Talk:Julian Assange

Chinese immigrant

asange doesnt even know who he is. he has a cantonese name but he's taiwanese. come on, make up your mind — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.163.7.55 (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the article is confused on this point. It says he has Taiwanese ancestry, but then the quotes about this refer to Brett Assange's ancestry. Brett is his stepfather (and maybe adopted father?) not his biological father - so strictly speaking, Assange doesn't have Taiwanese ancestry himself. Unless his biological father happened to be part Taiwanese as well. The claim about Torres Islanders also refers to his stepfather.... 94.174.108.74 (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The quotes do not all refer to Brett Assange. The first quote is what Julian Assange says himself:

My grandfather was a Taiwanese pirate..He was a pirate and landed on Thursday Island where he met and married a Thursday Islander woman. They went to Queensland. - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023140/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-portrayed-predatory-narcissistic-fantasist-new-book.html#ixzz1yH0tzJ6S

  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LyndellaLee (talk • contribs) 11:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC) 

That quote does not refer to Brett Assange, it refers to himself and his background, but he also says Brett has that background in the quotes following that:

According to what Julian told Khatchadourian, Brett was the descendant of a Chinese immigrant who had settled on Thursday Island, Ah Sang or Mr Sang. - Making Trouble: Essays Against the New Australian Complacency, Robert Manne (Page 195)

Basically, regardless of who is his father may be, he says he has Asian and Australian Aboriginal or Torres Islander ancestry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbvoki (talk • contribs) 20:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I have just read this article and it seems that the categories are not apropos. Au Sang/Ah Sang / Assang / Assange is the surname from his step-father, but not from his father, who isn't Chinese (or Taiwanese)–Thursday Islander. His mother certainly isn't either of these ethnicities. Furthermore, the name "Ah Sang" in Cantonese is certainly not "Mr. Sang"; if anything at all, it's simply "Sang" (ah, 阿, is a particle common in spoken Chinese dialects, often of the south, such as Hokkien or Cantonese). Pardon me if this sounds incredible and suspect but it seems as though Assange's family history has been and is being rewritten, and that this is further perpetuated by sources. I would recommend removing the categories that are not substantiated, namely "Category:Australian people of Taiwanese descent". It's not as though this article is tagged with "Category:Indigenous Australian people‎" or "Category:Torres Strait Islanders"; let's be consistent and not inappropriate tag the article. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 10:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The fact is that the first quote is what Julian says himself - he says "my grandfather", not Brett's grandfather; the second quote is what Julian says about Brett's ancestry; also in one of the citations there is quote from a Wikileaks associate in which he mentions what Julian told him about his ancestry - "at least ten ancestors from various corners of the globe, from the South Sea pirates to Irishmen." The sources substantiate this and that's all that matters.

Actually just Assange's own claims about his ancestry don't substantiate anything. His biological father is a chap called I think Shipton. Probably worth investigating whether ASsange is fantasising about his ancestry - as many people do. If he is telling untruths about his ancestry, that's not a good look for someone whose life work is built on truth and transparency, and could well be redolent of the narcissism and hubris tht people accuse him of.

or he could have been taking the piss out of a tabloid reporter, see below. I don't really see how an article with the title 'The WikiFreak: In a new book one author reveals how she got to know Julian Assange and found him a predatory, narcissistic fantasist' can be taked as a reliable source. Totorotroll (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Merge Christine Assange into this article

An article was recently created on Julian Assange's mother, Christine Assange. As her only notability is related to Julian Assange, I propose that her very short article be merged into this one. Kaldari (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Christine Assange (then known as Christine Hawkins) made nationwide headlines in Australia a few years prior to her son gaining notability, as the organiser to the (never held) "Great Bikini March" protest (mentioned in the wikipedia entry on Taj el Din Hilaly where she is referred to as Christine Hawkins - which is what prompted me to create the entry). Her current public profile is heavily connected to her son and to wikileaks, but her extensive campaigning has made her a notable figure in her own right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosabibi (talk • contribs) 00:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Those articles do not say that Christine Assange and Christine Hawkins are the same person, so they can't be used in either article. I support the merging of the material related to Julian unless reliable sources can be found that explicitly discuss Chrisitne Assange in material unrelated to Julian. Gregcaletta (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The Contribution I am considering

I am new user for the Wikipedia, and I love to make my first contribution about the topic I am really interested. I am considering to add more information about the the election of Austrian Senator that Assange was trying to run. I think this is a very interesting topic and currently there are not many information about the that topic. There are only two sentence under the "Running for Australian Senate". I find some really good news articles about Assange running for the Senate , and I hope I can edit about this ares.Thylakoidd (talk) 04:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Although the date for the next Australian Senate election has not yet been set, it almost certainly won't be for at least another year. Nominations have not yet been called. Given these uncertainties, I believe anything more than the current content on this matter would be undesirable at this stage. But don't let that put you off. Find other areas where you can contribute. And I like your approach of discussing it here first. HiLo48 (talk) 05:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

and what is "the current content on this matter" exactly ? Penyulap ☏ 07:06, 18 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Hi - the whole issue is self promotional nonsense - if he stands for election we will report it then - until he does is WP:CRYSTAL and pre - recentism - lol - Youreallycan 20:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it has little to do with CRYSTAL and more to do with the obvious "ask for a source if you do not know what the editor is talking about", or do some research, either one is good. _{strange, something so obvious it doesn't have a page (and yes I realise that you know of his announcement)} Penyulap ☏ 06:54, 18 Jun 2012 (UTC)

It is relatively rare, though not unheard of, for Australian high profile sports or media or union personalities to announce their intention to run long before any actual election date. Maxine McKew, for example. There were years of speculation and a full eight months between her actual specific announcement and the election. American political candidates do it all the time. Whether Assange will run or not for the next Senate election is still a matter for the future, but he has announced his intention and we can give that a line, perhaps including the additional news from the same source that Wikileaks plans to run a candidate against the sitting PM - just like Maxine[1]. --Pete (talk)

well, that's getting there, as far as i can find out, it's not possible to do anything more than make your intention known, there is nothing to sign up to prior to the opening date is there ? It seems that an announcement from someone like assange that has been well documented is well over the line for inclusion in the article. what next, keep out everyone who didn't win ? Penyulap ☏ 08:26, 18 Jun 2012 (UTC)

