Talk:Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

https://gaiasoul.com/2017/03/17/wanderingbillyboy-deleted-himself-from-the-internet/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.140.201.154 (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Exact charges[edit]

At this source:[1], I saw the charges described as "Mr Assange did not immediately inform the complainants that a condom had split or that he was not wearing a condom". I included this information in the article, but this was reverted by User:AndyTheGrump for the reason "Not the only 'misconduct' alleged". So what are the other misconducts alleged and what are the sources?--Jules.LT (talk) 12:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The source you provide is clearly labelled "WikiLeaks: statement in full", a statement from an involved party, and as such cannot be taken as authoritative. As to the other issues of misconduct, I will have to find the sources, though they were provided in earlier versions of this article. It is possible that some of these alleged issues of misconduct may not necessarily come to trial, but it is simply false to state that they were not 'alleged'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Just give more details and source them, otherwise the only detailed account is the one fromn the Telegraph. --Jules.LT (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
The extend to which we go into detail about the allegations has already been debated extensively (see above, and in the archives). The Telegraph account is totally unsuitable as a source for anything but the opinions of its providers, so if you want the article to go into more detail about the specifics of the allegations, I suggest that you find proper sources, and then explain on this talk page why you think our earlier decision to cut the article back to the reportable facts, rather than speculation and spin, needs revision. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
The four allegation are set out in the European arrest warrant (I have repeatedly posted a link to it, don't know whether it is still there or has been removed) and they are also described in more detail in the extradition ruling (read from "There are four allegations as set out in box (e) of the warrant"). The full text of the extradition ruling can be found when you follow the external link at the end of the article. KathaLu (talk) 10:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Also, it might be helpful to remind the editor above that Sweden hasn't really decided what they are going to charge Assange with, and their legal system works differently than the English/British system. -- Avanu (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Good to remind editors of the fact that this case is determined by Swedish law, EU law and UK law - NOT by a combination of US/AUS/UK law, as illustrated by this quote from the excellent report on the extradition appeal hearing by Robert Booth in the Guardian: "Among other things, the judges are being taken on a tour of variation in criminal procedure in the EU and in particular when a charge is firm enough for a warrant to apply; how different states use different authorities to press charges; and language, for example whether suspicion, accused and other terms mean the same thing in different languages in different systems. The complexity of all this is a feature of EU law, it seems: the clash and confusion with member states' different systems when the intent of a single EU system was to simplify. Even the judges seem to be feeling overwhelmed by the range of variation between say Belgium, France and Germany. So it is no surprise that Assange's destiny is becoming no more clear as the case winds on". See Guardian.KathaLu (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The allegations are detailed in article (sourced in the page) as:

The two go out for dinner, return to the apartment and have sex during which a condom breaks. She would later tell police that Assange used his body weight to hold her down during sex and that she was a victim of "unlawful coercion."

and

Miss W later tells police that Assange that morning had unprotected sex with her while she was still asleep.

Is that sourced enough to be in the article? --Jules.LT (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe the police report is this one. Is something like this usable as reference? Key paragraphs:

They sat on the bed and talked, and he took off her clothes again. They had sex again and she suddenly discovered that he had placed the condom only over the head of his penis; but she let it be. They dozed off and she awoke and felt him penetrating her. She immediately asked, “Are you wearing anything?”, to which he replied, “You”. She said to him: “You better don’t have HIV”, and he replied, “Of course not”. “She felt that it was too late. He was already inside her and she let him continue. She didn’t have the energy to tell him one more time. She had gone on and on about condoms all night long. She has never had unprotected sex before. He said he wanted to come inside her; he did not say when he did, but he did it. A lot ran out of her afterward.
...
After a moment, Assange asked Anna what she was doing and why she was squeezing her legs together. Anna then told him that she wanted him to wear a condom before he came in her. At that, Assange released Anna’s arms and put on a condom that Anna fetched for him. Anna sensed a strong unspoken reluctance by Assange to use a condom, as a result of which she had a feeling that he had not put on the condom that he had been given. She therefore reached down her hand to Assange's penis in order to ensure that he had really put on the condom. She felt that the rim of the condom was where it should be, at the base of Assange's penis. Anna and Assange resumed having sex and Anna says that she thought that she “just wanted to get it over with”.
After a short while, Anna notes that Assange withdraws from her and begins to adjust the condom. Judging from the sound, according to Anna, it seemed that Assange removed the condom. He entered her again and continued the copulation. Anna once again handled his penis and, as before, felt the rim of the condom at the base of the penis; she therefore let him continue.
Shortly thereafter, Assange ejaculated inside her and then withdrew. When Assange removed the condom from his penis, Anna saw that it did not contain any semen. When Anna began to move her body she noticed that something “ran” out of her vagina. Anna understood rather quickly that it must be Assange's semen. She pointed this out to Assange, but he denied it and replied that it was only her own wetness. Anna is convinced that when he withdrew from her the first time, Assange deliberately broke the condom at its tip and then continued copulating to ejaculation. To my question Anna replies she did not look closely at the condom in order to see if it was broken in the way that she suspected; but she believes that she still has the condom at home and will check to see. She also states that the bed sheets used on this occasion are still lying unwashed in her hamper.

Surely, the greatest crime in Sweden's history. Jhs 3345 (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


The allegations are (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-judgment.pdf pages 2-3):

  • Unlawful coercion "Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party's arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting."
  • Sexual molestation "Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge."
  • Sexual molestation "Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body."
  • Rape "Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state. It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party's sexual integrity."

83.254.161.146 (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Actual claims[edit]

The actual claims of "misconduct", brought by these women, need to be in the article. I see that someone above attempted to do just this, and more, but was reverted and perhaps gave up. It is an eyesore for the article to not have this information in it. Hopefully someone with more time than I have can rectify this. Willyfreddy (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, wtf? I'm going to root around in the article history for something to be restored. causa sui (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

A useful source: [2] causa sui (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You got it quite wrong, of course: the actual claims in THIS case, heard in the UK, where Assange lost his appeal on four counts today, are about the issue of warrant by the Swedish authority, double criminality, proportionality and whether the alleged conduct is an offense. KathaLu (talk) 10:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Article Title[edit]

I believe the article title "Swedish Judicial Authority v Julian Assange" does not satisfy naming conventions and can be improved to something like "Julian Assange Court Case 2011" or something similar. --Farzaneh (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The article name has been discussed previously (see archives). AS far as I'm aware the 'X v Y' convention is usual for articles of this type. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Was the fact that the distinction between a "Judicial" authority and a "Prosecution Authority" is the very point of the UK Supreme Court case raised? Why would this article use the name "Swedish Judicial Authority" when the party to the case (as reflected in the name of the case) is the "Swedish Prosecution Authority" - this matters a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.22.14 (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Supreme Court judges sitting[edit]

Where does the list of the seven judges come from? Only four judges are cited here. Apokrif (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The SC website here. ISTB351 (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Names of victims[edit]

