Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Names of the alleged victims (include them or not?)

I'm closing this section by almost unanimous opposition to include victims names and also there isn't much to add for or against the motion. Unless reliable sources start doing interviews to Miss A or Miss W or if a more reliable source publish Miss A connection to the CIA, we will not add the names--Neo139 (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A discussion started (again) about including or not including the name of the alleged victims. There are reliable sources naming them but some claim including them violates WP:BLP In this discussion, when referring to them, please use Miss A. and Miss W. Thanks. Neo139 (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose the naming of Miss A. and Miss W. In regard to the issue of naming the alleged victims of sexual crimes, the relevant policy is "Avoid Victimisation", see WP:BLP:

"...biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."

Naming the alleged victims of sexual crimes clearly breaches this policy. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 22:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose the naming. I agree with the above. I think it is unfortunate and wrong, but the two women probably don't have much privacy in terms of their identities left for us to protect, which provides an agument (a weak one IMO) against "avoid victimisation". On the other hand, I noticed that the BBC seem to have reverted to anonymising them after a brief period of including their names. There's no rule saying we have to do as the BBC does, but it seems to me that is as good a model as any to follow on this type of issue. I don't think we would be depriving our readers of anything worthwhile by not giving full names and I think that should be a key question to ask. --FormerIP (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:BLP as cited above. But I think the more salient issue at the moment is whether to include the info from her blog. DKqwerty (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose naming , in accord with WP:BLP1E, WP:BLPNAME and the need to maintain encyclopaedic standards. The supposed contents of a blog from a non-notable person are hardly WP:RS either. (Actually, do we even have WP:RS that it is her blog?). AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

here, here--Neo139 (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Support; for 2 reasons: 1: If we include unproven allegations against the clearly identified Subject of a BLP, we should include the names of any adults who made them. 2: The impressions of what this event was allegedly all about is widely being mis-stated by some main-stream media. I just watched a fox news video where at the 4:02 time Geraldo Rivera says in direct reference to these allegations "He's over in Sweden screwing young girls". You and I know their ages are 26 and 31, but most people don't know that. ~~I also agree with DKqwerty that the info on Ms A's blog is salient~~. I think the more Reliably Sourced info we include about the Accusers the better and the Readers can interpret and boil it all down as they wish. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Why do you have to include their names in order to include their ages? I fail to see the logic in that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

We did finally include 3 words about their ages, my point is there is widespread misunderstanding about the allegations and who is making them and that its absurd to hold back the names of 26 and 31 year old adults in this specific situation. But its just my opinion, looks like I'm in the minority on this. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You clearly missed my point. There is a discussion above about including info about her blog postings. I simply meant that her blog postings should be the subject this debate since almost everyone here opposes adding their names and WP:BLP would seem to support that position. However, I do not support adding her blog information as it's prejudicial and seeks only to impeach her credibility, something which isn't even at issue in a biography about Julian Assange. The only fact here is that he's been accused of rape (or whatever it's being called in Sweden). The names of the women accusing him are immaterial to Assange's biography, and any blog postings only seeks to imply a lack of credibility, which isn't even remotely at issue until the facts of the completed trial are revealed. DKqwerty (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry that I misunderstood your reference to her blog. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

On your reason (1): Why? You give the impression that it is only logical, but I don't see any obvious logic to it. Surely people are entitled to contact the police if they believe a crime has been committed without worrying about whether they will be named in Wikipedia for it (?). --FormerIP (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not a direct route from contacting police to Wikipedia. Reliable Sources are in between and as stated in this RFC there are reliable sources for the identity of the Accusers.Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

oppose - until the names are reported in a weight of quality reliable sources and then only on an individual basis, no guarantee. Off2riorob (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose: the names do not add anything to the article. The people themselves are not notable, and discussion about the individuals can be managed without directly revealing their identities - if it is relevant we can mention ages or backgrounds without needing to include more. My rule is always to ask what extra information revealing names of victims provide to a reader's understanding of events that couldn't be provided without identifying them - in this situation I can't see any advantage, as readers are unlikely to know who they are outside of this context. - Bilby (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - as not necessary. However I'm uncertain about including information about the blog postings. This source [[1]] would meet probably meet reliability criteria and is makes strong statements regarding the veracity of the claims (so is not WP:SYN) (Crickey.com is an independent media organisation in Australia). Clovis Sangrail (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

As an op-ed written by one of Assange's lawyers, it would not be a reliable source for establishing any facts about the case or the contents of the blog. --FormerIP (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

No one is saying that she didn't make those posts. However, the veracity of her claims cannot be verified or rejected based upon synthesis of her blog postings. Take for example: a person posts on his blog that he will murder his wife. His wife is murdered and he is arrested. Can we assume he did it based solely upon his blog post? No. On the flip side, a man's wife is murdered; can we assume that he is innocent based upon a recent blog post professing love for his wife? No. The fact remains that the veracity of the accuser's claims will be tested in court; until then, we're simply tying to synthesize or predict Assange's guilt or innocence based upon information which is fundamentally immaterial to a biography. DKqwerty (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment – I'd like to also point out an important distinction to editors who many not be familiar with the rigors of Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy: this article is a biography and nothing more. Just because information is true and tangentially relevant to the subject doesn't make it appropriate for inclusion in a biographical article such as this. It is also not the place for compiling a narrative of recent events involving the article's subject. Biographical articles on Wikipedia are simply meant to compile facts relevant to the complete life of the individual, not to compile tedious recent events which may or may not continue to be relevant to the article's subject. (Please see WP:NOT, WP:BLP, and WP:RECENTISM for more information) DKqwerty (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point Clovis Sangrail (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

However, on reflection that means that it could be argued that the charges are independently notable (broad coverage in mainstream media) and so warrant their own page (which can include eg bail denials & appeals etc) Clovis Sangrail (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

To DKqwertyIronically, I think Recentism precludes any mention of this event at all because no charges have been laid as far as I can tell. The event, in fact, may not continue to be relevant to this Subject at all. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose as per Bilby: adds nothing to the article; at present what is important are the allegations, not who made them. As the case progresses, this information can be added if it is of relevance and receives coverage in a reliable source. --Kaini (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Split the decision. I've seen several allegations in various sources that "Miss A." was associated with anti-Castro movements and thus, at least indirectly, with allies like the CIA and Luis Posada Carriles. (Some of these look like strained and/or fringe arguments and I haven't read them over carefully as of yet - the point is, we should have leave to develop encyclopedic material covering them appropriately) In the context of news sources alleging that this was a frame-up of Assange, we have as much responsibility to include the material according to BLP to avoid slanting the article against Assange as we do to exclude it to protect "Miss A." We need to have some way to coordinate this coverage, edit a draft, and see how deep the allegations really run. She is a fairly prominent figure politically, quite possibly an authentic public figure. But Miss W. seems less well known, perhaps a friend of Miss A., but not leading the story in her own right. So at least for the moment we should name Miss A. but refer to Miss W. less directly. Wnt (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment According to an op-ed piece in Salon.com, all of the Castro/CIA claims can be traced back to a single article in The Daily Mail. Which makes them highly suspect in my opinion, at least. --Kaini (talk) 00:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This Miami Herald article with similar CIA claims came out at the same time and it says;"The Associated Press contributed to this report."Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That article also cites the Shamir article in CounterPunch as the initial source of the claims; "A---'s Cuba connections were first reported Sept. 14 by CounterPunch, a liberal newsletter co-edited by Alexander Cockburn, a steadfast critic of U.S. foreign policy.". Also, Associated Press is primarily an organisation whose purpose is to allow easy sharing of stories between its members, not a news organisation in its own right: "As part of their cooperative agreement with The Associated Press, most member news organizations grant automatic permission for the AP to distribute their local news reports. For example, on page two of every edition of The Washington Post, the newspaper's masthead includes the statement, "The Associated Press is entitled exclusively to use for re-publication of all news dispatches credited to it or not otherwise credited in this paper and all local news of spontaneous origin published herein." --Kaini (talk) 04:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually it traces the claims back to [2], which in turn cites a professor Michael Seltzer in Sweden. But the sources that article cites are in Swedish, a language I know nothing of. Wnt (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

And that article has as the author, one Israel Shamir - who has been quoted as saying "I think it is every Muslim's and Christian's duty to deny the Holocaust, to reject this belief, just as Abraham and Moses rejected the idols. Any person who confesses to God should deny the Holocaust", and "that the mass media machine is well integrated and concentrated in philosemitic, mostly Jewish hands. The occupation of Palestine by Jews is painful, but it is not more harmful than this captivity of free discourse." (see his article for citations). ~~The article you have linked to, in turn, cites back some Daily Mail articles (it is a notoriously right-wing tabloid in the UK) as sources~~. The article also compares Assange to Neo from The Matrix. Whilst this information is ephemeral to the article in question, who knows in what manner Mr. Shamir has mistranslated or twisted the Swedish sources he quotes? I, for one, would entirely discount anything on this CounterPunch article because of its author, regardless of the fact that reputable journalists such as Robert Fisk have apparently written for the same site. I do not believe that he is a reliable, neutral source for the article. --Kaini (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: No comment on whether they should be included in the article or not, but the constant removal of any references to them at the talk page (such as here where the link to a discussion was removed), is getting rather pointy, especially when the names have been used in reliable sources all over the world: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] (I could go on.) Nymf _hideliho! 00:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Well we are not going to judge them pre-trial and opine bla bi bla about them here, under any circumstances to such weak locations as Crikey and salon dot com. Off2riorob (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what you are on about, but what is wrong with Crikey.com.au? I still believe it (and especially the edit I referred to above) is getting pointy, by the way. Nymf _hideliho! 01:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose for now. Once they start writing books and going on Oprah then that's another story. It also seems relevant that there are legions of Assange-supporters eager to take action (e.g. wage cyber-war) on his behalf.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose It appears certain that the sex allegations are vastly overhyped, and that Assange is the victim of some peculiar circumstances. While there is plenty of juicy speculation, that kind of material should be excluded from Wikipedia until facts are established (not trivial factoids such as names of the women). The reason for WP:BLP is to avoid the situation where anyone can edit articles (and Wikipedia's articles have a very high Google rank), so without a strong BLP policy, articles would deteriorate into coatracks where every reported possibility is added. There is no encyclopedic benefit from naming BLP1E people (but the preceding comment by Anythingyouwant is correct: the names can be added later if warranted). Johnuniq (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Conditional Support - The accusers' names have been published in multiple RS's. I've seen both names in the Sydney Morning Herald, Herald Sun ( Australia ), Crikey ( Australia ), San Francisco Chronicle ( Sfgate ), Lexington Herald Leader ( Kentucky ), Washington Examiner, Times of India, and The Global Times ( China ), plus many non-English sources from Latin America and Europe. That's in addition to the umpteen sources that printed one name and not the other; CBS News, AOL News, Jerusalem Post, Reason, The Atlantic, Miami Herald.-
The simple mention of the names is well past BLP now. The Swedish IP editors removing them from the talk page should stop; that may have been appropriate when the only sources were blogs, but I agree it is disruptive now. That said, BLP still means we can't have rants about these people nor anything else that hasnt been published in an RS.-
As far as the article, I think the names can go in at some point but there's more important things to iron out first. There's been a lot of new developments that have to be attributed. Also, it's likely that a new article of "Assange abuse allegations" will be split off, and that can address who said what, it can address the Cuba angle, which is kind of a tangent at this point but it's been made notable by media attention.-
One reason to include is to maintain NPOV, to tell both sides of the story. Another reason is the publication even by some American news outlets, which are characteristically reluctant to print an accuser's name. On the other hand, the most compelling reason I can think of not to include is that it's still unclear how much of this situation was from the two women and how much was from the prosecutors in Sweden. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how this involves "sides of [a] story." There are no sides to the names of the individual accusers and it isn't a story, it's fact. The accuracy of the info isn't in question, the question is whether it's appropriate to include the names within this article. Perhaps you could offer some insight into what novel information might be gleaned about this biographical article's subject, Julian Assange, by including their names. The section addresses the legal charges against Assange and the names of the accusers in no way informs the reader about Assange as a biographical subject nor does it inform them to any relevant information about the section's subject. In fact, I would argue that including their ages is unduly prejudicial in it's assumption that the rape charges might be statutory; why would anyone assume that they were underage and without that assumption why are their ages even relevant to this biography? DKqwerty (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I found about 45 reliable sources which mention Miss A's name[12] and about 9 for Miss W.[13] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Mixed - On the one hand, we normally do not mention accusers. On the other, their names are readily available, and it's inevitable that they will be named in some of the reliable sources we cite. Because of this, it does not seem that omitting their names does anything at all for their privacy. With that concern dispatched, the remaining question is whether we have any particular reason to name them. Right now, I'm not sure that we do, but as the case develops, we will be obligated to share information about such things as the seven-step revenge plan, at which point it simply becomes awkward to do this without using a name. So, in summary, I don't believe we have any principled or practical reason to hide their names, but at this time, we also have no need to name them. In time, we will have that need. Dylan Flaherty 02:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment on Dylan Flaherty's remarks above: it seems he is rather keen to suggest that 'the seven-step revenge plan' is going to be of relevance. Given that no charges have yet been made, that the reliability of evidence about this 'plan' has not been tested, and the woman involved has had no opportunity to defend herself against what at this point amounts to little more than insinuations, don't you think you are overusing the WP:CRYSTALBALL a little, Dylan? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

