RfC on "sexual offences" in the Introduction

The determination of consensus is not a matter of headcounting. As per our policy as explained in WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, consensus occurs "through discussion, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense" [emphasis addded]. Our well-regarded essay WP:VOTE offers a reminder that "it is "not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important". Further, per WP:DISCARD, the job of the closer is to "know policy sufficiently to know what arguments are to be excluded as irrelevant" [emphasis added] in the discussion. Only if arguments presented by all sides are equally valid, does the closer end the discussion "by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it".

In the current matter, 12 editors support including "sexual offences" in the introduction and 8 oppose. Two of the editors in the "include" camp added caveats, such as it should only be included if it's also mentioned the charges were dropped, or the amount of emphasis on this inclusion should be more limited than the status quo.

The oppose camp cites one policy and two guidelines as to why "sexual offences" should be excluded: WP:DUE, MOS:CRIMINAL, MOS:LEAD. Despite a very long discussion and very elaborate !votes, the include camp spent virtually no time addressing any of these, and where rebuttal did occur, it was done in a fleeting and unconvincing manner.

The support side cites no policies or guidelines as to why "sexual offences" should be included, aside from a brief invocation of WP:NOTCENSORED, which was rebutted by Jtbobwaysf: "we dont include everything we find, and we have to follow BLP rules". No surrebuttal was offered and the matter was never brought up again. The crux of the "support" argument was based on a novel idea of "chain of events" and article coherence, both of which might be interpretatively discovered in our guidelines, but where they might be discovered was never mentioned and for the closer to infer the meaning would be to deprive the other side of the opportunity to argue against it.

Applying the maxims for consensus I previously described, I "excluded as irrelevant" reasons for inclusion not "based in policy", at least insofar as that policy was reasonably articulated in the argument. After applying those exclusions, what was left was not "no consensus" but, in fact, a very strong consensus against inclusion.

My reading of this discussion is that there is: a consensus against "mention [of] the Swedish allegations of "sexual offences" (in those words) in the introduction". This consensus does not apply to the body of the article. Chetsford (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

Should the "Julian Assange" article specifically mention the Swedish allegations of "sexual offences" (in those words) in the introduction? Jack Upland (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polling (RfC on "sexual offences" in the Introduction)

  • See above discussions.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes: This has been a fraught topic for years. I understand the unwillingness to include allegations which never led to convictions, but these Swedish allegations are part of a chain of events. The Swedish allegations led to an arrest warrant being issued and led to Assange's first extradition case. Assange skipped bail when he lost his the case and faced extradition to the so-called US satrapy of Sweden. At the time Assange and his supporters suggested that the Swedish case was a CIA frame up intended to make him vulnerable to extradition to the USA. When Assange was arrested in the Ecuadorian embassy, the US indictment was unsealed and he faced extradition to the USA as predicted. He served 25 weeks for skipping bail while facing extradition to Sweden and then was kept in custody in Belmarsh Prison. He was repeatedly denied bail because he was deemed a flight risk because he had skipped bail previously. Hence the "sexual offences" allegations are a vital link in the chain of events. The current text only mentions Assange v Sweden. A casual reader glancing at the article would probably assume that the Swedish case related ostensibly to WikiLeaks publication. Of course the Swedish allegations could have been a CIA dirty trick, but we should leave that open to the readers to decide. We must make it clear that Assange's legal woes really took off with an incident in his personal life. Therefore the introduction should specifically refer to "sexual offences", however embarrassing this is to Assange and his supporters.Jack Upland (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. I agree with Jack Upland that the Swedish allegations of sexual offenses were the initial trigger to a long series of unfortunate events that have dominated Assange's life for 14 years. Failing to describe them briefly and neutrally would leave a big hole in the narrative. Cullen328 (talk) 01:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No (Summoned by bot), given the charges/allegations have been dropped then we should remove the content from the lead. We can still cover it in the body per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. TarnishedPathtalk 02:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No While the article subject is well known for his detention at the embassy in London, the reason for that detention is not well covered in RS, therefore it is an WP:NPOV issue coming from UNDUE WEIGHT promoting this concept to the LEAD. MOS:LEAD tells us it should summarize the article and not be a "It is not a news-style lead." We need to stay the middle course and leave these dropped allegations from the lead due to WP:BLP issues. These non-prosecuted allegations dont have any business in the LEAD of any BLP, unless the subject is well known for them (which is clearly not the case here). We have WP:HARM (an essay) which covers exactly this situation stating "In particular, possibly false allegations that would significantly harm an individual's life should be avoided." We do cover the allegations at length in the sub-article, but we should exercise caution this article as the allegations were never prosecuted and we can assuming might be dubious in nature given the persecuted status of the article subject. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes to mentioning the sexual assault charges in the body, but no to even the amount of coverage of Assanges legal issues in the lead as of 9:28 PM PST on Monday 23rd. That sort of thing belongs in the body. (Summoned by bot) I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 04:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not in the lead/lede. It should be and is discussed in the article, but reading up on the details it doesn't seem like this charge has sufficient WP:DUE weight for it to be part of the lead summary. It hasn't gone anywhere, and never developed into anything, while everything else HAS been impactful on the overall situation. The article text is for these kind of details, not the lead. Fieari (talk) 05:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes to the lead as part of his arrest. No to any other details in the lead except that the charges were later dropped. Yes to having a summary in the article of the article about it - basically the lead of the other article. NadVolum (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean no (Summoned by bot). The current lead reads: "In November 2010, Sweden issued a European arrest warrant regarding Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority." That seems to be a sufficient level of detail for the lead. Regarding whether these allegations were a "trigger" for later events, the "trigger" that matters is the arrest warrant, which is mentioned. If the reader wants to know about the arrest warrant, they can click on its article or read further down the page. Of course we can go into the weeds in the body of the article. "Sexual offences" doesn't have a place in the lead; by its nature the lead strips context. TheSavageNorwegian 16:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes echoing the sentiments of NadVolum and Cullen328. It's perfectly reasonable to briefly mention it to understand the context. Nemov (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No (summoned by bot) - From what I've read, I get the sense Assange is a pretty dodgy character, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Swedish allegations (as well as many of the other allegations) made against him are true. That said, the Swedish allegations form only a small part of the detention story. User:Jack Upland's comment about it being a "chain of events" is true enough, but it seems like a relatively small link in a very large chain. We should really only cover in the lead the undisputed and major points behind his detention. Definitely mention the allegations in the body though. On another note; the way the lead is currently worded is bad. It makes it sound like Assange holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy to evade the Swedish charges. I believe most accounts are that his ultimate goal in going to the embassy was to evade eventual extradition to the United States. NickCT (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes The current version is confusing regarding why, exactly, the Swedish authorities issued an arrest warrant. Not mentioning that it was supposedly for "sexual offenses" could lead readers to believe that the Swedish authorities issued an arrest warrant for the other offenses previously mentioned in the lead. Durraz0 (talk) 13:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No he was not found guilty by a jury of his peers and the allegations don't hold enough weight to be prominently featured in the lead. We can summarize in the lead he was detained on charges unrelated to Wikileaks, it's not that difficult. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No The above chain of events argument is specious in the extreme. Everything that ever happened in the subject's lifetime, or indeed anyone's, is part of a chain of events. That has no bearing on whether one occurence is one of the most important aspects of the article body. In fact by OP's reasoning, everything that ever happened to the subject must be covered in the lead, because it's all part of a "chain of events". It's a ridiculous notion, and it's not the basis on which we decide what ought to be included in the lead. The purpose of the lead is as a summary of the article’s most important contents (MOS:LEAD). The questions are, did the particular nature of the initial report that led to the warrant for questioning influence the subsequent political asylum in Ecuadorian embassy. And was the initial report determined to be true and found to constitute a crime? The answer to both questions is no. This is not one of the article’s important contents. Was the initial allegation one of, say, massive credit card fraud, or violent assault, the same extradition request and political asylum could have played out - the specific nature of the report was not a determining factor in this chain of events. The investigation was dropped within days by the first Swedish prosecutor to see the report, and – eventually – by the second. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes The chain of events argument is persuasive. Besides, the current text doesn't make much sense: Sweden issued a European arrest warrant regarding Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority, but this is wrong - Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority was the extradition case before the English courts, including the UK Supreme Court. So the sentence translates into "Sweden issued a European arrest warrant regarding the English extradition case", which is nonsensical. Obviously we must make it clear that the allegations against Assange came to nothing, but this is already stated a few lines later, Swedish prosecutors dropped their investigation in 2019, so I don't see any risk of reinforcing a negative perception of Assange associated with the sexual nature of the allegations, if that's the editors' concern. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No According to MOS:CRIMINAL general definitions should not be used, if a consensus is reached to include it on lead it should be specific about the crime he was accused for. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes and i do not know how we explain how Assange came to be in this predicament for so long if we WP:CENSOR the charges. Jorahm (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, if we mention that the charges have been dropped; otherwise no. Alaexis¿question? 20:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes the Swedish allegations of sexual offenses were the initial trigger to a long series of unfortunate events that have dominated Assange's life for 14 years. Failing to describe them briefly and neutrally would leave a big hole in the narrative. To those that argue that the charges were dropped and are therefore immaterial, yes the charges were dropped, but largely because Assange's absconding to the Embassy ultimately made any prospect of conviction impossible. I don't know of any 'overview' sources that ignore the initial catalyst for his legal woes and -at times- bizarre actions.Pincrete (talk) 04:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes per Jack Upland, the Swedish allegations of sexual offences should be mentioned in the lead. Not doing so could even cause something of a Streisand effect because of the obviousness of the omission, as if some sort of censorship is being attempted. Yes, he was afraid of extradition to the US, but he breached bail in relation to extradition to Sweden, and evidence-free claims of a US conspiracy, a Swedish satrapy, a smear campaign, a dirty trick, a honey trap etc only increased focus on the nature of the allegations (and, incidentally, on the women, who were viciously targeted online). The prosecutors and complainants wanted to proceed, but Assange's actions prevented it. The allegations thus remained current for 7+ years, and consequences did not end when the investigation was eventually dropped. Harold the Sheep (talk) 07:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no need for "evidence" to describe the alleged US pressions regarding an extradition if facing trial in Sweden, as long as reliable sources or main actors of the story comment on it. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you're going to imply that women who make allegations of sexual assault are doing so because they're part of a CIA plot, it would be good to have evidence. Either way, it's not a claim that is going to decrease the importance of the allegations in the narrative. Harold the Sheep (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what I was saying. Also no, again, there is no need to have "evidence" if one of the parties is claiming something. That's why it is a claim. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 09:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, again, the allagation should be specific, according to MOS:CRIMINAL general definitions (like "murderer") should not be used. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 09:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (RfC on "sexual offences" in the Introduction)

We dont generally cover anything obscure in the LEAD. The lead summarizes, so we only summarize the key sections of the article. There is hardly nothing in this article about the sexual nature of the allegations. Rather the important part of the allegations was the governments attempt to use them as a basis to capture the prey and extradite to the US to face other charges. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jtbobwaysf has this right. Cover the chain of events, but don't cover every link of the chain in the lead. NickCT (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assange's early life was obscure, but we cover that in the lead. Jack Upland (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Covering the chain of events doesn't necessarily entail being done so in the lead. The lead summarises the important parts of the article. TarnishedPathtalk 08:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
^^ exactly right. NickCT (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You pretty obviously mischaracterized my statement here.... NickCT (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I agree with part of what you said. You want a chain of events but want to leave out one link.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was not an event, it was only a allegation that was never prosecuted. At this point in time it never happened. If the accusuers want to go on TV and talk about it again, then it might be an actual event. But as of today, all we have is accusations that were never followed up on. Thus it is UNDUE WEIGHT for the weight. See WP:HARM (essay) which states "In particular, possibly false allegations that would significantly harm an individual's life should be avoided.". Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The accusers still maintain that the incident happened. Jack Upland (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please put a couple sources here for that. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See [1].