Talk:Julian Assange

Lead section

I definitely think we need to discuss the lead section again. Several editors have called for the inclusion of the arrest warrant and related controversy in the lead section. Assange only became known to a wider audience this autumn in connection with this controversy (I didn't even know who he was before). According to Google News Archive[1], the vast majority of the press coverage mentioning this person is from 2010 and it's reasonable to believe most of it is related to the ongoing controversy. In my opinion, this controversy deserves to be mentioned in the lead section, since he's primarily mentioned in the press in connection with it. Jeannedeba (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not really a conclusion that you can draw. Most of the press (and why people are talking about the charges to begin with) are because of the Baghdad airstrike video, Afghan War Diary and Iraq War documents leak; the latter being the biggest leak in military history of the United States. Nymf _hideliho! 22:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Even if a significant portion of the press coverage stems from these incidents, there will still be a very significant portion of it that stems from the incident in Sweden. Also, the latter focuses more on his person, making it at least one of his primary claims to fame (along with his activism). Most people who act as spokespeople/whatever for websites never become subjects of Interpol arrest warrants. Jeannedeba (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

This might be of interest to you. July, that's a month before the incident in Sweden. And even in August, about 60% of the coverage is before the incident. So as you probably can tell, the majority of the coverage is not related to the incident in Sweden at all. Nymf _hideliho! 23:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely his arrest warrant and related controversy should be included in the lead; the lead section of an article, according to the Manual of Style, should summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. Quigley (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur that this information can and should be included in the lede. I had twice restored this information to the lede after it had been deleted, by two different editors, for what they stated were violations of policy, although what exactly these violations might have been was left unexplained despite my specific request that an explanation be given on the talk page. Anyway, an event that finds its way on to the pages of newspapers around the world generally passes the notability test. Regardless of how this turns out, this event will be a permanent part of Assange’s legacy. Hammersbach (talk) 01:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I too think it should be covered, briefly, in the lede. No more than one sentence. Gigs (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:iLEAD, it should be mentioned; it's a significant controversy and there's a great deal of coverage about it. We currently don't even have a subhead that accurately describes it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Based on this discussion I added a single sentence of Assange's current difficulties to the lede. Looking at it though I don't know whether it is necessary to list all the charges against him, perhaps something simplier like "sexual related offences"? Hammersbach (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fine the way you expressed it, HB. Best to stick closely to the sources in a situation like this, and that's how they describe it. I think we should also add something to the lead about his work with Wikileaks, though, to flesh it out a bit more. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

< just fwiw I don't agree that the rape charges are appropriate in the lead - I feel they fall foul of 'undue weight' - in short, whilst they answer the question 'what's going on with Julian Assange at the moment?' quite well, they aren't so good at 'give me an overview of Julian Assange', which I think we should be aiming for. Privatemusings (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)I'd be cool with them in the body of the article, I think

Our policy on undue weight requires us to weight articles in proportion to the amount of secondary source coverage. Assange has unquestionably drawn a huge amount of coverage regarding these rape charges, so it's entirely appropriate for his article to have a section on them, and for them to be briefly summarized in the lede. A hazard of being someone who normally eschews the spotlight is that you might not have a whole lot of positive coverage out there when something negative gets a large amount of coverage. Gigs (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe this is a case of an awful lot of coverage on a specific, (very) narrow issue. The spread of coverage is to be expected, however doesn't, in my view, speak to the 'width', or importance, of the issue to the article. I feel that for this information to be mentioned in the lead is synonymous with an assertion that it is in some way as weighty as JA's involvement with WikiLeaks, or indeed as important as the rest of the overview. It's not, and that's why I continue to believe that the lead falls foul of 'undue weight' and could be improved. Cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

ps. I removed the 'fugitive' bit because, per my edit summary, I feel it's pejorative, and an inappropraite synthesis of information - per the above, it's also unnecessary. Privatemusings (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I see I've been reverted by an IP address - perhaps that's someone here who's accidentally logged out? - Either ways, I disagree with the edit summary stated. 'Fugitive' is not simply an english word, it is, I'm afraid, far from neutral. I will sit and wait for a while to see if the IP has a chance to engage here - I'm minded to re-do my edit. Privatemusings (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Labeling Assange as a "fugitive" is absurd, but I'm afraid Assange has attracted too much attention for a rational treatment to occur here. When this first blew up I read a bit about the background somewhere, and it is also absurd to conflate this case with what people understand by "rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion". Again, we'll have to wait for the dust to settle (a year or two?). Johnuniq (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ouch, no. Massively undue! The whole lead needs expanding under WP:LEAD BUT just adding that paragraph is extremely undue - it is worth reading this advice for the reason it is a BLP issue. Do not simply re-add it without significant consensus. I would support a fuller addition to the lead summarising the whole article, which could then deal with this in a sentence with ease. The whole section is suffering from exceptional recent ism, which is, as before, disappointing. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The lead is specifically supposed to include significant controversies. If you think other parts of the lead need expansion, then expand them, don't remove stuff that belongs there. Gigs (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

“I would support a fuller addition to the lead summarising the whole article, which could then deal with this in a sentence with ease.” May I join the suggestion, Errant, that you perhaps draft a version of what you feel would be an acceptable “fuller addition”? Your expertise in WP:BLP issues would help us all in creating an appropriate lede. I look forward to reading your proposal, cheers! Hammersbach (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the onus is on those adding controversial content to get it right. I will expand the lead - but have no time till this evening. However, if you want to add it back in the meantime I encourage you to do the expansion --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The content was "right" in that it is factually correct, relevant, and not excessively long. Gigs (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Just for future reference that doesn't really matter - the point it was shoved there on its own and so became an issue. It's moot now because I (and others) have expanded the lead. It's a bit rough and ready but a reasonable start point I think. Probably needs work on the detail. However; I do not think we need to list all the charges in the lead, that is covered in the article and it seems a bit pointy to list them again so prominently. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It is completely inappropriate for the lead. Charges on their own without a conviction are not a notable controversy. It's only notable if Assange is actually guilty of something. If he is pronounced "not guilty" of sex crimes it will not be worthy of going in the lead, so why is it worthy of going in the lead when it has not even gone to court, meaning absolutely no evidence has been presented? Please find a single featured article, or even just a good article, where mere charges are included in the lead. I will bet there is not a single such featured article on Wikipedia. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I disagree on that; there is an outstanding arrest warrant and this is recently notable and ongoing, and has been for some time now. I disagree with how it was presented, but it definitely deserves to be dealt with (perhaps with a single line?). The aim of the lead is to summarize the biography in a hands off way as best possible; ideally for an article of this length we would expect about four paragraphs. The rest of your argument is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 00:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The essay you point to says "Sometimes these comparisons are invalid, and sometimes they are valid". Can you explain why such charges without conviction should be mentioned not only in the article but also in the lead, when the sexual harassment charges against Al Gore do not appear anywhere in his article? To include them in the article would be bad enough. To put it in the lead would be outrageous. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Our policy on undue weight says that our coverage should roughly mirror the weight of coverage in reliable sources. Since Al Gore has massive coverage for things other than those charges, it merits much less prominence in his article. Assange has drawn a large amount of coverage for these charges in proportion to all the other coverage that he's ever gotten, so it should weigh more prominently in his article. It may not seem right or fair, but that's the way our policy is structured. Gigs (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't really think it's true that "Assange has drawn a large amount of coverage for these charges in proportion to all the other coverage that he's ever gotten". I think that's a perfect example of WP:RECENTISM. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue only began on the 20th of August this year. Assange recieved a huge amount of media attention in the six months prior to that, and a significant amount even earlier, but those sources receive comparatively little coverage in this article, compared to the currently huge section on Assange's charges. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right that the article should give more weight to the extent he was involved in the helicopter video and the wikileaks releases. We shouldn't overlap too much with the main article on Wikileaks though, it needs to be the material directly relevant to Assange's involvement. So expand those parts, don't remove the other parts which unquestionably deserve a prominent role in his article. Gigs (talk) 02:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I still don't think it "unquestionably" deserves a "prominent role". Charges can be brought against anyone with no real basis. It doesn't mean anything valuable until there is a conviction. I still think it's tabloid journalism, and it should not be repeated by an encyclopaedia. But I haven't removed any of the material from the article, just from the lead. I think the lead is more than large enough already for an article this short. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The arrest warrant should definitely be in the lead, along with the reason, per LEAD. The coverage of it is so widespread it looks very odd for us to tuck it away. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

No it looks very odd for us to include it the lead, considering that no other biographies articles include such charges without conviction in the lead, and many articles don't include such charges at all such as the Al Gore article. However, if we are going to mention it then, we would have to word it showing both sides by saying something like this:

In August, a Swedish prosecutor brought sexual assault charges against Assange but the charges were withdrawn the following day. In November, the charges were reissued by a new prosecutor and the charges were followed by an international warrant for his arrest. Assange has denied the allegation and Swedish lawyer representing Assange said that the evidence against Assange was "very meager. It's not enough to get him convicted for crime".

But I don't think we should mention it at all. It's merely tabloid style journalism to do so. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps if VP Dick Cheney is indicted, charged, "Red Alert" through Interpol with regards to conspiracy to commit bribery in Nigeria you all can take that for a lead on how to work this out, no? Emyth (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No, not really. If you think there is a problem at Cheney's page you should raise your concerns there. Same counts the other way around of course.TMCk (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Uhm, the part about him being wanted because a condom broke during sex is obviously BS. That unprotected sex between two consenting adults is illegal in Sweden is a claim that simply doesn't hold water - where would the swedish children come from? If that part shouldn't be removed it should, at least, be followed by better sources (a reference to the relevant part of the swedish penal code might be the way to go?). Anyway, referencing two american newspapers, who themselves supplies no hard evidence for their claims, is simply too sloppy in regards to establishing a correct representation of A: What Assange is being charged with B: What is and isn't legal in Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.89.60.53 (talk) 05:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Fugitive 2

There's no reason to call him a fugitive. International criminal law is a complex thing, and there's no evidence that he is eluding capture currently. An arrest warrant in one country may never make it to any other country for arrest and extradition. As well, the other country may refuse to arrest him. Failing to return to a country where you know there's an arrest warrant out for you isn't fugitive behavior, it's common sense. Gigs (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There's been a series of back and forths on this one - let's hope it settles down. Please engage here, IP mr. 99 - it's more helpful to discuss at this point, rather than just re-do the same edits over and over. Cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"Failing to return to a country where you know there's an arrest warrant out for you isn't fugitive behavior, it's common sense." Language is a precise tool and fugitive means "fugitive - someone who is sought by law officers;". We also have a reliable neutral source clearly applying the term to Julian Assange:http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s3071847.htm .99.141.243.84 (talk) 02:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"Failing to return to a country where you know there's an arrest warrant out for you isn't fugitive behavior, it's common sense" - when did criminal behaviour (evading an arrest warrant, even an Interpol arrest warrant) become "common sense"? Common sense among criminals, maybe? But we aren't supposed to help the criminals, we are supposed to help the police. People who are sought by the police are obliged to turn themselves in, failing to do so is criminal in itself. Jeannedeba (talk) 05:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we've all done something that's a crime in Saudi Arabia. If they issue an arrest warrant for you will you obligingly travel there and turn yourself in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.149.187 (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Note also the article is and has for some time been included in these two categories:

• Category:Fugitives wanted by Sweden
• Category:Fugitives wanted on sex crime charges

He's included in those because he is a.... fugitive. .99.141.243.84 (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

per discussion above, I actually feel it's best that we remove these cat.s pending further discussion. In truth they're simply not a good fit. Privatemusings (talk) 03:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope. If you feel Wikipedia shouldn't use these categories, you need to nominate the categories for deletion, not remove them in one single article (that is, making an exception just for Julian Assange). As long as the categories for fugitives exist, they are valid categories that are to be used in the articles where they are relevant. Jeannedeba (talk) 05:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read the discussion before you create new sections on his status as a fugitive. There is already a section discussing this matter. This is very simple: 1) We have categories for fugitives 2) They are used for people who have arrest warrants, which is the only criterion for inclusion as far as I'm aware. 3) Assange not only has a national (Swedish) arrest warrant, he has an Interpol arrest warrant (most fugitives only have national arrest warrants). 4) Assange's lawyer has stated that Assange is deliberately going to evade justice (not turning himself in as he is required to in order to cease being considered a fugitive by Interpol and the Swedish authorities), although this doesn't really make a difference since he already became a fugitive the moment an arrest warrant (especially an international arrest warrant) was issued 5) Reliable sources such as the ABC have described him as a fugitive Jeannedeba (talk) 04:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I just had a look at the recent edit history. I think it's unncessary to describe him as a fugitive in the lead section (per this edit: [2]), because we have already said there are arrest warrants for him, which means the same. Of course, there is nothing wrong with calling him a fugitive, a sourced fact, but there's no need to say the same thing tategories for people sought by law enforcements agencies only from this article (making an exception just for him) because you like Assange or whatever is not the way to do it. Either nominate all the fugitive categories for deletion and have them wice. The categories are a different matter because we have a (very) extensive system of categories for people with arrest warrants used thoughout Wikipedia, and they are all named "fugitives... something" (check out the main Category:Fugitives). The inclusion of the categories is merely a matter of adhering to the existing category system, which we need to do, of course. Jeannedeba (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It is silly to use the "fugitive" label because that leaves us with no suitable term to describe a real fugitive – someone who is actually fleeing from arrest. Just above is an attempt to justify "fugitive" with this Australian ABC link. However, that only features the reporter saying "Sweden has already turned down Julian Assange's residency application. After the court's decision he's become a fugitive from the country he wanted to call home." which is not using "fugitive" in the technical sense of someone evading capture by law enforcement authorities. Johnuniq (talk) 05:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and further, I support the recent edits to the article by Greg. I don't believe the categories are a good fit at all either, and don't believe we are bound by policy or practice elsewhere in this regard. I feel there's a chance of consensus emerging that 'fugitive' is an unnecessary, and inappropriate term to be using at this time, and that that will apply to both the body of text, and categories. Privatemusings (talk) 09:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The relevant policy here is WP:BLPCAT - categories should probably go because they are somewhat loaded and we try to avoid using them unless uncontroversial --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 09:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

