Talk:Julian Assange

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 All we know is that there was an arrest warrant, the warrant was rescinded days later, the warrant was re-instated, and at every step Assange has disputed the charges.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[1] 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."[2] This source is already in the article. Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose inclusion in lead for now per WP:NOT#NEWS and "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid". He's not in Roman Polanksi's position, yet. Further, reading the whole section on that issue, the text proposed for the lead by SlimVirgin fails WP:NPOV; I'm not going to watchlist this article, but suffice to say that picking only one of the details of this rather complex story and emphasizing it in the lead is not a neutral summary. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. Charges are important; even without a trial, charges of sex offenses in particular have changed the courses of careers and lives. For Assange, this arrest warrant is also a significant factor in where he now can and cannot travel. It also relates to the Wikileaks work, as he is trying to frame the charges as being part of some shadowy government conspiracy. Quigley (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• I don't think it's a good idea to mention the arrest warrant and resulting broo ha ha in the lead, because it falls foul of 'undue weight', and 'recentism' - in a few days virtually all the sources will just be going on about the latest release, we shouldn't rejig the lead for that either, although it will likely make the article body. Privatemusings (talk) 03:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion in the lead. This is a BLP, and wikipedia is still not a news source. Obviously, this issue has garnered a great deal of attention, but it's not at all clear how this will pan out in the future. If the charges are dropped at some point in the future, I think it would be uncontroversial to reduce it to a note in the main body, and conversely if he's convicted, this fact would be notable lead material (including his then-current prison whereabouts). IF consensus holds that this should be mentioned in the lead, I think care should be taken to keep it at a reduced and explicitly neutral level. The lead does not mention any other facts that are nearly so specific: the mention of the Afghan and Iraq wikileaks dumps, for example, do not contain any dates or specific information about them, and his entire professional history prior to wikileaks takes up precisely one sentence (namely the second one). A developing specific incident like this should not be elevated above such other, broader and arguably more important, facts. siafu (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion in the lead. This is a very unique case and is hardly straightforward. He has co-operated with swedish police in the past, had it dropped, now re-issued arrest warrent. He is openly living in EU member states that fail to act, he has offered to videolink with swedish police. this is not the definition of a 'fugitive' who is fleeing capture 220.101.4.140 (talk) 04:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion in the lead. This may be a pertinent fact, but it is not among the most pertinent facts for the lead. Just because something is "in the news" at the moment, doesn't mean it is among the most important things about the individual. No objections to it being in the article itself.--Scott Mac 13:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support inclusion reluctantly, WP:LEAD says that significant controversies should be mentioned in the lead and looking at the reporting, the warrant and the Swedish allegations are certainly a "significant controversy". WP:NPOV also says that viewpoints should be presented in rough proportion to the coverage they get in sources, and the warrant gets enormous coverage. There is a recentism point to be made against inclusion with which I agree, and the text in the lead should disclose that the warrant is controversial and the point that it may be politically engineered shouldn't be absent. --Dailycare (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

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

Latest (2 Dec 2010) material on Assange

Alleged "sex crimes" in Sweden

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh well, CNN changed their story from "according to Scotland Yard" to "... a British newspaper Thursday that said police are "fully aware of where he is staying."[3]. 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 [4].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." [5].TMCk (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interview with TIME magazine

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

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

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

Interview with Assange attorney

Another source:

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

This should put the whole fugitive discussion to sleep:

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

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

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

Wanted "for sex crimes"

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

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

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

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

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

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

The whole deal with the "case" is that he supposedly broke the condom purposefully. It's what spurred the women to go to the police in the first place, as they thought that he might have had an STD. There are plenty of sources for this, such as [6], [7], etc. Nymf _hideliho! 04:24, 8 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: [8]

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

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

Also see [10]. In particular: The word "rape" was not part of the charges but "unlawful coercion" and Assange's alleged reluctance to use condoms was.