--Jack Upland (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jack, You linked to a wikipedia article section. Wikipedia is not a source. Do you an actual source for this and what does it say? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the sources used in the section.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he was falsely accused of credit card fraud, no one would object to it being in the intro. The whole point of this debate is that editors are squeamish and embarrassed about the allegations of sexual offences. Arguments of size and notability are being used to censor this article. This debate has gone on for years, since before 2019, both here and at the Swedish allegations article. Even if you think you are unbiased, comrade editors, there is such a thing as unconscious bias. The article currently mentions an allegation of a financial crime, which apparently was unfounded — Assange certainly wasn't convicted — but no one appears to have objected because it is not as distasteful and embarrassing as sexual offences. We have a long section about CIA dirty tricks relating to surveillance, but you blokes are saying that we shouldn't include the possiblity that the sex allegations were also a dirty trick. That's inconsistent, comrades! Wikipedia is not censored.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we are squeamish about sexual assault allegations, see WP:HARM. Sexual assault, molestation, rape, murder are these type of extreme allegations that are also maximally defamatory, so of course we are careful with our weight and use of these terms. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Utter nonsense. If he was accused of credit card fraud, and then the investigation was dropped by the prosecutor, picked up by another prosecutor, and then later dropped entirely, the same would apply. It led to nothing. The allegation of financial crime is not and has never been in the lead, which is what this is about: no-one has suggested removing the Swedish allegation from the article body at any point. Refrain from assuming bad faith motivations on the part of other editors - it's nothing to do with being "squeamish". Not including an allegation which came to nothing in the lead, while retaining it in the body and in its own article, is not censorship: such a charge is a misuse of the English language. Cambial — foliar❧ 02:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gitz6666 makes a good point. The chain of events in the current intro actually goes backward. The extradition case proceeded from the arrest warrant rather than the reverse. The current intro is incoherent. Jack Upland (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of how the RfC turns out, this needs to be fixed. The text was simply wrong, and if I knew how to fix it without mentioning sexual assault charges, I would have done so. This edit [2] is a big improvement, but the text remains ambiguous and possibly misleading; we should at least specify "Sweden issued a European arrest warrant unrelated to WikiLeaks", if we want to avoid any references to sexual assault. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: the text has been changed while this RFC is ongoing. Jack Upland (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding this revert by User:TarnishedPath, it would be WP:POINTy but not wrong of me to undo their previous edit and restore the pre-RfC status quo on the same rationale - Please allow the RFC to run. This is relevant to the current RfC: if we choose not to mention the sexual assault allegations, what should we say instead? We can't say Sweden issued a European arrest warrant regarding Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority because that's simply wrong. We cant say Sweden issued a European arrest warrant and full stop, nothing more, because that would also be wrong - in the given context, the sentence implies that the arrest warrant was issued due to the WikiLinks affair. My suggestion Sweden issued a European arrest warrant unrelated to WikiLeaks at least avoids misunderstandings. It provides the RfC with a reasonable, verifiable and neutral alternative to the controversial Sweden issued a European arrest warrant for allegations of sexual assault. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that the current wording is "In November 2010, Sweden issued a European arrest warrant and subsequently initiated extradition procedings". I self-reverted my previous edit which you reference above because I decided that having the sentence about an arrest warrant being issued and nothing else wasn't adequate. I then edited at Special:Diff/1247810453 to introduce the current wording. Readers can read further about the extradition proceedings and what they concerned by clicking the link. Your suggestion of adding "unrelated to WikiLeaks" isn't necessary. TarnishedPathtalk 01:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid that and subsequently initiated extradition procedings doesn't clarify the issue. Yes, I know that the reader could click on the wikilink and find all the information they need, but if they don't click on the link, and they don't know anything about Assange, they will probably understand that Sweden issued the European arrest warrant because Publication of the leaks from Manning started in February 2010, that is, because of WikiLeaks. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see that they will probably understand that at all. TarnishedPathtalk 01:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footballer Jarryd Hayne's article includes sexual assault allegations in the lead even though his conviction was quashed. It has caused a hiatus in his footballing career — or perhaps a permanent halt — so it needs to be part of the article as part of a chain of events.