Talk:Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Page created

There is much more important information on the Assange case that has been reported in reliable sources, but we cannot expand the section any more in the Julian Assange article because it already takes up an undue amount of space, so I have created this article for the case. This way, we can include all of the information on the case that has been reported by reliable source while making the necessary reductions to the sexual allegation parts of the Julian Assange article. The new article currently relies heavily on the material from the Julian Assange article](copy pasted) plus this handy timeline from MSNBC. I won't link this article to that one until significant improvements to this article have been made, and the size of the section in the Julian Assange article has been carefully reduced. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a) rather biased, and b) will not be interesting after extradition. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

a) This can be {{sofixit}}ed through editing b) if he is extradited the title will become the trial of Julian Assange in Sweden or somesuch. ^walk victor falk ^talk 13:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

b) In fact, once he is extradited, the case may still be called "Swedish Judicial Authority v. Julian Assange" although it might become Swedish Prosecution Authority v. Julian Assange.

a) In what way is it biased and for which side? Pretty much all I did was copy the segment from the Julian Assange article and missing facts using a timeline of factual material published in a reliable source, and then I tidies up a bit. In any case, "biased" is rarely if ever a reason for article deletion; it's a reason for adding more factual material from reliable sources and finding quotes to represent opinions that are not duly represented. So far, The only "opinions" are the charges against Assange, the response to the charges from his defence, plus a few quotes from the Swedish prosecutors and one from an alleged victim. The article is mainly factual with few opinions, so there is not much room for "bias" unless you believe there are some important facts that have been omitted, in which case we can find reliable sources for those facts and insert them. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

This article clearly gives most weight to Assange's defense. Part of this may be because his defense has been quite succesfull in presenting that side in English-language media, and because some wikipedians have removed references to sources in Swedish. But this article does more. For example, the lede almost starts out with: "He is wanted for questioning, having not yet been formally charged." I do not quite see that in the two references given. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry wrong refs. I'll fix that. Gregcaletta (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but it doesn't seem clear to me that the article gives most weight to Assange's defence. What statements by the prosecutors are missing? Feel free to add them if you can find them in reliable sources. Gregcaletta (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Part of this is the space given to the defense, which is of course due to the enormous volume of statements by Assange's defense compared to the terse statements by his accusors. But what is obviously missing is the fact that Swedish courts (not just the prosecution) have seen probable cause for the suspicion of rape. I an not going to do work on this article until the case has been decided. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, "probable cause" simply means "the standard by which an officer or agent of the law has the grounds to make an arrest", so if they have issued a warrant, then by definition they must have found probable cause. That does not say anything about the quality of the evidence against Assange, only of the Swedish standards for issuing an arrest warrant. The term "probable cause" is obviously not being used here in the second sense of "the standard to which a grand jury believes that a crime has been committed", because Assange has not yet been tried in front of a judge or jury. Gregcaletta (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Sophistry. And wrong, because Swedish courts can also order someone to be detained on "reasonable suspicion", when the evidence is not as strong. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I actually think this was a good initiative. The matter is to complex to be covered well in the main Assanga article. The new article as it stands has way to much gossip material though. We don't know enough yet about neither Assange's or the prosecution's version of the story. Most of the current information is secondary sources reporting what other secondary sources reported from unnamed sources.Mbulle (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

As long as it appears in reliable sources, material should be included, but in cases where the factual style statements are in doubt we could change it to quotations of the reliable source rather than stating their material as fact. Gregcaletta (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

:::Although I don't participate in editing this article anymore I must express my amazement about what is happening here. At this moment in time, there is no court case involving the two Swedish women. The events in Sweden have been mentioned in the extradition hearings only to the extent that the English court can decide on whether the offenses are extraditable (offenses 1-3 under English law and offense 4 under EU law). The decision of the extradition court is not known. The two women are only notable for this one single event. They have not been heard in court. Their lawyer has not been heard in court. They have not given interviews. Yet you blow up the section about the allegations and remove it from the Assange article to publish a separate Wiki article ("Swedish Judicial Authority v. Julian Assange") with details and gossip about their life and justify all this with "as long as it appears in reliable sources"!? What about WP:BLP? Shouldn't there be a speedy deletion of this article or shouldn't it be put into sandbox or whatever is the appropriate procedure? Assange has not been indicted for the offenses! The matter of the current case is: are offenses as described extraditable? The extradition court does not deal with the offenses as such so there is no need for detail now when it is not even clear whether there will be a court case in Sweden! KathaLu (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Comment moved to Assange TP. KathaLu (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The condome

I have taken away the wording that the condome broke during the sex act, as this is one of the many unclear and contested facts in the story. In some ways it is good to be more clear in a description like this of what actually happened. At the same time, though, it will be then be based on secondary sources, and therefore will in details include errounous and/or contested facts. And to evaluate what version from the two parties of what happened is to beleived is up for the court to descide, not us editors. I general I also agree with Peter K above that the whole story has a biased undertone. For example the details of the problems the prosecuters had getting an interview wih Assange is presented by them very differently from what is written in this article and what the legal represenatives for Assange state. There has in Swedish newspapers (I know this is not acceptable source for en:wp, but why state here contradictory statements?) been presened a detailed account of all telephone calls, mails etc in relation to try to get hold of Assange for questioning.Yger (talk) 13:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Umm... in relation to the broken condom, both the reliable sources and the victim herself say it broke during sex, not before. If you feel there are facts or opinions missing and can supply reliable sources for them, then feel free to add them. Gregcaletta (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I have but they are in Swedish, and I have learnt sources in Swedsih is not acceptable in en:wp.(and reliable - this is a case for court to decide on and before they give a verdict, no seconadry sources can be seen as reilable).Yger (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Swedish sources are acceptable if it is a reliable source to begin with (not a tabloid newspaper) and you can find a reliable translation. Otherwise, find it in an English newspaper, or remove the tag. Gregcaletta (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

POV

The article is in general biased in what facts its include, see for exampel fact about condiome, and the process of the prosecuters trying to get in contact with Assange. Also the factual description is based on one secondary source containg contested facts which is at the very center of the legal case (if the condome broke during the sex act or before). There are other secondary sources givining these facts differently, and the selection of source is then a POV act.Yger (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

If this is true, then you should be able to provide us with the reliable sources that contradict the material in this article, or provide these missing facts. Gregcaletta (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Here [1] one of the most serious Swedish newpaper refers what is stated in the offical summary from the prosecuters (ie a most official version). Especially the facts relating to the condome is different from the version in this article.Yger (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I used Google translate and it seems no different from what appears already in the article. What does it say that does not appear in this article? Gregcaletta (talk) 13:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

This passage När han gör det upplever värdinnan ”ett stort outtalat motstånd” från Assange. Under samlaget märker hon hur Assange börjar greja med kondomen. Efteråt förstod hon att den var trasig. She is implying that Assange delibetly broke the condome with his fingers. This is also what other newsarticles report miss A has been stated to friends. Whatever is the truth is not for wp to then state that it broke during the sex act implying by the sex act.Yger (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

This article [2] with~insight into the investigation, state that the way the condome broke is a key issue and the most urgent question the prosecuters want to inteerrogate Assange about. Also the articls says the critical reason for the investigation was reopened was that the broken condome was presented to the police by miss A.Yger (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

A similar article with a picture of the actual condome [3].Yger (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

This article already includes that allegation: "Miss A would later tell police that this sex involved "unlawful coercion", and that Assange deliberately broke the condom". Gregcaletta (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes but after the "fact" that it broke during the act. It is not a fact but a contested and critical issue.Yger (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No, even the victim doesn't dispute that. She is claiming that he broke it on purpose with his fingers during sex. Gregcaletta (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The Google translation of the very source you cited says "During intercourse, she notices how Assange start tinkering with the condom". Poor english but I assume the "during intercourse" part is correct. Gregcaletta (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It is quite a difference between "a Condome broke" - A passive woding implying it broke beacuse of bad quality etc. And something lie "a condome was broken". I suggested the wording Involving a broken condome or something like that. If you want to be true to the source you use that source can be used up to these wordings. And then a different set of sources for just this part describing the condome.Yger (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The second pãrt I see as POV is the inclusion of the statement Assange's legal team say Assange offered himself for interview before leaving Sweden and offered to return on 10 October but that Ny said these dates were not acceptable, at which point they made Assange available for interview "by telephone, videolink, Skype, on affidavit or during his proffered attendance at the Swedish Embassy or New Scotland Yard" and that Ny also refused these offers.[17]. The prosecuters describe these contact very differently, and to be neutral we should then not use any of their statements. Ie the sentence above should be deleted.Yger (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I added a reference to BBC's description of the prosecutor's version of this, that they asked him 10 times to be interviewed before issuing the arrest warrant.Mbulle (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Your new sentence improved this issue of mine quite a bit. Still I see a major problem that Assange view is presented first and the prosecuter must dispute this. Should it not be the other way around. The statement from the official side first and the defence tema disputing this? The same goes with the condom part too. First Assange version, then the victims view disputing this. Should it not be the other way around?Yger (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• - this article is a joke, hilarious POV ridden rubbish. Off2riorob (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

@Off2riorob: Instead of throwing around generic invectives, you might help improve the article by raising specific issues. aprock (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, aprock. Yger, "Condom broke" is not Assange's point of view but a fact and stated as such in reliable sources. In English, the passive wording does not imply anything about how the condom was broken, but leaves it open to the reader's interpretation. In any case, it is the language that the reliable sources use, so it is the language we use. On the matter of statements by the prosecutors and the defence, such as about organising an interview with Assange, feel free to switch the orders; I don't mind really either way. Gregcaletta (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

With the article now partly rewritten I am now happy how the case of the broken condome is presented. The mentioning of the attemts by the prosecuters to get in contact with Assange I still find is POV, only presnting the view of the legal defence people for Assange. If a detailed account is the ambition the prosecuters view that they made up to 10 atemts must be in. Also the phrase "not charged" was discused at length earlier and the wording now is written in the wrong reference frame as been put forward a number of times already. Why not use the compromise used earlier?Yger (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

What makes this notable enough for its own article?

