Talk:Julian Assange

Daniel Ellsberg called Julian Assange "hero" and praised his work as "exemplary".

I suppose it could be considered POV but as long as it's sourced it's probably not a big deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.107.254.13 (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

One call it POV so what other have to say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 07:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This is okay, so long as those who criticise Assange are given a due weight proportional to them, and sourced, and the hero comment is sourced and weighted too. Cymbelmineer

Who and the hell cares what Daniel Ellsberg says? It is hilarious that people keep bring up Ellsberg when discussing this case, as if he is even remotely relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.155.184 (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Almost every commentator and media outlet out there has drawn parallels between what Daniel Ellsberg did in the Pentagon Papers case and what WikiLeaks has been doing. Exactly everybody also agrees that Ellsberg is much more relevant (at least than you and the POV you're trying to push). Ha! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.3.77.210 (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

More notes from Julian Assange

• There are attempts to remove first amendment and other journalistic protections from me.
• My correct description is
  • Publisher
  • Writer
  • Activist
• I co-authored my first book by the time I was 25 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.182.149.63 (talk) 05:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

HeaB: Could you comment on this one? First, of course, there is no verification that this was indeed written by Julian Assange. As Julian Assange edited this discussion page before and it was verified by a source, let's assume it is written by him. I understand the wish of Julian Assange, to be called "writer" and "publisher" in the article, as not just a wish for having a good article on him, but to make sure he gets the legal protection he deserves, as the first amendment of the US constitution prohibits infringing on the freedom of speech, and or course there is more legel protection in the legislation of the US and other countries for writers and publishers. Having co-authered a book with 25 confirms to be a writer, so this again is probably not for the importance of stating his involvement about the book published but about the journalistic protection. HaeB, could you comment on this, check the issues and if appropriate update the article? --Orangwiki (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The first amendment applies to everyone equally, whether or not they are called a journalist or writer. I'm not opposed to putting such a description in the lede if it's accurate, but we really shouldn't be concerned with legal implications. Gigs (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems an accurate enough description to me. I'll make the change. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It might be wise for Assange to have an official page created on himself for us to link to. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

First, I'd like to note that I didn't write the previous versions of the statement in question, and that Orangwiki (as s/he clarified here) directed the above question at me solely because I happened to have been the user who had replied to the previous notes from Assange.

But I had a look at the issue after Orangwiki's comment, and I don't see a basis for the additions that Gregcaletta has now made twice (silently readding the terms yesterday after another user had removed them).

About "editor" or "publisher": Assange's activities for Wikileaks are already subsumed sufficiently under "internet activist," and in any case they differ too much from what is usually understood under these terms to use them without explanation. Until there is evidence of other notable publications where Assange acted as editor, this should be left out.

About "writer": 93.182.149.63 states above "I co-authored my first book by the time I was 25". In typical Assange PR spin manner, this insinuates that there have been further books by him - which are these? And it leaves the reader guessing at which book was meant. Underground does not credit him as a writer, but as a researcher[1], and the online edition specifically does not call him a co-author ("its author, Suelette Dreyfus and researcher, Julian Assange" [2]).

It may be that Assange has published opinion pieces in notable media, and he probably authored most of the official statements on Wikileaks. But that is not sufficient to list "writer" as one of his main occupations in the lede, just like we don't call a politician a writer solely for having published opinion pieces in newspapers.

In any case, it is certainly very weird to have an article about a "writer" which doesn't have a section titled "Bibliography", "Publications" or similar. If Gregcaletta knows of more books written by Asange (or other texts that he is notable for, apart from WIkileaks), I invite him to first add such a section to the article.

Wikipedia articles are not tools to support certain activities or goals (however laudable they may be) by promoting the PR spin of activists, or to provide article subjects with ammunition in legal proceedings.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It's absurd to say Assange is not an editor just because he is only the editor for one organisation, and "internet activist" is certainly not sufficient on its own to describe him -- it's a vacuous term -- but I won't protest the current wording. Gregcaletta (talk) 09:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is another statement of Julian Assange in a Forbes interview 29 Nov 2010 were he talks about others attempting to take the journalistic protections from him: "... 1993. Since that time, I’ve been a publisher, and at various moments a journalist. There’s a deliberate attempt to redefine what we’re doing not as publishing, which is protected in many countries, or the journalist activities, which is protected in other ways, as something which doesn’t have a protection, like computer hacking, and to therefore split us off from the rest of the press and from these legal protections. It’s done quite deliberately by some of our opponents. It’s also done because of fear, from publishers like The New York Times that they’ll be regulated and investigated if they include our activities in publishing and journalism." --Orangwiki (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Fugitive

Assange now has an Interpol arrest warrant[3] outstanding, and thus meets the very definition of "fugitive". Even a person with only a national arrest warrant would meet the definition, but there can be absolutely no doubt that a person with an international arrest warrant does (you don't get more fugitive than that).

Accordingly, Assange now needs to be included in the categories

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

Whether Assange claims he's going to turn himself in (as a matter of fact, he claims the complete opposite, he's not going to turn himself in, he refuses to return to Sweden) is immaterial for his status as a fugitive following the issuing of his arrest warrant. Of course, the reason for the issuing of Assange's Interpol arrest warrant was his refusal to return to Sweden for questioning voluntarily. He now faces arrest in any Interpol and Schengen member state. Jeannedeba (talk) 04:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Recognized as a fugitive in his native country: "After the court's decision he's become a fugitive from the country he wanted to call home." (Australian Broadcasting Corp.)[4]

"He now faces arrest in any Interpol and Schengen member state." - Jeannedeba.