(off topic, but it is precisely the sort of thing that is popular in australia afaik. chaser apec stunt shows just how popular subversives are in their public spotlight. I expect that new laws or technicalities will be found to stop him.) Penyulap ☏ 08:33, 18 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Formal nominations for candidature are not made until a few weeks before an election, which in most cases is not announced until a month or so beforehand. Political parties "pre-select" their candidates on their own schedule, typically a year or so in advance of the next election date. Once pre-selected, they are almost certain to nominate at the formal time. The last class of senators took their seats in July 2011, so the next class will take their seats in July 2014, meaning a normal half-senate election will occur between July 2013 and June 2014, most likely in the latter half of 2013, to coincide with the next house of representatives election due then. There is a remote chance (given the current state of the parliament) of an early representatives election at any time followed by a possible full-senate election six months later, which takes us into 2013, anyway. So nothing's going to happen officially for at least six months and more likely a year. He's announced an intention, but nothing may come of it. I've heard nothing about the formation or registration of a Wikileaks party, which would be the logical next step, if he is serious. The only thing we know for sure is that he's announced his intention to run. --Pete (talk) 08:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

has there been mention of any party ? if there was no mention of a party, then editors may well have their crystal party, but not until then :) what you have said seems to fit with what i have found about the candidacy for government in australia, that is, it's a matter of announcing. I guess they have no trains there with hot air being exhausted out the caboose for them to festoon with ribbons and so on. So I guess, right now, he is as good as campaigning in some ways, or at least the way they do things down under. Penyulap ☏ 09:15, 18 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I haven't heard of a Wikileaks party being registered. You could check the Australian Electoral Commission website - they handle party registrations. Usually if it's newsworthy, we get to hear about it, like Bob Katter's recent moves. It's not a big story at the moment, and probably won't be. If Assange was serious, he'd be in Australia stitching up preference deals with the Greens and other minor parties. But what I've heard is very little, and that's from the same news sources available to everybody else with access to Google. The bottom line is that nothing is going to happen quickly on this. It's no big deal anyway. Not yet. If it becomes more important, we'll know about it and we'll cover it. Assange isn't going to slip into the Senate without anyone noticing and should that happen, we'll write about it. --Pete (talk) 11:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikileaks is not running Julian Assange is running. Why is this not in the article ? is it as simple as not understanding Australian politics ? I must say I don't take an interest in it, but I do know the difference between an independent and a party. Where do we stand on mentioning his announcement ? Penyulap ☏ 17:36, 23 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Confusing wording

Hi, the following passage in the lead section is a bit confusing:

"On 30 May 2012 Assange lost his Supreme Court appeal in England to avoid extradition to Sweden though the court gave Assange a stay of 14 days on the extradition order.[12][13] This final appeal to the Supreme court was rejected and barring any appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, extradition will take place over a ten day period commencing on 28 June 2012.[14]."

If "This final appeal to the Supreme court was rejected" is talking about the same appeal as the one just mentioned, then it should be deleted. The article has already said that he lost the appeal, so it is confusing to repeat the same thing again as if it was new information. If, on the other hand, it is talking about something different then the article should explain more about the nature of this second appeal. 86.181.202.123 (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of confusing / misleading wording; someone has reversed my edit where I corrected the claim that ASsange is of "Taiwanese descent". Assange took the name of his stepfather - these are not his ancestors! Could a moderator please resolve this issue? The article should be referring to his STEP-grandfather. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LyndellaLee (talk • contribs) 09:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Statute of limitations?

I don't see any discussion of this in the article. I've read that in Sweden for these sorts of crimes it is typically just a few years. If that's the case, then it seems to me a very relevant fact, as he could just stay in the embassy and let the clock run out. Count Iblis (talk) 19:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

A good question for the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities so that we could better understand Statute of limitations in Sweden (here). As far as this article is concerned I searched for Assange + Statute of Limitations and only found unreliable blogs or forums discussing the question (I also part-searched Assange + Limitations). If anyone finds reliables sources please contribute. I also searched for Assange + Preskription but my lack of Swedish stops me from determining what's reliable and what's not. (Off topic: my wholly non-expert opinion (i.e. wild guess) is that the Statute of limitations in Sweden does not apply once legal proceedings have started.) -84user (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

About his children.

I've been using the webpage for research and I noticed today, that his daughter was added, but really he doesn't want them to be added due to the threats that they've been getting.

Here's the video explaining that, go to Youtube and put in "Swedish channel TV4.- Wikileaks founder Julian Assange interviewed by Malou Von Sivers (7-XII-2011) around the 19:20 mark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afrofreedom87 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The status of Assange's children has nothing to do with the reason we have an article on him. Any mention should be absolutely minimal, if do it at all. HiLo48 (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Can we please get the facts straight about Julian Assange's ancestry claims?

Hi Wikipedians - I've had mild factual corrections removed now several times - and I think it's time Wikipedia arrived at a consensus on Julian Assange's false claims (IMO) about his ancestry. Basically, even adding "step" to "father" to clarify that Brett Assange is Julians's stepfather, has been censored. Why? To further a conceit?

His name, Assange, a Chinese-origin name, is the name of his STEP-parent Brett Assange.

Brett ASsange has Taiwanese and Australian Indigenous Ancestry. Julian Assange does not.

The fact that Julian Assange has STATED (IMO fantasised) this romanticised version of his background does not make it fact.

Julian Assange's biological father is of Anglo-Celtic ancestry and there is NO evidence anywhere on the record that either Julian ASsange's mother or father have provided him with "pirate", "South Seas", "Taiwanese", "Thursday Island" ancestries.

Wikipedia should not be treated as a forum for allowing personal fantasies to over-ride the facts. There is no public interest (unlike the topic of avoiding mention of Assange's children for security reasons).

Frankly, I think the people who are censoring my amendments are very much flying in the fact of Wikileaks transparency. If Julian Assange and his folk don't care to substantiate these "pirate ancestor" claims, they should be expunged.

Lyndella Lee — Preceding unsigned comment added by LyndellaLee (talk • contribs) 11:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned before, I think the Daily Mail reporter got it wrong. There is only one source quoted where he says that he has Torres Strait Islander etc ancestry and it reads like a tabloid article. Even a glance at the headline would suggest that it isn't a reliable source. I suspect that Assange was making fun of the journalist by joking about his ancestry. At any rate, I suggest the stuff be taken out of his early years section. Totorotroll (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

One reason why I think he was making fun is this "When I asked if it (his hair) had always been white he said no. ‘It went white as a result of a childhood experiment with a cathode ray tube that went wrong.’ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023140/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-portrayed-predatory-narcissistic-fantasist-new-book.html#ixzz23kQQqwMr Totorotroll (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Awards

Does anyone know when and why his awards were removed from the lede and the infobox? It is standard practice to mention awards in the lede for biography articles, since it establishes the level of notability, and it is even stranger to remove them from the infobox. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

That got lost two days ago in this edit, probably unintentionally; I have restored it here. -84user (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Great. Infobox section for "awards" is still gone though. I don't know if that was agreed on or just an accident. Gregcaletta (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

House Arrest

My edit got reverted, but I'm not going to get into an edit war. Best to get agreement first. The comment on the revert was: "on bail with a curfew and residence requirement" is a very convoluted way of saying "under house arrest". that's exactly what "house arrest" means. i've added several references

The references were all to media reports, which used "house arrest". The question is: is the definition as stated by Gregcaletta? http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Julian_Assange&diff=500689100&oldid=500555173