I have once again removed the names of the involved women. The previous consensus on the talk page has been that adding the names violates BLP. Please discuss here before adding names again. 85.224.102.92 (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to mention that I disagree with this "consensus". Naomi Wolf argues the case better than I could: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/05/julian-assange-sex-crimes-anonymity Gregcaletta (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
We are not naming the victims at this time - as per the quality sources (Naomi Wolf's opinionated input is not one of them) - such as the BBC who have a very good record of following wp:blp - - please don't see this comment as an opportunity to post sources that do name them - we are not naming them - if and when a case actually occurs we can look at it again - Youreallycan 19:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
These cases are public and assanges name is well known, why should not these women be named? Also the crime is alleged until proved otherwise. I think it's in interest of clean and fair trial to name both sides. It's not a secret either, so.. why not. T.P--94.112.108.225 (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
This has been repeatedly discussed in the past - see the archives. Per long-established WP:BLPNAME policy, the consensus is that we won't name the alleged victims in this article. As for 'a clean and fair trial', the contents of our article are irrelevant - it wouldn't be presented as evidence in any trial, though at the moment, there is no decision on whether there will even be one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Just thought I'd give some reasoning for never mentioning the victims of Rape. The names of rape victims are never given out because it otherwise causes women to hardly ever report the crime. Rape is a massively undereported crime and the main reason for the lack of reporting was due to the stigma/shame/humiliation/embarassment that comes when mentioning it. It is hard enough for women to report this crime to a female police-officer with anominity let alone to report it and have their name freely available. This is the reasoning behind why names are not given for this crime, something that Naomi completely forgets to mention (and would rather randomly blame on men being sexist). I do agree that this should also go towards the accused but thats not for a wikipedia talk article to discuss. Long Story short, if we start posting the names of victims than you are contributing to the reason why women don't report Rape. Mishka Shaw (talk) 10:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
"if we start posting the names of victims than you are contributing to the reason why women don't report Rape" -- that may or may not be the case, but it's irrelevant. Wikipedia's purpose is to be a compendium of human knowledge, not to encourage people to report crimes. -- Cabalamat (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia's purpose (per WP:5) is to be an encyclopedia. While some human knowledge is certainly grist for inclusion, not all of it is. In this case, the names of the alleged victims is not appropriate for inclusion. aprock (talk) 23:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
WP:BLPNAME says:
"Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context."
I think WP:BLPNAME doesn't require anonymity because:
(1) The names have been widely disseminated.
(2) Omitting it results in a significant loss of context.
They should be included because, according to many WP:RS, all of which have named the accusers, "Accuser 1"
(1) worked with CIA-sponsored anti-Castro organizations in Cuba.
(2) posted a blog entry advocating revenge when a man cheats on her. I think that also raises legitimate suspicions. Does anybody disagree?
(3) tweeted messages after the supposed rape that indicated she was happy about her relationship with Assange. She didn't accuse him of rape until she found out that he had sex with "Accuser 2".
I think each of these charges raise legitimate suspicions, and together they provide context. "Victim 1" might have a political or personal motivation to punish Assange and have him extradited to the U.S. It's not certain, but neither are any of the charges against Assange. A reader must know these facts in order to evaluate the credibility of the charges against Assange.
Can somebody give me a good statement of why they disagree with those 3 points? --Nbauman (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Where is the consensus that we won't name the alleged victims in this article? I don't see it here, or in the archives. I see disagreement. Can you give me a link to the place that found consensus? --Nbauman (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── WP:BLPNAME is policy. Policy overrides consensus unless there is consensus to change the policy. aprock (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Someone made a claim that there was consensus. If there is, I want to see the link to the consensus. Is there a consensus? Does everybody agree that there is no consensus? --Nbauman (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
[3]. aprock (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, any claim of a consensus is complete nonsense - if there was a consensus, there wouldn't be discussion about it with many editors expressing dissenting views to the so-called consensus. Count Truthstein (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is good. Policy gets interpreted, and the interpretation is decided by consensus, and consensus is reached by discussion. Aprock, if you can point in the policy of a black and white rule that, in a obvious and clear way forbids the names, please provide it. Belorn (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
For WP:BLPNAME not to apply, there would have to be evidence that "Omitting it results in a significant loss of context". There is no difference in context between "[real name 1] alleged Assange...." and "Miss A alleged Assange....", and obviously the same applies for the other victim. 2 lines of K303 13:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

House Arrest/bail conditions[edit]

I notice that this article describes Mr Assange as being on conditional bail rather than house arrest. This is current being discussed on the "Talk page" about Mr Assange. Just wondering if this discussion has been had here already, and settled. Would possibly save time, rather than rehashing it it it's already been hashed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.153.114 (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Claes Borgström[edit]

Is he still representing the two women? My understanding was that one of the women has stated she doesn't want to participate (including making any type of witness statements) in this case. Belorn (talk) 03:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Rape?[edit]

So it isn't rape by any definition in the English language or according to any law of Australia, the United States of America, any Commonwealth country or any EU member that isn't Sweden?

And that even as "sexual molestation" goes, it is a factual case that these women have stated they consented to the sex and at no point did anything occur that could be classified as sexual molestation or sexual assault in any Western nation?

Just clearing this up for the article. 124.169.92.155 (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Sutter Cane

The rape allegation is concerning Assange engaging nonconsensual sex with a sleeping woman. This is considered rape in many, but not all, countries. Combatman (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The English court, which Assange asked to rule on this, has stated that: "Thus, if the question is whether what is set out in the EAW is an offence under the law of England and Wales, then it is in our view clear that it was" - para 91 - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html
There's a lot more detail in the judgement, but the point is incontrovertible: Assange's alleged crimes meet the requirements of dual criminality.82.45.198.134 (talk) 05:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)Dave
I'd just like to echo this point - the comments by the IP that started this section are incorrect. As the courts have confirmed, the allegations against Assange would, if true, constitute rape under English law. Robofish (talk) 09:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow. That's a disgusting, bold-faced lie from user Robofish. It doesn't remotely constitute rape under English law. Both women consented and they didn't remove consent at any point. It is not legal under English law to retroactively deny consent or arrest someone for "rape" when both victims do not wish to press charges for rape. That you have blatantly lied about English law shows your clear intent to disregard Wikipedia guidelines in this article and you need to be denied access to editing this article from now on. 124.169.184.30 (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Your opinion regarding what constites rape under English law is of no relevence here. We go by what the sources say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
User is wrong anyway. Rape is defined under UK law as non-consensual "penetration by a penis of the vagina, anus or mouth of another person". As it is impossible to consent to anything while asleep (capacity to agreement by choice), penetrative sex with a sleeping woman would definitely constitute a rape charge.82.22.48.93 (talk) 00:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
One of the issues is about a broken or removed condom. One of the plaintiffs is saying she consented to sex with a condom. But that she woke up to discover that Assange was having sex with her without a condom. Whether this is true or not isn't the issue here. But this person's complaint is 1) She didn't consent to unprotected sex and 2) She didn't consent to this particular sex act as she was asleep when it was initiated. Totorotroll (talk) 10:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Assange's admissions[edit]

Is it NPOV to have a section detailing the facts of the alleged offences which Assange has stipulated are true? In the English court hearings over the EAW, he's made, under oath, a wealth of statements, none of which seem to be represented here. Is this an appropriate article? Should it be renamed to take into account the English legal challenges Assange has presented? 82.45.198.134 (talk) 05:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Dave

It may or may not be NPOV. But is it necessary? This is an encyclopaedia, not a court record. We don't include every last detail. As for renaming the article, you don't give us any indication of what you are suggesting it should be renamed as. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
This is the name the case was given in the English courts. It describes the parties to the dispute, which has been the subject of proceedings in both countries. Hard to improve on. 31.55.46.139 (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe so, but I think something like "Legal proceedings against Julian Assange" could be better. This is because there is an investigation on him in Sweden, and at the same time, various trials have ocurred in England. Totorotroll (talk) 11:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

2nd & 5th September[edit]

For those editors watching this page, I forecast a flurry of additions around the two above dates. Sevim Dağdelen is due to meet Assange, then issue a press statement around Noon on the 2nd. [4] Note please: the English translation appears lower down the page.

On the 5th she will take part on a panel discussion at the Young world-store gallery in Berlin. Thinks: is this connected with the left wing Junge Welt newspaper in any way? [5]. Naturally, much will be read into this minor escalation and so it might help to gen up on who's-who now, rather than scramble about at the last moment.--Aspro (talk) 12:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the gallery is at the Junge Welt editorial office.--Aspro (talk) 12:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Titles of the Swedish Prosecutors[edit]

There are some confusion regarding the titles of the Swedish prosecutors.

  • Eva Finnés Swedish title is Chefsåklagare, which is translated to English as Chief Public Prosecutor according to the official translations by the Swedish Prosecution Authority.
  • Marianne Ny is an Överåklagare, translated as Director of Public Prosecution

The official translations can be found here: http://aklagare2.episerverhotell.net/PageFiles/3464/Engelska%20titlar.Titles%20in%20English.pdf

Its hard to give a good source for their respective titles, since none of the two prosecutors have a personal homepage. However, if one browses the Swedish Prosecution Authority's web-page, and search for their names, it is obvious they have different titles and rank.

