Jump to content

Talk:Julian Assange

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cambial Yellowing (talk | contribs) at 06:54, 20 September 2024 (cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Sexual assault in LEAD and elsewhere

I think we should remove the word "sexual assault" from the LEAD as normally we remove this type of wording when the allegations are dropped, per WP:AVOIDVICTIM. I think many of us believe, and we also have a lot of RS to support, that the allegations were politically motivated. Given that the charges were never pursued in the court, I think we need to reduce the WP:WEIGHT of those allegations on this article. Certainly the highest weight is in the LEAD. Here we have WP:PUBLICFIGURE which states "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." The question is if the allegations persist, or were dropped. If it is the prosecutor making the allegations, and they didnt follow through with charges, then we need to drop it. Do we have allegations (that were not retracted) from the 'victim'? I suppose if we had those, then we might keep it, although a discussion of weight is still in order. Normally if allegations are retracted, we remove from the article or greatly down weight it (and remove from the LEAD). Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the investigation was dropped, I agree this is awkward and inappropriate, as in the earlier discussion. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize I re-opened a discussion that I had forgotten about. Jeez only a year later and I cant remember things, better not tell my wife this ;-) I see now it was maybe Valjean (talk · contribs) that re-added it? I will remove again. Valjean, I caution you about WP:BLPRESTORE, do not add again without consensus on talk. I removed it again in this edit with the intention to only remove the word sexual and leave the other structure the same more or less. I just merged two sentences and removed some piped text to make it more readable. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Valjean has edited that section recently. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I was thinking that it was added back at Talk:Julian_Assange/Archive_42#undue_text_in_heading. Valjean, again apologies again if it was not you who re-added it. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall who added it back, but I won't do it now unless there is a consensus to do so. I don't edit war.
As far as WP:Public figure goes, I think you've got it backward. It lends weight to the inclusion, not deletion, of properly-sourced derogatory information about public figures, even if totally false, in contrast to how we do with non-public figures, where we tend toward not including such content, even if true. Even if there were (for any public person, not just Assange) never any prosecution and charges were dropped (which they weren't in this case), etc., we would not remove the historical record from here that the charges were raised in the first place. We should document what RS said, no matter what they said. They say he was charged with rape by the Swedish authorities, and editorial speculations that the charges were political in nature should never appear on this page. That's a big no no. Our opinions don't count. If some RS speculate that the charges were political in nature, then we may include that information.
We don't disappear history, we just include the later facts that the case was dropped, even though the charges were NOT dropped. We tell the whole story, from spilled milk and the mess it created, to when and by whom it was cleaned up. That way readers get the whole story and are not left wondering "I thought I heard that he was charged with sexual assault and rape in Sweden, but Wikipedia doesn't say anything." That would be a blot on our reputation if we didn't mention it. "If I go looking for info, and Wikipedia doesn't have it, then Wikipedia has failed." — Baseball Bugs. We are uncensored.
That still leaves the question of whether it should be mentioned in the lead or only in the body. In the body, definitely. Whitewashing and disappearing unpleasant history, no matter its nature, is against everything Wikipedia stands for. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I misread that previous thread and apologize for saying it was you who deleted it. Regarding the content, we dont include everything we find, and we have to follow BLP rules. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There were no charges. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then what does this mean?
"The warrant was appealed to the Svea Court of Appeal which upheld it, but lowered the charge to suspicion of rape of a lesser degree, unlawful coercion and two cases of sexual molestation rather than three."
Just like other countries, Sweden does not issue arrest warrants without charges. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What that text means is that, shocker, at some point a bad faith editor has added unsourced content to the article. Thanks for spotting it. The text about "lowering" "two rather than three" and "charges" is not mentioned in any of the sources added in pretence of supporting it. There were no charges. Yes, like some other European countries - including the UK - Sweden does exactly that. The EAW was for questioning. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also support the removal of this content, I would have removed this too if I had noticed it. The whole mention of rape in the LEAD is highly pejorative. We are not going to get into WP:OR about your ideas if Sweden "does not issue arrest warrants without charges" nor what this could be WP:SYNTH to mean in this particular case. I suggest to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa! I have made three comments and you have made five, and you tell me!!! to DROPTHESTICK? Ownership much? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be in the intro because it is an important part of the story. Otherwise readers will be wondering what happened.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They can always click the wikilink and learn about it. This is a weight issue, not a content issue. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also think the sexual assault allegation should be mentioned in the lead as otherwise it is a gaping hole in the whole embassy business. That the case was later dropped should also be mentioned in the same or a just adjacent sentence. Any details should be left to the appropriate section and the article about it. BLP is quite clear that innocence should be assumed unless a case in proven in court. Whether people believe that or not or hate or love him for anything else he has or has not done their feelings are inappropriate in the lead. Wikipedia may not be censored, but on the other hand it is very definitely not Twitter or X ẚ Trump NadVolum (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The UK embassy saga is not related to the nature of the accusations, it was only related to the suspicion that Sweden wanted to collect the article subject so they could extradite him to the US to face charges. The saga would have been the same if Sweden sought to extradite for jaywalking. We all know that. The way that the US continued to attempt to extradite until the UK courts largely ruled against it, supports this position. We already have a wikilink to the sub-article and it contains all the info that the reader may want. The use of the term "rape" and "sexual" in the LEAD and headings unduly disparages the BLP subject with maximum possible undue weight. We have quite a lot of precedent for this on other BLPs, when the accusations are retracted (essentially what happened here per WP:QUACK) then we remove from the article, or at least down weight massively. At this point we are only discussing down weight. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if the threat of extradition is relevant here. If I understand this correctly, it's about the reason he fled to the UK from Sweden. It's because of the accusations of rape. Without that information, his flight to the UK makes no sense. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He didn’t “flee” to the UK. That’s simply fiction. He travelled to the UK for a journalism event. Before he left, he and his lawyers asked the Swedish authorities if it was OK for him to leave to the UK. The Swedish authorities said yes, it is. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read the flipping article about it rather than making things up. NadVolum (talk) 10:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if that information was in the article. Is that "journalism event" and the request mentioned?