In looking over the facts of this case, there are things that are essentially unsaid, that *could* make it notable, but without those things, I don't really see how this episode in Julian Assange's life is particularly notable.

If he did nothing wrong, beyond being a bit of a whore in that he met and hooked up with two women after first meeting them, then this is imminently not a notable thing.

If he did something wrong in the way he treated them, enough to be considered a criminal act, then it might be notable enough for a *mention* in his biographical article.

If these two women have a secret agenda to bring down Mr. Assange and plotted from the outset with the governments of the world to have Mr. Assange incarcerated, then yes, its very notable. (and should probably be called something different)

My question is this? How is this really particularly notable? If it is because Julian Assange is a notable person, then the article doesn't belong here, it belongs within his biographical article. If it is in fact notable for some other reason, then please say what that reason is, or please delete this article and move it back to the Julian Assange article.

Notability of Wikipedia is determined simply by whether there is enough material in reliable sources to warrant a separate article. Our opinions on how important the event is don't enter into it. Gregcaletta (talk) 04:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems that you completely missed the question because you didn't answer it. "whether there is enough material" isn't an argument for notability. "opinions on how important the event is" seem *directly* tied to notability. Almost makes me laugh to see that argument being made. :) -- Avanu (talk) 04:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that's just the Wikipedia policy and definition of "notability". See Wikipedia:Notability Gregcaletta (talk) 05:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, then I am not being clear. We have a report of this within the Julian Assange article. My question above is why is this worthy of its own article?

"Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives"

There might be a lot of ink spilled on this, but unless there is the 2nd (criminal) or 3rd (conspiracy) option, then it is a fairly common sort of event, and not notable (in the conventional sense of the word). So again, I ask, what is the rationale for *this* separate article, and if there is something, is it enough for it to become a separate article from Julian Assange's article? -- Avanu (talk) 05:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I suppose the main reason for the existence of this article is that there are quite a few editors that feel this topic needs significant coverage. If it were up to me, the sum total of the coverage would be what is currently in the Julian Assange article. But for various reasons, editor after editor kept adding various details until the section became undue for his BLP: [4]. One might view this article as a compromise. It's a place for all the various detail to go, without creating problems of WP:UNDUE in the parent article. aprock (talk) 05:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Well that is easy enough to answer. The section on this case in the Julian Assange article was simply far too large. It is generally frowned upon to delete large amounts of cited factual material from the encyclopaedia, so I instead moved it here. It basically comes down to WP:DUE. Gregcaletta (talk) 05:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that a separate article is not justified. But since it is there and is probably not going away (once rubbish is in, it is frowned upon to take it out, I am paraphrasing here), I have removed chatter and reduced it the subject matter of the UK court case. I was generous and left a lot of stuff in there that gives "Assange's side". There is no court case in Sweden. Presenting an article that pretends so is major crystalballing. I left all the references to sources, this has to be tidied up. Secondary sources are needed for the summary of the arguments in the hearing. They are out there, have fun fishing it out of the media reports. Any removal from the part about the hearing will require proof that what is currently in that section is NOT what was heard in court and any addition will require proof that it was actually heard in court and is substantial for the article. KathaLu (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, I went over to the Swedish wikipedia to compare the coverage on this case. They have it *all* entirely within the Assange article, and its just one paragraph. Just food for thought. -- Avanu (talk) 06:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

In defence of the article

I find it fascinating that some people have criticised this article saying it is very biased in favour of Assange, while others say it should be deleted because it is unfair on Assange to have a whole article on allegations that may not even go to trial. I understand the concerns of those who say having a whole article on this case is unfair on Assange because it draws too much attention to the allegations considering there has not yet been a trial or even the decision that there will be one. The best compromise can come up with is to simply report all the facts and all the allegations, but err on the side of caution, giving all the statements from Assange's defence, and all editors to assume innocence until proven guilty. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

"Giving all the statements from Assange's defence" - that sounds like a fun project but would surely require a separate article, given the length it would achieve. I am all for it (I am serious). It will be entertaining reading material. Do we include all their statements including those that they retracted or wherethey later said they had been misquoted or said they never said it in the first place? KathaLu (talk)

Yes, everything that appears in reliable sources. Gregcaletta (talk) 09:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources that is, which is not that much really, but I and anyone else interested in the case will still be very grateful if you really want to go to that effort. It would not contradict policy; you would need to provide the prosecutor's statements as well as per WP:DUE, but most of those are already included in the article. Gregcaletta (talk) 09:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

So much for bold editing ...

My first and only bold edit lasted 24 minutes :-D. Pity, it was NPOV, with a generous dollop of empathy for the plight of the Assange supporter.

Now for something completely different, from the article as it currently stands: read this and weep (or laugh):

On appeal the Svea Court of Appeal upheld the arrest warrant, on suspicion of "rape (less serious crime), unlawful coercion and two cases of sexual molestation". Assange's legal team have argued that there is no such thing as "minor rape", and that the allegations given do not meet the English or European legal definition of "rape".[18] The Supreme Court of Sweden upheld the detention order.

Although I am not a native speaker of English I can't help but notice some incongruities:

• the arrest warrant upheld by one court and the detention order upheld by another in the next but one sentence are presumably one and the same, namely the häktningsbeslutet, except that the quotes come from two different rss (reputable secondary source) so it has to stay that way?
• And actually, the Swedish Supreme Court didn't uphold anything as it refused to consider the appeal but who cares about legal stuff in a legal case like Swedish Judicial Authority v Julian Assange.
• Then we have rape (less serious crime). Rape is a less serious crime? We can't explain this any other way because we don't have an English rss for a more apt term.
• Then we have minor rape from another rss. Are minor rape and rape (less serious crime) the same? Who knows. It doesn't exist anyway, it seems. Or only in Sweden but not in English.
• And why did Assange's lawyers argue in Sweden that there is no such thing as rape less serious crime slash minor rape and if there is it doesn't match the English legal definition of rape? Why would a Swedish court upholding a Swedish arrest warrant care what English lawyers in faraway England believe? Those lawyers must have jumped through a wormhole where time and place are merged so that they could argue simultaneously on 7 February 2011 in London and on 18 November 2010 in Stockholm.
• Elsewhere in the article one learns that rape is not a translation of våldtäkt. But it is, it really is. Not even Assange's lawyers argued otherwise. What they did argue - and perhaps the extradition judge will follow their argument because it may hold some water - was that the offense described in you-know-where does not fall under any of the 32 categories of extraditable offenses of the European Arrest warrant scheme where you get extradited with no questions asked. One of the 32 is rape/våldtäkt/Vergewaltigung/viol/verkrachting/(add 17 more languages). Just in case this is news: the Framework Directive is written in 22 languages - and it is law in each and every of these 22 linguistic versions, there is no room for creative translation by a local lawyer somewhere in England. Complicated? No, just EU law for an EU law case.
  

Yes, that was fun to write :-D. KathaLu (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

With a system so complicated, it makes one wonder if the EU can hold together in the long term. -- Avanu (talk) 13:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

That is a discussion to be held elsewhere. But I want to congratulate the editors of the Assange article: they have now successfully expurgated the word "rape" from the entire Julian Assange Wikipedia article. KathaLu (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Law in action - Radio 4

For anyone who is actually interested in the Assange case, instead of the sensationalism and the trivialities that disguise as an article here, I recommend today's Law in action segment on BBC's Radio 4, which deals exclusively with various aspects of the Assange extradition case.