On balance, policy strongly supports removal of the categories, so I have done so. Please do not re-add them without sufficient consensus. The relevant policy says: Not all categories are comprehensive: For some "sensitive" categories, it is better to think of the category as a set of representative and unquestioned examples, while a list is a better venue for an attempt at completeness. Particularly for "sensitive" categories, lists can be used as a complement to categorization. and Exert extra precaution with regard to the categorization of living people as well as: Caution should be used with categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation. There is an unclear and controversial case for referring to Assange as a fugitive; so there is no basis for the cats at this time. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 09:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur with those siding against the use of the word "fugitive" and the adding of cats. At this point simply stating that a warrant exists is sufficient. Hammersbach (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Question: When is a fugitive not a fugitive?

Answer: When biased writers are seeking to obscure the unassailable reality of language, facts and reliable source references.

Only in Wikipedialand can a handful of partisans, after a call to arms, take the simple fact of an accused rapist and molester currently fugitive from an international arrest warrant and spin it into the mushnothingness of "2010 legal difficulties and charges" while obfuscating all basic elements under a pile of well, misdirection, smoke and mirrors. A basic description of reliably sourced facts should not be held hostage to extended negotiations with apologists, starfuckers and declared partisans.72.5.199.254 (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur. The consensus is that the categories stay (because they haven't been deleted). There is no basis whatsoever for removing the categories that are used for people with arrest warrants (=people sought by law enforcements agencies). His arrest warrant is extremely well publicized and notable. Arguing that a man who has an Interpol arrest warrant out for him, whose lawyer says he's not going to turn himself is (=actively evading justice), is "not a fugitive" is just plain silly and has nothing to do with serious encyclopedic work. If Assange isn't a fugitive, nobody is a fugitive (we don't have any other criteria/definition than being sought by law enforcement agencies=having an arrest warrant). Wikipedia practice doesn't agree with that point of view. I also refer to my above comment regarding the attempt by Assange to hijack/influence this article.

Removing the categories for people sought by law enforcements agencies only from this article (making an exception just for him) because you like Assange or whatever is not the way to do it. Either nominate all the fugitive categories for deletion and have them removed entirely, or they'll need to stay. Jeannedeba (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but BLP policy far outweighs article level consensus. Your argument boils down to a variant of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There is not much wrong with the category itself; but its use on BLP articles must be addressed with care. The rest of your arguments are the common non-policy based ad-hominem bits and bobs - i.e. irrelevant. I'd point out that it appears this is OR as well (to include the categories) due to the dirth of sources actually identifying him as a fugitive. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please quote policy verbatim and explicitly indicate the precise violation you allude to. Nothing in Wikipedia policy, BLP or otherwise prohibits Verifiable and Reliably Sourced text from any article .. at all. Nor the application of Categories. The subject of this article is a fugitive wanted by the lawful authorities in Sweden for, amongst other things, Rape and molestation. This may be uncomfortable, but our purpose is to record, not act as house publicists. More appropriate outlets for activism, idolation and willful distortion exist elsewhere.72.5.199.254 (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

BLP is of no relevance to this discussion, so kindly stop wikilawyering. Fugitive means "being sought by law enforcement agencies". The category is used for people who are sought by law enforcement agencies. The fact that Assange is a fugitive, being sought by law enforcement agencies is an extremely well sourced and publicized fact. BLP would apply if we didn't know for sure if there was an arrest warrant for him. But we know an arrest warrant has been formally issued by Swedish authorities, and by Interpol, and that he is one of the most famous fugitives from justice today, making it one of his primary claims to fame that the categories need to address. The issuing of an arrest warrant by Swedish authorities has by Swedish law formally made him a fugitive wanted by Sweden whether you like it or not (which is irrelevant). I'm amazed how some users are able to deny the fact that he is wanted by Sweden, and again refer to the attempt by Assange to hijack the article, which must be resisted. Jeannedeba (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Is that so? Wikipedia describes a fugitive as someone who is fleeing custody. It is a pejorative term, and as such, BLP does apply. Nymf _hideliho! 17:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

A person who is wanted by law enforcement agencies is in fact fleeing from custody. Assange has been arrested in his absence by Swedish police and is fleeing from custody by refusing to turn himself in. You are completely mistaken if you believe the word "fugitive" only applies to people who have already been in jail. The important thing is whether one is sought by law enforcement agencies (per Category:Fugitives wanted by the International Criminal Court and other categories used for people who have never been caught yet). Also see [3]: "a person who is running away or hiding from the police [...] Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid were fugitives from justice (= they ran away to avoid being tried in court).". It doesn't say anything about the term being "pejorative", so I assume this is just your personal opinion. Jeannedeba (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Is that the case, however? International warrants are not a simple matter. I read that his lawyer said it could take up to two weeks for the paperwork and red tape to be sorted out (but the source wasn't stellar). As far as we know, the police whatever country he is in knows exactly where he is, and he is making absolutely no effort to obscure his location from them. There really is no evidence that I have seen to claim that he is attempting to elude capture. Where is the reliable sourcing that he's actually trying to evade capture? "Waiting for the local police to be ready to take you into custody" isn't the same as "evading capture". I have seen no evidence that the former isn't the case. Gigs (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this somehow difficult for you to comprehend? His status in the UK is irrelevant, he is considered a fugitive in Sweden. There is a category specifically for people wanted by Sweden. Are you denying that he is wanted by Sweden? Almost any fugitive (plenty of infamous examples) could find a safe haven where the police didn't touch him, that doesn't change their status as a fugitive in other countries. This is a question of his inclusion in the category specifically for people wanted by Sweden. Jeannedeba (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"There really is no evidence that I have seen to claim that he is attempting to elude capture" - there is plenty of evidence that he is evading Swedish justice. In order to have his Swedish arrest warrant withdrawn, he must turn himself in to the police. Until then he remains a fugitive wanted by Sweden. Jeannedeba (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

A month from now I might agree with you. For all we know he's making arrangements right now in order to turn himself in. Failure to catch the very next flight to Sweden isn't evidence that he's eluding anything. Anyway to bring this back to Wikipedia reality and out of the hypothetical clouds, we need a secondary source that actually asserts he's eluding justice, something more than just an offhand comment by a reporter during a round table discussion taken out of context. Gigs (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

His lawyer has said publicly on his behalf that he is not going to turn himself in. Whether he has an intention of, eventually, turning himself in, doesn't change a thing anyway, since he became fugitive from Swedish justice the moment the arrest warrant was issued (it was issued because he didn't turn himself in voluntarily in the first place - believe me, Interpol arrest warrants are not issued for people who are willing to make arrangements for taking the next flight back and turn themselves in. Obviously, if he wanted to turn himself in, as he is required to do immediately, he would have returned to Sweden days ago).[4] Jeannedeba (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

From your own link: "It would normally take at least five working days, perhaps upwards of 15 working days after the appeal is treated, that The search is communicated to the authorities in the relevant country and at that point will we, if so, look at it and see if it is authentic." My point is that people are in such a hurry to label Assange as a fugitive when the police in the country he is in are probably not even seeking him yet. As I've repeated many times, international warrants aren't a simple matter. It's absolutely premature to call him a fugitive. Gigs (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Even further, the link you provide says he has no legal obligation to return to Sweden: "No, not under English law, not under European law." Gigs (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Jeannedeba, you can accuse me of Wikilawyering and the rest all you like - that is not a valid or useful argument. Quit it. The relevant policy, as I pointed out, is WP:BLPCAT. If your argument is that there is a Swedish arrest warrant and he has not been arrested, as yet, then that is pure Original Research, it is not for you to say I am afraid. The one source you have presented I don't think cuts it very much. So per policy we avoid such categories. This is getting tedious to say the least. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 19:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The categories stay per policy and practice, end of discussion. Jeannedeba (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Stunning. Fuck Verifiability. Fuck Reliable Source. Let's just make shit up about BLP policy - even though it says not one fucking word about censoring verifiable reliably sourced notable and fucking internationally known pertinent biographical information. People are jumping through hoops to change his photo here, directly at Assange's request - then they're buffing up his image, again directly at his request, all while proclaiming his innocence with wild conjecture about all manner of things. It would appear that intellectual honesty is decidedly not Wikipedia's forte. .72.5.199.254 (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I second this. BLP is totally irrelevant for the discussion and has nothing to do with the categories in question. Each time some disgruntled person (Assange or one of his friends here) doesn't get it his way, he makes up some nonsense about BLP. BLP is not a free card or a magic word to enforce a particular POV or disregard neutrality and sourced facts you don't like. Jeannedeba (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no feelings for or against Assange, and I'm familiar with the BLP policy. It would be inappropriate to add that he's a fugitive because it's poorly sourced. The single source the edit relied on was using the phrase imprecisely, rhetorically. When dealing with BLPs, we err on the side of caution for anything contentious, so an edit this like would need multiple reliable secondary sources. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not a question of describing him as a fugitive in the main text, it's a question of inclusion of the category for people wanted by Sweden. There are thousands of sources available for the fact that he is wanted by Sweden. If some believe the "fugitive wanted by [country]" categories, that is, the categories for people who have arrest warrants in various countries, shouldn't use the term fugitive (despite the fact that is the normal English term for a person sought by law enforcement agencies), it's a different question that would need to be addressed at categories for discussion. I don't understand how one could argue that he is not sought by a law enforcement agency, that he is not wanted by Sweden, when he actually is. This boils down to: Do we need a new set of categories for "people who are wanted by law enforcement agencies" (by country) and "people who are wanted by law enforcement agencies on sex crime charges"? And who's going to populate the fugitives by country and fugitives by charges categories, if not the ones who have arrest warrants? Jeannedeba (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That he is wanted in Sweden is not automatically a description of him as a fugitive, it's enough that we need to establish it with sources. Categories are relevant to the article content - so if there is no rationale to call him a fugitive in the text then I can't see how there is rationale to include the category :) If there is a category for "People with arrest warrants in Sweden" that would possibly be acceptable. If you want to create such a set of categories, though, you'd be best off working on a community page perhaps one of the crime wikiprojects? But fugitive is definitely distinct from simply having an arrest warrant issued and deals with those specifically making pains to avoid or flee justice; the colloquial usage is a bit of an Americanism and you definitely wouldn't find it much used over here. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue of an arrest warrant doesn't in itself imply fugitive status. People have arrest warrants issued because they failed to appear in court to deal with a parking fine. You become a fugitive if you're taking active steps to avoid detection by the authority that's looking for you, and we would need multiple reliable sources to call him that before we can add it to the article, or him to a cat. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree 100% with SV. So far what we do have is reliable sources saying that it might take up to 2 weeks to even sort out of the paperwork of an international arrest warrant. Even then, it's up to whatever country he's in to actually pursue the matter. Since he's already said he might try to get asylum status, that's not a given. This warrant could sit there for years while Assange lives a very open and public life if the country he's in declines execute the warrant. Happens all the time. Gigs (talk) 01:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"This warrant could sit there for years while Assange lives a very open and public life if the country he's in declines execute the warrant" - and the relevance is? This doesn't change the fact that he is fleeing from Swedish justice, making him a fugitive wanted by Sweden and a fugitive from justice by Swedish law. Almost any fugitive can find a safe haven, say, in some South American country or whatever. They are still considered fugitives (in other countries). What you are saying is that if some fugitive from justice finds a state in South America, the Middle East or elsewhere that doesn't extradite him, which is quite easy (lots of states don't have extraditition agreements), he ceases being a fugitive. Or say if one of the world's most wanted criminals, wanted by the law enforcement agencies of western nations and by Interpol, found refuge in North Korea, he would stop being a fugitive. Which is wrong, it's not how it works.