Assange is wanted for questioning. Interpol member states rarely arrest a individual wanted for questioning in another member state. Sigurdur Einarsson, former CEO of Kaupthing, was able to be free in his London mansion for several months while on the Interpol's "red notice list" because the British police wouldn't arrest him until charges were issued against him. - source Patroiz (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't we remove all "arrest warrants" from the article if it is indeed only a "detention order"? --spitzl (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe so. It should also be clarified in the lead that it's questioning that he is wanted for, and that no formal charges has been filed yet. Nymf _hideliho! 21:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Attempt to hijack article

This article seems to be under attack by Assange and/or his supporters (he has told his supporters to "fix" the article), most recently this edit which was not a constructive edit (removal of valid categories supported by reliable sources, the validity of which have so far not been contested, and with a fake edit summary (he removed more than edit 397993058)). I take for granted attempts to hijack one's "own" article isn't tolerated. Jeannedeba (talk) 04:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Implying that I am a vandal and a meat puppet is quite a serious accusation. I suggest that you take this to ANI or drop it immediately. Nymf _hideliho! 11:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I only know that Assange has sent out a message to his 178,288 Twitter followers to hijack this article, which is very disturbing. I don't know anything about you. Jeannedeba (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC) 

Actually, Assange was right that the article was biased, and he wanted to correct that bias. In fact, the article is still biased. What Assange apparently does not understand is that the bias of this article reflects a bias in the media, which unfortunately is unavoidable given Wikipedia's policies on using mainstream sources in order to achieve consensus. All we can do is to make the article as even as possible is to include all necessary facts and use our own discretion in their presentation. The risk of pro-Assange editors is certainly not greater than the risk of anti-Assange editors, given the expected defensive aggression towards Assange of government and corporate institutions including much of the established media. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

mainstream in my country is not the same as mainstream in america. can one give english version sources from other countries? or even non-english sources? 188.2.174.63 (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. In fact, this is highly encouraged, because Wikipedia is supposed to have an international POV. This article already includes some sources from Australian and English newspapers, which show rather different POVs to the US media, but translation of coverage in a non-english newspaper such as La Jornada would likely provide and even more alternative viewpoint and is greatly encouraged. Gregcaletta (talk) 05:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

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[5], 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)

Fugitive 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just had a look at the recent edit history. I think it's unncessary to describe him as a fugitive in the lead section (per this edit: [6]), because we have already said there are arrest warrants for him, which means the same. Of course, there is nothing wrong with calling him a fugitive, a sourced fact, but there's no need to say the same thing tategories for people sought by law enforcements agencies only from this article (making an exception just for him) because you like Assange or whatever is not the way to do it. Either nominate all the fugitive categories for deletion and have them wice. The categories are a different matter because we have a (very) extensive system of categories for people with arrest warrants used thoughout Wikipedia, and they are all named "fugitives... something" (check out the main Category:Fugitives). The inclusion of the categories is merely a matter of adhering to the existing category system, which we need to do, of course. Jeannedeba (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Question: When is a fugitive not a fugitive?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A person who is wanted by law enforcement agencies is in fact fleeing from custody. Assange has been arrested in his absence by Swedish police and is fleeing from custody by refusing to turn himself in. You are completely mistaken if you believe the word "fugitive" only applies to people who have already been in jail. The important thing is whether one is sought by law enforcement agencies (per Category:Fugitives wanted by the International Criminal Court and other categories used for people who have never been caught yet). Also see [7]: "a person who is running away or hiding from the police [...] Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid were fugitives from justice (= they ran away to avoid being tried in court).". It doesn't say anything about the term being "pejorative", so I assume this is just your personal opinion. Jeannedeba (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

His lawyer has said publicly on his behalf that he is not going to turn himself in. Whether he has an intention of, eventually, turning himself in, doesn't change a thing anyway, since he became fugitive from Swedish justice the moment the arrest warrant was issued (it was issued because he didn't turn himself in voluntarily in the first place - believe me, Interpol arrest warrants are not issued for people who are willing to make arrangements for taking the next flight back and turn themselves in. Obviously, if he wanted to turn himself in, as he is required to do immediately, he would have returned to Sweden days ago).[8] Jeannedeba (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't think Interpol issues arrest warrants for parking fines, btw. The subject of this article is wanted by Interpol on charges of rape, a serious crime, not parking fines. We also actually have several sources for the fact that he 1) is taking steps to avoid Swedish arrest by refusing to return to Sweden as he is required to (in order to cease being a fugitive from Swedish justice) and 2) living "like a fugitive" (in a more informal sense of the term), seemingly fearing being apprehended by the authorities [9]. He does absolutely not live a "very open and public life", he lives like someone who has escaped from prison or like someone who is formally under arrest (in his absence) in an EU country (as he is). Jeannedeba (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

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

I would agree that there is every reason to call him a fugitive... Assange's INTERPOL Red Notice. If anyone is actually interested, INTERPOL lists their Red Notices under... Fugitives! Arguments claiming that describing him as a fugitive amount to character assassination are untenable. INTERPOL's website lists him under its Fugitives section, and several news agencies now refer to him this way. Wikipedia is not an advocacy platform so please, let's stop using it as such. Amfarr21 (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Subheading for readability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• by an EU member state generally considered to be one of the world's most advanced legal systems and societies
• and additionally an international arrest warrant issued through Interpol, which is only done for serious crimes
• who has said publicly that he refuses to return to Sweden, knowing that it's the only acceptable solution under Swedish law (i.e. he will remain fugitive from Swedish justice until he does)
• who lives "on the run" fearing being apprehended[10]
• who is described as a fugitive from Sweden by reliable sources[11]
• And still: Some people claim he's not a fugitive from Swedish justice, believe it or not, turning the world totally on its head.

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

If you do nominate the fugitive categories for deletion, it's worthwhile to remember that: Fugitive is described as "fleeing arrest"[12], "a person who is fleeing, from prosecution"[13], "fugitives from justice (= they ran away to avoid being tried in court)."[14]. Having found a safe haven doesn't change the fact that one is fleeing arrest by another country.

