Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:20, 8 August 2022

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 March 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 March 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep - withdrawn.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. International relations: Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject International law (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Gender studies Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Misplaced Pages requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ecuador Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ecuador, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ecuador on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EcuadorWikipedia:WikiProject EcuadorTemplate:WikiProject EcuadorEcuador Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sweden Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Actual claims

The actual claims of "misconduct", brought by these women, need to be in the article. I see that someone above attempted to do just this, and more, but was reverted and perhaps gave up. It is an eyesore for the article to not have this information in it. Hopefully someone with more time than I have can rectify this. Willyfreddy (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, wtf? I'm going to root around in the article history for something to be restored. causa sui (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

A useful source: causa sui (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You got it quite wrong, of course: the actual claims in THIS case, heard in the UK, where Assange lost his appeal on four counts today, are about the issue of warrant by the Swedish authority, double criminality, proportionality and whether the alleged conduct is an offense. KathaLu (talk) 10:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

.....

20/03/2020: An interview with Nis Melzer, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, on the 31st Jan. 2020 published here should be included. This is a legitimate source. He was asked by Assange's lawyers to investigate. The details given in that interview are enlightening to say the least (and also provides some evidence within the limited remit of the article). It has ramifications for the entire affair and elements need to be incorporated into the main text here and on the main page 'Julian Assange'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.134.50.144 (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

References

1. https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange

Names of victims

OK Lets try again. Sofia Wilen engaged a lawyer Ms Massi Fritz and had the "investigation" opened again in 2019 well after there was any reasonable chance to get Assange prosecuted and even less chance of him being convicted. The original prosecutor dropped the investigation in 2010 having reviewed the police investigation and determined there was no crime at all. This decision proved to be the correct one as despite the "investigation" being reopened 3 or 4 times no charges were ever laid. There was no rape and therefore no rape victims. In any case all names have been in the public domain since 2010. There has been an attempt to claim Wilen was never identified. Assange is associated thousands of times with sexual offences he did not commit. Purportedly accused by shadowy faceless figure (although this is doubtful) who seek to avoid the reality of what occurred which is probably ok except that they aided Assange's vilification for over nine years. After a long campaign they deserve due recognition.

Hello World Wake up. Is there consensus that Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen should be named? Neither Ardin or Wilen wanted to file a complaint against Assange. All three have been vilified. The original prosecutor was correct in dropping the investigation and even Ny wanted to and eventually did. It seems to me that there are three victims here and a couple of government perps.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnoddy (talk • contribs) 11:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC) The times they have a changed. AA has publicly commented and criticized others for their opinions. (On other pages right here) She has outed herself and entered the public arena.

There's evidenced collusion between SW & AA right from the original joint complaint. They are not rape victims in any ordinary sense of the word. These are world wise instigators of sexual encounters with a at the time famous revolutionary in desperate circumstances. They have much to tell us.

The alleged crimes took place on 13 & 16/17 August 2010. On 18 August AA & SW discovered they had both seduced the same charismatic man. On 20 August AA & SW jointly asked police to force Assange to undergo STD tests wherein the whole sordid affair was sent to a prosecutor. AA alleged that Assange deliberately tore a condom that apparently broke and SW alleged that a condom wasn't used on one occasion when she was asleep. In any case the charges were never laid and Assange has effectively been imprisoned for the last 10 years.

Lets put the names in to record this part of the Wikileaks history as it happened. Consensus?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnoddy (talk • contribs) 13:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I have once again removed the names of the involved women. The previous consensus on the talk page has been that adding the names violates BLP. Please discuss here before adding names again. 85.224.102.92 (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to mention that I disagree with this "consensus". Naomi Wolf argues the case better than I could: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/05/julian-assange-sex-crimes-anonymity Gregcaletta (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

We are not naming the victims at this time - as per the quality sources (Naomi Wolf's opinionated input is not one of them) - such as the BBC who have a very good record of following wp:blp - - please don't see this comment as an opportunity to post sources that do name them - we are not naming them - if and when a case actually occurs we can look at it again - Youreallycan 19:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

These cases are public and assanges name is well known, why should not these women be named? Also the crime is alleged until proved otherwise. I think it's in interest of clean and fair trial to name both sides. It's not a secret either, so.. why not. T.P--94.112.108.225 (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This has been repeatedly discussed in the past - see the archives. Per long-established WP:BLPNAME policy, the consensus is that we won't name the alleged victims in this article. As for 'a clean and fair trial', the contents of our article are irrelevant - it wouldn't be presented as evidence in any trial, though at the moment, there is no decision on whether there will even be one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Just thought I'd give some reasoning for never mentioning the victims of Rape. The names of rape victims are never given out because it otherwise causes women to hardly ever report the crime. Rape is a massively undereported crime and the main reason for the lack of reporting was due to the stigma/shame/humiliation/embarassment that comes when mentioning it. It is hard enough for women to report this crime to a female police-officer with anominity let alone to report it and have their name freely available. This is the reasoning behind why names are not given for this crime, something that Naomi completely forgets to mention (and would rather randomly blame on men being sexist). I do agree that this should also go towards the accused but thats not for a wikipedia talk article to discuss. Long Story short, if we start posting the names of victims than you are contributing to the reason why women don't report Rape. Mishka Shaw (talk) 10:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