I don't think Interpol issues arrest warrants for parking fines, btw. The subject of this article is wanted by Interpol on charges of rape, a serious crime, not parking fines. We also actually have several sources for the fact that he 1) is taking steps to avoid Swedish arrest by refusing to return to Sweden as he is required to (in order to cease being a fugitive from Swedish justice) and 2) living "like a fugitive" (in a more informal sense of the term), seemingly fearing being apprehended by the authorities [5]. He does absolutely not live a "very open and public life", he lives like someone who has escaped from prison or like someone who is formally under arrest (in his absence) in an EU country (as he is). Jeannedeba (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they're called "fugitives".99.141.243.84 (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you a fugative if you are openly in a country that has an extradition treaty with the country that wants you yet local authorities have not arrested you? 220.101.4.140 (talk) 04:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Subheading for readability

When I first edited the discussion I was against the inclusion of the word "fugitive", and I still am. Having said that, in the article we say, "Stephens disputed this saying 'we were willing to meet at the Swedish embassy or Scotland Yard or via video link' and that 'all of these offers have been flatly refused by a prosecutor who is abusing her powers by insisting that he return to Sweden at his own expense to be subjected to another media circus that she will orchestrate'" This clearly implies that Assange is actively avoiding the arrest warrant by his refusal to return to Sweden, which makes it hard for us to say that he is not a "fugitive". Thoughts? Hammersbach (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Having a "video link" meeting with someone wanted by the police is not acceptable under Swedish law, and his lawyer obviously has told him that (unless he's completely incompetent). The arrest warrant in Sweden and through Interpol was issued because he didn't return voluntarily in the first place, and the only thing he can do to cease having an arrest warrant out for him is turning himself in by returning to Sweden and surrendering to the police. By not doing so, he is fleeing from Swedish justice, he is a fugitive from Swedish justice, no matter what his status is in other countries. Jeannedeba (talk) 15:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Per SV and tmorton166, we err on the side of caution in areas like this. Your opinion, while valid, isn't admissible in this discussion, which needs to examine what sources say. It wouldn't be proper even if it wasn't a BLP to mention the current charges in the lede either. --John (talk) 06:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"Your opinion, while valid, isn't admissible in this discussion" How very odd! I didn't realize that I was expressing an opinion per se, rather I thought I was merely asking a question based on what had been inserted in the article, you know, that whole continuity thing we strive for in articles. So tell me, what is my opinion on this? Feel free to base your answer on the first sentence of my previous comment. Hammersbach (talk) 07:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

When you said "This clearly implies that Assange is actively avoiding the arrest warrant by his refusal to return to Sweden, which makes it hard for us to say that he is not a "fugitive", " you expressed your opinion. Your opinion is interesting (though I don't happen to agree with it) but ultimately to include this material we would need reliable sources who make the point you wish to make, and a consensus here to include it. Neither of those is apparent at present and thus we cannot include the material. Make sense? --John (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Right. And have already stated all the relevant facts in the article. Why not leave it up to the reader on whether the controversial label of "fugitive" is appropriate in this case? We've stated the facts, so there is no need for us to apply rhetorical labels. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not a rhetorical label, it's the category for people with his status. If you think it's merely a "rhetorical label", why don't you nominate the large number of existing categories for fugitives wanted by country and fugitives by charges for deletion? We can't have categories which are merely "rhetorical labels", can't we? In any event, I don't think we can decide that categories are "rhetorical" and dismiss their general validity on an article talk page and on a case-by-case basis.

He we have a guy who has a valid arrest warrant on charges of a serious crime issued

• by an EU member state generally considered to be one of the world's most advanced legal systems and societies
• and additionally an international arrest warrant issued through Interpol, which is only done for serious crimes
• who has said publicly that he refuses to return to Sweden, knowing that it's the only acceptable solution under Swedish law (i.e. he will remain fugitive from Swedish justice until he does)
• who lives "on the run" fearing being apprehended[6]
• who is described as a fugitive from Sweden by reliable sources[7]
• And still: Some people claim he's not a fugitive from Swedish justice, believe it or not, turning the world totally on its head.

Once again, it seems someone are trying to make an exception from the category system just for Julian Assange, and I ask myself why?

If you do nominate the fugitive categories for deletion, it's worthwhile to remember that: Fugitive is described as "fleeing arrest"[8], "a person who is fleeing, from prosecution"[9], "fugitives from justice (= they ran away to avoid being tried in court)."[10]. Having found a safe haven doesn't change the fact that one is fleeing arrest by another country.

And moreover, the specific term "fugitive from justice", which is the relevant term here, is defined as: "a person convicted or accused of a crime who hides from law enforcement in the state or flees across state lines to avoid arrest or punishment"[11]. Assange is fleeing from Swedish justice, fugitive from Swedish justice as he currently taking refuge in a different country. Jeannedeba (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

All I see is a bunch of nonsense. Do you have a reliable source that says that he fled Sweden to avoid being prosecuted? Do you have a reliable source, except for the brief, almost non-mention in the source above, that describes him as a fugitive? The article describing him as "on the run" is well before the arrest warrant was issued. You are grabbing at straws where there are none. Nymf _hideliho! 16:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

All I see is a bunch of nonsense from you and a total disregard for sources, English language, neutrality and the category system. Jeannedeba (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

How suave. Now, can you answer my questions? Nymf _hideliho! 16:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

No. Your questions are not real questions. I refer to my above comment (15:42, 24 November 2010). -- Jeannedeba (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

In the case of pejorative terms it is not really for us to apply them. But in that comment you reference "reliable sources" but then only provide one (which isn't a particularly strong one in itself). It is a valid question to ask what the other ones are --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

No, because it's a rhetorical question and hair-splitting. And as a matter of fact, yes, there are secondary sources that use that specific wording ("In September he fled Sweden, where he faced charges of rape and molestation."[12]). But I don't consider them important. The important sources are the ones that deal with his arrest warrant, his refusal to return to Sweden, which makes him a fugitive wanted by Sweden as far as these categories are concerned/used. Whether the word "fugitive" is used by many or few sources is immaterial, and again, I suggest the categories are renamed if some consider that word a problem (although the above dictionaries don't). I haven't seen a single dictionary that claims it's a pejorative term (on the contrary some dictionaries used positive examples such a "fugitive from a dictatorial regime"[13]), so please show us your sources for that claim. As shown above, the term fugitive from justice is used as the standard term for someone taking refuge in a different country in order to avoid arrest in another country. Jeannedeba (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you noticed, but the "source" that you provided is the opinion of a contributing writer only. I could just as well send in an article to be published. So I repeat, you still have not provided a single reliable source that shows Assange fleeing to avoid arrest. On the contrary, actually, as Assange deliberately stayed in Sweden for a considerable amount of time when the allegations were first brought up. Assange has a job, though, that requires him to travel all over the world. He can't drop all that for the possibility that he might be charged with something. Nymf _hideliho! 17:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

He wasn't required to, either. But he was required to when the police told him that they needed to question him and told him to return to Sweden. As he refused to return to Sweden voluntarily, he was "arrested in his absence", and a Schengen and an Interpol arrest warrant was issued. Fleeing from justice=not surrendering to the police when an arrest warrant is issued. Jeannedeba (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

He has agreed to be interrogated while in the UK, so I don't follow your train of thought. Nymf _hideliho! 18:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

And he was told by the prosecutor that it was not an option because it's not permissible under Swedish law and that he was required to return to Sweden to be interrogated. He refused, and then he was arrested in his absence and two days later the Interpol arrest warrant was issued, as anyone who reads the papers are aware. Of course, he may have thought that his "celebrity status" or his habit of loudly claiming the CIA is behind everything would protect him from the law or that rape wasn't such a serious charge (on the level of shoplifting?), and he may have been genuinely surprised when he found himself on Interpol's wanted list. Jeannedeba (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As mentioned; the ABC Australia article isn't overly compelling as a source for using the term (due to the context and the way it is used as a rhetorical device). The NYTimes stuff is entirely unrelated to this; how he lives his life is irrelevant, in fact if he is simply living the same life he did before that sort of counts against your point ;) Anyway; it is synthy and certainly OR to collate those two sources in such a way. If we have some HQRS who discuss him as a fugitive then please - but as it is this is merely days after the warrant issue that seems unlikely. The crusade to get the word in started very quickly and is becoming tiresome; BLPCAT exists for this very reason. Also; quit rolling out the tired old line that we are doing this because of that Twitter status or because we like him. You must stop this now or I will push it to one of the civility boards. I won't detail my personal feelings for the guy (suffice to say; not a personal fan) but having that pushed as a counter argument is annoying and distracting. This is the last friendly warning I'm willing to give. m'kay? BTW your first argument in the above reply is a non sequitor and so not really relevant. To set that argument to rest anyway - I think people will probably be looking into the fugitives category sometime in the near future; I went through just now and have a "hit list" to take to the BLP/N. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

As a side note to this, is it worth noting that an Interpol "Red Notice" is not an arrest warrant? It's the closest thing Interpol can issue to one, but really all it is is a memo to police forces of member States that they may like to issue arrest warrants themselves, or enforce a foreign arrest warrant (depending on the status of foreign warrants under domestic law). Not sure whether this is important or not, so I thought I'd raise it as an issue [bit of a wikinovice :-)]Chrislaing (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

RfC on the arrest warrant in the lead

There is a dispute as to whether the lead of Julian Assange should mention that Sweden has issued an arrest warrant for him. The suggested sentence is (or words to this effect):

Assange has also come to public attention over allegations of sexual assault made by two women in Sweden. An international arrest warrant was issued for him on 19 November 2010 by a Swedish prosecutor on charges of rape, sexual molestation, and unlawful coercion. He has denied the allegations."

Should this be included or not? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Support inclusion. There is widespread international coverage about this, including in the high-quality media, and per WP:LEAD, we should include in the lead any notable controversies. LEAD also says: "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources ..." and this is clearly of great importance to Assange and his future. To tuck it away toward the end of the article makes the whole article seem POV. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• I said above that It wouldn't be proper even if it wasn't a BLP to mention the current charges in the lede either. If they turn out to be significant in the big picture in a few months from now, then we could include them. --John (talk) 07:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion. WP:LEAD tells us that the lede serves as "an introduction to" and "a summary of" the article's "most important aspects." I don't see a legitimate argument that including the proposed sentence complies with that definition; the arrest is clearly not one of the "most important aspects" of the article. If something ends up happening from the arrest warrant, like a conviction or even a trial, I might change my mind. But let's not give undue weight to the arrest warrant in the lede. As policy tells us, undue weight can include, "[f]or example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." All we know is that there was an arrest warrant, the warrant was rescinded days later, the warrant was re-instated, and at every step Assange has disputed the charges. To place these facts, while verifiable, in the lede would give them undue weight and is inappropriate. The proper way to address this topic in an appropriate section within the text of the article; just because its placement may not satisfy some who want it in the lede does not make its placement a POV violation. JasonCNJ (talk) 07:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion, more or less on the grounds given by Jason. Charges on their own are not significant at all; there needs to be a conviction or at least a trial. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion until we are past the recentism territory and have hard DNA or other good evidence, conviction, or at least a trial. The fact that the rape accusation was dropped due to lack of evidence and then revived, tells us that this is not a typical case and caution is warranted. We need to take a wait and see approach. Viriditas (talk) 08:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

DNA? DfuckingNA? DNA is now required for inclusion? Is this a new change to W:Verifiability? And some kind of special "hard DNA" at that? We appear now to have passed completely through the looking glass. 72.5.199.254 (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

If you are not going to stay civil, please do not comment at all. This is not the first time you have been warned. As for the DNA, Assange has confirmed that they had sex, but that it was all consensual. Nymf _hideliho! 14:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I am highly critical of any effort to require DNA evidence as a precursor to inclusion in the encyclopedia. I am also opposed to using Wikipedia as a venue to try the case. These are legitimate concerns. If you feel that the use of exclamations commonly referred to as "swear words" to underline a point is offensive - please remember that Wikipedia is not censored.72.5.199.254 (talk) 14:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

