Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 5

Some old stuff

wot no article? I'm a bit surprised.....

  1. today's article
  2. older one

hmmmmm...... Privatemusings (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

hmm it is surprising.. I'm not sure if it'd be entirely coincidental though.

<3 Julian Assange

Side note: The above message ("hmm it... <3 Julian Assange") was made by an IP Address who, when WHOISed, gives E-WIRE-AU as the netname, and a location in Western Australia. Assange lives in Kenya, if I remember correctly. (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


Correct me if I'm wrong but... I'm sure his name is 'Julien' and not 'Julian'. For evidence see and look at the top-right contact: julien@ —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


Does sombody know the pronunciation of Assange? (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

  1. see (5:25). don't know how to transcript it into IPA (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  2. No reference here to Wikileaks! I don't know enough about him to 'be bold' and update, but if anyone does that is one glaring omission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulvo (talkcontribs) 06:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


people keep reverting the good photos of julian to maximally bad, unrepresentatives ones claiming copyright violations which they are NOT. You can see how bad this is when there are two photos taken at a conference (new media days/copenhagen) within what appears to be seconds of each other, from the same camera, and the one that makes the speaker look dumb is picked, even though BOTH have been uploaded to wikipedia, one called "1" and the other called "2". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

About the Copenhagen photos, you may have a point - I have changed it back from File:Julian Assange 20091117 Copenhagen 2.jpg to File:Julian Assange 20091117 Copenhagen 1.jpg, although I think that both of them are not very good (he is barely recognizable when they are displayed in the article).
File:Julian assange.jpg, which had been uploaded by User:Groasvans to Commons on 1 April 2010, can be found (in a slightly different edit) in this 2008 Wired article, for example - without any indication there that it is under a free license. It has just been deleted on Commons.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
It is NOT wireds photo. It's distributed by WIkiLeaks itself as a press photo for the advisory board.
No one said it is Wired's photo. The point is: As it is usual on Wikipedia and Commons, the fact that a photo had been published elsewhere is seen as prima facie evidence that the uploader did not create it himself, i.e. is not the copyright holder as claimed. (If he is, there are standard procedures to identify oneself for that purpose, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.)
In any case, I don't see problems with the current photo (File:Julian Assange 26C3.jpg).
Please sign your comments by appending four tildes (~~~~).
Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
A version of this photo has now been uploaded again by User:Martinaharis as File:Julian assange 250px.jpg on Commons. Despite the advice given below, the upload does not come with evidence for permission to release the image under a free license (only with an invitation to ask for such permission by email: "See Talk:Wikileaks and email.") Martinaharis described the image as "Head shot photo of Julian Assange, Australia, 2007, Date 4 January 2007", which is demonstrably false, see Internet Archive. This also makes the claim "taken by me, as per instructions from Julian Assange" dubious.
Because of this, I have nominated the image for deletion again and am replacing it in this article by the previous one.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I have to say I think the File:Julian assange 250px.jpg photo is better. What kind of "evidence of permission" are you looking for and permission from whom? Gregcaletta (talk) 07:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
What kind of "evidence of permission" are you looking for - did you read the comment your were replying to? Once again: Back in April I already described one of the standard ways to provide evidence of permission to the user who said he was Julian Assange, see below. The fact that this suggestion was not followed casts further doubt on Martinaharis' claim that he/she was acting on behalf of Assange. Another way to resolve the situation would be to put up a notice at [1] declaring that that image is released under a free license, e.g. CC-BY-SA.
Lacking such evidence for permission, the image in question is usually speedily deleted (on the English Wikipedia under criterion F9). However I chose to start a normal (non-speeyd) deletion discussion on Commons to give the uploader more time to resolve the situation. But that discussion isn't meant as a forum for advocating changes in Commons' deletion practices or putting forth wildly inaccurate claims about copyright law, as you did there recently.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually I didn't mean make any claims about copyright law, as I am not an expert. I was making the point that it is impossible for Martinaharris to obtain "permission" from the copyright holder, if we don't know who the original copyright holder is. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. It makes the request for "permission" even more unreasonable, if she herself is the copyright holder as she claims, and we have no evidence to suggest that she is not. Gregcaletta (talk) 05:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to your following remarks
... surely this is only if it have been published elsewhere on the web under copyright. As far as I know, the only person on the entire internet to have claimed copyright on the photo is this Martinaharris character. Until someone else claims to have copyright, there is absolutely no legal danger to Wikipedia in using this photo
That is quite clearly a legal statement (and a bold one). And it is false, see number 1 on the list of "10 big myths about copyright". It is wrong to assume that a photo published on a web page is not under copyright just because a copyright notice is missing, see also Copyright#Obtaining_copyright - copyright is assigned automatically, it does not have to be claimed.
A new user, Annedancer has reinserted the photo, claiming (on Commons) that contains a release of the photo under public domain. However, that page does not exist (error 404).
Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
That was not a statement about copyright law; I was pointing out the self-evident fact that someone other than Matinaharris would have to claim copyright before they can challenge Wikipedia for infringing copyright. I have tried to explain clearly that I am not assuming "a photo published on a web page is not under copyright just because a copyright notice is missing". In fact, I believe the photo is under copyright (which is why your 10 big myths is irrelevant). Again, Matinaharris is claiming to be the copyright holder, and we have no evidence to suggest that she is not. Gregcaletta (talk) 10:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the link was supposed to be this one: She wasn't using it as a legal statement; all it shows that the photo is not copyrighted by a major organisation, but rather to Julian Assange or someone close to him (such as Martinaharris). Gregcaletta (talk) 10:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Why would Annedancer have wanted to post the very same link that I had already posted at the beginning of the deletion discussion (to show that part of the uploader's claims about the photo's origin were demonstrably false)?
In any case, the deletion of the image yesterday seems to finally have prompted Assange and/or the photographer to resolve the situation (see below). I think this case shows that it is possible to provide permission under the current policies and practices of Wikipedia and Commons, but if you still insist on changing them, you can try to do so elsewhere (for example, in Wikipedia:Copyrights you would need to change the sentence If the material, text or media, has been previously published and you wish to donate it to Wikipedia under appropriate license, you will need to verify copyright permission through one of our established procedures).
Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The photo is in the public domain. There are no competing claims. End of story. From the Julian's site:

"This photo was takin by Martina Haris on my instruction. We place it
into the public domain.
Julian Assange & Martina Haris" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Great, thanks. (The above URL is wrong again, but the link on the description page of the new file - uploaded today - is finally working. Given the contradictory statements about previous uploads, I have archived this permission statement using WebCite.) I'm happy that this is finally resolved, although I am still wondering why it took two months and two image deletions to get there.
The image description currently does not state when (which year) the photo was taken; as already remarked below in April, it would be nice if this information could be added.
The photo was certainly taken prior to 2006, 2005 at the latest.-- (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
One more thing: The mentioned permission at obviously refers to, of which File:Julian Assange.jpg is only a cropped version (headshot). While this seems more appropriate for the limited space of this article's infobox, it might be worthwhile uploading the whole photo to Commons, too.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


The citation (16) , , makes no claims that Julian Assange is indeed Mendax , The article is inconclusive & speculative at best , this should be removed at the earliest . jeph (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The Sydney Morning Herald article carefully lists concrete parallels, which do not appear to be "speculative".
The sentence in this Wikipedia article currently reads:
Wired and the Sydney Morning Herald have pointed out that there exist similarities between Assange and the person called "Mendax" in the book.[15][16]
So we have two independent reliable sources (the other being last year's Wired UK article) making that connection. (And additionally less reliable ones, like [2].)
And considering the fact that Assange himself co-authored a whole book about the scene he was involved in, and considered his hacking conviction a central part of his biography as late as 2006 [3], it also can't be said that this is an insignificant fact.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
this too seemed a bit flimsy, so I took it out too.. Privatemusings (talk) 08:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that Wired UK and the Sydney Morning Herald (or Bernard Lagan) can be called "flimsy" sources. Please don't ignore the previous discussion, address the arguments that have been given for the inclusion and give some actual arguments for your deletion.
Also, please be a bit more careful while editing - your removal destroyed other citations of the same source.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I think BPLS quite clearly asks us to have a very conservative tone , which is not the case when we say "there exists similarities between Assange and the person called Mendax in the book"jeph (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I disagree, I think the current sentence in the article ("Wired and the Sydney Morning Herald have pointed out ...") is actually written in a very conservative tone. But since you see it differently, what wording of the statement would you suggest to achieve such a tone?
Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Since adding that line does not actually add any significant value to the article or till such time "julian" himself or someone authoritatively comes out with it we should remove it.This is sort of like chasing the face of the man in the iron mask.It does not add to any real content to the article.jeph (talk) 04:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

< I agree with jeph - I'll do so now.... Privatemusings (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Jeph: You keep switching your arguments, first claiming that the cited source didn't support the statement as it was formulated in the article (when in fact it did), then objecting to the writing style (without specifying why you think its not "conservative"), then claiming the information has "no significant value" (without explaining why you think so).
sort of like chasing the face of the man in the iron mask - ok, I'll wait while you go and try to delete the section Man_with_the_Iron_Mask#Candidates ;) Seriously, the comparison is way off (did the Man with the Iron Mask write a book about the half-brother of Louis XIV?).
In the meantime, even Wikileaks themselves have linked an article about Assange as recommended reading which devotes a lot of space to Mendax ([4], in the Sunday Times). It looks like Wikileaks are a lot less concerned about mentions of Mendax than some Wikipedians are.
"It does not add to any real content to the article" - again, a personal opinion not backed by arguments. At least three independent reliable sources have now disagreed with you. (And versions of Lagan's article have now also been published by The Age [5], the Brisbane Times [6], [7], while Privatemusings still hasn't substantiated his accusation against Bernard Lagan that he wrote "flimsy" stuff.) Actually reading them will help to understand why this should be considered an important fact in his biography.
I am reverting Privatemusing's deletion until some more substantial arguments are being offered.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
where did you get the idea that I feel bernard lagan wrote flimsy stuff? That's not how I feel at all! (please consider asking me if I actually think or feel stuff like that before writing of 'accusation's - I think it turns the heat up unnecessarily) - I think the way we've had to write it is a bit clumsy (and yeah, lacks 'solidity or strength') as a snippet in an encyclopedia article - you quite like it though, so you've put it back. I kinda still reckon the article would be better without it - but fear not! We are allowed to disagree :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
It is not conservative because there are no secondary sources for "mendax" .It does not add any significant value because the reference to "mendax" is not verifiable to the fullest extent because neither "julian " has come out in the open nor has anyone brought any clinching evidence.I stick by my analogy , it make for reams & reams of newsprint & bestseller books but at the end of the day it is nothing more that a nice lazy sunday afternoon read .
Wikileaks put out the sunday times article with a disclaimer saying "Profile on WikiLeaks editor (mostly, not entirely, correct) | Sunday Times" Thanks to Assange’s army of online dissidents, you can study the design of the Nagasaki atomic bomb or a report on how Britain acquired its nuclear weapons capability. " This is factually incorrect , the desing document being talked about is a preliminary doc , that gives as much info as u can pick up from any book, infact it was in the public domian till 2002 , before it was classified again due to a policy change . , so if u cited the times article in a how to make an a bomb article it would be absurd , they have just mishmashed a lot of content they found online abt "julian"and made an article , just like most other articles available online that cross reference each other .Infact almost all the articles read the same , some even have the same flow of events. None of us have seen australian articles of the 1990's .

