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)

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[2] 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."[3] 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)
• Support inclusion reluctantly, WP:LEAD says that significant controversies should be mentioned in the lead and looking at the reporting, the warrant and the Swedish allegations are certainly a "significant controversy". WP:NPOV also says that viewpoints should be presented in rough proportion to the coverage they get in sources, and the warrant gets enormous coverage. There is a recentism point to be made against inclusion with which I agree, and the text in the lead should disclose that the warrant is controversial and the point that it may be politically engineered shouldn't be absent. --Dailycare (talk) 20:33, 7 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 [4] 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 [5], 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) [6][7] 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 [8]:

“ 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 [9]

“ 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.[10]

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 [11]. 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 [12] [13] 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", --- ---, 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."[14]. 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 [15].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." [16].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 --- --- 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 --- ---'s destruction of proof, from September 30, 2010, http://rixstep.com/1/20101001,01.shtml

"When --- --- files a police complaint against Julian Assange on 20 August these tweets (--- ---, 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 --- --- really liked Julian and that there had been no molestation 24 hours earlier. You can't divine in the tweets that --- --- thinks Julian has a 'warped view of womanhood and can't take no for an answer'. The tweets are more an attempt by --- --- 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 --- --- has two identical 'miniblogs' - one at Twitter and the other at Bloggy.se. It looks as if --- ---'s tweets are posted to both blogs at the same time. The tweets that are deleted from Twitter are still visible at --- ---.bloggy.se. ---missed the fact that she has to delete on each and every blog. Bad luck."

"To see if --- --- 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 --- --- 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 --- ---.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 --- ---.bloggy.se."

"But it's not as easy to remove things from the Internet as --- --- thinks. Google takes snapshots of how web pages look - so called caches. If you search for the cached page for --- ---.bloggy.se you can see what it looked like on 19 August. (If the cache disappears, go to http://www.samtycke.nu/doc/--- ---_cache19aug.htm.) Then you can compare the page with how --- ---.bloggy.se and twitter.com/--- ---look."

"As we can see, --- --- 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 --- --- 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)

There is no such legislation. 202.124.72.217 is incorrect. -xwingsx- (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The whole deal with the "case" is that he supposedly broke the condom purposefully. It's what spurred the women to go to the police in the first place, as they thought that he might have had an STD. There are plenty of sources for this, such as [17], [18], etc. Nymf _hideliho! 04:24, 8 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. [19] 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 [20] [21] 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 [22]. 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 [23].

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: [24]

“ 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 [25], 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)

All these claims are being attributed to Stephens, no one else. As a defense lawyer his jobis to do anything within the law to get his client off (no pun intented). There shoudl be a single line about this claim, and little more from stephens in the article. Wikipedia is not a platform for his defense team to make arguments. 207.216.253.134 (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Also see [26]. In particular: The word "rape" was not part of the charges but "unlawful coercion" and Assange's alleged reluctance to use condoms was.

Now the same article does suggest that "rape" was one of the original things that the police went for, but it's not clear that this is one of the current charges?

Another point - surely whatever he's charged with is going to be in Swedish. And if we're translating it into English, since this is the English Wikipedia, we had better go by English definitions in order to describe Swedish law. So we should be careful before throwing around terms like "rape" - is it known whether the alleged victims say they consented, and do we have any sources for this? Mdwh (talk) 03:08, 8 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 [27] "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. [28] 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 [29] 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 [30]. 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 [31]. 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)

I have now removed 20 something references to alleged names of the victims from this talk page. BLP applies even in talk pages. "Outing" the women in a case like this clearly is against WP:BLPNAME. Much of the speculation about the women on this page has been in violation of both WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. Remember, it is not for us to judge who is guilty in this case, just stick to reporting the actual, verifiable events, not what some blogger thinks might have happened.85.225.222.10 (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with that. Hervegirod (talk) 23:33, 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).

