Jump to content

Talk:Julian Assange

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 85.225.222.10 (talk) at 19:44, 7 January 2011 (→‎Shortened opening paragraph on sex case). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Pbneutral

Julian Assange as a Journalist

I don't believe the assignation of "journalist" in the opening sentence is supported by the given citations. The only possible statement based on those sources is "Julian Assange is a journalist, according to one columnist in the Spectator, and was given an award for journalism by Amnesty International (which is a human rights group, not an acknowledged arbiter of what is or is not journalism."

Because this is a contentious issue (The US could conceivably have more trouble prosecuting him if he is a journalist), with arguments on both sides, I think the only good faith mentioning of this would acknowledge the arguments and actors on both sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.123.101 (talk) 08:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, nobody is "an acknowledged arbiter of what is or is not journalism", and if Amnesty International wish to give someone an award for such, that is their entitlement. Without a reliable source indicating that it has been suggested that Assange isn't a journalist according to some specific definition, I don't really see how there can be an argument from 'the other side'. As for the US having trouble prosecuting him, as yet he has been charged with nothing whatsoever, so this is speculation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where I come from retired sports stars with two years of writing trash for the tabloids become journalists according to their employers. There is no formal definition. Do stop the Salem approach to discussing Assange, and stick to reality. HiLo48 (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So much for

Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming

right HiLo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.123.101 (talk) 03:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead paragraph of this entry does seem to be an attempt at polishing the apple. Assange is primarily a hacker, and his main role in recent years has been as a distributor of stolen documents. This article makes him out to be a journalist, and nothing but a journalist: "Julian Paul Assange is an Australian journalist, publisher, and Internet activist. He is the spokesperson and editor in chief for WikiLeaks, a whistleblower website and conduit for news leaks. He has lived in several countries, and has made occasional public appearances to speak about freedom of the press, censorship, and investigative journalism."

That description clearly follows the (current) attempts by Assange and WikiLeaks to cast themselves as journalists (an attempt that has been ratcheted up in recent weeks to try to avoid prosecution in the U.S.), but calling yourself something, over and over, doesn't make it verifiable.

The bottom line: It's disputed whether or not he is a journalist. That should be noted. And whether one accepts that label or not, it's not all that he is. The article needs a more balanced, non-POV opening.

See also the description later in the article that he engaged in hacking in his youth, but no more. A laughable description for one who created a port scanner still in use today, and the rubberhose application for protecting hackers.75.216.156.127 (talk) 05:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would have to be one of the most POV posts ever among those I've seen asking for a non-POV approach. You really do seem to have made up your mind about him. The judge and jury needn't really bother. HiLo48 (talk) 06:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've missed the point. If you were going to pick one word to describe Assange, computer programmer, computer programming wizard, expert in encryption -- you would have to include one of these, right? See for example this Reuters profile: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BB1LG20101213?pageNumber=2.

Yet the Wikipedia article on him begins with a full paragraph about him as a journalist.

One can make a case that Assange is a journalist, yes. And one can make a case that he is not. It is in dispute. It is at the heart of the dispute about him, and is an issue that may be tested in a U.S. court.

One has to ask why the Wikipedia article does not (also?) begin with something about him as a computer programmer, expert in encryption, and leaker of (stolen? leaked? people disagree on the adjective) documents. Why? Because the article has an overriding POV, one that favors Assange and his politics, and that chooses to endorse his story line about himself: that he is a journalist. (Again, maybe he is, and may be isn't. This is in dispute.)

So you could ask the question: Why does the article begin with a paragraph only about journalism? Or turn the question around: Why is no mention made of him, in the sumamry paragraph, as a computer programmer, (former) hacker, etc.?75.216.156.127 (talk) 06:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because those earlier activities didn't make him notable enough to deserve an article and receive all the attention he is now getting. It is his efforts with Wikileaks that gained him his global fame today, not his hacking. HiLo48 (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Assange described himself as WikiLeaks' first coder. Coding/hacking/encryption are at the heart of who he is, and what he and WikiLeaks do.

There are two points here: To describe him as a journalist, without allowing for the fact that this is in dispute, is clearly POV. And to leave out his hacker background is also POV -- it's part of the attempt, in his defense, to cast him as a journalist.

Take a step back, read this first paragraph, and see if it sums up Assange. No, it attempts to make a case for Assange, which is not the role of Wikipedia, however sympathetic editors may be to him and his efforts at regime change. (See the Wikileaks founding document for his description of the purpose of WikiLeaks. Nothing there about journalism, but a lot about regime change.) At a minimum, Assange is someone who has now come to call what he does journalism.75.216.156.127 (talk) 06:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, I am what I do now and what I define myself as now. I am not what others decree that I was five years ago. (In my case it was something entirely different from now.) It would seem that it is you who is wanting to define Assange in a way that best suits your POV. That's not wanted here. We must not draw our own conclusions on these matters. What do the sources say? HiLo48 (talk) 08:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do the sources say? Precisely the right question. They describe him first as a computer programmer and a leaker of documents, not as a journalist. Why? Because the sources do not take sides on the question. See for example this Reuters profile: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BB1LG20101213?pageNumber=2.75.200.176.168 (talk) 04:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't what he is described as first though. The question is whether he can be described as a journalist or not - you seem not to like the label 'journalist', but as I've already pointed out, he has been described as such, and given an award for it. These are facts. If you want to suggest he isn't a journalist, you will need to find sources that say so explicitly. This isn't an issue of bias, but one of relying on proper sources - and not cherry-picking a few words from a complex personal analysis, and applying your own spin, as you seem to have done with the Reuters article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGump, you say that I "seem" not to like the term journalist. No, I'm saying that the term is in dispute. It's perfectly accurate for this entry to say that he refers to himself as a journalist. But the entry should not swallow that description without pointing out that it's in dispute.

It is in dispute. As the New York Times editor, Bill Keller, was quoted recently, he may be a journalist, but he's not my kind of journalist. Note the "may be": It is in dispute. (Why is the Keller quotation not in this biography?)

I don't know whether he's a journalist or not. I don't take a position one way or another. I do see in the sources that Assange describes himself as a journalist, and has increasingly done so, as a tactic to protect himself and WikiLeaks from attacks, legal and otherwise. This is part of the story of WikiLeaks.

I hope now you see my point. I'm pointing out that it is in dispute whether or not Assange is a journalist, but the Wikipedia biography of him accepts that description without question. I am not saying that the word journalist should not be used. I am not saying that he is not a journalist. I am not "seeming" not to like the word journalist when attached to him. I am saying that it is in dispute, and that this dispute should be reflected clearly upon first reference to him as a journalist. Otherwise, as written, this article campaigns for Assange, expresses a POV for Assange, by accepting without question his (recent, increasing) description of himself as a journalist.

It's also clear that Assange (from many sources) is known primarily as a programmer/hacker, and that factor is left out of the biography lead entirely. It takes pains to say he was a hacker in his youth, though if so his youth extended well into his 30s. Why is his programming/hacking not mentioned in the top of this biography at all? Because it take's a pro-Assange POV, in which he now wants to be known only as a journalist, for reasons of legality and reputation.[Special:Contributions/75.200.176.168|75.200.176.168]] (talk) 16:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You tell us that "Assange describes himself as a journalist, and has increasingly done so, as a tactic to protect himself and WikiLeaks from attacks, legal and otherwise." You were possibly doing OK until you gave us the reason he describes himself as a journalist. How can we possibly know? Do we have a reliable source to tell us, with certainty, his real reason for calling himself a journalist. Writing why someone does something is always a tricky area. We could write the reason he gives us for doing something, so long as we make it clear that's what it is, but that's not the same as drawing our own conclusion. HiLo48 (talk) 17:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume good faith on your part, but why do you duck the two main issues: Why does this bio unquestionably accept the claim that he's a journalist, and why does it downplay his activity as a hacker/programmer?

You chose to argue with my mention of an incentive for him to call himself a journalist. There is, undoubtedly, an incentive. But whether or not you accept that, you're still left with two issues you've chosen not to address:

Why does this bio unquestionably accept the claim that he's a journalist, and why does it downplay his activity as a hacker/programmer? I suggest that to accept that claim without question, and to downplay his hacking, is an expression of a pro-Assange POV.75.200.176.168 (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's only pro-Assange if being a hacker/programmer at some stage in the past is a negative thing for him now. This all seems to have a huge amount to do with what YOU think of Assange and what YOU think of the various career pathways he has chosen. We depend on sources. Not on what you think. HiLo48 (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, Assange got the award for 'journalism', as Amnesty saw it. He runs an organisation that publishes 'news', in that it is then repeated by mainstream media sources. His earlier activities as a hacker and programmer have nothing to do with his present notability. As for a 'pro-Assange' POV, I can only suggest that since I've been accused of being both 'pro' and 'anti', this is a matter of debate. Meanwhile, I'll repeat, have you got any reliable sources that state that Assange isn't a journalist? Wikipedia is supposed to base its articles on external sources, and I've seen no evidence of us 'downplaying' anything that is properly sourced and relevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most profiles of Assange do not even use the word journalist.

From the New Yorker profile, a page cited by the Wikipedia biography: "Assange is an international trafficker, of sorts. He and his colleagues collect documents and imagery that governments and other institutions regard as confidential and publish them on a Web site called WikiLeaks.org." http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian?currentPage=all

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press forbids its staff to use WikiLeaks as a source, and its director says its efforts will be used against actual journalists: http://motherjones.com/print/52751.

On and on: Most of the profiles cited by the Wikipedia bio of Assange do not refer to him as a journalist. They call him a hacker, a programmer, a trafficker in purloined and leaked documents. Yet that's the word chosen by the Wikipedia biography.

Again, I'm not trying to make a case that he is not a journalist. He may be. But if so, he is not *only* a journalist.75.200.201.250 (talk) 03:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have your opinion. It is irrelevant without sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just cited sources, and you dismiss them? I just went through the sources footnoted on this particular article. Assange is repeatedly described as a programmer, an activist -- rarely as a journalist.76.127.21.51 (talk) 03:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy is 100% correct about this. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article describes Assange as "an Australian journalist, publisher, and Internet activist", all sourced. These are the things that have made him notable and/or notorious. His programming/hacking background is interesting, and mentioned later in the article. I can see nothing wrong in any of this. Unless someone else chips in with something further to add, I really can't see the point of discussing this further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGump, you're misstating my point. You are saying that his recent activities are journalism, and his programming/hacking happened long ago. This misses the point that I'm making, and that the sources make.

I'll try again: His recent activities, the ones that make him notable now, the releases of leaked or stolen documents and e-mails, may or may not be journalism. This activity may or may not be hacking. That is in dispute. Some would characterize them as programming/hacking/encryption activities (theft using computer expertise is at the heart of WikiLeaks). Some would characterize them as journalism. This is precisely an issue that is likely to be argued in court if Assange is charged by the U.S.

See this New York Times article describing U.S. plans to charge Assange with conspiracy for inviting the theft of government documents:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/world/16wiki.html.

Again, I'm not saying he's a hacker. I'm not saying he's not a journalist. I'm not saying he's an activist, though many of his public statements declare an activist bent. What the sources say is that these characterizations are in dispute.

Do you see? It is in dispute whether or not his activities are journalism. Some sources describe them that way. Most sources describe them as an extension of the hacking culture.

Now, my point: Though it is in dispute, this Wikipedia biography doesn't take note of this dispute at all. Instead, it accepts as a fact that Assange's activities with WikiLeaks are journalism. It describes Assange, right off the bat, as a journalist.

In other words, this article takes sides in a dispute. This is the essence of POV.

Note that the WikiLeaks article here on Wikipedia itself doesn't make this mistake. Instead, in a neutral way, it describes WikiLeaks by what it does. On the other hand, this Assange article describes him as a journalist, without noting that this description is in dispute.

Why not note, on first reference, that this is in dispute? Why accept the characterization as journalist, when most of the sources describe him as a programmer/activist? Why not state, in a neutral way, what he does, as the WikiLeaks article does?76.127.21.51 (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For a start, because his programming activities have nothing to do with his notability. There is no evidence whatsoever that the recent leak of documents involved hacking (or if there is, please provide a source). Frankly, I'm not prepared to debate this endlessly. Nobody else seems to be making the same objections. If this really was a NPOV issue, I'd have expected it to be raised by others as well. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See for example this article today by the tech columnist on msnbc.com, whose word for Assange is "hacktivist." You say, his programming activities have nothing to do with his notability. No, his programming activities have everything to do with the current activities: hacking, programming, encryption -- these are among the skills Assange is bringing to bear in his current activities. You've decided that hacking was what he did before, and journalism is what he does now. Many of the sources on this article itself see it differently.

The msnbc.com tech article: http://networkedblogs.com/clpd7 "Until now, virtually all hacktivist efforts landed in two camps: online graffiti, such as Web page defacement, or online protests, such as denial of service attacks. The spreading of previously non-public information, against a government’s will, is a new form of attack, and one that can’t be stopped by added improved packet filtering. ... One lesser-discussed aspect of the WikiLeaks release of U.S. diplomatic cables is Assange’s hacker background, and the architecture of the WikiLeaks distribution system."

See: WikiLeaks = attack. Hacking. Maybe it's journalism, too, but the Wikipedia article defines it only as journalism, saying he did hacking in the distant past. This is POV.68.212.245.59 (talk) 06:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One geek blogger coining a new word (Gee, they'd never do that!) in an attempt to claim Assange is really still one of them is not a suitable source for Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "geek blogger" you seek to diminish is Bob Sullivan, who is the consumer and tech columnist for msnbc.com, the No. 1 news website.