For me, it's more of a WP:SYNTH issue. Whilst it is my personal opinion that the 'seven-step revenge plan' (which has, in fairness, been mentioned in WP:RS sources) makes this particular person's motivation extremely dubious, to make the jump from 'this person made a blog post about a seven-step revenge plan' to 'this person is clearly out to get Julian Assange' is definitely not something the article needs, and is at present both synthesis and a violation of WP:NPOV --Kaini (talk) 02:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources have not only mentioned her "seven-step revenge plan", they've also directly stated that this shows that she has a different motive than she claims. --70.134.49.69 (talk) 12:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That's true, but I do want to point out that I'm not currently suggesting that we mention her name or the 7-step plan. I'm saying that it's all public knowledge, and when this goes to trial, we can reasonably anticipate it becoming relevant. No crystal ball needed: we have reliable sources that do the predicting for us. My goal here would be to gain recognition now of the need to deal with this later. Dylan Flaherty 18:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean if this goes to trial. And if this '7-step plan' story proves to be anything other than spin. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Support the inclusion of Miss A, since I believe The Raw Story is a reliable source and this post may be worth to include. (Do not support the inclusion of Miss W)--Neo139 (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The raw story is ..lets say, not the highest quality of source available. Off2riorob (talk) 12:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

What about the Huffington Post? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/09/anna-ardin-julian-assange_n_794285.html --70.134.49.69 (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Or The Miami Herald, [14]. Nymf _hideliho! 13:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Get back to me when the BBC have named her. The major issue for me is that we are not going to try the case here before it has even got off the ground. Spurious weakly claimed attempts to do that do not belong here on wikipedia, its bad enough on the talkpage but at least it is no indexed here. Off2riorob (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose the inclusion. Even many reputable sources are filled with speculation at this point. While there are some sources that name the alleged names of the victims (some have also targeted other names, so there does not seem to be a consensus about what the names actually are), there are even more sources that do not mention them. BLP:NAME is relevant:

When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.222.10 (talk) 07:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose for now. We should be conservative with both the accusers' names and the spicy details of the accusations until charges reach a more stable and meaningful stage. Ocaasi (talk) 08:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - including the names would only be slandering the accusers and wouldn't add anything to the article in my opinion. SmartSE (talk) 10:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - from BLP grounds, as well explained by commenters above. -84user (talk) 12:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

*Support. it is already included in the other versions of wikipedia (other languages), at least in the main ones. Drinking wine in mendoza. Lanacion and Elmundo.es clearly name (Removed by ATG per WP:BLP policy, and apparent view of majority in this discussion) here: http://www.lanacion.com.ar/nota.asp?nota_id=1331699 and here http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2010/12/08/internacional/1291801934.html Drinking wine in mendoza (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Note, I have removed the names from Drinking wine in mendoza's comment above, per WP:BLP policy, and the apparent view of the majority of participants in this debate. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Oppose: for now, per Kaini DigitalC (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Support - In general I agree with the "oppose"-group, but Miss A is a politician and part of a political cluster, which includes her lawyer; former minister Claes Borgström and his old chum; attorney Marianne Ny(Borgström's law-firm partner is the former minister of justice, Thomas Bodström; the father of the notorious and among civil-right groups in Sweden heavily criticized FRA law). Miss A turned to Borgström instead of a "civil" lawyer for political protection or rather political gain, and hence, sealed her own destiny. She choose not to be a civilian and wiki on her and her agenda should have been written like yesterday. Essentially I think she would agree. Parrotistic (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Miss A is not even en wiki notable, as such we have no interest in her at all. Off2riorob (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

"en wiki notable"??? You're not saying we should only write about Swedish politicians in Swedish, are you? Wnt (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It was quite clear what I said. Knock yourself out, if you think she is en wiki notable then start yourself a BLP, I don't think she is and that has nothing to do with whatever country she is from. Off2riorob (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose for now. Pretty much per anythingyouwant. If they become clearly notable in their own right or start seeking the spotlight and giving interviews and producing coverage, then all bets are off. Gigs (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose per AndyTheGrump - 22:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC). ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 05:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Move to close. I think the reason this is not attracting new comments is that the eventual outcome is obvious. --FormerIP (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

wikileaks founder?

I think there's an error in the first paragraph.

Quote from WikiLeaks#History: "The creators of WikiLeaks have not been formally identified."

And there are references for that! --Fumasu (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Dmitry Rogozin

Under the section Support and Praise is a comment by Dmitry Rogozin who argues that, "that Julian Assange's earlier arrest on Swedish charges demonstrated that there was "no media freedom" in the west." In another article in The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/09/julian-assange-nobel-peace-prize) that picked up on Rogozin's statements it qualifies Rogozin's identity as a "hardline ultra-nationalist" although this description doesn't appear in the section. Anybody give a reason as to why it shouldn't? The guy makes an inane remark about how there's no freedom of speech in the West (even though he works for Putin) so it's only fair his remarks be put into perspective by highlighting the extreme nature of his personal identity. Anyone disagree?Fellytone (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. We don't discuss the politics of anyone else in the article, so why should we discuss his? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

We should discuss this for two reasons:

1) Rogozin makes a statement that politically charged in nature, so it's only fair that his extremist character of his political views be put into perspective

2) The fact that politics of anyone in the article aren't discussed doesn't mean that the politics of anyone on Wikipedia can't be discussed. If you look under the "Forbidden to Enter Canada" section under George Galloway's Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway#Forbidden_to_enter_Canada), the comment by Velshi of Galloway as a street-corner Cromwell is qualified by an irrelevant biographical aside of his being "a former lobbyist for the American Enterprise Institute who was then working as communications director for Jason Kenney." And as of today, the aside hasn't been taken down yet. So if the description of Velshi is allowed, then why can't the descfiption of Rogozin be allowed either?Fellytone (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the actual issue that your trying to address is that the comment is of no value and actually should be removed. You are trying to add context to it when actually it is just a valueless soapboxing opinionated throwaway comment and would be better removed than explained ..he said this because...yada yada. I think I have previously removed it for just this reason, but it was replaced. I would support just removing the comment completely, it says absolutely nothing about Assange anyways.Off2riorob (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If I can find a "reliable" Russian news paper describing Obama as an extremist should I add that to the article too? I don't think it's good to add such charged words... However, to answer to Off2riorob, the comment has been used in many places to demonstrate the Russian support for wikileaks... That's an interesting state, given Russia's history on press freedome... Tim.thelion (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm also inclined to think the comment can go - the opinions of uninvolved people are usually only of passing relevance, and it looks more like point-scoring than any more fundamental support for free speech. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd support that, it was fairly obviously a dig at the US, rather than anything actually to do with Assange himself. SmartSE (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright, so what's the verdict can I delete Rogozin's quote about the lack of freedom in the West or no? Fellytone (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep. though leaving the previous sentence hanging may look a bit odd, and need rewording. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Definitely remove. There is no reason to suppose that Dmitry Rogozin's comments are important in relation to this article. --FormerIP (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV != Neutral

[15] I'm really trying to stay out of this for the most part, I don't agree that this edit is a good one. WP:NPOV requires editors to be neutral. It does not require articles be neutral. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion was above but as you don't like it I put it back for you. Off2riorob (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the problem with getting too invested in a moving target. It doesn't really matter too much how you feel about what's in the section as it'll be entirely reworked in one week. Until this all settles down there's not going to be much to do except mopping up obvious messes that get made. aprock (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob: I saw the discussion above. It was about someone adding a POV tag apparently without an explanation. My post was about your edit that changes the section header from "Alleged sex offences" to "Extradition request". Can you please address the point I made? Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If I repeat and bold my edit above, ..."The discussion was above but as you don't like it I put it back for you".in this edit at 22:56. - Off2riorob (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but between your obtuse comment and people moving posts around, it got a little confusing. In any case, my point remains regardless of your self-revert. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The way I always understood WP:NPOV was if at the end of reading an article or a specific section of an article, I came away with an idea of what the editor's general perspective on things was, it's probably not neutral. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 23:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Communication seem difficult here, it is such a minor issues - In the section above a user said they felt the section title was a possible reason for the POV template, I changed it from .. Alleged sex offences to Extradition attempt, user A quest for knowledge said he didn't like it and I changed it back...he didn't notice and again asked for it to be reverted but it had been reverted a quarter on an hour earlier but he didn't notice, yawn. Where he got the NPOV from I have no idea.Off2riorob (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't "ask again for it to be reverted". I was pointing out that editorial neutrality (AKA NPOV) is not the same thing as article neutrality. Your edit seemed to confuse the difference. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You are going completely over my head and seem to be inventing some issue that doesn't exist. Off2riorob (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The tag has little to do with the BLP section title. Please read the 5 or 6 discussion page sections about concerns with the one-sided sex allegations inclusions and you will maybe understand why some Editors, me included, think the tag is appropriate. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Will you please stop referring to one sided 'allegations' etc? We are reporting the facts, that allegations (true or false) have led to actions against Assange. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

removal of current event tag

I'm afraid I don't see your logic with this edit, SmartSE. The wikileaks cables are about 0.5%-1% done, according to wikileaks (and that is not the subject of this article, anyway). I suspect that we will see some further developments in the case against assange in the coming days - Assange himself said to Jon Snow this evening on Channel 4 that he had information that there would be further developments in the coming 24 hours [16]. Let's not be hasty. Kaini (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't support keeping the current template up either, I think he is next in court in the middle of January, clearly its not a current event and the template isn't gonna help anything. The wiki leaks drip drip is just minor news nothing spectacular. Off2riorob (talk) 00:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I reverted it, personally, as a good faith edit. If a guy is being covered on the news every half an hour on just about every international media outlet in a country which has had some stake in this in one way or another (Australia included), then it's probably still a current event - especially being that the cables have not even come close to being completely released. Indeed, some were just released today. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 00:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