jeph (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


"Assange has a son, who is attending university as of 2010" from the wikipedia article reads like a fact , when it merely buys on the observations of others , that of Sydney Morning Herald from a book , does it not come under "original research" , is it verifiable ?? jeph (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

seems a bit intrusive, and flimsy, so I removed it. Privatemusings (talk) 07:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
You don't seem to be familiar with the no original research policy. "Merely buying on the observations of others" (i.e. reporting information that has been published elsewhere, citing reliable sources) is exactly what we are supposed to do as Wikipedians. On the contrary, that policy forbids making own observations. And of course "no original research" doesn't apply to sources, or otherwise no facts at all would be eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia...
Also, your implication that the Sydney Morning Herald got the statement from the "Underground" book is obviously false. The article says:
Assange has said he has a son at university.[8]
Clearly this statement couldn't have been made in 1997, when the son was much too young to be attending university. In addition it should be noted that (according to the SMH) Assange released that information himself, i.e. it wasn't uncovered against his will by some sleuth.
Having children is usually considered a relevant fact in a biography about a person, on Wikipedia or elsewhere. (As opposed to the names of children - I would certainly agree that publishing them is intrusive, at least if they are not notable themselves.) That being said, I agree that the issue merits a careful discussion, so let's see what other arguments (besides mere opinion and a misinterpretation of Wikipedia policies) might be offered.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The article only says that "Assange has said he has a son at university " in the wiki article though it was "Assange has a son, who is attending university as of 2010" , which is not claimed in the article & falls under the ambit of original research. Also I could not find any secondary source for it in line with BLPS. What I meant was it "that of Sydney Morning Herald & from a book" .None of the other citations talk abt his son . jeph (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

yeah - I'd agree on this point also - I'll make this change, and the one detailed above. Privatemusings (talk) 00:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
of course, the status quo is that the reference to a son at uni. is absent ;-) - I think it's best left that way. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the deal is here between Jeph and Privatemusings, but this 'one bring up a concern and the other immediately go remove info' thing isn't appropriate. Privatemusings, I'd suggest you stop removing sourced material from the article without some basis in policy. If he's quoted saying he has a son in university and it is believed this is somehow relevant for the article, then it should be left in. Jeph's claim that it should be removed because no other sources than The Sydney Morning Herald and the book make mention of a son shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how an encyclopedia is written and what we consider reliable, secondary sources. Considering how long you've been editing, PM, I find it a bit unsettling how you've taken to editing this article. Lara 21:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

there's no deal, I don't think, Lara, and I'm not sure you're reading jeph's points in quite the way I am - I think he's asserting a degree of inappropriate synthesis in the way some information was written - however, I also think that it's dated and unnecessary personal information, so p'raps you'd agree with me on that front? Hope you're good anywhoo... Privatemusings (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

hacker ethics bit

I think the collection of writings in this section was pretty interesting, but it's not a good fit imo for a balanced bio, so I've removed it for now. I'll sniff around to see if there's a better article home for it.... Privatemusings (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Lengthy Ellsberg quote about diplomatic cables

I have removed the following (part of an even longer quote by Daniel Ellsberg) from the "Characterisation of Assange and his work" section:

..having read a hell of a lot of diplomatic cables, I would confidently make the judgment that very little, less than one percent, one percent perhaps, can honestly be said to endanger national security. That’s distinct [from the percentage that could cause] embarrassment—very serious embarrassment, [if people] realize that we are aware of highly murderous and corrupt operations by people and that we are supporting them. It is very seriously embarrassing..If the choice is between putting none of them out, as the State Department would like, and putting all of them out, I definitely feel our national security would be improved if they were put out. Between those two choices, I would rather see them all of them out. It would help understand our own foreign policy and give us the chance to improve it democratically. I hope they are out, I hope we get to see them.[1]

User:Smallman12q has restored the quote without giving a reason (incorrectly claiming that he restored only part of it).

As already indicated in the edit summary, I have removed this because

  • it is too lengthy, see also Wikipedia:QUOTE#Overusing_quotations
  • it is offtopic (not a "characterization of Assange", he isn't even mentioned there)
  • it is highly speculative (musing possible future decisions by Wikileaks about material they have - sort of - denied to possess)

For these reasons, I am removing this part again. If anyone has good reasons why it should be kept in the article, please discuss them here.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


It has been argued that the advisory board does not exist. The reference goes to the WikiLeaks site, so there is no independent verification for its existence. Now, I'm not claiming this myself, but has anybody ever seen it? :-) The recent controversy should also probably be added to the article. By that I am obviously referring to the Manning-Lamo incident and specifically Mr. Assange's involvement in it. -- (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Your statement appears convoluted, could you be more straight foward please? Wikileaks states there is an adivsory board.Smallman12q (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I didn't have the URL handy at that time and I still don't, but I will look it up. I was referring to this Cryptome text. Now, it's a blog post and as such anything but a reliable source, but a "Wikileaks Insider" claims that the board is made up. I am not endorsing this claim nor discrediting it, but the only one saying the board does exist is Assange. I believe people's own websites should not be used as sources, because anybody can write anything on them, and independent verification should be sought. The writing presents further accusations against Assange, including use of a quarter million dollars of donated funds for his personal expenditure and attempts to sell the 'secrets' to media. However, anybody could have written this as well and its reputability is suspect at minimum. Nevertheless, I wanted to bring this to the attention of the Wikipedia community. -- (talk) 12:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Cryptome is a notable website, but these emails do not appear to be credible at all. The (formal) existence of the board has been partially confirmed by Ben Laurie [9] and CJ Hinke [10](unverified). However, it appears that Wikileaks might have been a bit cavalier about the exact list of members - when Mother Jones magazine contacted them, "some didn't know they were mentioned on the site or had little idea how they got there"[11]. Rather than assuming the above Cryptome emails are genuine, a more plausible conjecture would be that they are part of a disinformation campaign to discredit the Mother Jones article, which Wikileaks did not like at all (by distorting its statements to an untrue extreme and mixing in libelous falsehoods about Assange).
An earlier leak on Cryptome containing internal Wikileaks communication during its launch (2006/07) appears much more credible to me. (An interesting read especially for Wikipedians - look for the frequent internal references to Wikipedia, and at one point to Wikia. One email, quite possibly by Assange, describes plans to give presentations about WL at the January 2007 World Social Forum in Nairobi - this seems to have happened [12] -, deliberately exploiting the confusion between Wikileaks and Wikipedia: "Many people there must be net savy and even those that aren't can't but help hearing about the wikpedia".)
In any case, as you indicate yourself, your link does not fulfill the criteria of WP:RS. But you are certainly correct it pointing out that Wikileaks's own statements should not be taken as unquestionable truth either, see also WP:SELFPUBLISH.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I would like to make a general point about WP:SELFPUBLISH as well. HaeB is accurate when he says that self published assertions "should not be taken as unquestionable truth" (emphasis mine). However, generally you would assume that self-published statements are true if you have absolutely no reason to doubt them. The Cryptome text you provide appears to be nothing more than a clumsy piece of slander. The MotherJones article is also a pretty clumsy attempt to discredit Wikileaks. The say "some didn't know they were mentioned on the site or had little idea how they got there", but by "some" they mean "one" as they only give one example. They also give the example of Noam Chomsky, being unaware he appeared on a facebook page, a page which wasn't even run by Wikileaks at the time. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
You don't give any evidence for the claim about the Facebook group, and the fact is that it has been linked on Wikileaks' official contact page as early as 2008 - among official phone, fax, skype addresses and right next to Wikileaks' PGP key, which certainly weren't meant to belong to some random guy on the Internet either. (I believe the Facebook group was also linked in a Wikileaks tweet in December 2009, would need to look that up though.) Mother Jones acknowledged that Wikileaks recently set up a second Facebook group, but otherwise stood by its statement. The insinuation that MJ used manipulating language (embellishing "one" to "some") is also not being substantiated - it is entirely possible that other members said such a thing but declined to be named.
If a source that can generally be assumed to satisfy WP:RS publishes a statement contradicting a statement by Wikileaks (and sticks to it even after Wikileaks protests in vague terms against the article it was published in, and Assange showers them with invectives), we are certainly not in a situation where there is "absolutely no reason to doubt" that statement by Wikileaks. In addition, one has to taken into account other occasions where statements by Wikileaks were found to be inaccurate or misleading. Just one of many examples: Here the Columbia Journalism Review noted that media investigated one of one of Assange's claims and were "unable to substantiate" it.
I note that in the thread below you affectionately call the subject of this article by his first name and shout a lot to emphasize the importance of forming this article according to his presumed wish. This and the fact that in recent weeks I have seen other attempts by you to bend Wikipedia and Commons policies in the context of this topic leads me to conjecture that the judgement "a clumsy piece of slander" is more based on sympathy for a good cause than on a factual analysis of the material. If I am wrong and you can point to specific contradictions which reduce its credibility (like I tried above for the other Cryptome material), I would be interested to hear them.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
When I said "no reason to doubt", I mean "no reason to doubt" that some advisory board does in fact exist. Even the Mother Jones article does not claim that the entire advisory board is fiction. In fact, the MotherJones article only says that "some" people (at least two) say they are not on the advisory board. The other point I was trying to make is that details on social networking sites such as Facebook page are not encyclopaedia worthy, and the fact that Mother Jones even use such a trivial source for information shows that they were scrambling to find enough examples so they could use the word "some" rather than "one". I actually don't doubt that any of the things in the Mother Jones article are true; the article just does't say very much. When I said "a clumsy piece of slander" I was not referring to the MotherJones article, but to the Cryptome e-mail, which you and I agree does not qualify as a reliable source. I used bold to try to make it easier for people to understand the main points of my argument. Sorry if it feels like "shouting". My use of his first name "Julian" probably comes more from sympathy than "affection" (I don't personally know the guy). However, I do not think it is necessary to the violate WP:RS to represent Wikilinks and Julian Assange in a way which is sympathetic or as a "good cause". On the contrary, I believe the facts speak for themselves. The MotherJones article does not actually say an advisory board does not exist, it might be insinuating that an advisory does not exist by stating some of the listed advisory board members "didn't know they were mentioned on the site or had little idea how they got there". The addition of this to the paragraph, particularly after the word "however" makes the same tacit insinuation very explicit and is therefore a violation of WP:SYNTH. However, I am happy to include the fact that Khamsitsangs denied being on the board; this is NPOV, non-rhetorical, and gives due weight to the MotherJones article. Gregcaletta (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Picture for infobox

