Talk:Julian Assange

Why was the link to "detention as a suspect - Häktning (Swedish law)" removed?

We discussed the differences of the meaning of judicial proceedings between countries earlier and some of us tried to emphasise that a minimum of understanding or explanation of such differences is essential for the reader. As a result, an editor from Sweden wrote the following version:

The court ordered detention as a suspect with probable cause for rape, sexual assault, and coercion.

The first wikilink in the above sentence contains an explanation for detention under Swedish law, where are are two different levels, quite different from anglosaxon UK, US, or AUS law. I now see that this has recently been changed to the following:

The court ordered Assange detained "on probable cause suspected of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion."

I strongly object to the removal of the Wikilink to "dentention as a suspect | Häktning" in this context and at this point in time, i.e. while the Swedish court's detention order is valid and the basis for the pending extradition hearing before a UK court. This is an excellent example where such links in an online encyclopedia do make sense and are a service to the interested reader! I will revert the text to the previous version. KathaLu (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hang on; this section could almost be read like there were just two arrest warrants not three. The first was the August warrant. Then Ny took over and another one got issued in November. That then had to be withdrawn due to errors of fact. A new one was then issued on the 2nd December, which was the one that Assange was arrested on. Shouldn't the article mention that the 2nd warrant was withdrawn too? That should also makes its contents - irrelevant to the article.--Aspro (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Arrest in Absentia for Assange was issued by a Swedish court in the middle of November 2010. That Swedish court decision forms the legal basis for the extradition request (official name: "European Arrest Warrant") received by the UK authorities in December 2010 which is currently being dealt with by a UK court, with the next hearing in February 2011. After the long previous discussion on this TP, I see no reason whatsoever why the text in the section on the Swedish issue needs to be changed. These are simple facts, unlike the conspiracy theories about The Dark Forces at Work.KathaLu (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason as to why you should not just revert it back if it was more accurate previously, or just replace the internals, which diff was it altered in? Off2riorob (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

it was changed from ..

this.. The court ordered detention as a suspect with probable cause for rape, sexual assault, and coercion.

to this.. The court ordered Assange detained "on probable cause suspected of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion."

the cite .. http://www.thelocal.se/30286/20101118

I see what KathaLu means now about both international warrants being based on the same court warrant. However, the line "on probable cause suspected of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion," is the actual quote from Ny. The phrases rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion are also what appeared on the Interpol Red Notice. Is it the translation to local legal terms that does not sit easy with you? Local terminology on the English WP often coarse problems. --Aspro (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

@Aspro - the terms of the criminal offenses in English are the same as those named in the EAW, so there is no problem there. What did not sit easy with me was the disappearance of the internal link associated with the word detained because it points to the section "Detention of a suspect - Häktning - Swedish law". I find the internal links in articles sometimes pointless but not in this particular case. What really irks me, of course, but is besides the point, is the way Swedish law and Swedish institutions have been portrayed by some opinion makers outside Sweden. @Off2riorob - thanks for restoring the internal link. KathaLu (talk) 08:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• - note - user Aspro aprock removed the links again as overlinging, I put them back as there is clearly strong opposition here and imo the links to his alleged crimes are quite specific and valuable. Off2riorob (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

@Off2riorob: I was the one that was cleaning up the article per WP:OVERLINK, not Aspro. You appear to be reverting without reviewing the edits, or even the editor. I'll ask you to self revert then discuss the specific issues you have. Some of the overlinking includes WP:OR, while the rest of it is just plain overlinking for no good purpose. If you have a problem with the specific reverts please discuss them. aprock (talk) 09:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

No chance of me self reverting without consensus here, there is strong opposition here to removing those internals - if you can show a consensus I will replace them myself. If you read this section you will understand the objections.Off2riorob (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the consensus you are looking for can be found at WP:OVERLINK and WP:NOR. If you think there is a good reason to deviate from these policies, then it would be nice to have those reasons. With respect to OR, many of the wikilinks point to articles which are different from the text being linked. The most obvious example is linking "detained" to "Detention of a suspect#H.C3.A4ktning_.28Swedish_law.29", an association which is nowhere to be found in the cited source. With respect to WP:OVERLINK, please seem my comment above: [1] aprock (talk) 10:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it was previously linked to this court statement which actually was wrongly assessed as a court document and removed, perhaps we should revisit that issue again. http://www.aklagare.se/Media/Nyheter/Assange-kommer-att-efterlysas/ - Off2riorob (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see the previous RfC on the subject. The issue was not that it was a court document, but that it was an untranslated primary source. I believe the UNINVOLVED editors were very clear in their input. aprock (talk) 10:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I saw also some opposition, I for one disagree, sources are allowed to be in foreign languages and primary reports such as that are allowed. In fact that statement from the court is the most authoritative possible. If a source it the issue, I might ask previous commenters to revisit the issue, or I may ask at the WP:RSN Off2riorob (talk) 10:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Quote: most obvious example is linking "detained" to "Detention of a suspect#H.C3.A4ktning_.28Swedish_law.29", an association which is nowhere to be found in the cited source. Frankly, I am at a loss of words and also tired of such purely technical arguments which to me indicate an unwillingness to write a good article. I also consider the internal link to bail as useful (but I personally would not even mention that Assange is on bail, but that's another question altogether). Although you are writing for the EN Wiki, you are not only writing for citizens of the US, the UK, or AUS and CAN. It may come as a surprise to you but there are countries where bail is not known or so rarely used that people are hardly aware of this option. Germany is one such country, and I believe Sweden as well. And Assange is a very international case, even if the extradition case is heard in the UK. KathaLu (talk) 10:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I am posting this for the benefit of those who are more interested in information about the case than in playing some kind of Wiki editor "tag" on the article page. The Swedish Public Prosecution is still trying to push a bit of relevant information through the linguistic-cultural media barrier and has recently published a timeline of "The Assange Matter" in English. They describe the core of the matter as follows: November 24 2010 - Svea Court of Appeal refuses the appeal and takes a decision that the arrest warrant is to remain in place, with probable cause, on suspicion of unlawful coercion, two cases of sexual molestation and rape, less serious crime. Less serious crime refers, of course, to the different levels of the criminal offense called "rape" under Swedish law but I have learnt by now that such explanations must not be mentioned in a Wiki article unless they can be cited from a secondary reliable yadi yadi yadi. KathaLu (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

High quality English (or translated) sources can only make the article better. This looks like an excellent addition. aprock (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Has this source been incorporated into the article yet? aprock (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