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

Another point - surely whatever he's charged with is going to be in Swedish. And if we're translating it into English, since this is the English Wikipedia, we had better go by English definitions in order to describe Swedish law. So we should be careful before throwing around terms like "rape" - is it known whether the alleged victims say they consented, and do we have any sources for this? Mdwh (talk) 03:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Defining Moment

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

Including Accusers Names

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

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

There's more than that: Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Putting an individual name just because a source mentioned them is not Wikipedia policy, AFAIK. Now, if (just to take an example), the individual does a press conference, or an interview in a newspaper about the subject, it changes because it appear that he/she intentionally disseminated his/her case. Which is not the case in the Assange article.Hervegirod (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I fully agree with that. Hervegirod (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Miami Herald today has an extensive article about one of the Accusers' political activities. It's now starting to feel to me like we're trying to keep a lid on something. So I'll try to include some of the Herald's content. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Founder

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

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

Too much detail in sex crime reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The fourth charge accused Assange of having sex with a second woman, Miss W, on 17 August without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home.” [11]

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Note: this talk page section was mentioned at Wikipedia:BLP/N#Charges_against_Julian_Assange. Gigs (talk) 03:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

current location

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

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

Assange's Hollywood-style insurance policy

Here's some breaking news: [12]. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 17:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Line edits

Under the heading Release of American diplomatic cables

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

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

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

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

some news

Probably should be something about swiss bank account closure and plan to meet police tomorrow(?).[13][14]John Z (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Assange Chinese rather than French Origins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wanted?

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

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

And he turned himself voluntarily in as soon as the local authorities received and processed a proper warrant [15]. As expected. I guess all the people who constantly wanted to call him a fugitive in the article can give it up now. Gigs (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Curent event

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

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

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

concomitantly

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

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

Smear campaign

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

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

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

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

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

Australian Prime Minister's name misspelled

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

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

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

Sources

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

In custody and charges

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Miami Herald today used one name in such a matter of fact way that I think "the horses have left the barn" on holding back at least this one person's name. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Source

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

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

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

"Warrant for alleged sex offenses"

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

OMG he once took a science class

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

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

I have just made the lead a bit more concise.[17] I don't have time right now to tackle the rest of the article, but I urge people to cut, slash, and delete the bloat.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

I disagree. In biography articles, it is a standard convention to mention awards received by the subject in the lead section and to briefly describe aspects of their early life and education. Viriditas (talk) 07:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

So, the fact that he once took one crummy science class during his early life needs to be in the lead? The source didn't even say that he sought a degree ( or even a minor) in math or physics.

As for awards, all three are in the infobox, and described in detail in a section of the article. Do we really need them a third time, in the lead? The nature of the awards matters. They are not fairly described as journalism awards, which is what the lead said. I once got an archery award at summer camp, but I doubt it will go in my lead if ever Wikiprdia honors me with an article. The awards Assange got are more notable than that, but they're not Pulitzers or anything close.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

No, but if a major organisation gave you an award for archery, and you were notable as an archer, then it would belong in the lead. SmartSE (talk) 13:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

If it was a bowling organization that gave the archery award, it would not go in the lead. Also, as I recall, the main archery organization in the US supplied the awards and certificates to summer camps. It was a shiny medal with a ribbon.

More generally, this article has a whole subsection devoted to the question of whether he's a journalist or not. Calling these 3 awards "journalism awards" in the lead struck me as POV-pushing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree; "awards for his work with Wikileaks" perhaps? They are awards (two at least, anyway) from very notable orgaisations so it is a bit hard to see an argument for them not being a significant part of his biography. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll work the word "award" back in somehow. Gimme a minute, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, it now says: "Assange founded the controversial WikiLeaks website in 2006 and serves on its advisory board. In this award-winning capacity, he has been involved in...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

If I had a criticism it would be that it sounds like his CV :P I might have just put in another sentence. But it doesn't matter too much. The lead looks a lot better BTW, good work. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

American politicians threatening Assange with execution?

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

Ought to mention the controversy...

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

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

the talk page is better than the article!