The definition of house arrest in US law is: "The judicial obligation upon an individual that she/he be forbidden to leave his or her place of residence except for limited, specified circumstances... On good behaviour for a stated period of time, some bail or conditional sentences replace house arrest with a final period of a curfew." From http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/H/HouseArrest.aspx

Or, if you prefer Merriam-Webster: "confinement often under guard to one's house or quarters instead of in prison" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/house%20arrest

What about the UK? Cambridge dictionary has: "legally forced to stay in your house as if it were a prison" http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/house-ar-rest

Collins has: "confinement to one's own home" http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/house-arrest

Finally, the definition of house arrest is given here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/23/notes/division/2 "A derogating control order was one that imposed obligations that amounted to a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 of the ECHR. An example of such a control order would have been one that imposed a 24 hour curfew – i.e. house arrest. By way of contrast, a non-derogating control order was one in which the obligations imposed did not amount to such a deprivation of liberty. Before the Government could have imposed a derogating control order, it would have needed to derogate to the extent strictly necessary from Article 5. No derogation from Article 5 was ever made in relation to control orders; only non-derogating control orders were ever made. "

So. House Arrest is, I think I have shown, very much different from conditional bail with a curfew and a tag. Lots of media outlets calling it the wrong thing doesn't mean that everyone else should call it the wrong thing IMO.

But feel free to provide a link to a legal definition which differs; I read all the ones I could find, but didn't find a single one to support Gregcaletta's definition. Oh: the National Post (!) and the NY Times both get other facts wrong, so I wouldn't consider them reliable (Mr Assange has been formally accused and isn't wanted for questioning - source: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-summary.pdf).

I probably shouldn't have used the BBC as a link myself - that was lazy of me.

Sorry to bang on about two words, but house arrest is a serious breach of human rights, and campaigns against it are not helped if people think that "house arrest" means "go anywhere you want to, talk to who you want to, but be back home by 9pm please."

That is conditional bail. House arrest is when you are under arrest in your house. Hence the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.141.238 (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The term is used quite a lot to describe Assange's bail, despite it being misleading. As other sources point out, it's "which included an overnight curfew at a registered address", and although I wouldn't use it as a source in the article itself that "is rather different from house arrest". Rather than the vague "house arrest" which means many different things, it'd be better to say he was on bail with a curfew. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

There's also "a limited form of house arrest in Britain, staying mostly with friends and under a strict evening curfew" from the Washington Post, and "effective house arrest" from the New York Times, and more crucially "Since his detention, Assange has mostly been living under strict bail conditions at the country mansion of a wealthy supporter in eastern England. His associates say that amounts to 540 days under house arrest without charge. Breach of bail conditions is potentially a criminal offence" from Reuters. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't consider the National Post and the New York Times reliable sources (for everything) either. Nothing is a reliable source for everything. But Wikipedia policy is fairly clear that if a multiple generally reliable news sources such as Reuters all describe the situation as "house arrest" then we can and should use that term here. Specific U.S. legal definitions are irrelevant since we are looking for common usage definition across all English-speaking people, not the definition of one particular legal jurisdiction. If we look at the element common to all the definitions you gave, Assange's predicament actually fits the definitions you gave except that it is not his own house but a friend's house, because he does not own a home in England. Clearly it is still house arrest whether it is your own home or someone else's, so I think the dictionary definitions are imprecise on that point. Otherwise he has been confined to a single private property, and meets all the common usage (and common sense) meaning of "house arrest". Gregcaletta (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Reuters don't describe it as house arrest, at least not in the article I provided. They in fact say it's Assange's associates who claim he's under house arrest. Various other sources use the term house arrest with qualifiers too, enough that it becomes a breach of NPOV to simply state it as "house arrest". You've got policy completely backwards, since if there's objection you don't get to state it as fact. There's no such thing as house arrest in the UK legally speaking (although the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 act does possibly define it as a 24 hour curfew, ie not being able to leave the house at all which obviously isn't the case). There is such a thing as bail though, which is what he was released under, with certain terms attached which isn't unusual for bail. So what's the objection to simply starting the fact that he was released on bail with a curfew etc. instead of the vague term "house arrest" which means different things to different people? You talk about "common usage definition" yet fail to answer my point about "house arrest" having any number of different meanings. In many cases it means people can't even leave their house, that's the common definition that most people think of and it doesn't apply to Assange. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 19:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The BBC link I originally put up listed his bail conditions. Can you indicate the condition which confined him to a single property, or point to a better source? I see a curfew and that he must be at a specific address at night, but nothing to prevent him popping out to the shops, or even a day out to (say) London, Birmingham, or anywhere else had he so chosen. Never mind, found the answer myself: the BBC link was correct. Assange faces arrest for "breaching one of the bail conditions imposed on him by the High Court, which was to stay at his bail address between 10pm and 8am.". It was fine for him to be in London, but he hadn't returned to his registered address by 10pm.

I say "common usage" because I think your interpretation is a small minority. I'm quite certain that when most people read "house arrest" they interpret it quite literally: being arrested and confined to a house (meaning any private property). "In many cases it means people can't even leave their house" is false. I doubt there has ever been a case where a prisoner cannot enter the garden of the house. The garden is always considered part of the house in "house arrest". He was strictly confined to the property and only left the property for his daily report to a police station. A you have pointed out "house arrest" is rarely used as legal term; it is almost always used as it is used here as a literal (and in this case accurate) description of a person's situation. He has been prevented by law from leaving the designated property except with express permission. That's what I mean by common usage or common sense definition. Gregcaletta (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You're talking rubbish. Assange was not strictly confined to the property at all. He was confined to the property at certain times of the day only, the rest of the time he was free to go anywhere he chose. Or are you suggesting that Wikileaks were lying when they offered a chance to dine with Assange at "one of London's finest restaurants"? If you have a source that says he couldn't even leave the property except to go to the police station go right ahead and provide it, but there's none I can see. Or how about this public appearance he made? Or this one? Or how about this which says "Barrister and legal commentator Carl Gardner said that although Assange's freedom of movement is constrained, "he can move around, he can make public appearances. He is at liberty in the most basic sense of the phrase", after noting his actual bail conditions which "require him to observe an overnight curfew, wear an electronic tag and report to police daily". He was never confined to the property, as the evidence shows. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 06:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

One more search seems to have resolved this issue. There has been some exceptionally vague and bad reporting in the press, but I found the "original judgment". Para 122 is pretty clear: movement was indeed restricted to the residence, and I accept that this would indeed amount to some form of house arrest. I shall add this document as a link to the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.228.192 (talk) 06:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It does amount to some form of house arrest. However it's far more sensible to describe the basic facts of him being bailed to reside at a given address with a curfew, which is a basic fact any reader can understand. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 06:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