My earlier assumption that there is no bail in Sweden is correct, see AP news article by Malin Rising from Stockholm of today. The same AP report confirms what Swedish contributors to the Wiki article have emphasised repeatedly, namely that Assange is under the higher level of suspicion in Sweden; it means that he can be held in detention for as long as it takes to decide whether to release him for good or put him on trial, and this could take weeks. This sound like "U-Haft" detention in the German judicial system, for example. I think that other non-common law EU countries have similar arrangements but that this kind of detention does not exist in UK and US criminal proceedings, which would explain the heated but pointless discussion about whether charges have been filed in Sweden or not. Let's hope for a quick ending tomorrow or on Tuesday, lol, although it seems possible that the extradition case in the UK could drag on until the summer. KathaLu (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was clear that if he is extradited they said it was to hold him until trial or release. Have you heard reports about the hearing dragging on Katha? I have read the issue should be over and decided in the next two days - an extradition hearing is not very complicated. Do you know about the arrangements regarding a possible appeal of the verdict? Off2riorob (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

From what I have read, the judge for the extradition hearing (7-8 Feb) can defer his decision for up to two weeks, and both parties can then appeal the decision if they want to and there would be another hearing. As to Sweden, I think they can hold a suspect under these conditions but don't have to, although someone without residency in the country is of course considered to be more likely to abscond than others. According to the AP report of today from Stockholm, after an extradition from the UK, he would be arrested upon arrival in Sweden and a detention hearing would be held within four days. The prosecutor could decide to release him after questioning or ask the court to extend the period of detention. Such hearings must be held every two weeks until a suspect is charged or released. KathaLu (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah ok, thanks for the detail Katha, I like it will be all over bar the shouting as they say by Tuesday, exciting couple of days ahead for interested editors and readers. Off2riorob (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Titles of prosecutors

I have several times tried to ensure that we use the correct legal titles for the prosecutors, but this gets keeps getting changed back without explanation.

In short, Eva Finne is not "Stockholm's chief prosecutor", but rather one of several chief public prosecutors that happen to work in the five individual prosecution offices in Stockholm.

And conversely, it seems strange to call Director of Public Prosecution Marianne Ny just "the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny".

I suspect someone is trying to make Finne seem more senior than she is, and Ny less so. The opposite is of course true.

Here is some of the previous discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Julian_Assange/Archive_5#Swedish_legal_titles

Link to the official translation guide from the prosecution authority.

I will make one last try to change the wording to the correct titles, since I see no arguments for using the wrong ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbulle (talk • contribs) 07:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess it keeps getting changed back because people just use whatever the news media have used in the article from which they pick their sentences. However, even with the offical English translations that the Swedish authorities themselves have chosen for their titles, it is not clear to the casual reader how the hierarchy of the Swedish Public Prosecution system works (I have seen the diagram on their official website). And I agree there are attempts to make Ny in particular appear as less important, incompetent etc. KathaLu (talk) 08:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

On 8 February 2011, Mr Hurtig corrected Ms Ny's title as it appears on the English version of the European Arrest Warrant, while giving evidence for Julian Assange. http://www.fsilaw.com/sitecore/content/Global/content/~/media/Files/Publications/IP_Media/Julian%20Assange%20Case%20Papers/Julian%20Assange%20Material/Witness%20Statement%20of%20Bjorn%20Hurtig.ashx Here is the relevant section from his written statement:

31. Finally, I can confirm that Ms. Ny is not the Director of Public Prosecutions, as she is incorrectly described in the English version of the EAW (see page 5). The Swedish word to denote her title is överåklagare and in fact means "Senior Prosecutor" and she is one of a number of senior prosecutors. The Director of Public Prosecution in Sweden (i.e. the most senior Prosecutor in Sweden and the equivalent to the DPP in England, Keir Starmer) is the Riksåklagaren — the Prosecutor-General — Mr Anders Perklev.

I am reluctant to edit the main page, maybe someone else could do that? Robbiemorrison (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, thanks for your detail - you are of course encouraged to be be bold and edit and if reverted to return to discussion - this and a couple of other issues that are claimed to have been mis reported in the press are issues we are thinking to look at a small re writing after the result of the extradition hearing. Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

"Senior Prosecutor" probably conveys Ny's position better to the English reader but then you have to find an appropriate approximative translation for Finne, too. It was brought up by the defense to malign Ny and it is frankly pathetic. There is a glossary of how the Swedish have translated their titles into English on their official website [2] and this glossary they use "Director of Public Prosecution" for överåklagare so naturally that's what they use for their Press Releases in English and what they use in the English translation of the European Arrest Warrant and as a consequence that's what is used in English language media, and that's what ends up in Wikipedia. Although a very minor aspect, it is a nice example of what I have brought up frequently, i.e. cultural-linguistic aspects that are not accurately reflected in the foreign language (in this case UK-US-AUS) media and culture. KathaLu (talk) 07:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, nice one, this: see also Director of Public Prosecutions. I see that Australia has also several Directors of Public Prosecutions, like Sweden does, so that's probably a good equivalent to convey the importance of the position of överåklagare correctly, wouldn't you think, since this is about an Australian and it says somewhere here that we follow AUS spellings etc. :-). KathaLu (talk) 07:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that we leave the titles as they are and go by their official list: överåklagare (Marianne Ny) = Director of Public Prosecution, local åklagare = Local Prosecutor, Assistentåklagare = Assistant Public Prosecutor, Chefsåklagare (Eva Finne) = Chief Public Prosecutor, Extra åklagare = Temporary Public Prosecutor, Kammaråklagare, specialist = Senior Public Prosecutor, Riksåklagare (Anders Perklev)= Prosecutor General. The European Arrest Warrant is in two parts, in Swedish and English, överåklagare and Director of Public Prosecution are the titles used for Ny in it, it was certified as valid by SOCA and unless the London extradition court declares it as invalid there is no compelling reason to change it. And can someone please tell Mark Stephens that there is actually no princess in Hamlet! KathaLu (talk) 08:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps he's not shakespearian, but he does have a sense of stage... ^walk victor falk ^talk 21:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you KathaLu for providing the official translations; for those interested, the swedish wikipedia articles are in ascending hierarchic order sv:assistentåklagare, sv:kammaråklaglare (lit. "Chamber prosecutor"), sv:chefsåklagare (Swedish Chef Prosecutor :), sv:överåklagare ("Over-prosecutor"), and the sv:riksåklagaren ("Riks", "Rike", cognate with Latin regnum, German Reich, and English rich, reign, realm). ^walk victor falk ^talk 21:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

extradition hearing

• - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12379018 - Wikileaks' Julian Assange begins extradition battle 11:20 feb 7. Off2riorob (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation of the name