Let us keep this picture for the infobox, please. The other one, File:Julian Assange.jpg, is of a lower quality, does not show the subject's head, collar, and shoulders, and cuts off part of his head. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you read Talk:Julian_Assange#Notes_from_Julian_Assange, but it appears that the subject, Julian_Assange, has specifically requested that we use that I don't see the purpose in changing it.Smallman12q (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, he only asked to use that photo "or another photo that suits my public role" (his main concern was that File:Julian Assange 26C3.jpg should not be used). And Cirt has described some valid objections; in addition File:Julian Assange.jpg has the disadvantage of being undated and outdated (it is from 2006 or earlier, see [13]). But I suppose we can add it as a second image in the sections about his earlier life; I just did that. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Come on guys, File:Julian Assange.jpg is clearly a much better photo. Who cares if we can't see his shoulders. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I've found the uncropped version where his shoulders and collar are visible. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
But that one still has the big disadvantage (for encyclopedic purposes) of being undated and outdated. I have left it in for the moment and added the available information about its age, but could you explain what is wrong with the cropped Copenhagen photo?
Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't way that anything was "wrong" with the Copenhagen photo; I would be happy to use it if the current photo were not available. It is rather a question of which photo is better. There are essentially two related reasons why I would say the current photo is better. The most objective reason being that Julian himself specifically requested the use of this photo, and seems to have gone to some effort to make it clearly in the public domain so that we can use it. In fact he says above "Please use a cropped version of or another photo that suits my public role." As it is unclear what he mean by "suits my public role", we should use the specific photo indicated in the request. He also said "a cropped version", but previously Cirt objected to not being able to see his shoulders or collar, so I reverted to the full photo to try to to reach consensus (although I believe the cropped version is better). The second reason more subjective argument for the current photo comes down to "which photo most accurately and pleasantly represents the subject". You mentioned the fact the the photo is undated, but he is still clearly recognisable and does not look particularly younger (except for the fact that the better lighting makes him look more pleasant), and in any case, three or so years difference between the photos is not significant; I am sure many BLP articles use pictures up to 10 years old, as long as the subject is still clearly recognisable and presentable. A more objective criteria for "which photo most accurately and pleasantly represents the subject" comes from wikipedia BLP policy on images where it says "situations where the subject was not expecting to be photographed" should not be used. In the Copenhagen photo, he is in the middle of speaking, whereas in the current photo, he is posing nicely and directly facing the camera, thus indicating his willingness to be photographed at that moment. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Julian Assange 2010-front.jpg - changed to this one, it is a much higher quality photo than the lower quality File:Julian Assange.jpg. -- Cirt (talk) 08:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I thought the previous photo was fine, but this one looks fine too. Gregcaletta (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Lede too short

The lede/intro of this article is too short, and fails WP:LEAD. It is not an adequate summary of the entire article's contents. Tagged as such. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

POV Check

The article lacks a criticism section about concerning how wikileaks publishes information as well as alleged context issues with videos published by his site. Agree with his methods or not, the section should be present for balance purposes —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is about Julian Assange not wikileaks.Smallman12q (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Please make some specific suggestions if you want to add a tag like that. We don't endorse "criticism sections" here. --John (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
We do however endorse "controversy" sections that have reliable sources=P.Smallman12q (talk) 02:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Cryptome head sows doubt about Assange's credibility

I listened to Alex Jones today (it was probably Monday's broadcast) and he had John Young, the head of Cryptome, on and among other things Assange's background and behaviour in relation to his position at Wikileaks was discussed. Investigative journalist Wayne Madsen was also on the the 3-hour program, most of which was dedicated to the recent Afghanistan War Logs. Significant doubts about the credibility and integrity of Assange and Wikileaks were put forward in that program. It should be considered at least whether Young's assessments merit inclusion in this article. __meco (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds very speculative to me. Was it reported in any reliable source? Skomorokh 18:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
We'll have to wait and see. The head of Cryptome should definitely be considered someone whose opinions on Assange would be notable. __meco (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
This is a citable reference. Personally, I don't think everything that John Young says there makes perfect sense, but his recollections of the founding phase seem credible, and in any case his opinions are notable, as Meco said. See also the discussion above.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
This article by Wayne Madsen, published in Pakistani newspaper also contains strong accusations from Young: "In January 2007, John Young, who runs, a site that publishes a wealth of sensitive and classified information, left Wikileaks, claiming the operation was a CIA front." __meco (talk) 07:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
An article in TechEye relates Young's accusations while at the same time disparaging him writing: " founder John Young believes Wikileaks is not a group of activists, but some sort of shady spy outfit maintained by the CIA, or MI6, or phantom menaces from Mars."[14], while MSNBC quotes BBC tech correspondent Bill Thompson stating: "John Young has, over the years, proved his credibility and his commitment to freedom of speech, and if he is worried about the WikiLeaks project then we should all be."[15]. __meco (talk) 08:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't say much about Wayne Madsen, but Alex Jones is not really reputable or to be taken seriously by any means, i.e. whatever is debated in his show is useless for WP, unless it gets picked up by some reputable sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Australian Defence Association

In this edit by User:Filmested the following was added:

The Australian Defence Association (ADA) states on July 28, 2010, that Assange and his website WikiLeaks "could have committed a serious criminal offence in helping an enemy of the Australian Defence Force (ADF)" and "Moreover, as an Australian citizen, Wikileaks' Julian Assange may also be guilty of a serious criminal offence by assisting an enemy the ADF is fighting on behalf of all Australians, especially if the assistance was intentional."[2]

It should be noted however that the Australian Defence Association is not an official governmental group, but rather a non-partisan, community-based, public-interest watchdog and ‘think-tank’ on defence and wider national security issues as well as a lobby group. [3][2] Should this added content be removed? There are several other think-tank groups that have commented...should they be added as well...or will this introduce a POV issue?Smallman12q (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

When I first read it, I actually thought this was some official group and it does give that impression strong, it should either be removed or at least make clear what this is. I'm putting it there, feel free to remove all of it. Rajakhr (talk) 04:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Pulling the Atlantic dismissal

So i removed this portion of the Public Appearances section.

[4] In The Atlantic, Marc Ambinder called Ellsberg's concerns "ridiculous", and said that "Assange's tendency to believe that he is one step away from being thrown into a black hole hinders, and to some extent discredits, his work"

While this was certainly written in the Atlantic, it seems hardly a point worth making given that the US Army is now after both wikileaks generally and almost certainly Assange in particular. See

Paxuscalta (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The comment refers to the situation in June (and presumably earlier incidents where alarming claims by Assange about prosecution by authorities did not withstand scrutiny later, see e.g. this article by the Columbia Journalism Review). It was vindicated a few days afterwards by Assange's own comment on June 21, which for some reason you haven't removed from the article), where he backtracked from earlier assertions made after the Manning arrest.
The Washington Post link you cite is an interview with Assange that was published yesterday. I think the history of this article shows that adhering to WP:NOTNEWS and emphasizing reliable sources based on independent research (as opposed to writing the article mostly according to statements by the subject himself) is especially important here.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


  1. ^ Daniel Ellsberg: Wikileaks' Julian Assange "in Danger" - The Daily Beast
  2. ^ a b "Assange may have committed offence: ADA". The Sydney Morning Herald. 2010-07-28. 
  3. ^
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference ellsbergmsnbc was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Legal Status of Recent Leak

Bloomberg says they're in the clear legally. Rabbitwho (talk) 02:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Notes from Julian Assange

As it would not be ethical for me to edit this article directly, I am placing some notes here:

1. I have historically been a private person. However I accept that the public has a certain interest in what I am doing and speaking for and that the article may be valuable to people, if it is done with care.

2. The nature of my work, exposing abuses by powerful organizations and nation states, tends to attract attacks on my person as a way to color debate. The history of this page has numerous examples and, because this page is used as media input by lazy press, the stakes are high. Similarly, even when edits are factually true, there is a spectrum of truths about any person. What is inserted, and its tone, need to be not only true, but fair and representative.

3. The top photo of me is unusual for a public figure and tends to undermine my message. The edit history shows a lot of fights over the photo. The one used is not a press shot and is not suitable to my public role. It is a random photo taken at a random moment during a talk by a random person. Please use a cropped version of or another photo that suits my public role.

4. The 'market desire' for information about me and my status as a controversial figure has led to people inventing, and reprinting, a lot of junk about me that is either a distortion or is wholly untrue. While the Guardian (with some exceptions) and the New York Times (with few exceptions) have got things right, lesser publications have major errors. Even multiple publications saying the same thing can not be trusted, because they requote each other without attribution. I am attempting to get more into the public record to avoid this tendency, but I would much prefer to spend my time on exposing major abuses by governments and corporations than exposing shoddy journalism about me. Please do that for me, so I can spend time on what I'm good at, instead of reading my Wikipedia page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC) , modified by (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