To put it simply, no matter how news media (and it seems mostly non-UK media) may describe it, there is no such thnig as house arrest in England and Wales. A court may either grant bail or remand in custody. The assumption is that bail is always granted unless there are good reasons not to (e.g. likely not to surrender to court, may interfere with witnesses, serious nature of alleged offence, breaches of previous bail etc). When bail is granted, the assumption is that it will be unconditional. If conditions are imposed, they must be proportionate, must not amount to a punishment, and must be given for good reasons. Typical conditions include not to contact witnesses, to report to police, to reside at a specified address, to obey a curfew (which may but need not be electronically monitored), surrender of passport, co-operation with probation service or drug treatment agenceies. The exact conditions will depend on the nature of the offence, the person's record, etc, and must be stated by the court with reasons. Assange is quite clearly subject to a conditional bail. For further detail, see any of several guides to court procedure in England & Wales. Emeraude (talk) 08:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Minor correctoin, Assange WAS 'quite clearly subject to a conditional bail', which he has since violated. The police are currently stationed outside of the embassy and as of my writing this, and the post above, if Assange leaves the building he will be subject to arrest and no bail. To be precise the statement would be 'Assange was subject to conditional bail, but is currently facing arrest related to extradition'. It is essential also to cover the fact that he is now in violation of his bail and faces arrest by the UK authorities. I was just there and there are generally 2 to 3 police on the embassy 24 hours now. One covering the only side entrance and 1 to 2 in the front. Use of the term 'prisioner' might be appropriate but a bit loaded. Essentailly Assange is no longer at liberty, he can't leave the embassy without being arrested. But these are also temporary pieces of the story. At any moment he could be arrested. So maybe it would be best to keep changing facts light? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.228.120 (talk) 11:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think someone else responded to this already with the official details, but will outline main misunderstanding here on the facts is that "He was confined to the property at certain times of the day only, the rest of the time he was free to go anywhere he chose" in which case it would be appropriate to use the word "curfew". In fact, the opposite is the case. He was restricted to the property at all time except when given express permission (for example if he had a fundraising or speaking event to attend, or for his daily obligation to visit the police station). He needed to have express permission to attend these. The fact the "house arrest" does not exist in English law is all the more reason we can use the term here in it's practical and literal (rather than legal and technical) meaning: he has been arrested and confined to a private property, i.e. "arrest"+"house"="house arrest" Gregcaletta (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

To the most recent comment, you are correct: it is all past tense now. Gregcaletta (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no evidence he needed "express permission" to go anywhere or was "restricted to the property at all time", that's a fabrication. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

That was what I believed. I'll check. Gregcaletta (talk) 11:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It appears he was allowed to do as he liked between 8AM and 2PM and between 5PM and 10PM (he had to be prepared to meet with the police at their request at any time between 2PM and 5PM, and it had to be the same specific police station near the house of arrest, not just any station). It does not appear he needed express permission to rush to London and back in that time, though it can't have been easy, and I believe he had to report to the police where he had been. His report could be roughly checked using the GPS on the electronic ankle bracelet, which was designed to monitor his whereabouts not only during the curfew but also during the gaps between curfew and reporting to the local police. It appears to me that "house arrest" is an accurate enough term for this (I don't know what to call the electronic tagging other than "Orwellian arrest"), but call it what you like. Gregcaletta (talk) 11:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no concept of 'house arrest' in England and Wales law (although some of the terrorist restrictions in practice approach it, but that's not relevant here). Bail with an overnight residence requirement is manifestly not the same thing. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Since there appears to be confusion about the circumstances leading up to his bail, I'll give it with sources. He was initially refused bail after giving an address in Australia. It's hardly unreasonable for the courts to want to know where a non-UK citizen will be staying if bailed, the courts do like to keep track of people you know. Indeed it is remarked that "Last week Mr. Assange was refused bail after he unwisely gave an Australian postal address as his place of residence. This time his legal team would allow no such mistake". The source further states that "Geoffrey Robertson QC (Assange's barrister) announced that “Captain Smith” was now ready to put Mr. Assange up at his rambling country home, Ellingham Hall, near Bungay in Suffolk — that is, should he be granted bail." When bail was granted, ""We're utterly delighted with the result here today," Stephens (Assange's lawyer) told reporters, adding: "He will not be going back to that Victorian prison." So you'll forgive me for not having much sympathy about the inconvenience about him not having much time to get to London and back, when it appears that the residence in question was one selected by Assange and his legal team not the courts in Britain (although they had to approve him living there obviously) and Assange's legal team were "utterly delighted with the result". His bail conditions were initally a 10am-2pm and 10pm-2am and to report to the police station at 6pm, were changed a couple of days later due to the police station being closed at 6pm, so he had to report between 2pm and 5pm. To the best of my knowledge, when Assange reported each day was entirely up to him, there wouldn't be a phone call or anything saying "we want you in at 4.47pm today", he could just turn up any time between 2 and 5. So, although the change was due to the police station not being open at 6pm, the change did give him greater flexibility. The time of the curfew does seem to have been changed as well, with the judge saying "There will then have to be an adjustment in relation to the curfew. I do not understand the basis for having the curfew ending at 2 o'clock in the morning as opposed to 6 in the morning..." but annoyingly not saying what he changed it to, but it seems to have been changed to 6am from 2am. Hopefully that straightens a few things out, especially how he came to be "forced" to live at that address. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. He was also allowed, by arrangement with the court, to stay some nights in the Frontline Club. Also worth noting that in the last months, the residence address was changed (at Assange's request). He moved away from Ellingham Hall to a lodge in Eridge Park, East Sussex. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Obviously he would be "delighted" that his legal team succeeded in moving Assange from prison to a private residence. That doesn't mean he is delighted that Assange is still under arrest and not able to return to his country. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Purported sources for 'house arrest' nonsense

Let's leave aside for the moment the unchallengeable fact that 'house arrest' means a detained person is unable to leave their house, and that Julian Assange was always able to leave his house during the daytime as proved by the fact that he actually did so frequently. There are five purported sources for describing Assange's bail with a residence requirement by the tendentious term "house arrest". But none of them will do.

Source one is the High Court judgment from December 2010, in which Assange was granted conditional bail. The term "house arrest" does not appear. This source in fact supports describing Assange as being on conditional bail and undermines use of the term "house arrest".

Source two is a BBC News profile of Julian Assange from May 2012 which does use the term (twice, actually). However it is a piece specifically from the World section of the BBC News website: note references to "the UK's Leveson inquiry". It is an adaptation for the BBC World website of a UK Radio 4 programme, and in that programme the term is never used. In essence, the terminology has been designed to suit a world audience unfamiliar with the legal terminology of England and Wales. We have the ability to explain fully the difference.

Source three, a New York Times news story not directly about his bail conditions, refers in passing to Assange being "under effective house arrest" (my emphasis). The qualification is necessary because the literal description is inaccurate.