Again, let me say: Most of the sources cited on this Wikipedia biography of Julian Assange refer to him as a programmer/encryption expert, as a hacker, as a promoter of hacking by others, and most of all as an activist, not as a journalist. Some call him a journalist. Again, it is in dispute, most of the sources cited in this article do not describe him as a journalist, and this article should reflect that, from the start, instead of beginning by taking sides on the question. It's perfectly neutral to say that he refers to himself as a journalist. But to call him a journalist, without noting that it is in dispute, is to express a point of view.68.212.245.59 (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So find reliable sources that state that Assange's status as a journalist is being called into question. You say there is a dispute. If there is, provide evidence we can use. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That geek blogger (from a geek blog source) is still a nobody to me. That may be because msnbc.com is not MY No. 1 news website. That may have something to with me not being an American, and you must be careful that you being one doesn't colour your perspective and assumptions. Remember, Assange isn't American either. It's obvious to me that fact is part of the problem a lot of Americans have with him. As for Assange's non-journalistic activities, to me it seems that most of them were in the past. Today, he labels himself as a journalist. Today I label myself, very justifiably, as something I definitely wasn't seven years ago. And what I was seven years ago is definitely not what I am now. We must not mix past and present. HiLo48 (talk) 03:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another source: Today's Columbia Journalism Review, in an article asking whether WikiLeaks will continue to work with news organizations. Note the distinction: There is WikiLeaks, and there are news organizations. http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/the_wikileaks_equation.php?page=all. 75.200.86.175 (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is what we call synth. It only supports your argument by extension of the content. Something we do not do. --Errant (chat!) 21:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
75.200... - there's a real irony in you telling us that Wikileaks isn't a news organisation just after 68.212... told us that msnbc.com is "the No. 1 news website. msnbc.com didn't exist ten years ago. The Internet only began to be popularly useful 15 years ago. The world changes. Do keep up. HiLo48 (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ErrantX, most of the sources already cited on this Wikipedia article describe Assange as an activist, not a journalist. It is, again, in dispute. (And will be a significant point of disagreement if there's a criminal trial in the U.S.)68.214.220.247 (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, HiLo, that's not an argument. Nor is it accurate. You could check the Wikipedia article for msnbc.com, and you'll see that your guesswork is faulty.68.214.220.247 (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please either find reliable sources that state that Assange's status as a journalist is being called into question, or stop posting the same thing on this talk page. This isn't a forum. We can only work from outside sources. If you persist in this off-topic debate, I may seek advice as to whether your edits may be liable to be deleted as irrelevant to the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGump: What does your statement mean? "If you persist in this off-topic debate, I may seek advice as to whether your edits may be liable to be deleted as irrelevant to the article." First, the user doesn't seem to have edited the article, so how could you delete his or her edits. Second, why would the user making a point in the talk page disqualify him from editing the article? Third, and most important, the user is making a straightforward point: Most of the sources on the Assange article do not identify Assange as a journalist, but as an advocate; this is particularly true of sources that are what one would call reliable sources, such as news organizations, both in the United States and Europe. Nevertheless, the article itself identifies Assange first as a journalist. It's reasonable to ask, why is that? Why not identify him as an activist first? Why not note in the article that it is in question whether or not he is a journalist. It's unclear why you are afraid of entertaining this possibility in editing the article. Whenever the user raises this point, you reply with off-topic arguments, accuse him of persisting in an argument (if you don't want to continue the argument, don't continue it), and then when you are unable to persuade, you threaten to ban him from editing? This is bizarre indeed. Instead, why not look at the sources on the article, the ones that make the point the user is making: Assange is identified first by most sources as an activist, but first by Wikipedia as a journalist.Extremely hot (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the note at the top of this talk page: "This is not a forum for general discussion of Julian Assange. Any such comments may be deleted or refactored". The anon IP has persistently used the forum to argue that the article should not be calling Assange a journalist. It has been pointed out that numerous sources do just that. Our responsibility is to reflect what other sources say. I have asked for links to articles from reliable sources also questioning Assange's status as a journalist. None have been forthcoming. Unless they are provided, we cannot do the same. This is standard Wikipedia policy.
With regard to my comments about deleting The IP's edits, I was referring to those on this talk page. As noted above, this is permissible where postings are off-topic. Since it has already been pointed out to the IP that we need external sources to question Assange's journalistic status, and he/she has persisted in trying to argue the point based instead on original research and synthesis, this debate is no longer relevant to possible article content, and is thus off-topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the poster has not once argued that we should not be calling Assange a journalist. In fact, he repeatedly has noted that he is not saying that. Why are you arguing against something he hasn't said. The poster has said that we should not be *first* calling Assange a journalist, that most of the sources cited on this article identify him as aan activist, and that we also should *first* identify him as an activist, instead of blindly accepting the (in dispute) claim that he is a journalist. It appears that you believe that when he says it is in dispute, you think he's saying that it should not be included. No, he is saying that it is in dispute, and the article should so indicate. Can you not discuss this valid point of editing without resorting to tantrums and false claims? (And why would it matter in the least if he is anon?) As for sources, the poster repeatedly makes the point that the sources already listed on the article cite Assange as an activist; this is the standard first reference in articles, including those referred to here. In reply, each time, you lecture about sources and original research -- no, he's saying the sources we already have references to call Assange an activist first. Why do you ignore this, resorting to arguments such as, let's delete his comments from this talk page, or let's close the discussion because it's original research. No, he's saying, look at the references already on the page.

Other editors, is the point not clearly made: Assange is identified in most of the sources already cited as an activist, and the question of whether or not he's a journalist is in dispute. This biography should indicate that it is in dispute. Could this be discussed on the merits?Extremely hot (talk) 05:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with EH, at least one poster is arguing that the first sentence should be reworded. I also agree that Assange should be called an internet or political activist first, then perhaps publisher or editor, known as spokesperson and founder/co-founder of Wikileaks. I have no idea how much he actually codes for Wikileaks, perhaps put the hacker/programming bit in the next sentence. He is not widely known as a writer or journalist. I realize that the question of whether he is a journalist seems important to Americans in view of future legal accusations, and it is addressed several times in the article. POV: Whether he is actually labelled a journalist or not, does not matter for freedom of press/freedom of speech issues, see Larry Flynt who was never labelled a journalist but a publisher, and won widely known legal freedom of speech/press battles in the US. You can find similar cases from other periods or countries, so publisher or editor-in-chief, as Assange seems to like to call himself these days, will do just fine for that purpose, don't get hung up on the word "journalist". KathaLu (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Internet or political activist first' might well be valid, and maybe 'publisher' might be a better term than journalist, but the IP was earlier insisting that we label Assange a 'hacker'. With regard to his present activities with Wikileaks, we have been given no evidence that they involve hacking, and since this would quite possibly be illegal, we cannot suggest he is still involved in such activities - yet the IP was earlier insisting we should. As for 'future legal accusations', see WP:CRYSTAL. As I've said, if reliable sources can be found that indicate that this is actually a significant issue now, rather than just an example of the general negative commentary around Assange that was widespread when the US leaks came out, we can look at the issue further. It seems to me that much of this debate is built on hypotheses: that Assange will at some point be charged (with something?) by the US, that he will use 'being a journalist' as a defence, and that this defence will be contested. This is all too hypothetical for now, so the only reason to discuss what exactly Assange should be labelled is if it is being debated elsewhere. I say 'debated', because a bare statement that 'he is not a journalist' without further explanation merits little weight in comparison to say an award for journalism from Amnesty International, I'd think. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, I agree with you about "hacker". As to the journalist question and without getting too embroiled in it, I just want to say that I came to this article because I wanted a bit of rock solid background information about the furore concerning the Swedish case. As it wasn't there, I started to dig a bit and then things began to look quite different from what they looked like at first. Same here. You regard "an award for journalism from Amnesty International" as proof of Assange's journalistic qualities and it seemed so to me, too, but when I digged a bit, it began to look different: The awards are defined by Amnesty UK, who awards them, as follows: "The Media Awards recognise excellence in human rights journalism that makes a significant contribution to the UK public's understanding of human rights." There were in total 12 Amnesty Media awards in 2009 for 12 categories. Eleven of them were: Gaby Rado Memorial Award for a journalist at the start of their career; International Television and Radio; Nations And Regions; National Newspapers; Periodicals - Consumer Magazines; Periodicals - Newspaper Supplements; Photojournalism; Radio; Television Documentary; Television News; and a Special Award for a human rights journalist under threat. Quite a few of the winners in these 11 categories worked for media like the CNN, BBC, New Statesman, or Observer. The twelth award was for "New Media" and the winner was Assange, working for Wikileaks. How does that give him journalistic credibility? I don't see it. It is just Assange, Wikileaks, a new media. He got the award for "Cry of Blood — Extra-Judicial Killings and Disappearances" but I am not clear what he - or Wikileaks - actually contributed to it, other than just publishing it to a wider audience, as a report with that title was published in September 2008 by the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights and Wikileaks "brought worldwide attention to it" two months later. Also, when you enter the string "is Assange a journalist" into Google or Google News, you get 1000s of hits (I did not check their quality) but it shows that it is a subject currently under public discussion, see this article in Newsweek of 4 Jan 2011. KathaLu (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've just entered "is Assange a journalist" into Google, and got 3,040 hits. Fair enough. But then "is Obama a muslim" gets 21,100,000 hits - this isn't evidence that mainstream sources are discussing the issue. From a quick look at the Newsweek article, it seems that (other) journalists are saying that Assange is one, but they'd rather not be associated with him. They aren't saying he isn't one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, funny, but Google News is different. Also, Assange did give an answer to the question "Are you a journalist" via the Guardian on 3 December 2010, he did not brush it away. But anyway, I will take leave of this part of the discussion, with the conviction that he isn't much of a journalist to me. If someone wants to change the order of Assange's collection of professions and functions in the first sentence, I have no objections.KathaLu (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS to Andy: I referenced the Newsweek article because you stated repeatedly that there are no reliable sources who question that Assange is a journalist: "There’s a lot of hair-splitting going on about whether WikiLeaks is journalism or Assange is a journalist,” says Bruce Shapiro, executive director of the Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma at Columbia" is one, and there are others. KathaLu (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Andy: You've just admitted that you don't know how to use Google. That's all. You entered the four words "is Obama a Muslim." You might have well entered the four words "Muslim a Obama is." Google disregarded the two common words in your search, "is" and "a." All you did was prove that the words Muslim and Obama appear on the same Web pages 21 million times, as in any page that refers to current international events. You didn't find 21 million hits for that phrase. Try it as a phrase, with quotation marks around the words when you search. You get about 50,000. If you don't know how to search Google, then don't cite the count of a Google search as proof of anything.Extremely hot (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I haven't 'admitted' anything. Evidently I omitted the quotes, for which I apologise - I should have been more careful, as I am well aware of the difference. Doing this correctly currently gives "About 59,600 results" (i.e. 'about 60,000', but let's not quibble). My point still stands though: you can find a lot more people asking whether Obama is a Muslem via Google than you can asking whether Assange is a journalist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think KathaLu has hit the nail on the head above, highlighting that it's clear that some posters don't want Assange to be able to claim to be a journalist, in the (probably) incorrect hope that if he is not a journalist he is more likely to be able to be prosecuted in the USA. Such a position is obviously a POV one and was definitely discernible. It probably influenced my approach to discussing this matter earlier in this now epic section. I think what attracted me to the discussion was the intensity of some of those who wanted to tell us he isn't a journalist. Lots of personal feelings on display here. If KathaLu is correct, it doesn't matter, so let's all stop stressing about it. Please. HiLo48 (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, no one in this discussion has claimed that Assange is not a journalist. Not one. What has been claimed is that whether or not Assange is a journalist, or is primarily a journalist, is in dispute. Is in dispute. And the entry should so reflect. (Is this distinction really so difficult to understand? Saying that people disagree about something is not the same as taking one side or the other of the question.) The issue is discussed straight on in a new source, the extensive profile of Assange in Vanity Fair, which describes his activism, and draws distinctions between his actions and those of journalists. A sample quotation: "I'm too busy. I have two wars I have to stop." Note also the editor of the Guardian, which has cooperated with WikiLeaks, describing Assange and his subordinates as "a bunch of anarchists in hiding." In other words, whether he is a journalist, or primarily a journalist, is in dispute. Reference: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/02/the-guardian-201102?currentPage=all.Extremely hot (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the problem here is that there's no clear way of defining if someone is a journalist or not. I could start a wordpress account tomorrow, proclaim myself as a journalist, and no-one can really say any different. You can certainly do a university course in journalism, receive accreditation, and all sorts of other academic fluff. But all that is essentially meaningless when it comes to the question 'is x a journalist?'. This is something that is inevitable in a world where methods of spreading information are so very drastically different to what they were even ten years ago. Everyone with a blog is a journalist. Everyone who edits wikipedia is a self-proclaimed academic and historian. Everyone who comments on an article for sale on Amazon is a reviewer. Whilst my observation regarding this situation is not hugely productive in itself with regards to this article, it is part of a bigger picture, which does have impact on the article. If I had a dime for every time someone on a talk page proclaimed 'yes, but it's the policies which are wrong!', I'd be rich. But in trying to source if Assange 'is a journalist or not', how much the landscape has changed becomes very, very apparent. My instinct is to leave the whole drama play out, and we can make a really good article afterwards. In the meantime, we should be happy with information which doesn't violate WP:BLP. Wikipedia is not paper. We can allow a bit of bloat now, as long as that bloat is balanced. We can pare it down later. Kaini (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lets stop kicking the poor horse corpse around. Another 4000000000 pixels is NOT going to get him to move. Active Banana (bananaphone 05:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a long section, so forgive me if I missed something along the way. Julian Assange is, and has been for many years a member of the Australian journalists union (MEAA). His membership did briefly lapse due to his accounts being frozen. The MEAA then waived his fees, making him a "member in good standing".
Victorian MEAA branch secretary Louise Connor has stated that "Julian Assange has been a member of the Media Alliance for several years. Clearly, with banking corporations freezing his accounts, his situation is quite extraordinary."
Given that the union which represents Australian journalists recognises him as such, I think that is pretty clear evidence.
I also think the point that others have made that his current notability stems from his work as a journalist (editor-in-chief of Wikileaks), and not as a hacker. It is appropriate and consistent that this be what is mentioned first. For example, if you look up "Jesse Ventura", it says he is a politician, despite the fact that many people would more likely identify him as a former wrestler. Xtempore (talk) 05:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Political Views

The article does not say very much about Assange's political views. What aspects of this should be covered?--Nowa (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's been described as a bit of a technoanarchist. He disputes the anarchist component as asserts that he merely believes in fully-informed democracy with institutions, and even with secrets (though I'm not sure which). He believes in competition with transparency. Strongly against abuses of power. Skeptical of wars waged by powers. Skeptical of power in general but not categorically opposed to it. We'd need a few sources for all of this, but there have been some nice profiles in the news lately. Ocaasi (talk) 09:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be wary of using any source but Assange himself for this: you can't really cite someone else for his opinions. If he has stated his politics relatively clearly and concisely, maybe it might merit a sentence or two. First, we need a source though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I am doing this right by editing the comment here.