"if we start posting the names of victims than you are contributing to the reason why women don't report Rape" -- that may or may not be the case, but it's irrelevant. Misplaced Pages's purpose is to be a compendium of human knowledge, not to encourage people to report crimes. -- Cabalamat (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

No, Misplaced Pages's purpose (per WP:5) is to be an encyclopedia. While some human knowledge is certainly grist for inclusion, not all of it is. In this case, the names of the alleged victims is not appropriate for inclusion. aprock (talk) 23:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME says:

"Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context."

I think WP:BLPNAME doesn't require anonymity because:

(1) The names have been widely disseminated.

(2) Omitting it results in a significant loss of context.

They should be included because, according to many WP:RS, all of which have named the accusers, "Accuser 1"

(1) worked with CIA-sponsored anti-Castro organizations in Cuba.

(2) posted a blog entry advocating revenge when a man cheats on her. I think that also raises legitimate suspicions. Does anybody disagree?

(3) tweeted messages after the supposed rape that indicated she was happy about her relationship with Assange. She didn't accuse him of rape until she found out that he had sex with "Accuser 2".

I think each of these charges raise legitimate suspicions, and together they provide context. "Victim 1" might have a political or personal motivation to punish Assange and have him extradited to the U.S. It's not certain, but neither are any of the charges against Assange. A reader must know these facts in order to evaluate the credibility of the charges against Assange.

Can somebody give me a good statement of why they disagree with those 3 points? --Nbauman (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Where is the consensus that we won't name the alleged victims in this article? I don't see it here, or in the archives. I see disagreement. Can you give me a link to the place that found consensus? --Nbauman (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME is policy. Policy overrides consensus unless there is consensus to change the policy. aprock (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Someone made a claim that there was consensus. If there is, I want to see the link to the consensus. Is there a consensus? Does everybody agree that there is no consensus? --Nbauman (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

. aprock (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, any claim of a consensus is complete nonsense - if there was a consensus, there wouldn't be discussion about it with many editors expressing dissenting views to the so-called consensus. Count Truthstein (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is good. Policy gets interpreted, and the interpretation is decided by consensus, and consensus is reached by discussion. Aprock, if you can point in the policy of a black and white rule that, in a obvious and clear way forbids the names, please provide it. Belorn (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

For WP:BLPNAME not to apply, there would have to be evidence that "Omitting it results in a significant loss of context". There is no difference in context between " alleged Assange...." and "Miss A alleged Assange....", and obviously the same applies for the other victim. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/docs/protocol.pdf
2. https://apnews.com/article/933e765431c643eab301c69f19ecd582

Assange arrested in Sweden?

I removed the following

Later that day, the duty prosecutor ordered the arrest of Julian Assange on the suspicion of rape and molestation.

If there was an order, I am pretty sure Assange was not actually arrested, and talked to the police in Sweden some days later. The referenced link is dead. So some research is required if this is to go back in, was he actually arrested or not?

Prosecutor Ny's abuse of process// extradition warrant.

"the Swedish authorities have never explained why they refuse to give Assange a guarantee that they will not extradite him" (a red herring that the Assange camp continues to spread, explained numerous times)

Sources: explained numerous

One reference is a Nordic Page and the other is the Guardian.

"This week, Amnesty International called on Sweden to provide a guarantee that if Assange travelled there to answer questions over the sex-crime allegations, he would not be sent on to the US for charges connected to WikiLeaks' publication of thousands of US diplomatic and military cables"

There was a blase response from Sweden

"A spokeswoman for the Swedish foreign ministry said the country's legislation did not allow any judicial decision like extradition to be predetermined."

Sweden's response would appear to be absolute nonsense. Immunities from prosecution are routinely handed out to all sorts of criminals in exchange for example information or testimony. In Assange's case despite already having Assange's statement, prosecutor Ny unreasonably issued an extradition process to drag Assange back to "Sweden" for "questioning". (Eventually a Swedish court ruled Assange's presence in Sweden was unnecessary for Ny's investigation)

Ny's unwarranted actions further fueled Assange's well documented and subsequently justified fears that he was being persecuted. Sweden has done nothing to dispel the allegation that Ny conspired to have Assange extradited to face the rage of the United States for publishing evidence leaked largely by it own appalled citizens.