Here are two pages that illustrate this point:

http://www.aklagare.se/Sok-aklagare/Utvecklingscentrum/Utvecklingscentrum-Goteborg/ (Marianne's title given at bottom of page)

http://www.aklagare.se/Media/Nyhetsarkiv/Uttalande-av-chefsaklagare-Eva-Finne/ (Eva's title given in headline)

Unfortunately both pages is in Swedish, but the Swedish title can easily be found, and translated with the translation sheet above. 83.254.161.146 (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

revert[edit]

I've reverted a block of edits trying to push the rape angle with respect to the charges against Assange. Per WP:BLPCRIME, we stick to the broad characterization from reliable sources. aprock (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by “the rape angle”?
One of the crimes A is suspected of having committed is rape according to (among others):
”The District court found reasonable grounds for suspicion of rape – The Court of Appeal shares the District court’s finding, but adjusting the rape as a less serious crime crime” (my translation and italics).
WP:BLPCRIME does not say what claim it does. What do you mean by “broad characterization from reliable sources”?
Do you suggest the Swedish Prosecution Authority, and the Swedish and English courts, are to be considered unreliable with regard to what A is suspected of in Sweden?
Also, take a look at the Rape? section above.
83.254.161.146 (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
You appear to be cherry picking, using blogs, foreign language sources, and primary sources to support your own particular point of view. Please find a high quality mainstream secondary source which uses the term rape. Per WP:BLPCRIME, I've undone your changes. It would be helpful if you could explain why you think WP:BLPCRIME doesn't apply here, and why you think using the word rape here is merited. aprock (talk) 07:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


WP:BLPCRIME
I’m not sure I understand your objection per WP:BLPCRIME as you intend it.
"A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.[5] If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgements that do not override each other,[6] refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information."
As I understand it, the policy is not to mention any charges, if the person is relatively unknown, unless a conviction is secured.
My response to this criticism is:
  • Assange is well known enough not to be a “relatively unknown” person
  • This article should either mention none or all of the accusations against A. -It would be cherry-picking to only mention some of them.
  • Not to mention the charges in an article on a set of legal proceedings defeats the whole purpose of the article. (or at least the part on the Swedish investigation, and the whole basis for the English proceedings).
Primary/secondary sources
WP:PRIMARY states that no primary sources should be used in an interpretive way. “Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself…” sums it up.
The point of discussion in this case is what the primary sources i.e. the Swedish court documents state. – What crimes Mr A is suspected of having committed in Sweden. This is not an interpretive question. Furthermore only the Swedish legal documentation are primary sources.
The English legal documentation are secondary sources, which references and confirms the primary sources.
The press release by the Svea Court of appeal is also a secondary source, as is the chronology by the Swedish Prosecution Authority
Blog/Foreign Language
I’ve not used the blog as such as a source, but a legal document which is uploaded there. I gladly grant your point that blogs are not reliable sources. The legal document referenced is the original Detention in Absentia court order, and therefore is in Swedish.
Since the suspected crimes is repeated in the English documentation, this source is not central.
By Verifiability#Non-English_sources Foreign language sources may be warranted if English sources of equal quality and relevance are unavailable.
Answers to your direct questions
I’ve answered the WP:BLPCRIME criticism above.
I think the word “Rape” is merited, since it is the English translation of the Swedish “Våldtäkt”; and the English courts use this word, and found that the crime Mr A is accused of in Sweden, would amount to “Rape” in England and Wales.
In summary
  • What we are trying to find sources for, is what is stated in the Swedish legal documentation. (As this is what states the suspicions against Mr A)
  • The original Swedish legal documentation is available online to an extent, and it is written in Swedish.
  • The Svea Court of Appeal’s press release and the English courts are secondary sources.
  • The original allegations are translated to English and quoted by the English legal documentation.
In my view the English court documentation would be the most high-quality secondary sources available, and should be the ones relied upon in the case of what the allegations against Mr A are.
If you do not agree with this assessment, please tell me why the English courts would not be a HQ source for the allegations, and what type of source would be of higher quality.
83.254.161.146 (talk) 12:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
You appear to be making an extensive argument that wikipedia editors should be researching this issue ourselves. This is precisely contrary to WP:no original research. As above, I suggest you find some high quality secondary sources to support this content, court documents are not secondary sources. Some examples of reliable secondary sources here might include; national newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post, major news media like the BBC, CNN, and Fox News reporting, and any books on the incident published by experts not involved in the event. If you review WP:SOURCES and WP:WP:BLPSOURCES, you can descriptions of what qualifies as a reliable source. If you're having trouble identifying reliable sources, I might suggest the noticeboards WP:RS and WP:IRS. aprock (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I’m sorry you got that impression. I cannot be making myself very clear then. Please tell me what parts of my post led you to believe that I was a proponent of OR.
I will try to make myself clearer:
Swedish Court Protocols:
1 By tautology, what Mr A is suspected of by Sweden, is whatever suspicions are spelled out in the Swedish court protocols.
2 The Swedish court protocols are primary sources
3 Per WP:PRIMARY “A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.”
4 Per Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources “While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred.”
5 The Swedish court protocols are written in Swedish
6 Per Wikipedia:No_original_research#Translations_and_transcriptions “Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research.”
7 The Swedish protocols are used as a source for a straightforward descriptive statement of fact: that they state that Mr A is suspected of rape.
8 Therefore the Swedish court protocols are a valid source.
English Court Protocols:
1 The English courts did not write the Swedish court protocols.
2 The English courts are not directly involved in the process of suspecting anybody for anything in Sweden
3 Therefore the English courts are secondary sources.
Mainstream secondary sources:
You repeatedly asked for mainstream secondary sources. Did you not read the given sources before you reverted? Both the Local (http://www.thelocal.se/30408/20101124/#.UOVfanf5Mo0) and Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/07/us-wikileaks-assange-charges-idUSTRE6B669H20101207) supports the claim that Mr A is suspected of rape. The sources are still given in the article, as you did not delete them.
Prior criticisms:
In the past you have provided shifting reasons for the same reverts:
05:59, 20 December 2012Lay translation
05:16, 18 August 2012‎ avoid mistranslations
Rape is the translation the Supreme Court, the High Court of Justice, and the Magistrates Court uses.
19:41, 14 October 2012‎ imprecise and incorrect
This is not a criticism of the sources given, but is a claim in itself and therefore needs to be backed up by its own sources. Do you have such sources?
14:31, 28 August 2012 remove OR translations not in sources
Per Wikipedia:No_original_research#Translations_and_transcriptions “Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research.”
Please respond
I have answered all of the questions and criticisms you posed at me, while you have provided no answers at all to mine. Instead you change your criticism and give no response to the actual arguments. While you are absolutely free (if not obligated) to bring up relevant criticism, please respond to my arguments and questions as well.
83.254.161.146 (talk) 11:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to put aside everything except the sources, since sources are what really matters here. Reviewing the Reuters source, it is made clear that rape in the context of the article is not being used in the usual sense of the word rape: "rape, less serious crime" -- the least serious of three levels of rape charges that are on the statute books in Sweden. It is precisely this sort of nuance that is missing from your edits. As it stands, the phrase "sexual assault" does a much better job, as it covers all the charges. The word "rape" only covers one of the charges, and does it in an imprecise manner which conflates the English meaning of rape with the Swedish legal term. aprock (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
You are shifting your criticism again.
Do you concede the points I made about the court protocols being legitimate sources for the claim that Mr A is in fact suspected of rape? (what is ment by rape is not part of this point, only that the sources are legitimate)
What you argue is that the term Rape in the Swedish documentation does not correspond to the English definition of rape.
This argument was used by Assange’s legal team in the appeal against the extradiction.
The Magistrates court found that: “In this country that would amount to rape.” (City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court; Findings of facts and reasons. p 23) http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/jud-aut-sweden-v-assange-judgment.pdf
As did the High Court: “..the allegation that he had sexual intercourse with her without a condom would amount to an allegation of rape in England and Wales.” (High Court of Justice; Approved Judgement. section 116, p30) http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-judgment.pdf
83.254.161.146 (talk) 12:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm not arguing anything. If you want to include content regarding living persons, you need to find high quality secondary sources. That's all you have to do. So far, the only source you've found that remotely qualifies notes that the definition of rape here is a particular legal definition, which is something you have not suggested including. aprock (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Now you’re back at a criticism which I’ve already met.
I’ve shown that both the Swedish and English legal protocols are valid sources by Wikipedia’s standards. (Under “Swedish Court Protocols”, and “English Court Protocols” above)
I’ve also shown that the English courts have found that the allegation of våldtäkt amounts to an allegation of rape in England and Wales.
Since my last post I’ve also found that the English court’s found that the allegations of
olaga tvång and sexuellt ofredande ammounts to sexual assault in England and Wales. (City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court; Findings of facts and reasons. p 22-23) http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/jud-aut-sweden-v-assange-judgment.pdf
I was not aware that “Sexual Assault” was a name of a crime until now. This makes your previous point (that the rape should be removed in favour of sexual assault) extremely misleading.
I suggest the following wording: (in the section Investigation reinstated)
“As basis for the ruling, the court stated Julian Assange to be suspected on reasonable grounds to have committed olaga tvång, two cases of sexuellt ofredande, and våldtäkt. The English process later found these allegations to meet the dual criminality test, as they amount to three accounts of sexual assault, and one account of rape.”
This gets rid of all the various translations, and gives the names of the corresponding crimes in English law.
As before, primary sources is ok in this case, since they are not used in an interpretive way, and to support specific and direct facts.
83.254.161.146 (talk) 11:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
The court documents are not secondary sources, and your interpretation of them is original research. [If you don't agree with this, I suggest you take your concerns to WP:RSN and/or WP:ORN. [User:Aprock|aprock]] (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Attempts to prohibit mention of well-established accusations[edit]