First, let me say that your restraint from editing the article yourself is appreciated - as remarked above, this ethical commitment sets you apart in a positive way from many people who abuse Wikipedia's openness to edit "their" article for PR purposes.
(Please be aware that based on the edits alone, there is no way to verify for certain that they were indeed made by Julian Assange, beyond noting that the first IP is registered to an institution where Assange recently gave a talk. But I am going to reply to your remarks on the assumption that they are genuine.)
1. & 2.: It is of course very important that an article about a living person like this one conforms to Wikipedia's principles, because of the repercussions it can have in the "real world", and you are certainly entitled to remind us of that responsibility. Unfortunately, in your remarks it remains entirely unclear which edits in the version history you perceive as "attacks" on your person, and which contributors to this article are suspected to have edited it on behalf of "powerful organizations and nation states". Focusing on the present version, you have not specififed which parts of the text you find unfair or not representative, which makes it hard to accommodate your concerns. - People come to Wikipedia for a neutral, balanced view, which (as you appeared to hint at in the earlier version of your comments) also has the potential be a valuable corrective to the self-image that a person or an organisation is presenting to the public. In any case, it is not identical to that self-view, see WP:NPOV.
3.: You are refering to File:Julian Assange 26C3.jpg. The fact that a photo was taken "by a random person" instead of an official photographer does not mean that it can't be used. (Actually, most of Wikipedia's content is being contributed by "random" people instead of official representatives or authorized personnel.) Also, it does show you in a "public role", in fact at the occasion where in the opinion of another user (not necessarily mine, but it is still present in the article) you exerted that role "most notably". And I am not aware that you had objected to photos being taken at the event; at the very least you must have agreed to the official video recording that was done at the same time. Portrait photos in Wikipedia articles must not present the subject of an article in a false or disparaging light, but they also do not need to convey the subject's "message", a very unclear notion anyway. - While I am struggling to understand your objections to that photo, there would be nothing wrong with adding a different photo that everybody can agree on. A version of had been uploaded earlier as File:Julian assange. (For encyclopedic purposes, it has the disadvantage of being entirely undated, but perhaps you can remedy that.) As you see in the edit history, it was removed out of copyright concerns, and (as discussed above) it had to be deleted because it was lacking evidence for permission, i.e. proof that the uploader held the copyright to that photo, which is needed to place it under a free license as required. If you can provide that missing permission, please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission (it is probably easiest to send an e-mail as described there, from an address that authentificates you - anything at or should do fine).
4. You are of course right in pointing out the downsides of journalism that come with freedom of the press. Misinformation can spread and irresponsible journalists can disclose information about organizations and public figures (or emphasize it to distortion) against their will, which can have a negative impact on their aims. But by its policies on verifiability, neutrality and no original research, Wikipedia is to present information according to reliable published sources, regardless of whether we personally want to support or criticize the article's subject. "Reliable" means that the publication has a good general track record, not that it has never made any errors (so the NYT isn't excluded just because of Jayson Blair). It is unclear whom you mean by "lesser publications" - the Sunday Times? The "no original research" policy means that Wikipedia is not the place to "expose shoddy journalism"; on the other hand, "attempting to get more into the public record" first is exactly the right thing to do - then we will be able to cite your view alongside the disputed statement, or (depending on its importance and the circumstance) remove it as dubious.
Summarily, while you certainly have the right to demand that the article describes you fairly and accurately, you have so far not explained (apart from the photo issue) where and why it should have failed to do so. Instead of vague innuendo and general remarks about the press, please name specific statements and issues that you find objectionable, so that your concerns can be addressed.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
You are always welcome to make contributions/suggestions to your article provided they follow Wikipedia:Autobiography. Also, if you find ways of improving your article or inadequacies/inaccuracies within the article, please be specific when pointing them out. Cheers!Smallman12q (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Claims such as Mr. Assage's point #1 about privacy and the innuendo that follows provide source material for the suggested section on his famous hypocrisy--as long as they are used to demostrate his statements, and not for original research. (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Assange confirms it's really him commenting above:"Wikipedian: I have been editing the articles about WikiLeaks on the english wikipedia, if you have read them, what do you think about them? Was it really you who commented on the talk page on "your own" article?
Julian Assange: Thank you. There are frequent attempts by military apologists and others to manipulate our Wikipedia pages. It was me who commented, yes." Jebba (talk) 05:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


Assange was interviewed by the Australian Broadcasting Commission's Foreign Correspondent, he gave information pertaining to WIkiLeaks and what it does etc. I think that it may be of relevance to this article and the WikiLeaks article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fridae'sDoom (talkcontribs) 12:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrong section?

Taliban spokesperson, Zabihullah Mujahid, has confirmed they are searching the leaked documents for information on Afghan civilians who collaborated with NATO forces so they can track them down and "punish them". This has absolutely NOTHING to do with characterization of his work. That should be in a separate section, maybe name it "Usage of his work" or something. But a characterization is that you think something is good or bad: you value his work using a sort of scale. -andy (talk) 02:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Assange Death Count

I will be tracking all deaths of individuals mentioned in any of Assange's papers released. They will be broken down amongst US Service Men, International Service Men, and Afghani Offiicials/Civilians. This will be neutral and verifiable. This information will be updated in his wiki. I am still working out the supporting documentation and finishing some OCR to scour the document for some names.

I will also compile the nationality... Understand the first amendment is only valid in the US. Should Assange be responsible for the death of a non-american citizen, he could be tried.

JustinCred (talk) 08:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

We'd be unable to include the information you're offering to track, and yes, the first amendment is only valid in the US. This does not mean that no other nation has freedom of speech and of the press. Ironholds (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
In order to add such content, please be aware that you must cite reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.Smallman12q (talk) 12:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hahahahahahaha, oh my. Oh thats just hilarious. Sorry, seems your ridiculous threat isn't going to be scaring anyone JustinCred. Seeing as no-one has died as a result of the Wikileaks. And no, just because Fox says so doesn't make it true. You see...the leaks are publically available, so fallaciously (ie: flat out lying) attributing deaths to the leak, when those names are not found anywhere in the leaks, kiiinda puts a hole in your intentional ignorance. But nice try. (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Defendant alleges smear campaign

I wouldn't give his own claims of a US conspiracy to "smear" him too much weight - Sweden is not some banana republic and isn't even a US ally. I suppose any person charged with rape would claim it's all lies. Most people serving prison sentences are totally innocent and victims of miscarriages of justice after all (if you ask them). Jeannedeba (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

  • The official statement by Wikileaks, as it does not make any claims about smear campaigns or ulterior motivations, would seem to lend credence to the notion that the allegations have some foundation. Skomorokh 15:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Realisticly, wikileaks would be dumb to prejudge the accusations before they see the evidence available, since it would greatly undermine their credibility if the evidence is strong. In other words, I don't think the wikileaks statement is surprising at all, in fact it's more or less what I'd expect Nil Einne (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
It's actually markedly different to their usual modus operandi, which is to come out guns blazing and deny everything (Manning wasn't the source of the leaks, war logs didn't endanger collaborators etc.]. Skomorokh 15:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Their tweet says "We were warned to expect "dirty tricks". Now we have the first one".Smallman12q (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not a forum. Nobody cares about your opinions, or about your theories. Come back when you have evidence. Powerchicken (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The BBC has just announced (16:28 BST) that the warrant has been cancelled. Let's see if the Swedish prosecutor gives reasons or explanation. Personally I wouldn't put it past the CIA to have been involved in this - manipulated allegations of rape being a standard smear tactic in the US tradition. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I can't now add refs for this to the top para as editing of it has been blocked? Anyway, it's not visible for me. There is a missing full stop at the end of the second para in the lede, plus someone can now reference the cancellation story from the BBC. [16] Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Contrary to what Powerchicken may think I'm not really trying to debate anything here or use this as a forum, I'm simply suggesting that people are getting way too excited by too little evidence and I think it is unfortunate, but I'm not surprised that wikipedia (which is supposed to be an encylopaedia not a news source) is getting caught up in this. All these claims of CIA involvement etc. People seem to be forgetting that rape accusations against celebrities are not unheard of. I have no comment on the merit of these complaints, as PC has pointed out, my opinions are irrelevant anyway, but from the info available at the moment, there's no reason to get so excited about all this. The fact the arrested warrant has now apparently been cancelled could very well mean this is a great example of the provebial storm in a teacup. Also there is always going to be a big difference between what wikileaks may do when defending themselves or their sources in accusations relating to their work, and how they handle what could easily be unrelated complaints against their founder (or any of their employees), raping people is clearly not part of wikileaks work and if anyone does do that, they're not going to be defending them. In other words, repeating what I said from the beginning, people are reading way too much into the tiny amounts of information (and large amounts of rumour) that have been revealed. It would be nice therefore if people had taken a calm and conservative approach when editing this article, in other words it was treated as an encyclopaedia article rather then a tabloid news report, but as I've said I think my words here are going to fall on deaf ears. There is a fair chance we'll never really know what happened here anyway and there will be some people convinced it's a failed? CIA operation, some people convinced he's an evil rapist who got away, some people who think the accusers were just out for attention and some people who think it was a wikileaks publicity stunt with misguided edits that continue for a long time after most of the world has forgotten Nil Einne (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC) - prosecutor has rescinded the arrest order; no reason to suspect rape. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems strange not to even mention such a highly-publicized happening, especially given the even more highly-charged global media coverage of Assange. Once the dust has settled a little and we have more information, I would have thought a considered sentence or two on this is worth having in the article - the do no harm provision only applies if it's not notable enough and this surely is. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of the media coverage of this person seems to be connected to the rape case and associated conspiracy theories on his and his supporters' side ("aliens were behind it! US gov't was behind it!") I'd say this case is what primarily makes him notable. (It's a very weird case) Jeannedeba (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that Assange is more notable for a now dropped as false rape accusation versus his body of work on Wikileaks and multiple international media and television appearances over YEARS? You realize this false rape charge is less than 24 hours old, and Assange has been famous for years outside the local United States mainstream media? Did you even read the article to see who this person is? (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the massive media coverage today and yesterday is what primarily makes him notable (not the rape case per se). He's a conspiracy theorist who unlawfully publishes sensitive information (as defined by law) that threatens other people's privacy and security, in some cases it could be considered stalking. His website is a criminal venture that governments of several countries are trying to shut down for good reasons. It's very difficult to get rid of illegal websites, child pornography sites are also a good example of this. Jeannedeba (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
No, he is not primarily notable due to the media coverage today; there has been massive coverage before. Why else do you think this got so big? I suggest you stay away from this topic by the way, as there is clearly a bias/conflict of interest as evident by that comment and your various contributions. Nymf hideliho! 17:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Conflict of interest? Hardly. I had never heard of this person before yesterday. You, on the other hand, seem to have a clear bias. Jeannedeba (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Possibly true. You do though clearly have an extremely negative opinion of his work (of which you can hardly know anything if you have never heard of him throughout all the past weeks, if not months or years), and you have a clearly prejudiced opinion of anyone charged with violence against women. The fact that few rapists are ever convicted is mostly due to rapes not being reported, not because charged are dropped less then a day later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C.d.rose (talkcontribs) 19:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I did this revert because the material was giving way too much weight to the (potentially fake) allegations. The text described the allegations in huge detail which is damaging to the subject's reputation if the allegations are later proved wrong (which seems to be happening). In any case, I think we can safely wait until at least tomorrow. Perhaps some more clear info will become available then. Let's be careful here because of WP:BLP. Offliner (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