The phonetic transcription of the French surname Assange is currently given to reflect only the American (/əˈsɑːnʒ/ ə-SAHNZH) rather than the British and Australian pronunciation (/əˈsɒnʒ/ ə-SONZH), which reflects the real French pronunciation more closely. Furthermore, it is claimed elsewhere on this page that “This article uses Australian English dialect and spelling,” so I think the phonetic transcription should be changed from American to British/Australian. Hindsighter (talk) 12:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

We can have both. The Australian media often pronounces it as (/əˈsɑːnʒ/ ə-SAHNZH) and Assange himself appears to vary the pronunciation. It's not actually a French name; it's a Chinese name, but Assange is used to pronouncing it with a European accent because most Westerners find the Chinese pronunciation too difficult. Gregcaletta (talk) 13:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

http://fora.tv/2010/04/18/Logan_Symposium_The_New_Initiatives

So yes, if we are going to have only one pronunciation, it should be the one he uses most (/əˈsɒnʒ/ ə-SONZH), but I don't see any problem with having both. Gregcaletta (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Gregcaletta. I've checked, and you're right; Assange is apparently a Chinese name, even if Mr Assange himself pronounces it (/əˈsɒnʒ/, as if it was French. I therefore take back what I said in this new section I started. Hindsighter (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd still encourage changing it to (/əˈsɒnʒ/ ə-SONZH) or including both pronunciations. "əˈsɒnʒ" is closer to the Chinese pronunciation anyway. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Although Assange is a Chinese name, having it's origin in "Ah Sang", Julian Assange himself is not of Chinese descent. Rather, his birth father was John Shipton, and he gets the name Assange from his step-father. I have just added that information in the article (yes, it's sourced), but like most things of real importance, some busybody will likely remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphazip (talk • contribs) 03:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Just as I thought, Off2riorob immediately removed the sourced information on Mr. Assange's parentage. Apparently, he doesn't want people to know who Julian's biological father is. Reason unknown ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphazip (talk • contribs) 03:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Quotes

According to Assange's lawyer, Mark Stephens, 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.

The above sentence is in the article and I am going to leave it for the time being since a rewrite will be necessary sometime in the future anyway. I realize that one can put any quote into the text (he said it, after all, and newspaper printed it) but at least in my opinion such quotes can be highly misleading when they give the reader the wrong impression that they correspond to facts. From today's court tweets and the Guardian live blog it appears that Julian Assange's Swedish lawyer, Björn Hurtig, admitted an "embarrassing" mistake today concerning the date of the Swedish prosecutor's request to interview Assange because contrary to his earlier statements, Ny had tried to interview Assange before he left Sweden on 27 September (in addition to the earlier interview about the molestation). Hurtig also said today that Assange could often not be reached in late September. Hurtig said today that he "found the texts from Ny yesterday and is correcting the record today". He said that "he is busy and has many clients". He has also said "it is possible there were texts between him and Ny he can't remember". From the questions the CPS put to him it actually sounds as if Assange left Sweden just on the day that Ny announced to Hurtig that Assange was going to be arrested. What a strange coincidence. KathaLu (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, some tweaking of content may well be needed when the extradition hearing is over - any sign of a time of announcement of a verdict? Off2riorob (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I just was a report on the BBC the hearing will resume on friday? Off2riorob (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Friday 11 Feb, since they did not manage to finish today. Ok, this is not important in the long run but Mr Julian "I 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" Assange may well be speaking truth to power but he seems to be economical with the truth when he speaks to the public. From today's Independent: "Clare Montgomery QC, for the Swedish authorities, outlined how prosecutors tried more than 10 times over one week last September to arrange an interview with Assange before he left the country. KathaLu (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can't say anything to the contrary about his veracity, but I would also throw out that he's probably not the easiest person to get in touch with. Perhaps there was unintentional mis(non)communication?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocaasi (talk • contribs)

I cannot resist: "Ms Montgomery said Mr Hurtig had indeed spoken to Ms Ny, and this was clear from texts sent on September 22 which showed they had discussed a formal interview date and even a possible time. Mr Hurtig conceded he had told Ms Ny he could not contact Mr Assange, saying he had tried to find him, but wasn't sure if he left a message or not." [3]. This is the exact opposite of what the above quote and the article have been implying for weeks. KathaLu (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

If it is clearly a false statement as it appears to be we should remove it - I rather remove it than add - although assanges laywer mistakenly claimed he had not spoken ..bla bla - in the extradition hearing this was revealed to be false - unless this results as a main reason that the case is proven. Off2riorob (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I would leave it until there is some substantial development in the case (extradition or otherwise). I don't think it matters much at this point. I would wait until the extradition judge has made a decision. It appears that the suggested interview date was 28 September. Assange left for the UK on 27 September ... KathaLu (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

ec - Yes, well .. thats another thing ... anyways I added the Friday date and earlier I removed this addition from grantevans - as notnews - it also seems to be cherry picked attack content against living people , even if it was said - we have no requirement to repeat such attacks here, it is better not to start reporting any of the court room claims and counter claims - at least not till we get the result and realise the main points that were causal to the result. Off2riorob (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I have now removed the false statement and given the Independent ("Assange Lawyer admits he was wrong over interview") as a source which describes this aspect of the saga in detail. I have followed the tweets from reporters in the courtroom and it is interesting to see what they report on Twitter and what they pick as the angle for their later stories! KathaLu (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

CBS interview

One of the longer and more recent interviews I've seen. Good quality. Add to external links? http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7300034n&tag=contentBody;housing Ocaasi (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It appears to already be in the EL section... Off2riorob (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Good job, then! doh. Ocaasi (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Easy done .. tomorrow should be exciting, a result is expected and then likely an appeal. Off2riorob (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Detailed pieces describing Assange's relationship with media partners during Cablegate

might be better at either WikLeaks or Cablegate, but I'll put them here for now.

