Surveillance of Julian Assange is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. 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 articles
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Latest comment: 6 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
This whole page literally reads like a conspiracy-fueled rant lifted directly from the Assange Defense team. It's filled with nothing but dubious sources, and links to articles by hardcore Assange suuporters asserting claims with no actual evidence, just supposition, and conclusion-jumping. 2600:6C5A:67F:ED90:7DEF:31F:86C2:11B4 (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
what sources do you have a problem with? CNN? El Pais? Associated Press? Reuters? Be specific
just supposition, and conclusion-jumping. like what? Softlemonades (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
The zero problems identified in the complaint have been fixed using zero edits and therefore the tag has been removed. NadVolum (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
What part of the sentence do you believe has undue weight? Burrobert (talk) 03:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Shes guessing about the future and things shes not an expert in Softlem (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
There are two parts to the sentence. She predicts that the surveillance "could be used in support of the extradition case". She also says that "the surveillance was conducted on behalf of the US government". She is not a lawyer so the first part may be problematic, although it is not a controversial statement. It is reasonable for a journalist to conclude that "the surveillance was conducted on behalf of the US government" based on their research. Seymour Hersh, for example, recently concluded that the U.S. blew up the Nord Stream 2 pipeline based on information he received. Burrobert (talk) 11:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Youre right and Im okay with the part that she thinks "the surveillance was conducted on behalf of the US government" Softlem (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