Source four is a very short magazine article in which the term only appears in the headline. The magazine in question is a lifestyle magazine rather than a hard news one, and is hardly suitable as an authoritative source for accurate legal terminology in a foreign jurisdiction.

Source five is a BBC News article from December 2010 when Assange was bailed; as in source one the term 'house arrest' never appears.

Against these sources may be placed this article which points to the hyperbole from Assangeites desperate to exaggerate their man's plight: ".. claiming that he has spent the 500+ days he's been avoiding extradition to Sweden as "virtual house arrest" (he was under curfew to be home at 10pm for most of that time, which is rather different from house arrest)." And here's the BBC News website arguing that in fact not even Control Orders are really 'house arrest', so that the concept is unknown in English law. I'm sure there are other sources. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

As I already pointed out in the section above, other sources choose to use the more accurate "which included an overnight curfew at a registered address", and although I wouldn't use it as a source in the article itself that "is rather different from house arrest". There's also "a limited form of house arrest in Britain, staying mostly with friends and under a strict evening curfew" from the Washington Post, and "effective house arrest" from the New York Times, and more crucially "Since his detention, Assange has mostly been living under strict bail conditions at the country mansion of a wealthy supporter in eastern England. His associates say that amounts to 540 days under house arrest without charge. Breach of bail conditions is potentially a criminal offence" from Reuters. It's an inaccurate term, there are plenty of sources that use it with qualifiers ("virtual house arrest" is another common one), it's an utter breach of NPOV to ignore all those sources and just use ones which supposedly source "house arrest". It isn't a fact, what is a fact he was released on bail with certain conditions and the article should state just that. It's ludicrous that an editor who hasn't even taken part in the recent discussion has reverted claiming lack of consensus for change. Nobody has refuted that "house arrest" isn't a fact and they won't be able to either. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 18:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the Assangeites, and the man himself, have been using the term in a loose and imprecise way to bolster their case, and have convinced themselves it must be accurate. It is good that Wikipedia listens to the strength of argument rather than weight of numbers. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It would appear the media tend to refer to bail more often as well.

• assange bail from 2010 - 1,350 results
• assange "house arrest" from 2010 - 30 results
• assange bail from 2011 - 620 results
• assange "house arrest" from 2011 - 78 results
• assange bail from all archived dates - 2,820 results
• assange "house arrest" from all archived dates - 773 results

Obviously those searches could be refined more, but not many people seemed to be calling it house arrest in December 2010, certainly not to those calling it bail. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 20:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The sources are not all there to verify "house arrest". They have been added by people on both sides of the debate because they are a useful range of relevant statements. Please see my comment below on replacing all those citations with a note tag. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for a compromise

I have a suggestion. Let's place a note after the term "house arrest" linking to the bottom of the article where his situation can be described in accurate detail. I understand that "house arrest" is not a perfect description, but "on bail with a curfew and residence requirement" is much more inadequate: vague and misleading, it leaves out the more extreme conditions: electronic tagging, daily police reports to the police station (at a time and location which required Assange to spend almost the whole day in the vicinity of his curfew house) and the fact he is not allowed to simply return to his own country. If we really want to be accurate we have to say "on bail, restricted by curfew between 10PM and 8AM to a designated residence, electronically tagged with a GPS ankle bracelet so that his location can be monitored, and required to report daily each day to a specific police station local to the curfew house between 2PM and 5PM, and not allowed to return to his home country". Since this is clearly too long and too much detail for the lead, I suggest the imperfect "house arrest" as roughly accurate abbreviation of his situation, with a note linking to specific details with citations. The exact conditions will also be included in the body where there is room. We could included a note linking to the bottom of the article in place of the excessive number of assorted citations that are now being used. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

What "extreme conditions"? That's nothing but your opinion, Assange's legal team were "utterly delighted with the result" when he was granted bail. It's hardly unreasonable that someone subject to a European Arrest Warrant isn't permitted to return to their home country either, and no sources seem to be saying otherwise. No sources seem to be saying that his curfew required "Assange to spend almost the whole day in the vicinity of his curfew house" either, since he had up to 8 hours each afternoon/evening to do as he chose and, lest we forget, the location of the residence was of his choosing. Your entire post it based on your own opinion of his bail conditions, not opinions of reliable sources. If you want to simplify it we'll just say he was released on bail, since that's a fact. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 06:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I have an alternative suggestion. Let's remember WP:NPOV, and say that Assange was released from jail on condition he lived at a designated address; that the conditions including an electronic tag and a lengthy curfew were described by his supporters as a form of house arrest, but in English law were a form of bail. That way the controversial term 'house arrest' is not in Wikipedia's voice. Will that do? Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the opinion of Assange's supporters on his bail conditions belongs in the lead. Put it in the article by all means. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 08:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Sam, I basically agree. I thought that was too lengthy for the lead, which is why I suggested it in a note and in the body, but we can try it if you like. I do need to point out that it is not only his supporters but some media sources that have described it as "house arrest" or "effective house arrest". We also need to mention that he is not allowed to return to Australia. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Mr. 2 lines, I'm didn't suggest that we use the word "extreme" in the article. I simply pointed out that we can't leave out the electronic tagging, the police reports, and the inability to return to his own country, (all of which is reliably sourced) since if we leave those details out then then the description is even less accurate than "house arrest". Gregcaletta (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

@ both of you: I'm about to make a change as a compromise. Let me know what you both think of it. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I've made the changes. It is a bit long and I still think "house arrest" would be better as an approximate abbreviation, but I think it's a very good compromise. Your thoughts? Gregcaletta (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's far too excessive for the lead. Unless there are any objections I'm going to move the full details down to the relevant section of the article itself, and simply say "bail" (or whatever grammatical construction I need depending on the sentence) in the lead. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 20:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I do object strongly to using "bail" without describing the conditions that are clearly not the most common conditions of "bail". Without the details, "bail" is much more misleading than "house arrest". Not even a tiny fraction of people described as on "bail" are subjected all four of the conditions Assange has to meet: (1) 10 hour curfew, (2) daily police reports to the police station, (3) electronic tagging, (4) not being allowed to return to one's home address. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to summarise the article, which is what it'll do. Quit with the "not being allowed to return to one's home address" violins, per the source at passports and bail surrendering your passport is often a condition of bail. That's even more the case when dealing with a foreign national likely to abscond. The same essentially applies to the rest. The bail conditions were imposed due Assange being likely to abscond, so jolly nice of him to prove the conditions were totally justified by absconding. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It is important to get the article right (as per BLP), thus the lead must not be able to mislead the reader. Unclear statements are better to be put in context where they are clearly explained. A short correct lead is to prefer over a long lead that is misleading.

The use of the word bail without explaining in more details the additional restrictions would be misleading, as it would give the reader the suggestion that he is not restricted in movements and living arrangements. House arrest might be closer (for example, if he ever get sentenced in Sweden, the time serving will be reduced in relation to the "house arrest" duration), but has it own set of issues made above in this thread. on the upside for the current wording, stating that others have reported the situation as a form of house arrest helps to lower what is being said in the wiki-voice.