• http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/01/nytimes-and-assange/
• http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/magazine/30Wikileaks-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
• http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/01/vf-wikieaks/

Ocaasi (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

History commons timeline

Resolved

 – removed

History commons is a WP:TERTIARY, and an open source journalism project, it is no different than WikiNews or any regular news outlet than depends on secondary sources. Quality of sources is all that matters, and those used by this timeline meet wp:rs and wp:v, being from major news outlet. ^walk victor falk ^talk 22:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

We wouldn't accept Wikinews as a RS FYI. Wikinews is distinctly different from "other news sources" because it is user generated. It is not RS for the same reason IMDB is not considered completely reliable. Because of the fact it history commons is openly editable and that it names the victims (something we have reached consensus not to do for the moment). So for those reasons I think it should be removed --Errant ^(chat!) 22:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, me too, it actually adds nothing that we don't already have either apart from stuff with BLP issues we have worked hard to keep out of the article and we already have too many externals. I have removed it more than once already now and I won't again but I clearly don't support its inclusion at all for these reasons. - I also note that the site is only linked to twenty five BLP articles on this wikipedia, very minor usage indeed. Off2riorob (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have removed it because of of wp:blp considerations [4]. It is now moot, but open source projects like HC are acceptable if they fulfil sources conditions, same as blogs. WikiNews is not to be used only because it is not independent entity from Wikipedia. ^walk victor falk ^talk 23:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Victor. Off2riorob (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Victor; no that is not true. Sources must be reliably published and Wikinews fails that criteria. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikinews has a wp:conflict of interest with wikipedia, them being both wikimedia entities. ^walk victor falk ^talk 08:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

What does "reliably published" mean? ^walk victor falk ^talk 08:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Umm, reliably published just means that it has reliable editorial oversight. In terms of news sites it means a named author (or defined authors) and prefferably an editorial policy/department. Wiki's, as a user contributed medium with no editorial control are considered self published sources and therefore largely not reliable. There is nothing identifying Wikinews as specifically out of scope for COI reasons - indeed, it is hard to see exactly what COI it could have as a source - or for being a Wikimedia project :) More detail here --Errant ^(chat!) 09:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think we generally agree. Must be corroborable (I am an atrocious neologizer, esp. when tired) by a body of peers and/or the public. ^walk victor falk ^talk 04:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

This is laughable. The identities of "Ms AA" and "Ms SW", as the press coyly calls them, are trivially googable. What are you going to do when all the little sordidities about the twitters telling how great it was, blog posts about 7 steps to legal revenge, castro-cia connections (lol, some read too much le carré), SMS they exchanged, etc are splashed out on the front pages when the trial begins? They are screenshots and backups all over the net. Instead of all that third hand punditry, Why not have some real original reporting? Like that Daily Mail article on what happened during a few days in August (and this, with blurred pictures and wihout naming names, natch.) 194.22.5.16 (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I must point out that in Sweden the identity of both accusers and accuseds in a trial is protected, hence when a trial makes the news they are referred as the "27-years-old", the "31-years-old", or some other such bland designation, while more famous people might be called the "Record Executive", the "Stureplan profile" or some such. So if the police report had not been leaked (the same day), he might have preserved his anonymity, at least for a while. ^walk victor falk ^talk 04:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Swedish PM comments

There has been an exchange of words in the press between the Swedish Prime Minister and Assange's lawyers. Prime Minister Reinfeldt said he was hurt by the constant attacks on the Swedish justice system, and defended its independence from the government. This was construed by Assange's lawyers as tampering in the current court case. While some of the reporting is a bit silly, I think this discussion is probably relevant to the current article. There has been a lot of discussion in Sweden about how Sweden's reputation will be affected by this case.

Here are some relevant links:

• http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c78cf238-33e3-11e0-b1ed-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1Dea4hSfO
• http://www.newser.com/article/d9la1ir80/swedish-justice-minister-to-wikileaks-assange-turn-yourself-in-for-sex-crimes-probe.html
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12427839

This is a slightly different discussion than before, as the case Assange's lawyers seem to be argueing right now seems to be not primarily whether Assange is guilty or not, but whether the Swedish justice system is independent enough to hold a fair trial. 217.151.192.10 (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Well , its just one sides claims against the other sides claims - personally I would say that for a British judge to claim that the Swedish courts are unable to give a fair trial would be an outrageous unprecedented statement for a British judge to make, but lets see...there is going to be a outcome one way or the other soon with the reasons for the decision so we can add the main points then, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You are right, we are not in any hurry. What makes these comments newsworthy is that this is the first time that any elected government offical in Sweden has commented on the matter. I will add some relevant quotes from the linked articles that we could add to balance the article:

"Both Reinfeldt and Ask dismissed suggestions by Assange's supporters that the sex allegations are part of a politically motivated conspiracy. 'That's taken out of thin air. We don't have that influence and should not have that influence on the judiciary,' Ask told the AP."

"'I can only defend what everyone in Sweden already knows: that we have an independent, non-coerced judiciary,' Mr Reinfeldt said."

"Fredrik Reinfeldt's remarks had shown 'complete contempt for the presumption of innocence', said Geoffrey Robertson QC, representing the Wikileaks founder."

"Mr Assange is public enemy number one as a result of the prime minister's statement," he said.

217.151.192.10 (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the call for an adjournment over this issue - was rejected. As I said, it just the cut and thrust allegation type claims in an attempt to win the case, irrelevant to the article at this time - the judge will pass his comment and imo he will not be saying that a European country with the reputation of Sweden is unable to conduct a fair trial.Off2riorob (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, I cannot but agree that we should wait and see how the judge see this. Robertson said (courtroom tweet from the Guardian's Esther Addley) that he hadn't "yet got idiomatic transcript of comments but reports show it is inflammatory statement". I immediately thought that sounded suspicious. I know that many papers quote his colourful descriptions in the immediate aftermath of the hearing but AP cautiously states that it "wasn't immediately clear which comments Robertson was referring to" (as in "he never said anything like it"?) and "Clare Montgomery, representing the Swedish government, said the prime minister did not make such comments and Robertson was completely misrepresenting what had been said." KathaLu (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

hearing update

Has the judge commented that he will take two weeks to consider, are there any cites? Off2riorob (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12427839 but the article is vague on whether he intends to take 2 weeks, is planning to, or only guessing! --Errant ^(chat!) 13:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - Its unclear whether they have finished or just gone for lunch - Off2riorob (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• - Here it is - I updated the article - http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2011/feb/11/julian-assange-extradition-hearing-live#block-18 - 1 22 - Assange is to remain on bail with the outcome to be announced on the 24 feb. Off2riorob (talk) 14:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikileaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy

This is a biography of Assange, whose publisher he is, supposedly, in the process of suing for libel because of it. Should there be a mention in this article somewhere? Silverseren^C 15:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I am leaning towards no - its not an official bio as I understand and the subject claims libel ... I am reminded of when Andrew Rowley released a book about G Brown that was quite attacking and people wanted to add it and content from it, in that case the claims from the book that Brown and his advisors disputed were kept out of the article. Has the book already been added to wikileaks? Off2riorob (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think content from it should be added, I just think it's important enough for a sentence mention, considering it is the first biography of Assange to be released and the previously unknown information it contains. Silverseren^C 15:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Has the book been independently published? is there an ISBN number -I also notice that there is some discrepancy as one one of the guardian writers article here the book is not yet mentioned there. Luke Harding - Off2riorob (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Possibly a candidate for a See also link? I'm apathetic as to whether it should be mentioned or not; but I don't think mention of the threat to sue is significant when sourced from Twitter. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