May I direct your attention to WP:CIVIL? I don't think DNA is required to make a mention of it either, but that is besides the point I am trying to make in regard to your conduct here. Nymf _hideliho! 15:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a point there though... DNA evidence is immaterial; this is getting coverage and is ongoing so really has to stay (the section content) but in the long term it will only stay, in such extensive form, if he is convicted (this is the traditional, and just about only, bar of entry into BLP articles). Long term I would say; if convicted it stays, if there is a trial but no conviction then reduce it to the essentials and if there is no trial, a sentence at most. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Now that would be recentism. If this is a widespread practice, it needs to end. We should mostly only include subject matter that would be in a "finished" article 100 years after the subject died. The level of detail that we are able to document is a good thing, and shouldn't be sacrificed after the fact. Gigs (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of how this turns out, the formal charges and his Interpol arrest warrant that attracted worldwide attention will be a major event in his life as a public person. Just imagine if Interpol issued an arrest warrant for Jimbo. Jeannedeba (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, a lot of misunderstanding here. Yes, we know Assange has admitted to consensual sex, but the collection of DNA evidence indicates that a crime was reported and a rape exam was submitted as evidence. This is not essential or necessary for the inclusion of a rape allegation, but rather shows that there is an actual case to be made. Looking at the article and related news reports, there does not appear to be a good case against Assange, and an "arrest warrant was required" not because there is evidence of a rape, but "because it had not been possible to arrange an interview." Furthermore, Gigs is mistaken about how we write articles; very often, the "level of detail" we document is sacrificed after the fact as a biographical topic progresses from start to completion, and for this reason, Wikipedia editors have to be very careful when dealing with accusations and allegations about BLP's that have no basis in solid evidence, but simply amount to a sensationalized, smear campaign in the media. This is not a news organization, this is an encyclopedia. We are not in a hurry to publish the latest and greatest accusations from women involved in a love triangle with Assange. Our job, our role, our task as editors, is to write a biography based on good, solid information, not rumors or accusations. Viriditas (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"Looking at the article and related news reports, there does not appear to be a good case against Assange" [...] "sensationalized, smear campaign in the media"

Excuse me, but this is not for us to decide. We just report what other sources report. No, we don't need to report "accusations from women involved in a love triangle". But we do need to report formal charges, a formal detention order and a formal Interpol arrest warrant that have received worldwide media attention. Jeannedeba (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right, we don't have to decide anything. Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union[14] states that "everyone who has been charged shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law" and that "respect for the rights of the defence of anyone who has been charged shall be guaranteed." Furthermore, the circumstances of the charges appear to be in question. His attorney claimed "he had been falsely accused and that the original prosecutor, Eva Finne, dismissed the investigation. He said the case was raised again after intervention by a Swedish politician."[15] This source is already in the article. Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You are not adding to our discussion now. This is just your personal opinions and/or original research of dubious or no relevance to any content decision at this talk page. Jeannedeba (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a presumption of innocence here, not just in BLPs. Anyone can make an accusation, and according to the sources in the article, the charges were previously dropped and then revived due to political pressure. This is not my opinion. This is all in the sources used in the article. We need to focus on writing a biography, not on adding play by play commentary on the latest trumped up charges to the lead. When things settle down, we will gain some much needed perspective. Accusations do not merit mention in the lead unless there is good evidence supporting them. Viriditas (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support inclusion the very fact that the charges are unusual is what cements their place in the lede. They have drawn a large amount of coverage in relation to the total coverage that Assange has drawn, so they deserve a prominent place in his article. The lede should roughly reflect the article in terms of major points. Leaving mention of them out of the lede would be an absurd conclusion, when the charges are clearly a major part of the article, and the coverage of Assange in total. Downplaying these serious charges does Assange no favor. If these charges are indeed politically motivated as he and others claim, then more light on the issue will help him, not harm him. Our biographical articles are required to cover both positive and negative information, and our guidance from the foundation specifically expressed that overly positive BLPs have no place in Wikipedia. Gigs (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion. If you start looking around (I know, other stuff exists...), these things are often left out in the lead of biographies, even though jail time has even been served. I think we should hold off until/if there is a conviction, or at least a trial. Nymf _hideliho! 14:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. It was included following a clear consensus and has been thoroughly debated. Jeannedeba (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Can you point to where that clear consensus was formed? --John (talk) 15:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
    • It was included by other users following consensus reached in this discussion: Talk:Julian_Assange#Lead_section. Jeannedeba (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Well that consensus has obviously been challenged by multiple good faith editors, so it's kind of irrelevant now. It would be better to make a substantive argument. Gigs (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
        • I have made numerous substantive arguments elsewhere on this very talk page. I refer to them. Jeannedeba (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion of that specific test - it may be possible to enter a single line that is both due weight and neutral w/o being pointy. But the current text is simply point-pushing --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Errant, this isn't about the specific text (which is why I wrote "or words to that effect"). Could you say whether you think any reference to the arrest warrant, and some words about why it was issued, should be in the lead? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion in lead for now per WP:NOT#NEWS and "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid". He's not in Roman Polanksi's position, yet. Further, reading the whole section on that issue, the text proposed for the lead by SlimVirgin fails WP:NPOV; I'm not going to watchlist this article, but suffice to say that picking only one of the details of this rather complex story and emphasizing it in the lead is not a neutral summary. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. Charges are important; even without a trial, charges of sex offenses in particular have changed the courses of careers and lives. For Assange, this arrest warrant is also a significant factor in where he now can and cannot travel. It also relates to the Wikileaks work, as he is trying to frame the charges as being part of some shadowy government conspiracy. Quigley (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• I don't think it's a good idea to mention the arrest warrant and resulting broo ha ha in the lead, because it falls foul of 'undue weight', and 'recentism' - in a few days virtually all the sources will just be going on about the latest release, we shouldn't rejig the lead for that either, although it will likely make the article body. Privatemusings (talk) 03:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion in the lead. This is a BLP, and wikipedia is still not a news source. Obviously, this issue has garnered a great deal of attention, but it's not at all clear how this will pan out in the future. If the charges are dropped at some point in the future, I think it would be uncontroversial to reduce it to a note in the main body, and conversely if he's convicted, this fact would be notable lead material (including his then-current prison whereabouts). IF consensus holds that this should be mentioned in the lead, I think care should be taken to keep it at a reduced and explicitly neutral level. The lead does not mention any other facts that are nearly so specific: the mention of the Afghan and Iraq wikileaks dumps, for example, do not contain any dates or specific information about them, and his entire professional history prior to wikileaks takes up precisely one sentence (namely the second one). A developing specific incident like this should not be elevated above such other, broader and arguably more important, facts. siafu (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion in the lead. This is a very unique case and is hardly straightforward. He has co-operated with swedish police in the past, had it dropped, now re-issued arrest warrent. He is openly living in EU member states that fail to act, he has offered to videolink with swedish police. this is not the definition of a 'fugitive' who is fleeing capture 220.101.4.140 (talk) 04:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion in the lead. This may be a pertinent fact, but it is not among the most pertinent facts for the lead. Just because something is "in the news" at the moment, doesn't mean it is among the most important things about the individual. No objections to it being in the article itself.--Scott Mac 13:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• I notice the Interpol arrest warrant has once again been unilaterally removed by a user, despite the fact that it was included following a consensus decision. I think it should stay until we arrive at a new decision. Currently the lead section includes his "number of journalism awards" and tons of less relevant information, while hiding the main reason he's currently discussed in the media, which is hardly neutral. Jeannedeba (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, the lengthy lead section now includes information on his travel habits(!) ("has described himself as constantly on the move"), but doesn't mention with a word the fact that he is the subject of numerous controversies, has been arrested in Sweden and is under an Interpol arrest warrant on a serious charge. Outrageous! It makes the introduction look more like an advertisement for Wikileaks than a neutral encyclopedia article. Jeannedeba (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Threats against Assange

There is just no way speculation about why a person is still alive and haven't been murdered belongs in a BLP. Tijfo098, if you disagree, please discuss it here before reinstating it again. If it is reinstated, it probably needs to be worded very carefully. Nymf _hideliho! 02:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Your edit summary here can be read as I having left a death threat, which is obviously untrue, and can be perceived as an WP:UNCIVIL attack on me as a result. Further, the sentences are sourced well enough. Goldberg's article was obviously controversial because of that subtitle, and has received WP:SECONDARY coverage. Even more reason to mention it. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The editorial [16] in question is using Assange's case to make a totally unrelated point about conspiracy theories and perceptions of intelligence agencies on the left and right. It's completely rhetorical has no place in his article. Stop restoring it. Gigs (talk) 03:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

By the same argument he's also not an "enemy combatant" (except in the wet dreams of some conservative commentators), so that passage about him should be removed as well. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

If the enemy combatant comments were meant seriously, and it seems that they were, then that's a different kind of thing than using Assange's case as a rhetorical coat rack to talk about conspiracy theories and perceptions of intelligence agencies. If the new editorial actually called for the CIA to kill him, that would be another thing entirely. Gigs (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

“ So again, I ask: Why wasn’t Assange garroted in his hotel room years ago?

It’s a serious question.

[...]

Assange is essentially hiding behind his celebrity and the fact that it wouldn’t do any good to kill him, given the nature of the Web. Even if the CIA wanted to take him out, they couldn’t without massive controversy.

”

Is that your definition of rhetorical? Tijfo098 (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

He goes on to talk about how the CIA isn't like the movies and blames the left for painting them that way. It's all a rhetorical framework for him to make a point about intelligence. A disgusting one, but still rhetorical. Your recent removal of all of the conservative response seems kind of pointy, unless your addition of this editorial was pointy in the first place. Either way, just come out and state your point. Gigs (talk) 03:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The point is simple: either conservative opinion (about him) that has WP:SECONDARY coverage is worthy of inclusion, or it isn't. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Further Christian Whiton, who is the only named source for the "enemy combatant" quote, is even less wikinotable than Jonah Goldberg.Tijfo098 (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I completely reject your false dichotomy, and I suspect other editors will as well. Direct comments calling on the president to treat Assange as an enemy combatant are fundamentally different from an editorial using Assange's case to make an unrelated point about perceptions of intelligence agencies. Lets wait for some more uninvolved editors to comment instead of going around and around in circles here. Gigs (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

False dichotomy, eh? Goldberg bothers to say that Assange is (1) a "bad guy", (2) not a journalist. Both of these claims in Goldberg's articles are discussed by Alex Massie in [17], but of course, they're "fundamentally different" (according to User:Gigs) than a red-link conservative commentator saying he is an "enemy combatant". Tijfo098 (talk) 04:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Further, this is what Salon.com had to say about the Goldberg article:

“ The point of the column is to assert that Assange should be murdered, because he is obviously horrible, while also saying that Goldberg is "OK" with the government not assassinating a foreign national guilty of no actual crime, so that people can't say Goldberg called for Assange to be killed. ”

(emphasis in original) That kinda dents your own your interpretation of the subtitle of the Goldberg article, doesn't it? Tijfo098 (talk) 04:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

And, by the way, another Salon piece (by Glenn Greenwald) even compares Whiton and Goldberg's opinions! Tijfo098 (talk) 04:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this material is not appropriate for the article. Jeannedeba (talk) 06:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• I thought that the comment that he should be classified as an enemy combatant and interned in Guantanamo Bay, which was removed here, was worthwhile to have, just to illustrate how irked some people are by him. I didn't care much for the rest of the material that was deleted in that edit, and don't object to its removal. --JN466 18:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The wording of this passage had become strangely inflated since it was added here, but the spelling correction from "interred" to "interned" was rather important. --JN466 18:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

More unreliable interpretations of unreliable sources: "increasingly shrill statements from American commentators who have called for his assassination" in Net closes on Assange: arrest by British police expected in days; The Independent is only seconded by The Guardian as a shrill left-wing newspaper! Tijfo098 (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The inevitable "mum fears" article(s) [18][19] and a quote from an AP story titled The noose tightens around WikiLeaks' Assange:

“ Sarah Palin, the former Republican vice presidential candidate, likened Assange to an al-Qaida propagandist and accused him, without offering any proof, of having "blood on his hands." ”

Zomg. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Moar from The Daily Telegraph, WikiLeaks' Julian Assange 'taking precautions' after death threats:

“ WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says he and his staff are "taking precautions" after politicians in the US suggested those responsible for publishing secret diplomatic cables should face the death penalty.

[...] Sarah Palin, the former Republican vice-presidential candidate, has called for him to be hunted down like the al-Qaeda leadership while other members of her party have directly called for a capital sentence against WikiLeaks personnel.

”

Some details [20]:

“ Tom Flanagan, a University of Calgary professor and former Harper adviser, apologized on Wednesday for his remark.

“I never seriously intended to advocate or propose the assassination of Mr. Assange. But I do think that what he's doing is very malicious and harmful to diplomacy and endangering people's lives, and I think it should be stopped.”

Earlier, Flanagan had said, “I think Assange should be assassinated” and U.S. President Barack Obama “should put out a contract” on him.