There was indeed some unwarranted speculation in the section. I'd suggest we just stick to the formal facts, he was charged with rape by Swedish police, the charges were dropped the following day (very, very few rapists are ever convicted, btw.). Jeannedeba (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
What would be useful would be if any background information comes out as to the basis of the original warrant and if there are any comments by the prosecutorial authorities. Also, your statement above (Jeannedaba) that this particular event is the most notable thing about Assange (if I read your comments correctly) is utterly absurd. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd say what we are looking for is a two or three sentence summary of the charges being placed then immediately dropped. Any more than that would be undue weight. It may be better to wait until the true nature of this story becomes more apparent to mention it at all, per WP:NOTNEWS. --John (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree, currently that section is more of a newsticker and is given too much weight. SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 18:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Are we confident all allegations have been dropped by the authorities? The NYT, as of about ten minutes ago, writes without rebuttal "But according to an Associated Press report on Saturday afternoon, the prosecutor's office had said that Mr. Assange remained suspected of the lesser crime of molestation in a separate case." Skomorokh 17:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That this degree of uncertainty remains is a good pointer that we should not cover this yet. As others users have mentioned, do no harm must be our goal here for now. In even a day or two there will be a better understanding. In the meantime there is no prejudice against formulating a brief and neutral mention of the developing story here, if it can be agreed here in talk first. --John (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
You are correct; the molestation charge still stand. It is, however, a minor offense that is not punishable by jail time, so I it might not be notable. Nymf hideliho! 18:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Right now, I'd say leave it out of the article. An accusation of a crime unaccompanied by evidence or other significance may not amount to much. Given how public and controversial the subject is, however, I think it may be a good idea to collect sources - it would be foolish to expect this sort of thing to go away. RayTalk 19:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Everything has a context. An accusation of molestation or rape that is withdrawn after having been made might not be notable in the case of someone lower-profile. In the case of Assange, who is right now very possibly one of the most news-covered individuals on the planet, not just for his leadership of Wikileaks but specifically on the question of his character, personality, views and history, this is seriously newsworthy, which is why every major media outlet is all over it (not just tabloids but quality press) and so I don't see how it can be ruled not notable here. Do I detect a strain of Wikiworld solidarity creeping in? If there are widely reported facts on this they should be in the article. Or is Wikipedia to censor it? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Nope; it's 100% not at all notable. Mildly notable now but in a month, pfft. Nothing. who is right now very possibly one of the most news-covered individuals on the planet -I can think of hundreds of people with vast amounts more news coverage. Wikileaks got some international coverage recently, Assange hit several of the big editorials. This is not anything all that special. BLP policy here is extremely strong; unless it is a long term high profile notable event/controversy there should be a conviction for it to pass inclusion. Allegations are not our forte. In a rape allegation the suspect will almost always be arrested; so the fact he had an arrest warrant is not at all notable, beyond that we don;t report vague allegations. Give it a few days - if it dies it dies, if it stays then we have more info to work with. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 19:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
It's "mildly notable" now? Sure. That's why BBC News have it as the second-top story right behind the Australian elections. I'd hate to see something that was "seriously notable" by way of a current event! BLP aside, Assange-protecting is not the reason we're here and on a more general note, given that the public know little about him other than that he's a libertarian with big ideas about his own importance, it's extremely useful to have anything additional about his views and conduct. Provided of course it's notable enough to get worldwide coverage. :-) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Libertarian? Big ideas about his own importance? Citation Needed... Jebba (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I would get you some, but all Google search results are whited out with the rape news story. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
It is far from difficult to make it onto the BBC home page, lots of stories do. Just because it is big news today does not make it so tomorrow. On the other hand the Australian election will probably be on and off the front page for a few days. it's extremely useful to have anything additional about his views and conduct - which is precisely why we have a BLP policy to stop people from putting this rubbish into articles. He gets no different treatment from any other person - it barely relates to his long term biography. Best thing to do is remove it, wait a week and see what the conclusion is - it may deserve a sentence. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 19:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally seriously notable would be, say, if he had been charged. Or if he was convicted of something - this is our usual fairly strict bar for inclusion. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 19:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
It's utter nonsense that any old story makes it to the number 2 spot on the main BBC news website. A whole battery of editors, sub-eds and critical reviews on stories are in place on that. Oh and of course it's also on the front page of just about every other major news outlet. But not notable enough for the BLP defence team obviously. Shades of JW's treatment on Wikipedia. 20:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Rubbish. There was no conviction, the arrest warrant was rescinded. He was not charged or even investigated. Just because it makes it to the top of the news page in no way makes it noteworthy to his biography. This is not about protecting anyone (I dislike the guy myself), it is about leaving out inappropriate biographical content. I cut crap like this from biographies all the time - Assange deserves no different treatment. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 20:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Rubbish, he was formally charged and arrested in his absence. The decision to arrest him was rescinded one day later when the more serious charge of rape was dropped, while the lesser charge of sexual molestation was upheld. Jeannedeba (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
No charge of molestation has been upheld, as he has never been convicted (nor tried) for that allegation. Jebba (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Seems unlikely, especially as none of the sources say this and especially as I am fairly confident the Swedish legal system doesn't work like that. Even then being charged with something is usually only enough to warrant a mention for as long as he is still charged or convicted - dropped charges are almost always scrubbed from articles (this is a general consensus I believe) unless extremely notable --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 21:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Who said "sexual molestation"? The accusation of "molestation" (sv:Ofredande) could mean that he poured beer over someone in a bar. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I think that these charges were extremely well publicized (i.e. top story on Yahoo and Google) and any BLP attempt to whitewash them is absurd and a discredit to Wikipedia. We should report the facts, even-handedly and without leaping to conclusions. Especially, I reject the suggestion of some choice between a) a Swedish government complicity with some CIA plot vs. b) an actual rape. To name some other possibilities solely for purpose of illustration, the CIA could have hired the women to seduce Assange (or at least lure him to a private place) then cry rape; or they could have arranged for a good quality Assange impersonator; or it could be a for-profit extortion scam unrelated to any government; etc. Please, don't make this a debate - just grab up the sources and toss them in the article like you were harvesting potatoes, and the truth will out. Wnt (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Everything2 profile

I guess that is not considered a reliable source, but still, I think it is well-written and seems to provide some insight into his early life. Please try to find reliable sources for some of that info.--Seldonquin (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Check out the authors biog linked from that page and you will start to see why Wikipedians might not consider "him" to be the most verifiable and unimpeachably accurate source on the planet. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I just thought that our own section on his early life was disjoint and confusing.--Seldonquin (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"Please fix"

Assange (or Wikileaks) seems to have objections to this Wikipedia article: "WL opponents seem to have created Julian's Wikipedia page ...").

I don't know if User:Privatemusings, who created the page, can be called a "WL opponent". I am certainly not (more like a fan, if not an entirely uncritical one), and I didn't get that impression of the other users who have edited the article either.

In any case, Wikileaks' statement "For ethical reasons we can't edit" is appreciated (it is in remarkable contrast to many article subjects who mistake Wikipedia for a PR outlet), see also WP:AUTO. But they (or Assange) are certainly invited to point out any faults they see with the article here on the talk page. Per Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, articles such as this one have to conform strictly to Wikipedia's verifiability, neutrality, and no original research principles.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

(replying to the wikileaks twitter thing) - I'm not sure where that's coming from - but yeah, if there's anything inappropriate here, please remove / fix, or if the chap himself would prefer it gone, perhaps there's some subtle way of letting us (the editors who've worked on it to date) know, and we can nominate it for deletion? - I'm up for whatever - oh, and I've removed the tags with the ratings etc. because I couldn't make them work with my updated info, and I'm not sure that anyone currently editing actually uses them :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 07:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I have moved your comment here, to keep the discussions about different topics separate, I hope you don't mind.
The cited tweet by Wikileaks seems to object to the existence of the whole article, not to particular statements in it. But let's see if you get a clarifying response to [17], or if Assange will follow the above invitation and explain specific concerns here on the talk page.
These tags are being added to basically every article as a standard practice - some explanations about their purpose are at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide#Article_tagging.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Cancel "Mr." in: In accepting the Amnesty International Media Award 2009, Mr. Assange stated - (talk) 10:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

US Gov't editting this page

Did anyone else notice that the edit that first mentioned that Assange was being "hunted" came from a US Government IP address? "16:48, 18 June 2010" It is only the Dept. of Veterans Affairs, but still strange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericherren (talkcontribs)

Take it up with Admin or somethign to police censorship.Lihaas (talk) 05:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it is really surprising. I'm sure some veterans and people who work for the department don't like him. In fact, I would say it's even less surprising given the other edits from the same IP at nearly the same time [18] [19] and what it suggests of the person who made them Nil Einne (talk) 06:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
The US Government probably doesn't like him very much (although, considering that he is still alive, they probably don't hate him too much), but there is nothing wrong with having members of it edit this page, because even if we don't want them to they'll just change the IP address anyways. (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Rape Accusations Section Removed

This paragraph below keeps getting removed, and it's a proper source from allegations made against Assenge. I make no claim as to whether the allegations are true or not, but they are quoted from the police report. Is this publicly available report not allowed to be mentioned on Wikipedia? And yet, the smears against the alleged victims of a sex crime remain on Wikipedia, despite the fact that their only reference is a single blog in the States. Is this what Wikipedia has come to? Alleged victims of a sex crme can be all but identified and smeared, and the person who is accused of the crime has all details removed? I hope that Wikipedia has greater respect for alleged victims of sex crime in the future. I am disgusted.

"Two women, both volunteers at Wikileaks, put accusations to the police according to police statements which are available to Swedish and other media. (Details of sexual acts were blanked from the documents, apart from the key facts relating directly to the allegations). ‘Woman A’ claimed that the sex itself was consensual. However, a condom Assange used split. Woman A suspected that he had deliberately split the condom. ‘Woman B’, who claims to have had sex with Assange two days later, claimed that the first sexual intercourse was consensual, and she had insisted that Assange wear a condom. He did this on the evening of their first sexual encounter. However, in the morning Assange insisted, according to the allegation, that he should not use a condom, despite the protests of Woman B. At first, Woman B said nothing to the police, but did worry about pregnancy and STDs. However, when Woman B learnt about Assange's sexual encounter with Woman A and the split condom, from Woman A herself, they both made a joint approach to the police."[1]
  1. ^ [ Supporters dismissed rape accusations against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange... but the two women involved tell a different story. By Angella Johnson] 29 August 2010

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmond Black (talkcontribs) 13:01, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

User:Offliner and User:John have removed the rape accusations section citing WP:BLP.

WP:BLP states Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. As such they are entitled to remove contentious unsourced material. The section, however, was fully sourced with multiple inline citations as per WP:BLP which states All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.