Anyway, AlJazeera interviewed Julian Assange where he clarifies just that. He mentions that he is not opposed to governements and organization having secrets but the problem being when they become corrupt and try to hide unlawful and unethical behaviour, thats what where he opposes secrecy and sees a need for whistleblowers. He also clearly denies being an anarchist and mentions the need for governement and hirarchical structures in governement and organizations/institutions but the need for transparency where democratic processes benefit from information and/or to uncover unethical behaviour. Andythegrump, there is a source where J. Assange first hand is heard explaining just that- Source: http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/frostovertheworld/2010/12/201012228384924314.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.148.172 (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Autodidact/self-taught journalist

I'm not too crazy about this new 'autodidact' business. For those who haven't scoured SAT vocab guides, it means 'self-taught'. I don't see how it's relevant, really; we don't care if New York Times writers went to journalism school or just figured it out by themselves. I'd like to take it out and just leave 'journalist', if there's no objection. Ocaasi (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point. A university degree in journalism is not important, but has he really been employed as journalist, or in any other way worked professionally as journalist before wikileaks? Ok, he was awarded as journalist for his work with wikileaks, which could be helpful for him from legal point of view. Mange01 (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He is widely citable as a journalist, the issue of how it may help or hinder him is not important to us as wiki editors. Where is this autodidact claim coming from? Thank goodness it has gone, at least that saves me googling it to see what it means. I still think his intro is a bit undue, we currently have ... is an Australian publisher,[4][5] journalist,[6][7][8] software developer and Internet activist. He is the spokesperson and editor in chief for WikiLeaks ..... to me he is clearly most well known as editor in chief of wikileaks and I would put that first ..as a journalist .. who has he worked for as a journo? I don't think he can claim to be a journalist as most people would understand one. Publisher is covered by editor in chief of wikileaks and I personally wouldn't describe him as a software developer from what little software he has developed, looks more like a little code work to me. Internet activist is what he is doing as editor in chief of wikileaks so that is already clear, All in all , the current primary definition seems a bit undue imo and considering the article and reports I have read and seen. Off2riorob (talk) 13:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Ocaasi. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death threats

A very nicely formatted table has been added which adds anyone who every called for Assange's head on a platter. Problem is, this deserves one very short paragraph at best: Assange's activities have been described as terrorism by some in the media and several figures, including A, B, and C, have gone so far as to call for his execution. Done. That table is going to have to go, sadly, for the work that went into it. Ocaasi (talk) 12:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was totally undue weight and excessive reporting. Easily covered by a single sentence. After the release of the American diplomatic messages there were politically outspoken calls for Assanges imprisonment and even a couple of comments that he should be classed as a terrorist and killed. Off2riorob (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It's noteworthy that current and former government officials are trying to paint him as a terrorist, and you have to name names and quote people to avoid implicating people who HAVEN'T done this. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That thinking doesn't quite hold up. We haven't implicated all politicians just because we don't specifically name every one. If that were the case, this encyclopedia would be a nightmare of lists. Your first point, that the general statements are notable, is true. But we do not have to name all names, and there's no risk of implication, so long as we don't say all politicians. Ocaasi (talk) 13:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do you propose wording that to show some have called him a terrorist and some have called for his assassination? ...Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you'll get an answer to the first part of what you said (I've moved the 2nd part below).
If Assange had made very public death threats against Sarah Palin and Mitch McConnell and Newt Gingrich (along with Jeffrey Kuhner, Eric Bolling, Bob Beckel, Ralph Peters, Rush Limbaugh, William Kristol, Thomas Flanagan and Gordon Liddy) then his biography would be full of them, perhaps a paragraph each in a large section. No matter if the threats were ridiculously unlikely to lead to anything. However, Assange has been labelled a public enemy so threats against him (no matter that they could very well be direct precursors to his death or indefinite incarceration) are listcruft trivia and can be instantly swept away by unanimous consent.
Somewhat like the business of Paul Bethune - both are national hate figures (Bethune of the Japanese and a "judicial" system of 99% convictions) therefore the actual or threatened abuse of them must be treated as irrelevant - while their jerking, involuntary movements while slowly twisting on the wire of psychological torture will be paraded to discredit them.
I was the author of that new section we're attempting to discuss "Death threats on Assange" and I'd defend it anywhere as being vital to the biography. Templar98 (talk) 12:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the fact that there have been calls for Assange to be killed might merit a sentence or two in the article, but as it stands, this section is hopelessly overlong. This article is about Assange, not about loud-mouthed politicians etc playing to the gallery. Why should we give them more publicity than they deserve? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Rob's point about it already being covered by a single sentence is pertinent. I think Templar98 thinks we are attempting to censor these details from the article, but per WP:WEIGHT they do not deserve to recieve the detail of coverage that the section added goes in to. SmartSE (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your recent addition, though it's going in the right direction. It's in the wrong section, partly (afghanistan wasn't part of cablegate), and the only relevant part for this article specifically involve Assange, not WikiLeaks. Aim for one paragraph, and we'll see if it fits better here or at WikiLeaks. Ocaasi (talk) 13:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:TEND: "There is no rule on Wikipedia that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article. Such a rule would clearly contradict Wikipedia:Be bold. There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption.[1] Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information." Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom, schmarbcom. Let's keep the focus on content. The content you added involves a) afghan war log responses; b) cablegate responses; c) terrorist accusations; d) death threats. You put all of that content under a sub-heading of US Cable Leaks at the Julian Assange article. That means: 'a' does not belong; 'b' also does not belong, because responses to cablegate should be on the Cablegate page not the Julian Assange page; and, 'c' and 'd' can be combined into a single, short paragraph, as I suggested above. Verifiability (sourcing) is the threshold for inclusion; but that's just where we start from. Then we have to write balanced, focused prose. It's getting closer. Fewer threats and more focus, if you don't mind. Ocaasi (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A question. Was this 'new' section copied from an earlier version of the article, or from somewhere else? Much of the phrasing seems to match exactly that found on other websites, though they look like mirrors or paste-jobs (without attribution by the look of it sometimes at least). If this is from an earlier version, it should have been restored properly to maintain the edit history, and if it is from somewhere else, we may have real problems... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of it being from a prior section, nor does it seem overly plagiarized. By the time we're done editing it should be sufficiently transformed anyway. Ocaasi (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To address your concerns, I moved it to a subsection of the Wikileaks section. However, the entire section was deleted by another editor who has not been taking part in this discussion, for no apparent reason other than to keep this material out of the article. But it has been widely reported that Assange has been accused of having "blood on his hands", of terrorism, and that threats have been made against him. This seems very noteworthy, considering the people who are making these accusations and threats. That being the case, I am going to restore the deleted section. If someone wants to make changes to the material, feel free to edit it, or if you have a specific problem with something being inaccurate or not supported by the sources, let's discuss it, but removing the ENTIRE section completely is clearly not NPOV. From WP:NPOV "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I won't restate everything that has already been said above, but the content was clearly not neutral, concise, or overly relevant to list every person who has made threats or comments about him and his actions.--Terrillja talk 20:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be an unreasonable insistence on making this article harmful to the subject. All possible material that may end up counting against Assange is included while not making it clear that other accusations have already turned out to be baseless. An innocent man deserves better. Templar98 (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? If anything, including info about claims that his work/organisation has harmed people makes him seem worse. Perhaps you need to rethink that argument?--Terrillja talk 22:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps, mentioning the widely reported hysterical over-reaction of the U.S. government and media, to the point of trying to whip up and justify the lynching of Assange, actually backfired and turned out to be not only extremely embarrassing, but also very counter-productive to having him extradited from Sweden. So this material must be suppressed to make the authorities in the U.S. appear to be saner and more rational than they actually are. But it is a matter of public record, widely reported by the media, and its definitely notable in a biography of Assange that the U.S. government is trying to portray him as a terrorist with blood on his hands, and that assassination threats are being made against him. There is NO REASON to totally expunge this well-reference, notable and neutral material entirely from the article. I hear people saying it is overplayed, but instead of trimming it, it is being completely deleted time and time again. Actions speak louder than words when determining motives. This is not NPOV! Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you would be well advised to redact those remarks, Ghostofnemo. Please discuss the article content rather than the motivations of editors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ghsotofnemo, in this very prominent and controversial article, contentious additions will be more easily worked out on the talk page. Propose the text you want to include in the next sub-section, and we'll discuss how to edit it, and see if it fits. And yes, please keep the focus on content not editor motivations; it makes the place miserable. Ocaasi (talk) 05:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing controversial or contentious about this material, which has been COMPLETELY DELETED, not trimmed or edited, about four times now. It's reliably sourced, notable, widely discussed in the press, and neutrally worded. There is no excuse to completely delete this material. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, lets have another look at this content, there has been two or three differing additions, what are you proposing to add? I think we should have a mention of the ones where the person giving death threats and suchlike was officially reported, I think that gives them note. I don't think we need a huge addition though as basically imo the comments are more about the person making the threat than they are about Assange. Off2riorob (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

here's the most recently added version
Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mike Mullen, said that "Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing, but the truth is, they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family." Assange denies this has happened, and responded by saying, "...it’s really quite fantastic that [Robert] Gates and Mullen...who have ordered assassinations every day, are trying to bring people on board to look at a speculative understanding of whether we might have blood on our hands. These two men arguably are wading in the blood from those wars."[91]

A number of commentators, including current and former US government officials, have accused Assange of terrorism. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell has called Assange "a high-tech terrorist".[92] Former US House speaker Newt Gingrich, has been quoted as saying, "Information terrorism, which leads to people getting killed, is terrorism, and Julian Assange is engaged in terrorism. He should be treated as an enemy combatant."[93] Within the media, an editorial in the Washington Times by Jeffrey T. Kuhner said Assange should be treated "the same way as other high-value terrorist targets";[94][95] Fox News' National Security Analyst and host "K.T." McFarland has called Assange a terrorist, WikiLeaks "a terrorist organization" and has called for Bradley Manning's execution if he is found guilty of making the leaks;[96] and former Nixon aide and talk radio host G. Gordon Liddy has reportedly suggested that Assange's name be added to the "kill list" of terrorists who can be assassinated without a trial.[97]

Tom Flanagan, former campaign manager for Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, commented in November 2010 that he thought Julian Assange should be assassinated. A complaint has been filed against Flanagan, which states that Flanagan "counselled and/or incited the assassination of Julian Assange contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada," in his remarks on the CBC programme Power & Politics.[98] Flanagan has since apologised for the remarks made during the programme and claimed his intentions were never "to advocate or propose the assassination of Mr. Assange".[99]

Here's the proposal
Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mike Mullen, said that "Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing, but the truth is, they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family." Assange denies this and responded, "...it’s really quite fantastic that Robert Gates and Mullen...who have ordered assassinations every day, are trying to bring people on board to look at a speculative understanding of whether we might have blood on our hands. These two men arguably are wading in the blood from those wars."[1]
A number of political and media commentators, including current and former US government officials, have accused Assange of terrorism. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell called Assange "a high-tech terrorist", and said, "he has done enormous damage to our country. I think he needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law".[2] Former US House speaker Newt Gingrich said, "Information terrorism, which leads to people getting killed, is terrorism, and Julian Assange is engaged in terrorism. He should be treated as an enemy combatant."[3] Former Nixon aide and talk radio host G. Gordon Liddy said, "Julian Assange is a severe national security threat to the U.S., and that then leads to what to do about it," Liddy told WND. "This fellow Anwar al-Awlaki – a joint U.S. citizen hiding out in Yemen – is on a 'kill list' [for inciting terrorism against the U.S.]. Mr. Assange should be put on the same list."[4] Tom Flanagan, former campaign manager for Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, said he thought Julian Assange should be assassinated on the CBC programme Power & Politics.[5] Flanagan has since apologised for the remarks.[6]

In the right section, I think most of this is notable, though it could use a little reworking. I removed a small piece about Bradley Manning, which seems off-topic. Ocaasi (talk) 13:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC) I think the Flanagan piece is too long and should be part of a more general paragraph about calls for death. Ocaasi (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would accept that, but I'd reword the K.T. McFarland part (who by the way, was "the deputy assistant secretary of defense for public affairs at the Pentagon from 1982 to 1985 under President Ronald Reagan and speech writer to Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger" according to her Wikipedia bio) to read "has called Assange a terrorist and Wikileaks a terrorist organization". Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)The Fox news guy is trivial and liddy reportedly is of little note imo, but the rest looks definitely noteworty. A couple of the quotes need checking for accuracy in the citations and the brackets are incomplete. Democracy now is like a wiki virus link, totally opinionated Off2riorob (talk) 13:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did some copy-edit/tightening of the prose, combined Flannigan into the second paragraph. Ocaasi (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants to check the quality and accuracy of the citations, here they are. Off2riorob (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citing the entire comment is fine with me. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
done - Off2riorob (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • - http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=234905
    • Liddy said - "Julian Assange is a severe national security threat to the U.S., and that then leads to what to do about it," Liddy told WND. "This fellow Anwar al-Awlaki – a joint U.S. citizen hiding out in Yemen – is on a 'kill list' [for inciting terrorism against the U.S.]. Mr. Assange should be put on the same list." - Liddy appears to comment quite extreme things pretty often, perhaps that could be mentioned, the outspoken or controversial radio host? Off2riorob (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Heat+Flanagan+inciting+murder+WikiLeaks+founder/3932545/story.html#ixzz19tSdoj4y

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange isn’t some well-meaning, anti-war protestor leaking documents in hopes of ending an unpopular war. He’s waging cyberwar on the United States and the global world order. Mr. Assange and his fellow hackers are terrorists and should be prosecuted as such. Off2riorob (talk) 14:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if you saw this above, but K.T. McFarland was "the deputy assistant secretary of defense for public affairs at the Pentagon from 1982 to 1985 under President Ronald Reagan and speech writer to Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger" according to her Wikipedia bio. She a Fox News commentator, so millions watch her broadcasts. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thats cool, but is there any independant reporting of her comments? Off2riorob (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen an article edited on the discussion page! Why not be bold and add your proposed version, and we can go from there? Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I boldly readded the deleted section, incorporating much of what has been proposed here. Feel free to make improvements. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editing on talk pages is great for controversial articles. Nice work all around on this. I propose we move the two paragraphs to a new section in which the Praise and Awards would also go, and rename the overall section, 'Criticism and Praise' or somesuch. I'm not sure it makes sense to have a praise section all by itself when there has been such fill out of the entire spectrum of responses. Ocaasi (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sound like a good plan. Off2riorob (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite many external links were recently removed from the external links section, including:

Off2riorob suggested that we "upload it to commons or add it to the article if its added value" instead. I see no reason why we should not keep at least the TED talk and the personal interviews. Above all, is uploading to commons really an (legal) option? --spitzl (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its just repeated external link farm and ads nothing at all. Feel free to add anything that adds something to the body of the article or ask at commons if you are allowed to upload the media . Off2riorob (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the links are profiles, interviews with Assange, or talks by him, they seem valid external links. un☯mi 05:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The current references, starting with al-Jazeera and ending shortly thereafter at the Wayback Archive of Assange's own website make it obvious he's a villain.</sarcasm alert> Everyone knows that Assange plans to kill the Pope</sarcasm alert> - we only need signposts towards the dark places where the death threats are obviously hiding.</sarcasm alert> Templar98 (talk) 13:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are here to write our own article, our article is pretty extensive, we have already one hundred and fifty external links, we don't need a linkfarm to someone else's profile, I trimmed it back, kept the bbc and aljazeera, as one of this and one of that. There might be a case to add one or two of the video links, Ted seems ok and I replaced the David frost interview but to the original so as to avoid copyright issues. I also replaced the Russia video, those three seem to be spread over the year and from three different continents and have some added value to link to. Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We're here to produce an article that is resolutely establishment and very western-centric (obviously excepting Europe and Japan and Australia and probably Canada). Almost every one of the current references either looks dubious or is obviously hostile - coverage at Aljazeera - Profile, BBC - Hero or Villain? – Archived versions - Russia Today - ted.com - Frost Over the World ... Al Jazeera.
Why can't we give Assange a fair crack of the whip, as he had before?
Templar98 (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • - WP:LINKFARM avoidance - the last three video interviews are now added and considering we already have over 150 external links imo the others are not additionally beneficial to the reader. I am not seeing that the externals currently in the article are attack in nature, please point out those problems and users will likely remove them or feel free to remove them yourself if you feel a link is attacking in nature. Off2riorob (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Templar seems to have stuffed them all back in with this edit summary - "It is long past time to clean up the external links and move depreciated or nationalistically hostile links below the good sources that actually quote him" - as I said we are not a link station, we write our own article and only link to something that adds something, which of these links does templar think are nationalistically hostile ? None of them are, they are respected reports, the BBC and so on.Off2riorob (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

non notable newspaper awards

This and that not notable newspaper polls of users and suchlike are worthless. As the actual award isn't notable there is no long term value at all. On the 24th of December, the french newspaper Le Monde named him person of the year - so what is notable about that? I s this le monde award noteworthy, no its not, who won this fantastic thing last year? the same goes for the other recent not notable promotional so called awards , and the Postmedia Network named him the top newsmaker for the year. So what? A worthless promotional award, in a week when I remove them again you will say, oh they seems notable at the time. If these so called valuable awards are worthy of addition then show me a secondary report about it? Only primary reports with no assertion of any note. John awarded harry the John award. cited to John.org Off2riorob (talk) 04:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we can make value judgements like that, without at least debating them first. The article reads "In December 2010, Julian Assange was named the Readers' Choice for Time magazine's 2010 Person of the Year,[12] as well as runner-up for 2010 Person of the Year.[132] On the 24th of December, the french newspaper Le Monde named him person of the year[133]". I don't really think you can simply say that Time magazine is notable, but Le Monde isn't - you are talking about a major French newspaper, and we need to avoid the excessive US-centric perspective that has always seemed problematic to me with this article. Though such polls etc may be individually of only limited significance, there do seem to be a lot of them. I'm not saying they all need to be mentioned, but I think we need to include a few, just to illustrate a broader international perspective on the issue. I take your point about primary sourcing though - this should really be how we decide what to include. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are conflating notability requirements for article creation with notability requirements for article content. un☯mi 04:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


When it comes to content, the specific policy that applies is WP:UNDUE, which is a close relative of WP:NOTABLE. aprock (talk) 08:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only notable award or nomination is the TIME Person of the Year nomination, which has been around since 1927 and is known worldwide, also in non-English speaking countries, but Assange was not nominated TIME Person of the Year 2010. Being TIME Person of the Year runner-up, TIME Reader's choice, Le Monde's choice or Postmedia's choice are minor nominations, probably all on the same level of notability (POV: I had never heard of any of these nominations until now). You may want to include a sample of such nominations to illustrate the world-wide impact of Wikileaks, which is now more closely associated with the person Assange than before. KathaLu (talk) 09:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
? I can't remember ever being in any UK College library or public library that did not have a subscription to Le Monde. Do you want to run that buy me again?--Aspro (talk) 22:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TIME Person of the Year is a famous feature of TIME since 1927. It is described in detail in a separate section in the TIME article and has even its own article. That Le Monde selects a person of the year is not even mentioned in the English article. In the French article, it merely says that Le Monde selects a person of the year since 2009, and then names the two nominations so far. Le Monde did a tiny article on Assange when they nominated him, TIME I think does a large feature and puts the candidate on the cover page. I have no objections to the inclusion of such nominations. KathaLu (talk) 08:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is nowhere said that an award has to have its own article in Wikipedia in order to be mention in an article.walk victor falk talk 20:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that Le Monde's award isn't notable is anglophone bias. It's by far one of the largest and most well-known French newspapers. The Time runner-up and Time reader's choice both received significant external media coverage. --75.28.52.27 (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with however the majority of people decide to go with this. When I added them I just assumed they were in the same line of notability as the Time award (never knew that time had specific polls and editor picks for a specific person to be on the cover once a year until this year - but I guess that was just me!). Cheers!Calaka (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with AndyTheGrump's reasoning plus Le Monde is huge globally. Keep it in. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are lots of secondary reports that turn up when one googles Le Monde,Assange, and person of the year; I just reinserted the content and added an ABC News one for the Le Monde award. The Montreal Gazette is secondary for the Postmedia award as its not part of the postmedia network. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see a SkyNews one; I'll add that as well. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I am afraid you seem mistaken in your claim about The_Montreal_Gazette please see there that they are in fact owned by postmedia. If there is no independent claim for that it should be removed again. Off2riorob (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Gleaner, owned by Brunswick News Inc. WikiLeaks founder named newsmaker of the yearwalk victor falk talk 23:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but really, does it make it a notable award, imo - no. Off2riorob (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not necessary for the awards to meet WP:GNG; these criterion are for writing articles about them. It is sufficient that a) the organisation is sufficiently reputable (leading news outfit, major human rights organisation) and b) confirmed by secondary sources (that not necessarily have to be included as references)walk victor falk talk 00:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Victor, the press write all sorts, an award should be a valued respected thing, just to have a primary report and a report of that report in some minor publication doesn't make it worthy of note. Off2riorob (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the award does not have to be worth jack shit in itself. The reputation of the giver confers respectability.walk victor falk talk 00:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, its of no long term encyclopedic note at all if you ask me. As far as awards go, that one is irrelevant. Keep the strong - delete the weak, avoid adding content of little value as it distracts from the real worthy awards. Off2riorob (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like Stalin said, "quantity has a quality all of its own". It is extremely unusual that an individual is awarded so many at once.walk victor falk talk 01:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, presently very very newsworthy, and the Le monde award has clearly been clarified as noteworty and I am happy for that, I always appreciate worthwhile additions that will have a long term lasting educational value, the others have yet to give me that same feeling. To be honest these others shouldn't even be called awards, they are just fluff really. An award is a valued thing. If there is an insistence to add such trivial claims the title of the section needs changing or we should integrate the content into the article body, as people have a high expectation of what is a worthwhile notable award. the one you have added doesn't meet those expectations by a long margin. Off2riorob (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the term "TIME Readers' Choice for Person of the Year", widely used in the media, is somewhat misleading, as it was an online poll, you could participate even when you had never laid eyes on a TIME magazine in your life. But the poll result is certainly a measure of the interest for Assange amongst those who are active online and cast a vote in this poll. KathaLu (talk) 07:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it was open to non-Readers of Time, then you are absolutely correct; but maybe synthesis? What do we do when OR rules bang up against obvious reality? I think we should change the wording to Time's Online Poll Results: Assange "Person of the Year"Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We may not use the same interpretation of OR or SYNTH, I would call it careful reading before writing and disseminating. I can't help starting to think when I read something that's odd. First, unlike other media, TIME never refers to "TIME readers" who chose Assange in their online poll, just "readers" in Assange being Readers' Choice. Secondly, it was Assange on first place (382,020 votes), Recep Tayyip Ergodan, Prime Minister of Turkey on second place (233,638) and Lady Gaga was third (146,378 votes). That's a suprising choice for the TIME target audience. Could it be that it had something to do with the fact that you could vote online and publish immediately to Twitter and Facebook? Thirdly, although the poll is now closed you can still see here HOW TO: Vote For Julian Paul Assange — TIME’s 2010 Person Of The Year [ONLINE]. This online poll is PR tool, TIME is not obliged to pick the online poll winner and they didn't. Nevertheless, 382,020 people cast thier vote for Assange (ok, maybe less people but that many votes were cast). KathaLu (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you think the wording in the BLP should be changed. What do you suggest? I also thought the Turkey PM's support was odd and I especially think the Zukerberg choice seems really outdated, chickenshit (controversy fading rapidly) and asinine ( almost anybody was more important in 2010), but I don't run Time. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I personally would change the wording but I am not fussed about it. Wikileaks, and now Assange, had a huge impact, on the media, on readers, on people who are active online, and has been able to rally supporters from all quarters, and the BLP has to reflect it. KathaLu (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another award was announced for Julian by a Romanian national newspaper (that according to Wikipedia is no longer functioning?) [1] (english: [2], although I also did a google translation of the first [3]). Looking to see if other references referenced the above article all I managed to find is non-english websites such as [4] and [5] although based on what I read above I will not add it. Unless of course more note about the award is to be found.Calaka (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Romanian "honor award" is referenced here in English, and if you put it into the article it may well turn up in more English sources, given the multiplicator function of Wikipedia. KathaLu (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there we are, the Romanian award has been reported by the following: CBS News,Sky News, USA Today KathaLu (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
roflmao; its too early in the morning for that one. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Public reception

Per the discussion about Death Threats (see above thread), I added a new section called 'Public reception', and combined the criticism with already existing Support and Awards sections. A few small questions:

  • what to call it (does Public reception work?)
  • which goes first (criticism or support, I chose criticism so Awards could go at the end after Support)
  • is there some redundancy with the Wikileaks section (I think might be because it discusses awards as well--we should corral stuff together)
  • should we add a [see also] link to the reception section of the main WikiLeaks article? Ocaasi (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Though if Assange had declared that the Taliban should use their top technology to bomb Sarah Palin to death it would be considered headline material - so I can't quite understand why the fact that Sarah Palin said he should be "targeted like the Taliban" is not considered worthy of mention. Templar98 (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since Sarah Palin is fortunately not in the position to order anyone to 'target' Assange, this amounts to little more than her producing a soundbite to suit her supporters. If it merits mention anywhere, it is in her article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Taliban is not in the position to bomb Sarah Palin to death. Nevertheless, threats of this kind against her (particularly if they come from a dozen or so other top Talib opinion-formers, and are backed by similar actions, thus making them very credible) would almost certainly appear in her biography. That Assange is denied similar consideration, even in his own biography, tells us a lot about the editing of this article. Templar98 (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The contents of this article aren't based on what you think would happen if it was about somebody else entirely. And if you have specific complaints about the way this article is edited (as opposed to vague assertions based on dubious hypotheses), I suggest you raise them in the appropriate place, rather than here. If you want this issue to be discussed in the article, I'd suggest finding a reliable source that does the same, as a phenomenon. These things were said, noted by the media at the time, and are now largely seen as what they were - attention-seeking hype. Or if they weren't, provide evidence to the contrary. You clearly attach significance to them, but I see little evidence that others do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for stating the obvious, special rules apply to the most hated man in Christendom.
Assange is threatened with death (or being made a life-long political prisoner) by major opinion formers in a nation that does this without any meaningful form of judicial oversight.
The danger to his life and liberty is being censored from his biography, the death threats against him have been thoroughly censored already. The accusations of terrorism have been censored and the external references are chosen to be hostile (see above). Templar98 (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you persist in making personal attacks, rather than offering useful contributions to this talk page, you are unlikely to be taken seriously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Templar98, please step back a moment and look at what you are saying. Do you really believe Assange is more hated in Christendom than Osama? That's what you said. I doubt as much as 1% of Christendom hate Assange; after all, we're not supposed to hate anybody plus Assange is not a very hateable guy in any way. But even if he was hated by many, the inclusion of death threats would still not be customary here. Have a look at the BLP on Osama bin Laden. It contains little if any mention of death threats (there must've been thousands by now). Death threats, in my opinion, are not appropriate for inclusion in any BLP in an encyclopedia for many reasons. One reason is it spreads hateful rheteric and could incite crackpots. If I were Assange I would not want a bunch of death threats published about me, especially not in an encyclopedia. Another thing you say is that "danger to his life and liberty" is being censored. Content for BLPs here is supposed to be notable. Regardless of what political stripe a person is in 2011, don't you feel that each and every one of us faces "danger to (our) lives (e.g. when we drive a car) and liberties (e.g.when we get patted down at an airport) on an almost daily basis? So, there is nothing notable at all,imo, if Assange's life and liberty are in danger. I think Andy and others have been real dilligent in addressing your points, but there comes a time when, perhaps, you may wish to re address them yourself. At least that's my view of your comments here. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 05:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Templar, you've come here with an assumption that we dislike Assange and are censoring the vitriol against him. Since you have commented, however, an entire section on death threats has been added, and it is the prominent first sentence in the intro's third paragraph which states: "For his work with WikiLeaks, Assange has received public condemnation and calls for his execution as well as glowing praise and accolades." If you think we're doing something wrong, I think you might have a POV which is stronger than an encyclopedia should have. Mentioning Sarah Palin is a possibility, but it's just not that important. Her media value is really trivial compared to her political impact, and it's not clear why that mention is notable enough to be included over any of the others. We have to pick some, and we didn't negate her, we just didn't specifically detail what she said. Consider if this article is really that 'biased' or if you are just a particularly strong defender of Assange. Also, whatever you've adopted as your accusatory mode of communication, it's not how we like to work. Make proposals and suggestions, write up actual text and include the sources, discuss where it would go and why it fits, let other people respond... That's how we like to work. Ocaasi (talk) 09:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will you defend me from the accusations of "persisting in making personal remarks", or is this something you can do to me but I mustn't do back?
As it happens, I was about to make my first personal remark, something to the effect that, in fairness, you did compliment my work and you did invite discussion of it here after deleting the entire table of threats and accusations I'd put in. I might choose to address such a "personal comment" to you in the hope of getting an explanation of why you didn't move the table here and invite discussion.
But it's already much too late for that, I'm told I'll not be taken seriously, there is nothing notable about the danger to Assange's life and liberty (however badly impacted already) and the hostility of Sarah Palin is not worth mentioning. Templar98 (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source on Palin's comment? I think, since she was the Republican Party's Vice Presidential candidate, that her comments are notable. That makes her a very senior Republican Party official. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing someone of being a terrorist goes far beyond "criticism". I think that subsection needs a new title - how about "Demonization"? But seriously, what was wrong with the previous title? Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC) I suggest we drop the "Public Reaction" section, and just have "Criticism" and "Support" sections. However, one problem is you may have Wikileaks criticism blending with sex allegations criticism, which would be confusing. I think we should have these sections as subsections of the "Wikileaks" section. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC) I made that change, hope it's acceptable to everyone. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have actually changed my mind over the past week about how notable quotes by politicians are and whether they should be going in the BLPs of the targets of those quotes. The quotes are usually of very short-term notability(e.g. Bush and Clinton BLPs likely have few of the name calling labels that were hurled at them by other politicians) and they also could easily comprise part of a campaign for getting their political messaging out to the public; e.g. Palin will likely pick up more votes than she'll lose by her comments. What I'm saying is that many politicians are admittedly "actors on a stage". If a member of the uniformed military leadership or Obama as Commander of the Armed Forces of the USA calls Assange a "terrorist", that's more notable for inclusion, I think, but when it come to any other politicians; let's stop giving them so much free publicity for their sound bites which are not notable in a longer term perspective. I think we should remove all of the inflammatory rheteric by politicians that is already in this BLP or the WikiLeaks article, and take out any praise by politicians, US or others, as well. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving the criticisms out was creating NPOV issues, I think we have the most notable people that criticized him and the detail and quotes well presented. Off2riorob (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct for the present moment, but I doubt the Praise and Criticism sections will hold up over time in terms of notability; the Brazillian President's opinion for example. I would prefer to see 90% of both sections removed but I don't see a consensus for that at this time. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its hard to find a balance, most of it won't be long term worth reporting, fluffy praise and worthless so called awards and soapboxing criticism of no long term value. I felt I had to expand what was being added to portray it correctly, I felt they were cherry picked extracts from larger comments, and john called him a terrorist and harry wanted him dead and frank said he should be killed , and when investigated those were isolated comments out of context, that needed clarification. First we had the terrorist investigation section that was supported but there wasn't actually any investigation and we had that huge table added by templar, then there was some support appeared to be a preemptive attempt to assert that he would be killed if he was sent to America supported by all these death threats and now that the possibility of his extradition to the USA has declined the death threats are less important. Personally I am a neutral I don't care about assange one way or the other, I care about wikipedia and BLP and NPOV and if anyone thinks there are problems in the article about that them lets have a look at them. Off2riorob (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged sexual crimes - facts are removed, opinions included