”

Yet another conservative who misspoke himself. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

From [21]

“ On Wednesday, in response to a question from the opposition, a minister of the Crown stood in the House of Commons and assured the honourable members that neither he nor the Prime Minister of Canada advocates the murder of Julian Assange. ”

Et tu, Canucus? Tijfo098 (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Article neutrality

I just put a POV tag on this article, because it seems it is only showing one side of the events: Asssange's and his friends side. The tone of the article is clearly sympathetic toward Assange. While there is no reason to put any shame on him, we should (especially for a controversial subject like him) be careful to quote the view of all sides, not only his. One example among many others: "Assange and others, including Glenn Greenwald, have criticized a New York Times article on Assange. Greenwald wrote that such "gossipy" and "slimy" articles "based on quotes from disgruntled associates" are not standard journalistic practice and are reserved by the New York Times for figures like Assange.". Well the only valid comment is from Greenwald, quoted twice, and the other is a reader comment on a NY Times forum. So an editor did not hesitate to put 3 lines and 3 quotes just for one source, one twice, and one invalid. Of course, the NY times article is not quoted, only the Greenwald answer. This is an example on how POV this article can be. Hervegirod (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Assange himself asserts that it's biased against him. It's going to be a pretty intractable discussion if each side thinks the article is biased toward the other. I take it as a sign we are probably getting the neutrality mostly right. Gigs (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that a lot of informations are biased toward him, not against. I he himself thinks it's biased against him, I guess he has a problem about neutrality. Another example (the article is full of these): "A volunteer told Wired that Assange said in a private conversation "I am the heart and soul of this organization, its founder, philosopher, spokesperson, original coder, organizer, financier, and all the rest", omitting the last part of the citation: "If you have a problem with me, piss off". This kind of quote, voluntarily quoted out of its context, is clearly POV. It transform a statement which is a critic on Assange by someone in its own organization in a praise of the character. This is clearly not right. Hervegirod (talk) 02:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That kind of semi-anonymous hearsay really has no place in the article at all IMO. Gigs (talk) 03:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Assange has written here many times, even asking and getting, a more favorable photo. His every wish was granted. Then he sent out a twitter asking others to polish this article. Then dozens and dozens repeated the twitter. Then blogs, dozens and dozens, repeated the request to polish his image here. And then talk forums and more blogs... The article is amazing, starfucking at it's best.99.141.243.84 (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the article is biased against Assange, but this is hard to avoid because it reflects a predictable defensiveness of institutions such as the government and the media against someone like Assange. The fact that Assange "sent out a twitter asking others to polish this article" is not really worrying, considering the resources of those who would wish to disparage Assange (i.e. the Pentagon) are far greater than the resources of his supporters, and therefore the rish of biased against Assange is much higher than the risk of bias for him.

I agree with Gigs that a quote from an anonymous source about an alleged private conversation should be removed altogether. Hervegirod, if you want to add in some stuff from the New York Times article to which Greenwald refers then I encourage you do so if you can find anything in that article that is worth mentioning (I personally couldn't). Gregcaletta (talk) 04:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The subjects of articles are welcome to raise issues on the talk page, and volunteers will try to help to the extent they can while still following Wikipedia's core policies. Not all of Julian Assange's requests were fulfilled, because he doesn't have control over this article and he's not going to get control over this article. Reach Out to the Truth 04:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see that this tag is merited and I don't think any real reasons to retain it have been provided. I propose to remove it in 24 hours or less unless substantive arguments are given. --John (talk) 06:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Concur; the point of such a tag is not to notify people of a neutrality issue - it is to prompt editors with the time to clean up the content. In this case, as in many cases, the tag is being use to prove a point. So there is no call for it; the page is under active editing. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 17:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The guy asked to have his resume puffed up with a number of things, including being described as a writer in the lead. It was granted instantly and remained for a very long time. Without a single fucking ref, making him the only writer on Wikipedia without a Bibliography - and the only subject who has successfully rounded up dozens of sycophants to publicly do his bidding here. They may have polished Assange's ass with their kisses, but it comes at the further cost of continuing to degrade Wikipedia's credibility. There was a time when not even Jimbo could hope for such meat-puppetry. Assange's campaign, and it is a longstanding and multi-pronged campaign to polish his Wiki article here, is an embarrassment. 72.5.199.254 (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This kind of quote, voluntarily quoted out of its context, is clearly POV. It transform a statement which is a critic on Assange by someone in its own organization in a praise of the character. This is clearly not right. - hmm, I just spotted this. I swear; I am getting fed up of being accused of pointyness here... the quote was added after a very long deliberation with myself - the final sentence was left out because it was unrelated to the point being made in the quote, which was - to highlight the role Assange considers he holds in Wikileaks. Given the complex and controversial nature of the role I consider it intensely significant (and plan to make another attempt at securing consensus on its inclusion in the coming days). The quote is neither favourable or negative against Assange (to my mind) and is why I eventually decided to try including it. The final line of the quote is not related to the context of his own percieved role in the organisation - and including it would be disparaging in the context the quote was used. To be clear; the balance we have to get here is the apparent "god complex" Assange appears to have with regards to Wikileaks in a neutral and relaxed way. I contend that doing so via his own words is the safest route. When I am being called pointy by both those supporting and disparaging Assange I suspect I am doing something right ;) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 18:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

"pointy"/"pointyness" if it was present (in this thread before the above entry) got edited out. Unclear if this means expressing a POV or what. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a reference to WP:POINT. siafu (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Errant, the way you quoted the fact is clearly misrepresenting things. I can't imagine that you are not seeing this. Hervegirod (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Can't see it, sorry. If you are able to point it out though I am listening. Imagine whatever you like, but better to explain on the [{WP:AGF|off chance]] I missed the point --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 23:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I originally included this quote, not as a way of praising him, nor as a way of criticizing him, but merely to include his own description of his role within the organisation. The "piss off" thing from the same conversation isn't relevant to his description of his role within Wikileaks. His role within Wikileaks used to be described like this in the article: "While newspapers have described him as a "director"[22] or "founder"[9] of Wikileaks". I.e. it was rather unclear, and a clear description of his role, in his own words, is a lot better than "newspapers have described him as a "director"[22] or "founder"[9] of Wikileaks". Jeannedeba (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of the NPOV tag. The article introduction is grossly POV because it fails to summarize the content of the article, "including any notable controversies" per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section). The fact that the controversies in question are notable is evidenced by the mere fact that they have extensive sections in the article, and this needs to be summarized in the lead per the manual of style.

Here we have a guy who is wanted by Interpol and investigated by a number of countries and the only thing the introduction mentions, is that "Assange has lived in several countries and has told reporters he is constantly on the move. He makes irregular public appearances to give talks on freedom of the press, censorship, and investigative reporting, and has won a number of journalism awards." The introduction of the article is nothing but puffery, and a prime examle of how an introduction should not be written (why is the "journalism awards" relevant, and not his Interpol arrest warrant?). Jeannedeba (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I actually agree; a short mention of his warrant is needed. I've always supported it along with the rest of the lead. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 23:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, my political orientation will be evident on my talk page and I'm obviously close to the subject's political orientation, but I haven't read the article and to the extent that the concept makes sense think I can make determination of the objectivity of the current text. The problem with NPOV is that without a POV you can't really do anything in the field of thinking, so as with the newly discovered WP:POINT above I think it's simply a matter of good intellectual faith. I've seen WP:POINT summarized elsewhere as "don't be a dick" and do obviously wrong stuff to push your POV. You can still be human and have a POV. Here goes. Lycurgus (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

See the tag is removed. This is one of the least POV and most heavily sourced articles I've seen, for the amount of text, so I guess this is a dead thread. So what the NPOV accusation was was that there wasn't a POV expressed that cast the individual as an enemy of the established order and its state power and therefore a criminal I guess. Lycurgus (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea of what you're talking about and this is not a dead thread. This is not one of the least POV and most heavily sourced articles I've seen, it's an unfinished and poorly structured article with some severe POV problems, specifically in regard to it's lead section and categories. Jeannedeba (talk) 10:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems those who have written this pathetic entry have again gone out of their way, yet again, to defend Assange. The sentence concerning the "red notice" from Interpol makes no mention of the fact that Interpol has asked member states TO ARREST Assange. In fact, this entry's authors try to convey the exact opposite. The Agency France Presse descbribes Interpol's actions thusly: "The global police agency INTERPOL said Wednesday it had alerted member states to ARREST WikiLeaks' founder Julian Assange on suspicion of rape on the basis of a Swedish arrest warrant"(emphasis mine). The notion that Interpol merely wants info on Assange's whereabouts, as this joke of an entry implies, is ludicrous; they want him arrested. This article implicitly tries to claim otherwise. The bias contained in this entry is absolutlely amazing to behold. Quit trying to turn this piece into an apologia for Assange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.155.184 (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

"Trying to turn this piece into an apologia" ? Dude, they've succeeded beyond their wildest wet dreams. Hey did you know about all the Reliably Sourced press reports regarding his own son Daniel's comments about how his dad always has these kind of problem's with women...? It would be in the Lede if it were most anyone else's article that lacked the sycophants....99.141.243.84 (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was settled because the tag was removed. That was before the new thread below was started. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Just reading this page for the first time today, so I'm a little late to the game; but, as it stands, this article most certainly warrants a 'Neutrality is disputed' tag. The intro reads like a fluff-piece rather than an encyclopedia. I mean, including this line in the introduction:

"According to The Guardian, this has placed Assange "at the centre of intense media speculation and a hate campaign against him in America".[12]

How overtly biased can you be?? It's fine to include this information in the article, but it's completely inappropriate in the location in the article and surrounding context. This is just one example of bias; there are plenty of others, which is why the tag should be added.JoelWhy (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

correct me if I am wrong, but most of Assange's praise and awards are given to him on the basis of wikileaks whistle blowing, and most of his criticism is based on his releasing of classified US documents. I mention these as two different things because he is not disliked for all of his work. In fact, Amnesty International has Awarded him for one, and criticized him for the other. Seeing these as two separate things could help better organize the article. There could be a paragraph about famous non-controversial leaks, and then a break down of more recent controversial leaks. Especially Those where question the benefits and risk are raised. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I think these ctiticisms should be added from this article:

"The letter from five human-rights groups sparked a tense exchange in which WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange issued a tart challenge for the organizations to help with the massive task of removing names from thousands of documents, according to several of the organizations that signed the letter. The exchange shows how WikiLeaks and Mr. Assange risk being isolated from some of their most natural allies in the wake of the documents' publication.

The human-rights groups involved are Amnesty International; Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict, or CIVIC; Open Society Institute, or OSI, the charitable organization funded by George Soros; Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission; and the Kabul office of International Crisis Group, or ICG."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703428604575419580947722558.html?mod=WSJEUROPE_hpp_MIDDLESecondNews

Gordonlighter (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This is already included in the wikileaks article and I'm not sure if its relevant enough to Julian himself to include.

If it is determined that it should be included, the wording of it in the wikileaks article is very good and could be copied as article summaries often are.

What is the status of the link between George Soros/ Open Society Institute and wikileaks? I just recall cryptome posting emails in regards to this. --41.15.27.10 (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Do this and this ring any bells? Not sure what this has to do with Assange though and they not be reliable sources either. SmartSE (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Text of this from Wikileaks article: "In 2010, Amnesty International joined several other human rights groups criticizing WikiLeaks for not adequately redacting the names of Afghan civilians working as U.S. military informants from files they had released. Julian Assange responded by offering Amnesty International staff the opportunity to assist in the document vetting process. When Amnesty International appeared to express reservations in accepting the offer Assange disclaimed the group as "people who prefer to do nothing but cover their asses." Other groups that joined Amnesty International in criticizing WikiLeaks subsequently noted that, despite their displeasure over the issue of civilian name redaction, they generally appreciated WikiLeaks work."

Washington Irving Esquire (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Status as Journalist

The first paragraph in the wiki article for Assange should refer to him not only as a publisher but as a journalist. Given that journalists "report" facts and news, and he is clearly accomplishes the same task, he should be referred as such. This is important, because journalists haver certain rights that in this case seem to be stripped away in this article.

answer to unsigned comment: above is a discussion about it --Orangwiki (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no evidence that he has ever been employed as a journalist anywhere. Having a website where you simply dump stolen information with no regard for the law or the consequences does not make you a journalist. "Wiki"Leaks is clearly not a journalistic product. American authorities consider it to be an act of espionage, not journalism. Jeannedeba (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

There is evidence Assange has worked in the capacity and role of a journalist, and he has given many lectures on the subject. That reliable sources have referred to him as a journalist, particularly in regards to his work and interests, is not in question. Viriditas (talk) 06:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Where did he work as a journalist? Jeannedeba (talk) 06:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Assange and WikiLeaks are part of the neo-journalistic citizen journalism movement, categorized as new media. For Assange, this approach begins with raw data:

I want to set up a new standard: ‘scientific journalism.’ If you publish a paper on DNA, you are required, by all the good biological journals, to submit the data that has informed your research—the idea being that people will replicate it, check it, verify it. So this is something that needs to be done for journalism as well. There is an immediate power imbalance, in that readers are unable to verify what they are being told, and that leads to abuse.[22]

The Collateral Murder video project can be described as the work of a journalist, and it is the general consensus of media organizations and political authorities, that the Afghan War documents leak covered an important story that was not being told, a story that was delivered to the public by WikiLeaks.

Assange told Time in August:

I am a journalist, a publisher and an inventor. I have tried to invent a system that solves the problem of censorship of the press and the censorship of the whistle-blower across the whole world.