Agreed, the detail is necessary to prevent an interpretation that the crime was more serious than alleged. 156.98.129.1 (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

is there a source? It seems people are going to great length to make it seem he is practically innocent. Assange himself has not put forward this defense. This is not at the trial stage yet. Right now the story is more about him being a fugitive, than him being guilty. we are wikipedia editors not a grand jury. It is enough to say that he has only been charged, because he is not considered guilty of either a greater or lesser crime. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I dont believe it is up to us to ensure people interpret the charges in a certain way. So long as we accurately cover what reliable sources are reporting. So far the only claims that it was anything less than rape have come from his lawyers, but I believe this should have limited covereage here. Every defense lawyer will always claim their client is innocent (whether true or not) so I dont believe the statements should be included as a reliable source. A live that Stephens disputes the charge is fine, but currently quotes from stephens pepper the section almost taking over and giving the section a defense argument feel. Definately not balanced. 207.216.253.134 (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur that it is not up to us to ensure people interpret the charges in a certain way. Rather it is our responsibility to provide relevant facts in a neutral manner. Here’s what we know for a fact:

1) that Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny filed an arrest warrant for questioning in connection with allegations of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion after Assange was involved with two different women in Sweden in mid-August of this year,

2) that Assange was arrested in Britain and denied bail,

3) that in that court, “Gemma Lindfield, for the Swedish authorities, told (City of Westminster magistrates court) Assange was wanted in connection with four allegations.

She said the first complainant, Miss A, said she was victim of ‘unlawful coercion’ on the night of 14 August in Stockholm. The court heard Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.

The second charge alleged Assange ‘sexually molested’ Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her "express wish" one should be used.

The third charge claimed Assange ‘deliberately molested’ Miss A on 18 August 'in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity'.

The fourth charge accused Assange of having sex with a second woman, Miss W, on 17 August without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home.” [32]

4) that Assange and his attorneys are strongly denying the charges/allegations and are going to fight extradition.

There has been a lot reported beyond the above that seems to be of the second- and third-hand variety. The section in the article should basically reflect just the above four items and not much more, save for a little bit of the background and one or two of the more applicable quotes from the involved individuals. Also, I concur with SmartSE that the condom information should be moved from the lede to the body of the article. The lede should simply state that he was wanted, arrested, denies the allegations and is fighting extradition, appropriately worded, of course. Hammersbach (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the Daily Mail article from the lead and reworded it accordingly per Hammersbach's suggestion. On second thoughts I realised that the DM article is really not suitable for a BLP and now that we official details of the allegations, these can be included in the relevant section. One thing I'm unsure with is whether he has been charged with anything or not, his lawyer said on channel 4 news earlier that he is still only wanted for questioning, but apparently EAWs can't be issued without charges... The Guardian reported yesterday or today that this is the case as well. SmartSE (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't decide what the best course of action is regarding whether we should include what the charges are or not, so I've dropped at note at WP:BLPN to get some advice. SmartSE (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: I've removed the name of the 'second woman' from the article - the inclusion violated BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

He has not been charged with anything at all, he is wanted for questioning only. Off2riorob (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note: this talk page section was mentioned at Wikipedia:BLP/N#Charges_against_Julian_Assange. Gigs (talk) 03:09, 8 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: [33]. —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(?).[34][35]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)

And he turned himself voluntarily in as soon as the local authorities received and processed a proper warrant [36]. As expected. I guess all the people who constantly wanted to call him a fugitive in the article can give it up now. Gigs (talk) 14:04, 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)

I'm neutral on the idea. On the one hand it does serve to document a current event in many ways. On the other hand, this is his biography and should be written in a more or less timeless fashion, and not be overly driven by current events. Gigs (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

{{Current}} should only be used when hundreds of people are editing an article each day, rather than to notify that it is related to current events. This isn't the case at the moment and so I don't think it should be added. (I removed it a couple of days ago by the way). SmartSE (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

concomitantly

Concomitantly? Concomitantly! Is this fancy word really necessary? Is some preparing for his junior year SAT test and concomitantly writing wiki articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.67.84.104 (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I've changed it to "at the same time". Thanks for pointing it out. SmartSE (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Smear campaign

The article should mention that the allegations are nothing more than a smear campaign. --J4\/4 <talk> 15:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Proof? You obviously must have read all the sworn statements by the (allegedly) raped women? Jacina (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The "victims" have committed perjury. --J4\/4 <talk> 16:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You need to find sources, and say "XX sources say this is a 'smear campaign' WhisperToMe (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The article already says "Assange said "the charges are without basis and their issue at this moment is deeply disturbing"; his supporters say he is the victim of a character assassination and smear campaign". To say it is "nothing more than a smear campaign" is something extra, but I don't think you'll find any reliable sources saying that. SmartSE (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Australian Prime Minister's name misspelled

Julia Gillard's name was misspelled as 'Julia Goddard' under the section 'Release of United States diplomatic cables'.