_[double](edit conflict)That's pretty irrelevant, I'm not suggesting the cable leaks are over, but the current event template shouldn't just be used to indicate that an article is related to something happening now. It should only be used to indicate to readers that an article is rapidly changing, and when hundreds of editors are editing it in the same day. Template:Current#Guidelines makes this pretty clear as well as indicating that it should only be used for a few days at most. The template has been in place now since the start of the leaks, almost three weeks ago! Even as there are more leaks emerge, they should not affect this article, or even significantly change the main articles about the leaks. I'm not terribly bothered either way, but I don't think we need it. SmartSE (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

While that seems fair enough, I personally think this is one situation where we should ignore the general guidelines, but that's just my opinion. If general consensus believes the tag should go then that's fine as well. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 00:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not wiki leaks article. I realize some people want this to be fantastic and earth moving but it just isn't, it is on the news, 24 hour rolling news is like that. Templates if not really needed do nothing apart from detract from the actual content. Off2riorob (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

this newsnight interview may provide some degree of WP:RS that we're not done yet. i'm aware that it's a primary source. however i, also, am not overly bothered about it. it's the content that's important. Kaini (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Malformed Video ID ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 00:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

whoops, fixed now Kaini (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If you like the current event template keep it but it isn't really needed and isn't much benefit to the article. Off2riorob (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

A current event notice is clearly appropriate here. He's just been released from police custody and is currently the focus of the main story on every newsite around the world. Saying he is next in court in January appears to be false. His extradition hearing can happen at any time and must happen before 28 Dec [17]. According to the same article, and indictment may currently be being filed in the US, and an investigation into the process of his charging has been launched by the Swedish authorities. So, procedurally anything can happen at any time. In addition, as a focus of media attention, new information about Assange and his legal predicament is likely to come into the public domain and this can also happen at any time. It seems to me hard to think of a clearer case of a current event. --FormerIP (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

_{[lost count]}(edit conflict) _{[it's not my day]} That's my all part of my reasoning for removing it as well - it looks crap! I removed the template from the WL article earlier for the same reasons and haven't been reverted - again, new leaks are very unlikely to substantially and rapidly alter that article, let alone this one. SmartSE (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The link is an unofficial utube upload and a copyright violation. Off2riorob (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

absolutely, it is. but that does not prevent us from using the original report on newsnight, appropriately referenced, as a source for the article. as for linking it - wikipedia isn't committing any copyvio here, the youtube video is not featured in the article. --Kaini (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Well ,it would be a bit primary, but I didn't watch the video anyways so I have no idea what was in it, was there something new? Off2riorob (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Assange echoes the point from the earlier Jon Snow interview that his legal counsel has received information regarding the fact that there will be further information regarding the case, and perhaps further significant developments in the coming 24 hours. And I did address the fact that it is a primary source in my opening comment in this section. Kaini (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, the interview video is also on the BBC article, I have watched it now. He suggests there is going to be detail released that will be in an attempt to smear him. Off2riorob (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I give up, it doesn't look as if anyone has even considered my point that a current event ≠ the need for a current event template.(and the ECs are pissing me off!) SmartSE (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

@Former IP - well the cite actually says:

“

A full extradition hearing should normally take place within 21 days of the arrest. Mr Assange was arrested on 7 December, so this should be by 28 December. However, in such a high profile case, it is possible that a full extradition hearing will not take place for several months.

A hearing in the next twelve days , and only to set a date for the extradition request is unworthy of a current event.

”

I'm sorry I opened this can of worms now! It's a relatively minor detail at the end of the day. Let consensus take its course and decide... Kaini (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of a current event template is to notify the reader that the page may be undergoing revision at any time, information may be out of date and (although the notice doesn't actually say this) the article may for some time include false, inappropriate of slanted content (because our processes don't work quickly enough to ensure that this can't happen). All of that very clearly applies here. And it continues to apply as long as new information is coming into the public domain. If that stops happening for a period, then fine.--FormerIP (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I agree with Smarte - the current event template shouldn't just be used to indicate that an article is related to something happening now. It should only be used to indicate to readers that an article is rapidly changing, and when hundreds of editors are editing it in the same day. Template:Current#Guidelines makes this pretty clear as well as indicating that it should only be used for a few days at most. Off2riorob (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Trivia

This has just been added, trivial, imo. "Assamge can get some peace", which is more than we can get at this article. The whole of the second half is according to Assange in what is basically a self published soapbox statement. Off2riorob (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

On 16 December, the appeal was dismissed and Assange was granted bail. Assange will be living at a country mansion and farm belonging to a former army officer, Vaghan Smith, who supports Assange. Smith said the large estate would allow Assange to get some peace and safety."It's quite hard to get too close without trespassing," Smith said. Assange told London reporters that the leaked cables showed U.S. ambassadors around the world were ordered "to engage in espionage behavior" which he said seemed to be "representative of a gradual shift to a lack of rule of law in U.S. institutions that needs to be exposed and that we have been exposing."

Yup, trivia, ~~and apparently unsourced. I've reverted~~. Oops! was properly sourced - didn't look properly. Apologies to Mr.grantevans2. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The second half and half the first half is still of no addition informative value imo, but I have to go, I will look at it again tomorrow. Off2riorob (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I see that DKqwerty has separated and edited this: it looks fine now to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

'Assange can get some peace': no, no, no. that is a textbook WP:WEASEL. regarding the rest - well, primary sources are discouraged, but i have no doubt that it will be echoed in secondary ones if it isn't already. i think everyone needs to slow down on this article. it is as big a news story as i can remember, and the world will not end if some stuff is added tomorrow, rather than today. --Kaini (talk) 03:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The friend of Assange used the words "peace and security" according to the source article, maybe I should have quoted him or not included it at all. I thought it was reasonable to include but maybe not. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The 5 sureties

Because the 5 people providing surety are in this case prominent people, it seems worthy of including them, as this aspect appears (or so we are repeatedly being told) to have impressed the judge. They are: John E. Sulston, Matthew Evans, Felix Dennis, Phillip Knightley and Professor Patricia David . The judge also allowed two substitutes: solicitor Geoff Shears and Baroness Tracy Worcester. The Guardian 3.27 Vikram Dodd. Whereas the judge rejected John Pilger, described him in court as "another peripatetic Australian" like Assange.--Aspro (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Any news on why Jemima Khan is no longer included on that list? Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 20:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

As I saw, the judge just chose the ones he wanted, the strongest in his opinion . Off2riorob (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Typical of a pommy Judge to take a swipe at the colonials using a word that no one has heard of. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 20:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I myself, use this term, when a better word is not available, so it is hardly unknown in the UK. Also, don't think of it as being derogatory, because I don't recall ever using it in that sense. --Aspro (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Lol, if what the Guardian reports, is true and the judge did call John Pilger another peripatetic Australian it's funny but also shows that this case is not about notability but the court treating people with big names not any different than unknown Polish plumbers against whom a UK court has received an extradition warrant from another EU country. Perhaps something to bear in mind for future editors? KathaLu (talk) 07:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

On WP:BLP

Another editor removed a concise explanation of the 4 charges in the British procedure with the following comment: "Unnecessary details: this is not a tabloid - see WP:BLP". BLP is about the quality of sources, which is not the issue here. The other editor's concern is better addressed at WP:TABLOID and Wikipedia:Sexual content. The relevant policy says: "some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content." Interestingly, this policy is also called "Wikipedia is not censored". The real question is: Is it relevant to clarify what are the 4 charges against Assange in the British procedure? I claim the answer is: yes, based on reliable sources. I actually inserted this sourced material in the article because I had advised someone to check WP, only to find the article was not clear enough. Naturally, this should be done in the best possible tone. E.g. I did not quote the Sydney Morning Herald's "he held Ardin down with his body weight, forced her legs open, and had sex with her" or the Guardian's "Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner" but the shorter "“using his body weight to hold” down the first complainant"). Racconish^Tk 07:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Since it was me who removed your edit, I feel I ought to reply. Firstly, I think that WP:BLP policy is very much of relevance, not only regarding Mr Assange, but also the two alleged victims. Secondly, I'd note that Mr Assange appears not as yet to have been charged with anything, and denies anything but consensual sexual activity. On this basis, the issue isn't censorship, but relevance to the article topic, taking into consideration the requirements for respecting the privacy of individuals. This is of course a judgement call, but I felt that the level of detail you gave was unnecessary. Others may feel differently, and I'd like to see what they have to say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to kind of add to the above... at this stage we are dealing with allegations for which Assange has not even been charged, usually we would not be mentioning them. However, not to do so at this stage would be absurd due to the extremely high profile nature of the issue. On the other hand, what is high profile is not the content or detail of the allegations (in fact, if necessary we could cut that down even further) but the various arrest warrants, his arrest, bail and extradition proceedings. We have to mention those as a very pertinent part of his biography; but at this stage the actual allegations are mostly speculative and unclear. Wait for a prosecution. There is no rush. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The legal nicety of whether someone has been "charged" is absolutely irrelevant, when they are being hauled off to jail, or forced to submit to a humiliating electronic monitoring regime, or accused as a rapist in the worldwide press. Wnt (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

who brought the appeal

It has just been added that the appeal was brought by English objectors cited to a guardian article, I thought this was unclear and I believed from what I had seen that the actual objectors was the Swedish, is this cleared up and certain? I saw Assanges lawyer state clearly that it was the Swedish prosecutors that objected?? Off2riorob (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

- the appeal by the British authorities.....

- http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/15/julian-assange-bail-decision-uk

Looks like User:DKqwerty appears to have removed the doubt and kept the actual detail. Off2riorob (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a fair revision to me. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄ ⒽⒶⓃ② 17:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I edited the way I did because, ones I was to lazy and second a British prosecutor said she is acting on behalf of the Swedish government. But I can't recall where I red this and only found German speaking news saying that. I think this has some relevance but on the other hand the straight facts are correct as they are now and I can live with that. TFTD (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I still am not convinced it is clearly citable that it was England prosecution that requested the appeal. The issue is actually quite important, does anyone have clear support externals citing people in authority that it was England or Sweden? Off2riorob (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Swedish Government, 2. Swedish Prosecutors, 3. British Government, 4. British Prosecutors

2 says it wasn't them. 4 said it was them acting on request of 1. If 3 was involved too I don't know. I will see if I can find a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TFTD (talk • contribs) 18:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

UK's Crown Prosecution Service

brought the appeal: "Assange appeared in court today to answer an appeal brought by the UK's Crown Prosecution Service against the decision on Tuesday to release the Australian on bail" [18] "British prosecutors had gone to the High Court to appeal against the lower court's decision to grant bail."[19]Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Newsnight yesterday said that the CPS had said that it had brought the prosecution but had consulted with prosecutors in Sweden. The prosecutors in Sweden denied this, saying that the CPS had acted alone. Still online for the time being at the BBC site if any UKians want to check the exact wording. --FormerIP (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I cannot cite this because it is my expertise/experience alone, but... taking my WP editors hat off for a moment and sticking on my work one: two possiblities are really the only options. Firstly (and the one I would expect is most likely) someone in Sweden requested or agreed to an appeal by the CPS - this is most likely because my knowledge of how it works (and trust me :) I can wax lyrical about this for many hours...) is they will have said the the Swedes "you want us to appeal" - and someone said yes. The other option is the CPS did it off their own back; this is possible because it is the usual legal approach to appeal as much as you can, so it may have been default behaviour. However, given the political ramifications I would be m ore than shocked if they hadn't at least asked the Swedes. as always, the usual internet disclaimer of "don't trust everything you here". However, extradition cases are currently my minor speciality (the yare horrible, which is why I constantly end up being assigned the sodding things :) With my WP hat back on: None of that is much help and mostly just for your edification :) on the actual issue, I think it is too unclear to reliably cite with any accuracy --Errant ^(chat!) 20:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I do too, they clearly said on national news, the Swedes have appealed - appealing and being rejected would weaken the extradition attempt in the upcoming hearing. IMO also and from the cites, it is not clear at all and easily disputable. Off2riorob (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