I note that hard facts about the case get removed while opinions are included, and I object to this. Most recent incident:

  1. Removed: "The court ordered detention as a suspect with probable cause for rape, sexual assault, and coercion", referring to the Swedish court order of 18 November 2010. This court order is at the heart of the current extradition case before the UK court, and the misunderstandings of what the Swedish charges mean and how the judicial system in Sweden works are one of the reasons for the worldwide hoopla. The charges have been correctly referenced in numerous major English language media, and I think the above term "suspect with probable cause" is the best rendering into English so far.
  2. Added: "Assange said he had been staying in Sweden for five weeks to be interviewed by police, but no interview would have taken place. He also complained that Swedish authorities, as part of their application, would have asked that he, if extradited to Sweden and arrested, would be held incommunicado, and that his lawyer in Sweden be barred from making public statements about the case."

We have already this view of Assange's side in the article: "According to Assange's lawyer, Assange made repeated attempts to contact the prosecution, spending over a month in Stockholm before obtaining permission to leave the country, with the Swedish prosecution stating an interview would not be required" which is more than enough to give this particular part of "his side". It is also a distortion of major facts, btw. Attention, OR or SYNTH coming up: We had a detailed description of the events in the legal process but they were taken out. The rape case was opened on 1 September, he left on 27 September - that's barely four weeks, not five. We have only Assange's words for it that he would be held incommunicado, and in all likelihood lawyers are not allowed to give out details of the other party's statements, which is what he means when he claims that the Swedish lawyer is barred from making public statements. So please delete this again, as it is redundant, misleading in the given context, and speculation. He said a lot of things about why he did not return to Sweden for an interview in Sweden in October, as requested by the Swedish Prosecution, like having better things to do than go to random prosecutors worldwide for a chat, so either you include all these statements or none. Don't cherrypick the ones that make Sweden look bad and Assange the victim of injustice. And btw, what he was told in September was this: there is no arrest warrant on you, so you are free to travel. That's different from "we don't want you for an interview". KathaLu (talk) 06:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point. However, Assange must be entitled to have his side of the business or "the case for the defence" fully documented here. How we best deal with outright differences (or simple inventions from him) is indeed tricky, as you've said, but unless we're in the business of prosecuting him there's no excuse for censoring any part of what he wants to claim that is in the reliable sources. Templar98 (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are not a mouthpiece for any and all fantastic accusatory and opinionated claims assange may have about living people he is involved in legal issues with. Those people are offered the protection of our policies and guidelines and are editorial judgement just as assange is.Off2riorob (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is entitled to present a case for defence (or prosecution) in Wikipedia. This isn't a courtroom. We need to stick to verifiable facts. They are that allegations have been made, and denied, and that legal proceedings are ongoing. Excluding speculation and unverified assertions from the article isn't 'censorship', it is common sense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the paragraph with the two lawyer's names because WP:UNDUE. Assange's claim about having been in Sweden long enough to be interviewed is already mentioned at the beginning of the section, this does not need to be said a second time at the end. Three references went with it, not a big loss. One of them was a Guardian article, which was merely summarizing a BBC Today interview of 21 December. KathaLu (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing foreign language sourced material from a BLP

Significant content sourced only to foreign language sources has been inserted. This content violates several policies.

  • foreign language sources without translation are not verifiable and do not constitute high quality sources.
  • procedural court details are undue
  • some of the content is potentially libelous and requires very high quality sourcing

As the content violates significant BLP related polices I reverted the addition. Another editor reinstated the content. If there is a specific concern about having this sort of content included, the most important aspect is to get reliable sources which are verifiable and high quality. Discussion welcome. aprock (talk) 06:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy which states that non-english sources are unreliable or unverifiable. Rather, policies only state that English sources are preferred. If you are talking about Swedish court proceedings, then it makes sense to use quality Swedish publications, just as I wouldn't go to the NY Times for information about German law. I'm not passing any judgment as to the quality of the sources used, but the fact that they are not english does not violate any policies in itself.--Terrillja talk 06:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to WP:NONENG: When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language text and an English translation in the text or a footnote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. When citing such a source without quoting it, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors Please consider this a request for a translation of the source by a reliable source. aprock (talk) 06:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had added the information about what crimes Assange is suspected of by Swedish courts, with a reference to the prosecutor's office in Sweden. The source is highly authoritative and easily verifiable. I am sure I can find a media source in English saying the same thing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that the site is that of the Swedish Department of Prosecution, right? As in a bulletproof, reliable source. The text says that the prosecutor said X, the absoute best source is the prosecutor's office. And NONENG refers to quotes. This is not a quote, a simple google translation is sufficient. Any other source would not carry the reliability of the direct source from the prosecutor.--Terrillja talk 06:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for a translation from a reliable source, not whether the foreign language source was reliable. Machine translations are not reliable sources. aprock (talk) 06:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When quoting, provide the original and a translation. There is noting being quoted. Thus that policy is not applicable. And a machine translation is more than adequate for the purposes, but in addition, clicking the "In english" link at the top of each page gives an official translation. Satisfied?--Terrillja talk 07:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When English text including the wikilinked "rape" is added to a BLP, it is necessary for gold-plated sources to be used. The word "rape" means one thing to English readers, while there is apparently a related concept in Swedish law that has an entirely different meaning. Usage of such loaded language violates WP:NPOV unless a whole lot of pointless verbage is added to explain that it is not "rape" as understood in English-speaking countries. Johnuniq (talk) 07:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Rape" is understood in English in different ways too. There is "date rape", "statutory rape", etcetera. The meaning is not "entirely different". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see the content has been reinserted without addressing the problems of sourcing (and undue). I assume that these problems will be resolved in the next day or so. If the issues aren't resolved, content sourced only to foreign language sources that have not been translated by reliable sources should be removed. aprock (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there is a link at the top of the page that gives an official english translation (it appears that this is of only the most recent release, though i may misunderstand the site), that is a reliable source with a proper translation, from the authority which is making the accusations. Therefore, it's fine.--Terrillja talk 07:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "official translations" for the four sources all point to: http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/ which bears little to no relation to the content in the article. aprock (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I have more time I want to read up on what the rules on sources and references really are. The reasons why Assange is wanted for extradition are now common knowledge, I doubt that one has to give a source with the exact wording used in the article, in particular in view of the linguistic/translation issues we have discussed. In the meanwhile, use the following English language sources and add them to the Swedish Prosecutors website, which is obviously the best and most authoritative and very official source, and for which many secondary sources in English can be found: 1) The Stockholm district court on Thursday ordered an arrest warrant for Assange, a 39-year-old Australian, for questioning on "probable cause of suspected rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion" in Sweden in August; 2) On 18 November, the District Court in Stockholm ordered Assange's detention "on probable cause suspected of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion." Assange appealed, but the order was affirmed by the Svea Court of Appeals on 24 November; 3), verbatim from the transcript of an interview with the Swedish Prosecutor: "MARIANNE NY, CHIEF PROSECUTOR (TRANSLATION): The district court shared my judgment that Assange, on probable cause, is guilty of sexual assault and rape." KathaLu (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These are certainly better sources, but they do not sync with the current content in the article. I assume this will be addressed once these sources are added. aprock (talk) 07:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They do sync. And here is an article by Stockholm correspondent Naomi Powell explaining the Swedish legal procedure. Maybe one should mention that Assange was not wanted for "aggravated rape" ("grov våldtäkt") but for "våldtäkt av normalgraden". Svea Court of Appeal then reduced that to "less severe rape" ("mindre grov våldtäkt") (source). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The English source is: [6]. The text in the article follows. I've bolded the content which is not supported by the English source: On 18 November 2010 the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny asked the local district court for a warrant for Assange in order for him to be heard by the prosecutor. The court ordered detention as a suspect with probable cause for rape, sexual assault, and coercion. An appeal from the legal representatives of Assange was turned down by the Svea Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court of Sweden declined to hear the case. This is independent of the various WP:UNDUE issues of extended discussion of legal procedure in a BLP. aprock (talk) 08:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The English source (18 November) said: Assange had been detained in his absence "on probable cause suspected of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion." Where "detained" is a poor translation of "häktad". That is why I wrote "ordered detentention as a suspect", wikilinking to Detention of suspects#Häktning (Swedish law). And of course, the appeals are not included in the 18 November reference. I could add the Globe and Mail for that. But you don't seem to be interested, just nitpicking and wikilawyering. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you are using the untranslated Swedish articles for sourcing content here. Above I requested translations from a reliable source so that the content could be verified. I suppose you might call adhering to WP:V wikilawyering, but verifiability isn't some esoteric rarely used policy. aprock (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(od) Generally, this is why we don't do court reporting. We're not designed for this level of case-tracking. Encyclopedia... what can we say for sure, what will be the relevant level of detail in a few months or years? If we're outside of either of those, it's ok to just let the sources hash it out for a while. Ocaasi (talk) 09:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion above, I have removed the foreign language sources which have no available translations. aprock (talk) 08:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus for doing so. Your actions do not have a basis in policy. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. And since there are english language sources for all of it, the information is sourced and it makes sense to keep the original cites to the official department of prosecution as they are the source of all the english language translations/secondary reporting. Best to include the source of it, english or not.--Terrillja talk 14:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adhering to policy does not require consensus. Please review WP:NONENG, WP:BLP, and WP:V. A translation was requested to facilitate verifiability. If there are no translations available, these sources are not suitable for a BLP. aprock (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy that prohibits the use of non-english sources. Again, NONENG only requires a translation when quoting. Nothing is being quoted. Your argument is not based in any policy whatsoever.--Terrillja talk 15:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:NONENG When citing such a source without quoting it, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors. Unverifiable sources are not of sufficient quality to be included in a BLP. I suppose an RfC is appropriate at this point. aprock (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That says nothing about requiring a human translation. Anywhere. It only says that a human translation is preferred, just as English sources are preferred. If you want your translation, enter it in google translate. Nothing in policy prohibits using that as a translation. Problem solved.--Terrillja talk 16:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:NONENG, Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. I do not think that machine translations satisfy the requirements of WP:BLP, Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. Currently there is no translation. aprock (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The horse's mouth is a high-quality source. Whatever language it is in, it cannot get better than that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any source which is unverifiable is not a high quality source. It doesn't matter if it's Ed or Seabiscuit. I'll prepare an RfC for later today. aprock (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Palin addition

This addition breaks and distorts the diplomacy report and cherry pics an isolated comment from a lengthy diatribe from Palin and then has assange apparently responding to multiple comments, all king of distorting the situation imo. I suggest the Palin comment be isolated and expanded a bit to give it context, possible at the comment wherer she says he is not a journalist... 13:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

  • - The cite

Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin has called Assange, "an anti-American operative with blood on his hands" and suggested he be hunted down like an al-Qaeda or Taliban leader.

Palin says in the full quote from the cite about assange - Palin said of Assange "He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders?" In a post on her Facebook page, the former US Republican vice-presidential candidate wrote: "Assange is not a 'journalist', any more than the 'editor' of al-Qaeda's new English-language magazine Inspire is a 'journalist'."