• points out that Civil Law prosecutors have a quasi-judicial role (US, UK Australia have Common Law systems, Sweden, Germany, France, basically all of Europe have Civil Law systems);
• addresses the human rights arguments in the Assange case; UK legal commentator gives a surprisingly blunt assessment;
• comments on use of Twitter from the courtroom (I assume that every editor knows that photographing, filming, broadcasting from the courtroom is strictly forbidden in UK courts, hence the importance of the Assange case where tweets were allowed for the very first time);
• addresses concerns about the way criminal hearings are reported in the media. Coverage is skewed in favour of sensationalism at the expense of fair reporting and accuracy. In Assange case, there is focus on the trivial, the personalities, the jokes the lawyers tried to make in court; reporting does not reflect what was happening as far as the evidence is concerned.

This article is witness to this observation. KathaLu (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It may be helpful to think about the fact that addressing the work of others as "sensationalism" and "trivialities" makes it very hard for them to find a middle ground without having to endure the feeling of humiliation in doing so. siafu (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I am merely quoting BBC Radio 4, a reputable secondary source. When an article is based on such media reports, it cannot be different from these reports. KathaLu (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I am merely pointing out a fact of human nature; you are just as welcome to ignore my comment and find out the hard way. siafu (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I seem to remember that there are WP guidelines on court cases but I cannot find them. I think there are also templates etc. Could you please point me in the right direction? KathaLu (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Pretty clear words from the judge at 11.02am when he "says that it is clear that Assange has not made himself available for interview in Sweden. He says it is not for him (=the judge) to decide whether he (=Assange) deliberately fled, just that he (=Assange) did not make himself available." [5]This was clear, from rss, since 7 Februar when Hurtig testified in court, yet editors preferred older rss which stated otherwise. A good article cannot be produced when the criterium for selecting material for the article is soley the fact that something has been written in some rss somewhere at some time. KathaLu (talk) 11:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

English case law or not? Infobox not allowed?

You have to make up your mind whether this article is PR for Assange, or his 2nd biography article on Wikipedia, or an article about a Swedish court case that will not see the light of day before this summer if at all, or an article about an English court case. In the category field it says "English case law" and "extradition" but the English case law infobox which I had added, to be filled out with the details of the case for which we will hear the decision tomorrow was removed and the reason given is "there is now case yet". This is confusing. We had witness statements, and witnesses, and defense lawyers and a lawyer acting for the prosecution/judicial authority, and a judge who will give a ruling tomorrow, possibly followed by an appeal so that the matter goes to the next higher court, so if it is not a case what is it? KathaLu (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

This article is apparently about a potential Swedish court case and the extradition is just party of it. That it was premature to start this page in the first place is another thing. BTW, you can't add an info-box like this without filling it out anyways.TMCk (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't realize that I can't add an infobox without filling it out. Being a relative beginner as to the more technical and edito-political aspects of Wikipedia, I had a problem with "translucing" the infobox to this article and filling in the details. I had hoped someone more experienced would pass by and help. Instead, the infobox got zapped. KathaLu (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I have a hunch that the majority of the currently active editors is indeed of the opinion that the article is about a "potential Swedish court case" and not about the current and actual British extradition court case. The latter is, in my humble opinion, actually the more interesting part of it but not because of the alleged offenses and whether Assange committed them or not, but because of the extraordinary media echo, the worldwide interest and the response to it. See for example today's Independent: Nations braced for 'hacklash' as Assange verdict looms:, [...] If Mr Assange does lose his extradition bid his supporters, particularly those online, are likely to begin targeting the UK. [...] The threat was taken seriously enough for GovCertUK, the information security agency, to issue an advisory notice urging government websites to take precautions against the attacks. The potential sexual allegations case itself is rather trivial and would not deserve an article. Even Assange's lawyers have said that he is likely to get away with a non-custodial sentence or an acquital should he get indicted, which is not even certain. Again, his lawyers themselves have said the chances for an indictment are 50:50, should he return to Sweden. They themselves also said that 95% of European Arrest Warrant requests in the UK are granted. KathaLu (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

11.10am: "The judge says the three alleged offences against Miss A (sex assault and molestation) meet the criteria for extradition offences and a fourth against Miss B, an allegation of rape, 'would amount to rape' in this country (=United Kingdom)(the defence had disputed this)."[6]. And this does not qualify as an extradition case under Wikipedia editing rules??? KathaLu (talk) 11:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

11.08am: The judge says he has "no doubt" that Assange is wanted for prosecution in Sweden." [7]A minority of editors has tried, in vain, to explain that there are differences between the Swedish system and UK-US-AUS systems, that häktning is a higher level of suspicion, that it is wrong to assume that charges have to be filed in Sweden at the same stage of a criminal prosecution procedure as in the US-UK-AUS system. KathaLu (talk) 11:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Background section

Can we cut the background section back? This is an article about the extradition and the in-depth information about the Sweden case is relatively irrelevant. At the moment it looks like an excuse for a POV fork... --Errant ^(chat!) 13:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

In fact the vast majority of the article needs to be cut, completely irrelevant. Why is the actual article focus only touched on on the last two of five sections! --Errant ^(chat!) 13:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to cut the background section back a bit, but would like more input. I don't for example see what Karin Rosander or her comments have to do with the extradition case, but will leave them until further discussion.Mbulle (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It might be better for someone to just put the article up for an AfD, although I'm not sure it would succeed. aprock (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not an article about the extradition. It's an article about Swedish Judicial Authority v. Julian Assange of which the extradition hearing is just one of several hearings. Gregcaletta (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Which is not what the lead says.... and I happen to agree that the former (extradition) has more legitimacy as an article right now. Per our discussions & consensus on the main Assange article r.e. the extent of reporting the allegations at this stage. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

There is nearly consensus that we should avoid too much material on the sexual allegations on that page because a BLP should avoid stating mere allegations and should stick to convictions. That was a main reason for the creation of this article: it allows us to remove undue and BLP violation material from that article and move it here. Look at the page history and note how long the "Sexual allegations" segment was before the creation of this article. Merely deleting cited factual material is not an acceptable solution to the issue, and certainly does not have consensus. Gregcaletta (talk) 10:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Which is why this is a POV fork; just because the discussion was on that article does not automatically mean that starting a new article makes it all right. More german; the issue with the content is mostly related to BLP concerns (i.e. detailed reporting of allegations) which is totally inappropriate. undue and BLP violation material from that article and move it here - move BLP violation here? WTF? --Errant ^(chat!) 10:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

If it were up to me I would cut the ENTIRE background section that Gregcaletta just added. I don't see how it relates to the extradition hearing. I have read the full judgement from the judge, and most of the material in the background section was not touched upon at all.Mbulle (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Removing cited factual material is not cool

WHy has so much cited factual material been removed from this article? Wikipedia is an attempt to give all people access to the some of all knowledge. Whenever you edit Wikipedia ask yourself: how does it help to inform the reader ? Removing cited factual material does not help anyone. Don't do it! Gregcaletta (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Greg; for christs sake we have a strong and established consensus that we will take our time in recording the events relating to this case. there is no rush. This content fork, as an attempt to get around that, is just disruptive. The extradition hearing is mostly now historical and we are able to record that in sufficient detail. What you have here, though, is hugely undue and extremely problematic to me. Strongly encourage you to remove the material you just added back. Throwing the "think of the readers" and "it is cited" non-arguments out doesn't really help. We were making good progress! --Errant ^(chat!) 10:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you didn't give any reason why removing that material is useful to anyone, or pointed to any Wikipedia policies justifying its removal. Gregcaletta (talk) 10:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way "think of the readers" and "it is cited" are the two most fundamentally important arguments upon which virtually all Wikipedia policy is based. Gregcaletta (talk) 10:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

And why is recording, in detail, allegations in line with our policy? Or indeed useful to anyone? Pure pointy character assassinaton and totally out of line with our general approach to this form of content. "think of the readers" is useless because, as in this case, it is usually asserted with no reasonable argument as to why the information is so essential, right here, right now. Is it critical to know, in detail, what it is alleged Assange did to Woman A?? it is cited is certainly not one of the fundamental basis of policy, indeed it is the common mis-representation of [{WP:V]], which says all material in the article must be reliably cited, not that all citeable material is to be included. Indeed, the relevant policy here is UNDUE which tells us that practically speaking not everything that can be cited is of relevance, significance, importance or due weight --Errant ^(chat!) 10:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

No, undue deals with disputed material. The material you removed was undisputed, such as when Assange arrived in Sweden, when he met these women, when he slept with them etc. None of this had been denied by anyone, which is why MSNBC and other reliable sources have published it as fact. Gregcaletta (talk) 10:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Please consider taking a moment to revise your policy reading; you've misunderstood WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE (which is definitely not just about disputed content) already this morning. So, the material about the condom is fine? Not in-depth information about an unproven allegation? Bullcrap. How you can say or WP:BLP reasons we should keep the material on the allegations to a minimum until the verdict of guilt or innocent is given in court. on one article and then take a totally different approach here is more than confusing. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Pretty simple, this is not a BLP. The fact that a condom broke during sex is not disputed by anyone. What is disputed is how it broke, which was given as quotations, not stated as a fact. If you wanted to remove that allegation in particular we could have discussed that and I probably would have been fine with it, but you removed an entire section of factual - and in some cases completely uncontroversial - material. Gregcaletta (talk) 11:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• WP:BLP applies here just as much as anywhere else. Off2riorob (talk) 11:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