(my extradition law is only enough to "get by" but I know a lot more about how our courts work. It wont really hurt. What will hurt them is the judges comments when he granted bail, that might even have fucked them completely. Get a liberal judge in the extradition hearings and... well... but I'm already well over WP:NOTFORUM, apologies) Basically agreed, while we are not here for THE TRUTH, clarity is definitely our guiding light here. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It is more than a little disturbing that the Swedes claim the UK's CPS initiated the proceedings against Assange and deny any hand in that decision, while the UK's CPS claims they merely initiated the proceedings on behalf of the Swedes. If no one is responsible for the proceedings, why was Assange rotting in a prison cell? I'll take ErrantX's comments a step further, prosecutors have massive egos and they are well-used to having judicial victories routinely handed to them on silver platters, so the opportunity to "prove who's boss" on a brightly-lit international stage like this would be irresistible to most prosecutors. It probably hasn't even occurred to the prosecutors to ask if there is any substance to the allegations against Assange, which is why they haven't provided any evidence against Assange. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 23:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If anything the CPS are more and more circumspect; they have had some serious legal stebacks in recent years. Getting them to take anything but a cut and dried case is impossible nowadays. On the other hand, this is an extradition, which means inevitably Sweden will pressure the UK prosecutors to carry out the procedure. They've had a pretty cutting set back with the judges recent comments, but I have no doubt they will press on anyway, there is little option. Extradition hearings to allied countries are almost always heard. --Errant ^(chat!) 00:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

External links

I think it's about time that someone (who's more familiar with WP:EL than I am) comb through the "External links" section and remove anything inappropriate or that does not directly address Assange. I've already retooled a link that was just added, as well as removed a link which had nothing to do with Assange, just WikiLeaks. What's left seems to be both videos ~~(one of which links though YouTube and possibly violates WP:COPYLINK)~~ and text; but as I understand WP:EL (particularly WP:ELNO), external links should be (with some exception) media rich links, not just links to news articles or profiles. However, I'm terrible with external linking policy and often misconstrue its intentions; Were I to start editing that section, I would undoubtedly remove links that others find appropriate under the policy, hence this request DKqwerty (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree we need to take care, the WP:EL section is presently at or even just over its limit and a couple of the linkfarm ones could be removed now, but I had a look and didn't see anything that was in need or desperate removal imo. it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic - Basically - we write the article, we don't link to other peoples articles .Off2riorob (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Full protection

I think it might be time to consider asking for full protection of this article. Many people continue to add large amounts of information that has been discussed and rejected without first discussing it themselves (or by ignoring such discussion) or information which is completely irrelevant to this biography and seeks only to create a narrative of the criminal charges (a sometimes suppositional narrative at that). I understand that events change and sometimes information that was once irrelevant or inappropriate becomes relevant or appropriate. However, such info must be discussed first, especially if the edits are in contradiction of prior discussions. I think the best way to do this at present is to force all edits to be made through talk page discussions, then by an administrators only. I will not, however, seek full protection unless there is significant support for doing so. DKqwerty (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you have some specific issues with the edits I made? It looks like you did a blanket revert to address other edits. If you have a problem with the edits I made, could you please discuss them? aprock (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd not support this proposal for now, as it seems only a minority of editors are failing to comply with WP norms (e.g. WP:BRD). However, if things continue to escalate, this might become necessary. This will be a great pity, as with a rapidly-evolving topic like this, full protection will inevitably slow the editing process down. Can I thus ask those wishing to make contentious edits to show a little more restraint? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Protection is really to be avoided if possible but I can feel it is close, users who are active here should under the situation present their desired addition for discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 7:53 pm, Today (UTC+0)

As an admin editing here, I am against protection but will press for blocks if perceive disruption happening. I am likely too involved to block myself. Just to be clear. --John (talk) 03:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The above proposal for "proactive" protection seems like a bad idea to me as well, in effect enforcing exactly what WP:DRNC tell us not to do. Protection and constant talk page debate over each word would only serve to polarize the discussion and editors. It should be a last resort. Gigs (talk) 05:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Disruption

Several wikifying edits; e.g. Ellingham Hall and many other edits by several contributors was just deleted en masse [20]. This is disruption bordering on vandalism. Leaving a sentence saying Assange is under "house arrest" without including the words "at Ellingham Hall" is directly misleading,by omission, our Readers as to Assange's current situation. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this is already the discussion above. Can you attempt a bit of consensus discussion please. 19:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk)

This is a different issue, this is about vandalism. We can't just wipe out a whole bunch of good faith edits from multiple Editors because we feel like it and then run to the talk page to try to get Full Protection. That's vandalism. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

See WP:NPA, WP:BRD, and pleased note that edits maid in good faith are never vandalism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Throwing around such allegations is not helpful, what edit do you think was beneficial to the article? Off2riorob (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's just one that was reverted. I think what I say above is valid. I'm not mad at the Editor, but I'm real angry at that edit. I think that edit deserves a block for its disruption, I really do. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed the edits for the following reasons: Primarily, such drastic changes to a section like that should certainly be discussed first given the palpable tension on the discussion page. Where he is located is immaterial to a biographical summary of the allegations, it's also redundant given the info in the "Residency" section; his comments about the "fresh air" are simply trivial. Ideas regarding various conspiracy theories are just that, theories, no matter how well supported by citation; this BLP is only interested in facts, not the supposition of other parties. Who helped post his bail is immaterial (certainly as a bulleted list like that) and unsupported by more than a single citation. The edits also created a citation error, though that's certainly not a primary reason. There were a few other reasons, but I think that should be satisfactory. DKqwerty (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, since none of these reasons relate to the edits I made, I assume there's no problem with me reinstating them. aprock (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it adds value to the article to include the address that Assange is currently staying at. Event though I'm sure the details will not be hard to find from elswhere, we should bear in mind that the subject of the article has received death threats. --FormerIP (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I've put my edits back in. They removed some poorly sourced content, and some non-relevant content from the "Alleged sex offenses" section. If anyone feels strongly about the specific content removed, please feel free to add better sourcing, or put the content in the appropriate sections. I also rearranged the content to move similar/redundant content together. Ideally, we should be able to trim some of the redundancies out to be more direct, succinct, and conservative about reporting the tabloid like details. aprock (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at these individually I can't see an issue with removing these small details and they did seem to be in the wrong section anyways. Off2riorob (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Assange confirms he is "the founder" of WikiLeaks

I have seen some discussion on this page regarding whether Julian Assange is a "founder" of WIkiLeaks. In this CNN interview, (at 3.30), Assange refers to himself as "the founder" of WikiLeaks. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 06:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Swedish legal titles

In the current article Marianne Ny is called "a senior Swedish prosecutor". This is a bad translation according to the offical translation guide from the Swedish Prosecution Authority.

Chefsåklagare Eva Finné should be called Chief Public Prosecutor Eva Finné.

Överåklagare Marianne Ny should be called Director of Public Prosecution Marianne Ny. Senior Public Prosecutor is a much lower rank.

As the different titles come with different authorities and duties, it is important to get them right.Mbulle (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between "a senior Swedish prosector" and "Senior Public Prosecutor". Is she not a senior prosecutor in Sweden? That said, I have no objection to changing the wording in the article. DigitalC (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I changed the title to Director of Public Prosecution, see also "http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/". BTW, the investigation was not re-opened, it was never closed, just morphed through various stages but will leave "re-opened" for the time being.KathaLu (talk) 12:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

New Assange Interview on 'Today Show'

Assange among other things calls the sex allegations a "very successful smear campaign," Any objectionss to including any of what Assange has to say in that interview? [21] I prefer for any objections to the interview's content be raised here before I add any of it to the BLP. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything wrong with the source, but it's also not new. He's already made similar comments and the article includes "(Assange said the allegations) were an attempt at character assassination and smear campaign" with two cites. I don't think the article needs to keep track of occasions when people repeat things they have already said. --FormerIP (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Right about the quote, except now he's calling it "successful" which I'd say is maybe notable at least as an update. Just to be 100% sure, you're not saying nothing in the interview is new, are you? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The quote "this has been a very successful smear campaign so far" is notable. It is also notable that, Assange is personally confirming that, 1) "no evidence whatsoever" has been presented to him or the Court in relation to the alleged sexual offences , 2) he believes that the US federal government is constructing an "espionage indictment" against him, 3) "a gag order was attempted to be placed upon my Swedish attorney and the requested conditions upon my extradition to Sweden and my arrival in Sweden was that I would be held incommunicado", 4) Assange's reasons for not voluntarily returning to Sweden, 5) the fact that the charges against him were initially dropped with 24 hours, but were "subsequently pushed by a politician to another prosecutor", 6) Assange registered his name with authorities in the UK "in case there was any issue", 7) when there was an issue "we went in within 9 hours of being called", 8) "it is not the case that I or any other person should have to fly off to foreign States without the provision of any evidence whatsoever. That is simply not acceptable to me and it should not be acceptable to any person", 9) "As we have seen, WikiLeaks is a robust organisation" and the release of the cables continued during Assange's incarceration, 10) Confirmed that there are "250,000" cables, 11) confirmed that one of the cables describes the "systemic us of torture" by India in Kashmir, with around 1200 cases reported. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 22:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Note - User:Uncensored Kiwi appears to be a single purpose account in relation to Wikileaks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If you think there's a problem, you should bring it to ANI, otherwise mind WP:BITE. aprock (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Its a simple statement I am not taking it anywhere I am just noting it. Off2riorob (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I may also have been a bit hasty in assuming he was new here, so I apologize. aprock (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, please show respect for your fellow editors, per WP:AGF. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 23:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Its not disrespectful at all and includes good faith, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I was a casual anonymous user of Wikipaedia for a period of time. WikiLeaks was the dominant news story at the time I registered a username (around 2 weeks ago). If the news tomorrow becomes dominated by war breaking out between North and South Korea, most of my posts will inevitably be in relation to North and South Korea. Get the picture? Implying that my account is solely a vehicle for pushing a specific agenda in relations WikiLeaks (etc) is wrong, disrespectful and a clear violation of WP:AGF Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 23:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Well thanks for your detailed explanation, allegations of agendas is nothing to do with me. I am only in good faith saying under this account you are singularity associated with editing wikileaks , all in good faith, what is bad faith about that, nothing, it s just the view out of the edit history window. I happily accept your statement that you have been editing a diverse range of unassociated topics under IP addresses previous to your setting up this account. Off2riorob (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, for the record, I did very little (if any) editing as an anonymous IP. I was most a lurker (reader of articles), who made comments in talk pages. I continue to do very little editing of Wikipaedia articles. But, I admit to be fascinated by the saga surrounding the release of the US diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks and the counter-attack against Assange. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 00:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't take it to heart to much, Kiwi. I made the same sort of move as you a bit more than a year ago and got a sockpuppet notice on my page straight after my first edit (or pretty soon after - can't be bothered to look). So you're getting off lightly. --FormerIP (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

FormerIP, We should have knocked wood. User:Viriditas is now accusing me of being a sock puppet. There's always one who's a sandwich short of a picnic. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 22:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Mr.Grantevans2: I haven't seen the interview, so no I am not asserting that there was nothing new said in it overall. But it seems to me that his opinion that there is a smear against him is not new and it's already in the article. The variation of adding "successful" doesn't, I think, make it significantly different from what he has said previously and we should be judicious and conservative about what statements from Assange we do and don't include. Don't forget that a live TV interview is WP:PRIMARY material. I think in most cases it will be best for discussion here to come before insertion into the text. For example, he said on the BBC yesterday that the Swedish authorities were out of time on a request to provide his lawyers with details of the allegations against him. I find that a significant thing, but others may disagree and due to the current nature of the situation, those details may now have been provided and perhaps including his comments would be trivial. I think getting other editors' takes before insertion is the way to go (which, I recognise, is just what you are doing).--FormerIP (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we can itemize some of the things Assange said in the interview and discuss whether they belong in his BLP: I support the inclusion of these 5 aspects. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

1 - That he has been subjected to a very successful smear campaign.