The wiki leaks section

This section (section 3) has become excessively bloated for his BLP , we have already two related wikileaks articles, United States diplomatic cables leak and WikiLeaks - I suggest trimming back and or deletion of duplicated material. Off2riorob (talk) 14:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - looking up "Julian Assange" one is expecting to discover his age and nationality and a few other things about him (including the state of the prosecutions and legal disabilities he is subject to) but most of all one wants a quick rundown on the latest about Wikileaks and Cablegate, with links to articles giving more detail of the more historical material.
Now, some of the most high-publicity details may get duplicated but only because people have rushed to get material from here over to the historical articles, the details still need to appear at this article first. If you can see a significant mis-match between what is at the other articles and what is here then the likelihood is that the other examples have not been updated properly. Invite improvements there but don't diminish what is here. Templar98 (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly a quick rundown - what is here now about wikileaks when we have other articles is excessive. Off2riorob (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lets see if we can cooperate sufficiently to produce an article that treats him properly before we agree to removing the case for his defence. We have allegations of terrorism and threats to kill him still classified under "Criticism". No way is that acceptable. Templar98 (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, seems correct to me, criticism. Off2riorob (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Death threats and terrorism claims is criticism, but including extensive coverage of that may be undue. aprock (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't think what we have is undue at all, we have kept the strong and removed the weak and we have a rebuttal from assange. Off2riorob (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aprock - the whole tenor of that section (in particular) is gravely prejudicial against a man who is legally innocent and (most people would expect) likely to remain legally innocent of all charges of terrorism. Not least because most people probably think the charges against him on that score are quite ridiculous. When a Canadian joined the chorus of threats and false accusations against Assange, he quickly decided he'd gone much too far and needed to apologise. Templar98 (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the whole section is likely undue. There is just no need to devote 500+ words to sensationalistic name calling. aprock (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I just tried to separate the reaction of the different nationalities who'd called for extrajudicial execution, I got reverted, something about everyone knowing there was a nationalist element so it wasn't necessary to document it. Templar98 (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The separation made no sense: "Calls for the killing of Assange were also heard outside the US" What, the US is Iran and word didn't get out to the rest of the world that some people in the US weren't too excited about him and felt he should be six feet under?--Terrillja talk 20:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a good WP:NPOV claim to insist on some of the more notable critisism to be included. Off2riorob (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto Aprock about too much content on name-calling. The Flanagan comment was particularly a non-notable off-the-cuff bad joke. This happens a lot in Canada, maybe because of all the hockey game insults, and I won't bore you with detailed examples, but the fact the Flanagan off-the-cuff bad joke is in this BLP is a good example of bloat. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ok, I removed the Flanagan non-issue and I thnk the criminal Felon, G.Gordon Liddy,'s comments should also be deleted or else he be identified as a convicted Felon (right now he's identified as a former Nixon aide). He served 4.5 years in jail and why anyone thinks his opinion is worth a pinch of horseshit is beyond me. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually as I commented on your talkpage regarding the one you removed, Actually, there is an ongoing police investigation and both assange and his lawyers commented in regards to that one, so your description of it as a non issue is imo mistaken and I am going to replace it if your can't dispute my comments. You have to remember for NPOV , there has been a lot of coverage of people calling assange a terrorist and death threats, around twenty were added at one time, we have trimmed them to the most noteworty, removing the four or five that we have included is, well, basically out of the question as far as NPOV is considered, all the comment are specifically about assange and he or his lawyer has replied to a couple of them at least and that includes the one removed. Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a npov issue, especially if we reduce the "support" comments by an equal amount and I'd start with the Brandis,Rudd and Feris comments who are all about as little well known as Flanagan. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These are life-destroying allegations and calls for extrajudicial executions, broadcast nationally, and it is disturbing people want them brushed under the carpet. Threats against Salman Rushdie get an entire article to themselves, with 131 in-line references, 14 other references and 9 other external links. Over and above the nationally broadcast threats, we have all this stuff going on: "shallow thinking idiot that needs to be stopped before his egotistical crusade gets a few million...or billion...people killed" - some reference to which should be going in too.
Obviously, there are substantial differences between the cases of Assange and Rushdie, but they're more apparent than real. The US threatens rather few individuals (can't remember it ever threatening Saddam) and hires professionals rather than offering rewards. However, Assange has probably been put in substantially more fear and restriction than anything that happened to Rushdie. In fact, many people must suppose that Assange is almost bound to be silenced, and not because "business McCarthyism" bankrupts him. His words - why don't they appear? Oh, because there's no mention his funding is cut off!
Meanwhile, are we supposed to see the hand of the censor in the total absence of the Bank of America business, potentially even bigger than Cablegate? It was October 2009 Assange claimed to have 5Gb of BoA documents, and they're due to come out "early" this year. Assange thinks they should lead to resignations - isn't that bigger than anything we've yet seen?
And don't ask me to add things to the article - most of what I've done here so far has simply been reverted, initially with politeness, latterly with prejudice. Templar98 (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A few points in response. Just to be clear how we try and base our decisions, Wikipedia doesn't care what any editor thinks is significant, only what sources suggest is significant. By describing the death threats as 'life-destroying, nationally broadcast...' it's making a case for their significance that is separate from the sources. Yes, there was a rash of calls for his execution. We've described several of those. Every one is not notable. We clearly give the overview that death threats are out there and then mention the most prominent ones. We're not 'sweeping anything under the carpet'; we're crafting an article which reflects the coverage in the sources.
Also, there was a lot of hyperbole flying around after the Cablegate dump, but it was no fatwa. The call for Rushdie's death was a Big Deal, not because one man was more of an enemy than the other but because the fatwa wasn't just a preference for his execution: it was an order. Not an idea or an opinion, but binding edict. The Assange equivalent here would be a bounty for his head, and there's no such bounty. And, sources made a big deal of the fatwa, lots of them. So to compare: Rushdie, one primary call for execution, a binding religious edict, amply described in sources. Assange, calls for execution from multiple places, a mix of political hyperbole and legal/military opinion, all sourced but not equally noteworthy. They're different. We're covering what we should. Don't forget that this is the Julian Assange article, and he is the focus, not all of the people who would rather he not exist. For this specific article, those opinions are only really relevant in relation to describing Assange. If you want to try and start Death threats against Julian Assange, go for it. But that's a different article entirely. Ocaasi (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I fully support the content and may even replace the noteworthy one that was removed yesterday, if and when I can be bothered, there is a police investigation and possible charges about that one. Some people thing assange is fantastic and some don't, it would be against npov not to include one or the other side of the most noteworthy aspect of those very noteworthy issues. Also , they are not just death threats, they are high profile people commenting on assanges actions and the detrimental affects were and still could be, this is not some promo public vote award list its a detailed life story. Off2riorob (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(to Ocaasi) Thank you for spending the time to explain how the article comes to be suspiciously light on the accusations and "threats". Some of what you say is persuasive, but by no means all - nobody in the public media can afford to be labelled "anti-American", Sarah Palin has not only put Assange in fear, she's fired a shot across the bows of the whole of journalism.
Such nastiness shouldn't censor what I write or what appears here.
This self-censorship of the world media is not even entirely effective anyway, the Telegraph has "... Assange 'taking precautions' after death threats. Why is there nothing whatsoever in this article about it? A search on "threats" finds only "severe national security threat to the U.S". There is no mention in the article of "death" (as in threats) - in fact, that's double strange, since Assange has been accused (presumably falsely and likely maliciously) of causing deaths himself. Why's he not been cleared of this nastiness? No mention of "precautions" the Telegraph tell us Assange is taking. Why not?
And it gets worse - a quick google finds the Telegraph (I'm only giving you the best and easiest to find) says that the "Swedish government asked American officials to keep intelligence-gathering “informal” to help avoid Parliamentary scrutiny ... Wikileaks show", and commentators link this to Karl Rove and his known (?) influence on the Swedish Prime Minister. If Assange has enemies and sources say they're trying to get him, then we should say so.
However, I'm hardly going to waste time trying to produce a balanced article if it has to be controlled by the US Establishment and censored (mostly if not entirely by Americans, perhaps?). I think I'm up to at least 3 really important issues missing from the article. Templar98 (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The primary problem here is one of UNDUE and POV. This isn't always a malicious or intentional problem. People report on the news they get, and the sensationalist news is the stuff that sells papers. Some people think UNDUE means that things should be represented in the article in proportion to which they are reported (hence the massive section on name calling). This leads people to search for more information, but the lack of reporting on the boring details leads people to resort to using primary sources (see the discussion of foreign language sources above). The real solution is time. In time, secondary sources will cover the topic in a more encyclopedic manner. But for now, the article will have to be a mish mash of whatever people see in the news this week. aprock (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Templar, I'm not sure what you want from this article. I wouldn't censored what you write, so long as it's relevant. I'm an American, but I don't know what that has to do with it. I've cheered on most of Assange's behavior and find plenty of fault with our foreign policy. Some people think Assange is a hero, others think he's an enemy of the state. Some want him praised, others would prefer him killed. I see both sides reflected in this article. I think they're reasonably proportionate to their coverage in sources. I think you're wondering why we're not 'defending Assange from these horrible threats' but they're not just mean-talking, they're people's actual political opinions. Sarah Palin thinks Assange is a terrorist and should be treated like an enemy of the state. Ok, we can say that. But we're not here to clear Assange's name or to indict the establishment. It seems like you're looking for a little too much corrective work from this article, when Wikipedia is a reflective work. As for "death threats", if that's how they're described in sources, than we can use that term. If they're political/legal opinions that he should be prosecuted as a terrorists and punished as one, then I don't necessarily consider that a threat. As for connecting the fact that 'his enemies' are out to get him, we can't connect those dots unless reliable sources do. I know you don't like the tone of this article, but I think most of the content is there. If Assange has taken precautions for his safety, then it's part of his lifestyle and his response to the leaks. We can include it too. Just don't think that there's some great conspiracy to exclude what you think is missing. You might be partly right and partly looking for too much. Let's take the better pieces and incorporate them. Ocaasi (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I want the article to cover all the most important things that one might expect to know about Julian Assange and his campaigning.
For instance, today in the Telegraph (not the Wikileak friendly Guardian, but their ideological opponents) it says "Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has caused major embarrassment for both the Pentagon and US State Department, but his next target will be the private sector and an American bank in particular".
From everything we've seen (and what Assange has said, resignations this time) this leak could be even more sensational than Cablegate. It's been semaphored ahead since October 2009 and it's breaking "early this year". So why's it not in there - because it's the Bank of America and Wikipedia establishment editors don't want them embarrassed?
(Were you serious that a sub-article on "Life-threatening hostility towards Julian Assange" could have value? This story could run and run and there'd be all that useful material to turn into "The undoing and death of Julian Assange".) Templar98 (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Templar98 will you cut out the crap about 'Wikipedia establishment editors'. The reason why speculation like this isn't in this article is (a) because it is speculation (see WP:CRYSTAL), and (b) it is more relevant to the WikiLeaks article than this one. Your endless droning on about 'censorship' isn't doing anything except getting up peoples noses. If you want anything included in the article, try to do it without making snide insinuations - you might get further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deal with the issues not the personalities.
Assange has been threatening a major US bank for 16 months now and the issue is not going to go away, in fact he's now threatening that it's about to break (with resignations, as we've not seen yet). That needs to be in the article. Other threats and the precautions that Assange is forced to take are also in the top UK press and belong in the article. None of the work will be wasted even if Assange's plans prove to be a flop.
There is also no mention of the totally unprecedented refusal of the banking system to deal with an individual, what Assange has called "business McCarthyism". This article is not about Wikileaks, it's about Assange and I've discovered what happens if one tries to add material - it disappears. Completely disappears. Now deal with it. Templar98 (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you have reliable secondary sources which support Assange being "blacklisted" by the banks, that is probably worth considering for inclusion. aprock (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I'd not be instantly reverted? Templar98 (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the content was from a reliable secondary source which mentioned the issue in a more than passing manner there is almost certainly a place for it either on this article or the Wikileaks article. If it directly spoke to Assange's personal problems with doing business with banks, I suspect inclusion here might be me reasonable. aprock (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that Templar98 had found the required links, and made the addition. It seemed to me that it needed rewriting with a more neutral title, and to better reflect the source, and I have now done so. Note however that only the first link is in relation to Assange's personal finances, and the remaining three concern the WikiLeaks organisation: they are dealt with in greater depth in that article.
I'm not entirely sure this section is in the best place. Any suggestions? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have any reference calling these "financial implications", we have many calling them "business McCarthyism" (or sometimes "digital McCarthyism"). The sources make much of the fact that, financially, Assange is most of Wikileaks. I didn't find a source that directly links attacks on Wikileak finances with any fighting fund of Assange's. But then, I didn't look very hard, confident that any work I do will either disappear completely or turn into something that didn't answer the case. Templar98 (talk) 08:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Templar, If you want a lower chance of being reverted, bring your sources and proposals to the talk page first, and ask for suggestions. 'Business McCarthyism' is what Assange called it. That title is propaganda, the same kind governments use. We don't want anyone's propaganda in the article, which is what WP:NPOV is about. Assange is a big part of WikiLeaks, but the financial repercussions are only relevant for Assange if they involve his personal finances. Otherwise, take it to WikiLeaks. We will not riot with you, if that's what you're looking for. Time spent treating us like failed revolutionaries or establishment lackies, could be spent on sources, content, and writing. Ocaasi (talk) 10:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G. Gordon Liddy threat removed

The first 2 sentences of Liddy's BLP show why his threats are not notable. The Watergate burglaries, a 38 year old botched robbery, is all he is really known for, so I thought about adding that to the description of him instead of just "Nixon aide", but it seems that noone here is saying that his particular musing shouild be in Assange's BLP. Some Editors want to include a sample of the threats that have been made, but please use someone else who is more known. If Liddy's comment is returned, he most certainly must be described for what he is most known for; as his BLP indicates he "masterminded" the Watergate burglary. Its inaccurate by omission to just refer to him as a presidential aide and talk show host, I think. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This could be the real reason there's such a problem. Assange is an Australian, he's wanted in Sweden and under house-arrest in the UK - all places where accusations of terrorism and death-threats are taken seriously. The US is just one of many governments he's upset - however, it's just happens to have hosted 19 out of 20 of the really notable threats/accusations of terrorism. The 20th threat was retracted but could yet be prosecuted. All this is good information that belongs in the article on Assange (ie personal to him, not about Wikileaks).
We're now down to just 4 of the threats/lurid allegations against him, no indication that this kind of thing is a police matter almost everywhere, and it's in a section called "criticism". We took the last threat out because it only came from a criminal and was only broadcast nation-wide. Sheesh. Templar98 (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. We took the last 'threat' out because (a) it wasn't a threat - Liddy hadn't threatened to kill Assange, and (b) the opinions of loud-mouthed ex-burglars aren't actually all that relevant to an article. If 'they' (whoever they are) want to bump Assange off, I'm sure they can do it without Liddy's permission. Meanwhile, we should stick to facts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Australian and British (and Swedish, judging by this) media consider the threats against Assange to be extremely serious and liable to have a permanent affect on his liberty and probably well-being. That's all of the media of all the nations most concerned, I would think, just checking the Telegraph suggests so. The underwriting (even if understated) of these threats by criminals is notable, making the problem worse. If we were talking about threats coming out of Iran, Liddy would be labelled a hate-filled imam of national importance and his views would be very prominent in this article.
Meanwhile, I'm trying to fill some of the glaring holes in the articles and getting nothing but constant knock-backs. Templar98 (talk) 08:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We've been over this a few times; I don't think anyone has been able to provide reliable sources which identify significant coverage of these threats identifying them as "extremely serious and liable to have a permanent affect on his liberty and probably well-being". You're link to the Local, for example, is not useful to establish this - it simply list Assange coverage, of which there is a lot, and does nothing to support your point. --Errant (chat!) 11:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Liddy's show had 2.25 million weekly listeners in 2002 per http://www.numbersusa.com/text?ID=998 and is broadcast in over 250 markets per http://www.kgam.com/show_liddy.htm Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From his wiki article: "In 1980, Liddy published an autobiography, titled Will, which sold more than a million copies and was made into a television movie. In it he states that he once made plans with Hunt to kill journalist Jack Anderson, based on a literal interpretation of a Nixon White House statement "we need to get rid of this Anderson guy".[8][9] In the mid 1980s Liddy went on the lecture circuit, and was listed as the top speaker in the college circuit in 1982 by the Wall Street Journal....In 1992, Liddy emerged to host his own talk radio show. Less than a year later, its popularity led to national syndication through Viacom's Westwood One Network and later on, Radio America, in 2003." Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Liddy's show is a good representation of the response, and in the notability mix. Ocaasi (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite difficult to accept (as I've been asked to do) that many editors present are actually sympathetic to Assange. The sheer hostility and threatening nature of significant sections of the US establishment towards the guy seems to have been pretty overwhelming and the fact that criminals are openly involved in the calling for his murder makes it even more urgent to include mention in his article. Radio stations and their hosts can be hugely influential in inciting murder, they're what caused the Rwanda massacres - of course Liddy should be included. Templar98 (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look, it's my educated personal guess that many Wikipedians are pro-technology, pro internet freedom, leaning anti-authoritarian, etc. But that still doesn't mean we're supposed to write like it. Even if I think Assange is our savior on earth, the prose we use should be indistinguishable from someone who thinks he's Satan and writing about the situation neutrally. That's NPOV. Ocaasi (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New section on key importance of Sweden to US communications?