True. My mistake. But the rest of what I said is still valid. Gregcaletta (talk) 11:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I almost support the deletion of this article, if it were not inevitable that the material on the allegation on that article would subsequently be expanded until the segment was unduly large in size, as it was previously. So the existence of this article helps to the resolve the BLP and due weight issues in that article. Gregcaletta (talk) 11:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The relevant policy is here: Wikipedia:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material. The material removed was not unsourced or poorly sourced, and only a verhy sall amount of it was even contentious, so the the removal of all of it is clearly unsupported by policy. Gregcaletta (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Almost all of the material relating to the alleged events are dubious; obviously they are not disputed, because there has been no trial yet. It is mostly purely speculative, plus the Swedish accusations. I don't think it is acceptable to treat this in detail until a trial has taken place. I'm willing to challenge and gain consensus for removal of all of the detail, but it is a bit of a pain to keep having to do it for every content fork. Bottom line; I do not think that detail of this nature is in any way relevant at this stage. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree, everything that is not directly related to the extradition should be irrelevant to this page, this includes he said-she said rumours about what happened before the extradition request was even made. The article was much better with the shorter background section. If the background section is the longest section in an article there is usually something wrong. Mbulle (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

So you think the date he arrived in Sweden is likely to be disputed in court? And the fact that he met these two women? You removed everything, not just the contentious parts. Gregcaletta (talk) 04:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

That judge isn't making logical sense

From the article: The judge said "as a matter of fact, and looking at all the circumstances in the round, this person (Mr Assange) passes the threshold of being an accused person and is wanted for prosecution."

---

I read the entire source of the verdict and the entire reason the judge says that is because the European Arrest Warrant has a requirement that the person be 'wanted for prosecution', not just questioning. So the implication here is that the Swedish authorities plan to charge Assange as soon as he arrives, I guess. The judge was told in court that the Swedes only want to question him, so the implication also is that the judge knowingly arrived at a conclusion he knew to be false simply to see the case expedited.

I have read other articles about the European Arrest Warrant and how it is supposedly abused and misused. And when I compare it to what we have in the US, I really feel that the legal system for the EU is a bit broken, mostly because of the rules that essentially put a person in jeopardy under each member states' rules, or can liberate them the same way. Having 27 rules of law doesn't seem to make a good recipe for justice.

(and Pieter, please leave the comment alone this time. The above comment isn't a "general Assange discussion forum" comment. It is directly related to whether what we have written in the article is factual or not.) -- Avanu (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

@Avanu, I agree that your question is justified. One has to understand the facts first, and for that one may even have to look to so called primary sources, in order to be able to know what needs to go into the article and how to present it. Mbulle has already given you a good answer to your question. You may also want to reread pages 18-19 of the verdict, where the Judge mentions the "cosmopolitan" approach. This is nothing new. It is already established law in the UK. The defence argued that Assange was merely wanted for questioning, the CPS, acting for the prosecution, had the better arguments: they showed that prosecution had already started. Sweden is not the only European Union country where the formal stage of charging/indicting has to occur late in criminal prosecutions, not at the beginning. KathaLu (talk) 08:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, I'm not really sure I catch the point of your question... it seems largely OR and your own opinion, and doesn't really impact on the article much at all. The judge said what he said; extending that to the implication also is that the judge knowingly arrived at a conclusion he knew to be false simply to see the case expedited is both a BLP violation and pure speculation. None of us are experts on English law; the judge is. The way this works is the judge must be satisfied that the extradition is valid - English law weighs heavily on such interpretation. If we have reliable sources discussing this issue, then yep lets put some content in. Otherwise let's not speculate on the talk page :) --Errant ^(chat!) 10:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

There's no violation of BLP in trying to understand the facts logically. ErrantX, this is just the talk page (not the article). KathaLu, thank you for the additional insight into this. -- Avanu (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

BLP applies everywhere; I'm just asking you to be a bit careful with your comments, suggesting a judge is guilty of something naughty is definitely something to avoid. And with the best will in the world; this is a talk page purely for article work. If you want to clarify something that is unclear (but not related to article improvement) as this is then the reference desk is probably your best bet :) However I can't think off hand of any WP editors who have the legal expertise to answer :S --Errant ^(chat!) 17:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that he was being 'naughty', my impression was that he was putting one consideration ahead of another. Judges have to do that all the time; its their job really. But regardless, KathaLu and Mbulle gave excellent reasons why this might be a mistaken impression. -- Avanu (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

TP comment deleted

It seems that a TP contribution by Avanu was deleted. Isn't this against Wiki etiquette? It seemed a genuine question about the verdict, though perhaps not directly related to the writing of the article. I was replying to it when it disappeared. If it is not appropriate for here I would reply on the user's TP. I felt it was more appropriate than all this "material" that has been added again to the article, and the discussion about its value.KathaLu (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I deleted it. This is not a general Assange discussion forum. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Pieter that this seems more a discussion on the merit of the judgement than a discussion of the article. Just to make things clear though, what Avanu sais is not supported by the verdict. The judge actually discusses his reasoning quite a bit:

"On the information I have, it does not seem unreasonable for a prosecutor in a serious matter such as this to expect and indeed require the presence of Mr Assange in Sweden for questioning, and if necessary to take a DNA sample. Such unanswered questions that remain are unanswered because this defendant has not complied with the request made to be interrogated in Sweden. There is then the fact that these proceedings are at the preliminary investigation stage. The decision to charge can be taken only after this stage is complete. It is not complete until interrogation has taken place and other important procedures, such as providing the evidence to the defence or nominating witnesses, have occurred. Upon the conclusion of the preliminary investigation a decision on whether to charge will be taken. There are obviously differences across Europe in systems and terms such as prosecution. This is well recognised. The court must take a purposeful approach. Someone who, say, commits a murder in Stockholm, immediately flees the country, and then avoids detection and interrogation, may well be wanted for prosecution (defined in a purposeful sense) in Sweden. It cannot be said, sensibly, that because he has not been interviewed then he is not wanted for prosecution and therefore no EAW can be issue. That is not the factual situation here, of course. It simply illustrates that the fact that no interrogation has taken place and therefore the preliminary investigation has not concluded is not determinative of whether a person is wanted for prosecution."

I.e., he can still be wanted for prosecution even though he has not formally been charged yet. The judge sees the extradition as a neccessary step in a process that will lead to an eventual prosecution.

Mbulle (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Mbulle. I suppose it is just a consequence of trying to interpret 27 countries' laws meaningfully into one coherent whole. -- Avanu (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

A number of factual errors

With a detailed account like this a number of minor errors are included. The dates for when Assange was heard by the police is probably wrong (and the sources does not actually state the 30th). Also earlier a date for the reopening of the case was wrong (date not included any longer). Also that his application for citizenship (not relevant as such in this context) steted no reasons given, which is also wrong. This is a concequence of usung secondary sources and not look for other confirming sources. The whole article is actuall mostly a description what different papers write, not what is actual facts. This is not accordance with Wikipedia requirement to present correct facts. And as my sources are Swedsih I will not put them in and correct errors as I see the whole approach of this article rather doubious. The extended backgroud have the same problem, more citing papers then presenting actual facts (that will exist if a when a trial in Sweden will go through). I as others recommend this article to be cut back to the raw facts that are known fact and remove all specualtive "facts".Yger (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

On October 17, Assange was denied residency in Sweden. No reason was given. It amuses me how this copied piece of text regularly appears. If one REALLY wants to write a detailed factual account - for me that does not include details of his bedroom stories but why he went to Sweden, what business he had etc. - one could mention that he applied for residency. This is a permission to live and work in Sweden instead of just visiting; all foreign nationals who wish to stay in Sweden for more than three months are required to apply for a residence permit; you don't need such a residency permission in the UK but you do need it in most EU countries, in the US you need a green card or a specialist visa. But then you should say when he applied for it and when it was denied. "No reason was given" implies that THE GOVERNMENT did something sinister. Of course it didn't. What happened instead is that a newspaper wanted to know and the authorities said that's private data, we don't tell you. Totally normal. As it is totally normal that someone who stayed in Sweden for 5 weeks and left again won't get a residency card. It is hilarious to see how foreign eyes see totally normal stuff and interpret it. Those two sentences are irrelevant for an article on his extradition case, the first one, if mentioned at all, should go into the Assange bio. KathaLu (talk) 08:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Please Kathalu could you make another attempt to cut back the background section? You did a great job last time. Gregcaletta has now added so much irrelevant information that I don't know where to start. This article should be about the extradition hearing/process, not about who slept with whom. Mbulle (talk) 08:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Two factual errors in current version

You may have found this in a reputable Australian newspaper. It is still wrong:

• [case was] and reopened in November. Wrong. Fact: Swedish case was never closed. While the Swedish domestic arrest warrant on suspicion of rape was quickly dropped in August, the investigation of the case continued non-stop.
• with the result that Assange was to be extradited to Sweden within 60 days. Wrong. Fact: if there is no appeal, inter-EU extradition, which applies to Assange, is within 10 days, see http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/03/julian-assange-extradition-appeal and other up-to-date European coverage of the case. KathaLu (talk) 05:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Good catches there. Incidentally a CNN article about the new appeal says that this might possibly drag on for another 2 to 3 months. So he might still be in Britain in June. Wouldn't it be faster if the Swedes just caught a train and questioned him in Britain? Oh well, such is life. -- Avanu (talk) 05:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, British legal experts predicted that timeline already in December and proved to be right. Assange's extradition case is like hundreds of others, it just gets more media interest than usually but then he makes a huge effort to get that kind of publicity, too. Like everyone against whom an European Arrest Warrant is issued, Assange was asked by the UK court in December whether he wanted to go to Sweden voluntarily. He declined. There are no trains between Stockholm and London - the North Sea is in obstacle for trains. I think, as a rule, police go abroad to interview witnesses because they can't make them come to their country. They don't go abroad to interview suspects when there is suspicion with probable cause (häkting, as is the case for Assange=. They make them come to their station/sheriff's office. Isn't it the same everywhere? KathaLu (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The article says the case was "partially dropped" not completely, which is true. The rape part was dropped and the molestation charges remained, but these were not serious enough to grant an arrest warrant. Gregcaletta (talk) 05:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

When you say "Assange's extradition case is like hundreds of others" are you saying hundreds of people extradited from England on similar charges? Can you please provide me with your source for this? Gregcaletta (talk) 05:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Although Kathalu might have been using a bit of hyperbole in saying "like hundreds of others", I can present you with this quote:

"The Daily Mail reports that last year, British police were forced, at a cost to taxpayers of about £25 million, to arrest 4,100 people accused of committing sometimes trivial crimes, mostly at the request of Polish police. This is compared to the only 203 international arrest requests made by British police to other countries." - Questions on legality of EAW

Keep in mind, the Swedes say they only want to question him, and possibly charge him. -- Avanu (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I would have to look it up again but seem to remember that about 700 people per year are extradited from the UK to another EU member state (there are 27 of them), the majority to Poland. Then there are of course all the other EAW extraditions from other EU countries. The EAW system has been around for about five, six years, and there is some criticism. A number of people are extradited for what looks like trivialities (doesn't mean that Assange's case is trivial). Don't you know that??? KathaLu (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"the Swedes say they only want to question him, and possibly charge him". Also not unusual within the EAW system, as a number of other EU member states have similar prosecution systems as Sweden. KathaLu (talk) 06:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

As to why don't they go to Sweden - I suspect (don't know for certain) it is quite simple: the Swedes can interview him in London or via videolink but they cannot arrest him in London or via videolink. They can do that in Sweden, and even if they release him until trial they can make him stay in Sweden until trial, something they cannot do if they merely interview him abroad. The EAW alone keeps him in Europe, which is already a good move. I guess Assange had no clue that the arms of EU prosecutors had grown that long in recent years that they can reach across internal EU borders and grab him. PS. This is not a discussion of the case, merely some reflection to help editors make a decision what to consider important for the article. KathaLu (talk) 06:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Focus of this article

Seeing as it is still in dispute let's nail it down for good. There are two questions:

1. Should the scope of this article be about the entire Swedish case/allegations OR just about the English Extradition hearing?

   At the end of last year Julian Assange was accused of various crimes in in Sweden, after some confusion over whether they would prosecute him or not the Swede's decided to extradite Assange from the UK, where he was residing at that time. At this stage the situation is that Assange has been through an extradition hearing in the UK and is awaiting chance to appeal the decision to send him to Sweden. On the Assange page it was largely agreed to keep the detail fairly minimal per our usual BLP policy; this article was created/forked to cover the entire event in more detail, but a number of people have challenged this and recommended refocusing on the extradition hearing.

2. Should the article contain detailed information about the allegations at this stage?

   There has been concerns raised over the amount of detail relating to the allegations; specifically the recording of allegations prior to any trial or other proceedings. It has already been strongly agreed not to mention the women's names at this stage (despite them being reported in the press) but no formal agreement on the extent to which details of the allegations or events surrounding them has been reached.

There are various arguments for or against both on this talk page and in the archives of Talk:Julian Assange. Errant ^(chat!) 10:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

1. My fear is that if we open this page to be a general page about everything that remotely relates to these allegations, it will be filled with endless POV rumors. This case has been massively covered in both reputable and nonreputable sources. Unfortunately, since there is litte official information many of the usually reputable sources have reported the rumours instead. This page faces a risk of turning into a gossip blog.

I'd much rather have the page about the extradition hearing. It should include the offical extradition case by the prosecution, the official extradition defence by Assange and the ruling by the judge. It does not need additional arguments for and against Assange made in the media. We do not need information that allows the reader to make up their mind about whether he is guilty or not. That is not what the extradition hearing is about. The only question relevant to the British courts is whether he should be extradited or not.

When/if this turns in to an actual court case in Sweden we can create a page about that. I am sure the prosecution and the defence will put forward their cases then. We don't have to make it for them in the meantime.

Mbulle (talk) 10:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

2. I think we should use the same terminology that the courts use. It is not for us to make up our own legal terminology. That said, I do not think we need to put the word "rape" in any of the headlines. I think a good compromise is to call it "Allegations of sexual assault" or something to that effect in the headlines, but when discussing the actual European Arrest Warrant and the actual British extratition ruling we should not cover up the fact that both the prosecutor and the judge use the word "rape". Mbulle (talk) 11:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

:1 This is an excellent example of trial by media. Limiting the content to strictly judicial material would be wp:undue and wp:npov. What should be included or excluded out of concern for wp:blp is to be decided case by case. :2 Yes but conservatively. Non-disputed facts like dates of arrival and departure, etc, should be included. Contentious material, such as the broken condom, should be handled with great care, and presented in a way that makes it clearly neutral. ^walk victor falk ^talk 14:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and congratulations to Errant on presenting the issues in a neutral manner. Very few people can do this on RfCs even when they are trying to do so. I'm not going to comment further on the issue, other than to say I think that all undisputed material stated as fact in reliable sources should appear somewhere on the encyclopedia, and this article seems the most appropriate place. And I would like just like ask one question (sorry if it is rather tangental) relating to the mentioning of names: why is it acceptable to include material about the allegations on the Julian Assange page but not acceptable to mention the names of the two women (considering that we assume innocence until proven guilty; the whole issue is more damaging to Assange's reputation than to the girls; and the girls chose to go public by speaking to newspapers etc)? Gregcaletta (talk) 05:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

As some have pointed out, this was never *supposed* to be public. The Swedish authorities, and possibly Assange also, seem to have been too free in revealing information. "innocent until proven guilty" and privacy of the case are things that span several legal systems and cultures and might not in every case be in agreement. I would say the thing to do in the highest spirit of the BLP guidelines would be to simply remove all of the material except a small fragment, but that is a fairly conservative approach (which seems to be in line with how the BLP guidelines *SAY* we should behave). It seems a little inconsistent to pore over every detail, including timelines and dates and so on, as if we are trying to investigate this case, rather than report as neutral observers. Maybe a comparison to other articles that have a celebrity under investigation would yield a more conservative approach, maybe not. -- Avanu (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"Girls?" - hardly an appropriate term, Gregcaletta. As for Assange's 'reputation', I doubt that it would be improved by including all the dubious speculation that has accompanied this issue from the start. We report reliably-sourced facts - that Assange is facing extradition because of allegations regarding serious sexual offences supposedly committed in Sweden. To avoid commenting on this at all would be nonsensical. But likewise, to include every dubiously-sourced bit of tittle-tattle would also be likely to distort the article. I like to think that Wikipedia article readers have the sense to recognise spin when they see it, and for our own 'reputation' we should try to keep this to a minimum - report the facts, not our opinions of them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

@Gregcaletta: I am really curious, this is not a rhetorical question. Could you perhaps point me to the "newspapers etc." that did interviews with the two complainants (I believe the correct term is complainants, not accusers). I could not find anything so far. Perhaps the name of the newspaper, TV station etc. would be sufficient. Thanks a lot in advance. KathaLu (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This MSNBC article says that at least one of the women talked to at least one Swedish newspaper. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd have trouble finding the Swedish newspapers for you, not speaking Swedish myself, but I doubt MSNBC is simply making it up. It shouldn't be too hard to find them if you want to use Google translate. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It is hard to find "them". I am more interested in distortion and misrepresentations in the media than in Assange's plight, and in the considerable role that Wikipedia plays in multiplying and disseminating such distortion and misrepresentation. All I can find is an article of 22 August 2010 in the Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet, which claims that they interviewed one of the woman "yesterday", without giving a name, not even an initial. There are perhaps four or five sentences that give the appearance as if they were direct quotes of this purported anonymous interview. Is that article "THE" source for all the other articles and TV reports and blogs? KathaLu (talk) 05:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree it is a problem that our so called "reliable sources" in the mainstream media don't provide their own sources. Assange himself has a problem with this. Generally the reliable sources policy helps to resolve disputes, and can usually assume that MSNBC did their research properly, but you could try bringing that particular point up at the reliable sources noticeboard. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've checked and Aftonbladet does seem to be the source used by MSNBC. I don't know how bad they are, but I doubt they made up the interview. Again, you could check the reliable sources noticeboard. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