In that same article, Time magazine described WikiLeaks as an "online journalism Web site." Yes, there are many critics disputing these assertions, but one must consult the sources and use them judiciously. Viriditas (talk) 09:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

His status as journalist is disputed. There are opinions on both sides. See [23]. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Please note the qualitative difference between the subjective opinion pieces you refer to in regards to a "dispute", and the more objective news story authored by Time that not only quotes Assange saying he's a journalist, but also describes his site as a journalism web site. Furthermore, Assange's work has been recognized as that of a journalist. Regardless, this is his biography, not a repository for comments by his detractors. See WP:BLP for more information. Viriditas (talk) 10:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It's also not supposed to be a hagiography. It's reasonable to say that his status a journalist is disputed. More sources [24] [25] citing a US State Department spokesman. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Court appeal denied

Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet is reporting that Assange's appeal to the supreme court to drop the warrant has been denied. That means that the arrest warrant stands, and he has exhausted his appeal possibilities in Sweden.

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article8214618.ab —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.222.10 (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's a source in English:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-12-02/sweden-high-court-won-t-review-assange-warrant-appeal.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.222.10 (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Added to the article from newer sources. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Latest (2 Dec 2010) material on Assange

Alleged "sex crimes" in Sweden

A lot of this article is still based on poor sources. There is a lot of general curiosity regarding his supposed "sex crimes" in Sweden as well, but our Wiki article still carries the same superficial / hearsay stuff that has appeared in poor quality sources that reference what someone heard somebody else's mother-in-law say about these alleged crimes. However, the following two recent articles / posts are not only the latest regarding this "crime" issue but also ones that actually go deeper into the SPECIFICS and DETAILS of the cases rather than simply "he-said-this-they-said-that" kind of gossip that that section of the article currently is. It would be great if someone with access to edit this locked article can use the below two sources to edit that section accordingly:

• http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/02/when-it-comes-to-assange-r-pe-case-the-swedes-are-making-it-up-as-they-go-along/
• http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/12/02/no-wikileakss-julian-assange-isnt-accused-of-rape/

Thanks for the "reliable" sources - way beyond what passes in most wiki articles and certainly this one. Both women who were vilely assaulted get on the web and brag about their sexual exploits with Mr Assange - sure sounds like rape to me. 159.105.81.31 (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Second article almost as good - if only they would keep out the PC rape garbage ( ie most rape accussations aren't false - well actually college cops usually let a few days go by on most(90%)cases because by then the happy couple are usually back together - he only threatened to leave yadayadayada But a really good article ortherwise on Assange's problem - just cut the PC rape theology.159.105.81.31 (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Both of these articles show a complete lack of understanding of Swedish law. Sweden prides itself with having some of the the most radical sex crime laws in the world. Arguing that the allegations are false because the British definition of rape is more narrow than the Swedish is a moot point, since the events took place in Sweden, under Swedish law.

And the assertion that Sweden will change the current laws to be able to convict Assange is just laughable. Swedish law does not allow someone to be convicted retroactively for acts commited before they were outlawed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.222.10 (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the crime in question differs significantly from the understanding of "rape" in all English-speaking countries is not "moot", since the rape allegation is being repeated endlessly in the media. Arguing that it's not a crime because it doesn't fit the British definition of rape, of course, is moot, per your argumentation. It is necessary to clarify just what the allegation is, however, since most people seeing the word rape will assume that it is, in fact, rape in their understanding. siafu (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

According to this web page, that might not classify as a reliable source, but describes very understandably and plausible what might have happened, one of the two possible "rape victims", Anna Ardin, who allegedly was a victim the night from 13 to 14 August 2010, posted on 14 August 2010 at 14:00 a tweet (original is in Swedish) "Julian wants to go to a crayfish party, anyone have a couple of available seats tonight or tomorrow? #fb" and on 15 August 2010 at 2:00 "Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world's coolest smartest people, it's amazing! #fb". A reliable source, The New York Times states "According to accounts the women gave to the police and friends, they each had consensual sexual encounters with Mr. Assange that became nonconsensual. One woman said that Mr. Assange had ignored her appeals to stop after a condom broke. The other woman said that she and Mr. Assange had begun a sexual encounter using a condom, but that Mr. Assange did not comply with her appeals to stop when it was no longer in use. Mr. Assange has questioned the veracity of those accounts." Julian Assange ist wanted by Swedish Authorities currently for questioning, as the BBC states, not as an accused person. Now I see in this Wikipedia Article six times the word "rape" used for the accusations. As this is an English Language article, the word rape should be used, as what is understood as rape in the English language, and not what might be understood as rape in Swedish law. If Swedish law takes this term much wider, then the use of the word rape in this article should indicate that this word is used in this different meaning (e.g. writing "rape as defined in swedish law"). As this is an article on a living person we should make sure this article doesn't state that anything more is or was charged against Julian Assange as truly was by swedish authorities (currently it seems, nothing is charged, as he is just wanted for questioning, as mentioned in the BBC link). It seems to me, in most cases it would make sense to replace the word "rape" with "sex offence" in this article. --Orangwiki (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

And this Link to Wikinews should in my view be deleted immediately from this article as it is wrong "Wikinews has related news: Interpol orders arrest of Wikileaks founder to face rape charges". There is no interpol arrest order, but only a red notice, so London police if he should be there will definitely not arrest him because of a red notice. He is not facing rape charges but wanted for questioning, see my writing above. --Orangwiki (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Along those lines I would like to see the condom use clarification made following the "not constitute what any advanced legal system considers to be rape" sentence in the original article for clarification. The word "rape" in this context is confusing as both women confirm that the sex acts were consensual. NYT (link above) has a bit and also Newsweek —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.229.72 (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

London police or better said Scotland yard already made it clear for now that they won't arrest him even so knowing about his whereabouts). Give me a sec. to pull up the link.TMCk (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, CNN changed their story from "according to Scotland Yard" to "... a British newspaper Thursday that said police are "fully aware of where he is staying."[26]. Will check a German RS again where I saw it first.TMCk (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

CNN must have taken it off w/o comment. This here is yet the closest I can find where the following part is interesting:"Swedish police said Thursday they would issue a new international warrant for Assange on suspicion of "rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion" to replace one that could not be applied because of a procedural error." which explaines why they didn't arrest him yet [27].TMCk (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Add on. This AFP article reveals the sources (The Times and the Independent) for my comment which I had initially based on CNN:The Times and the Independent quoted British police sources as saying that Assange had supplied Scotland Yard with his contact details when he arrived in the country in October. They have his telephone number and know where he is staying, the police sources said.".TMCk (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems that some people play with words: The persons concerned are wanted by national jurisdictions (or the International Criminal Tribunals, where appropriate) and Interpol's role is to assist the national police forces in identifying or locating those persons with a view to their arrest and extradition. These red notices allow the warrant to be circulated worldwide with the request that the wanted person be arrested with a view to extradition.. A Red notice is not an arrest warrant because it is based on an arrest warrant. Just go to the Interpol web site rather than invent. Hervegirod (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to keep any interpretation out of the loop here, the following is exacly what Interpol says about "Red Notice": "Red Notice - To seek the provisional arrest of a wanted person with a view to extradition based on an arrest warrant or court decision." [28].TMCk (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe that Mr Assange has not been indicted or even charged or even an official complaint. Maybe this is not correct. If there has been none of the above then there seems to be, even under Swedish law, no action to be taken by anyone. The original prosecutor walked away from the whole deal some time ago. The current interest in an old matter seems to rise and fall with USA displeasure. N'cest pas? Has Anna Ardin lodged any official complaint - any source, when if at all?Is there a warrant without the above?159.105.81.31 (talk) 18:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

NewsWeek & The Guardian : According to Newsweek magazine, Claes Borgstrom is a partner within the Stockholm law firm Borgstrom and Bostrom, who is representing two women who said they had "Consensual but unprotected" sexual relationships with Julian Assange. Claes Borgstrom's allegations triggered a sexual-misconduct investigation of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. These allegations led to the issuance, thereafter subsequent rapid cancellation of the warrant on a rape charge, and finally to a parallel investigation into alleged “molestation." In this context, the The Guardian reported that : "neither of the two women had originally wanted the case prosecuted; that Ms W had wanted to report the alleged rape to police without their pursuing it, and that Ms A had gone with her to give her moral support and then become embroiled with the police, who had insisted on passing a report to prosecutors". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.108.181.199 (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Swedish blogger Göran Rudling on proposed rape-victim Ardin's destruction of proof, from September 30, 2010, http://rixstep.com/1/20101001,01.shtml

"When Anna Ardin files a police complaint against Julian Assange on 20 August these tweets (Anna Ardin, who allegedly was a victim the night from 13 to 14 August 2010, posted on 14 August 2010 at 14:00 a tweet -original is in Swedish- "Julian wants to go to a crayfish party, anyone have a couple of available seats tonight or tomorrow? #fb" and on 15 August 2010 at 2:00 "Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world's coolest smartest people, it's amazing! #fb") are removed. Why? As far as I can tell, it's not common for victims of crime to delete blogs, clean up their cellphones, and try to get witnesses to attest to things that aren't true. Why is it so important to remove these particular tweets?"

"If you know that the 'reported molestation' takes place on the night towards 14 August, then it all becomes easier to understand. The tweets actually indicate that Anna really liked Julian and that there had been no molestation 24 hours earlier. You can't divine in the tweets that Anna Ardin thinks Julian has a 'warped view of womanhood and can't take no for an answer'. The tweets are more an attempt by Ardin to shine in the brilliance of Julian Assange. Why else would she publish them on the Internet? The tweets don't match Anna's story given to the police on 20 August. So she simply deletes them."

"In the beginning of September, I note that Anna Ardin has two identical 'miniblogs' - one at Twitter and the other at Bloggy.se. It looks as if Anna Ardin's tweets are posted to both blogs at the same time. The tweets that are deleted from Twitter are still visible at annaardin.bloggy.se. Anna missed the fact that she has to delete on each and every blog. Bad luck."

"To see if Anna Ardin is really trying to hide her Twitter tweets, I post a comment to Sara Gunnerud's article 'WikiLeaks Heroes Can Also Do Stupid Things'. The article is published at the Rebella blog, a social democratic feminist blog where Anna Ardin contributes and runs the website. In my comment I mention the deleted Twitter tweets. After five days, on 13 September, my comment is reviewed and removed directly. I then post a new comment where I mention that one can read the deleted Tweets at annaardin.bloggy.se. My comment is removed directly. A few hours later the entire Bloggy.se site is taken offline. When Bloggy.se reopens at 04:00 in the morning of 14 September, the tweets deleted from Twitter are also deleted from annaardin.bloggy.se."

"But it's not as easy to remove things from the Internet as Anna Ardin thinks. Google takes snapshots of how web pages look - so called caches. If you search for the cached page for annaardin.bloggy.se you can see what it looked like on 19 August. (If the cache disappears, go to http://www.samtycke.nu/doc/AnnaArdin_cache19aug.htm.) Then you can compare the page with how annaardin.bloggy.se and twitter.com/annaardin look."

"As we can see, Anna Ardin is doing all she can to hide her tweets. Tweets that indicate Julian Assange is actually innocent of at least the charge of 'molestation' that he's been accused of. It looks like Anna Ardin is doing all she can to get Julian Assange convicted. By deleting and denying acquitting circumstances, she's perhaps making herself guilty of false accusation" Parrotistic (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Interview with TIME magazine

Assange gave a lengthy and very revealing (with respect to his views, opinions and philosophy regarding what he is doing) interview to TIME magazine earlier yesterday. That would also be valuable material to appropriately enhance the quality of several related sections in our Wiki article on him:

• http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2034040-4,00.html

I hope someone with access / permissions to edit this article makes use of the above referenced links to improve the quality of this article accordingly. Thanks.

Interview with Assange attorney

Another source:

• Attorney Confirms WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange in Britain, Responds to U.S. Attacks Democracy Now interview with Assange attorney in London, Jennifer Robinson.John Z (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This should put the whole fugitive discussion to sleep:

"Now, he obviously has had to travel for work and had meetings to attend. And in order to leave Sweden, he sought the specific permission of the prosecutor to leave, on the grounds that there was an outstanding investigation, and she gave that permission. So he left Sweden lawfully and without objection by the prosecuting authorities."