I rearranged the first two paragraphs so events are in chronological order. It was a mess. The same needs to be done with the rest, as it's a jumble, BUT, isn't this far too much detail for this article? The main "Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority" article is where all the details should be. Here we only need a long paragraph to sum it up. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As previously stated, I think that the fact that Assange was investigated for sex crimes should be in the intro. Time for an RfC?--Jack Upland (talk) 04:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda looks like that as I am opposed to it in the LEAD Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Might be an idea okay to cut down future arguments. My preferred option would be to have something about it but immediately say it was later dropped and leave it at that. NadVolum (talk) 12:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, include it with such a statement, and make sure that the reason the charges were dropped (expiration of the statute of limitations) is mentioned, otherwise, readers may falsely assume it was because he was innocent or there was no evidence. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not in the business of handing down sentences on people. Readers can look it up if they want to but we can't start putting the whole business into the lead and the presumption if a person is not found guilty is innocence. Just put the bare basics that he was accused and the charges were later dropped. NadVolum (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need to make clear that Assange faced extradition to Sweden having exhausted all his appeals. He then decided to breach bail (fail to present to the court) and seek refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy. The Swedish case - which many Assange supporters claim was a CIA plot - is actually pivotal to the saga.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We dont need to make any of this clear in the LEAD, and the LEAD is what we are talking about. There is an entire sub-article Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority that goes over the minutia, which it seems you are talking about here. We have existing BLP policy and precedent about using these sexual allegations in the article and especially in the LEAD when the allegations are retracted or never charged. As far as I can remember we had the women stating they opposed charges, Sweden sorta wanting to investigate (and didnt follow through), and the thing eventually timed out (or was dropped due to lack of evidence). Also you are essentially making a MOS:LEADREL stating that you want more weight to the word sexual, as the rest of the content is there. This is against policy as we can see three issues, first a WP:BLP issue, second WP:BLPCRIME, and then third a LEADREL weight issue dealing with NPOV, where we all know the fight against extradition (to Sweden and then on to the US) is the issue needing weight, which it currently has. Essentially you need to overcome all of those (seems very unlikely). Therefore, it needs to stay out of the LEAD per WP:BLPRESTORE, finding WP:LOCALCONSENSUS here is not going to override that. If you are not comfortable with that, then run an RFC and we can see if others agree or I end up being wrong. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you say many Assange supporters believe it was a CIA plot, Assange himself thought he was liable to be extradited to the US. And you want to 'make clear' your own POV in the lead. And we've got another contributor who wants to make it clear in the lead that he was not formally cleared of the charges. Can we try and make the lead a quick summary please and keep all these POV's for the main body thanks where there is more room for nuance? NadVolum (talk) 08:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we all need to stop trying to 'make it clear' in the lead ;-) The lead summarizes (we all know that), this is already a TOOLONG article (we also know that) and we are discussing adding more to the lead rather than pruning the article ;-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My comments about making it clear have been misconstrued. I was making the point that the intro is a signpost to the article. I was not attempting to insert POV. No one here knows what my POV is. Jack Upland (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Making things clear is important because the saga is so convoluted and even experienced editors who have worked on this page for years have got it wrong. Jack Upland (talk) 01:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors have got it wrong for years and you want to make it clear in the lead? Give us a break. NadVolum (talk) 08:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what is being argued here, but we all know the LEAD summarizes and on a BLP we have additional rules to adhere to. This article was highly publicized for years, maybe that will die down now that the controversial proposed extradition has been dropped. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that if allegations have been dropped and there are reliable secondary sources to that effect, it doesn't belong in the lead. To the question of WP:PUBLICFIGURE stating "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it", well the allegations are noteworthy, relevant, and well documented because they started a series of events which ended up with him skipping bail in the Ecuadorian embassy and then being evicted from the embassy and then jailed for a year for skipping bail. How much prose we give to the allegations in the body however should be dictated by the fact that the allegations have been dropped. TarnishedPathtalk 10:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should stop arguing and have a flipping RfC!Jack Upland (talk) 05:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Asking at WP:BLPN with a quick summary of the positions might get another point of view or a quicker response. NadVolum (talk) 12:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think an RfC would be better because it would attract comment from people who are interested. I intend to set up the RfC, but "life" has intervened and I haven't had a chance.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jtbobwaysf: You are radically misintepreting "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." because your conclusion that "The question is if the allegations persist, or were dropped" appears to be incompetently derived... It does not matter whether the incident or allegation persists, it just has to have existed at one point. Does learning this information change your position? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't belong in the LEAD as it is not an accurate summary of what happened. The sexual allegations themselves were not particularly noteworthy. We deliberately down-weight dropped allegations as a common practice across all BLPs and this meets that criteria. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"We deliberately down-weight dropped allegations as a common practice across all BLPs" we do that for non-public figures... Julian Assange is a public figure. They seem to be particularly noteworthy, they seem to have defined the the subject's career and legacy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of the arrest warrant, not the nature of the allegations, were the relevant factor. Since 2019, it's evidently had little to no influence on the subject's prior publishing work and legacy. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very long