There was an agreement with assange and the guardian and assange claimed the guardian was releasing too many leaks and the agreement was broken and then two guardan writers write this and it is published by guardian books..... - no added value at all imo - and nothing new is going to be in it either. Off2riorob (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• The ISBN is 161039061X. Publishing by Guardian Books is definitely not independently published per se, but why would you bother finding another publisher when you have a very reliable, known one like Guardian Books to use? And, again, I never said anything about the intention to sue needing to be added, more about it being the first biography about Assange ever written. And, Rob, it is already released and it does contain new info, such as stuff about his childhood and info about the formation of WIkiLeaks, information that was not known by the public whatsoever. Silverseren^C 16:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You sound like you have read it? We already have pretty good coverage of his childhood here, its not even written by people that know him - its basically a press attack book writen and published by people that have fallen out with him - the book that is interesting and will actually have additional detail in it is the ones from - Daniel_Domscheit-Berg - who closely worked with Assange and split from him forming OpenLeaks and has - written about it personally - Inside wikileaks. He is not an uninvolved paid journalist whose so called biographical novel is being published by the people they work for.- the Guardian. Sorry, but imo this book add nothing of additional informative value here. Off2riorob (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why the book wouldn't be reliable for a variety of aspects of Assange's life. What we should be careful with is content that fits in the criticism section. Descriptions of the internal work at WikiLeaks, if they have even a hint of negativity, should be clearly sourced to this book as labeled as a criticism. But I like in-text attribution; others prefer patience. Ocaasi (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

They did not know him and have simply referenced texts as we would, its a report of a report with added titillation thrown in - the user doesn't want to add any content , he wants to add this book into a see also section, or mention the book in the text. Off2riorob (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

According to the authors, they have more than seven interviews with Assange, from whence they compiled their information. Silverseren^C 17:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

And he threatens libel - interesting .. what exactly do you want to add, if we can look at ot to better see it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Not quite sure at the moment, I just wanted to propose it. I'm going to keep working on the novel article and see if any info pops out at me. Silverseren^C 19:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Some time ago, the Twitter account named Wikileaks posted a message that "we" would "take action" against the Guardian because the book contained “malicious libels” but lawyers for Assange said shortly afterwards that he will not sue the newspaper [5], and the Guardian confirmed that they have not received anything. Daniel Domscheit-Berg's account is now available in bookstores in Germany, and a Berlin lawyer for Assange has written a letter to DB and made a public statement, published by Der Spiegel, where he said that Assange has asked him to take action against DB for slander/libel/defamation ("Verleumdung") about Assange and for theft of data "belonging" to Wikileaks. However, so far it is just threats, as no legal proceedings have been started. KathaLu (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Extradition to the US from Sweden

In the extradition hearing, Montgomery noted wryly that the defense has appeared to drop its argument that Sweden was colluding to send Assange to the United States if U.S. officials charge him with crimes related to the release of secret documents on the Internet. "I take it from the absence of any sound bites about Guantanamo Bay and torture ... that there is no prospect in reality in law of extradition to the United States and we may well put that point to bed," she said. I have therefore removed the corresponding half sentence, which was taken from a publication by Assange's lawyers weeks ago, from the article. We still have Assange's claim that it all is "actually an attempt to get me into a jurisdiction which will then make it easier to extradite me to the US" in the article, and I think one mention of this claim of his is enough. KathaLu (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

PS - I left the reference but it refers to the Preliminary skeleton arguments published on Stephens' website in December. On 4 February, they published a new version, and there is no mention of the danger of an extradition to the US in it. December was mainly for the media and the public, I think that is obvious now. KathaLu (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Question: I don't understand exactly. Why did you remove the half sentence? Is it partially because of something the Prosecutor said... you say "therefore" as if it is primarily because of something the Prosecutor said. Please amplify your reasoning on this, if you will. Thanks. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not reasoning, I am citing facts. 1. One can find all sorts of inaccurate newspaper articles on the internet. 2. Assange's lawyers published a preliminary paper a month (11 Jan) before the 7-8 Feb hearing where they claimed that there was a risk that Assange could be extradited to the US if he was extradited to Sweden. 3. At the actual 7-8 Feb hearing Assange's lawyers did not use that argument before the judge.KathaLu (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that some articles that were written or updated after the February hearing are based on the preliminary skeleton defense arguments published on 11 January 2011. These writers were clearly not in court and must have missed the publication of the final defense arguments on 6 February and, as a consequence, they describe arguments as being heard that were not presented at all, lol. As this may be of interest for the decision on 24 February as well as subsequent appeals, here is the list of the defense arguments published on the website of Mark Stephen's law firm in February 2011, just before the hearing: KathaLu (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• Ny was not eligble to issue the EAW.
• Ny is not "a judicial authority".
• These proceedings are an abuse of process.
• The EAW is not a Part1 warrant for the purposes of the (British) Extradition Act.
• The application of the EAW is disproportionate.
• Offences 1-3 are not offences under English law.
• Offence 4 is not an extradition offense because the conduct does not fall within the European Framework offence of rape.
• There is a risk to Assange's right to a fair trial in Sweden.

Question: KathaLu, its very interesting, but how is it useful to this BLP? It seems ORish, which is great for the forums but I don't know what you mean by being of interest for the decision on 24 February. I must be missing something (won't be the first time). How is this useful information for writing this BLP? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Please drop the ORish talk. The extradition judge heard these arguments from Assange's lawyers on 7-8 Feb. He will state his decision on 24 Feb. He will say which of these arguments, if any, he will uphold. One needs to know the mere facts in order to be able to make a good editorial decision about what to include in the article. It should not be just any sentence that one reads on the internet and one fancies because it fits one's idea about Assange and his case and how it should end. KathaLu (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

a few comments about the hearing

Victor added a few comments about the trial, I removed them as not news, the points he chose might be meaningless to the verdict, we don't know, hence notnews. The additions were not to undue though, my issue was only not to report all the cut and thrust of the he said this and he said that, but victors addition was pretty middle of the road really, The content is here ... Off2riorob (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

His lawyers invited a former Swedish Chief Public Prosecutor who testified that the case had been mishandled and Assange's chances of a fair trial were at risk, especially if held behind closed doors.[151] Prime Minister Reinfeldt and Justice Minister Beatrice Ask insisted worries were misplaced.[153] The defence team criticised those statements for [[ministerstyre|unduly influencing]] the process.

• - ministerstyre - I was wondering about this internal - it appears to be interlinked to a Swedish phrase in regards to an English hearing?