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cliff Richard's article has no mention of sexual assault allegations in the lead - for the same reason: the investigation was dropped. Roy Harper's article has no mention of sexual assault allegations in the lead: he was exonerated and the investigation was dropped. Where the allegations have led to no charges, and the investigation dropped, it's quite normal not to include, especially where the particular nature of the allegation is not salient to the narrative. Cambial — foliar❧ 03:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from Jtbobwaysf's comment above about other stuff (I think they meant WP:OTHERCONTENT because WP:OSE is about deletion discussions). Hayne's situation was markedly different. He was convicted twice, even if those convictions were overturned each time. Assange has never had the allegations against him tested in a courtroom. This is precisely why WP:OTHERCONTENT was written. Whether something goes into the lead of one article has to be judged on it's own merits and has no bearing on whether something else should go into the lead of another article. TarnishedPathtalk 04:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, but you could also have mentioned Cliff Richard and Roy Harper. In this case the investigation was not definitively dropped for 10 years, but the allegations were never capable of being properly investigated or legally tested because Assange, the Ecuadorian Embassy and the passage of time made it impossible. The women never retracted their allegations and the prosecutors wanted to proceed. Assange was certainly not exonerated. The fact that he himself took a series of quite extreme actions to ensure that an investigation into specific allegations could not proceed, and that those actions had significant consequences for all involved, including the women complainants, puts this case in a different category to the others. Harold the Sheep (talk) 06:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources say that he fled to the Ecuadorian Embassy because of fears of extradition to the US. It turns out those fears were well founded. Any other interpretation is petty much original research. TarnishedPathtalk 06:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually he gave multiple reasons for fleeing to the embassy. Jack Upland (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a similarity between Hayne and Assange. Both were charged with sexual assault (rape) after an apparently consensual encounter, but neither was convicted. Assange couldn't be convicted because he skipped bail and went into the embassy. Hayne abided by his bail conditions and eventually had his convictions overturned, but his career has been ruined (apparently). Assange hasn't been able to edit WikiLeaks for years. The Swedish allegations were pivotal in derailing his career. We have to bite the bullet and include them in the intro. It's part of the chain of events. --Jack Upland (talk) 05:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Others have correctly stated above that every instance in an individuals life can be considered a "chain of events". TarnishedPathtalk 05:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a fictional account of Assange: he was never charged with any sexual offence in Sweden or elsewhere. So the ostensible similarity is illusory. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assange's reasons for fleeing to the embassy, as documented in the article, and well-cited, included: (1) Sweden had a "crazed radical feminist ideology" (even though the same ideology exists in Australia as the Hayne example shows); (2) the Australian government had "abandoned" him; (3) the fear of a US indictment related to WikiLeaks, coupled with the assertion that Sweden was a US satrapy, even though Sweden was not a NATO member at that point and even though there was no evidence that it was easier to extradite him from Sweden than from Britain, coupled with this was the claim that the Swedish allegations were part of a CIA honey-trap. Assange decided to flee to the embassy after his legal battle against extradition to Sweden failed. He apparently did so without taking legal advice and blindsided his legal team and his supporters. He may be a genius but he is not a lawyer, and his attempts to justify his conduct should be treated as just that. If we leave the Swedish allegations out of the introduction, we are misrepresenting what actually happened, and putting a retrospective gloss on events, saying it was merely about evading a US indictment. This is palpably untrue and part of a longtime effort to censor this article to remove any text that is embarrassing or detrimental to Assange and his cause. This is supposed to be an encyclopedic article, not a hagiography. Jack Upland (talk) 02:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A) you're repeating yourself and B) you're making an argument for inclusion of material in the lead based partly on original research which is not an argument for including anything. TarnishedPathtalk 03:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This Hayne so-called comparison, which yes is WP:OTHERCONTENT (thanks to Tarnished for helping me with this wrong policy page that I have been linking to for years). Also note the absurdity of the comparison, the Hayne person was convicted of sexual assault. Why not compare to Harvey Weinstein and say since it is in Harvey's lead we should put it here. The comparison is absurd. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely: one was convicted; the other - Assange - was never even charged. The nature of the allegation is also different. The only bit in common is the salacious words “sexual assault” which OP wants to include. Thus I agree the claim of similarity is absurd. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is misleading to say that Assange was never charged. He couldn't be charged because he was never arrested. See [3][4]. He couldn't be convicted because he was never put on trial. I said the Hayne case was similar to Assange's, but it is not identical. And I don't want include the words "sexual assault", but rather "sexual offences".--Jack Upland (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't misleading. He was questioned while still in Sweden, and was not charged. He was given permission to leave. He was questioned in the Ecuadorian embassy by Swedish officials, and was not charged on the basis of it. People are convicted of crimes in absentia, never mind merely charged, so your claim above that He couldn't be charged because he was never arrested is entirely wrong. I find the notion that you think it is misleading to say that Assange was never charged, despite the fact Assange was never charged, but apparently you don't think it misleading to say he was charged, as you do here, despite the fact he was not charged, to be amusing but not something that merits extensive discussion. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I misspoke. I meant to say accused of sex offences. But in the Swedish legal system no one is charged until right before the trial. In Britain, the US, or Australia he would have been charged. Jack Upland (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's speculation on a meaningless hypothetical: no-one has any idea whether that's likely. In those jurisdictions it's likely the CPS or equivalent, like the first Swedish legal professional given the report, would have found there was no case to answer. In the UK it would not be possible for a case to proceed when the person who made the report refused to approve the report and refused to sign the witness statement, as Miss W refused in the Swedish case. Nor would it be possible, as it evidently was in Sweden, for the police to change the [unsigned] statement of the person who made the initial report without their consent. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But legal experts have speculated on this: see the sources I gave above.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speculation is often undue, particularly for BLPs. It doesn't mater if the speculation comes from experts or not. If an expert is not offering their opinion as an expert then their opinion has no more weight than a none-expert. See WP:RSOPINION and WP:RSEDITORIAL. TarnishedPathtalk 02:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The hypothetical is relevant. See the above discussion about Assange's characterisation of Sweden as a den of radical feminists and a US satrapy. If Assange hadn't held this view, he would have no justification for not returning to Sweden to defend himself against what he said were false allegations. He would have had no justification for fighting extradition and no justification for taking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy. It is Assange's response to the allegations of sexual offences that set in train a chain of events that led to him being trapped in the embassy until he was arrested in 2019. When he was arrested by the British police his Swedish arrest warrant was in effect. Hence, if the US indictment hadn't intervened, he would have been extradited to Sweden to face the sexual offences allegations. To say that the allegations of sexual offences are not an important link in the chain is simply denial of reality, censorship masked as Wikipedia policy.Jack Upland (talk) 02:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're engaging in hypotheticals that aren't entirely correct. It's documented in RS that Assange held fears that the Swedish extradition attempt was about trying to get him into a jurisdiction which would more readily hand him over the US than the UK. TarnishedPathtalk 03:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a quote from a source that took me 5 seconds to find on Google:
"Assange handed himself into police in London and, after an initial period in custody before being released on bail, he began an unsuccessful fight against extradition to Sweden, saying he feared authorities there would hand him over to the US for potential prosecution over the “Cablegate” documents and other releases".[1] TarnishedPathtalk 05:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying I disagree with that? Jack Upland (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote: "If Assange hadn't held this view, he would have no justification for not returning to Sweden to defend himself against what he said were false allegations. He would have had no justification for fighting extradition and no justification for taking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy." TarnishedPathtalk 06:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other legal experts gave the entirely opposite view. Speculation is just that. As I said, no-one knows what would have happened in a different jurisdiction, and it’s irrelevant anyway. What matters is what happened. Assange was not charged. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that Assange was not charged ad nauseum doesn't amount to a reasonable argument. As previously pointed out, Sweden does not charge people until just before the trial. The fact is that Sweden issued an international arrest warrant and pursued the case until 2019, at which point the prosecutors said that the evidence had deteriorated over time, but that they still had confidence in the complainants. All this is in the flipping article. Jack Upland (talk) 02:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They issued a European Arrest Warrant for questioning Assange. They questioned Assange in London. The investigation was dropped and the warrant cancelled. Assange has visited Europe since release and no extradition request was forwarded to the country he was in. The matter was dropped, just as it was dropped by the first prosecutor (the one that wasn’t censured by the Swedish bar association for their conduct in the case, like the second one was). The idea we should count something as more important than it is because someone speculated it might have been different if it took place in a different country is no kind of argument at all. Cambial — foliar❧ 04:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speculation is a slippery slope argument and one that we do not entertain in general, and certainly not in reference to WP:BLPCRIME. Here you are speculating that he might have been convicted of a crime, but the charges were dropped. This argument is a ridiculous argument on a BLP. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And yet you are happy to include speculation by Assange himself. Jack Upland (talk) 02:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting to sound more and more like trying to turn Wikipedia into The Orville - Majority Rule. Can we try please not to to get cases decided on Wikipedia thanks? NadVolum (talk) 12:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the idea that the allegations of sexual assault (ie. the subject of the RfC) were a US set-up. That suggestion was evidence-free and had the effect of drawing more attention to the allegations, thereby increasing their importance in the narrative. Harold the Sheep (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Siddique, Haroon (25 June 2024). "Washington v WikiLeaks: how the US pursued Julian Assange". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 1 October 2024.
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.

Revert

@2403:4800:7498:5E14:14CB:4772:FD87:817, you added material at Special:Diff/1249324712 which was challenged by me reverting at Special:Diff/1249325134. Per active arbitration remedies in place for this article "Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page".
You re-inserted the material at Special:Diff/1249346735 without obtaining consensus in the article's talk page and thus you are in violation of the active arbitration remedies. Please revert immediately and then discuss. TarnishedPathtalk 13:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why a primary source couldn't be used.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well for starters if it's not covered by secondary sources it can't really be considered significant enough for inclussion. There's also WP:BLPPRIMARY to consider. TarnishedPathtalk 02:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point of raising the issue of the flight cost and excluding the fact it was paid for.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article already states: "Assange was required by the Australian government to repay the costs of the charter flight for his transfer from the United Kingdom to Saipan and then to Australia as he was not permitted to fly on commercial airlines. The total amount requested by the Australian government for the charter flight stands at US$520,000" which is cited with a secondary source. It pretty much states that the Australian government paid for it in the first instance. If the other stuff was in want of being added so much then there should exist a secondary source to support it. TarnishedPathtalk 02:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also think we can update the text to make it correct. No reason to have text we know to be untrue. This is a very high quality primary source, so it is fine to use, and we can use the other secondary sources around the flight costs to determine it is DUE for inclusion. Lets just update as the IP suggested. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jtbobwaysf there's absolutely nothing incorrect about the current prose. Just because an article doesn't cover absolutely every last factoid, doesn't make it incorrect. If the material is truly significant enough for inclusion then it will be covered by a secondary source. There's no need to rush. TarnishedPathtalk 22:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Films

We have two lists of films in this article. Firstly, under Works: Filmography, which includes films produced by Assange and films where he appears "as himself". Secondly, under Further reading, which I changed to Further reading and viewing, which includes feature films and documentaries. I think these films belong on this page, but I wonder if there's a better way to present them. Jack Upland (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about just moving the section "Further reading and viewing" to between the sections "Works" and "See Also" and renaming it "Books and Films about Assange"? NadVolum (talk) 09:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then we have two sections about books and films right next to each other...--Jack Upland (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We also have a section "Written works, television show, and views" which has some overlap with "Works".--Jack Upland (talk) 01:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction between films listed under "Filmography" "As himself" and films listed as "Further reading and viewing" seems to be that the former include original interviews or film of Assange. This doesn't seem a valid reason to separate the documentaries.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have reorganised this material.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better I think. It was silly having the two sections. NadVolum (talk) 13:25, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Julian_Assange
No tags for this post.