There is an editor, aprock, who has been reverting edits that mention the well-established and widely-known accusations against Assange. Initially, I saw that legitimately-sourced content had been removed, which I restored. This editor then removed the content again, claiming it to be an unreliable source (although no reasons for belief that this is the case were provided). I subsequently found two additional reputable news sources (BBC and CNN) to verify the statement. aprock again removed the content (for what is at least the third time), with only a reference to WP:BRD.

I then came here and noticed an extensive debate between this editor and several others, in which it appears that aprock has been attempting to prohibit any mention of this content for over a month. I've reviewed the prior debate, and as best I can tell aprock's arguments are either no longer relevant or have been addressed by my inclusion of multiple reliable secondary sources.

Also, I believe that WP:WELLKNOWN is more appropriate than WP:BLPCRIME, as this involves a very public figure. It says, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." This appears to very clearly support inclusion of the allegation.

Additionally, please note: per WP:BRD,

  • BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow.
    • Note:"BRD" is commonly used to refer to the principle that a revert should not be reverted again by the same editors until the changes have been discussed, as that could constitute edit warring, which is a policy that all editors must follow.
  • BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense.
  • BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD.

aprock, would you please explain why you continue to remove this material, rather than simply reverting without meaningful comment? Explanations are essential to constructive collaboration; without commenting on the reasons for your opposition, aside from being a misuse of WP:BRD, the assumption of good faith inevitably becomes questionable. — Fishicus (talk) 07:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, but did you wonder why it was that there was no mention already in the article of the text you added? Also, why is there no such statement at Julian Assange? Perhaps the matter has been discussed several times before, and perhaps consensus is that there is extreme conflict concerning the legal terminology vs. the real-world meanings, and that using the legal terminology would (obviously) lead readers to a false conclusion. WP:BRD is not a policy, but it is a widely followed practice, and seems an extremely sensible procedure: how would it be if someone could add gossip to an article then claim that it had to stay there while the matter was discussed? (That is just an example, and is not a suggestion about the particular edit concerned here.) Johnuniq (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree that WP:BRD is very useful and, indeed, I commonly follow it myself. However, it should not be misused/abused, as it was in this case. In fact, aprock appeared to be using it in the sense that it is specifically noted that it should not be used: by reverting changes multiple times, by requiring other editors to follow it, and by placing an edit warring warning on my talk page (an aggressive escalation, especially given that no useful explanations had been given). A more constructive way to proceed would have been, upon reverting my changes, to include a comment similar to what you just wrote about there being conflict regarding the terminology used.
From your comment (thank you, by the way, for providing an explanation), the reasons aprock provided for removing this information aren't the real ones. Still, while concern over how various words may be interpreted is something which should be discussed as needed, it is not, in my opinion, a reason for leaving relevant information out. In order to help Wikipedia be the best encyclopedia, as editors, we should take care to provide whatever sources are needed to clarify any confusing terminology.
I've read over the previous discussion from January, although I'm still not sure what the conflict is. Perhaps you could explain it or help to provide whatever clarification is necessary? — Fishicus (talk) 11:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't have time to say much at the moment, but I will note that absorbing the nuances of WP:BLP takes considerable experience, for example by getting involved at WP:BLPN over an extended period. As you might imagine, it is very common for opponents of public figures to arrive at an article and want to insert TRUE information based on reliable sources—information that just happens to place the worst possible light on the public figure. It is also very common for experienced editors to resist such attempts. I do not believe that you are an opponent of the subject, I am merely letting you know the common case (and the intentions of the editor are not relevant). Regarding your question, sorry, but discussing accusations of serious crimes on article talk pages is just as much a breach of BLP as putting the accusations in the article. If an editor were writing a blog, or an article published under their name, of course it would be fine to put whatever was wanted, subject to legal restraints. However, a different approach is needed when anyone can add anything at any time, with the resulting work effectively being published by Wikipedia. In our case, greater caution is needed, and there is very good reason to believe that the legal terminology is misleading, and so should be omitted. Johnuniq (talk) 12:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
To be clear, I have no personal POV I am interested in pushing. The only one I could be considered to push for is the neutral one; however, it's important to note that NPOV does NOT mean that positive or negative incidents should not be included. It means that all relevant sides are included. I'll again emphasize WP:WELLKNOWN, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." The forces that precipitate a highly publicized event may be biased, they may be damaging, they may be entirely untrue. Still, the goal of an encyclopedia is to document what happened, and these factors should therefore have little bearing on what is included (as long as all significant sides/views are accurately represented).
Let me take a step back from the nitty-gritty WP policies arguments. Most people who follow the news have heard of the allegations. I, as I'm sure many others do, often come to Wikipedia to find more information about a topic when I hear or read something I'm interested in. For people who hear about this lawsuit and come to Wikipedia with that purpose (which is the goal of Wikipedia), to find no mention of the specific allegations seems to do a disservice to them. — Fishicus (talk) 07:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed extensively in the archives. For some reason the archive box at the top of the page doesn't seem to work properly. For now here are direct links to the two archive pages:

Suffice it to say that sourcing issues and BLP issues have been discussed extensively. This includes discussion of the specific source you are trying to restore, as well as the issue of how to describe the charges. If you need specific sections to review, leave an note and I'll do some more digging. If you need a short summary of what policy and consensus has produced in the past, likewise leave a note and I'll be happy to provide one. If you really think that the past consensus is no long valid, I would suggest that you seek a wider consensus, either by taking the issue to WP:BLPN, or through and RfC. aprock (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I've read both of those archives and virtually every other instance I can find in which this issue was discussed within all of Wikipedia, and I don't recognize anywhere that a definitive consensus with reasonable rationale against including a description of the charges against him. Would you please provide specific discussions that lead you to believe this is the case? I'm also unsure what the reservation against inclusion on this page is, considering that the Julian Assange page includes the allegations. There are also Wikinews articles that state the charges ([6]) as does the current events portal [7]. Upon viewing the multiple repeated discussions and extensive amount of time editors have previously dedicated to this discussion, if clear rationales for keeping this content out of this article cannot be provided, this issue likely deserves more formal means of resolution than talk page discussions, an RfC, or possibly the DR noticeboard. — Fishicus (talk) 07:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Please take some time to review WP:OTHERSTUFF. Regarding specific sections to review, consider going over these: [8], [9]. Similarly, from Julian Assange, [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. You can go further back in those archive if you desire. aprock (talk) 07:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I've already reviewed all of those sections and I don't recognize anywhere that a definitive consensus with reasonable rationale against including a description of the charges against him. If you believe there are sections that demonstrate this, can you please copy those specific parts (not an entire discussion, unless necessary, in which case, please highlight the specific statements you see as relevant). — Fishicus (talk) 08:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
It's up to someone who wants to change the current consensus to make a proposal and a case to support that proposal. Obviously this is a well-trodden path, unless you think you are the first person here to have noticed what has been reported. The correct procedures have been mentioned above. Johnuniq (talk) 09:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I've explained why I believe this should be included in my first few posts above. There was no real argument against what I wrote, just references to prior discussions. Also, I see nothing that convinces me the current consensus is against inclusion. — Fishicus (talk) 09:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to seek a wider consensus than one. You might consider and RfC, WP:3O, WP:BLPN, WP:RSN, etc. aprock (talk) 03:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