I would like to add a new section as follows (with additional sources linking Karl Rove to the Swedish Prime Minister and better direct linkage of the material to this affair).

The telegrams published by WikiLeaks show that the U.S. considers the entire world to be its security zone, but that Sweden is of key importance to the U.S. efforts to prepare for future cyber-warfare, classified documents released by Wikileaks show. Documents reviewed by the Dagens Nyheter daily show on 2nd Jan 2010 show that Americans have been identifying important infrastructure throughout the world. Deputy US Ambassador to Sweden Robert Silverman, was asked to find out what was worthy of protection and should be added to America's secret list of core infrastructure.[7]

Assuming I can write this up better, I would expect to place it in this Assange biography, not in the Wikileaks section. Your thoughts please. Templar98 (talk) 11:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, what relevance does this have to Assange? Surely this is related to the cables leak and has no relationship to him in the slightest. (we even have an article, National Infrastructure Protection Plan, that is directly the subject) --Errant (chat!) 11:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree its not appropriate for the Assange BLP. It might,in addition to other articles, be suitable for Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shortened opening paragraph on sex case

I have just shortened the opening paragraph in the sex crime case. I felt the amount of detail was making it hard to get a good understanding of the overall picture. Listing all the events that took place during the first hours/days of the investigation is probably not as important now as it seemed in August/September. Please discuss here if you have any objections. Mbulle (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced it, WP:BRD there has been already a lot of discussion to come to that consensus version of that section, you are of course very welcome to see if consensus has changed, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, is there any particular part of my edit you object to? I was merely trying to make the section more readable. As it stand now it contains a lot of minor details that might have seemed important in August/September but don't hold much relevance to the overall process anymore. For example the case was handled by three different prosecutors during the initial days. This is a standard Swedish process of escalation as an investigation tries to find a "home" with the right prosecutor. This might have seemed significant in the beginning, but I am not convinced that the two initial prosecutors are very relevant at this point. For this reason I tried to shorten the text about them.Mbulle (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was as I could see the removal, this does seem important timeline to me ? It also includes assanges refusal to return, which seems quite important, as that would have sloved the whole issue. Off2riorob (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • - Claes Borgström, who represents the two women, appealed against the decision to drop the rape investigation. The Swedish Director of Public Prosecution then reopened and expanded the investigation on 1 September.[126] Swedish investigators reinterviewed the two women, wanting to clarify their allegations before talking to Assange but he left Sweden on 27 September, according to statements in UK court, and refused to return to Stockholm for questioning in October, according to Borgström. According to Assange's lawyer, Assange made repeated attempts to contact the prosecution, spending over a month in Stockholm before obtaining permission to leave the country, with the Swedish prosecution stating an interview would not be required.[127]
I did not remove the part about refusing to return. Here's the suggested edit (in bold):
On 20 August 2010, Swedish police opened an investigation against Assange in connection with sexual encounters with two women, aged 26 and 31,[119] one in Enköping and the other in Stockholm.[120][121] He denied the allegations, saying he had consensual sexual encounters with the two women.[122][123]
Stockholm police questioned Assange on 30 August [124], after which Director of Public Prosecution Marianne Ny picked up the investigation on 1 September.[125] Swedish investigators reinterviewed the two women, wanting to clarify their allegations before talking to Assange but he left Sweden on 27 September, according to statements in UK court, and refused to return to Stockholm for questioning in October, according to Claes Borgström, the lawyer of the two women. According to Assange's lawyer, Assange made repeated attempts to contact the prosecution, spending over a month in Stockholm before obtaining permission to leave the country, with the Swedish prosecution stating an interview would not be required.[126]
I think this text reads better than the current version and has a more encyclopedic style.Mbulle (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, its difficult to see, what content do you actually want to remove? Can you post that here, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm seeing from Mbulle looks good, as is the explanation. I'm not entirely sure what's gone but if it bothered me I'd check and post it back here. Templar98 (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It reads better than what is currently there. aprock (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed text looks ok to me (I agree that these minor details can be cut from the text, they had been presented as important and unusual at first but turned out to be normal procedure in Sweden). KathaLu (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any need to remove timeline details at all. Can someone please post the actual content that is desired to remove so that people can discuss it and see what it actually is? Off2riorob (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the current text (sentences I want to change in bold):
On 20 August 2010, Swedish police opened an investigation against Assange in connection with sexual encounters with two women, aged 26 and 31,[128] one in Enköping and the other in Stockholm.[129] Within hours, Stockholm's chief prosecutor Eva Finne reviewed the case and dropped the rape investigation, saying there was insufficient evidence to suggest rape but kept open the molestation investigation,[130] and on 30 August Stockholm police questioned Assange.[131] He denied the allegations, saying he had consensual sexual encounters with the two women.[132][133]
Claes Borgström, who represents the two women, appealed against the decision to drop the rape investigation. The Swedish Director of Public Prosecution then reopened and expanded the investigation on 1 September.[134] Swedish investigators reinterviewed the two women, wanting to clarify their allegations before talking to Assange but he left Sweden on 27 September, according to statements in UK court, and refused to return to Stockholm for questioning in October, according to Borgström. According to Assange's lawyer, Assange made repeated attempts to contact the prosecution, spending over a month in Stockholm before obtaining permission to leave the country, with the Swedish prosecution stating an interview would not be required.[135]
Mbulle (talk) 09:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since on real objections to the changes seem to have surfaced and nobody else has commented for two days I'll try to put them back.85.225.222.10 (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there are four foreign language sources in the Julian_Assange#Allegations_of_sexual_assault section: [7], [8], [9], [10]. All of these are primary sources (from the Swedish prosecutors website). These source have no translation available, and are being used to support procedural legal details in the article. As I understand it, there are several policy problems with using these sources as the basis for including content.

  • they are difficult to verify, and requests for translation have been unanswered violating WP:V, WP:NONENG, and WP:BLP
  • there are many secondary sources which should be preferred to these sources to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH
  • they cover unencyclopedic details of procedural legalities, and are WP:UNDUE

There are several editors who disagree with this perspective, and insist on detailing the various procedural aspects of the case based in large part on these sources. For more discussion on the topic, please see: Talk:Julian_Assange#Removing_foreign_language_sourced_material_from_a_BLP. Outside perspectives invited. aprock (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing really wrong in a situation like this that is attached to another country to use out of 150 external links - four from Sweden. I will translate them and look what is in them, could you please also add the content that each one is supporting so that users can also at the same time attempt to find better sources to replace them, thanks. All four cites are from the Swedish prosecutors office. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know Swedish, do you? Without knowing Swedish it's difficult to say much about the exact content. There is a discussion of some of the content issues at Talk:Julian_Assange#Removing_foreign_language_sourced_material_from_a_BLP. Even with proper sourcing, the issue of WP:UNDUE with respect to court reporting still needs to be clarified. aprock (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, they are hardly supporting anything but fair enough, the content we need to find replacement cites for is... On 18 November 2010 the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny asked the local district court for a warrant for Assange in order for him to be heard by the prosecutor.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.swedishwire.com/politics/7272-prosecutor-wants-arrest-of-julian-assange-for-rape|title=Prosecutor wants arrest of Julian Assange for rape|publisher=The Swedish Wire|date=November 18, 2010|accessdate=January 4, 2010}}</ref> - and - (an appeal from the legal representatives of Assange was turned down by the Svea Court of Appeal) and the Supreme Court of Sweden) - declined to hear the case.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7499889-swedens-supreme-court-upholds-julian-assanges-detention/content/67822113-supreme-administrative-court-of-sweden|title=Sweden's Supreme Court upholds Julian Assange's detention|publisher=ALLVOICES|date=December 2, 2010|accessdate=January 4, 2010}}</ref>Off2riorob (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't think that using Google Translate is appropriate in a situation like this: one may be dealing with complex legal terminology that requires an actual understanding of the subject in question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think these original sources are important since there are so many distorted second hand reports in other media. The prosecutor is able to provide more precise and factual information than most other sources. If there is a language problem the proper responce shouldn't be to remove these sources but to find good second hand English sources that report the same thing.Mbulle (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as John says, not allowed according to policy. Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of WP:UNDUE still hasn't been addressed. aprock (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have boldly removed the Swedish language primary cites and replaced any uncited with secondary English support. Off2riorob (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think input from external editors would be of value on this point. There is no reason to include most of the procedural details of the case. This is a wikipedia biography, not a legal journal. I'm confident that the level of detail included is more than is warranted for a BLP. For example, naming the various legal personalities in no way contributes to the article. aprock (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you want to trim the sexual section, why not present what you want to trim it to here for appraisal. Off2riorob (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • - On 18 November 2010 the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny asked the local district court for a warrant for Assange in order for him to be heard by the prosecutor. translated via google

Business McCarthyism

"Business McCarthyism" is in no way an appropriate header; it is pointy and of little descriptive value. We choose headers to be neutral and adequately cover the section contents. --Errant (chat!) 10:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's quite descriptive, but I do take your point. What would you suggest? HiLo48 (talk) 10:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Financial repercussions" seems fine to me (which is what a couple of people, myself included, have changed it to). McCarthyism is mentioned in a source (it is the term Assange uses) but certainly not in relation to all of the material - if it was just the first paragraph I could buy it, otherwise such a title wouldn't cover the section appropriately ;) --Errant (chat!) 10:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have nobody calling it "Financial repercussions", we have Assange himself calling it "Business McCarthyism" (or sometimes quoted as "Digital McCarthyism").
I propose we stick to using what we have from reliable sources.
Actually, I'm coming to think this kind of conduct (ie following neither rules nor common sense) is a deliberate invitation to me to take many well-established editors to the Admin notice-board, where I'll find exactly what I thought, they are established/establishment editors and I can lump it. Well, if such an action didn't get me barred (at least from this topic), which I see is a distinct possibility too. Templar98 (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I am unconvinced that Assange's opinion is a neutral section header, we quote him in the section do we not? The idea is not to push any point but to organise the content logically and in an off hand matter. As to the rest, couldn't care less. Please discuss the content in a mature fashion --Errant (chat!) 12:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say that section headers have to be neutral? The practice of shutting down a person's access to the banking system has a name, it was coined by a victim, so what? It would appear that the very name McCarthyism was probably coined by a victim. "Originally coined to criticize the anti-communist pursuits of U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy, "McCarthyism" soon took on a broader meaning, describing the excesses of similar efforts. The term is also now used more generally to describe reckless, unsubstantiated accusations, as well as demagogic attacks on the character or patriotism of political adversaries." Calling Sarah Palin "McCarthyite" would seem to fit though naturally I'd not want to say anything so wounding about her. Templar98 (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV - we present EVERYTHING from a neutral point of view Active Banana (bananaphone 18:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional guidance and related internal links is here in WP:MOS headers and titles - Off2riorob (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality means not over-ruling the sources even if you don't care for what they use. From the MOS, article titles (and section headings are the same) here: "True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental". "Business McCarthyism" it is. Templar98 (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Business McCarthyism" is most certainly NOT a common term. Active Banana (bananaphone 21:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like perjorative labels(even though,embarassingly, I have used them myself at times); they are just a lazy form of non-communication that stifles openmindedness and debate. They should not be in an encyclopedia any more than absolutely necessary and then only in a very notable quote. "McCarthyism" communicates about as much about what Assange is facing as "terrorism" does about what Wikileaks is producing. I get it that he's under personal attack and is fighting fire with fire in a battle for the allegiance of shallow thinkers, but that's quite unfortunate that he chooses to sink into this kind of non-discourse. Obviously these labels should not go into any header. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, Assange uses the term 'business McCarthyism' to describe how he sees what the banks have done. The section isn't about his opinion of what they have done, but about they have actually done, together with his reaction. To simply use his description as the section header is to accept his opinion as factual, which is a violation of NPOV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Financial repercussions is just as WP:POV as "buisness Mcarthyism", in the other direction. How about "Microlevel trade sanctioning"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim.thelion (talk • contribs) 21:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LOL!!!! cough cough. Um sorry. Active Banana (bananaphone 21:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Microlevel trade sanctioning" would certainly be a lot more honest than "Financial implications" - but why do we need to invent a term when we've already got one, and it's what newspapers have (almost eagerly!) adopted for this tactic? Despite what we were told, neutrality mandates we use the name that's in the sources, not invent our own. Templar98 (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the use of the term Mcarthyism is undeniably loaded, and editorial. The sad part, is I was being serious when I sugested that term. Perhaps "Corporate level trade sanctioning" would be better though. I might even be WP:BOLD and go put it in. Not sure yet... It just seems to be the least likely term to be disputable. Tim.thelion (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are the newspapers using the term themselves, or quoting Assange as using it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted User:Tim.thelion as the talk page certainly shows NO consensus to use such WP:JARGON. Active Banana (bananaphone 22:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Think about it Banana, as it stands. The heading is very WP:POV. These were not economic reprecusions. This was an offencive move by major corporations against Assange and wikileaks. My heading was WP:NPOV, which is more important than WP:JARGON. It is better to say something correctly then to make an understandable lie. Tim.thelion (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PostFinance, the Swiss bank, says that it suspended Assange's account because he had "provided false information regarding his place of residence" when he opened it. This may or may not be true, but we can't assume it isn't, per NPOV. Perhaps the solution to this is to rename the section 'Bank account suspension', and not refer to the WikiLeaks banking issues at all - it could be argued that suggesting they are linked with this issue is itself POV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No "financial reprecussions" is not POV. It is the use of standard english terms that reflect the content of the section. banks freezing assets are financial reprecussions. businesses refusing to process donations are financial reprecussions. expectationa of enormous legal costs are financial reprecussions. writing a book to generate cash to for expected expensess are financial reprecussions. Active Banana (bananaphone 22:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Andy is right, "Bank account suspension" is simple and factual. Tim.thelion (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then we need another section title for the content of the section not related to the bank suspension. Active Banana (bananaphone 22:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Financial sanctions would cover it. Templar98 (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about "Finances", sweet and simple. Tim.thelion (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Boldly edited to - Financial sanctions - pure and simple - what was all that mcarthyism crap - imposed is already inferred in sanctions. Feel free to revert if anyone has objections. Off2riorob (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, This was an offencive move by major corporations against Assange and wikileaks. - please remember that we do not have opinions on these things :) which is the whole point of coming at it from a NPOV. Rob's suggestion is excellent & the best description so far. --Errant (chat!) 10:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to weigh in. Business McCarthyism is obviously a loaded phrase and the term sources reported Assange using, not the term sources used themselves. We can't assume the businesses were acting 'offensively' as opposed to 'defensively' or 'ethically' or just 'procedurally' or 'legally'. As for "Financial Sanctions", I actually find it slightly worse than 'repercussions', since Sanctions are always imposed by a party in a punitive way, whereas repercussions are just 'aftereffects'. But it's close. Ocaasi (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of foreign language sources revisited