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, because it's a rhetorical question and hair-splitting. And as a matter of fact, yes, there are secondary sources that use that specific wording ("In September he fled Sweden, where he faced charges of rape and molestation."[16]). But I don't consider them important. The important sources are the ones that deal with his arrest warrant, his refusal to return to Sweden, which makes him a fugitive wanted by Sweden as far as these categories are concerned/used. Whether the word "fugitive" is used by many or few sources is immaterial, and again, I suggest the categories are renamed if some consider that word a problem (although the above dictionaries don't). I haven't seen a single dictionary that claims it's a pejorative term (on the contrary some dictionaries used positive examples such a "fugitive from a dictatorial regime"[17]), so please show us your sources for that claim. As shown above, the term fugitive from justice is used as the standard term for someone taking refuge in a different country in order to avoid arrest in another country. Jeannedeba (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC on the arrest warrant in the lead

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

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're right, we don't have to decide anything. Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union[18] 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."[19] This source is already in the article. Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Threaded discussion

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

Threats against Assange

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

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

The editorial [20] 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 [21], 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) [22][23] 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 [24]:

“ 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)

Marianne Ny red link

I'm not terribly convinced that Marianne Ny would survive a deletion request, unless some Swedish speakers first create sv:Marianne Ny, convince Swedish-speaking wikipedians that she is notable apart from her alleged inability to communicate with Assange's lawyers in order to arrange an interview, and then bring over the key RS's and claims they make to Marianne Ny. Someone this senior sounds like she could reasonably well be notable - the lack of extensive English-language easy-to-find info does not necessarily make her non-notable this is not the USA.wikipedia.org. There's also the factor of a search-engine difficulty linked with the ambiguity between her surname and the abbreviation for a US state (New York). In any case, if anyone thinks that she might survive deletion, here are some things that could be used:

• you could start with her official CV at the Council of Europe: {{{{cite web| last =| first =| authorlink =| coauthors =| title =Marianne NY| work =| publisher =[[Council of Europe]] | date =| url =http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/childjustice/Marianne%20Ny.asp |format =| doi =| accessdate =2010-11-24 |archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/5uSqw799K |archivedate=2010-11-24 |deadurl=no }}}}; this has plenty of key facts (specialist in child abuse etc.), but a lot more third-party sources would be needed as well;
• the prosecutor's office website in Swedish seems to have half of all its recent news items focussed on Assange and talking about Ny in relation to that; in that sense Ny's activity in the Assange case is considered notable by the prosecutor's office (OR: does that mean that Assange's encounters with the two women constitute about half of all the recent major sex crimes in Sweden?);
• the prosecutor's office website's English front page is explicitly about Assange http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/ - again, the prosecutor's office considers Ny prosecution of Assange to be its most important (or only important) fact that is worth publishing in English.

Just to state the obvious: being notable for prosecuting someone of historical importance is a "one event only" notability argument, at least for the moment. That means not normally enough for a standalone article. Boud (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Marianne Ny is överåklagare, translated in English as Director of Prosecution[25][26], a title held by only a handful of prosecutors in Sweden to my knowledge, and the second highest title for a Swedish prosecutor after the attorney general (riksåklagare). She is the lead prosecutor for sexual crimes in all of Sweden, amongst other things. This is a very senior position and she is obviously notable. As a high-ranking official she has obviously been the subject of media attention unrelated to the website owner we are discussing here.[27] Jeannedeba (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe she is a Deputy Director (one step below Director?); at least that's how they've described her at coe.int. Nymf _hideliho! 02:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

That is an old link. What Jeannedeba says is true. There are 5-10 Directors of Prosecution in Sweden, and she is one of them. The only higher title is the attorney general himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.222.10 (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think this is the right venue to argue about if she should get her own bio on English wiki. If one thinks she does they should create one and see if it will stand on it's own w/o being just a coatrack for Assange's article. I'd say go for it if you think there is enough substance for a stand-alone article. Likewise you might want to encourage Swediapedians to create one on their wiki (first?) as they sure will have more sources and knowledge about the subject.TMCk (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Brotherhood

What is the role of the Brotherhood movement in the charges against Julian Assange? Are they involved in any way? If not, why are they mentioned? Is it common practice for Wikipedia to list the religious faith of all participants in a criminal investigation? If so, maybe we should add everybody's faiths?

I suggest we remove the information about the woman's faith unless it is somehow relevant to the article. If we don't even list Julian Assange's own religious beliefs why would we list hers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.222.10 (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you've misunderstood the purpose of this particular article.99.141.243.84 (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it. It's an article about Julian Assange. If you think we should keep the reference to the woman's religious faith, please explain why it is relevant to an article about Julian Assange.85.225.222.10 (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

She was acting as Assange's spokeswoman prior to the charges so yes, it is relevant. Think about her being mentioned in the article assuming there wouldn't be any allegations. It would be (and therefore is) uncontroversial to clarify who she when explaining her connection besides from the case.TMCk (talk) 02:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it. Unless someone can add some content as to why her religion and political affiliation are relevant, then it doesn't need to be there. It seems to have been put there to imply something about her motivations for bringing charges, as if she had an ulterior motive. That's entirely unacceptable. As well, these BLP claims about her religion and political affiliation are unsourced as far as I can see. They need to stay out unless they can be given context sourced to a good source. Gigs (talk) 04:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It is clearly sourced and the connection is made (ref. [84], page 2 [28]): "...a news conference and seminar in Stockholm on Aug. 14 that had been organized by the Brotherhood, a Christian affiliate of Sweden's Social Democratic Party, to explain the arrival of WikiLeaks to the Swedish public." "The Brotherhood was acting as Assange's host during his visit in Sweden, and a woman who belonged to the Brotherhood was working as his spokeswoman and assistant. Assange was staying at the woman's home."
So there is no BLP vio here.TMCk (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the point is that this article is about Assange, and not the woman or the Brotherhood. If a reliable source were to attach some significance relating to Assange about the Brotherhood, we might use that information. Until that happens, it is not relevant (and somewhat cherry picking) to this article. If this incident develops into a fullscale conflict (I would bet that it will), then all sorts of details can be added (or a separate article made), but such details are not helpful now (I acknowledge that they would appeal to many readers, but that is not our encyclopedic role). Johnuniq (talk) 03:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Such a huge effort to define her as religious - this works hand in hand with previous biased edits that removed her subordinate employee relationship. 72.5.199.254 (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Legality of his actions?