The section was as follows: (redacted for BLP concerns)

Could someone please explain the BLP concerns of adding this sourced section back in...otherwise, it appears to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Smallman12q (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Many elements in that paragraph have no basis in fact. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Numerous issues existed with that version. Firstly is fantastically undue - it is big news today but not so noteworthy in his whole biography. Also, issues of accusations and prosecutions come up regularly on the BLP Noticeboard; the common consensus is that, except in exceptional circumstances, where there is no conviction we generally do not report it (unless it is notable for other reasons). I realise that this is somewhat new theory for non-BLP regulars, but this is why you will find us resisting the material. The speculation about it being a conspiracy is purely that - there is no need to speculate on the matter without facts and we shouldn't be recording the idle speculation of others. Finally the section has a number of factual innacuracies :) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 22:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
It's a bit hard to explain a case like this: you either get it or you don't. A single source (a tabloid) made up a story claiming that a living person was to be arrested for rape, and several other stories parroted the first. See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP. It is not the role of Wikipedia to be on the bleeding edge of a breaking news story that is highly likely to be a madeup smear, and we certainly do not amplify that smear with a heading Rape accusations and a disclaimer underneath the smear that as a matter of fact it's all made up. I was going to edit this page and remove this section because WP:BLP requires that made up material be removed from all pages, but I didn't because it is threaded throughout this page. However, someone bolder than me should remove it all. In two or three days, the smoke will have cleared, and we will be able to begin thinking about what material should be recorded in an encyclopedic article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Per Johnuniq, you either understand BLP or you don't. I've removed the section from here as well, as BLP applies even in talk. --John (talk) 01:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
A single source (a tabloid) made up a story claiming that a living person was to be arrested for rape
Just making a few things clear:
1. No newspaper in Sweden, not even a tabloid, would make up that someone was to be arrested.
2. It was also published in Dagens Nyheter, which is the biggest newspaper in Sweden and seen as one of the more serious ones. (Dagens Nyheter uses the tabloid format, like all other big newspapers in Sweden, because readers prefer that format, but it's not a tabloid newspaper in the traditional sense of the word. It's only a tabloid when describing the size of the newspaper, not the quality. I think all newspapers in Sweden uses the tabloid format these days.)
3. It was published in many international newspapers and was a top story in Google News. Jiiimbooh (talk) 10:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, and it was also briefly the top BBC worldwide story. Hardly not notable. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I am a bit befuddled by the removal of the sourced section from the talk page...I don't believe WP:UNDUE applies to talk pages. How am I to discuss a section that is removed?Smallman12q (talk) 03:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
BLP applies to talk pages as well. If you feel you are unable to comply with Wikipedia's BLP policy, then you should not discuss the section in question at all. Hope that helps. Nandesuka (talk) 03:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I have read WP:BLPTALK and it states:

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted as appropriate. -WP:BLPTALK

The section was entirely sourced with reliable sources. If you require more sources, please say so and I will be happy to add more sources until you are satisfied. Otherwise, please be specific as to what exactly is your BLP concern?Smallman12q (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I feel there should be no section or record of this since it never happened. Keeping it would simply be advancing the purpose of this smear campaign to hurt Assange's image when he did nothing wrong. Oddtruth (talk) 08:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

How typical of some naive Wikipedians to cover up the seriousness of the molestation accusation. I have seen what the victims are saying, and they both know Assange. The accusations are more than credible, and must be spoken about in a more serious manner than "blah blah blah, it’s a smear campaign". If not, this wikipedia article is not to be taken seriously. Segrov (talk) 08:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Johnuniq has stated above that the source of the story was a false allegation from a tabloid. This appears to be untrue - the source is an accurate story repeated in all quality media outlets that a warrant for Assange's arrest had been issued. Can we at least agree that that is factual? If so, it surely is notable, even if the warrant is (as it was) subsequently withdrawn, not least precisely because it may be (as Assange himself has said) that some kind of dirty tricks campaign is under way. Given the current massive media coverage, it's hard to see how that would not be notable enough to get a mention. Maybe arrests without charge do not generally meet BLP agreed standards, but there could well be more to this than a simple mistaken arrest warrant for the above reasons. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
No, editors cannot evaluate evidence and decide whether the original story was in some way accurate. Normally, this kind of issue would be settled by WP:DUE (is the material warranted, or is it a smear that should not be preserved in an encyclopedic article?) and WP:NPOV (state that source X says "such and such", and source Y says "so and so"). However, in the current case it is far too early for any source to have any reliable information. Perhaps the original report was correct but the complainants made up their story; perhaps the complainants never existed and it was all concocted; perhaps it's all genuine. Let's come back in a week and consider the situation then. I understand that people are used to reading blogs and opiniated websites where the claims in question would be trumpeted and opinions given, but Wikipedia is not supposed to do that. Johnuniq (talk) 08:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
All those things may be true, but they aren't what you (Johnuniq) said - you said "A single source (a tabloid) made up a story claiming that a living person was to be arrested for rape". We already know this isn't an accurate rendition of the facts because the Swedish prosecutor has confirmed that a warrant was issued. Therefore it wasn't "made up" by a tabloid, as you put it, no matter how right-wing. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I do not understand your point because it does not matter if I'm right or wrong about the story being made up – at this stage we just don't know. In my comment which you just replied to I indicated that it is too early to know anything reliably, and I said "perhaps it's all genuine" – we'll have more information in a few days, and at that time it will be possible to have a meaningful discussion. At the moment, it's all conjecture (or trivia, if it is true that a warrant was issued and withdrawn a few hours later – we would need a secondary source to say the issue is significant such that it warrants amplification in an encyclopedic article). Johnuniq (talk) 09:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
It's relevant to the discussion because higher up you said it's not news because it was a made-up tabloid story. Which it wasn't. There may be other reasons for not putting it in the article, but claiming it was made up is not one of them! The key point about this is that in the rush to defend Assange from the smear, a good chance to discuss the allegations in the wider context (supported by sources) is being missed, eg, to discuss the possible smear campaign. Like you say, this will emerge over the coming period, all I'm saying is, don't make stuff up about what's false and what's true in the meantime. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I highly doubt this could be reliably sourced as a smear campaign - it is just idle speculation. Unless something more concrete emerges it is hard to see how it could be sourced (I expect we could find news sources that suggest this is a Wikileaks publicity stunt etc.). I don't think we really deal in speculation. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 09:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
It depends what comes out - if there is considerable speculation in the media from quality sources, that contains more than mere rumour, why shouldn't Wikipedia have text on that? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Assange has since claimed that it was a smear campaign.Smallman12q (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Er, the Swedish police doesn't engage in "smear campaigns". I'm sure any criminal would claim that their prosecution was a "smear campaign" if the media were willing to listen to them. Jeannedeba (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
He does not claim that the Swedish police engaged in a smear campaign. Nymf hideliho! 21:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, he is not a criminal. The charge was dropped. Please see WP:BLP before you continue to make statements like that. Nymf hideliho! 21:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
How about you reading up on Straw man? Where did I say he was a criminal? The statement about the criminals is a general statement not relating to anyone in particular. Jeannedeba (talk) 09:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Above, an editor said that Assange claims it was a smear, and you said that any criminal would say their prosecution was a smear. If you cannot see the implication that carries, you need to avoid BLP articles and talk pages. Just drop it. We can expect some clarity to emerge in the next few days, but no benefit will come from exploring which of us understands WP:BLP or WP:NOTFREESPEECH best. Johnuniq (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The warrant was revoked and one charge (rape) was dropped but another charge (molestation) is still being investigated. It is inaccuracte to say that "the charge was dropped" given that there was more than one charge and they have not all been dropped. (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
It's even more inaccurate to say charge - because no one was ever charged. These are allegations and investigations. Please use the right terminology --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 10:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
The original post says that the charges were dropped. Now you're saying they never existed? To charge someone with a crime is to accuse them of a crime. Assange was charged by both the women who accuse him of rape/molestation as well as the court which issued a warrant for his arrest. The court has dropped the rape charges (the individuals may not have dropped their accusations) and the court continues to investigate the charge of molestation. To say that noone was ever charged makes no sense... there are two women making their charges very loudly and the court issued a warrant... it was rescinded but the charges were most assuredly made! Whether he is guilty of the charges is one thing but he has been charged with a crime. (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, you are misunderstanding the legal process (particularly the Swedish legal process). It does not appear that Assange was charged in absentia (I'm not sure that you can even do that anyway in Sweden). There is, I suppose, an argument that these Women laid a charge against him is correct under the broad definition of the word - but in the context of legal proceedings it strikes me a confusing terminology because it risks confusing readers and leading them to believe Assange was formally charged by the authorities. I think allegations is clearer terminology. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 16:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
It would appear that the rape charge has been reinstated, BTW, and as far as I know, there may be grounds for an assault charge.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Love triangle

I added the following to the article:

According to an anonymous "close friend" of Assange, quoted in The New York Times, the cause of the allegations was ill feelings when the two women discovered they had been competing for his attentions.[1]
  1. ^ "Plotting Doubted in WikiLeaks Case". The New York Times. 2010-08-23. Retrieved 2010-08-24. 