To answer the question on what issue there are in regarding the proposed text in the article. The proposed text is ambiguous which in turn creates an imply statement with unsupported facts. The ambiguousness is mostly caused by the language barrier of Swedish law being translated to English, thus we can either A) not include it, B) get it "right" and rewrite any ambiguous statement to make any claim obvious and in the realm that is supported by the original (swedish) sources. Most news papers tries to do an option C which accept some form of ambiguousness in favor of readership, but we do not have that option here. Some rather good translation can be found by the UK court documents, which follows closely the text used by the Swedish court system own publications (in Swedish however). The 1 september 2010 and 24 november 2010 dates from the Swedish court site is most telling and would be the basis for this text: "On the 1st September 2010, senior prosecutor Marianne Ny reinstated the preliminary investigation, and on 18 November 2010 issued a request to detain Julian Assange for questioning regarding lesser degree of rape and sexual molestation. To execute the detaining of Julian Assange, Marianne Ny issued an European arrest warrant." ref([17]) Belorn (talk) 09:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
While that is a fair concern, it's our responsibility to represent what reliable sources have said. If there's concern over translations, I would imagine that reliable sources have been published that will discuss these issues, and these sources can be used in the article. Given that many reliable sources (most if not all that I've seen) do not delve into the intricacies of translating Swedish law into English, editors should not let their personal concerns override what these sources have written on the topic. Editors should take care to not introduce their own concern over translations, as this would constitute original research. — Fishicus (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd also note that the Swedish courts have themselves provided an English translation: "Julian Assange has been detained in his absence suspected of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion." This is probably the most reliable source, and I'm not sure I've encountered any legitimate argument that would prevent the addition of what a law enforcement organization reports about what they've done in an official report. — Fishicus (talk) 09:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
That statement is are not straight translation of their swedish written page, but rather news item written in English by the Swedish court at a date before many details was change/updated. It is also much shorter and more ambiguous than what is written at the Swedish page. The swedish page is more detailed, up-to-date, and correlate with the data use by the UK court documents which was why I included them in my previous comment. It should be said that doing a Swedish -> English translation do not include "personal concerns" as suggested above (which also is way close to an personal attack. Please act a bit less provocative in the future.).
Is EN:"senior prosecutor Marianne Ny reinstated the preliminary investigation" a working translation of SV:"Överåklagare Marianne Ny beslutar återuppta förundersökningen"?
Is: EN:" a request to detain Julian Assange for questioning regarding unlawful coercion, 2 forms of sexual molestation, and lesser degree rape"? a working translation of SV:"Svea hovrätt avslår överklagandet och beslutar att han ska vara fortsatt häktad, på sannolika skäl misstänkt för olaga tvång, två fall av sexuellt ofredande samt våldtäkt, mindre grovt brott"?
Is: EN:"To execute the detaining of Julian Assange, Marianne Ny issued an European arrest warrant"? a working translation of: SV:"För att verkställa häktningsbeslutet beslutar åklagaren att efterlysa Assange internationellt och utfärda en så kallad europeisk arresteringsorder."
Each of those are very close word for word translations, with only some minor rewriting for structure. Some words are using the UK court translation, like "överåklagare" which is translated by Google as "Attorney General" but in the UK court document she is refereed as "senior prosecutor". The assumption here is good faith and assuming that the UK court do know how to translate concepts like "överåklagare" and "förundersökningen" to UK law and thus we should use their translations for an English written Wikipedia. (to those that know Swedish, you will notice a small change from the initial 18 november 2010 list of charges, and the ones that was confirmed on 24 november 2010. If people want, we could include a sentences about the change in charges, through we do not have any explanation given by the sources to why the charges was changed or if they were officially changes to the warrant. One should assume that the latest list of charges is the accurate ones as it is given by a higher court at the latest date.) Belorn (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Poorly sourced accusations in the lead.[edit]

Per the discussion above, I've reverted the lead. If there are any questions about the policy issues here, please raise them on the talk page. aprock (talk) 13:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

  • I disagree. Source is fine and those are the charges. You're mearly trying to censor it based on your opinion. Pluvia (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
If you disagree, you are free to make your case here. Edit warring is not an appropriate way of resolving this. aprock (talk) 13:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
What case? You're the one censoring this information, the charges completely related to this case from a reliable source, based on your opinion. You are the one that's supposed to make the case, you are the one that's censoring this information simply because you "don't like the source". Not liking a source doesn't mean you remove the charges, it means you find another source.Pluvia (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • sigh* I'll raise this on the appropriate noticeboard. aprock (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Sure, as it seems we're not going to agree on whether or not the charges brought against him should be on Wikipedia. Pluvia (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Please the the noticeboard discussion here: [18]. aprock (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

  • It's not our job to censor information based on our opinion, it's our job to report the relevant and factual information without author intent. The information is completely 100% relevant to this article and is sourced. Not liking it isn't a good enough reason to censor it. Pluvia (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Claiming that editors are censoring something is (a) obviously false (check a dictionary); and (b) meaningless because it could be applied to almost any edit ("removing my text is censorship!"). This is the English Wikipedia where the word "rape" is understood by general readers to have a certain meaning that does not apply to the case in question (check a dictionary). This article is not a law report where readers expect words to not mean what they normally mean. Further, at an open website where anyone can edit, there are higher standards for WP:BLP articles, and applying a label to the subject needs good justification—more than because I can. Johnuniq (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
You're not mearly removing my text, you're removing the sourced charges brought against him because you dislike them. That is far different from "removing my text is censorship". "General readers" should be given the information as we have it from a reliable source. And correct me if I'm wrong here, but non-consensual sex when someone is asleep would classify as rape in the english language yes?
These are the charges, this isn't some random news article that shows him in a bad light, these are the charges that have been brought against him. It's not our job to censor them simply because we don't like them. Pluvia (talk) 10:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • It was reverted again, this time without any mention in the talk page. Seemingly it was being reverted for no other reason than an assumption that general, English, readers might mistake the non-consensual sex, regarded in the charges as rape, as rape. This is not a good enough reason for censorship. It's not Wikipedias job to cover up this information mearly because some people might not like it. I'm reverting the censorship, again.Pluvia (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Please produce some high quality secondary sources which mention the charges in the broader scope and we can use those. The sources you are presenting are inadequate for controversial WP:BLP content. This isn't about censorship, it's about being careful with sourcing. aprock (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I disagree. The sources are fine, those are the charges. But I guess I'll track down more, but I doubt even the direct court documents will be enough. Pluvia (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
As noted several times, you're going to need high quality secondary sources. Court documents are primary foreign language sources. Try finding something from the BBC, WSJ, etc. aprock (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • BBC, Court document, Court document. Along with the current source. This is what this page is about, this information should be here. These are what he's wanted for, those are reliable sources. I wont revert the edit immediately, I'll wait 24 hours to give people time to reply, and I'll make sure all of these sources are linked too. Pluvia (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Timelines like this generally aren't high quality sources. They don't have bylines, and don't provide the full context. That said, the BBC timeline refers to the allegations as "sexual assault" in the lead which sounds like a reasonably neutral description. The primary sources aren't useful for sourcing controversial WP:BLP content. aprock (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Full context of what? The accusations that he's wanted for? They present them quite clearly there, including the BBC link on November 18th. As for the rest it mearly comes down to opinion, and "I don't think these neutral, well sourced links are good enough" frankly isn't a reasonable excuse to censor the information provided in them. Provide context for what you're saying, don't just say it's not good enough. Pluvia (talk) 01:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
For good measure, here's another BBC article detailing the warrant, which isn't in a timeline. That's five reliable sources now. Pluvia (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
As with the timeline, that brief press release is not sufficient in depth to establish the proper terminology to use here. As noted above, the primary sources for the charges do not use the word rape, but rather a word which is loosely translated as "rape, lesser degree". Any source which does not cover that level of nuance, or provide a greater degree of context, isn't going be acceptable for characterizing the charges levied in such stark language. Sexual assault is sufficiently broad and generally correct to be a neutral term suitable for biographical information about a living person. aprock (talk) 02:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The court documents both cover that fine. Everything you have asked for has been provided, it's just blatant censorship by this stage. Pluvia (talk) 09:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The word "censorship" is often misused at Wikipedia—please find out what the word means before returning to that slogan. You might try studying WP:NOTCENSORED to see if its meaning can become clear. It would also be helpful to engage with comments that have previously been made, for example, I pointed out that "This article is not a law report where readers expect words to not mean what they normally mean." Johnuniq (talk) 11:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I have. It's clear censorship. Your previous comment was addressed when I pointed out that it's not our job to censor information based on author intent, and non-consensual sex is considered rape even for general readers. Like I pointed out, I've done absolutely everything that has been asked. I have many reliable sources and I have addressed everything that has come up. Pluvia (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Here's another, longer, BBC article that goes into more depth about the rape charge specifically. That's 3 BBC articles by this stage. Pluvia (talk) 09:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
That article only uses the term in a quote from a pundit. The BBC describes it as "sexual molestation". Your insistence on using the word "rape", instead of the more accurate and neutral terms "sexual assault" or "sexual molestation", despite the fact that the sources you're presenting use those terms, indicates that you're fishing for sources which confirm your personal views on this controversial topic. That sort of editing is not going to get you much traction. aprock (talk) 13:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually they refer to it as two cases of sexual molestation, unlawful coercion, and rape, in all of those links. Including the court documents. It's not 3 cases of sexual molestation like you just tried to say it was, and I don't know where to begin the frankly absurd comment that the court documents are "my personal views". Assange isn't wanted for extradition because of "my personal views". It's actually quite ridiculous arguments for censorship right now are:

1) You don't have reliable source. - Countered with many reliable sources. 2) Timelines don't count either do court documents. - Found 2 reliable BBC non-timeline sources. 3) Non-consensual sex isn't rape. - Yes it is. 4) These are "your personal views" it's actually 3 cases of sexual molestation. - No it's not. Everything that has been presented so far I have completely addressed. Pluvia (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to say. None of the BBC sources mention the actual charges, and court documents are not secondary sources. I think "sexual assault" is sufficiently general and neutral to be used in the context of a WP:BLP article. I take it you disagree. aprock (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
All of the BBC sources mention them. And yes I disagree. The charges listed in the warrant should be mentioned on this page, seeing as though it's actually about them. They're completely neutral, they're not an opinion piece or gossip, they're the actual charges that the warrant has been issued for, with many reliable sources. Pluvia (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The BBC sources discuss the warrant, not the charges. Those are two different things. One of the sources notes that he has note been charged (as of the date of publication). You need to be very careful about reading sources on controversial topics, especially those related to WP:BLP. (n.b. even the court documents supplied confirm that Assange has not yet been charged.)aprock (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The information that's being censored is the warrant. That's what he's wanted for, that's what the warrant is about, that's what this entire page is about, yet the information, despite having many reliable sources and being completely neutral, is being censored. Saying he's not been charged would be absolutely fine, if I made that mistake I would instantly correct it, but that mistake wasn't made (in the removed edit) but the information, the warrant, was and is still being censored. Pluvia (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Until you can start discussing this without throwing around accusations of censorship, I think the conversation is on hold. When you're ready to discuss this according to policy, I'll be happy to continue discussing things. aprock (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The conversation doesn't just go on "hold" because you say so. This is being discussed fine. I have addressed and countered every single thing that's stopping this warrant information from being on this page. If you feel like you have nothing else to add to the conversation then that's fine, but that's not an argument for keeping this information off this page. Pluvia (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
This is being discussed fine. On the contrary, your constant unfounded accusations of censorship only serve to poison the well. It appears the only approach you have to editing is to edit war or cry censorship. Neither of these are constructive paths. aprock (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
So, to be perfectly clear, this well sourced, 100% relevant, neutral information, shouldn't be on the article because you dislike me calling the removal of it censorship? Please correct me if I'm wrong. Pluvia (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
You are wrong. I refuse to discuss the issue further with you until you can reign in your accusations of censorship. If you want a constructive conversation, I suggest you focus on policy. In this case, WP:BLP being the most relevant. aprock (talk) 04:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
@Pluvia: Above you say "I've done absolutely everything that has been asked", yet you have not worked out what "censorship" means, and you have not engaged with what I said. Techniques that may be effective in a political debate do not work at Wikipedia because editors can easily recognize the difference between a genuine discussion and point scoring. Feel free to repeat that it's censorship a couple more times, but you won't get many more responses from me as they are clearly not being heard. Johnuniq (talk) 07:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I have addressed that and it falls into the definition of censorship. Whether or not you agree, or think that this is some sort of "point scoring" debate is irrelevant to the article in question, as this is about genuine reasons for continued removal of this information. Saying that you don't like me calling it censorship, therefore for that reason alone, it's not going on the article, is frankly absurd. It's reliably sourced, completely and utterly 100% relevant, and neutral. Every single reason has been addressed. Not enough sources? There are now. Not enough non-timeline sources? There are now. Non-consensual sex isn't considered rape? Yes it is. He has not been charged? That wasn't in the removed information. I don't like you calling the removal of this censorship in the talk page? Nothing to do with it, nor a reason to keep it removed. Pluvia (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Pluvia, Aprock noted five days ago higher up on this page that he has taken your issue to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. I have also mentioned it on my page, in the thread you started. Please go to that noticeboard and make your case for the version you've been reverting to. It's the best place for further discussion, and for getting fresh eyes looking at the arguments on both sides. However much you choose to ignore references to the Biographies of living persons policy on this page and elsewhere, your issue is a Biographies of living persons policy issue. This is the last time I tell you so. Bishonen | talk 19:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC).
      • It appears I responded to you on your page a minute before you posted that, and have taken it there already, and just now saw your comment. Pluvia (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • It's been over a week since it was brought up on the notice board and it appears the replies agree that the information should be included. I'll wait a few more days, in case there's other avenues to pursue, but if that's all then I'll revert the edit and include more sources. Pluvia (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Might I ask why the previous discussion around the description "rape of lesser degree" has been mostly disregarded? Looking just a second with Google, i found this BBC article. Given the above discussion about BBC said this, BBC said that, here we have a BBC saying "the alleged crime was downgraded from "rape of the normal degree" to rape of a lesser degree following discussions with Sweden's Court of Appeal.". We also have not one but two huffingtonpost artcles. The first ones is even titled: How Rape Is Defined Around The World: Todd Akin's Comment, Julian Assange's Case Raise Questions Over Definition. It specifically address the issue that is being discussed here on this talk page. This whole discussion seems awfully silly. Is the a reason why we can't simply use The alleged crime was downgraded from "rape of the normal degree" to rape of a lesser degree, and simply go on? Belorn (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
It was already detailed like that, though the wording can be adjusted to make it clearer, similar to what you posted above. The whole issue arose because all the information of what the warrant detailed was removed. Pluvia (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry. When I was looking at the noticeboard and got the impression that the suggested text would just be rape of normal degree and not the higher court decision which lowered the degree. I'm in full support of having the updated charges being in the article. I would also suggest linking "lower degree" (with quotation marks) to the Swedish article (https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringa_brott_enligt_svensk_lag). It would guide readers to understanding regarding the legal definitions in Swedish law. Belorn (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • It's been 2 weeks since the noticeboard. Edit reverted, extra sources included, and wording adjusted per Belorn's request. Pluvia (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Dead Article[edit]

This article has been sanitized to the point that it has no content. In particular, there is no mention of what the charges were about other than their names. Very little about the European arrest warrant angle.