I have gotten a lot of great information from the talk page--actually much more and better information is on here. Maybe we should put some sort of link on the main page to the talk page so if people want the good stuff they know where to look! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.149.112.145 (talk) 06:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Err, there already is a link from the main page to here, how else did you arrive here? SmartSE (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Swedish women did not want him charged

This news website (the National Post) says that the two women just wanted to contact him to ask him to do some STD tests but he had turned off his cellphone to avoid being tracked by authorities. [18]

Please update the article with this important, relevant information. --70.76.68.118 (talk) 09:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Article seriously violates WP:BLP

I'm just wondering if anybody else thinks this article violates WP:BLP. This article and this talk page really push the limits in the accusation department. The "R" word is repeated over and over in the article and on this talk page and "consensual" is barely mentioned. The issue has been raised at the BLP noticeboard for those that are interested. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 10:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been encouraged to come back to this page... which I do tentatively, but with hope. I think it is reasonable, now, to propose a rework of the Sweden section. It has grown substantially over the last months and is becoming a large part of his biograhpy - which is undue. Certainly it is fine to suffer some recentism, but over time we should look to aggressively reduce this to the relevant neutral details. The main issue is that the section reads like a narrative from early this year up to now. I think substantial work could be undertaken to write a proper entry for the article - perhaps here on the talk page first? --Errant ^(chat!) 12:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree - that section is somewhat internally repetitive and over-long. A casual reader won't make it through it all - we need to be more succinct. There's no harm in having breaking story snippets but they need subsequent rewrites to ensure it doesn't become a dog's breakfast of incoherent snippets. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

As I've said a BLPN, I'm happy to try and help reduce the length of this section to make it more succinct. Would it be best to copy the section to a sandbox and work on it there? SmartSE (talk) 12:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hack at it with an axe, it'll get expanded with rubbish again soon enough - David Gerard (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Either way is fine Smartse. I never use sandboxes, but then again I'm an astoundingly good editor.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think there might be an argument for having a standalone article about the rape allegation. What has to be clear each time the word "rape" is used in this BLP or elsewhere is that this refers to consensual sex without a condom, according to both Assange and the women involved, who were friendly with him before and after their sexual encounters, and who ostensibly went to the police for advice on how to get Assange to take an STD test one they had discovered he had slept with both of them, according to media reports. --JN466 16:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Assange's Accuser's Political Activity

Miami Herald today has an extensive article about one of the Accuser's political activities. It's now starting to feel to me like we're trying to keep a lid on something. So I'll try to include some of the Herald's content. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

ouch. No no no. That is a serious BLP issue; how is it in any way relevant? We do not deal in gutter press character assassinations like that. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Errant. At this juncture it would be highly inappropriate to include such information. Hammersbach (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

As do most people above as well as myself. SmartSE (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps if/when the rape case gets its own article - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 13:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

ahum alleged rape. SmartSE (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but what if it is actually true? 58.165.205.3 (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:TRUTH. SmartSE (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Names of the "victims"

Why were the "victims'" names removed? --J4\/4 <talk> 13:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Read our policy regarding living people and feel free to ask questions after that. SmartSE (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

BLP

Per WP:BLP (emphasis added):

“ Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. ”

Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I will add one of the names (--- ---) since its already widely disseminated and now The Raw Story reported she is connected to the CIA. That adds significant value to the section. The name of the other victim, should not be added.--Neo139 (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

- - seems to be quite a public person and has her own blog and is tweeting away on twitter. She is a bit of a writer and I imagine before this is all over she will have her own wiki BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced her name needs to go in the article, and I think that allegations of CIA links sourced from a single website are dubious at least. Has the alleged link actually been reported elsewhere? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I have now once again removed the alleged names of the women in the case. Stating the names even on the talk page are a clear violation of WP:BLPNAME. Both women and their lawyer are currently living under police protection because of constant harassment from people who are against the case. Please use your best judgement in what you write.85.225.222.10 (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)