Wherein 10% of the google searches for the word "rape" "going back to Helen of Troy" now produce his name.

Proposed: Assange told the Today Show that a "very successful smear campaign" was underway and claimed that google searches of the word "rape" now bring his name up in 10% of the results going "all the way back to Helen of Troy". Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

Are we supposed to take the "Helen of Troy" bit literally? I didn't think Google can search back that far? In any case, NPOV would probably be better expressed as 'Assange said on the Today Show that a "very successful smear campaign" was underway'. Given that there are already references to smear campaigns in the article, this doesn't add much. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This is basically already in the article. The addition of the word "successful" is not significant and it is not clear what it means. Is he saying that it has succeeded in convincing the general public that he is a sex offender? Or that Swedish prosecutors have launched a smear campaign in order to convince themselves of the merits of extradition? Or something else?

The Google reference is probably not accurate. Even if it is, it is irrelevant and misleading. Google searches are sophisticated and a three-word term getting 10% of the hits of a one-word term does not equal 10% of the references on the internet for the one word being related to the two word. A search for "rape" will not yield all pages containing the word and will be much more heavily biased towards recently updated pages and news sites than any three word term containing the word "rape". --FormerIP (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

2 - "no evidence whatsoever" has been presented to him or the Court in relation to the allegations

Comments:

This is actually a bit more interesting. It would be better still with another source to back it up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. However, because this is a current event, we need a source that this is a significant issue, not just a procedural blip. --FormerIP (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant, spin for the public, they don't have to provide Assange or his lawyers with any evidence before the UK court that decides on his extradition to Sweden. He is wanted for the purpose of conducting a criminal prosecution. Quote from the official English translation of the Swedish EAW Act from the Swedish government website: "A European arrest warrant, as referred to in this Act, is a judicial decision issued by a judicial authority in a Member State of the European Union, involving a request for the arrest and surrender, by a judicial authority in another such State, of a person who is requested for the purpose of conducting a criminal prosecution ... ".KathaLu (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps one can even qualify it as a blatant lie. Assange's UK lawyer, Mark Stephens, "has repeatedly complained that Assange has not been allowed to see the full allegations against him, but it is understood his Swedish defence team have copies of all the documents seen by the Guardian", "with the full details of the allegations of rape and sexual assault", see Guardian of 18 Dec. KathaLu (talk) 10:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

3 - he believes that the US federal government is building a secret indictment against him

Comments:

If this is not already referred to in the article it should be. However, it would be better coming from a secondary source (I have seen it in journalistic voice on the BBC website, for example). --FormerIP (talk) 03:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

4 - that he remained in Sweden for 40 days after the allegations were first made (when asked why he just doesn't voluntarily go back)

Comments:

Are we sure that this information isn't already in the article? --FormerIP (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

What a weasel answer, I am starting to lose respect (POV)! Assange was questioned about the alleged sexual offenses on 31 August. Not sure from which day he starts counting his 40 days but at the latest from this date.

• So, 40 days later is sometime in October. Then, according to Reuter:

• Nov. 18 - Swedish court orders his detention as a result of an investigation begun in September (!).

• Nov. 30 - His Swedish lawyer lodges appeal against arrest order with Sweden's High Court.

• Dec. 2 - Appeal refused.

• Dec. 7 - Assange is arrested by British police on a European warrant issued by Sweden.

Why did he not go back voluntarily when he was wanted for questioning again? He has never answered this question. Editors should be very careful and not become his spokespeople.KathaLu (talk) 08:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

5 - "a gag order was attempted to be placed upon my Swedish attorney and the requested conditions upon my extradition to Sweden and my arrival in Sweden was that I would be held incommunicado"

Comments:

Again, interesting if it can be verified with other sources (I think this was claimed somewhere before, but didn't seem to be properly sourced). AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Given that this is from a primary source we have insufficient information about what is meant by a "gagging order". This could refer to routine instructions of the type "without prejudice" etc or it could refer to specific injunctions served. We don't seem to know at this stage. --FormerIP (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

6I had never heard of the name Bradley Manning before it was published in the press

from [22] comment:

If that claim isn't already in the article then it should be. --FormerIP (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Why should it? Weasel talk. "I have never heard of his name" does not mean that I don't know a person or have not been in contact with him or her. You have probably never heard my name either (Hint: it isn't KathaLu). KathaLu (talk) 09:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Not necessarily weasel words, but not actually telling anyone much at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

7 - WikiLeaks technology (was) designed from the very beginning to make sure that we never know the identities or names of people submitting us material. 'That is, in the end, the only way that sources can be guaranteed that they remain anonymous.'

comment:

This is clearly relevant to the point raised above... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

8 - Asked outright if he had sex with these women against their will, he stated confidently: 'Absolutely not. And that is what I have stated, and what my counsel has stated, from the very beginning.'

comment:

Are we sure that Assange's denial is not already in the article? Or is the suggestion that the fact that the words may be in a different order in this case makes the statement significant? --FormerIP (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

9 - The risk we have always been concerned about is onward extradition to the United States and that seems to be increasingly serious and increasingly likely,' he said

comment:

Think this is probably appropriate for the article if it isn't already in there. --FormerIP (talk) 03:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

10 - It is not the case that I or any other person should have to fly off to foreign States without the provision of any evidence whatsoever. That is simply not acceptable to me

comment:

POV, don't include. The European Union is not a bunch of foreign states where you can think you are immune from the authorities if you travel out of state. If, as is the case here, a Swedish court orders his detention, if his Swedish lawyer appeals against the arrest order with Sweden's High Court, if this appeal is lost and Assange then demands that Swedish authorities come to him in London instead of him going to Sweden no-one should be surprised that he gets issued with an EU wide arrest order. Yes, they should make more use of video links in such cases but currently they don't. KathaLu (talk) 09:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

General comments on the above

I see no reason to discuss individual items separately. They are all statements made by Mr Assange, and without external sources, need no other treatment than what he, or anyone else, says elsewhere. It is in any case what is being suggested in relation to the article? Can I ask MrGrantevans to make a concrete proposal about the text he wishes to see added, rather than asking us to deal with abstractions? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

That sounds fair enough. But, however we deal with it, let's not have a complicated discussion attempting to deal with all of these comments by Assange in one go. Any suggested change to the article would need discussing independently of any other change. --FormerIP (talk) 02:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

to Andy, each Assange comment is quite short, so whatever text I propose can be quickly edited anyway. But I'll give it a go. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

ok I did the first proposal, I won't have any more time tonight though. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Can we either have sub-headings for individual claims or a specific proposal or proposals regarding new wording for the article. We can't possibly discuss nine separate issues to do with the article in one section. It just won't work. And please let's not be lame enough to edit war over talk page formatting. --FormerIP (talk) 03:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, since we now have comments added, I'm going to re-add the sub-headings. That's the only way to keep an ordered discussion going I think. --FormerIP (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

- None of this is worthy of inclusion at all, neither does each little valueless self comment from the subject need ts own section header, it ridiculous and nothing more than soapboxing on the talkpage. Assanges unsupported claims when they never had or have any reasonable chance of addition to the actual article. Can we get rid of them now, and simply number them or just archive the complete soapboxing section. Off2riorob (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest leaving them for now, in case they generate further comment. I don't think it is really wise to archive as 'soapboxing' without a strong consensus, particularly when others have responded. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Well there is no need for all the individual subsections, they are obtrusive, I have replaced them with numbers. We should not include a running commentary from the subject about his claims about his alleged crimes that have an upcoming trial. As in, I am completely innocent it was them that did this and those that did that, and it is the cia that are behind it all, yada yada. Those are all primary comments from someone about his claims of the guilt of others, we are not here to be used in that way. Off2riorob (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Inter-EU extradition does not require that a criminal offense is regarded as such in the extraditing country

I don't want to touch the article, I guess a lot can be cut out once it is known whether Assange will be extradited by the UK to Sweden or not. The time limit is 90 days from the time of arrest. Just want to emphasise again that there is not much point in discussing the "accusers" or the allegations in greatest detail at this point in time. The EAW system, under which the Assange case falls, is attractive to EU law enforcement as it abolishes the requirement, for a number of offences, that the alleged behaviour be recognised as criminal in both states, see Guardian of 17 Dec. IOW, it is not a requirement that an offense is regarded in the UK as a criminal offense. It is sufficient that it is regarded as a criminal offense in Sweden, and if so, Sweden can request the UK to extradite the person concerned. This is very different from extradition between countries that are not EU Member States. KathaLu (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that such details have no place in the Julian Assange article, (per the apparent consensus of the community). However, it has become abundantly clear that it will eventually be appropriate to have a separate article on the allegations, investigation, extradition process and any trial that takes place. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 14:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Cream of physics

I removed the quote "A year before, also at ANU, I represented my university at the Australian National Physics Competition. At the prize ceremony, the head of ANU physics, motioned to us and said, 'You are the cream of Australian physics'" from the References section because there is no need to put a large quote into a reference and because it is misleading as it implies that Assange took this as a compliment. The full text from Assange's blog entry actually says: "At the prize ceremony, the head of ANU physics, motioned to us and said, 'You are the cream of Australian physics'. I looked around, and thought, 'Christ Almighty, I hope he's wrong'" so Assange's opinion of his fellow students was obviously not high. Is it worth mentioning that he blogged about his participation in this event (section University Studies)? I realize that he was not brilliant at uni and this may be his only claim to academic fame ... I propose to delete it, too. KathaLu (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It's amazing how a little context changes everything. I suggest that, with its full context, the quote may also be interpreted as a self-deprecating remark by Assange. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 23:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

tagging

Tim has tagged the sex section as Pov, no explanation here but perhaps he will explain in a bit? Off2riorob (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Without speaking for Tim, I can say that the above BLP discussion illustrates many of the concerns with the section. I'm not sure if POV is quite the correct tag, but I'm not sure what one calls including excessive detail about the whole affair. It's not clear to me how to deal with the topic, but trimming it's length down from 500 words to 200-300 words and picking a less titillating title would be a good start. aprock (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Like what? Extradition request - The length and content in that section seems pretty compliant with policy to me, what content exactly do you have issue with and want removing.. Off2riorob (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, Off2riorob, at least regards POV. I think the section is pretty neutral. Bloat is a constant problem with this article, but that is something a lot of articles documenting current events can suffer from. --Kaini (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

In disagreement with aprock, I think the section is not long enough. I don't think the current section tells the "whole story"... The current section presents the case as a "normal" case of alleged sex crimes. That may be true. But there is significant discussion(as menstioned earlier in this talk page) of this being a politically motivated action. There is not discussion of that side of things here. Withholding that discussion makes this a very POV section. This has been an ongoing argument between you and me riorob, and your show if "ignorance" at my possition is rather disturbing... Perhaps you could explain why you think this section is not POV? The lack of controversy as described in the present form is the height of POV. Tim.thelion (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Please stop attacking me personally. I am not responsible for policy being against your desired additions and adding a silly template won't change that. Off2riorob (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes you are [responcible for the policy]. The cool thing about wikipedia, is that it has the ability to organically adapt and evolve. That it's capable of seeing reason. That people can get together and improve the article. If you want to follow your interpretation of the policy to the point where wikipedia is just some strange beurocratic machine than so be it. But it is YOU that is making that choice. I'm "anyone". You know that guy who can edit wikipedia and make it better. You're a wiki lawyer. You're not even trying to see my arguments, and the arguments of others on this talk page. You're just hiding behind your policy policy policy. So tell me, if I find WP:RS about the questions regarding motivations of the accusers can I use that in the article? Or should we simply trim this down into a one sided perfectly clean alleged rape case? Tim.thelion (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not particularly bothered about your starting to personally attack me, it won't help your case and if it continues it will earn you a report, so I suggest you ease up on the personal allegations, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