A compromise could be to not include either words, and just describe in short the restrictions he is put under and leave the press descriptions and the rest to be described later in the article. Belorn (talk) 10:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that his time on bail would be deducted from any sentence in Sweden. While an electronically tagged curfew would appear to affect any sentence in the UK (which obviously isn't relevant), the key part is whether the Swedish legal system considers time on bail to be part of his sentence. To give one example, Howard Marks was informed that any time spent in prison in Spain while contesting extradition was effectively dead time, the US government didn't consider that to be part of his subsequent sentence. So do you have a source for that, as it may be true but it equally may not be. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Trying to find the article, but I cant find it. To that point, I can now only speculate. Time spent in pre-trial detention do count towards jail time in Sweden (actually, it counts 2x), and that electronically tagged curfew is used as a form of penalty in sentences. On other hand, Sweden do not have bail, so if bail should count the same as pre-trial detention or not would be up to the court to decide. Since Sweden do not use electronically tagged curfew with pre-trial detention, that complicate things to a point where I agree its about 50/50 what would happen :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belorn (talk • contribs) 20:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I've implemented your suggestion anyway, since the mere inclusion of "bail" is pretty much redundant with what's currently left. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 21:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Not n the lede - not notable enough

While in England under house arrest, Assange hosted a political talk show called The World Tomorrow, which was broadcast in 2012.[15][16] Hassan Nasrallah, Slavoj Žižek, David Horowitz, Moazzam Begg, Alaa Abd El-Fattah, Nabeel Rajab, Moncef Marzouki, Rafael Correa, David Graeber, Jacob Appelbaum, Jérémie Zimmermann, Andy Müller-Maguhn, Imran Khan, Noam Chomsky, Tariq Ali and Anwar Ibrahim appeared on the show.[17]

Basically a spaming of internal links - ( I have removed them all from my post here so as not o repeat the problem) please do not add it to the article again at all - its just not notable at all - never mind to the WP:lede - I suggest you create an article for it if you think its notable - The World Tomorrow, ow its already got one - so just add a simple comment somewhere in the Assange bio - in the see also section perhaps - ow look - on forcing myself to read through the POV trollop see there is a secton already - Julian_Assange#The_World_Tomorrow - so its all good - as long as users stop removing the facts - the main details from the lede we will be all good - eg - his arrest and imprisonment in Wandsworth Prison- its notable for the lede - as are the major Supreme court details and appeals, please don't remove them and replace the facts/notable facts that readers are looking to be informed about with promotional fluff and support - you that do that do the en wikproject and its readers a disservice. - Youreallycan 02:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Damages (TV series) information

A lengthy section has been added discussing a character in the Damages TV show similar to Assange. Apart from being very lightly sourced; why is this an important facet of Assange's life to be documented in his biography? Certainly it seems relevant in articles about the TV show, but here? And to cap it off the second half of the new section seems like a rather sly attempt to slander Assange and get away with it. I'll certainly be removing at least that latter portion, but an explanation/defence would be interesting. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to keep that section. Assange has nothing to do with the series other than maybe being some kind of an inspiration for it, so Assange should maybe be linked from the series' article but not vice versa, which would in my view be purely promotional and possibly even BLP-y, if the picture of the wanna-be Assange turns out to be negative. There was not even a link to The Great Dictator from the devil's article when I just checked, and such a link would be much more reasonable than a link to that novel series from here. I thus will remove the section until there is a consensus if and/or how much of the material should be re-added. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, here's the section that I appended to the article:

Assange-like character in drama series

In the fifth and final season of the American television drama series Damages, which began airing in July 2012, actor Ryan Phillippe portrays an Assange-like character, Channing McClaren, which heads a whistleblower website, McClarenTruth.org. In a promotional interview one of the show's executive producers uses the phrase "very loosely inspired by," however Phillippe says in the same segment that he studied all the material about Assange that he could get to, both before and after he got the part. The character played by Phillippe nurtures an enigmatic public image. His reign over his associates is capricious and dictatorial, and he apparently has abusive sexual relations with a female whistleblower who ends up being killed, possibly at the fault of the website having compromised her identity and private information. The Assange-like character displays a callous and pragmatic attitude towards trust and truthfulness in his relations to his legal counsel, and the WikiLeaks-like organization he operates depends on anonymous financial support from questionable donors with agendas of their own.

I will assert that this should be included in the article with an urgency because of the way it clearly encroaches on Assange's ongoing legal challenges, and in so doing gives a heavily partisan depiction of him, basically promoting every pejorative stereotype about him being circulated by his detractors. Millions will watch and absorb these impressions while simultaneously or subsequently being exposed to news coverage of his lingering struggles with those who have an agenda to bash his persona. That makes this a far more important "portrayals in popular culture" episode than any satires of long-gone despots and mass-murderers. __meco (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says that? Or do you have even an independent source? Given your argument; why does the section you wrote repeat all those stereotypes/pejoratives? --Errant ^(chat!) 07:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I wrote a description of the Channing McClaren character just as anyone would write about characters in a work of fiction. Writing that "it fits the negative image being projected onto Julian Assange by his detractors" would obviously be grossly original research. That, however, does not mean the description of the character cannot be given to speak for itself. __meco (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It can if that description looks simply like an underhand way to slander him. But that's a side point; you still need independent sourcing to back up your claimed significance. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

An independent source is needed for the information and only a sentence, not a paragraph, is appropriate to be included. Silverseren^C 10:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for political asylum

While it's NPOV to give the British government's response to accusations that it threatened to invade Ecuador's embassy in London, the current lines seem to be original research based on source documents. Editors can't speak for the British government (even if they are agents or officials of that government). You should source this on a news article that reports the British government's response, and use the reported response, not make up your own. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Diff of edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Julian_Assange&diff=507653508&oldid=507652537 Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought the same, but there is a proper source, this one, in yet another footnote, at this moment number 256. Perhaps somebody who's on top of those fiddly cite templates could add a pointer to it at the edit Ghost mentions. Bishonen | talk 13:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC).

First paragraph in "Allegations of sexual assault" section needs to be edited or removed

The first paragraph in this section simply duplicated information in the rest of this section, for example

1st paragraph: In 2010, a European Arrest Warrant was issued for Assange in relation to allegations of rape and sexual assault by a lawyer representing two women in Sweden. Assange was arrested in the United Kingdom, and was freed on bail after ten days in Wandsworth prison.

2nd paragraph: In 2010, a European Arrest Warrant was issued for Assange in response to a Swedish police request for questioning in relation to a sexual assault investigation. Assange voluntarily attended a police station in England on 7 December 2010, and was arrested and taken into custody. After ten days in Wandsworth prison, Assange was freed on bail with a residence requirement at Ellingham Hall in Norfolk, England.