Court documents etc. must be available to detail the allegations etc. Assange et. al. are a very reliable source for stating their version of the facts of the story, provided that it is stated in that manner. In a dispute it is quite NPOV to present both sides of the argument. Tuntable (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but didn't the article used to have a rough description over the chain of events? The guardian has several rather lenghty articles, like this one. So long we are aware that the article is about the events of the Swedish government vs Assange, I think the article would improve by a bit more details about the underlying case of the two women. Belorn (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Using sources which includes the name of the two women[edit]

Is it fine to use such sources? I would like to add the fact that one of the two women during the police interview refused to sign their statement, and left after hearing that Assange was to be arrested and questioned about possible rape and molestation. It seems relevant to the article. However, the only decent source I found was the documentary published by abc, and they do include both womens name in the transcript. Belorn (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Need a bit more concrete sources than that. There's a lot of hearsay around this case. Pluvia (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
It is fine to use sources which name the two women, as long as they are reliable high quality secondary sources. However, their names cannot be included in the article. aprock (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Concur with Aprock. walk victor falk talk 07:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

I believe this page is very creatively crafted to give a negative impression of Assange. We are discussing the allegations' treatemnt on the Julian Assange talk page and because the NPOV template was removed here citing 'no new concerns being raised' I am hereby raising some.

Firstly, I just fixed the introduction to be much more balanced, but there are a lot more issues including the very structure and ordering of the page (eg. beginning with 'Arrest warrant' and statements about officialdom are designed to give a sense of accuracy and guilt, whereas the facts in the case suggest the opposite) and particular wording throughout the page.

It is my belief that this page needs serious work. For and at present is basically slanderous. Therefore I am reinstanting the NPOV tag and would like to work through the issues slowly before it is removed. prat (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Scope, as per the subsequent section of this talk page, is also a problem. By limiting discussion to the UK proceedings, a false air of legitimacy is lent to the page, as the Swedish state's legal process has been full of extremely questionable actions, false evidence, and the case was thrown out of court. It seems this UK scope too conveniently lends legitimacy to the thus-far baseless accusations and should be considered for significantly more holistic revision before the NPOV is removed. prat (talk) 08:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
The case was not 'thrown out of court'; it hasn't yet made it to court. The page begins with 'Arrest warrant' because this page is about the legal proceedings in the United Kingdom concerning the requested extradition of Julian Assange to Sweden. This article is about the proceedings in the UK, which is why the scope is limited to the UK proceedings. If you want to make a broader article about the whole case, you could do so, but I'm sure there is already information about it in the article about Assange.
If you have problems with 'statements about officialdom' (which?) or "particular wording throughout the page' (where?) I suggest you start fixing them, or describe them here. It seems more like you want this to be worked through slowly before removing the template, because the article's NPOV does not agree with your POV so you want the template shown for as long as possible. You have not put forth any suggestions for where to even start fixing anything which is why it seems like you're not interested in fixing this 'NPOV issue'.
I suggest we remove the template until someone points out any actual POV issues in the article so that there is something to work with. As of now, it's just going to be a template that is going to be left hanging on the page indefinitely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.19.35 (talk) 07:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
(Your asterisk before 'Scope' makes this talk section weirdly formatted, I don't know how one is supposed to work around that) 130.238.19.35 (talk) 07:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Again, how is this page not displaying NPOV? Can we have something concrete please. Totorotroll (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
It relies heavily on primary sources and editor synthesis. Remove all the primary sources, and much of the neutrality would be restored. aprock (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I went through the first 25 references. There is 3 primary sources in that bunch, where two is court documents that gave the name of the judges, and the fact that the case was appealed to the Supreme court and denied in Sweden. The last primary source is Swedish Prosecution Authority "Chronology", which is used as references for which crimes suspicion was filed for. Neither seem as a problem for the article, so I must assume the issue is further down the reference list, and into sections like "The prosecution's arguments for wanting to interview Assange in Sweden". The name of the section do hint of a NPOV problem, but since its basically the last section, I haven't bothered to look into it. Belorn (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
From WP:PRIMARY: Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. I'll remove the court records at some point if no one else gets to it first. aprock (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed that entire last section per WP:BLPPRIMARY as it is based entirely on primary court documents. aprock (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Scope mismatch[edit]

The primary inbound link to this page is that on the Julian Assange page, under the Swedish legal position section. However, this page is about the UK legal position. This is a broken state of affairs. Any suggestions for a resolution? I suppose I would propose broadening the scope of this page to the overall situation, with a suitable degree of enhanced background and commentary. Something to include the UK position, the Swedish position, US and Australian comments, global reactions from organizations of standing, a timeline, etc. I think this would be more ... holistic and measured than an artificial scope with a glaring mismatch for inbound readers. prat (talk) 08:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest trimming all of the primary sources, and all content sourced to them. This should clean out most of the scope creep and synthesis. aprock (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean by trimming all of the primary sources? The text seems fairly well mixed at present, between pertinent dates, identities and very short quotations. Could you perhaps illustrate your suggestions with an example change? I have proposed a merger, and this may be an opportune moment to restyle toward brevity if you can identify any opportunities. However, I do not believe that removing sources is desirable and cannot see any great options at first glance. prat (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Some of my recent edits removed a couple of the more obvious primary sources. In general, court reports, police transcripts, and the like are primary sources. Many of the lesser secondary sources also probably don't add much value. Press releases are really not useful for establishing proper scope. Articles from the BBC, the New York Times, and other highly regarded journals is probably the place to start with defining scope. aprock (talk) 04:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Wrong date, no reference.[edit]

  Assange presented himself to the Metropolitan Police the next morning and was remanded to London's Wandsworth Prison.

This is at the beginning of asection, and the previous date was July 2014, where he certainly wasn't presenting himself to any police, being in the embassy. Furthermore, the reference is from 17. Dec. 2010, and lists no other dates, not does it mention he presented himself. Thios sentence is just wrong at this place.109.193.183.13 (talk) 23:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Scope[edit]

It seems to me that this page now deals with legal proceedings concerning Assange in both Britain and Sweden. Should it be renamed? Totorotroll (talk) 09:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Do you have a suggestion? Belorn (talk) 15:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
No. It is all one case, wherever proceedings are held. 109.144.236.253 (talk) 08:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources again[edit]

I just reviewed the article, and it still heavily leans on primary sourcing, in particular to documents from the Swedish prosecution. There is absolutely no reason to include such sources here, and I will be removing them over time per WP:BLPPRIMARY. aprock (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems good. Since the article scope has changed, having a list of judges for a specific case seems unnecessary. It was also good to remove the last section since its purpose seemed to simply state what one side is arguing based on selected parts of a primary sourced. If any of the removed text is of relevance, news papers will have picked it up and we can use them as references. Belorn (talk) 13:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Statute of limitations point[edit]

At present the article states categorically that the Swedish statute of limitations of ten years applies, and therefore no charges could be brought after 2020. This point has been disputed here. Although it is reported in a forum critical of Assange, the source is an un-named legal authority and it is based in analysis of Swedish law. Should the article make it clear that the applicability of the statute of limitations isn't certain? Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The Swedish Penal Code seems to reinforce the point you raise. - http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/Dokument-Lagar/Lagar/Svenskforfattningssamling/Brottsbalk-1962700_sfs-1962-700/#K35 My feeling is that we would need a reliable secondary source before including this. Assange is "häktad i sin frånvåro" - detained in his absence - which may or may not satisfy the conditions for the statute of limitations not applying here. I am not sure if the page you cite is reliable or not. Totorotroll (talk) 07:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
The situation may also be complicated by the fact that Marianne Ny has stated that she doesn't consider Assange to be detained, that the only time that counts as detention according to her is the few nights he spent in prison in Britain. I don't know, so this is just speculation. My point is that the situation isn't simple, and needs analysis from an objective, qualified source. Totorotroll (talk) 07:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree on the "needs analysis from an objective, qualified source". I have read the claim of 2020 in articles from the Sweden national radio and television as recently as 3 days ago, so the statement that Statute of limitations hits in 2020 is fairly well sources as of now. There were also a article directly after the last court decision, where a news article directly stated that "statute of limitations for rape is 10 year and for sexual assault is it 5 years. This mean that he (Assange) can be kept detained in absentia until 2020." (as close word->word translation that I can make). If we are to add contradicting view points, we need to be sure they are sourced and significant. Belorn (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Given that the Swedish prosecutors seem to be working on the assumption that the five- and ten-year limits apply, it is immaterial what journalists and other amateurs think. As for how things might play out after 2020, we will just have to wait and see. 86.189.15.115 (talk) 07:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