Which was deleted by Splette with the reasoning "This is speculation and doesn't belong in a BLP (even though NYT is a RS). Please take it to Talk.". I would not call this speculation; according to the NYT the info came from a person with insider knowledge about Assange's private life. Speculation would have been if I had proposed that it was a love triange. While there is a chance that the friend may not have complete information, given the source I believe that the information is authoritative enough to at least be mentioned as a possibility in the article. Thue | talk 13:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't see it myself; it's pretty much speculation and very vague - without detail it's not really worth reporting. Certainly it is not authoritative --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 13:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
If the NYT thinks it is reliable enough to report, then it is reliable enough for Wikipedia, IMO. Also, it is the only info yet found with that level of explanation, plausibility and (admitidly not perfect) trustworthability. It should at least be mentioned, possibly with an explicit disclaimer. Thue | talk 14:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
My main issue at the moment is that the paragraph is slowly but surely growing - and I already feel it is somewhat undue. Most of it is speculative for a start and this, I think, is more of the same. *shrug* Just how I feel about it --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 14:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't really see the problem. As long as it is kept in a he-said she-said format, and only significant and relevant info is posted, I don't believe we are posting undue information. People care about this, and want to read it, so I have no problem with it being a relatively large section. Thue | talk 15:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The seems to be 2 claims: 1) Assange had a relationship to both women, and they found out 2) The charges false due to only sour grapes from from the women. Assuming the "close friend" description is correct (piggybacking on the NYT reliability here), there is little reason to doubt that #1 is true, and it should therefore be mentioned in the article. Thue | talk 15:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a couple of things: 1) I don’t believe that “most” of the paragraph in question can be judged to be “speculative”. Everything written seems factual and well sourced, and really the only speculation going on is by Julian “Dirty Tricks” Assange, and recent news reports indicate that he may be engaged in a bit of backtracking on that, and 2) given the world-wide, ongoing coverage of this event I’m not sure how the characterization of “undue” is being applied. I do however think that it may be a bit premature to add the most recent details of his alleged zipper control issues. After all, it appears that all the little details should be out in the open in quick and short order, and we can properly insert the appropriate info then. Hammersbach (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Why is it undue? Because it is simply a small part of his biography. It's a bit of a false flag to claim that it is big news and so is worth a mention - we don't report big news, only notable parts of his life. This is regularly rehashed over and over at the BLP noticeboard: allegations that result in nothing happening are generally never included. None of the events really pass as notable in his life and in a week or so this will probably blow over - if it doesn't, of course, I could then be swayed otherwise. This paragraph is double the size of the one about his conviction - purely because it was last weeks news. The event is extremely vague and the result of mass media excitement - this is the sort of red herring we should (and usually manage to) avoid. I could list some more reasons why this is a disappointing inclusion but, well, you get the picture. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 17:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
“Simply a small part of his biography”… well let’s see, continuing world-wide headlines and news coverage about an ongoing criminal investigation which just happens to come on the heels of what some say is the largest unsanctioned release of classified material ever, rape charges filed and suddenly withdrawn but the investigation continues, allegations of a smear campaign hinting at US government involvement, the attorney for the alleged victims stating that the women “have been subjected to sexual crimes”, Assange in turn hiring one of Sweden’s best known defense attorneys, etc., … I’d say that the “notable part of his life’ test has been met. And as for listing “some more reasons why this is a disappointing inclusion”, please do, and while you’re at it, please feel free to detail what exactly you find so “speculative” in the section. As for me, what I find undue in this section is the part about this passport. I mean really, what’s the purpose of that? Hammersbach (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • just happens to come on the heels of what some say is the largest unsanctioned release of classified material ever, rape charges filed and suddenly withdrawn but the investigation continues, allegations of a smear campaign hinting at US government involvement - that's the core of the speculation I'm on about, it's rather silly all round, that we are recording this. The issue, I think, is that this got attention from a lot of BLP-inexperienced editor. What is news today is nothing tomorrow; in the larger perspective of his life (which if you read the biography is pretty damned varied) it's probably not a blip - like I say, it's the "current events bias" again. At the end of the day the allegations were dropped (or, at least, assuming the molestation allegation is dropped too - if not that is another matter) so, per BLP consensus, there is only tenuous rationale for it still being here. BTW as I keep stressing no charges were filed - this an important part of why it should not been kept. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 19:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
“…allegations that result in nothing happening are generally never included.” The bald fact of the matter here is that quite lot has happened and these events have garnered world-wide attention. Those events in turn have been reported here using reliable sources. The only speculation in this section come from the mouth of the subject. All the “rules” have been followed. Stress all you want that no charges were filed (yet) but notability does not absolutely hinge on that particular aspect. Hammersbach (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Nah, Wikileaks is just "sorta news" at the moment because of the document release. The worry issue (and the reason we keep resisting material such as this) is that it sets a worrying precedent to allow unfounded allegations into BLP articles. While the headlines are all very exciting the fact is that this isn't particularly notable - and in a serious biography of his life currently deserves no mention. The lack of charges is crucial - it is the main reason for resisting it's inclusion. I can see reasonable logic for it existing in there now - but unless something else happens to solidfy notability in a month or so this is just news, and we don't do news :) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 20:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Today's news is tomorrow's history, and we do do history. Hammersbach (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Pithy, but a load of nonsense. We do notable facts of his life. I'm not arguing to have it removed or cut down - just pointing out why it is not, in my mind, notable and why no one has successfully reasoned it's notability yet. (r.e. your edit summary Julian Assange is the spokesman for Wikileaks) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 22:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
As I understand it, charges are not yet filed and may never be filed. That he appeared to be deceiving the young ladies may eventually, regardless of the charges, become important. Blackmail over sexual indiscretion is not unknown in the world, and may have been actual or alleged; this may have changed what was released, when it was released, ... none of which I have any knowledge of and none of which should be in the article. Yet. htom (talk) 20:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems like further discussion is required. I expanded on this point with this edit, making space for it by dropping some duplication. Hammersbach deleted it as POV (initially with a splendidly sanctimonious edit summary - well done that man). What does anyone else think? Rd232 talk 08:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Sanctimonious? Wow, that a big word! But before I go look up what it means, let me point to the edit that I found so objectionable. “Within minutes of the warrant being issued, Swedish paper Expressen had the full details - despite Swedish law prohibiting officials releasing such details. The woman leading the allegations had previously interned for Expressen and for the Swedish Foreign Service, and published on her blog a 'revenge instruction', describing how to commit a complete character assassination.” I would offer that any neutral editor who read this would agree that you are attempting to get the reader to come to a particular conclusion, a conclusion that is not yet establish fact but rather speculation. I believe this would be an example of the type of speculation that Tmorton166 has objected to above. Now where did I put that dictionary? Hammersbach (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, well while you're at it, look up speculation. The 'revenge instruction' is from her blog (via other sources), and I presume the other details are as well. Yes, putting all those facts together suggests a conclusion, but unless you intentionally obscure that information, that's hard to avoid. At any rate, whatever you think about the woman's details, the first sentence should stay (about the details being leaked). Rd232 talk 14:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm struggling to see the connection between her blog and these allegations - if the point is to suggest she may have been going for character assassination, well, I hope you can see that is a major BLP issue. I removed it for the time being --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 17:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone speak Swedish?

Is this a reliable source? --John (talk) 05:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be true that he is wanted by the police on rape charges. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
That is certainly what it looks like.. Seeing as how we describe Expressen as a tabloid newspaper I think we can hold off for a bit till we get corroborating sources. unmi 06:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Expressen is not like a US supermarket tabloid with stories about UFO abductions. It is one of the largest newspapers in Sweden. They would not make up a decision by the prosecutor to issue an arrest order. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Svenska Dagbladet (used to be published in broadsheet format) now confirms that the prosecutor's office has issued an arrest order. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the material should be removed. To report the accusation of rape and name a tabloid newspaper as the only source is a WP:BLP violation in my point of view. Also, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. As an encyclopedia we do not compete with the media about who is first to report it. Why not wait a couple of days to see how the story evolves and what other, more reliable news organizations might report on it? SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 08:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Svenska Dagbladet is reliable enough and the fact is everyone looks to Wikipedia for confirmation on the more outlandish stories reported in the news.
Svenska Dagbladet is a very staid newspaper. Now also Aftonbladet (which has Assange under contract for writing a column) published the news of the arrest warrant, whic was issues with "probable cause". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't know the Svenska Dagbladet but BLP violation is a serious issue. And precisely because people look as Wikipedia for confirmation (as the anon IP states above) we have to make sure the information we put into the article has a proper basis. I still don't see what's the problem with waiting a day or two. Especially since this is controverial and things might be a lot clearer in a few days. SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 08:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Pieter, if you really insist this must be in the article right now, could you at least change "Swedish newspaper Expressen" to "Swedish tabloid newspaper Expressen". Thanks SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 09:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
The fact of the arrest warrant is now in the four largest Swedish papers. However, other "information" does not seem reliable. I would remove some, but Norwegian Meco is issuing 3RR warnings. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
It's also in all the Norwegian media. It will probably explode in the English-language media within the hour. It should also be noted that the newpspapers by and large quote the public prosecutor and police officials for their information, so this is not some tabloid concoction. __meco (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I would not rely on statements that sv:Niklas Svensson ascribes to unnamed polices sources. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Officially verified by the state prosecutor's website: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'd consider the reporting of it at this stage quite dubious. Nothing is very clear and an arrest warrant != a conviction or current trial (which is our usual bar fo inclusion of such things in a BLP). I think currently, at most, it should report the arrest warrant and Assange's response and no more --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 10:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Be careful here, because some people are already deciding with limited information that he is either a rapist or, alternatively, that this story smells of conspiracy. Wikipedia is NOT NEWS! Reporting news stories here may only strengthen characterizations that may later be found to be unwarranted. It hasn't even been a full 2 days since this story broke. I would suggest waiting a few more days and then recording what we know. Greendogo (talk) 11:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Assange denied the charges in DN now. Article. Nymf hideliho! 11:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Having an own section for this is undue weight and libellous at best, by the way. Nymf hideliho! 11:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Nonsense, this is a major news story per Google News and merits it's own section. Jeannedeba (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
That's just dandy, ain't it. You *want* this to be a major news story, just like everybody else who doesn't even have ONE verifiable source to mention for the claims. The attention this has gotten is completely and utterly ridiculous. Off the charts thanks to the likes of you. You may as well link to his recent TED-talk for some actual valid information about Assange and then make a section for it. (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment There is no doubt that in a week from now this will be a major part of the article, the question is, should it really be so now? Perhaps wikinews would be a better outlet for this kind of 'developing story' information? unmi 11:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC
It's currently the top story at google news.Smallman12q (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The charges have all been dropped. See Aftonbladet and DN. Nymf hideliho! 15:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


According to this Assange is no real journalist. Still the wikiarticle claims so. / Fikop2 (talk) 10:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

A journalist is one who " collects and disseminates information about current events, people, trends, and issues. His or her work is acknowledged as journalism."Smallman12q (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Is his work recognized as journalism? I doubt it. He's one of those conspiracy theorists. Jeannedeba (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
You continue to malign Assange. Can you point to one conspiracy he has promoted? Jebba (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Such as his theories of Barack Obama's big "campaign to smear him" when he gets arrested for rape in Sweden? Priceless. Jeannedeba (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Citation needed. Where does he ever say that Obama is out to get him? Jebba (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Like he does here: - as I said, he's a conspiracy theorist. Of all excuses from people charged with rape, this is one of the better. Jeannedeba (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
How is your reading comprehension? He says, and I quote, "I do not know what is behind all of this, but we have been warned that Pentagon might use dirty tricks against us. I have also been warned that there are honey traps." Aftonbladet. He makes no claims at all; he just states facts. Besides, this is all irrelevant as one comment does not undermine years of work. Nymf hideliho! 17:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
"Whistleblower website Wikileaks founder Julian Assange says there is a possibility that the Pentagon could be behind the rape accusations against him". The Pentagon is a government department in Obama's government. Jeannedeba (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
You are reading second hand information interpreted by media. My link above is what he actually said (of course, translated to Swedish), as they are the only ones who has talked to him about this. Nymf hideliho! 17:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
They are called reliable secondary sources ("Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible"). WP:RS. Jeannedeba (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
It is obviously not a reliable source when it - and we can prove this by looking at the original source - isn't what he said. It's called fact checking. Nymf hideliho! 17:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I also note talk page vandalism by his supporters and fake claims of BLP violations. Assange says (a sourced fact[20]) there is a Pentagon conspiracy behind his arrest warrant, thus by definition making him a person promoting a conspiracy theory. Jeannedeba (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
See my comment above. He says no such thing. Nymf hideliho! 17:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
And you can see him actually confirming that here: (talk) 12:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
You seem confused, first, he is not charged with rape, second you conflate Obama with the pentagon. The 'charged with rape' is what is of immediate concern. If you can find sources that say he is a conspiracy theorist please do present them for discussion. unmi 17:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Err, what's the got to do with improving the article? Please take your discussion about whether he is a conspiracy theorist elsewhere. Smartse (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
There is ample evidence that he promotes conspiracy theories, hence he should be described as a conspiracy theorist in the article. Other people are described as such (Jeff Rense). Jeannedeba (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
That would be text book WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Jeff Rense is described as conspiracy theorist because there are secondary sources describing him as such.SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 17:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