There is no need for the first paragraph and second paragraph to say the same thing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.157.199 (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. Formerip (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Asylum

I don't think we need his asylum in the first, defining sentence, as it is already addressed in the lead section. Also, "asylum in Ecuador" is misleading as he is in the UK, not in Ecuador. He is granted asylum by a country on a different continent that there is little chance he will ever see, effectively asylum in an embassy in London for the time being. He will either stay in that embassy building for the rest of his life, or be arrested the moment he leaves. Josh Gorand (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Nominated for a prize he didn't win

There is no reason to mention the fact that an obscure parliamentarian proposed him for a prize he didn't win in the lead. Virtually anyone can propose ("nominate") anyone for the prize in question, nominees hold no official status, and in fact the committee does not comment upon the proposals it receives, so we can't even verify whether the committee even received such a proposal. Had he won the prize, we would have mentioned it. A failed proposal doesn't belong in the lead. Even Bush and Hitler have been nominated, but it isn't mentioned in the lead sections of their articles. Josh Gorand (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Y I agree; I've removed it. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Unbalanced lede

The lede at the moment is incredibly unbalanced, as can be clearly seen. Now, i'm not asking for the paragraph on the extradition to be removed, but there should be two other full paragraphs around the same size as it describing everything else in the article, which is not currently being summarized in the lede when it should be. Silverseren^C 22:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Unfortunately, it is impossible to represent the situation accurately using only a few words, without misleading the reader, so the paragraph either needs to be included in full detail or removed completely. For example, it currently says he was "freed on bail", which leaves out the unusual conditions of his bail (electronic tagging, curfews, daily reports to the police, etc.), and the fact he is not an English citizen and that he was not allowed to return to Australia, which is makes it disgracefully misleading and biased.

I agree that the main solution is to include more stuff relating to the rest of his career. There was a lot of good material that has been removed from the lead. I don't know who did it or what excuse they gave. Mr G (talk) 01:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll look into past versions of the article and see if there's anything good there. Silverseren^C 03:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

There, that's slightly better now. Not great, but better than before. Silverseren^C 03:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Political and Economic views - relevancy?

Who cares if he is a libertarian? What has that got to do with anything that is currently making him notorious? He didn't get a page named after him for being a libertarian!--96.244.244.244 (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

He has a page because he is an activist who has drummed up a lot of attention for himself. His supporters revere him as a political force; hence his politics is relevant.89.168.180.105 (talk) 10:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting that you know what (all?) his supporters think. What is a supporter of Assange anyway? He's not a football team. HiLo48 (talk) 10:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Punishments under the Espionage Act can include the death penalty

I am not sure why it states at the end of the section headed Members of U.S. Congress call for Espionage Act prosecution (of Assange) that punishments under the Espionage Act can include the death penalty. The relevant part of the Act quoted in the section provides for a fine or a term of imprisonment of not more than 10 years or both. If other offences in the Act carry the death penalty that cannot be relevant unless there is some reason to conclude that there may be a prosecution under those provisions. I suggest that the actual maximum punishment under the relevant provision be quoted in place of the death penalty reference. --ErnstR (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

He claims to "fear for his life", which is hype. The US federal government hardly ever executes anyone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Just don't let him get taken to Texas. Silverseren^C 04:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Claiming to "fear for his life" is hardly hype. To much of the world the United States is notorious, rightly or wrongly, for executing people on the flimsiest of excuses. Even with execution off the table Assange may genuinely believe in the possibility that he may dissapear into guantanamo like conditions for the rest of his life. Wayne (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The press chief of the Swedish foreign ministry said on Thursday that the fear of Ecuador's foreign minister that Assange would be sent on to the US by the Swedes, and even be executed, are utterly groundless. Both Swedish law and Sweden's obligations under the European convention on human rights mean Assange could not be extradited to the US if he were wanted for a crime which might lead to the death penalty. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 09:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The above is perfectly correct, Assange could not be extradited from a signatory Nation to the European Convention on Human Rights for a crime punishable by death, it would be a contravention of their article 3 rights. Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits torture, and "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment RobNaylor452 (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, what seems to be a standard procedure in cases such as that is the country wishing to extradite has to agree in advance if convicted they won't face the death penalty, it isn't a get out of jail free card to avoid extradition in cases involving capital crimes. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The sentence looks out of place. In the case of Assange, is there a reliable source making the case that assange can potentially get the death penalty? If the answer is yes, then rewrite it to include who, and put it in the time-order of when the source said it. If there is no source, then its original research and should not be there. The above forum discussion if Assange *can* get the death penalty is surely interesting, but I am not sure if anyone but maybe a historian law professor can really, truthfully, give a good answer to the question. Belorn (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Forum discussion? If you're referring to me, I'm quoting a reputable Swedish journalist's article translated by the Guardian which says the Swedish foreign ministry said Assange couldn't be extradited to the US if he was facing the death penalty. My comment is a link to the article in question. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Espionage Act US Code, Title 18, Ch. 37, Sec. 794 provides for the death penalty if the breach involves "communications intelligence" or "results in the identification of an individual acting as an agent of the United States and consequently in the death of that individual." I'm assuming that the Wikileaks can be classed as communications intelligence and even if they are not they did reveal the names of people that the Taliban said they would hunt down and punish so if a single Afghan named in the Afghan war logs was executed by the Taliban, Assange indisputably faces the death penalty.
If the breach is in time of war the death penalty is extended to anyone who "collects, records, publishes, or communicates, or attempts to elicit any information with respect to the movement, numbers, description, condition, or any information with respect to the movement, numbers, description, condition, or disposition of any of the Armed Forces...or with respect to the plans or conduct, or supposed plans or conduct of any naval or military operations." I checked for ammendments and the latest to section 794 was 1994 when a full stop was inserted in the text. From what I have read on the way the prosecution system works in the U.S. the prosecution could arguably stretch the definition to say that the U.S. was technically, if not in fact, at war at the time. Wayne (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course, the espionage act was only ever meant to be applied to citizens of the US. Since applying it to people outside of the US means that we would also have to apply it to any action taken by anyone in another country in relation to communications intelligence. Not to mention that we would have to prosecute any of our own agents that are involved in espionage against other countries that results in the death of someone. Only if we meant to be fair, of course. Silverseren^C 19:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry One Night In Hackney, since the whole comment was one large link, I must somehow missed it was a link. At any rate, the press chief of the Swedish foreign ministry (Carl Bildt) do only indirectly say that the Espionage act can be used to give the death penalty to Assange. While not unusable, a source that directly state that the espionage act can be used to give the death penalty to Assange would be better. [2] phrase it a bit more directly, by saying that "charges of treason or espionage and, if convicted, be sentenced to death". Doing some googling, it looks more and more article are bringing up the question. Belorn (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

This is complete OR and just for the sake of trivia, really. It's often thought that the European Convention on Human Rights bans the extradition of people from Europe to the US if they might face the death penalty. However, strictly speaking it doesn't. The relevant case is Soering v United Kingdom, which ruled that extradition to the US of a person wanted for murder breached Article 3 of the ECHR because being placed on death row constituted "inhuman and degrading treatment". But it explicitly stated that execution itself was not "inhuman and degrading treatment".