As it stands at the moment, the section is reporting the facts: that allegations have been made against Assange, and denied. As a result of these allegations, Assange has been arrested, and extradition is possible. Yes, there has been a great deal of speculation about the events being politically motivated, but this is just that, speculation. Where BLP's are involved, we need to be particularly careful about sticking with facts, and opening the article up to speculation is unlikely to result in 'balance', instead it would likely result in an unreadable mess of contrary edits. (and don't forget WP:NPA)AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing WP:BLP, it's clear that there are quite a few violations in the article. But as I noted below, there's not much point in getting into brass tacks at this point in time. In 2-6 months I'm sure things will be a bit more sedate and constructive edits will be more effective. aprock (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I would encourage you to be specific; there should never be BLP violations in an article, can't stress this enough. Kaini (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The most glaring problem is substandard sourcing in the use of foreign language sources (see WP:NONENG). Much better to let secondary/tertiary sources mis-translate than to have wikipedia editors doing it. aprock (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you point out some examples of BLP violations? I can't see any NPOV, NOR or V problems with the sexual allegation section myself. There is only one sentence ("An investigation continued with respect to a possible charge of harassment, as defined by local law.") based only on a foreign language reference, but this is relatively uncontentious, and can be verified from a google translation ("Previously, the chief prosecutor Eva Finné had regained its previous on-call prosecutor's suspicion of rape but said that allegations of harassment persists.") If you aren't satisfied with this, we can easily find a bilingual editor who is fluent in Swedish and English to check this over. SmartSE (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the foreign language refs per WP:BLP/WP:NOENG. As mentioned above, there's not much point in debating the details of the section at this point in time. aprock (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOENG does not prohibit foreign language references, and I'm not sure how you are reading it in a way that makes you think it does. Gigs (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree. Unless it is suspected that the information is not correct they should remain. I don't understand "there's not much point in debating the details of the section at this point in time" either. SmartSE (talk) 00:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:NOENG. Short and sweet: (1) NOENG policies were not followed (2) English sources exist (3) BLP sources are held to a higher standard. WRT to wasting my time and energy in a protracted discussion about constantly changing content, I'll refrain. aprock (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with AndyTheGrump: as it stands, the section only presents well-documented facts about the case. There is nothing non-neutral about it. Now a cleanup template might be more appropriate, but given the speed with which events in that section can change, any cleanup becomes a moot point 24 to 48 hours later. But again, no one can point (or at least has pointed) to any specific text from the section which should be reviewed or removed (or expanded beyond speculative reports), yet there's a continual debate regarding the section's neutrality. As I think AndyTheGrump has said previously, as long as this many people are claiming something is non-neutral from diverging perspectives, we're probably somewhere in the middle and somewhere close to neutrality. DKqwerty (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk about irony, I,was just thinking about putting the tag on myself when I noticed it. I support it 100%. Have any criminal charges been laid against Assange yet? WP:BLP policy is being swarmed over in an "Anna Nicole Smith Custody Battle" kind of way. Ideally, the allegations should not be mentioned at all, just the fact that he's wanted for questioning about 2 one night stands. But if the allegations about the Subject are spewed out, then so should the allegations about the Accusers. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The facts aren't that he is wanted for questioning about anything. The facts are that he has been arrested, detained, hauled up before a court, and released on bail in relation to allegations. Are you suggesting that none of this should be reported in Wikipedia? Allegations may be true or false, but the inside of a cell is a real place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying that in order to be adhering to BLP amd NPOV policy in relation to the sex allegations we have 2 choices;

1. We go with what Tim suggests above and bring in the "whole story"(see Tim's edit) , or else
2. Trim it right down to 1 sentence along the lines of what you just said:e.g. "In December, Assange was arrested, detained, and appeared in a British court in relation to allegations (about his sexual behaviour)made by two women,aged 26 and 31." I prefer the 1 sentence approach but Tim's suggestion is ok also; either way we would be much closer to reasonable NPOV/BLP compliance. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that your alleged only two choices is corect at all. Keep the tag if you like it, personally imo it is detrimental to the article. We have worked hard to keep the content fully compliant as possible with all policy and we are not going to stop now. We are not going to remove to a single sentence informative balanced content and we are not going to allow all the attacking speculation that originates in the biosphere and from politically motivated involve-es on both sides. Off2riorob (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

CommentI'm not sure who you mean by "'we' have worked hard and "we" are not going to remove and "We" are not going to allow" Because you respect WP policies, please keep Wikipedia:Ownership of articles in mind. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles#Ownership_and_stewardship --Errant ^(chat!) 15:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I had not seen/read that before. I must consider that aspect from now on. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Tagging is pointed and silly; support removal. The "other side" has been discussed extensively and entirely rejected as content at this stage for a number of reasons; that an editor disagrees with consensus is NOT rationale for a neutrality tag. The tag is to draw editors into conversing on the issue; we are already conversing, raise your points here and leave it at that. Tagging is meaningless and an attempt to undermine the current content --Errant ^(chat!) 13:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No. Please respect the tag which clearly states: "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." The dispute is not resolved. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Nah, tag was clearly added to push the idea to readers that the section was wrong or unbalanced. There is no need for it and keeping it is simply proving a point --Errant ^(chat!) 15:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Tim.thelion clearly states above the reason he placed the tag, and if he had not, I would have myself. I doubt you can read either of our minds, much less both. Its getting a bit weird when an established,respected and, in my opinion, very good Editor like yourself seems ready to ignore the specific wording on a tag and justify that ignoring by assuming bad faith by Editors who feel the tag is warranted. I won't be discussing the appropriateness of the tag(which you brought into this discussion) any longer. I'm just willing to discuss resolving the dispute. I think we can agree that there is a dispute. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk)

It's just misuse of the tag. It's not a tag for "a couple editors dispute this section", and then claim (when there is consensus against their views) it cannot be removed until said editors agree it can. Reading above.. the only issue here is an attempt by tim to push in the "other story" that there is already strong consensus against. :) --Errant ^(chat!) 17:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The Editor who placed the tag can speak for himself, but for me the tag should be there not because of an attempt to push in the other story, but rather because the section is simply not as neutral as it could and should be. There are many individual bits of content that are there which should not be, and many more which should be there and are being blocked out. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

And, so, we discuss those issues, which is what we are doing. The tag is not needed because there are active editors; the tag should not be used to suggest to readers that the section is unbalanced. Given clear consensus against the proposal below, against the inclusion of the tag above and given the fact that the tags aim (editors discussing issues on the talk page) has been achieved I am removing it. There seems no need for it to be there --Errant ^(chat!) 12:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You may be right that the tag could be removed. It would have been better if you had asked Tim or at least left your comment here for awhile before removing it. I am not kidding when I say that maybe you should try to get the wording on the tag changed to what you think it should say; "do not remove until discussionhas taken place". You are grossly misrepresenting the tag's aim both literally and figuratively. It degrades the value of words on the tags when respected Editors like you ignore those words. It's weird and combative. The words you ignore are "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved". Hopefully you don't imagine yourself to be allowed to unilaterally decide when that has occurred. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for resolving dispute

Since the Subject has not been charged with anything at all, I propose we reduce the sex section to 1 sentence; something like: ""In December, Assange was arrested, detained, and appeared in a British court in relation to allegations (about his sexual behaviour)made by two women,aged 26 and 31." Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Support reasoning as outlined in the tagging section above. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that adequately addresses the topic or is fairly representative (he was not, for example, detained in the UK in relation to the allegations but on an extradition warrant to be questioned in relation to them - these are important distinction). It also fails to concede the significance of the legal proceedings against the relative current insignificance of uncharged allegations. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the words"in relation to" covers the warrant, but you are free to reword it if you wish. We are not supposed to be conceding significance of the proceedings,that's OR and pov. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose I think this would create a serious WP:WEIGHT problem - the fact that so many sources have discussed it means that the article should reflect this. SmartSE (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
This is just a repeat of the last failed attempt to either remove or massively expand the section. Starting another vote is tiresome. Off2riorob (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
So pretty much WP:NOTAGAIN? ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄ ⒽⒶⓃ② 17:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose SmartSE has already covered the weight problem so I'll move on. The sex allegations are a serious part of what he is known for, just as a starting point. The fact of the matter is this, the section is only as biased as the present facts allow. Based on these facts, a section was written and properly cited as such. Certain statements have been made that the allegations are politically motivated both by Assange, his attorney, and various supporting groups around the world. These are facts undisputable facts have been properly cited and reliably sourced. Whether or not the allegations are politically motivated is another matter which is not for us to try to figure out. This is an encyclopedia which practices a habit of not censoring materials because some might find them unsuitable. The facts are what the facts are, and the facts are as have been described in the article in their present form. Frankly, consensus above in the previous section seems to be opposed to such a "resolution" as well. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄ ⒽⒶⓃ② 17:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTAGAIN is a non sequitur.The previous votes were about naming the accusers and/or including accusations against the Accusers. This vote is about boiling down the sex related events to 1 or 2 sentences. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was just trying to get an idea of where they were going with that statement, nothing more. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄ ⒽⒶⓃ② 19:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Suggested change does a disservice to readers who want to know about the article's topic, the sex charges included. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose per Evilgohan. Note too that other editors are arguing we should include more detail about the allegations (see Talk:Julian_Assange#On_WP:BLP below). AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

CIA

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/18/wikileaks Let's discuss the above article. The above article shows that Adrian Lamo and Kevin of Wired magazine are potential CIA agents.

Direct copy of entire article deleted by AndyTheGrump, as gross breach of copyright: see Wikipedia:Copyright problems

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Omega153 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

NOTE. I have deleted the article copied into Omega153's comment above, as a clear breach of copyright. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

As Rob has said; this was discussed in various ways and rejected. It is almost entirely speculation and there is no real significance in such speculation at this stage. There is acres of speculation about this case; for which WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOT#NEWS councils us. However; feel free to make another case for it here... --Errant ^(chat!) 14:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion is the only way we are going to keep this article unlocked and available for editing. Users that attempt to override consensus by stuffing in their desired additions when they know there are good faith policy explained objections to them are simply increasing the risk that the article will get administrative action and end up locked to editing. Off2riorob (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is the well referenced material that was removed for no apparent reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julian_Assange&diff=402860510&oldid=402860290.

"Some observers believe that the sex charges against Assange may have been fabricated as part of a Central Intelligence Agency plot to either discredit Assange or to extradite him to the U.S. to face espionage charges."

http://www.slate.com/id/2277407/

http://daily.bhaskar.com/article/the-honeytrap-that-snared-assange-1634136.html?PRV=

http://www.thenation.com/article/157127/swedish-state-trial-assange-case

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336291/Wikileaks-Julian-Assanges-2-night-stands-spark-worldwide-hunt.html#ixzz17RpxuchA

This differs substantially from the edit discussed above. WP:NPOV insists that all reliable sourced points of view be represented in articles. If the last deletion is not reverted, or if you don't come up with an actual reason for the deletion, my next step is to treat this as an act of vandalism and take it to a noticeboard. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't differ substantially at all from the previous rejected addition. Its just a worthless tabloid style conspiracy theory, as Errantx so rightly says, it fails the requirements for inclusion in this BLP on most levels. Some observers? Who are these people?, what evidence is there for this? ? may have been yea right, CIA conspiracy, what valueless twaddle. Off2riorob (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Ghostofnemo, I suggest you read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You made an edit. It was reverted. At that point, you should have come here to the talk page to discuss this. That is Wikipedia policy. Edit-warring isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV insists that all reliable sourced points of view be represented in articles, nope. It requires all significant points of view are represented (it insists nothing). As to the sources..