How about his own words: "I believe in facts about conspiracies", "So there are conspiracies everywhere"[21]. Jeannedeba (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You are quoting selected sentences out of context. And again, the bar for inclusion is high for BLPs. To put something like that into the article some good sources would be needed. SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 17:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
His work at wikileaks is called investigative journalism and it is recognized.Smallman12q (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Btw I note that "Julian Assange does not call himself a journalist"[22]. Jeannedeba (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


Swedish police issued an arrest warrant yesterday, but apparently he has not been caught yet. As such, he is a fugitive and belongs in the categories Fugitives wanted on sex crime charges and Fugitives wanted by Sweden. Jeannedeba (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, no. A fugitive is someone on the run from the police. Assange has or intends to turn himself in. Nymf hideliho! 15:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
He hasn't turned himself in yet. He remains a fugitive until he does. (He would have had plenty of time to do it by now). Jeannedeba (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
No, a fugitive is someone on the run - someone fleeing. Not having turned himself in is something completely different. Nymf hideliho! 15:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I concur that we should not refer to Julian as a fugitive until there is some indication that he is actually avoiding the long arm of Johnny Law. Hammersbach (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Can you point to any credible source that is calling him a fugitive? Or are you just inventing it to suit your agenda? Jebba (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The charges were already dropped as false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The charges weren't dropped, only the rape charge, apparently. Jeannedeba (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually in point of fact there were never any charges because he was not arrested. :) There was an arrest warrant for the rape allegation which has been dropped. There appears to be a remaining allegation of molestation but, again, this is not a charge and is simply an investigation into the allegation. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 19:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect, he was charged by the prosecutor and arrested in his absence. Jeannedeba (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Be sure not to forget the false translation, since what you call a "molestation charge" is something entirely different in Sweden. More like slight harrassment. And even for that Julian has not been charged as of yet. They have not even spoken to him about the charge. (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

This properly referenced source keeps getting removed, and yet the unfounded smear against Assange's alleged victims (the 'source' is one blog in the US), remains. I this what Wikipedia has come to?

“Two women, both volunteers at Wikileaks, put accusations to the police according to police statements which are available to Swedish and other media. (Details of sexual acts were blanked from the documents, apart from the key facts relating directly to the allegations). ‘Woman A’ claimed that the sex itself was consensual. However, a condom Assange used split. Woman A suspected that he had deliberately split the condom. ‘Woman B’, who claims to have had sex with Assange two days later, claimed that the first sexual intercourse was consensual, and she had insisted that Assange wear a condom. He did this on the evening of their first sexual encounter. However, in the morning Assange insisted, according to the allegation, that he should not use a condom, despite the protests of Woman B. At first, Woman B said nothing to the police, but did worry about pregnancy and STDs. However, when Woman B learnt about Assange's sexual encounter with Woman A and the split condom, from Woman A herself, they both made a joint approach to the police.”


  1. ^ [ Supporters dismissed rape accusations against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange... but the two women involved tell a different story. By Angella Johnson] 29 August 2010

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmond Black (talkcontribs) 13:01, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Looks like all sexual charges have been dropped

Even the one on sexual molestation, as of yesterday; however, there is a new molestation one (which has nothing to do with sex - the Swedish term "ofredande" is not quite synonymous with the English term), over him supposedly staying at the house of a woman for one day more when she asked him to leave. See Aftonbladet. Nymf hideliho! 06:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The rape case has been reopened [23] hope this helps, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cymbelmineer (talkcontribs) 17:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


Just a reminder that Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper. In cases of any doubt, we should remove any negative material that violates WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE or WP:BLP. --John (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


It just difficult to imagine how the rape investigation is covered on this article in brilliant detail, but the same exact type investigation is left out of other articles, with a vengence. Picture me just sitting back and shaking my head and wondering why. Either it needs to removed here, on the same arguments it was left out there, or it needs to added there, using the same arguments to keep it here. But I digress--Jojhutton (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm 100% for removing it. Sadly the POV brigade have overruled BLP consensus. In a few months either he will be convicted or I will bring a hammer down on it. Till then I'm just grumpy :) --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 21:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Convicted for what? Staying over at a girl's place while they had a verbal argument and he would not leave immediately when she asked him to? Come on. This entire thing is ludicrously blown out of proportions by 'the press'. Firstly because nobody seems to be able to translate swedish correctly, and secondly because nobody seems aware of the amount of gossipy press competition ego's Sweden is loaded with. (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
He's not going to be convicted. There's no evidence. It's clearly part of smear campaign. I support removing it, and we seem to have a pretty good consensus on this. If he actually got convicted of something, that would be worthy of being in the article. These allegations are not much better than gossip. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Now that a warrant has been issued for Assange's arrest, the above commenters look pretty damn idiotic. And of course what would a conversation of this case be without ludicrous comments from Greg Caletta? Hey Greg, when did you become privy to the evidence being considered by Swedish authorities? That's right, you didn't, nor did anyone else here, so please quit acting as if you did. The same guy who is more than happy to smear Adrian Limo in the Bradley Manning article, based on nothing more than the opinion of ONE left-wing commenter, Glenn Greenwald, now wants no mention to be made of rape charges being brought against Assange? You gotta be fucking joking me. This is the perfect example of why no one takes Wikipedia seriously. The editiing decisions are made by rigid ideologues. The fact an international warrant has been issued for Assange's arrest renders this whole "argument" moot, unless some of the so-called "editors" are attempting to claim this doesn't merit a mention by this supposed "encyclopedia". In a totally unrelated matter, hypocrisy doesn't have an "a" in it, nor is it spelled with two "C's".


Is there a reason so many simple points have multiple refs after them? For example:

Like all others working for the site, Assange is an unpaid volunteer.[1][2][3][4] [5]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference leakonomy was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ WikiLeaks:Advisory Board – Julian Assange, investigative journalist, programmer and activist (short biography on the Wikileaks home page)
  3. ^ Harrell, Eben, (26 July 2010) 2-Min. Bio WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange 26 July 2010 Time Magazine.
  4. ^ Rumored Manhunt for Wikileaks Founder and Arrest of Alleged Leaker of Video Showing Iraq Killings – video report by Democracy Now!
  5. ^ Adheesha Sarkar (10 August 2010). ""The People'S Spy"". Retrieved 22 August 2010. 

I've started to remove them but wanted to check in case there's something I'm not thinking of. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a heavily controversial/disputed article, so the more reliable sources there are...the less likely editors figure content will be challenged/removed.Smallman12q (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Having multiple refs makes the point look insecure, as though a POV is being pushed. Either we have a good source that says this, or we don't, and if we do we should just use that one source—esp for something like this which depends on the word of Wikileaks. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Three refs should do, no? SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 08:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Unless there's contention one should do, even if that one is WikiLeaks. __meco (talk) 08:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Most of those references were erroneously moved around when a user rewrote parts of the article. See here what it looked like before that user started editing the article. Nymf hideliho! 16:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Assange contacting the White House

The 3 or 4 paragraphs are not only undue, but also a copyright violation, word by word. See this link. A sentence or two describing Schmitt's response is all that is needed. Nymf hideliho! 16:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


"splendide mendax" in Latin does not translate to nobly untruthful, but to magnificent liar. The first version is more of a romanticism, I think if that's the correct word. (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Section "title" for section dealing with the Rape allegations/investigation/charges

Section title "Rape investigation" or "Rape allegation" or "Rape charges" and topic are notable, well ref'd and quite significant - and accurately surmises the section - a header summarizing section contents is quite standard. Topic is simply what it is. (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't need a separate title though, because it fits under the above title too, "legal difficulties". Gregcaletta (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, we are currently considering removing the section altogether. Actual convictions can be included in BLP, but mere investigations are not for legal reasons. It is very easy to bring false charges against someone as part of a smear campaign, and then later withdraw the charges. If he is ever actually convicted of something, it would be worthy of inclusion, but until then, having it in the article validates this unsubstantiated gossip. If you would like to respond, please see the argument above. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
And where is it, precisely, that 'we' are as you claim, "considering removing the section altogether"? I find nothing here on that topic. Is it on some back channel email list? (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
No, it's right here on this page under "Hypocracy". Gregcaletta (talk) 05:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record: strongly oppose POV/attack header :) --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 07:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow. "Convicted for what? ... Come on. This entire thing is ludicrously blown out of proportions..." ... "He's not going to be convicted. There's no evidence. It's clearly part of smear campaign" ... "same exact type investigation is left out of other articles, with a vengence."
You can't seriously be putting that conversation among Assange apologists (and those are textbook examples of non-neutral apologists making claims of unseen "evidence", 'other stuff exists', simple misdirection and classic rejection of the reality that neutral, secondary sources record the notability of this event) as the basis for your contention are you? (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
You clearly have an agenda here. Please familiarize yourself with WP:NOTSCANDAL, WP:LIBEL, WP:COI, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLPSTYLE, etc. Nymf hideliho! 14:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
That's quite a bit of acronymic wiklawyering there. I've simply approached the article neutrally using the existing text of the section itself, and its neutral secondary sources which record the notability of the event. I have done nothing to obscure, reframe, minimize or Spin the event. It is what it is. Others here have sought to argue for censorship on the grounds that he is "not guilty", "he's been framed" "no evidence", or "smear campaign". I'll stick to the sources. (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
You probably need to read/understand WP:WIKILAWYERING. The event is recorded under a neutral heading, drawing attention to it as a "rape allegation" is pointy and does not adequately describe the events. We have a general policy here, with BLP's, to avoid reporting areas where allegations are made but no further action taken (i.e. prosecuted and convicted), this is because it is easy to accuse someone. In this case it was hard to reject the material because recentism brought in a lot of editors who thought this was relevant to the BLP, fine that is the consensus now we have to work with it. But it is not correct, right or duely weighted to specifically identify these as rape allegations within the navigation of the page. Please stop. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 14:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
It is not an, "allegation". It is an "investigation". It's notable and has been covered around the entire Earth. And it is within that environment that Assange was recently turned down in his effort to gain a resident and work permit. We don't record that notable event here of course, but here is a ref. Our job is to clearly state the reliably sourced and notable. The section is clear, concise, and well supported. (talk) 15:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed for the most part. But still there is no rationale for having the header :) --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 15:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
There are numerous and they have been stated at length. What is the argument for censoring, obscuring, or spinning the subject? The only ones I've seen regard it as a conspiracy of his enemies, a "false charge" or other unsupported basis. My basis is found within standard Wikipedia practices regrading Reliable Sources and related editing practice and custom.15:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Headers are not governed by RS's, they are related to the Manual of Style and other editing guidelines. In this sense headers should be neutral, offhand and summarise the section. Particularly the first two are important on BLP's. And in this case "Rape allegation" fails all three requirements. (btw you are now Wikilawyering, I think, in case you were still unsure of the definition) --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 15:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)