Personally all of this is valueless imo - the prosecution were saying loads of stuff on the 7 and 8 and its not in the article and I don't see that this has any more long term value either. wp:notnews - wait and see the outcome the closing statements and them we can report that - why cherry pick these two points - we can easily have a bloated fat section of all the short term reports that will clearly have no long term value.Off2riorob (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your wait and see approach. Are you surprised about "a Swedish phrase in regards to an English hearing"? Some of the people flown in by the defense spoke Swedish at the hearing. Also, some of the defense arguments seem to be attempts to somehow misinterpret or mistranslate (maybe they really do not understand it?!) Swedish into English. I feel so smug now ;-). Take this example from Clare Montgomery (I have shortened it a bit): An attempt has been made (by the defense) to criticise the translation of the term ‘lagföring’ as criminal prosecution in the EAW. The official Swedish language version of the Framework Decision uses precisely this term to mean ‘criminal prosecution’: ‘Den europeiska arresteringsordern är ett rättsligt avgörande, utfärdat av en medlemsstat med syftet att en annan medlemsstat skall gripa och överlämna en eftersökt person för lagföring eller för verkställighet av ett fängelsestraff eller en annan frihetsberövande åtgärd. (English version) The European arrest warrant is a judicial decision issued by a Member State with a view to the arrest and surrender by another Member State of a requested person, for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order.’ It is impossible to suggest that the request for the purposes of ‘lagföring’ is anything other than a lawful request for the purpose of the Framework decision and the Extradition Act 2003. Montgomery also used the term "hyperbole" in reference to Robinson's arguments. I am really curious to learn what the judge will say. KathaLu (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Me too, I've removed a prejudicial, unnecessary and salacious quote, coming from the Prosecution side, for the WP:NOTNEWS reasons also. There is no reason at all for the back and forth accusations to be quoted until the matter is over with, from either the prosecutors or the defense. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• note - those are the basic allegations and as established content please don't reemove them again without consensus here. Off2riorob (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, me too katha, your informed comments are always appreciated - how come Robinson and asanges legal team seem to have gone from the article? Off2riorob (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Assange's defence team includes human rights lawyers Geoffrey Robertson and Helena Kennedy, Jennifer Robinson, and Björn Hurtig.

They were removed for WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E reasons. aprock (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

But they have been involved for multiple situations and for a length of time? and they appear to still be involved - I suggest replacement. Off2riorob (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I would be fine with adding people with mature articles. Those without mature articles don't really need their names in wikipedia. aprock (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't get what your talking about - the name of his lawyer belongs in the article, do you dispute that? Off2riorob (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm only going by WP:BLP1E. If you have a question about that policy, you might take it to the noticeboard. aprock (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

What are you referring to as a one event? Off2riorob (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there something else that Jennifer Robinson and Björn Hurtig are known for? aprock (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

sv:Björn Hurtig is a known lawyer, especially for the trial of sv:Billy:Butt, a similar case in that it was a celebrity accused of rape. ^walk victor falk ^talk 00:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

No, lets leave them out - I have seen him with Kennedy recently is she still a citable part of his legal team or is she unofficial? Off2riorob (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• - Assange's lawyer during the extradition hearing was Geoffrey Robertson, a human rights specialist. note - I re-added this as his lawyers name clearly should be in the section regarding the extradition hearing. Off2riorob (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds great! aprock (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool - I get flustered when such basic notable detail is missing from the article, thanks for the feedback. Off2riorob (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that these are relevant. Also, I think there might be a misreading above of WP:BLP1E. It says we shouldn't have articles about people who are only notable for one thing; it does not say we can't mention those people's names in articles. The only issue is whether it results in a red-link or not. Ocaasi (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant WP:BLPNAME. So many policies, and such a small head for them. aprock (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem, but it's not there either, just a redirect to BLP. What did you mean? Ocaasi (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The link works fine on my machine. WP:BLPNAME: Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. aprock (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, i read it but didn't see that, then took the top of the page redirect as the page name. Anyway, I see what you're saying. These are generally very accomplished lawyers, already in the spotlight, and already making vigorous attempts at public advocacy for Assange. So that's the right policy but maybe not a concern in this case. Ocaasi (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

father

An account has been attempting t add that his fathers name was shipton, cited to http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/31/3125742.htm - seems the content here is according to assange - published via the guardian book and reported by abc - if someone thinks anything is worthy of addition could they please write something tidy and add the cite.. Off2riorob (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, its been added again , bit tidier, I am thinking have we discussed this name before? - Although? Shipton - was he English? Where was he from? Presently, you might as well add M Mouse for the value the content has..:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• - Although Julian's biological father was John Shipton, when he was one year old, Julian's mother Christine married theatre director Brett Assange, who gave him his surname.

Wikileaks Advisory board

Article on Assange currently says: Assange sits on Wikileaks's nine-member advisory board
Article on Wikileaks currently says: Assange describes himself as a member of WikiLeaks' advisory board
The Wikileaks advisory board seems to be largely fictional, see Advisory board is window dressing, just as Wikileaks appears to be a much smaller organisation than Assange has led the world to believe, see Daniel Domscheit-Berg's description. I suggest that we either remove this sentence or at least change it to the more careful wording in the Wikileaks article. KathaLu (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 Done Nothing sinister here, you just don't need much of bureaucracy to run a few web volunteers. Anonymous has hundred of thousands of "members", and all they have to organise themselves is a forum. ^walk victor falk ^talk 02:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It was just as well that we removed the "hundreds of unpaid volunteers working for Wikileaks" from the article some time ago: From a recent Tagesspiegel interview with Daniel Domscheit-Berg (my translation):

Question Tagesspiegel: You say: 'We lied to the public'.

Answer DDB: Yes. We merely described which standards we wanted to achieve but did not have.

Question Tagesspiegel: At the time, you always said to us journalists that all documents were checked for authenticity by hundreds of volunteers. This is how we cited you in our articles. So that was a lie, too?

Answer DDB: We had hundreds of qualified people who wanted to help. But we just did not have the technical and organizational structure to put this into practice. We wanted to appear more professional than we were.