The dailymail source suggests that once in Sweden he could be extradited to the US but makes absolutely no link to it being a conspiracy or plot to do so
The Nation is even worse. Pretty speculative it barely makes a link to the CIA, and there is no obvious reliability to it's conclusion.
the Bhaskar article makes no link to the CIA and appears sourced to the Dailymail article. It calls it a honeypot exercise, fine, but doesn't expand on that in any meaningful way.
The Slate article is mostly about what a honey trap is and only touches Assange in the first paragraph. While it does clearly state But some Assange defenders are suggesting that the 39-year-old Australian is the victim of government-sponsored seduction, known as a "honey trap." it a) does not mention the CIA, b) is very vague as to who is claiming this and c) doesn't really make any other meaningful comment about the proriety of such a rumor.

Conflating the above into a statement that some people think this is a CIA plot is... dubious at best. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

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. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." Not optional. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleting relevant, reliably sourced, NPOV material is a misuse of BRD. This is also from WP:NPOV: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage." Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Its not relevant and its not even sourced very well.....and someone said it was all a CIA conspiracy, and they all lived happily ever after. - This is a wikipedia BLP not a childrens story. Off2riorob (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm well aware of that and the wording. Key words are significant and published by reliable sources. As I demonstrated above the sentence you added is not reliably sourced. Feel free to address those issues. However you need to demonstrate this is a significant viewpoint with foundation --Errant ^(chat!) 14:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)But ErrantX has just explained why the edit you added was not representative of what sources say, so it doesn't belong. I'm sure that other sources have said extremely different things about Assange, assuming he is guilty, but they do not belong here, in the same way as those you used do not. (You may also want to review WP:VANDALISM, since Off2riorob's removal could never be considered vandalism, since it was made in good faith). SmartSE (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 9999)As to your other point; it wasn't removed for neutrality reasons. But for issues of significance and very poor sourcing, and possibly synth issues. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

We need a little common sense here. I dare say most people think that Assange was set up in some kind of plot, though not all would necessarily assume the CIA was involved per se. Wikipedia needs to cover the world as it is, and that means covering the "conspiracy theory". It may well be that the sourcing can be improved, but deleting passages is not helpful to this end. Wnt (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)But the burden is on the contributor to provide sources to back up what they add to a controversial article like this, in this case they didn't, so removing it is totally reasonable. SmartSE (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

More sources, with quotes: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/wikileaks-julian-assange-faces-sex-charges-over-one-night-stands/story-e6frf7lf-1225967535427 Swedish law considers unprotected sex as rape but Swedish sources have doubted the credibility of the women, who many people believe set up a "honey trap" for the Australian activist. However, there are reports that one of Mr Assange's accuser worked with a group that has connections to the CIA. According to US website the Raw Story, the woman may have had "ties to the US-financed anti-Castro and anti-communist groups". It is reported that the group is led by Carlos Alberto Montaner, who is allegedly linked to the CIA.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/elvis-of-the-internet-is-one-cool-dude-in-court/story-fn775xjq-1225967892481 Others claim it is all a sting, a set-up orchestrated by the CIA or some other shadowy group to destroy the man at the heart of WikiLeaks.

http://www.neontommy.com/news/2010/12/julian-assange-significance-and-future-case-against-him Second, there's allegations that his accusers may have ties to the CIA and this whole arrest thing was a set-up to lure Assange into custody.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/07/rape-claims-julian-assange This has led to widespread allegations that the woman is a CIA agent, planted as a honeytrap to bring down Assange. One blogger notes: "[Assange] just happens to meet a Swedish woman who just happens to have been publishing her work in a well-funded anti-Castro group that just happens to have links with a group led by a man at least one journalist describes as an agent of the CIA: the violent secret arm of America's foreign policy. Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

- Its all pure titillation, bring down Assange and honeytrap and set up- the woman may have had "ties to yada yada. I realize conspiracy theories is one of your interests but please consider moving along, attempting to turn this into a titilating conspiracy theory on the back of bloggers speculation, its a waste of everyones time. Off2riorob (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not really our position to judge the merits of the theory though, don't get me wrong, I don't think that we should try to make the case, but I see no harm in mentioning that such concerns have been reported as floating around.

The Slate (magazine) article was written by Chris Beam, a journalist with atleast 130+ articles, most of which are about politics.
The Nation article was written by former US Senator Tom Hayden.
The Daily Mail article written by Richard Pendlebury while in Stockholm, is cited by other news outlets [23][24]

I agree that there are attribution problems, how about:

Conflicting actions by Swedens prosecutors sparked concerns that "someone is pushing Sweden"[25], a number of media outlets reported of concerns of political motivation in seeking extradition for a crime which carries a 5,0000 Swedish Kronor fine, equivalent to 715 USD. [26][27][28][29]

What do you guys reckon? u n☯mi 15:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

What is your desired addition? Is that is I bolded, why does a single line require five external links to support it? Who is concerned? Who is pushing Sweden and where is Sweden being pushed? reports of concerns - who is concerned? Who are these media outlets? Its complete pie in the sky. What is this crime that carries this fine? Is that the maximum penalty, has he been charged with this crime? Off2riorob (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion is that we note that news outlets have carried reports of people voicing such concerns, we attribute the reporting of it, not the concerns themselves as the news outlets have themselves refrained from doing so as near as I can see - apart from the report of Assange's lawyer calling it a "Political stunt". As for which crime it is and whether it is the maximum fine, I suggest that you click on some of those numbers interspersed in the text for elucidation. The number of sources sustain the "a number of media outlets". I don't consider my suggestion as final for inclusion, simply a step in collaborative talk page interaction, feel free to offer changes or a novel wording. u n☯mi 16:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Unomi, I suggest you read what Errant has already written on the sources you cite above. Regarding the general theme, this at best amounts to nothing more than statements that persons unknown have made vague allegations about a possible honeytrap that may possibly have been set up by the CIA. Personally, I'd not be surprised to find the sticky fingers of the CIA involved somewhere in the whole WikiLeaks affair, but I'd like to at minimum to see a direct quote from someone actually making a specific allegation before I start giving fluff like this serious consideration. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is what it amounts to, and that is exactly what the sources are supporting mention of. u n☯mi 16:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

So what text do you wish to see added to the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I just found that I am unlikely to find the time to see the discussion through, consider my participation withdrawn for the moment :) u n☯mi 16:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

That's unfortunate, I think u n☯ makes a lot of sense. I ditto what he says above. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with the text that was deleted? Now we've got eight sources: "Some observers believe that the sex charges against Assange may have been fabricated as part of a Central Intelligence Agency plot to either discredit Assange or to extradite him to the U.S. to face espionage charges." Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you were contacted about this desired addition on your talkpage by an administrator, have we got to continue wasting time with it. Off2riorob (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe I was contacted in any official capacity. I've invited someone who left a very vague message on my talk page to join this discussion. Really don't want this in the article do you? What is your argument now? It's a fact that the press is discussing it, as you can see by the sources above. The article isn't NPOV if we exclude it. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not arguing, its clearly already been rejected. I think it is clearly best not to include conspiracy twaddle, especially in WP:BLP articles. I can read such rubbish at other low-brow locations. Off2riorob (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Off2riorob, per BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL. --John (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I find it rather surprising that you are quoting BLP when the people who you claim to be protecting aren't mentioned by name in the article, but that Assange, who is the topic of the article, is being denied the chance to have balancing, exculpatory material included; that you are quoting NPOV when it's NPOV that insists that different points of view be included in controversial articles; and quoting WEASEL when the allegations are laid out in several reliable sources. Instead of "some observers" we could provide a list of the sources who are reporting this. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

sequence of events

Did US Army Counterintelligence propose to discredit Wikileaks through the use of bogus criminal charges? Was Assange granted permission to leave Sweden? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viralmeme (talk • contribs) 17:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, new talk sections go on the end of the page, not at the top.

And secondly, if you want things discussed, please do it in a civil manner, rather than implying censorship (as your earlier section title did). And please provide sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

As to whether Assange was granted permission to leave Sweden: I left Viralmeme's verbatim extract from Mark Stephen's press release of 18 November 2010 in the text althought I am doubtful that it accurately reflects the fact, in view of what has been published since then, and in particular in recent days. I personally find your addition redundant. Because the facts matter and they are: they wanted to interview him in October, he did not come, they issued an arrest warrant to make him come. KathaLu (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

POV: I can't find anything on it and doubt that anyone cares but I do not think that you need permission to travel from one country to another within the European Union if there is no arrest warrant or other legal impediment. We have freedom of movement and a prosecutor cannot simply stop you from travelling KathaLu (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Just checked it again, he flew from Stockholm to Berlin in September. There are no border controls between Germany and Sweden (both belong to the Schengen area). This permission thing, that the lawyer plays up, is no big deal. Since he had applied for a residence permit in Sweden which was later denied the police was perhaps in no hurry to interview him, it's not as if it was a major criminal case. Claes Borgström says "they were just too slow". I cannot see any dark forces at work here. KathaLu (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Release of Cables sections not NPOV

H aving a fresh look at the BLP, the setions covering the releas of the cables are grossly non-NPOV in Weight and content. We have an entire section on criticsm, none on support or praise for the releas. The primary section has 3 paragraphs, the top 2 are critical of the releas. Due to the extreme difficulty, in my opinion, of correcting or adding content positive to the Subject, I will place a tag only on the first section dealing with the cables. The 2 cable sections, coupled with the Sex allegations section ommitting all of the RS info questioning the intent and credibility of the Accusers, at this moment make the entire BLP in need of a NPOV tag. I hope we can quickly balance out the cable release sections and get this tag off. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

What? You want to add all all the speculation and spuroius claims that the accusers are with mal intent and that they are not credable people, I am sorry but you can add twenty templates and we will never add that BLP violating rubbish'. Off2riorob (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably the more appropriate thing to do is to remove most of the content and instead summaries the main article as it relates to Assange. aprock (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Aprock's suggestion, particularly since we have a main article on the diplomatic cables. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can agree some of that content could be removed, we have other article about it and it seems undue to have as much content as we presently have in his life story here, any specifics, I though the criticism section could go and perhaps a comment from it merged into the main section and perhaps a little more trim? any specifics? Off2riorob (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to sign off now, but if the criticism goes and the ratio in the main section could stay the same(slightly negative toward Assange) that would work, I think. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

ok, I think Off2riorob and I agree that the diplomatic cable criticism section can go since we have the diplomatic cable article. I will remove it, If anyone feels any of this must be in this BLP, please put it in the main section. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Assuming this works, I will remove the tag myself in little bit. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have no objections, that material is not about his personal life and is either already duplicated elsewhere or belongs in one of the more specific wikileaks articles. Off2riorob (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

ok I'm removing the tag. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

A recent revert (diff) removed a large chunk of this section. I've reverted for now, but looking at the section, I don't think the sentence starting "In a Time interview conducted after the release of the cables, Richard Stengel asked Assange whether Hillary Clinton should resign..." really belongs in there. I think that Assange's views are more on Clinton than on the cable release. What do others think? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

And further to that, the later remarks by Assange about US ambassadors being told to engage in espionage seems unnecessary too. (and somewhat naive, at that, given that this sort of thing has been going on for centuries...). AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Right, I just re-read it and its really just Assange hypothesizing. I agree that the entire sentence about Clinton can come out. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Any comments on the "espionage" sentence? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

As nobody has suggested otherwise, I've now removed Assange's comments on Clinton. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it looks like really good NPOV now. I think its good to leave the last quote by assange because his comment about "gradual shift to a lack of law" is kindof a new allegation and it is tied to his espionage comment; plus, there is very little content in the section from Assange himself, so, especially in light of removing Assange's comments on Clinton, I'd leave that sentence beginning with "Assange told London reporters" in there. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

disputed addition

This is being adding (the bolded addition), IMO it is simple accusatory claim by Assange against living people that he is accused of charges against. We should not be adding these specific legal claims from Assange attacking the people that are involved in the coming court case. We already have the simple claim from Assange that he is being set up and that he disputes the claims, that is imo as much as we need to report, the specific claims are taking us into very dubious territory, I have removed it twice but a user is asserting I need consensus to remove it. Off2riorob (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Assange has said that the accusation against him is a "set-up" arranged by the enemies of WikiLeaks. In an interview with ABC news Assange suggested that text messages allegedly sent between the accusers provided proof of this.

