... so would my have proposed fix but I didnt just do it because it was IMO clearly better, I put it up for discussion, waited and went with consensus. Theres no due date and no clear BLP violation, so moving it to cut off discussions doesnt seem right Softlemonades (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Of course you think it is better, you did it. As the OP says, you should wait until an RM is completed and as an involved editor you shouldn't be closing it nor making these absurd arguments in support of it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Please observe civility policy and comment on content, not contributors if you wish your views to be considered. SPECIFICO talk 21:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Recommend an RM, if anybody thinks the page should be re-named. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Conversion of valid link to WP:EGG

In this diff a valid link to a Wikipedia page is converted into an Easter Egg link to a related but not NPOV. The sequence of events does not support the easter egg which introduces anachronistic associations relating to the timing of Assange's asylum, the Swedish actions, and Assanges conduct when the Sweden dropped and resumed its inquiry. The straightforward NPOV link needs to be restored. The WP:EGG link violates our Manual of Style. SPECIFICO talk 19:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

You should complain at Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority, not here. The text is pretty close to the article title. NadVolum (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not a "complaint" it's a violation of our WP:MOS. At any rate, the linked page title is not at all like the lined text, hence EGG. Please take a closer look. SPECIFICO talk 19:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I thought EGG means not surprising people or hiding things with links, I dont think the link did Softlemonades (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

The title of the article is 'Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority'. That doesn't mention sexual assault but it does mention Sweden so if there is an EGG it is in the title of that article and the link is correct. We shouldn't be saying things about an article which they don't say. NadVolum (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)