Isn't the legality of his actions with wikileaks a seemingly important piece of information to mention in his page? Boone292929 (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. There a few reports by legal analysts I have seen in the media. Feel free to find them and integrate them into the article. Most that I have seen say he has done nothing illegal. Gregcaletta (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Ahem, the last leak of United States diplomatic cables is not legal. I don't think that disclosing confidential diplomatic documents can be defined as legal. IN a more general way, the way Assange is viewed here is not really neutral and much too sympathetic toward him. Only one point of view is really presented here: Assange's and his friends. After all, his behavior is questionable, but it is not really questioned in this article. Hervegirod (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

If what WikiLeaks has done is illegal then so would be the actions of the New York Times, The Guardian and Der Spiegel. WikiLeaks is the publisher and distributor of the material, not the source. This is a blog from the New York Law School: http://www.lasisblog.com/2010/11/12/wikileaks-has-committed-no-crime/

There are two paragraphs that are very critical of Assange in "descriptions of Assange" along with a some neutral paragraphs and some defending him from criticism. I wouldn't say the point of view of the Swedish prosecutors or US government presented in this article is the point of view of "Assange and his friends". Gregcaletta (talk) 05:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the point here. I really don't know how you think that making sensible informations public may be legal. Newspapers did not make them public, because they where leaked before. Their behavior may be questionable, but they are not technically violating the law. Hervegirod (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hervegirod: please read the lasisblog article above. Gregcaletta went to the effort of finding it for you. You can see the article human rights for more in-depth background. But please also read WP:FORUM.

If you really think that the point is notable enough, e.g. with various lawyers' points of view available, then i suggest you go over to Talk:WikiLeaks and see what people over there think. i don't see why legality of WikiLeaks' actions are especially relevant to Assange rather than WikiLeaks as a whole. On the contrary, i suspect that illegal actions by the US or UK or Australian authorities against Assange might occur. But that hasn't happened so far (depending on whether e.g. US behind-the-scenes involvement occurred for the consensual sex legal case), so it's not relevant for this article. Boud (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Blogs are not considered reliable sources. Jeannedeba (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Blogs are perfectly fine for helping someone curious about a question learn about something, and somewhat kinder than referring to WP:FORUM without even giving the person a hint where to start. If that person is motivated, then s/he may then try searching for RS's. As for blogs as RS's, please read the guideline more carefully. It's a guideline, not a blanket rule. And 5 years from now, chances are it will have evolved. 10 years ago, Wikipedia was still a month and a half away from being officially born. Guidelines are going to be rewritten based on common sense, experience and consensus. Criteria for judging which blogs are "reliable" will undoubtedly evolve, IMHO. 5 years is a long time in wikidom. Boud (talk) 20:56, 30 November 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)

a number of awards?

it says in the lead that he was been given a "number of awards." Sure two is a number, but the connotation is more than that. second, are these really journalism awards? 98.206.155.53 (talk) 07:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

He has one three awards, and they are journalism awards. If you want, you could mention them each separately in the lead. Gregcaletta (talk) 09:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

yeah, I see someone added another award. I wonder if you have examined what these awards are. The Sam Adams award is for whistle blowing, Assange is the only journalist to have gotten it. After looking up The Amnesty International UK Media Award, I realize it is a journalism award, and not a media award. The Freedom of Expression award is given to many nonjournalists. Anyway, It seems to me that the description is misleading because Assange is not really a traditional journalist, and got his awards for his contributions to whistle-blowing, not typical news reporting. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Greenwald

None of my concerns have been addressed r.e. this piece. It was introduced to undermine text from a NYT article - which it didn't actually do. The source is highly partisan and focuses on a single NYT article which it claims attacks assange with tabloid gossip; the merits of that aside it doesn't really dispute any of the content, just how the article is phrased. On the one hand that seems a reasonable thing to include; but given the partisan nature of the source, the fact it deals with one article only and its "hissy fit" tone I don't think it is reliable or significant. Even more problematic is that the text here dramatically misrepresents the source to an astonishing degree; as an example are not standard journalistic practice and are reserved by the New York Times for figures like Assange is given in the voice of WP (i.e. of fact), when actually it is a rehtoric in the salon article (and not even in greenwalds voice, but that of the NYT authors). This is then collated with selected phrases to conclude an extraordinary amount. It's inclusion is extremely pointy and distinctly problematic. Even more problematically; that NYT comments thread is included as a source; we have said about three times now that there is no conceivable way it could be considered a reliable source - failing on all three counts! --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 10:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't put it in the voice of WP. It puts it in the paraphrased voice of Greenwald, specifically saying "Greenwald says' [these] are not standard journalistic practice and are reserved by the New York Times for figures like Assange". He actually says almost exactly that in the article "standard journalistic practice" is Greenwald's phrase so you can put it in quotation marks if you like. The comments ref can be removed, although it does not really need to be removed because it is only being used to verify Greenwald's claim that many others have also been critical of the article. Gregcaletta (talk) 10:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

it is only being used to verify Greenwald's claim; even worse because that is then WP:OR. "standard journalistic practice" is Greenwald's phrase; doesn't appear to be, it appears to be the NYT authors phrase, and is carefully quoted in the Salon article. Essentially the article says "NYT claims this is "standard journalistic practice", which is a load of tosh" - our article says a distinctly different thing. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 10:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Just ot be clear; he talks about a "standard journalistic endeavour", a phrase used by Burns in his defence, in relation to the actions of the NYT. He does not use it in his own voice. Our article then presents this as a wider critique, suggesting that the NYT article was factually outside of the normal journalistic practice (by some unknown measure). The content we have was written, badly, to discredit a source; it doesn't reflect the source, which I don't think is significant anyway. If we want to make a general point about the quality or focus of reporting about Assange then I fully support that - but I suggest we need much better qualitym, and a wider range, of sources than this snatch piece. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The quote is no longer being used to discredit a particular source. Rather it is being used as one of the best examples of the belief there is biased reporting against Assange. Yes, it is originally Burns's phrase. Burns says it is "standard journalistic endeavour" and Greenwald negates this directly by saying it is not, and that articles like these are reserved for Assange. This is what Greenwald says:

What Burns did to Julian Assange is most certainly not a "standard journalistic endeavor" for The New York Times. If anyone doubts that, please show me any article that paper has published which trashed the mental health, psyche and personality of a high-ranking American political or military official -- a Senator or a General or a President or a cabinet secretary or even a prominent lobbyist -- based on quotes from disgruntled associates of theirs. That is not done, and it never would be. This kind of character smear ("he's not in his right mind," pronounced a 25-year-old who sort of knows him) is reserved for people who don't matter in the world of establishment journalists -- i.e., people without power or standing in Washington and, especially, those whom American Government authorities scorn. In official Washington, Assange is a contemptible loser -- the Pentagon hates him and wants him destroyed, and therefore the "reporters" who rely on, admire and identify with Pentagon officials immediately adopt that perspective -- and that's why he was the target of this type of attack.

and this is how I paraphrased it

Greenwald wrote that [articles like these] are not standard journalistic practice and are reserved by the New York Times for figures like Assange.

It seems like a very accurate paraphrasing to me. I don't understand your objection. If you would like to replace the paraphrasing with the longer quote then I don't object. Gregcaletta (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I've changed it around a little bit now. Gregcaletta (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem I have with the whole wording is how you paraphrased it; because it entirely changes the tone of the source. He is being sarcastic about Burns' defence. Burns says "this was standard journalistic endeavour for the NYT", Greenwald says "what nonsense". Our article implies a much stronger thing. I'd propose simply scrapping the second sentence as it is simply too problematic, the first sentence seems to adequately cover the specifics. I also propose we find some better sourcing for this topic because I still am not happy this is a particularly good source. If nothing else for the fact that it deals almost entirely with one article - and so is useless in critiquing general coverage of Assange (and if we are to critique every specific article, that could take a while :D) Although; I am sure it is a significant topic. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I still don't understand your objection to this paraphrasing. I thought my examples made it fairly clear that I have used almost the exact same wording as Greenwald. Look at the parts in bold and then look at my paraphrasing. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

This is like hitting a brick wall ;) What Burns did to Julian Assange is most certainly not a "standard journalistic endeavor" for The New York Times. is not the same as are not standard journalistic practice for the New York Times and are reserved for figures like Assange. Let me be clear in my issue; you are changing, completely, the tone and meaning of what Greenwald has written. You have conflated several points into one thing. And worst of all, you've turned Greenwalds rhetoric and Burns' words into our voice! --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 10:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha. Yes, it does feel like hitting a brick wall. It seems to me that "is most certainly not a "standard journalistic endeavor" for The New York Times [and] is reserved for people who don't matter in the world of establishment journalists" is virtually exactly the same as "are not standard journalistic practice for the New York Times and are reserved for figures like Assange", but you can replace it with a direct quote if you like. Gregcaletta (talk) 11:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You would have to make it longer though to do so. I would recommend "What Burns did to Julian Assange is most certainly not a "standard journalistic endeavor" for The New York Times. ... This kind of character smear ... is reserved for people who don't matter in the world of establishment journalists ... the Pentagon hates [Assange] and wants him destroyed, and therefore the "reporters" who rely on, admire and identify with Pentagon officials immediately adopt that perspective -- and that's why he was the target of this type of attack." Gregcaletta (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

No. What I would do is not mis-quote the source and use the content properly. So I would say... "Burns defended his article saying it was an "absolutely standard journalistic endeavour", Greenwald disputed this, saying "What Burns did to Julian Assange is most certainly not a "standard journalistic endeavor" for The New York Times." There is a vast difference between that, and what we currently have --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

And now we have a vastly overlong quote; I think it is undue and possibly a copyvio due to length. It also cuts out vast amounts of the quote and does not seem a reasonable representation; I'd suggest instead dealing with the content. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not a copyright violation. How can you complain both that it is "vastly overlong" and at the same time that it "cuts out vast amounts of the quote"? Surely we have to find a compromise between the two. How is it unreasonable representation and what do you mean you suggest "dealing with the content"? Gregcaletta (talk) 12:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It is exactly that; very long, and cuts out even more of the content of the quote. Fair use is somewhat complicated but we are verging on way too long a quote I feel. It doesn't really flow or follow the point of the sentence. I propose simply stating what Greenwald says in a simple clear sentence. But I think, TBH, what we had pre-quote is fine too; almost all of that quote is soapboxing on Greenwalds part and isn't really appropriate. The source is already extremely poor and we are giving it a lot of air time for little good reason. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The source is extremely poor in what way. Gregcaletta (talk) 12:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

POV

Does seem pro-Assange. DYK that you can have a multitude of pro-Assange sources and still have a non-NPOV? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It still seems biased against Assange to me. The media have focused a lot on his teenage hacking and the unsubstantiated rape allegations and this article unavoidably reflects that predictable bias in the media. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

And it seems objective to me, at least in the sense of factual sofar as is known, although I didn't look at the sources and when I started this thread the first time earlier today as duplicate of the one above earlier toady, I deleted it after having the one above pointed out. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 03:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"the unsubstantiated rape allegations"? Says who? You? Two courts have ruled that there is sufficient reason to issue an international arrest warrant over these charges. Hence the charges are by definition not unsubstantiated (Swedish courts do not approve international arrest warrants over "unsubstantiated allegations"). Assange has in fact admitted to the facts (sexual intercourse with two women), as always (almost) in rape cases, there is a dispute over whether it was consensual[29]. Jeannedeba (talk) 10:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"Unsubstantiated" according to the fact that he has not yet been pronounced guilty, in fact, no evidence at all has yet been presented and he has not even been formally charged; he has merely been issued a warrant for his arrest in order for them to question him (they even expect for him to pay for a flight over there and submit himself to the questioning, and if he is innocent then that would be a waste of his time and only further its coverage in the media). The fact that the US media have given such credibility to the arrest warrant by giving it so much heavy coverage is what I am calling the "predictable bias" which is reflected by a huge segment on the charges in this article. Gregcaletta (talk) 11:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

most law enforcement organizations do not disclose what evidence they may have during an investigation so no one can know if they are substantiated or not. Labeling them as such would be NPOV. It could be stated that he or his lawyers characterize them as unsubstantiated but then those statements must be attributed to them specifically rather than making a generalized statement. This section definately violates NPOV as it is basically a defense of Assange in its current form. 207.216.253.134 (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