This article is too long to read and navigate comfortably. As of 31 August 2024, its readable prose size was 14,225 words. Consider splitting content into sub-article or condensing it. The article size impacts usability in multiple ways: Reader issues, such as attention span, readability, organization, information saturation, etc. (when articles are large). Total article size should be kept reasonably low, particularly for readers using slow internet connections, screen readers, mobile devices or who have slow computer loading. Some large articles exist for topics that require depth and detail, but typically articles of such size are split into two or more smaller articles.

Word count What to do
> 15,000 words Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed.
Julian Assange
14,225 words		 Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed
> 9,000 words Probably should be divided or trimmed.

—◀ Isaidnoway (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC) ▶—[reply]

Good point. Lets start to summarize the sections where we have sub-articles. There are some very long sections right now where we can easily just summarize the sub-articles. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just keep in mind that size alone is not a good argument for deletion of content. I disagree that this article is too long, but if done properly, it might be possible to make it smaller. Always keep WP:PRESERVE, a policy, not a guideline, in mind, so fix rather than delete. Size is a guideline, and there is no requirement that a reader has to be able to read an article in 15 minutes. A long topic may take several hours to read, and that doesn't mean the article is too long.
Look for unnecessary duplication, wordiness than can be condensed, etc. Sections that are so long that they create a due weight problem can be split off into legitimate fork subarticles. That is often the quickest way to make an article smaller without Wikipedia losing that content. It just gets moved. Those are just some things to keep in mind. Carry on. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is too much of "they said this", we really do not need this much talking head content. A good bio should say who they are and what they are notable for, and really not much more, we are not a gossip column. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't include trivia (only in gossip rags and bad sources) and non-notable gossip, but notable gossip should be included per WP:Public figures, even if slanderous and provably untrue (we have lots of articles for such content), unlike for non-public persons, where we tend to leave it out, even if true. Notability applies solely to the creation of articles, not their content, and an article will contain lots of content (possibly most of the content) that does not count toward "what they are notable for". Once an article qualifies for GNG (the most important and notable content), other stuff gets added that does not count toward "what makes them notable". It is part of the sum total of human knowledge found in RS about that person that we are supposed to include. Other guidelines help us deal with certain aspects of that (such as trivia and very short-lived headlines). -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But none of that tells us anything about him, only what people think of him, and this is why this article is so large. Note, yes wp:n applies to article creation, as in what the subject is notable for, not everything about the topic that can be found. Most of this content tells us nothing about him, or his life. But if people are OK with the article being unreadable, fine, it will to have the effect they think it will. 16:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree. Some of it can be spun off into legitimate subarticles. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "unreadable", but it's common to not read a book in one sitting, and that's also the case with large articles about very notable and controversial people and topics. Those articles are not meant to be digested quickly. Size alone is not a good argument for deleting content, but it often is a good argument for splitting off content. Above all, we try to WP:PRESERVE it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the Hearings into extradition section could be condensed without loss of factual content. It seems to me to be very repetitive and in some instances inconsequential.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would remind users this is Wikipedia not Assangeapedia, not everything about him is (or said about him) wp:notable (remember just because an RS has said it, does to mean we have to include it). Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the bar is fairly low. Especially if you include Pokémon characters and Simpsons episodes. NadVolum (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is a problem, too much silly trivia, but I am unsure that is a great justification for more trivia. Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven, you must have missed my comment above, so copying it here. WP:N does not apply to what we're talking about.
We don't include trivia (only in gossip rags and bad sources) and non-notable gossip, but notable gossip should be included per WP:Public figures, even if slanderous and provably untrue (we have lots of articles for such content), unlike for non-public persons, where we tend to leave it out, even if true. Notability applies solely to the creation of articles, not their content, and an article will contain lots of content (possibly most of the content) that does not count toward "what they are notable for". Once an article qualifies for GNG (the most important and notable content), other stuff gets added that does not count toward "what makes them notable". It is part of the sum total of human knowledge found in RS about that person that we are supposed to include. Other guidelines help us deal with certain aspects of that (such as trivia and very short-lived headlines). -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nad and Stephen, recent your comments here do not seem to be useful and seem to be mocking the process, referring to "Assangeapedia" and "Pokemon". I dont see any references in the article to pokemon or Assangeapedia, please refrain from making these comments that appear to mock either wikipedia, our process, or editors here. I am not sure what is being mocked (if that is what is going on), but none of it is ok. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article List of material published by WikiLeaks. We could cut down some of the repetitive stuff such as Assange released a leak about X, Assange released a leak about Y. Of course, we need to cover the major leaks and give the reader a taste of what Assange was doing, but I think we could cut this down overall.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, totally agree. Lets just trim all this and summarize while pointing to this list of material published. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Far too much detail about the sexual assault matters