— Assange’s attorney in London, Jennifer Robinson, http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/2/attorney_confirms_wikileaks_founder_julian_assange

Nymf _hideliho! 23:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Wanted "for sex crimes"

It is important to remember that Assange is wanted "for questioning on suspicion of sex crimes" and very different to saying just that he is wanted "for sex crimes", which is vague and could imply he has actually been charged with something, which he has not.. The interpol notice just says "sex crimes"; it is not written in full sentence form because it is a notice. As a primary source, we need to rely on secondary sources for its accurate interpretation, and from the many reliable secondary sources in the article it is clear that he is wanted only for questioning. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Even the primary source (Interpol) states besides other about red notices (with a bold red warning label):"The person should be considered innocent until proven guilty. We shouldn't do different. This is a BLP and rules apply no matter if some like it or not.TMCk (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that the rape charge that is being issued in Sweden is different to what we know as a rape charge in America, Australia, England etc. CONSENSUAL SEX is considered RAPE if a condom is NOT used. These are the circumstances surrounding Julians current arrest warrant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.72.217 (talk) 10:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

then how do they get more swedes? 98.206.155.53 (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Great googly moogly! Can you back this up with RS's? - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 08:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Suburbia

The page suggests that Julian Assange started one of the first ISPs in Australia known as Suburbia in 1994. It's citing a journalists article. This is not the case. Suburbia was started in 1990, and went online in late 1993. Julian was an administrator of the system alongside the founder. He was deeply involved with running of the system, but to suggest he founded it is incorrect. Mdorset (talk) 04:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Any sources? Gregcaletta (talk) 12:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm the source, as the founder of the system. I'm not disputing that Julian Assange was a key member in part of the history of the system for some time in the mid-1990s, but he did not found it, create it, name it, nor get it the system on the Internet. The system was around as a BBS since early 1990, and switched over to a Linux based Internet connected system in late 1993. This work migrating it from DOS based multi-line BBS to linux based ISP was done primarily by another administrator and me. Assange become part of the team shortly after that. Mdorset (talk) 11:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

What Gregcalleta means, is do you have a reliable source which backs up what you've said? We have to ensure that everything is verifiable from a reliable written source, rather than based on what someone says (we call that original research, which is not permitted). If you do have a source, we'll be happy to update the article accordingly, but if not I'm afraid we can't even though you may be correct, since we are more interested in verification, than the truth. Thanks for commenting and I hope you can find a suitable source. SmartSE (talk) 11:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I told the Forbes reporter, but he used a different quote ... so we don't have a source from Forbes about the founding of Suburbia, but we can cite from Forbes that Assange has titanium balls ...

(And yet again I wonder how anyone who's ever, ever been quoted by the press could use the phrase "reliable sources" for them. But anyway.) - David Gerard (talk) 11:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

A genuine left wing view

The persecution of WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange 72.228.177.92 (talk) 05:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It is good to have a variety of view-points. Are there an particular facts or quotations from this WSWS article that you would like to include in this Wikipedia article? Gregcaletta (talk) 06:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Well the calls for the death penalty by the likes of Huckabee, which can be sourced from their origin I presume, stand out. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 07:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That was in relation to Manning not Assange, but you could find the stuff that Palin has said and put that in if you like. Gregcaletta (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

References section is weird

What's with the references section? I've never seen one like it. It's completely filled. Normally there's nothing but a code. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Section should not be empty. See WP:LDR. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You say "should", but this is the only article where I've seen this form of reference section, so it's obviously not "should", but someone's personal choice, and a very odd one at that! It's apparently an option, but one that isn't used. I don't understand the formatting, so I'm not sure where on that page to look. What's the advantage? -- Brangifer (talk) 08:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

"Should" as in: if you delete them from there, you need to move them in the body of the article, otherwise you'll get a ton of errors, as you probably noticed before you self-reverted. There's some general disclaimer about changing reference style without discussion (ask User:CBM); I can't be bothered to find the wikilink for that because I don't care how they're listed as long as it's not a page full of errors. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The reference section features BROKEN CODE as of tonight and i personally don't have the time to work on it -- but it is red inked all over and FUBAR, so i hope someone takes the time to straighten it out. Sorry, it's almost one a.m. here and i am going to bed. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 08:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? It looks fine to me in this version. There was a broken version up for a very short time due to (later self-reverted) changes by BullRangifer. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I made another attempt to fix it by simply deleting all that stuff and replacing it with standard ref code, but a better version which works great on articles with large numbers of refs. Most of the 142 refs show properly, but a number are red and it is them that should be fixed, not go back to an odd and rarely (this is the ONLY place I've seen it) used code that duplicates everything. There's no advantage in that, since all the refs are still in the article as they should be. So whoever did it, please fix the redlinks and make them standard refs. If that isn't done, we can't use the improved ref section format. -- Brangifer (talk) 09:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You just broke it again, so I reverted. Please do further experimentation in a sandbox. Repeatedly breaking a high traffic article is not acceptable. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not practical to do that in a sandbox. A complicated one would have to be created first. This trial edit didn't work and you reverted it. Fine.

I agree that it's not good, but the solution is to restore standard reference formatting. The new and improved refs code can't be used to make the box smaller on that article the way it is. It's a mass of duplicated refs. There's no need for that. Please edit the redlinked refs so they will work properly with standard {{reflist}} code. I know you're a newbie here, and you're no doubt very good at coding (I don't understand it that well), but please don't singlehandedly try to change Wikipedia without a wide consensus. It just creates confusion (and in this case no real improvement) and makes it harder for ordinary editors to edit. We need to make sure all editors can edit, not only those with advanced coding skills. -- Brangifer (talk) 09:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Above you mention that "There's some general disclaimer about changing reference style without discussion (ask User:CBM);". Where is this mentioned "discussion" in which you got a consensus to change from standard reference style and start using this odd and rarely used formatting style (if you are the one who did it)? If not, who did? -- Brangifer (talk) 09:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Some of the refs are using List-defined references, where refs can be defined in the reflist section, and used in the text. I much prefer this, but I'm aware that others may not. I changed the Julius Malema article so that all refs are now List-defined references. [29] This made it possible for me to change the ref to all use cite templates, and fix a number of errors. I feel that this also makes it easier to edit the article text. If you take a look at the wikitext, it's now much easier to grok, and locate text you want to edit.

I've actually started working on making the same change for this article. As this is quite a large change, I work off line, using Bazaar_(software) to merge my changes with changes made on the site since I started. If any one is opposed to this, please, lets discuss.Gary van der Merwe ^(Talk) 09:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Gary, I see you've been here a few months longer than I have (with our usernames). You're apparently pretty good with code, and we do need people like you. In this case, do you have a consensus for making these changes? What real advantage is there? Having the ref and its content together may look messy, but it's far easier to edit than to have to compare two widely separated places, if that's what it takes with the new LDR code. This also conflicts with other code. I tried one that works very nicely, but it doesn't harmonize with this format. Try what I've done on another article with a very long list of refs and you'll see how nice it works. Here it is: <div style="height: 220px; overflow: auto; padding: 3px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA; reflist4" >{{reflist|colwidth=30em}}</div> -- Brangifer (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is a example of it being used the above mentioned article: User:Garyvdm/Sandbox/LDR_Scroll Gary van der Merwe ^(Talk) 11:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) BullRangifer, I did not add those LDR-style refs. Stop acting like a bull in a China shop. Do you seriously claim that having broken HTML and red syntax errors [30] [31] all over this article's reference section is an improvement? Tijfo098 (talk) 09:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No, above I admit that it's not good and you reverted, which is fine. It was an experiment to see if I could fix it but it didn't work. No harm done. -- Brangifer (talk) 09:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict): Gary, it seems that people object using LDR-style here. I don't know when you introduced those, but they have the distinct disadvantage that one cannot add new material in one edit to a section (because the refs are in a different one). On a heavy traffic article like this, it is a big deal due to edit conflicts. It would be better if you migrated them back to the text, without breaking the article, of course. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I obviously agree. Gary, don't take this personally. I'm sure you have very good intentions, so please continue to use your skills for the betterment of the project. -- Brangifer (talk) 10:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm (still) very calm :-p.

I've actually not edit the article at all yet. All of my changes are still sitting on my computer. Other people have been using the LDR-style.

Regarding LDR being harder to edit, as you can't work in just one section, I was not thinking of this issue. Wikimedia does suck in that it does not allow you to do this in 2 edits, with out having a red error message in the reflist, even if just for a short period. But I feel that it is not an issue for the following reasons: Generally people don't edit references, unless editing the formatting, in which case they are likely to be just editing the references, and not article text. When people edit both article text and references, they are likely to be adding a references. I'm going to move all existing refs to be LDR, but this will not force others to make new refs to be LDR.

Regarding the scroll box style, I was not aware that that was actually the issue being discused. I don't have a strong opinion on this, but it goes against the cite guidelines

Gary van der Merwe ^(Talk) 10:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't object to LDR-style being used or to someone converting refs to LDR-style but I object to it being the only style used because it takes a full article edit (or two section edits in reverse logical order, i.e. add ref first) to add some new development that way, so it's more likely to produce edit conflicts. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the current way is not good either way as it's a mixture of two systems. LDR works well for articles which are unlikely to change much, but on an article like this it's probably better to stick with the normal format. It would be good to change it to be consistent, but now probably isn't the best time to make major changes to the article, so we should wait a while till things die down a bit. SmartSE (talk) 13:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok - fair enough. Gary van der Merwe ^(Talk) 13:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Scroll-box visual style

There is actually no conflict between the LDR logical style that Gary prefers and the scroll-box visual style that BullRangifer wants. See [32]. I don't have a strong opinion on these issues. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone removed a similar change by BullRangifer at WikiLeaks with a reference to MOS:SCROLL. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like that code isn't allowed for this purpose so that editor has removed it from the six articles where I used it. Learn something new everyday! Now I've got to try to find where else it was used, because I found it somewhere else and thought it was pretty nifty. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

An outside comment

I was asked to comment on the references, so here are some outside suggestions. First, I think there is a general consensus against scrolling reference lists. This is one of the few general consensuses about references, actually.

The article right now has a mixture of list-defined references and references defined within the article text. At some point, it would be good for the article to use a single method of adding references, rather than two different methods. The original style in this article was to have the references inside the article text. The article already had over 50 references before many of them were move to LDR-style in July [33].

While there can be benefits to LDR references, it can be problematic to switch an established article from one style to another, unless there is clear consensus for the change. In this article, because there will be such a large number of editors, making such a large number of edits, it's hard for them to know that some less common style had been picked. I think this is why there is now a mixture of styles. So if I had to suggest an outcome I would suggest returning to the refs-inside-the-text method. However, if there is a general consensus here that you prefer LDR, I'd suggest going through and standardizing the refs into that format.

My final word of advice is to remember that because this is such a heavily edited article, many editors will arrive who don't know much about how to format references. This is normal and expected; it's better for casual editors to add a reference in any style than to leave it out. So more experienced editors can expect to have to clean up references added by casual editors, to bring the references into whatever style is used in the article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Interview

If anyone wants to do some personal research, you can personally ask Assange a question in 45 minutes. He intends to respond to the questions live: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-julian-assange-online Gregcaletta (talk) 12:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

"sex crime" = sex without condom?

Breaking news points to this older article for background. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources. You are encouraged to integrate them into the article. Gregcaletta (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

We need more explicit and more reputable sources first. A new one: [34]

“ Assange acknowledges he slept with the women and says the sex was consensual, which the women acknowledge.

But they say a condom was not used for at least part of the sex. Under Swedish law, that may constitute rape.

[...]

A spokeswoman for Ny declined to comment about the case or the extradition on Thursday and referred the Herald to a statement on the office's website. That statement reads: Julian Assange has been detained in his absence charged with rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.

”

Tijfo098 (talk) 13:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

There's also this [35], which claims he continued to have sex after she requested to stop when the condom broke. That does sound more like a traditional rape situation, but so extremely hard to prove. Gigs (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Not just wanted for questioning

I notice several misconceptions on this page that I think stem from reading second hand souces instead of the original Swedish ones. I'll try to correct some:

1) Some reports say that he is only wanted for questioning, not being charged with anything. That is not true. There are three levels of detaining people in Sweden: Gripa, Anhålla and Häkta. The prosecutors are using the most severe form "Häkta" with Assange, which requires a decision by a court. The prosecutor writes in the official statement: "Julian Assange has been detained in his absence charged with rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion." (http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/)

2) Some people have also claimed that he is not suspected of anything, and just wanted as a witness. This is also not true. There are four levels of legal suspicion in Sweden. The prosecutor is using the second highest level "Sannolika skäl" (somewhat similar to "probable cause"). The highest level is rarely used outside of the actual trial.

So yes, Assange is a suspect, and is charged with rape, as confirmed by all three levels in the Swedish court system. That doesn't mean that he is guilty, but it certainly means that the prosecutor thinks he is.

All of this information is confirmed by the offical statements by the prosecutor. Please try to use these instead of second hand sources.

http://www.aklagare.se/Media/Nyheter/Assange-begard-haktad-i-sin-franvaro/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.222.10 (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

"Some people have also claimed that he is not suspected of anything, and just wanted as a witness." I understand his lawyer said that in relation to the EAW. It's still quotable if properly attributed. We're not here judge ourselves if the EAW is valid or not. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The quote in question however is from Nov 30 [36] "So far he has not been charged, Stephens says – an essential precondition for a valid European arrest warrant." So, it seems it's outdated and should be removed. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Just noting that in a browser like Google chrome, translation is built in, and of course there are plenty of free services that can translate web pages. Typically editors weighing in do have a bias which a mechanical translator can be assumed to lack. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's problematic if we give bigger weight to second hand reports of statements by JA's lawyers than to the actual court proceedings. The actual court decision is that he is a suspect and that he is charged with rape. No statements by anyone can change what the court has already decided. We can certainly quote the lawyer, but should be clear with what the actual court documents say.