As it is, the section "definately" attributes the statements to the people who made them. You can see this in the fourth paragraph of that section. siafu (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "unsubstantiated" is not placed in the voice of WIkipedia anywhere in this article. This is because it does not appear in reliable sources. But if the sources were being neutral, they would treat the claims as unsubstantiated until Assange had been declared guilty, or some evidence had been disclosed to them. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

2010 legal difficulties

There is more than enough material in this section to warrant having subheadings, particularly as the section now covers two completely unrelated incidents:

• the investigation over "rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion" and the related Swedish, Interpol and Schengen arrest warrant[30]
• investigations undertaken by the US and Australia over the leak of classified government information

Per previous discussion, the general view was that a subheading specifically on the Swedish case, with a title that accurately describes it, was appropriate. The section would obviously be way too long and hard to follow without subheadings.

Subsequently, I have divided this section into two sub sections:

• 2010 legal difficulties
  • Swedish investigation and arrest warrant
  • Wikileaks release of US diplomatic cables

Jeannedeba (talk) 13:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Descriptions

how come the descriptions of Assange only mention negative depictions when they are being disputed. The section starts out with 3 positive reviews from the media. Another positive review from another activist. then a quote discussing the danger to afghan civilians. followed by a paragraph in Assange's defense. Then a paragraph of Greenwald criticizing Burn's article. All of this tells us little about Assange, and contains no negative or even neutral descriptions of him, while criticizing such descriptions. Plus the whole thing is poorly written.

I think the part about the danger of the leaks should be expanded and put under the wikileaks section of the article. Rather then focusing on the reliability of media profiles, it should give an idea of what they are, and note that they have been criticized for not following journalistic standards. It should not contain the whole debate on whither one article meets journalistic standards. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 19:03, 30 November 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.

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)

Discussion at BLPN

There's a discussion about this article at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Ecuador Offer

It appears there is change in the offer from Ecuador: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/30/AR2010113003727.html 207.216.253.134 (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Made the change. I'm in class right now, so I'll have to look into the matter further later; I'll also format the recently added references at some point. [31]. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 20:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Offer has been rescinded; article updated. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 02:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Date of Birth?

According to the Interpol 'Red Notice', his date of birth is 3rd July 1971 (making him 39). Source: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/11/assange-interpol/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xexei (talk • contribs) 23:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

i made the change. There were a superfulous amount of sources for Assanges birth as well. Got rid of them and just used the interpol source for his birth. if anyone finds a less condeming source. please replace. Being at the top of the edit page it is the first source:( --Ninja247 (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Dadi897, 1 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} His date of birth and age can be found at interpols website http://www.interpol.int/public/data/wanted/notices/data/2010/86/2010_52486.asp Please update with this information Dadi897 (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

 Already done Note that, by default, the template only displays month and year, not date. But the actual date is listed in the article's source. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Interpol Wanted for Sex Crimes Warrant put online

Here's the Wanted "poster" for Assange:Wanted for Sex Crimes It's pretty notable, mentioned and linked in most reports out today. 99.141.243.84 (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It also doubles as a very reliable source for the birth date we fail to list, 3 July 1971. 99.141.243.84 (talk) 01:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

We aren't supposed to pull birth dates from primary source documents like that per WP:BLP. For the record I don't really agree with that clause the way it's written. Gigs (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Associated Press: 'Assange on most-wanted list, arrest sought in Rape probe'

Here is the latest neutral, Reliable Source, Associated Press report:"Interpol placed Julian Assange on its most-wanted list after Sweden issued an arrest warrant against him as part of a drawn-out rape probe" . It seems pretty clear. 99.141.243.84 (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, come again. The Interpol warrant has already been mentioned. Nymf _hideliho! 02:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Now go read the article. It states: "The notice is not an international arrest warrant, but requests that the public to contact local police with any information about his whereabouts" ...99.141.243.84 (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Just for fun, let's compare those side by side:

• Actual source document from Interpol:

Categories of Offences: SEX CRIMES

Arrest Warrant Issued by: INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTION OFFICE IN GOTHENBURG / Sweden

• The Associated Press, a Secondary Reliable Source:

"Interpol placed Julian Assange on its most-wanted list after Sweden issued an arrest warrant against him as part of a drawn-out rape probe."

• Wikipedia "interpretation":

"The notice is not an international arrest warrant, but requests that the public to contact local police with any information about his whereabouts"

It's like being at Alice's Tea Party. On one side source documents and the reliable source Associated Press, and on the other ... [strike]Meatpuppets, sycophants, starfuckers[/strike] and biased POV editing that gives not a Rat's Ass for even the most obvious and simple facts.99.141.243.84 (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Most editors around here are just trying to do the best they can. Whoever interpreted that source as something else probably does not appreciate being called a "starfucker". If you wish to continue contributing, please learn how to stay cool and offer convincing arguments without assuming bad faith. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 03:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I guess I was taken aback by the passive-aggressive FU found in the "Thank you, come again." brush-off above.99.141.243.84 (talk) 03:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Understandable—it's quite a heated and intense story that's unfolding literally before our eyes. I placed a "current event" template at the top. Thanks again for pointing out the sources. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 03:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Your correction lasted about a minute.99.141.243.84 (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not the first time you have called people star fuckers on here. I count at least 3 previous posts by you calling people this. I suggest you step back if there is a clear bias or COI on your part. Nymf _hideliho! 03:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I should take after you and use passive-aggressive FU's while ignoring legitimate, clear and concise references?99.141.243.84 (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...the BBC source cited in the article says "The Interpol notice is not an international arrest warrant but the public is asked to contact police with any information about Mr Assange's whereabouts."—the article seems to paraphase the source a little too closely, on top of that. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 03:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The warrant is both quoted and linked above - it clearly states it is an arrest warrant, as do the AP and many other sources. The dated BBC quote appears both wrong, and cherry-picked. Leaning on it the face of the now actually available source document and wide spread reports of the arrest warrant is, well, unwarranted. .99.141.243.84 (talk) 03:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I was also going on this article released ten-fifteen minutes ago: [32]. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 03:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Interpol on Wednesday issued a global arrest warrant for... Interpol on Tuesday issued an arrest warrant for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange over rape global police agency Interpol issued an arrest warrant for Mr Assange on a rape charge originating from Sweden. ...ruling means that an international arrest warrant for Assange is valid, . 99.141.243.84 (talk) 03:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