Thank you, Victor. I know it's a minor detail but IMO symptomatic for the not very truthful self-marketing of Assange. It seems that any mention of an "advisory board" has meanwhile vanished from www.wikileaks.ch and from the Wikileaks Facebook site. BTW, I was amused to read that Domscheit-Berg says that he and Assange ran Wikileaks largely by themselves, later together with two others, whom he calls the Technician and the Architect, and that Assange created several pseudonyms for his emails, not to hide, but to give the impression that the organisation was larger than it was. KathaLu (talk) 10:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

He uses sockpuppets?! PERMABAN HIM!!1!! ^walk victor falk ^talk 11:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

LOL. I guess we will have to add a section "pseudonyms" soon: Julian Paul Assange, aka John Shipton (Assange when registering the name Wikileaks) aka Jay Lim (Assange as Wikileaks lawyer) aka Julian d'Assange (on some of his business cards, if we were to believe the Daily Mail) aka Liberator of the Middle East (I am getting carried away...). BTW and coming back to one of my favourite subjects, Daniel DB is labelled "Aussteiger" in German newspapers and it has just occurred to me that there is no equivalent word for it in English :-). KathaLu (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ha! That's nothing. I change my mail every 10 minutes ^walk victor falk ^talk 14:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Another bit that really stood out was Domscheit-Berg's description of Assange's frequently-alluded-to threat of major revelations about a major bank (generally thought to be the very major US one we've all heard it might be) as "old and completely unspectacular" according to Reuters - given that apparently the Bank of A had gone to considerable lengths to investigate it/take ameliorative action and their shares went up after Berg's revelation [6], this seems pretty notable and could be included? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

This might be useful in Wikileaks#upcoming_leaks ^walk victor falk ^talk 11:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's directly Assange-related because he's made the threat publicly many times - DB is effectively pointing that up as self-aggrandisement. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we should add that as a response to Assange's claim. Ocaasi (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, with all the kerfuffles and brouhahas BoA has had ample time to get rid of any dirty laundry if they had any. ^walk victor falk ^talk 14:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The Economist New Media Award: Wikileaks 2008

This awards should be removed from the article as it was not awarded to Assange but to Wikileaks, see [7]; they distinguish between awards to individuals and to organisations. The 2009 Amnesty International human rights reporting award (New Media) did go to "Wikileaks, Assange". KathaLu (talk) 10:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done [8] ^walk victor falk ^talk 11:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. Missed the bit about the Economist. Fixed that too: [9] ^walk victor falk ^talk 11:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I completely removed the Economist award - only awards specifically awaarded to Assange as an individual belong here. If there is a citation that the 2009 amnesty award when to wikileaks that should be removed also. Off2riorob (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

We should check to see if it either are covered at WikiLeaks and if not, add them. Just putting it here in case I get busy. Ocaasi (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

NPOV dispute-Allegations of sexual assault

• - Remove "on probable cause suspected of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion."

The arguments a few sections above by Off2riorob at [10] for removing quotes from the defence lawyers seem even more valid when it comes to this quote from the prosecution side. This quote is clearly prejudicial against the Subject of this BLP and to leave it while prohibiting similar quotes fromthe defence makes the section not NPOV. The argument against engaging in "he said/she said" content must be equally applied if applied at all. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Those are the basic allegations that this is all about, its silly imo to suggest removing them and an incomparable comparison. Off2riorob (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

We should either have the barest facts without quotes or else a short quote from both "sides". Agreed that minusing the defence quote introduces bias if a prosecution quote is included. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the actual reason he is wanted in Sweden is a bias or a he said she said comment either - that is why they want him and its just silly to want to remove it, and we have that assange denies the claims. Grant has added a NPOV section header - he wants to remove the basic allegations - in my mind that is something that is a main point of the whole extradition and clearly an unchanging notable detail -......this is what he wants to remove ...."on probable cause suspected of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion."

Off2riorob (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Its just silly to argue that the salacious wording must be repeated. In the top paragraph you have "rape investigation" and "kept open the molestation investigation" and "Swedish police opened an investigation against Assange in connection with sexual encounters" so there is no reason to repeat those words yet again. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, as far as them being 'salacious' goes, that would be hard to aviod wouldn't it as the charges are sexual in nature, they are simply stated though and not titillating at all, to me these are the specific reasons he is wanted in Sweden and I support their inclusion. Lets see if others think they should be removed. The specific reasons for his extradition are also very well cited to here and informative.Off2riorob (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Those are the verbatim charges. We have to include them. We can put them in quotations or italics to make them seem more perfunctory, but they can't just be taken out. Otherwise we have, "Assange is being sought in Sweden for...[whistling], [more whistling], something about a girl." As for balancing this with 'Assange's side', the current section actually does a nice job going from the charges and the prosecution's basic claims to Assange's basic defense. I think it is well done w/r/t NPOV at the moment. Ocaasi (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ocaasi, Imo, according to the source used for that quote, there are no legal charges as yet; Ny just wants to ask him some questions. I read the source article several times and have come to the conclusion that it does not say those are legal charges, nor Off2riorob does it even say those are the reasons he is wanted back in Sweden. The one and only reason they want him back in Sweden is to interrogate him, according to that source. The wording in the BLP is not inaccurate, but as with the source article, it leaves most Readers with the mistaken impression that, as Ocassi says, those are the verbatim (legal)charges. That is not so; what the article actually says is that Ny, in her own personal paraphrasing, said those are the allegations and that he is wanted back in Sweden to be questioned about the allegations.

"Prosecutor Marianne Ny, who had requested the detention earlier Thursday, meanwhile said an international arrest warrant would soon be issued for the founder of the whistleblower website. Assange had been detained in his absence "on probable cause suspected of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion," she said in a statement, adding that "to execute the court's decision, the next step is to issue an international arrest warrant." In an interview with AFP, Ny, the head of the department that oversees prosecution of sex crimes, explained that "I requested his arrest so we could carry out an interrogation with Assange. That is the reason."..."We have exhausted all the normal procedures for getting an interrogation (and) this investigation has gotten to a point where it is not possible to go further without interrogating Assange himself," Ny explained Thursday." Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You are quoting from an old article and from an interview. We use the European Arrest Warrant as the base for the article, just like the extradition court does and Assange lawyers do, and the Crown Prosecution service does, and the articles written since Assange arrest in the UK and written since the extradition hearings do. So don't remove "on probable cause suspected of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion" but remove the quotes. It is because of these four offenses (1x rape, 1x unlawful coercion and 2x sexual molestation) that Assange has been arrested in absence by a Swedish court on 18 November and why he was arrested in the UK and is wanted for extradition in the UK. They are stated in the European Arrest Warrant. They are the reason why Assange has not been allowed to leave the UK for over two months and why he has to report to the British police every day. Removing them would be plain silly. The article also states repeatedly that Assange denies any wrong doing. But I am glad you brought this up, Grantevans, I agree that it is sufficient to mention rape and sexual molestation once. These should be removed from the first one or two paragraphs instead, which should be shortened. KathaLu (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Kathalu. The article I am quoting is the same and only one used as RS for the phrase in question. Could you please provide here a link to the sources that you are referring to? Thanks, Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length on the TP, so you can find the sources in the TP archives; one source can even be found in the article under the reference no. 146, Esther Addley, Q&A: Julian Assange allegations, published on 17 December 2010. To check the accuracy of the relevant numerous secondary sources, you can view a copy of the SOCA certified European Arrest Warrant itself, which has been published by Assange lawyer Mark Stephens on his law firm's website. KathaLu (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks KathaLu, the source you suggest clearly shows that there is a dispute over why he is being sought by Swedish prosecutors. The artcle says that even Mr Justice Ouseley, the head of the administrative court who rejected the appeal against Assange's bail, acknowledged the dispute in his judgment: "There is a debate, which may yet be had elsewhere, over whether the warrant is a warrant for questioning or a warrant for trial." This clearly means that we can not present this section as if it has been already determined that he definitely is wanted for prosecution as opposed to simply wanted for questioning. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Wanted for Prosecution or not - THAT is the question

I am not trying to discuss the finer points of law but since the "no charges" argument has been brought up yet again, I think it should be addressed. First of all: despite the fact that numerous media repeat that no charges have been filed, the filing of charges was NOT discussed in the London court. This is the EU and not the US.