As the article stands today it only has Stephens assertion that "Julian Assange has never been charged by Swedish prosecutors. He is formally wanted as a witness", not the offical statement by the prosecutor that he is charged (http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/). Why not at least report both sides? If the prosecutor and the court say that he is charged, then he is de facto charged.85.225.222.10 (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Tijfo's point seems to be accurate, this from the BBC today says that the first arrest warrant was "rejected on legal grounds" so whatever the prosecutors said on 20/11 would appear not to apply now. SmartSE (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, why go by BBC's second hand description instead of the original source? Here's what the prosecutor herself wrote yesterday:

"The arrest warrant is based on the detention decision that has now been examined by all three legal instances. The additional information requested by the British Police concerns the penalties for the other crimes, in addition to rape, that Julian Assange was arrested for. This information will be supplied immediately. The previous arrest warrant stands."

(http://www.aklagare.se/Media/Nyheter/Arresteringsorden-om-Assange-galler1/)

The British Police has no authority to reject a Swedish arrest warrent. Only the Swedish Supreme Court can do that, and yesterday they decided not to.85.225.222.10 (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

We should off changing anything for now. The second source provided above clearly says that he is wanted for questioning only, and the first source in English does not have a date on it. Nymf _hideliho! 16:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The BBC is clearly saying he's charged with rape. [37] Swedish Prosecution Authority spokeswoman Karin Rosander .... "We usually only include the most severe offence, which was rape in this case" That seems crystal clear to me. Gigs (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Huh? It doesn't say anything about him being charged with anything. SmartSE (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Sweden doesn't have an indictment system like the US, if that's what you are trying to imply. Even Assange himself called the rape charges, charges. It's kind of silly to play a word game claiming that he's "wanted for questioning" when there is an outstanding warrant for his arrest on rape charges. Gigs (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a detention warrant for probable cause. Nothing else. Have a look at [38] and see if you can find them mentioning anything about formal charges or an indictment at all (åtal in Swedish, and we do an indictment system). Nymf _hideliho! 22:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It was my understanding that there is nothing like a "grand jury" there. Is that correct? Gigs (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that is correct. The prosecutor files a petition for a lawsuit, and the court together with the prosecutor in question and "Åklagarmyndigheten" decides if it is enough for an indictment. Nymf _hideliho! 23:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Swedish Wire -- not a very reliable source

This has several ambiguities if not downright mistakes: it's not clear what the "International warrant" is. The red notice is not a an "international warrant"; see Iterpol's own description [39]. Swedish Wire doesn't explicitly say EAW either (which would qualify as an "international" warrant, I guess) although the reference to SIS indicates that the 1st EAW might have been released on Nov 20. But it's not clear, because SIRENE processes other types of notices besides EAWs [40]. A better source is needed. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I added that source earlier today, replacing four that were previously used to say the same thing, which was unneccesary. The Swedish Wire article is basically a rehash of an AFP article, here which has been slightly reworded so should be reliable. Maybe it is best to just use the original article and if the text is currently inaccurate, reword it accordingly. (The reason I removed the yahoo version was because the links go dead quickly, but if we webcite it, that won't be a problem). SmartSE (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the source. I hadn't understood what you meant about the difference between the red notice and IAW before, but do now. This is quite problematic, as the AFP would be considered an RS. The Guardian ref used in the lead for this says "Swedish prosecutors have issued an international and European arrest warrant (EAW) for him in connection with rape allegations" - is this in addition to the red notice? SmartSE (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Sharonmil

This user is very banned. Could a few people please check their extensive edits to this article with a critical eye for subtle NPOV issues. If in doubt, please remove their work. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Dispute over status as "journalist"

Excellent work by whoever added this section. When in doubt, find a wide range of sources and describe all of them. Gregcaletta (talk) 04:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree, great section. There was a lot of discussion about this before in differnt sections of this discussion page. Now with mentioning the different sources with the different opinions in the article it gives a good understanding to the reader. --Orangwiki (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Gregcaletta's wikibreak

I'll be on a wikibreak for the next few months. I trust you guys to keep the article factual accurate and as NPOV as possible. Keep in mind that the opponents of WikiLeaks have far more resources than their supporters, and public officials have in the past shown that they are not beyond resorting to such tactics as attempting to bias an article. Assange has made powerful enemies, so we need to go the extra mile to find sources who do real investigative journalism to dig deeper than just the surface when is comes to attacks on Assange. Have fun! Gregcaletta (talk) 04:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Defining Moment

In article integrity. So far our articles are about the only neutral reports (with a large audience) on this organization and its people. The "you're either with us or against us" threat, from both points of view, has expanded its global duress to media reporting in a frighteningly rapid way. I hope this and related articles can withstand the pov pressure which is likely going to get much worse, from both directions. So far, so great. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Including Accusers Names

[Trolling and WP:BLP violations removed - Robofish (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC) ]

If the reliable sources use the names, I don't see where "privacy" applies. But if they don't, then it's original research and the alleged info can't be used. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

There's more than that: 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. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Putting an individual name just because a source mentioned them is not Wikipedia policy, AFAIK. Now, if (just to take an example), the individual does a press conference, or an interview in a newspaper about the subject, it changes because it appear that he/she intentionally disseminated his/her case. Which is not the case in the Assange article.Hervegirod (talk)

This thread does not cohere. If you have a specific recommendation for this article it may be best to break it out into a more focused and separate thread. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I may have recommendations for this article, but this thread was about the disclosure of an individual in the talk page which was breaching Wikipedia:LIVING#Privacy_of_names. It had nothing to do with the article itself. Hervegirod (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Adjusted your indentation. Mr.Grantevans2 started this thread. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Title given for this topic. There does appear to be many Reliable Sources which have named the accusers and even published photos of them, not in any mean-spirited way. There may be valid reasons, as outlined above, for not including the names or ages of the accusers in this BLP; however, I will only say that up until 2 days ago I had only browsed major USA and Canadian media articles and TV reports about the sex issue and I had formed a vague impression in my mind of Assange manipulating young if not underaged girls into something akin to date rape. Many or most Editors would maybe not form such an impression on such a superficial exposure to the story, but perhaps many of our Readers might? Maybe we could include the ages and not the names? Pardon me if their ages are in the BLP, I could not find them as yet. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don't consider my answer to be partial against Assange, but a title like "APPARENTLY having consensual sex in Sweden without a condom is punishable by a term of imprisonment of a minimum of two years for Rape" is absolutely not neutral IMO, therefore invalidating the source AFAIK. Furthermore, that valid sources have disclosed the name does not mean that we should. As for the age, I don't know, but I suppose that just mentioning them without the names is OK with the BLP. Hervegirod (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I must agree with you. There is not much use in adding any personal details about the accusers at this point in time when the RS reports on the 2 sexual encounters are so convoluted and ambiguous. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Those who willingly hide the identities of accusers while blithely naming the accused are enemies of freedom, of being innocent until proven guilty, and lastly are misandrists who will reap what they sow.Wondergay (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Lots of HTML refs

Could someone with a little more authority on this article start putting in refs that aren't liable to WP:linkrot? This man at the moment is such a controversial figure, that I thought that perhaps a more prominent wikipedian than I could create some non-html links.--Malleus Felonius (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean exactly? Most of the references shouldn't go dead for a fair while, I've replaced a few dead links today, and they can be archived with webcite, but this takes quite a while to do for each reference and adds to the size of the reference, making the page harder to edit. Dead links can also be fixed by finding versions in the internet archive (if they exist). SmartSE (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

European arrest warrant

On the European arrest warrant page, it says that one can only be issued if the suspect has been charged. The lead of this article, last paragraph, says that he hasn't been charged with anything yet. On the section about the Swedish warrant, it says he has been charged. Which is correct? 75.221.55.103 (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Founder

There are conflicting reports on whether Assange founded Wikileaks, even from Assange himself. The article currently quotes him saying "I don't call myself a founder", but it seems that within internal correspondence he does: "I am the heart and soul of this organization, its founder, philosopher, spokesperson, original coder, organizer, financier and all the rest." I think it's important we resolve these discrepancies as best we can, or at least provide an account of them. I'm interested in other editors' input. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think he was trying to make a statement when he said, "I don't call myself a founder," as opposed to being a literal meaning. There must be a word for what I mean for this, but it is escaping me at the moment. I mean, under Computer programming and university studies it says he registered leaks.org way back in 1999 under similar intentions as wikileaks, but never did anything with it. I also think that if you read the quotes you cited in context a similar impression is given, but that may just be me. 74.83.33.194 (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Too much detail in sex crime reports

I think the current reporting of the sex crime case is too long and detailed. As often happens with current events new developments have just been added after one an other, creating a very long section. The length of this section is bordering on undue weight in my view. We should try to summarize the events instead of having a detailed description and comments on each event.

I also think the reporting is too detailed, bordering on crude. Saying that there are "reports" of a broken condom is very unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a gossip column. The reports about the condoms seem to always be of a second hand nature. We should try too stick to the major developments until there are more detailed reports by better sources. 85.225.222.10 (talk) 10:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I kind of agree with you, but it is a complex issue and I can't really see how it can be fully covered with all the necessary details in fewer words. The condom mention should be moved from the lead, since it isn't mentioned in the larger section and should be worded differently, which I will try to do later. The Daily Mail report says the information came from "a police source" which isn't ideal, but it has also been reported elsewhere. It's difficult to say whether this is "gossip" and should be removed or whether it is providing an alternative POV to him being labelled a rapist by other sources. Overall, I personally don't think WP:UNDUE applies, since this topic has evidently been reported so widely, because of this it is right for the article to reflect that, whether the allegations are accurate or not. SmartSE (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

There's a big difference between forcible rape, and consensual sex in which a condom breaks, precipitating the supposed offense. "Sex crime" is a loaded term which would be consistent with archaic and conservative, traditional attitudes about sex that seem to be present here and also this has already been worked out in a prior process in this article It's just a simple biological function that mature intellectually developed adults (and children with exceptional parents) can be expected to be able to deal with. Wikipedia policy in not catering to the sensibility of individuals who take offense at the description of such normal functions are fairly well established. In this case, it is highly germane to the facts of the article. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the condom bit is important as well considering it gives context to the nature of the charges. There are many associations to the definition of rape, and I think it puts the Swedish definition in context to help clarify what he is being charged with doing. 74.83.33.194 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC).

current location

http://current.com/news/92836079_british-police-know-assange-s-location-await-arrest-orders-report.htm

just gonna leave this here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.71.120.121 (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Assange's Hollywood-style insurance policy

Here's some breaking news: [41]. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 17:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks but that isn't breaking news, see WikiLeaks#Insurance_file. SmartSE (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Line edits

Under the heading Release of American diplomatic cables

Reads: 'On 28 November 2010, WikiLeaks began releasing more than 251,000 American diplomatic cables, mostly unclassified but including many labelled "classified" or "secret".'

The word "classified" should read "confidential". "Classified" covers all possible classifications, and to date, the highest classification released in this set of cables has been "SECRET/NOFORN". My apologies if the placement or format of this comment is not up to specs. It might be better to list the specific classifications as they are listed on Wikileaks itself or its mirrors?

At present these include: CONFIDENTIAL, CONFIDENTIAL/NOFORN, SECRET, SECRET/NOFORN, and (possibly an error on Wikileaks' part) UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY with a nonsensical/typo error hovertext of "confidential//noforn". I leave it to the eds. to decide whether that is overkill, or whether the comment ought to have a link to any article that discusses US classification conventions.

Ebbixx (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

some news

Probably should be something about swiss bank account closure and plan to meet police tomorrow(?).[42][43]John Z (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Assange Chinese rather than French Origins

I have noticed that many newscasters mispronounce Julian's name in a French manner i.e. Assange as in Blancmange, his name is in fact Chinese in origin- all Australian/New Zealand Assanges originate with a Chinese immigrant to Queensland in the 1870s, George Ah Sang, Ah simply meant Mr but this was merged into one name, more information can be found at Rootsweb below: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/genanz/2008-07/1215931599 .

How does he say it? He may go by that now, which is fairly typical of immigrant families. My families names were completely anglicized when we moved here and are nothing like their original names. 74.83.33.194 (talk) 03:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Mentor to Canada's Prime Minister calls for Assange's assassination

There is an important piece of information missing from the Reaction section of the Assange article. It is very recent and indicative of a recent pushback by Assange.

Tom Flanagan, former principal adviser and mentor to Canadian Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper has called for Assange's assassination on Canadian television. Flanagan, an American, is one of several of Harper's inner circle who are members of the US Republican Party; a first in Canadian politics. Calgary City Police are now investigating Flanagan's comments to consider whether to press charges based on Assange's complaints. 70.26.75.229 (talk) 06:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Information regarding the location of this person should be given to Interpol.

The warning to report to Interpol which is not a real institution by any means seems rather inapropriate for wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockman200 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Wanted?

This page is about a current person wanted by Interpol[11]. Information regarding the location of this person should be given to Interpol.

Hey, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, remember? not a message board. --BlackKnight (talk) 07:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Curent event

Shouldn't a current event banner/warning be added to the top? --24.94.251.190 (talk) 11:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)