An Interpol Red Notice is the closest instrument to an international arrest warrant in use today (see [33] Criminal Resource Manual, 611 Interpol Red Notices). There are three different warrants for Assange: The Interpol red notice (an international instrument), a SIS notice (within the Schengen countries, also an international instrument) and the arrest warrant in the Swedish system. These have been widely described by reliable sources as an international arrest warrant[34], hence this description is appropriate. There is an arrest warrant, and the Swedish authorities are seeking his arrest internationally through Interpol and SIS. International arrest warrant is only a descriptive term referring to the sum of this, not specifically to the Interpol red notice which is only one of the instruments used by Swedish police to seek his arrest.

The wording "The notice is not an international arrest warrant" is misleading and pointy, and doesn't belong in the article. A more correct wording would be: "While not technically considered an "arrest warrant" in itself, an Interpol Red Notice is the closest instrument to an international arrest warrant in use today, and is widely referred to as such by reliable sources". But this discussion on the nature of Interpol red notices, commonly known as international arrest warrants, would belong in the Interpol article, not here. Jeannedeba (talk) 06:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC) 

There are now three citations provided for the statement that it is not an arrest warrant; one is from Interpol itself. And you are correct that discussion does not belong on this page. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Strawman. Jeannedeba (talk) 07:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead section II

Assange is now included on the Interpol most wanted list for "sex crimes"[35], which is arguably the highlight of his life as a public person (regardless of how it turns out in the end) and one of his primary claims to fame. This needs to be included in the lead section per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section). Also, it's our moral obligation to help law enforcement agencies by not obscuring or censoring his status, this is the most central piece of information about Assange that a reader needs to know. Jeannedeba (talk) 07:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

But is the accusation really true? --Bsadowski1 08:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That is irrelevant and is not for us to decide, we just report what others report (the noteworthy case here is his status as a fugitive from justice in Sweden and the enormous, global media attention related to it, not whether it's "true" or not. Even if it's not true, it's still a significant controversy). Jeannedeba (talk) 09:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC) 

- We must mention the reason for the charge - at the moment anyone who reads it will think its because of the leaks. --93.96.33.51 (talk) 11:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of that problem and agree in principle. The only problem is that some users constantly make fake claims that the inclusion of what the case is about in the lead section somehow violate Wikipedia's most abused and counterproductive policy (even though it's already included in detail elsewhere in the article and properly sourced). Jeannedeba (talk) 11:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Categories II

Assange is now included on the Interpol most wanted list for "sex crimes"[36]. He needs to be included in the following categories:

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

The inclusion in these categories is automatically warranted by his current status and cannot be subject to discussion on the article level, as long his status is proven by countless reliable sources. "I don't like these categories" is not a valid argument against his inclusion in them as long as they exist, i.e. are valid., and as long as reliable sources have proven that he is wanted by Sweden. The only reason he's not included would be because someone are making an exception just for him from the categories that apply to all other articles in order to deliberately obscure his status. Jeannedeba (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that those who were eager to prove that an Interpol red notice is not an arrest warrant (which is off the point anyway) also just provided a definitive proof that Assange meets the definition of fugitive (that is, someone who is "convicted or accused of a crime, who is hiding from law enforcement in the state or taking refuge in a different country in order to avoid arrest in another country"), by including this Interpol reference, which clearly states that any subject of an Interpol red notice is by definition a fugitive[37] ("Red Notices [...] are aimed at circulating internationally a national arrest warrant or judicial decision concerning a wanted fugitive"). Also note the main section on fugitives[38], which makes it clear that fugitive is the term used by Interpol to describe the subject of a red notice.

As we all know, reliable third party sources also describe him as a fugitive, his formal status, for instance The Independent today ("The fugitive - Assange needs new safe haven: Interpol adds to calls for arrest of Wikileaks ringmaster thought to be hiding in London"). TechCrunch points out: "While Interpol makes it clear that its infamous Red Notice list does not function as an international arrest warrant, it does serve the purpose of broadcasting internationally that the person in question is a fugitive and can aide in extradition process."[39]. The Globe and Mail writes: "Mr. Assange, 39, is an international fugitive facing rape charges filed in Sweden". Jeannedeba (talk) 10:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

These seem appropriate to me. I've added them to the article. Robofish (talk) 11:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I am reading the article incorrectly, but it appears that he has not even been charged with a crime yet. Can you be a fugitive without a charge of criminal activity? "Wanted for questioning" maybe. We must have an international lawyer on board - maybe he should get Polanski's attorney ( he, Polanski, was convicted and he seems to be doing well.) It's looking more and more like a political charge - when he releases info on the major banks he had better bring his toothbrush.159.105.81.31 (talk) 12:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

POV tag

It appears that this dispute is the reason for the "POV" tag at the top of this article.[40]Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Whistleblower website?