According to this translation, she said "It is completely incorrect to say that we chose not to file a report with the police because we were afraid of Assange. He is not violent, and I do not feel threatened by him." and then "In both cases, the sex was initially consensual, but subsequently became abusive" actually stated as fact by Aftonbladet rather than as a quote from the woman, so it would appear that MSNBC did make a mistake here. So I would be happy to remove the quoatation and state it is fact based on this Washington Post article], which says that "all parties agree", which apparently is based on the police reports themselves rather than any tabloid interview. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your earlier comments and for acknowledging the fact that "'reliable sources' in the mainstream media don't provide 'their' own sources. Wiki's "no primary - only secondary sources" principle works well for scientific and similar subjects but some editors interpret it too narrowly for current events, especially high profile cases. If someone gives an interview or issues a press statement, or a judgement, or publishes a statement on their website, it makes no sense to prohibit quotes from this material (primary, after all) and only allow quotes further down the line, with all the errors that have crept in over time. I am pretty certain (but would be happy to be proven wrong) that these two women did not search the limelight, like Assange does, and I am doubtful that they even gave an interview themselves, though the words in the Aftonbladet article may well be their words. It dates back to 22 August and after that they don't seem to have said anything to a newspaper or TV station. Assange wants to have his take on it all published. The women apparently don't. The Swedish police interviews were not published by the police. So much of what has been published about the women has been obtained through leaks or internet sleuthing and concerns a possible future court case. Under these circumstance, I fail to understand how editors feel that they are justified to plonk all this material about they women on Wiki and regard it as "neutral". I wonder what the women would say if they were to make a statement today, or if they did get their day in court? KathaLu (talk) 06:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I take back the statement about them going to the newspapers. Apparently, one of them did speak to a tabloid. But the reason we know that that had consensual sex with Assange is actually because there testimonies to the police were leaked to the newspapers. We don't know who leaked them so if I implied that they were "seeking the limelight" then I take that back. And I totally agree with you on the way the primary sources vs secondary sources policy is misinterpreted when it coms to current events and creates all sort of problems. I doubt Assange would be "seeking the limelight" either over this case. It's his job as spokesperson for WikiLeaks to be in the limelight so that others in the organisation don't have to be, and I'm sure he is aware how much this case reflects badly on WikiLeaks and distracts from the work they are doing. In any case, no one has questioned the authenticity of the testimonies that were leaked to the media, so there is no reason that the media should not use them as a source. If the women told police there initial sexual enconters with Assange were consensual, then it is probably true. Gregcaletta (talk) 08:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

In any case, you can check out Assange's testimony to the police. Assange says, "Can I assume that this is going to end up in Expressen?" and the prosecutor replies "From us? I'm not going to leak anything. And the only thing that's here, that's the three of us who are a part of this interrogation and a girl who will transcribe it afterwards. And I'm the only one who has access to the file. So if it gets into Expressen, you can pick a fight with me". Very strange considering it was leaked, and prescient of Assange; it certainly doesn't sound like Assange wanted this particular issue to be in the limelight.Gregcaletta (talk) 08:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

@Greg: I am aware of the issues concerning the circumstances of the event and the relation between the three people, and that the allegations seem preposterous to many people. However, I don't see anything strange in Assange's comments about Expressen, made around the end of August during his police interview. I certainly do not see any prescience on Assange's part. When the story first broke, around 20 August, Expressen journalists got wind of it and phoned the police who confirmed that that they were investigating Assange (I do not know whether they were allowed to say something to the press, after all there was a short-lived arrest warrant against him in force in August). KathaLu (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The extradition case is very simple: there was a valid European Arrest Warrant, and the British courts transfer the person to Sweden. Nothing here is particularly legally interesting, but this might merit a section in the EAW article. That would also give context. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Except that they issued a RED notice. The lower level of "ORANGE" was issued for Ghaddafi. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

And what is your conclusion? Oh, I forgot that would be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and Wiki editors are not allowed to think on their own. And I bet there is not a single reputable secondary source that would explain why red for Assange and orange for Ghaddafi. I mentioned repeatedly that the Interpol notice is of no importance for the legal case in the EU. What counts and why Assange was arrested in the UK, which is a Member State of the European Union, is the EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT. The EU has taken legal measures to freeze assets and implement travel bans for Ghaddafi and other Libyans but to my knowledge no Member State has issued an EAW against Ghaddafi so far - and I don't see how they could, what would be the legal base for an EAW and besides, he is not on EU territory. KathaLu (talk) 05:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

@Gregcaletta: This is wrong. Saying that Interpol issued the lower level of ORANGE against Ghaddafi while they issued a red notice against Assange is a splendid example for the misrepresentation/distortion/misleading statements by Wikileaks/Assange or the gullibility of his followers/supporters. Orange is not a lower level than red. There are different colour codes for difference kind of notices. Red is the most frequently used and is used for fugitives and people wanted for (provisional) arrest; orange is used to warn countries of a global threat by a person, organisation or event.[8]. Assange does not qualify for orange, lol, he is not a global threat, just wanted for (alleged) crimes in one single European country. KathaLu (talk) 08:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Please check very carefully if you use outdated secondary sources

I note that this this Timeline has been used to edit the article recently. I corrected some dates today. This Australian timeline was already wrong on some dates in December 2010, when it was published, and by now more errors have become apparent, so please check very carefully before you re-introduce errors into the article. Errors, btw, that could have easily been checked at the time by simple but extensive googling of the reputable secondary sources.KathaLu (talk) 16:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• - I haven't looked at this article recently but I see Grantevens is now adding conspiracy theories, the article is worse not better, it should never have been created and you should do it the service it deserves and merge the worthwhile details back to where they came from. Off2riorob (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Assange judgment is online

The judgment can be found here: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/jud-aut-sweden-v-assange-judgment.pdf. The offical name of the case is "The judicial authority in Sweden -v-Julian Paul Assange". There is no need to point out to me that the judgment can be considered as a primary source. It would be downright stupid to quote one line from one reputable newspaper and another from another reputable secondary source and so on, but remain in total ignorance of the judgment itself. KathaLu (talk) 12:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on how you use it, whether the judgment is a 'primary source'. After all, the Judge heard from both sides and compiled a report, in many ways this might be akin to how a journalist takes quotes from both sides and then creates a news story out of it. Whereas the journalist is more likely to put a spin on the story to make it interesting and compelling, the judge is more likely to try and stick close to established facts and law. That doesn't mean that either of them can't be biased, but depending on how it is used, I would say the judgement can be a useful resource in getting to the FACTS of the case here.

I think relying on secondary sources is great, but if the only thing people turn to as 'valid' secondary sources are newspapers and the like, then we are simply getting two sides of a narrative usually, in many cases very lightly researched, and in some cases simply bent to serve a cause. -- Avanu (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, instead of judiciary.gov, we should provide a link to BAILII, which is the canonical English caselaw website. It's likely the BAILII link will be valid for more time. Apokrif (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Serious BLP concerns

I have serious concerns about this article. Just because the media reports something doesn't mean that Wikipedia has to. Does anybody remember Richard Jewell? Hello? The media can afford to get stuff wrong as they have money and lawyers. We don't have that luxury — that's why WP:BLP is one of our most important policies. This article reads like a statement for the prosecution. Stuff like this jeopardizes our project. - Hydroxonium (H₃O⁺) 05:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we have a few editors who insist that this article is somehow in Assange's favour, while others say that the existence of a "sexual allegations" article is inherently biased against Assange assuming innocence until proven guilty and it should be deleted altogether. I have suggested the compromise that we present it in the most conservative possible light, but sadly there seem to be fewer people taking this position with me than there are people arguing for both extremes. Gregcaletta (talk) 05:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Preaching to the choir on that one, Hydro. That's why I would prefer we just push this for now into the incubator. Its pleasant and comfortable and the article could get a nice bath and haircut there. (Incidentally, what Pieter Kuiper said in the 'Focus' section above, that this is legally uninteresting, is kind of the point I've wanted others to see also.) -- Avanu (talk) 05:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

POV problems

I added a POV tag as this article has serious BLP problems. Please fix these. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (H₃O⁺) 02:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I can see that an editor removed the tag as I didn't give specifics. I have added a new tag and request that it not be removed until the following items have been addressed. Thanks.