• Interstate extradition in the US: requesting state must produce an indictment or affidavit which must charge the fugitive demanded with having committed treason, felony, or other crime
• Interstate extradition in the EU: requesting state asks for the arrest and transfer of a criminal suspect or sentenced person for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution (not merely an investigation), or enforcing a custodial sentence.
  

The question that will be decided by the UK extradition court, and most likely by the UK appeal courts, is whether Assange is indeed wanted for criminal prosecution. It does not matter what Australian or other journalists wrote on the basis of interviews with Ms Ny in English or consular letters in English! From the Independent's reporting about the recent extradition hearing: Ms Montgomery also sought to quash the defence's claim that Mr Assange was wanted merely for questioning. She said: "In our submission there is no room for any doubt as to the purpose of the warrant, namely that it is for the purpose of prosecution. Mr Assange will be interrogated because interrogation is the necessary next step in the Swedish process. But that does not undermine or deny the stated purpose, that his presence in Sweden is that he is sought for the purpose of prosecution. The procedure in Sweden requires interrogation before the formal process of indictment can take place."
In the EU, it does not matter for an extradition whether charges are filed or not because national jurisdictions are too different from each other. What matters is whether Assange is indeed wanted for prosecution under Swedish law and no journalist can decide that, the British courts will do that. The offenses - CRIMES under Swedish law - in question are clearly stated in the extradition warrant and therefore should stay in the article. KathaLu (talk) 05:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You need to be careful about OR and SYNTH here. Wikipedia isn't about WP:TRUTH, but reliable and verifiable sources. The best way to approach that is to use reliable sources, not to use your own interpretation of what you think is going on. For example, if multiple reliable sources say that he has not been charged, that cannot be dismissed out of hand without sources explaining why that is the case. aprock (talk) 07:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

yes, we go by reliable sources. And Kathalu, Robertson QC has showed in court that Assange has not been charged and has been using this along with the laws that you pointed out to argue that Assange cannot be extradited. The prosecutor has admitted that he has not been charged but that there is clearly the intention of charging him upon his arrival in Sweden. So we should leave in the statement that he has not been charged until he is actually extradited to Sweden and subsequently charged. Gregcaletta (talk) 08:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed it, its pointy and a continuation on-wiki of the defence extradition claims, which we should avoid such soapboxing here. It does not suggest in the article that he has been charged, so to state that he has not is not necessary at all. Off2riorob (talk) 11:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorobYou should not do that without consensus. The obvious inference of the section, as shown by the way several Editors read it, is that he has been charged. It is too wordsmithy and inaccurate to be saying that it does not suggest in the article(to many Readers) that he has been charged. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The content was boldly added and removed this is the discussion stage of WP:BRD - Personally imo if you want to add it and if there is support for it, it doesn't belong in the lede like that. You know, clearly he has not been charged - he left the country and they want him sent back to face these allegations - that is what the story is about , not the factoid that he has not been charged yet. At no point in the article does it state or infer or suggest he has been charged. - we actually don't add what hasn't happened but things that have. All this is hair splitting relating to Assange defence against extradition, we rather just wait and see the outcome and report the judges comments as to the main reasons it was successful request or not. Also remember, if the extradition request is unsuccessful Assange will still be a wanted man in Sweden, the outcome of this hearing won't change that.. Off2riorob (talk) 12:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

@Off2riorob: you wrote: I removed it, its pointy and a continuation on-wiki of the defence extradition claims, which we should avoid such soapboxing here. Are you referring to the fact that he hasn't been charged? That seems to be reported by a wide variety of sources. It's not clear to me how it constitutes soap boxing here. With respect to the article implying whether or not he's been charged, the quoted sentence that he is wanted "on probable cause suspected of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion" is by no means clear. I agree that the lack of charge is not suitable for the lead, but it seems suitable for the appropriate section. aprock (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, I am open to its inclusion in the relevant section...its just as I said, actually the fact that he hasn't been charged is a symptom of his leaving the country before it happened. Its meaningless and is simply being highlighted by his defense as a reason for him not to be extradited. As I said, better allow the judge to say exactly what was relevant to the outcome of that and then we can report that. I have added such negatives before and they have been removed, and on consideration quite correctly. It is something that has not happened and as such is a non event. I also find myself asking, if it is so immediately relevant why is the citation provided ten weeks old. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/08/julian-assange-extradition-attempt - As per this discussion and in a good faith attempt to request the removal of the NPOV template - I have  Added it to the Julian_Assange#Allegations_of_sexual_assault section - you may want to discuss a more correct place for it in that section. - Off2riorob (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

"actually the fact that he hasn't been charged is a symptom of his leaving the country before it happened" You'll need to provide a source for this. aprock (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't added that and I am not searching for a RS for it either but is it a discussed detail as per the dates. Off2riorob (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

So are there still any NPOV claims, are there any objections to remove the template. Off2riorob (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I will remove it, however, I still think there may be a NPOV problem because of undue weight( a good size section allocated to the sex allegations) being given to a matter that the Reliable Sources seem to dance around with vagueness and drama; I still say the only thing the RSs say for sure is that he is wanted for questioning. So, I don't really know if we must allocate a whole section to this at this point in time, but I will defer to you Editors who have more experience than me with regard to the Weight,BLP, and NPOV policies. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

"less serious crime"

I see that someone has changed the wording from "with probable cause suspected of rape" to "with probable cause suspected of rape (less serious crime)". This seems very misleading.

There are three severity degrees for rape in Swedish law, but none of them are considered a "less serious crime", just like second degree murder is not a "less serious crime". Even the least severe degree of rape in Sweden carries a sentence of up to four years in prison.

Please supply a source for the claim that he is suspected of a "less serious crime", or revert.