--175.137.209.28 (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out, User:Nymf has fixed it. (Think it was my mistake earlier!) SmartSE (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources

• "Sweden authorizes INTERPOL to make public Red Notice for WikiLeaks founder"
  • English
  • Arabic (PDF)
  • Spanish
  • French
• Interpol: Wanted: Julian Paul Assange
• WhisperToMe (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

In custody and charges

[37] He is in UK custody now. Notice when the BBC discusses a rape case they don't mention the alleged victims name nor their political and religious affiliations. also, the charges have been made public. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting point. In a British court today, Gemma Lindfield, representing Swedish authorities referred to the alleged victims at “Miss A” and “Miss W”. We now have editors who feel that their names (or at least one of them) should be listed in the article. The question is, should their names and other details be listed or is this a BLP issue? Hammersbach (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP policy, there is no valid reason at this point to disclose their names, regardless of what certain newspapers could have done. This policy is there for a reason. Hervegirod (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

herve: I think the main question in addressing whether they should be named or not is... are they making public statements about the case and willingly disclosing their names. If the newspapers are naming them, but there is no evidence that they are openly disclosing their names or wanting their names to be publicly known, then they shouldn't be named on Wikipedia. It's like with the Star Wars Kid. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, as this article discusses, the women are under attack all over the internet and we should not be part of it. If we need to distinguish between them, then “Miss A” and “Miss W” would be the way to do so, but I don't think we need to so it's pretty irrelevant. SmartSE (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

we can find nowhere informations on these two women making public statements about this situation, so their anonymity should be preserved here. Hervegirod (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think adding the women's names adds any encyclopedic value at this point. --JN466 01:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with keeping the names out, for now. That situation could easily change depending on how the coverage shapes up in the future though. Gigs (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I've just had to remove the (dubiously sourced) alleged victim's names from the article (as inserted for the second time here), as a breach of WP:BLP. can people keep an eye on this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Source

• STD fears sparked case against WikiLeaks boss, Sydney Morning Herald / Reuters

Contains background on the origin of the rape charges --JN466 01:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment by one of Assange's lawyers. --JN466 01:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"Warrant for alleged sex offenses"

The warrant is not for alleged sex offenses. The warrant is for [arrest on charges of] sex offenses. The fact of the allegation is not in dispute and, indeed, is implied by the existence of a warrant. 98.169.195.207 (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

OMG he once took a science class

The lead currently proclaims that he was a math and physics student. The cited source says that he "enrolled in a mathematics and physics course at Melbourne University." Big fffffffffffffing deal. This article is full of bloat that needs to be removed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} Gigs (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I have just made the lead a bit more concise.[38] I don't have time right now to tackle the rest of the article, but I urge people to cut, slash, and delete the bloat.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why you would think that the fact that he has won 3 journalism awards is "bloat"? Nymf _hideliho! 04:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It was misleading. Neither Amnesty International nor Sam Adams Associates are journalistic organizations. If it was a Pulitzer, that would be another thing. The awards are adequately described in the body of the article, I think.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

American politicians threatening Assange with execution?

The article presently quotes Assange's attorney, Mark Stephens, as saying that that Assange would fight attempts to take him to Sweden over the allegations due to the possibility that it could lead to the Swedish handing him over to the US, where politicians have called for him to be executed. Although the passage seems to reflect Stephens' words accurately, it is misleading for two reasons. First of all, the wording is poor, since it is ambiguous whether the last part about politicians calling for Assange's execution is a fact added by an editor or part of the Stephens quote. It turns out that it is the latter, but it is still misleading, since it appears to be factually incorrect. Stephens' quote comes on the heels of a number of former American politicians, pundits, and political operatives calling for the execution of the original leaker (presumably Manning), and some calling for Assange's prosecution, but there doesn't seem to be any reliable source that quotes an American politician as calling for Assange's execution. The wording of this passage should be cleared up because it presents opinion as potential fact and the opinion seems to be wrong anyway. Ketone16 (talk) 05:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ought to mention the controversy...

If the article is going to reference a connection to a "controversial New Age group", it ought to at least mention the controversy, otherwise it's an impediment rather than a help. Makes me wonder how a New Age group can be controversial. Do they do bad things on stage? Take unpopular political positions? etc... It's distracting.

99.137.251.249 (talk) 06:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Jonny Quick