There is far too much detail for this article. The main "Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority" article is where all the details should be. Here we only need a long paragraph to sum it up. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. For the moment, I've copied and pasted the version that existed prior to a 8500-byte expansion of the section on 17 March. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with th revert. In a section which refers to another article for details the contents should normally be an approximtion of the summary section of the other article. NadVolum (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the user above points out we have this issue in many sections. maybe we can work together to summarize those other sections as well. let's try to get the article back under 10k characters...Jtbobwaysf (talk)
See my comment above. WP:PRESERVE is a policy, unlike Size, which is a guideline. Just be careful. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a another article which is main for the subject matter then the extra here that is not there can normally just be moved to the main article covering the subject matter instead. NadVolum (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I opened this thread with a link to the right article, Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority. There can be lots of very specific detail there. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)-- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned that considerations of size are being used as a smokescreen to cover censorship of this article.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything like that. NadVolum (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't made any claims relating to size to remove the now defunct sexual allegations. Size does apply to a need for better summarization of the large section, such as the leaks, etc. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the details should be reduced given the charges/arrest warrant was dropped. I believe it should be removed from the lead and maintained with reduced prose in the body. See my comments in the sexual assault in the lead thread. TarnishedPathtalk 10:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fear of SWE to USA extradition

@Valjean: you removed some content here about if the subject feared extradition from SWE to the USA. Is this content controversial? I did a quick search and see a lot of sources for this, such as BBC. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been a lot more constructive to just look at the main article this is summarizing and copy over the citation. I'll do that now. NadVolum (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Seemed like an odd POV to me as well. The whole reason the subject sat in the embassy was he was presumably afraid of a US jail cell. Sweden is quite famous for releasing people, having comfortable prisons, etc. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did right to actually check though. It would be nice if more people did. NadVolum (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've filled in two other citation needed bits there with cites copied from the main article about it. NadVolum (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, all round. I note that the fact that JA described Sweden as a "US satrapy" has now been relegated to a footnote. But this is an important part in the saga. Why did he call Sweden a "satrapy"? Bear in mind that Sweden was not then a member of NATO. This is an important link in JA's self-justification. If, as Bob points out above, JA had little to fear from Sweden and as JA has repeatedly asserted that he KNEW the US indictment was in the offing, the only explanation is that JA believed that it was easier to be extradited from Sweden than Britain. But where did he reach this conclusion? He might be a genius but he is no lawyer. Did he receive legal advice to this effect? Apparently not, according to the sources I have seen. JA's legal team was reportedly blindsided by his entry into the Embassy. Therefore it is important to include JA's description of Sweden as a "US satrapy" in order to understand the saga.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting, I had never heard any of this. Might be interesting to put the content back in the article, as we do have an article Satrap we could wikilink to (something readers like me might find interesting and novel). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, what is currently footnote 240 - the discursive footnote that mentions "satrapy" - is obviously misplaced due to some editing bungle: cited for "He was limited to roughly 30 square metres (320 sq ft) and ate a combination of takeaways and food prepared by the embassy staff". --Jack Upland (talk) 01:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Julian_Assange&oldid=1246649185"