BLP issues
Per WP:BLP Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy.

• This article is anything but conservative. It goes in to great detail about every aspect.

Per WP:BLP Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment

• A major focus of this article is on titillating claims.

Factual accuracy

• People keep adding things that are factually inaccurate. I cannot list them here as they are violations of WP:BLP. These are things like adding "trial" and "prosecution" where it should not be and neglecting to put "allegedly" where it should be.

Neutrality Per WP:NPOV Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias.

• Multiple editors have raised issues on this talk page.
• The article's title infers much more than what facts are instead of being more neutrally worded.
• The article goes in to great detail of the views from one side. This is entirely unnecessary to have an overview of the situation.

Unbalanced
Per WP:UNDUE Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint.

• The vast majority of this article is about the charges and procedings against Assange and only a minority is about refuting the charges and procedings.

Please follow Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy while working on thisa article. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (H₃O⁺) 08:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a valid observation. Who's going to fix it? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The simplest and best fix would be to remove this article entirely, and simply have the summary that is currently present in the Julian Assange article. Despite VAST media coverage, what is the product of ALL of that media coverage?

A man stands suspected of several crimes.

That's it. There's no published proof of a coverup or conspiracy to extradite him to the United States. No published proof of him being silenced or whatever. If all this is, is Assange being suspected of some crimes, why do we have to devote an ever longer article to the play-by-play of his legal drama? -- Avanu (talk) 03:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, as some have said, the coverage in this article might be great fuel for articles on the Swedish Judicial System, or the European Arrest Warrant, or Reverse-Sexism in Sweden, etc. But in the context presented here, it is this editor's opinion that they are commonplace. -- Avanu (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it would be better summarised as "A man stands accused of several crimes, which he contests", but basically that is it. If we state the facts, rather than the spin and speculation, that is all that needs to be said. This article arose because several contributors wished to cover the topic in further detail, but there seems to be little factual detail to add, other than minutiae regarding the legal systems involved, which adds little to understanding of the subject. The POV problems in this article arise almost entirely because contributors are unwilling to content themselves with reporting verifiable facts, and instead seek to find sources for speculation. This is totally inappropriate in the context of an ongoing legal case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Its not really possible to produce a npov version of an adversarial event wherein 1 side (the Accusers) is protected from identitification and from criticism here on Wikipedia, notwithstanding multiple attempts by multiple Editors to balance the content and notwithstanding numerous available RS articles in this regard, e.g.[9] . Its like a football game where one team can tackle and the other one can not. The whole thing is becoming moot because even if all allegations were dropped tomorrow, to most people who read the Wikipedia articles about Assange and the sex scandal(likely peaking last month[10]), he will always have a sullied reputation because of the 1 sided content of the articles. So, as the Subject said himself, he has been subjected to "a very successful smear campaign". The Wikipedia content has been a leading and powerful component of that smear, not by any intent of the Editors, but simply because of inertia and rule following. I do not believe we could not have done better with the npov aspect. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how naming the accusers is helpful to maintain neutrality. Do you recall the incident involving Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.? The woman across the street called police because she believed that someone was breaking in. She later understood that her impression was mistaken. Her action of calling law enforcement didn't cause Gates and Sgt. James Crowley to behave the way they did, and her actions were reasonable given her belief that a crime was taking place. Now some people accused her of being racist and other invectives, but the news media (for the most part) carefully and judiciously covered her involvement, because SHE WASN'T the issue.

Now maybe the overall facts aren't the same here, but we should try very very hard to avoid smearing an 'accuser' just because they believe something. Maybe these two women are mistaken, maybe they are vindictive, maybe they are CIA schills, who knows? But without some published and supported material to support things, we are overall remaining silent and allowing the judicial system take its time. -- Avanu (talk) 04:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are saying; what is this if not"Published material"? [11][12][13][14][15]. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I will try to address Hydroxonium's unbalanced and pov concerns to a baby-step extent with a "Allegations of a CIA connection" sub-section. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted this - we don't need to report every conspiracy theory and bit of random tittle-tattle we can find on the web. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Grant, this sentence from the Miami Herald link you posted really sums it all up. "The websites *portrayed* Ardin's links to Cuba as evidence of a U.S.-backed plot to smear and jail Assange."

So when I said earlier "published and supported material", I meant very reliable sources that are doing more than making casual linkages between people, but actually showing strong evidence of linkages. These website links you posted pretty much all have the same thing ... very sketchy and speculative linkages. -- Avanu (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you two can't cherry pick a few words to create strawman labels to accomodate your opinion. There are 5 sources including AOL so take your time and review them all, please. As evidenced by Hydroxonium's exceptionally uninvolved view, this event is presented in an exceptionally biased way. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You can't 'balance' factual information (that Assange has had serious allegations against him, and may face trial) with third-hand speculation about wild conspiracy theories - in addition this is undoubtedly a violation of WP:BLP in relation to the woman involved. I note too that the sources cited are all rather old. One would think that if there was anything more to this than wild speculation, more woukld have been reported. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Grant I don't get what your talking about, the details are - a man is accused of rape and sexual assault and leaves the country, an extradition request is presented and after a hearing in British courts is accepted and Assanges upcoming extradition is a legal fact the accused has appealed and soon the result will be announced - CIA involvement is just laughable even with five citations , the unfounded conspiracy trivia was not part of the hearing at all. Off2riorob (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm really not trying to cherrypick anything. I'm not opposed to including any material from a reliable source as long as it is presented in the proper context. But presented irresponsibly:

Ardin's lawyer, Claes Borgstrom, declined to comment today but said earlier this week that both women were having a "tough time" in the face of so much notoriety and criticism.

Even well-known feminists like Naomi Wolf, Naomi Klein and the European group Women Against Rape have publicly questioned the sexual assault claims.

That's a quote from the AOL link you provided. It is precisely the sort of thing we're trying to avoid here on Wikipedia. We don't get to put the accusers on trial, nor should we. We're here to provide a point of view that is dispassionate, while still being interesting. Initially, I saw so many possibilities in the story of Assange and the saga here, and I was swept up in the drama of it also. But then I stepped back and realized that we're not here to provide a 24-hour Wiki cycle, we're not here to be the up-to-the-minute coverage. We're working on an encyclopedia. When I was a child at the state fair each year, the man selling encyclopedias would always seem so intersting. WOW 27 volumes of information... how impressive and amazing! But it came once a year. Not once a minute. We had to be patient, and (I assume) those editors knew that they had to get it RIGHT. Because if you were about to spend $1,000 on some books, they better be worth it. -- Avanu (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I have not been following this story, so I would encourage everybody to correct any errors I make. This is my understanding of the situation.

• Man had consensual relations with 2 women
• Side 1 - 2 women said it went past consensual at some point
• Side 2 - Man says it was always consensual

An investigation was started and several months later

• Side A - Country wants to extradite man to further investigation
• Side B - Man is fighting extradition for fear of being handed over to another country and possibly facing death sentence

If this is the case, I don't see why this can't be covered completely in the Julian Assange article. - Hydroxonium (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

My only minor quibble would be the 'Side B'. Man is fighting extradition because he claims that he might be handed over (to the US or whoever) for a death or life or something sentence, but the Swedes have replied they would take care to avoid that, and because of the EAW the Brits get a say in it also now. -- Avanu (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Avanu. So if its just 4 sides, then I believe this could be covered adequately in the Julian Assange article. If we decide to keep this article, then each of the 4 sides above need to be given their due weight in order to comply with WP:NPOV. - Hydroxonium (talk) 05:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC on content related to Assange's Accusers

Hydroxonium brought up pov ande unbalanced concerns above. There are at least 5 RSs which have headlines and content related to 1 of Assange's Accusers and also that feminists like Naomi Wolf spoke out on the sex scandal. Several ingrained Editors here are,imo,using the "conspiracy theory" strawman to keep this content out. I think this content is useful in addressing the "unbalanced" concern that Hydroxonium brought here. Below is the content which has been twice removed

In fairness, you probably need to divide what you are requesting comment on above. Whether to include accusers in the article is one item. Whether to say they are possibly CIA schills is another item. Also, I'm not sure that Hydroxonium was saying we have to add either of these items in to make it balanced. My feeling was that it was merely to provide awareness that it might be unbalanced. -- Avanu (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

At this time virtually all information about the Accusers, including their names, is excluded; the CIA thing is just 1 of the many aspects excluded. The RFC is on all content which is excluded. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Allegations of a CIA connection