One rape charge, two rape victims?![edit]

The reluctance of some editors, with whom I disagree, to name the women has hindered the development of this article. According to an article I just read, one of the women has actually "tweeted" that Assange did not rape her. [19] There is one charge of rape against him, with the other lesser charges having expired. (I wouldn't dare to presume that this isn't the woman who sent the tweet, because logic doesn't really apply to this court, but it's possible) All of this suggests to me that there is only one woman who can plausibly be considered a rape victim. Therefore, we should name the other one, and, as BLP demands, make it clear that Assange has never been accused of raping that woman, and explore the relationship and her side of the story unhindered. Wnt (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

It's never a good idea to base your opinions from one news source, especially from one that appears to continue to spread inaccuracies about the case, such as how "the Swedish authorities have never explained why they refuse to give Assange a guarantee that they will not extradite him" (a red herring that the Assange camp continues to spread, explained numerous times) and various other conspiracy theories, such as how Säpo might have a secret agreement about Assange with Washington. It's an even worse idea to base an encyclopaedia from a tweet, that appears to have been taken out of context and since been deleted. Also, from the what I've read, one of the women originally went to the police as support, because she shared a "similar experience" to the woman who claimed she was raped. In both of the cases, the sex was "voluntary at first" but then "slipped into abuse." (All based on an interview of the victim by Aftonbladet in 2010.) Under Swedish legislation, its pretty much irrelevant what the victim of a crime thinks. If the police and prosecutor believe there is reason to think someone has been the victim of a crime, they are obligated to register and prosecute that offence. / Gavleson (talk) 23:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Think Wnt has a put forward a good point. Neither woman has claimed rape. So the above editor has based his uninformed option on his own unreliable source -like, who takes anything they read on Aftonbladet (his source) as gospel? If this was not political, why would the Swedish defences council do a media blitz? This is in now in the public domain [20] It can perhaps, be considered as Blowback (intelligence) by those that think that you can fool all of the people all of the time. So the Swedish have put these names into the public domain and they can't now claw it back -as it is on the internet. What personal privacy is being infringed when their (A & W) own legal system thought that the whole World needs to know ( about A&W & Assange) ? Also, consider the Swedish photographer who has a legal cancel to issue DMCA's about anything she don't like said about her. A US born John Doe citizen may not be able to achieve this control over his persona in his own country but the Wikimedia Foundation will be forced to accept a DMCA from a Swedish citizen. 2013-07-08 UK news site censors discussion of XXXXX XXXXX . Finally: One news source?!!! . The truth got out and is now all around.--Aspro (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Disagree per WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPNAME. The victims have kept a low profile, barely commenting, aside from that one anonymous interview, AFAIK. I'm also pretty sure the Swedish prosecutor and police is a lot more qualified about Swedish legislation and know more about this case than either one of you. You guys are really only wasting peoples time here, unless you can find an interview with either one of these women -- from a WP:RELIABLE source -- where they unequivocally state how they weren't raped or sexually abused by Assange. / Gavleson (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
That is calling the kettle black if you don't mind me saying so ;¬). If you recall, the the approach by these two women to the police was in order to get a HIV/AID's test. There was ample opportunity to have this done, sorted and finished with. Listen very carefully, I will say this only once: In English a “victim” is (and I quote from the Oxford Dictionary) :A person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action. victim. Just who is wasting time here. Lets see You show a reference that either of these two women claim that they where harmed in anyway ( embarrassed perhaps by their own knee jerk actions – but victims no). If you found yourself embroiled in such a débâcle such as this, would you keep a low profile or would you feel ethically compelled to set the record straight rather than suffer a lifetime of being the subject of intrigue because your silence keeps a guy holed up in an embassy ? --Aspro (talk) 12:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Alright, as Wikipedia is a non-collaborative medium I went through from scratch and figured out which is which. According to [21], the woman associated with the "lesser rape" charge is the one who sent an SMS to a friend saying that she "did not want to accuse JA [of] anything" and "it was the police who made up the charges". (Ironically, these were picked up by some legal-grade form of universal surveillance) [22] says these tweets were from the younger woman, S_____ W_____ . That means that the older one, A_____ A_____, the one who tweeted she'd never been raped, surprisingly enough is the one who Assange is not charged with raping. Now if you do a search for that name, without underscores, you'll find some recent articles in Aftonbladet about some kind of Islam jihad controversy - a pity Google Translate can't do Swedish worth a damn, I have no idea what it's about. She's also the one who has been pretty publicly lambasted by some partisan sources as a 'liar', 'CIA agent' and so forth, though there's considerable room for argument that much if not all of that is based on wishful thinking and justifiable but unproven paranoia. We could start to lay out this available data in a way that people could build on. Wnt (talk) 10:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Think Gavleson has unwittingly proven why the identities of A& W can be included in this article at long last. The three conditions are not met in WP:BLP1E . These two women are not low profile. Supported by the own online activities and that of the Swedish legal system making it very much high profile. The conditions are also not met in WP:BLPNAME. Quote: When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, The Swedish legal system has made sure that every man and his dog on this planet knows the the names of the three individuals in this case. So why, should some people be allowed to censor a US Encyclopedia -who's mission is to enlighten the whole World, yet thwart it by moving the goal posts back and forth to agree with their own comfortable, feel good, rhetoric alone? Publicly disseminated information by the law courts does not come under sub judice, because they have chosen to make it public. Which includes the names of all three.--Aspro (talk) 13:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

So What is he specifically accused of?[edit]

This article does not say what he is actually accused of doing, and his defense in terms of the events. All that is left is legalistic cruft.

It appears that the deletionists have won big time. We do not need to know the names of the accusers, but we do need to know specifically what they accused him of, and what his defense is.

There is very little content in official statements. Remember, he has still not been charged. So that means, we need to (carefully) rely on news reports and defense from Assange himself. The latter should be qualified by "Assange claims..." but he is the expert on himself, and can be relied upon to accurately state what he *claims* happened!

Instead, the deletionists just say "if the reference isn't perfect the statements need to go". Which has produced an article that is worthless.Tuntable (talk) 05:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Please feel free to add information that you think should be in the article. Totorotroll (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Changing name of the article[edit]

As this article's scope has broadened significantly since it began, I'd like to suggest changing the name of the article to "Sexual assault allegations against Julian Assange". What do others think? Totorotroll (talk) 12:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. Activist (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 05:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Text of Assange's statement, released today[edit]

I'm not exactly sure what one does with something like this, a primary source. Makes for interesting reading. It's too long to summarize ("he affirms his innocence and offers evidence"?) so I'm not about to dump it in the article. Hopefully someone else has a better notion:[23]. I've done a quick and dirty summary and, noticing what he says about the Swedish lawyer not being present, thought that rather salient in view of pains taken to ensure his lawyer(s) were there as reported earlier. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 07:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

"Just an Opinion"[edit]

Ktetch POV'd the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention section in January, adding original research and downplaying the signficance of the finding. While he correctly stated in his edit that the Working Group on Arbitrary detention issued an Opinion, not a ruling (it's not a court of law after all), nothing else he changed/added was supported by the present sources: to wit, he implies the decision was somehow a 2-3 "minority" opinion on the basis that someone dissented, someone was Australian (what?) and that the fifth member was somehow "absent". Not one of those things is stated in the source (other than someone being Australian--it does not mention recusal). Even if it were true (or turns out to be true), the language used, "two members of a five-member panel", is highly misleading, as it makes it sound like another three people actively disagreed who were the majority. That this was the editor's intent is suggested by the edit explanation, which calls it "just an opinion" and a 2/1/1/1 minority). Ktetch likewise added misleading and contradictory text in the next sentence, namely that the Opinion is not at all binding according to the High Commissioner himself--even as he was stating it was, and adamantly, in the source. The original link for the source now leads nowhere, which may encourage dishonest people to insert whatever they like. I have restored the source by relinking it to another site. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)