The difference between the UK and Sweden is that the UK has a right under its extradition treaty with the US to deny extradition where the death sentence is a possibility. In political terms, it is inconceivable that it would ever waive this right. Sweden has no similar right in its extradition treaty. So, following the conspiracy theory, if the US can get Assange into Sweden then promise the Swedish authorities that he will somehow get his full appeal rights but no stay if sentenced to execution (how that could be done I have no idea) and also convince a Swedish court that execution would not be disproportionate in view of his alleged crimes then, technically, it can be argued that Sweden would be obliged to extradite him. But, mainly because of Protocol 13, which has happened since the Soering case, extradition would probably be blocked in Strasbourg. Although, who can say for sure?

Thank you for your patience. Formerip (talk) 01:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Since Assange was outside US juridiction territories at the time of receipt of the leaked documents, then most countries would consider that the US would not have jurisdiction, so Sweden should be able to quash any extradiction request on those grounds. (as is happening on the Kim Dotcom case, where it is being claimed that since none of the servers were in US jurisdiction territory, it can't be a US crime; seems to be having traction with the NZ judge.) -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That may be true in New Zealand, but for reasons that can only be guessed at (slavishness towards the US?), the UK is fully willing to extradite people to the US to face charges that are not offences in the UK - see for example Gary McKinnon - the Home Secretaries in the UK have acted like eager representatives of US law enforcement in these cases. To my mind the weak point in Assange's PR theatricals is that it's probably much more likely he would be extradited from the UK to the US than from Sweden, where there is a history of defiance of the US pretence that their laws apply globally. Assange plainly wants to not face his accusers in Sweden, to my mind a sign of guilt and he is manipulating the current popularity of anti-British attitudes in S. America, deriving mainly from Argentina. The Ecuadorians may be getting more than they bargain for. :) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

USA extradition

Can someone add the USA extradition to Julian Assange article? It seems relevant because of the high public interest and Ecuador's granting asylum to Julian Assange, citing USA's extradition concerns.

My contribution:

There was an indication of Subpoena by a grand jury served to an individual linked to Wikileaks in relation to Espionage Act (18 U.S.C. 793) due to Guantanamo Bay files leak and also focuses on Bradley Manning. The Subpoena is investigating those who helped Bradley Manning release classified diplomatic cables under 18 U.S.C. 371. Another charge is those that "embezzle, steal, purloin, or knowingly convert ... any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States." under 18 U.S.C. 641. The charges strongly indicate a criminal investigation against Wikileaks.

Stratfor's emails leaked by Wikileaks have discussions surrounding a secret grand jury with a secret indictment. Later, a media organisation received declassified diplomatic cables that confirm a secret indictment exists. The documents go on to state that Australia has no objection to a potential extradition to USA. The Australian government confirmed the possibility of extradition but stated that it wasn't unusual as there was an ongoing investigation about Wikileaks. They point out that USA may not intent on extraditing Julian Assange.

121.44.67.223 (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Someone mentioned the article wasn't locked, so I moved my contribution below 'Autobiography' section as it relates to his work on Wikileaks. I didn't put it under 'Members of US Congress call for Espionage Act prosecution (of Assange)' as this section goes beyond 'criticism', but into charges. I'm not sure if this is the most appropriate section. 121.44.67.223 (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

2.121.243.21 (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)Is the article from today's Sydney Morning Herald admissable under the guidelines?2.121.243.21 (talk) 12:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hostilities between Ecuador and Britain

Shouldn't this diplomatic row have a separate article? If Britain does invade the embassy, then it is an act of war. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 12:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

In your mind maybe. But no, I highly doubt Ecuador would go to war with the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth, aswell as the European Union, the United States of America and face ramifications, even possible exclusion, from the UN. Most likely Ecuador will make some disapproving noise and carry on. There is no need for an article about a diplomatic row. Aldwynson (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The invasion of the sovereign territory of one country by the forces of another under arms would usually constitute an act of war, regardless of whether war is declared or enjoined or not. The armed British police invading the embassy would be such an act (so it could be a very short war, composed of a single British police action). -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope. The Ecuadorians have agreed to an embassy on British soil in full understanding of British Law - they've had plenty of time to close it down in face of the known British law, and continued to maintain the embassy. No act of war, by law. Aldwynson's prediction of the probable response is no doubt spot-on. HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

An embassy is the sovereign territory of the nation who's embassy it is. That's under international law, and common practice, including common English practice. Violating the embassy would be an invasion, since the police will be armed, it would be an armed invasion. British Law no longer applies once the embassy was granted, since it is no longer the sovereign territory of Britain. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 05:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I read an analysis that Britain could simply break off diplomatic relations with Ecuador and expel the ambassador and his staff, where upon the building would lose its diplomatic status and the police would be free to move in and arrest Assange. Diplomatic relations would then be restored sometime later. --Nug (talk) 08:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The building is not an embassy! Ecuador's budget does not stretch beyond one flat. There are some other embassies by banana countries that cannot afford London property prices in the same building. The corridors and stairways are British. If the British weren't being so nice about it, they could make his life very nasty.89.168.180.105 (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hans Crescent is the official Embassy of Ecuador in the UK, regardless of size - an Embassy can be a garden shed so long as it's accepted by the host state. Perhaps you are confusing their embassy with their Consulate in Uganda House where they provide consular services? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

There is Foreign relations of Ecuador which now has a brief section on Anglo-Ecuadorian relations, sadly concentrating on the Assange incident for want of any other significant issues. By the way, foreign diplomatic premises are merely regarded as sovereign territory of the country concerned, rather than actually becoming foreign territory - a subtle distinction, but otherwise it would be impossible for the host country to reclaim the territory if the embassy ever moved. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed change to the second sentence of the article.

The second sentence of this article currently reads "He is best known as the editor-in-chief and founder of WikiLeaks, a media website which has published information from whistleblowers."

Proposal: Remove the following sentence fragment from this sentence: ", a media website which has published information from whistleblowers."

Because there is a Wikipedia article for WikiLeaks, I feel the second half of this sentence is unnecessary and does not have to provide information about his Web site. Additionally, by only including information about publication of "whistleblower's" information this sentence adds legitimacy to Mr. Assange's Web site, legitimacy that may not be deserved.

The Wikipedia article on whistleblowers seems to me to be written from a neutral point-of-view and treats the whistleblower as one doing 'good' deeds. WikiLeaks accepts and publishes information gathered through legal and illegal means. This sentence fragment puts Mr. Assange in association with those doing good deeds, again something that may not be deserved. FrankTownend (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)