- http://abcnews.go.com/International/assange-speaks-sex-charges-tabloid-crap/story?id=12420465

- http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2010/12/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-i-was-set-up.html

If the user can come up with an additional sentence defending the accusers than it should stay. If not, it's not balanced... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim.thelion (talk • contribs) 00:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, Off2riorob, though we are only attributing words to him, not suggesting there is any truth to them. One could suggest that Assange just making general claims about a "set up" gives him less credibility than him suggesting he has evidence for this. On that basis, I feel we should probably leave this in, though perhaps reworded slightly, as Tim.thelion suggests. I'm sure readers can make up their own minds about whether the words of an accused person are always credible, and as to whether he may in fact be entitled to be suspicious. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Tim appears to be saying - that the two women are unable to defend themselves as they are unable to comment and therefore we should not include such specific allegations against them from Assange as its unbalanced. Off2riorob (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I've just seen this Guardian article which includes the following:

Assange's Swedish lawyers have since suggested that Miss W's text messages – which the Guardian has not seen – show that she was thinking of contacting Expressen and that one of her friends told her she should get money for her story. However, police statements by the friend offer a more innocent explanation: they say these text messages were exchanged several days after the women had made their complaint. They followed an inquiry from a foreign newspaper and were meant jokingly, the friend stated to police.

Perhaps the '...several days after the women had made their complaint' part may be relevant here? THe Guardian article is likely to create more attention to this particular subject, so we may expect further contoversy here too (as always...)AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No one but Assange has seen these claimed text messages. Off2riorob (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I doubt that Assange has seen them. From what the Guardian says, the police may well have, and the dispute is about when they were sent, and what they contained. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't support adding the content from the guardian at all, after reading it there is nothing at all to suggest what they have seen is official at all, no one is named and whatever they have seen could be from anywhere and none of the details from that article belong in this BLP. I don't support adding attacking claims (and claims they broke the law) against these two women when they are unable to defend themselves by virtue of being able to comment prior to the trial - We have the basic detail and I am sure that is plenty in line witrh BLP. Does anyone support adding all the citable details of Assanges attacks on these two women? Or are the simple allegations enough? Answering my own Q, the simple claims are plenty. Off2riorob (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian states that this is from "police material held in Stockholm to which the Guardian received unauthorised access". Last time I looked, The Guardian was considered WP:RS, and if it isn't, we are going to do a lot of editing of this article... In any case, I am suggesting that the Guardian article actually indicates that the text messages Assange refers to may have had an innocent explanation - that they were sent after the women went to the police, and therefore couldn't be indicative of a "set up". AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Rob that we have to keep quiet on these particulars until the trial or after, at least. It's ok to speak in generalities (he says he didn't do it, that it's a smear, that he has proof, etc.) but we shouldn't be detailing the claims more than that. We're not news, not speculators, not legal commentators. We're just summarizing Assange's claims without getting tangled in the actual case, which will have to wait for some time to resolve. Ocaasi (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Careful here. We obviously have to report that he was accused, but if we let his accusers speak while rendering him silent, we've just tossed WP:BLP and WP:NPOV out the window. Dylan Flaherty 01:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Rob and Ocaasi. Dylan, his "accusers" have not uttered a word for about three months, their lawyer has also hardly spoken since then, at least it does not get published in our media. Assange, his supporters and his lawyers are giving interviews and doing all the talking, and that's why there are continuous attempts to put more of their side into the article. KathaLu (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, of course Assange should speak, too, but just like we shouldn't detail every aspect of the allegations and accusations made against him, we also shouldn't detail his entire defense. Claims and denial of claims, charges and dismissal of charges, allegations and characterization as a smear -- we have both sides, just not too much detail about either. Also, to the extent it applies in a case of this magnitude and publicity, BLP encourages us to limit expose to those who have been injured, so as not to make their situation worse. That's obviously contentious at the charges stage of things, and moreso in a sexual case, but we still need to somewhat cautious on both sides. While the women haven't been speaking lately, they do have the State to speak for them (or against Assange), and we do need to allow Assange to defend himself. But we're not the soapbox for his lawyers counter-strategy either. Ocaasi (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree completely. BLP takes priority here. Serious claims as to the character or motives of anyone involved in this case need extremely strong sourcing for us to report them. Comments or reported comments from people who have an (arguably legitimate, don't get me wrong) interest in engaging in smears do not cut it. If the alleged texts become a story in their own right of if we have neutral commentary from journalists who have seen them with their own eyes, then that may change things. --FormerIP (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's correct to say that "Assange and his lawyers are doing all the talking", given the media frenzy all around. Still, I can see the arguments for keeping specific references to why Assange thinks he has proof of a "set up", though I do think he should at least be able to say he thinks he has it. As always, this is a judgement call. And maybe I've been trying to stay on top of this for too long. Perhaps I should involve myself in something less controversial for a bit... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with that (not the 'go do something else' part). We should be able to say he thinks it's a setup or that he says he has proof. But we shouldn't go into much detail. A link to the Guardian article in our refs is plenty. We're still an encyclopedia, not a legal digest, conspiracy board, or crime blotter. Ocaasi (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL, Andy. Agree that he can voice his conviction that it's a setup. But then also let others say that he seems a bit obsessed by this idea and is not quite truthful. Fresh from the NY Time of 19 Dec: "Mr. Borgstrom (the women's lawyer) said Mr. Assange’s statement that he has 'heard no evidence whatsoever' to support the allegations was false, since the contents of the police report were made available to his Swedish lawyers weeks ago. By presenting the case as a vendetta, he said, Mr. Assange and his legal team were misrepresenting a justice system that required approval from Sweden’s highest appeal court before the extradition warrant was approved" and "Mr. Assange has told friends in Britain he decided not to return after concluding that the Swedish case was being driven by a desire to isolate and punish him for WikiLeaks’ actions in publishing the secret American documents". KathaLu (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

- Thanks for the comments, I think there is a weight of support that we need to take care with including this type of content and that WP:BLP does apply in regards to conservative reporting and whilst we have the basic I am innocent claims all the fine details are presently not for reporting here - please remember, the trial and charges are close to crystal ball at the moment. The content got removed in an edit and has not been replaced and as I see it there is consensus not to include it, many thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 2:15 am, Today (UTC+0)

AndyTheGrump, hope you stick around here and Off2riorob, you started a good discussion and got a good consensus; so be it. I'm still not convinced we'll be eventually getting the court trial where both sides will present all their evidence for public viewing and an official court judgment will be rendered. Let's hope we do. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Appreciated, and agreed, stay around Andy - in regards to the trial I have my hat here waiting for eating. I know there are disputes as to content but I want to thank everyone for staying cool and working with discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 02:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, guys. I'll maybe take it easy for a day or too, but I may pounce unexpectedly... Personally, if I was looking for facts, I'd not hang around long in a court of law, but maybe once the legal rituals are over we may be able to get a little closer to 'the truth', whatever that is. Meanwhile, I think the best approach is to keep in mind that (a) we are writing an online encyclopaedia, not a newspaper, and (b) even with the viewing figures this article gets, we really don't matter that much, so we shouldn't get over involved.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for the part where my objections are addressed. Court or not, people read this article and come to an initial conclusion, however unfairly. It is our obligation to let the facts speak for themselves instead of substituting our judgments. The way to do this is to speak the facts without editorializing. Cutting out the "fine details" to leave a bare "I am innocent" would be a distortion of precisely the sort that WP:BLP forbids. Dylan Flaherty 03:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

People don't read our article and come to a conclusion about the subject, our articles are considered a good starting point for further investigation. Off2riorob (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, I switched out that he 'intends to clear his name', which was already implied by denial of the allegations, and put in sourced that he claims the charges are 'politically motivated'. I think that gives all the balance we can without getting into a labyrinth of evidence and counter-claims. Ocaasi (talk) 05:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I noticed, and it's an improvement. We may need to go further, but thanks for doing this now. Dylan Flaherty 05:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Facts don't speak for themselves here. We make decisions about which to include, which to exclude and how to present them. --FormerIP (talk) 05:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

One option is naming the charges, in English as close to the original Swedish as possible, and saying that Assange denies them, that he says it was consensual sex all the time, with a dispute about broken condoms. Another option is mentioning more or all the details but then from both sides and with spin from both sides. If you want to add the text or twitter messages sent by the women after they had been to the police then you need to say that the Assange side claims that they show the women were in for the money while the women say it was just banter. If you say it was probably a honey trap you need to balance it by saying it was probably a love triangle. Today's news is that "Assange's refusal to test for HIV led to charges" which is balanced by an Assange claim that dark forces made it happen. And so on and so on.

The section on the legal case, as it is now, is lopsided, to the disadvantage of the Swedish party. Assange's lawyers have the qualifying tag "human rights lawyers" in front of their names, while the women's lawyer has the label "a politician" added to his name. The proceedings initiated by the Swedes are tainted by the association with "show trial", "highly irregular", "unusual". Yes, it was said by someone and can be found in a reputable source, I know. KathaLu (talk) 11:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

At this stage the charges are of only incidental interest; if we could reasonably avoid mentioning them, we should. The significance is the fact he now faces extradition and the media frenzy. Content about the charges & denials should be kept to the minimum per our usual approach until such a time as it is much clearer and more relevant. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I have added the charges, as they are worded by the Swedish in their own translation of their Penal Code. I hope it does not get deleted. KathaLu (talk) 10:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

POV: He will be extradited, questioned and that is the end of it. His lawyer Mark Stephens, of all people, said recently http://www.insitelawmagazine.com/charonpodcast173.mp3 that the Swedish Prosecutor said in October she expects Assange to be questioned and then the case is closed! In the same interview he wrongly claimed that the women's Swedish lawyer Borgström is a politician and minister in the current right wing Swedish government, while he is in fact a member of the left wing Social Democrats who are in opposition. Borgström is known as a "radical feminist". In an interview with David Frost, the Swedish foreign minister said that this case is driven by a Swedish lawyer who is very much on the left. It is not true that Assange was not told anything about the charges. In recent interview with ABC, the reporter said he had been in the court room all the time and heard what was said. He tried to raise the issue of Assange forcefully opening the woman's legs (sorry to have to go into details) and Assange walked away and called him "Tabloid Schmuck". My point is that you have to keep this in mind when you make selections about what to include. If there is a political agenda, it is a Swedish agenda on gender equality. Do not buy into everything Assange and his lawyers say. KathaLu (talk) 10:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)