Prosecutor Ny is at the center of the extradition process. That an English court upheld Ny's warrant to extradite Assange when his presence in Sweden was unnecessary for Ny's investigation brings the English Courts into disrepute. Its a basic legal principle that a court can not order an unnecessary act

Lets look at a hypothetical situation.

The English Crown Prosecution Service resists Ny's warrant because it clearly unnecessary to have Assange present in Sweden to further Ny's investigation.

Does this cause a diplomatic incident? No It is the just application of law.

Does this prevent Ny from investigating Assange. No. In fact it expedites Ny's investigation by removing an unnecessary process.

Does this prevent Ny from charging Assange? No Nye already has Assange's police statement and many others and can charge him in absentia.

Does this prevent the United States from extraditing Assange. No. The USA has an extradition treaty with the UK and is using it.

Does this allow Assange freedom and procedural justice? Yes. Assange can conduct his business and defend himself against persecution.

Does this cost the UK taxpayers millions of dollars? No. It is unlikely this course of action would cost much at all.

Does this deny alleged victims justice. No. Assange can be criminally charged or civil action taken against him.

Is anyone in any way hindered. Not significantly. Assange may still need to attend court. Ny has her nose put out of joint.

Is this a proper course of action for English Crown prosecutors. Yes. Prosecutors are officers of the court that are bound to assist the court act judicially. Court Officers are liable for the consequences of errors in law.

I just cannot see a valid reason for Ny issuing a warrant to extradite Assange who had already made his statement. Assange had a Swedish lawyer and would not be making further admissions. Short of torture or some sort of hypnotism to extract a confession what could be gained. I suppose there was the possibility of trying on some sort of honey trap operation to ensnare Assange or laying bogus charges of some sort as police forces often do. Then again I guess Ny may just have wanted to meet the famous Julian Assange. Maybe Ny thought she could seduce Assange or something similar. Whatever her reasons, it was a crazy thing for Ny to do resulting in a very disturbing and successful abuse of process.

Statements

@Jack Upland: You reverted my addition of the text

Melzer published a statement in which he tries to resolve misunderstandings and hopes that they will not divert attention away from the problems in the case of Assange. Later the woman said, that Assange's action has not been a crime for her and that she has "long forgiven" Assange.

with the comment "Removing slab of pro-Assange slab of text that is not in correct English". Could you please explain why being "pro-Assange" warrants removal. Additionally, if my english is not correct, please feel free to correct it. Nuretok (talk) 10:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

It felt easier to remove it rather than correct it. I think the pro-Assange tone doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining it. With that view in mind I understand why you removed the text. What do you think about theses (hopefully) more neutral wordings:

However, she does consider Assange's action a crime. Melzer tried to resolve the misunderstandings publicly.

My goal of the sentences is to put the (currently) last sentences of the article ("One of the women interviewed by Melzer later sharply criticised him and demanded his resignation. She said that by defining how a "proper rape-victim" should act, Melzer was engaging in victim blaming and that his report was partially "untrue and defamatory".") into context.--Nuretok (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Poll: Should the fact that one of the accusers against Julian Assange was once working as a contractor for the CIA be included?

Talk:Julian_Assange#Poll:_Should_the_fact_that_one_of_the_accusers_against_Julian_Assange_was_once_working_as_a_contractor_for_the_CIA_be_included?

Happydaze1 (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

References

1. Cite error: The named reference Swedish Prosecution Authority was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Nils Melzer (2019-07-08). "Dismantling the Swedish 'Rape'-Narrative against Julian Assange".
3. Reinhard Wolff (2021-01-24), "Verfahren gegen Julian Assange: Anna Ardin bricht ihr Schweigen", Die Tageszeitung: taz (in German), ISSN 0931-9085, retrieved 2021-08-22
4. Reinhard Wolff (2021-01-24), "Verfahren gegen Julian Assange: Anna Ardin bricht ihr Schweigen", Die Tageszeitung: taz (in German), ISSN 0931-9085, retrieved 2021-08-22
5. Nils Melzer (2019-07-08). "Dismantling the Swedish 'Rape'-Narrative against Julian Assange".

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class International relations articles
• Low-importance International relations articles
• C-Class International law articles
• Low-importance International law articles
• WikiProject International law articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• C-Class Gender studies articles
• Mid-importance Gender studies articles
• WikiProject Gender studies articles
• C-Class law articles
• Low-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• C-Class Ecuador articles
• Low-importance Ecuador articles
• C-Class Sweden articles
• Mid-importance Sweden articles
• All WikiProject Sweden pages
• C-Class United Kingdom articles
• Low-importance United Kingdom articles
• WikiProject United Kingdom articles