Should WikiLeaks really be considered a whistleblower website? Certainly some content falls under the definition of whistleblowing, but the recent additions to WikiLeaks are just releases of sensitive/classified information, most of which can't be remotely be described as whistleblowing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcostley (talk • contribs) 18:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the term "whistleblower website" is POV, as it has positive connotations and implies that the victims of his document theft have somehow done something wrong, i.e. that there is a legitimate reason to release this stolen and privileged information. Various states seem to consider his activities to be espionage and terrorism, not "journalism" or "whistleblowing". Jeannedeba (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That is completely false. Reliable sources, such as the BBC, consistently refer to WikiLeaks as a whistleblower website. I suggest you review our policies and guidelines regarding NPOV and how to use sources. Viriditas (talk) 06:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Personal Info

As the article is locked down, I thought that it might be good to leave the link here and then someone else could put the details up on the page if they feel it is of use:

http://www.news.com.au/national/wikileaks-founder-julian-assanges-mum-defends-her-son/story-e6frfkvr-1225964232832 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.119.252 (talk) 19:09, 1 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.[41]

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 [42]. 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 [43] [44] citing a US State Department spokesman. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

"Red Notice" reference requires login to NYT

It appears that the New York Times reference for the "Red Notice" (currently reference #8) requires a login to the New York Times to view.

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/world/europe/02assange.html?_r=1

Is this appropriate as a source? Chrislaing (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is appropritate as a source, see here: "Verifiability in this context means that anyone should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable source. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." --Orangwiki (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not required to log in to view this article from New York Times. New York Times is the leading English language news source. Jeannedeba (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

For some reason, it is asking for a login on mobile devices. I'm curious if Chrislaing was on such a device when he clicked on the link? Viriditas (talk) 09:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Photos wrongly dated?

In the photos of him reportedly in 2009 and 2010 he is wearing exactly the same clothes? Error or limited wardrobe? 86.156.28.196 (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. I think that he most likely has only a few (or even one suit). He says that he has no real home and he is out in rural areas alot in Africa, so most of his clothing is probably non-fromal and it would be understandable if he had only one suit. But it should be checked. Sbrianhicks (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I have translated the article to Hebrew wikipedia, an authorizied person need to link it. I am not authorized to edit/

I have translated the article to Hebrew wikipedia, an authorizied person need to link it. I am not authorized to edit/

[[[he:ג'וליאן אסנג']]]

--Midrashah (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you got it. Gigs (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia vs. Wikileaks

My comment is about the process above with the supposed input by the subject himself. This is not Wikileaks and the community of contributors here has an established system of self-governance which unlike Wikileaks is not dominated by a single arbitrary individual. I should think it was completely unacceptable for someone to come here and make pronouncements about an article about themselves without even using a registered account. I do most of my editing by IP but whenever there's an issue I use my account. I don't think it's right to allow anyone to say they are the article subject who isn't using an account. I use 72.228.177.92 and I'm more or less what in the US would be considered far left, but I think this is an important distinction. Lycurgus (talk) 06:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

We have always treated the supposed comments from Assange as suspect, until such time as he presents WP:OTRS with evidence verifying his identity. Gigs (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

"until such time as he" however, begs the question. Another comment is that, while he is apparently being given credit as an "intellectual", there doesn't seem to be any basis for this and in particular no political philosophy which could be the basis for the actions taken other than publicity seeking and self-promotion/satisfaction. I suppose this is consistent with the claim of being a "journalist" and an "entrepreneur" but in view of the great need for both principled and direct action a failure to point this out is egregious and could be considered pro subject bias. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing in the article characterizing him as an "intellectual". Gigs (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Current §: "Descriptions of Assange" ¶ 1, last sentence "He has been described as being largely self-taught and widely read on science and mathematics,[16] and as thriving on intellectual battle.[122]". I think 'intellectual' may have been quoted earlier making clear that it was a distinctive usage, if so that should be restored. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Assange confirmed in a chat with a Swedish newspaper that it was he who posted the initial comment. See this. "It was me who commented, yes." Nymf _hideliho! 17:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Quotes from the prosecution side

In the sex crime section there are three quotes saying that Assange isn't guilty:

* Assange said "the charges are without basis and their issue at this moment is deeply disturbing";

* Stephens dismissed the charges, issuing a statement in which he called the allegations "false and without basis" and said "even the substance of the allegations, as revealed to the press through unauthorized disclosures do not constitute what any advanced legal system considers to be rape."

* Assange's Swedish lawyer, Björn Hurtig, claimed that the evidence against Assange was "very meager. It's not enough to get him convicted for crime."

But there is no quote from the prosecutor or from the women's lawyer on the guilt question. I don't know which side is right, but it seems a bit one-sided to only have quotes from one of the sides in the case. Are there any quotes from the "other side" on the guilt question that we could use to give a more balanced report? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.222.10 (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• • I don't believe there would be a quote from prosecutors as to his guilt, as they don't seem to have actually accused him of anything yet - the warrant is to arrest him so that they can interrogate him pursuant to complaints made against him, after which presumably they would make a decision as to whether or not to charge him with anything. I think I saw quotes from the women in an article a few months ago, but I can't find the article now. From what I can remember, one of them was a regular partner and on one occassion during sex the condom broke and Assange persuaded her to continue without it. When she spoke to another woman Assange had slept with, she found that the same had happened on the occassion he slept with her, and so decided to go to the authorities. The allegations seemed to be that this was a trick on his part to have unprotected sex, and so constitutes rape. But I can't find the article now.--94.173.208.118 (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Court appeal denied

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

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

Here's a source in English:

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

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

Latest (2 Dec 2010) material on Assange

Alleged "sex crimes" in Sweden

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh well, CNN changed their story from "according to Scotland Yard" to "... a British newspaper Thursday that said police are "fully aware of where he is staying."[45]. 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 [46].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." [47].TMCk (talk) 23:38, 2 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)

Interwiki Comparisons

The German article says that he can work without compensation because according to his statement, he has "made money on the internet" [that permits same]. (Nach Eigenaussage hat er „im Internet Geld verdient“ und konnte somit unbezahlt für WikiLeaks arbeiten.[4]) Perhaps one of the other langs has some details on this, don't see it here. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 20:05, 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)

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)

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. [48] 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 [49] [50] 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 [51]. 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 [52].

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: [53]

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

Not just wanted for questioning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The quote in question however is from Nov 30 [55] "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)

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)