After the RfC above, which made it clear that using such sources for BLPs was not a good idea, I removed another foreign language source. User:Off2riorob restored the foreign language source with out any discussion. I would ask that he engage in discussion if he is going to be restoring reverted content, especially in the context of a fairly clear RfC about related sources. aprock (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • - discussion and comment and replacement google search revealing more than one replacement citation for the content you removed is on your talkpage. As I said there - there is nothing explicit in guidelines that rejects a foreign language cite. Off2riorob (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
aprock, the comments in the RFC above were more in relation to the fact they were primary sources, not foreign. I think you might be misconstruing the RFC. Nymf hideliho! 21:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • - There is no explicit reason to remove foreign language cites from articles, also if you want to remove one, please don't just remove it and the content it supports, please post to the talkpage so that interested users can find a replacement citation to support the content, its not difficult to google it and find an English source rather than remove it, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The case for the removal. The claim is contentious and hard to verify if you don't speak German. Furthermore, Off2riorob's explanation of a lack of policy lacks reasons. We should not back up our actions with policies, we should back up our actions with logic and reasoning.
The case for the inclusion. The claim is contentious and not likely to be reported in the pro-US English language press. The Angloamericanism of Wikipedia is a known problem and is to be fought at all costs. The case is more clear cut when given the examples of the articles on the Islamic world, where most English language sources show the side of the story told by those who speak English, and the Arabic language sources show the other side. WP:NPOV is FAR more important than our ability to verify each sentence without the help of google translate. Of course if the source is not WP:RS that's a whole nother issue, but in this case I strongly support the sources inclusion. Tim.thelion (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources which are not verifiable are not reliable. BLP requires that high quality sources are used, and foreign language sources without reliably sourced translations are not high quality. This is an issue of sourcing. I'll replace the source with a cn tag presently. aprock (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those cites are verifiable - just not by you. I gave you the google search results with more than one support for it, its not like it is contentious disputed material and yes BLP requires the best cites we can present but the is nothing explicit that requires a foreign cites removal they are as reliable as others. I have added one of the google search results in English to support the content. Off2riorob (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is English wikipedia. The sources should be verifiable by any English speaker. Without a reliably sourced translation, the source is not verifiable. aprock (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have anything that would say that the google translations are inaccurate? Machines are pretty good these days.--Terrillja talk 23:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NONENG and WP:BLP. aprock (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Preferred - there is nothing explicit in policy or guidelines that rejects a quality foreign external - out of 150 externals related to Sweden issues, one or two is not at all a problem, suit yourself, but your imo being pointy, as long as you post here for interested users to find replacement citations for the content its not an issue. Off2riorob (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Since you linked to WP:NONENG you should not have first misrepresented it. "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, provided that English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." There is NOTHING that says we cannot use non-English language sources and in fact the section directly above that "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." And further up the page the definition of Reliable sources is "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." - nothing in there requring English language sources. Active Banana (bananaphone 23:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not misrepresent it. Please see the above RfC for details. aprock (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote "This is English wikipedia. The sources should be verifiable by any English speaker. Without a reliably sourced translation, the source is not verifiable" which in my book clearly misrepresents our policies, perhaps not deliberately, but your statement is clearly not supported by the actual policy. Active Banana (bananaphone 22:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input. aprock (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that was also misrepresented as court documents when actually they were only press releases, just forget about it, present your problems here as they are all easily cited and I will do that no worries. Off2riorob (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem. A properly sourced English citation has been added. aprock (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to think I could be an unbiased (or at least uninvolved) outsider over this affair. Unfortunately, with no diffs provided, it's not easy to tell what's going on and I wonder if I'm intruding on something private.

Nevertheless, a bit of sleuthing leads me to think that this may be the particular diff at issue this time round.

The WP difference of opinion concerns this German language (Sunday?) newspaper article, which translates by Yahoo partly as follows: "Violent criticism practices [US Ambassador] Beyer at Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. “Its leakages are a risk for many, many humans.” Assange had announced at the beginning of November to possibly ask Switzerland around asylum. ... Swiss politician are ready to accept it. “Assange is to get asylum”, demands Juso president Cédric Wermuth. “Switzerland is to offer protection”, says also the green national council Bastien Girod to it. US Ambassador Beyer reminds Switzerland meanwhile to caution. “Switzerland will have to consider very carefully whether it would like to grant someone, which flees before the law to hideout”, says it. Beyer refers to the fact that against Assange in Sweden a warrant of arrest was issued and it on the interpole list stand – because of the suspicion on rape.".

The two paragraphs above were added to the bio in this form "In December 2010 it was reported that US Ambassador to Switzerland Donald S Beyer had warned the Swiss government against offering asylum to Assange." which looks like a very fair rendition to me.

While it would be better to have an English-language source for the same story, it's understandable why it does not appear in the English-language papers, and I cannot see a problem with the use of the German link in this case. It's inclusion would help combat the Anglo-American domination mentioned above.

Actually, there is more in the same German article that we're barely seeing in any English-language sources. Assange's bio currently reads as if he is more of a danger to the US than the US is to him ("severe national security threat to the U.S", Assange actions "reckless and dangerous") - there is only a roundabout quote from Ellsberg ("subsequent speculation by US officials ... "puts his well-being, his physical life, in some danger now."") suggesting that Assange himself is in personal danger. Maybe some use of the following from Sonntag (which I assume to be a major and reliable German newspaper) would redress the balance a bit:

"Swiss ex secret service boss Peter Regli is Assange in mortal danger. “I would not be surprised, if he suddenly victims of a car accident, of one underground-rise on the tracks to fall or at one cardiac infarct would die”, says it" Templar98 (talk) 09:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's best not to speculate on these things. But, frankly, as part of the "establishment" we all find conspiracy theories along the lines of "I would not be surprised, if he suddenly victims of a car accident" completely hilarious :P --Errant (chat!) 10:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The speculation is there in the reliable source. I don't know whether a lot of people foresee Assange being murdered in a faux-accident, but the "Sonntag" clip is a valid clue. More examination of the German or (better) the Swedish press might find that it was widely foreseen, in which case it should be added to the article. Templar98 (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing: For the benefit of other editors please could someone link to whatever content was being discussed at the top of this section? -84user (talk) 11:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very confusing - if people want private discussions that nobody else can join, they should be held elsewhere, eg TalkPages. I don't really care for the use of foreign media and expected to support aprock. But looking at the article I could see the extra-angloAmericanism importance of what was contained in the German newspaper and now tend to support Off2riorob's view. Templar98 (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Solitary confinement" is misleadingly emotive

I picked up the following comment from a UK lawyer on a leading law blog but think it is a correct description of this particular choice of words, now in the article, as Assange was not put into solitary confinement, as defined, but into a segregation unit at Wandsworth, for his own safety: "Describing segregation as 'solitary confinement' and bail with conditions as 'house arrest' is misleadingly emotive".KathaLu (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may actually be factually incorrect too. As I understand it, a 'segregation unit' may house prisoners that (for various reasons) are considered inappropriate for the main prison section. The prisoners in the unit may very well not be segregated from each other at all. We'd need a source that actually said that Assange was being kept alone to state that he was. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, I almost removed it earlier, there is no such thing as solitary confinement in an English prison. He means he was in a Prison single cell for his own protection because he was a high profile prisoner, this is done to protect venerable prisoners like Assange was, otherwise he would have been in serious problems like a fish out of water in the general British prison population and basically in personal danger.. - I have removed it as a misleading claim Off2riorob (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is entirely normal that an unconvicted remand prisoner would be kept separate from the main prison population: remand prisoners generally have greater rights of access to facilities etc than those serving terms. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can make out, his safety (and possibly comfort) was the reason for putting him in this part of the prison. But one cannot help but admire his way with words "during my time in solitary confinement in the bottom of a Victorian prison". Conditions must have been truly abominable: he "reportedly asked for his personal laptop to be brought into the jail but was refused by prison authorities. However, he will gain access to a computer with limited web access that he can use to work on his case under a British prison initiative named "access to justice". He also complained about daytime television, said lawyer Stephens. KathaLu (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FoxNews video

I see from the archive that there is a FoxNews video in which Geraldo Rivera makes a throw-away/possibly sarcastic statement "He's over in Sweden screwing young girls". (It's at time 4mins.02secs). There is some suggestion that other news-sources eg CNN have been saying this rather more forcefully.

Having previously had very carefully prepared material in this area simply torn up, I need to ask before I do the research - shouldn't this angle be included under "Criticism"? If we want these kind of smears documented, would we include the fact that the accusers are 26 and 31? (I have to ask, since the RfC said the women should not be named in the article.) Templar98 (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's just nonsense of very little relevance to his biography. --Errant (chat!) 12:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't qualify as an "angle" on the story, and I've also changed the header, which is not really suitable for a BLP talkpage. --FormerIP (talk) 12:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article does give the ages of the alleged assault victims. They were included after it was pointed out some time ago that such comments were being made in the US media. Are you seriously trying to get every anti-Assange "throw-away/possibly sarcastic" comment ever made put into the article? Perhaps you could point to some other Wikipedia articles that do the same? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedia, not gossip blotter. Encyclopedia, birds-eye view, detached perspective, significance filtered, issue focused--speculation avoiding, hearsay deprecating, triviality dismissing... What will be relevant here in 10 years? Geraldo's off the cuff jab? Not a chance. Ocaasi (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Loach

Extra information about Ken Loach is not relevant. In fact, he simply offered a surety when the Bail was originally declined, I don't think it is significant so perhaps remove it? --Errant (chat!) 15:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the recent trim. Much as I admire Loach's work, I couldn't believe we had a list of his films here! --John (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't think he has a significant input for a mention in the article - listing each and every person that has commented in support of Assange is not what we need, the significant ones yes but not the side dishes.... Assanga was supported by previous whistle blowers, yea really , that is amazing - yada yada - this comment is especially in relation to the self serving bloat that is attached to the Daniel Ellsberg comment. - and a group that supports whistle blowers and gives a yearly award to whistle blowers has given assange the award and five of the previous whistle blowers who won the award are signatories to the support - really wow, that is surprising. Hispanosuiza has stated on my talkpage his intention that it is his - "plan and my practice in these Assange pages, to enlarge the FACTual list of supporters of Assange's enterprise with WikiLeaks" - ! .. Off2riorob (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ken Loach wasn't the only person to offer to put up bail for Assange: an earlier version of the article listed several. NPOV would suggest that if we were going to name any, we'd have to look at naming the rest, and it could be a long list. I really don't see it adding much to the article - it is obvious that Assange has many significant supporters, but we don't need to list them all, any more than we need to list everyone who has called him a 'terrorist' or suggested he should be bumped off. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I keep coming back to when trying to determine relevance and scope is that this article is called 'Julian Assange'. Not 'supporters of Julian Assange' or 'would be assassins of Julian Assange'. So when there is content added, the point is what does this say about Julian Assange? It says he is a praised figure, a supported figure, a reviled figure, a targeted figure, a controversial figure... Those are the points we are making, and the specific quotations are evidence. Assange's biography is not determined by every mention of him in the media. I think we're on the right track and generally just handling single-issue editors who want Assange's perceived scapegoating and harassment to be front and center. Ocaasi (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above. --John (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise agreed. The degree to which quotes belong in the article is that required to establish the view. It's fine to include various sources which support those views, but having a quote from every Tom, Dick and Harry is undue. aprock (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Assange Coloring Book

Okay, so I can kind of see that perhaps this doesn't belong in the external links, I just thought it was a pretty funny idea...

http://www.julianassangecoloringbook.com/

But when it was removed, it got me to wondering what "rule" it had broken.

Are images, in this case coloring pages, not valid commentary?

Although the site is very tongue-in-cheek, it provides a pictorial representation of the person whom this Wikipedia page is about. So what rule has been broken exactly? (just curious, not really trying to argue the case)

Xtempore (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure putting it in external links breaks any rule, other than the general principle of WP:WEIGHT, which might well be interpreted as suggesting that it should be excluded as rather tangential to the topic. Really though, this is much more a case of editorial judgement, and common sense. Would our readers expect to find a link to a colouring book in the external links? I'd have thought not. If we were to include this, but exclude some of the other things that have been argued on this talk page as being relevant, we'd justly be seen as being inconsistent. In the end it comes down to not being able to include everything - if we did, who'd want to read the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to be a link farm to every vaguely related Assange site. Per our external link guidelines we select the links that provide access to additional factual information about the topic that we cannot provide within our article for reasons such as excessive detail. A coloring book is NOT factual information. Active Banana (bananaphone 05:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Amy Goodman (August 3, 2010). "Julian Assange Responds to Increasing US Government Attacks on WikiLeaks". Democracy Now.
  2. ^ Tom Curry (December 5, 2010). "McConnell optimistic on deals with Obama". msnbc.com.
  3. ^ Shane D'Aprile (December 5, 2010). "Gingrich: Leaks show Obama administration 'shallow,' 'amateurish'". The Hill.
  4. ^ Drew Zahn (December 1, 2010). "G. Gordon Liddy: WikiLeaks chief deserves to be on 'kill list'". WorldNetDaily.
  5. ^ Barber, Mike (2010-12-06). "Heat's on Flanagan for 'inciting murder' of WikiLeaks founder; PM's ex-adviser subject of formal police complaint". Ottawa Citizen. Retrieved 2010-12-09.
  6. ^ "Let Flanagan's remarks die – - Macleans OnCampus". Oncampus.macleans.ca. 2010-12-04. Retrieved 2010-12-16.
  7. ^ 'Sweden has key role in cyberwar': report Swedish english-language "Local", 2nd Jan 2010.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Julian_Assange&oldid=406542030"