There has been some speculation in the media and by people like Naomi Wolf and Naomi Klein that there has been a connection between one of Assange's accusers and the CIA and that the sex allegations are possibly a result of an orchestration of events rather than random personal encounters.[16][17][18][19][20][21]Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• No way. Adding 'some speculation' to correct a supposed lack of balance is just ridiculous. The proposed section is also a clear violation of WP:BLP in that it constitutes an attack on the integrity of the woman concerned (without any 'balance'). The 'sources' given are in any case merely repeating that they have seen allegations of CIA involvement etc, rather than suggesting that there is any truth to this. They are also months old. This was all discussed when the speculation first surfaced, and it was rejected as unsuitable for articles at the time. It is noticeable that nothing recent has been published on this, suggesting that the media in general thinks little of it. So yes, this is a conspiracy theory, and a distinctly weakly-based one. it has no place in Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Don't add the CIA stuff without some actual 'reliable sources', and to help us all understand, just because the New York Times reports that Rush Limbaugh said that some blogger said that you are a yellow-striped zebra doesn't make it RELIABLE. Are we merely the repeaters of whatever rumor happens to be published by the media, or do we actually want to try and establish reliability for things? -- Avanu (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• No', I thought this had been stamped on hard already. We are not a tabloid and this is exactly the sort of material BLP policy id designed to rid us of. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• So far there are only OR statements and other personal opinions being expressed as reasons to prohibit this topic and content which is reported by the likes of AOL,Guardian,Miami Herald. Its not our job to separate Truth or Fact from Rumour and Fiction; that is precisely why we have the Truth and OR policies, I think. Many may have felt that the "Iraq is seeking Uranium in Niger" was a conspiracy theory and/or rumour, but that would not have kept it from inclusion in an article; in fact I hazard a guess that it is probably still included in some article(s) as having been a fabricated theory or rumour. I do not agree with any of the reasons given for exclusion thus far because everone knows we are not supposed to be judging the truthfulness of accusations; our job is to edit and include those which are reported by RSs. I personally think all of the sex allecations are only theory and rumour, yet the same Editors who have insisted upon inclusion of them are now shouting "rumour" and "theory". I think that's a double standard. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Also, why have none of the "no way" Editors come up with any other content to help address the "Balance" concern expressed by Hydroxonium? If you don't like my suggestion, lets see something from you in that regard, how bout it? with all due respect. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Your link to the Guardian is to the letters page, and it makes no mention whatsoever of the CIA. Stop wasting everyone's time with this pointless debate, we do not include third hand rumours of conspiracies in Wikipedia, and you know it. It you don't think we should "separate Truth or Fact from Rumour and Fiction" then I suggest you find another forum for your unorthodox theories.. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a "no way", I'm just a make sure its done the "right way" or simply leave it out. (Which could potentially be the entire article being left out, as per my Request to Delete.) -- Avanu (talk) 01:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Look, a fresh view from Hydroxonium is presented that the article is biased with non-neutral pov. Its not constructive to just ignore that observation. Your deletion attempt failed so now its an opportunity to improve it. I don't mind if my idea is rejected but it would be better to also present some ideas of your own. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the AfD has 'failed'. It is still being discussed and there seems to be considerable support to remove or merge. To me, the biggest 'undue' part of this story is that we created this fork in the first place. Originally, I was mildly supportive of creating this separate page, but since it is simply a page of legal minutiae at this point, why have it now? Are we going to cover every semi-interesting part of Mr. Assange's life in a separate article with this kind of detail in the future?

Also, if these women are really some kind of CIA operatives (which is currently in great doubt), wouldn't this story more rightfully belong under "Reactions to the United States diplomatic cables leak"? -- Avanu (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem is that there are two different interpretations of what 'bias' means. There is the issue of whether an article presents a subject in a good or bad light, and the issue of whether we are presenting sources in an unbalanced way. Regarding the first, this article is about allegations of serious sexual misconduct against Assange, and as such is unlikely to reflect well on him - such allegations, even if false are hardly something that can be presented in a positive manner - one reason I was sceptical about the merits of having this sub-article in the first place. So yes, there may be 'bias' in this sense, but this is because the fact that allegations have been made, and court cases etc began is inherently bad for Assange's reputation - we have to report the basic facts however. But are we 'biased' in the second sense, and not presenting sources in a balanced way? I see no evidence of this - we are trying to report only factual information, rather than speculation, but this is not only normal Wikipedia policy, it is necessary in order to avoid 'bias' against others - as the 'CIA' claims clearly do. I'm sure it would be possible to find 'anti-Assange speculation too, so if we are to include speculation in general, it isn't likely to restore 'balance' anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

"avoid 'bias' against others - as the 'CIA' claims clearly do". That's pure pov of your own because it only applies if someone has a negative view of someone working with the CIA; which you may think is a bias against that person but not necessarily every one else on the planet thinks like you do. I would say "Stop with your pov spouting already", but it seems as if you can not differentiate between your own pov and neutrality. Maybe its you who is the troll; at least that would make some sense of what you are trying to do here. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Grant, it wasn't right of Andy to call you 'troll', but its probably not helpful for you to step down into that same place. Let's all try to lighten up. :)) We should be here to enjoy ourselves, ya know? :) -- Avanu (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Grump, I think that is a good analysis of bias, and is probably helpful to give insight into further edits. :)

I wanted to also add: I believe that most of what is being covered in the media in relation to Assange and the Wikileaks stuff is merely 'fluff', which seems to translate into a similar kind of input going into the Assange-related articles. I would really support a cleanup and consolidation of all related articles to distill down the point of why Assange/Wikileaks do what they do, and insightful responses on both sides of the issue. -- Avanu (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:WELLKNOWN applies to Assange

WP:WELLKNOWN applies because Assange is a globally known public figure. I will quote the WP:WELLKNOWN principle because not every active editor seems to know it: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is this important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out, or stick to the facts: "John Doe divorced Jane Doe." Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but The New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing The New York Times as the source. End of quote from WP:WELLKNOWN.

• Assange's extradition case has gone way beyond mere scandal and mere allegations - we could include the latter on the basis of WP:WELLKNOWN alone. But it goes further. The legal case against him is widely covered in leading national newspapers throughout Europe. A European court has ruled on the extradition case. A European prosecutor wants him. All leading European newspapers and magazines (Guardian, Independent, Times, SPIEGEL etc etc) have published numerous articles that dealt with Assange's COURT CASE and the EXTRADITION REQUEST, not with Wikileaks. Assange is suspected of certain crimes allegedly committed in a European country under that country's laws. He denies them. That adequately represents "both sides" of the story and must be included in the article. But there is more. There are legal proceedings against him. They are facts, there is no second side to it and no other view of it, even if he does not like them, they are facts and must be included in the article. It's our law, not his law and not your law (if you are not in the European Union). KathaLu (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Move

I've moved this page since it used 'v.' in the case name and is an English case.

English cases don't use a full stop since the 'v' does not stand for versus (or anything else) and is spoken as either 'and' or 'against'.

If court documents are being used as sources, it may be that case names are rendered using 'v.','-v-','v','and','-and-','and-' or '-and', as can be seen here; BAILII search for a random word (in this case brick). This reflects the personal preference of whoever wrote the document, usually a court typist and does not imply that it reflects official policy for any court in any way.

Further details on the correct naming of English cases can be found here OSCOLA

Regards Bob House 884 (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, it might not stay an English case, it's some quasi-something-or-other European hybrid, maybe a Smart or Prius. I guess I'm just saying that long term, this name will be a bit insufficient since its ultimately about whatever Sweden does with it. (might never be a trial, just a questioning session and 'ok thanks, see ya') -- Avanu (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

High court judgment on bail

Is the judgment ([2010] EWHC 3473 (Admin)) available from a more authoritative source than this blog? Apokrif (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I found it on Westlaw. I'd like to put it on Wikisource and link it from the article, but I don't know if it would be admissible on WS and legal according to copyright law or WL terms of service. Perhaps the WL text could be only used to check the accuracy of the texte on the Terrortrials blog, so we could put on WS the version from the blog? Apokrif (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The judgement itself is an authoratative source, its also crown copyright so you can use it without any problems. The fact that you accessed it through WL is, in my view, neither here nor there, so long as the source is the OT and not WL itself.

Having said that there might be a case for arguing that it is not acceptable to source an article from information which is 'exclusive' and can only be accessed by a wide but limited group of people. My personal view is that its better to source the judgement generally and allow people to google or WL/LN it than to endorse a paticular mirrored copy of the transcript, especially when that mirror is a blog with an agenda. Bob House 884 (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

"Having said that there might be a case for arguing that it is not acceptable to source an article from information which is 'exclusive' and can only be accessed by a wide but limited group of people" I don't think this is argument is relevant, as it would exclude, in particular, many printed sources which are widely accepted as sources on WP. Apokrif (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Detail

Right, this is getting way way over the top. The amount of detail on based on a police report is disturbing, particularly as we seem to have very little in the way of "allegedly". Is the information factual? Who knows, that is what a court decides. But yet we report it seemingly as accurate. This is one reason we avoid recording information on allegations in detail until after things are wrapped up, and definitely until it is less murky. Please try to show some restraint and common sense over the addition of detailed material, when I get time later a lot of it will probably come out. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, much of the allegation material is being presented as fact, however, the details are in contention. Letting this thing go into the incubator instead of being a proper article, for now, seems to me, to be a better approach. -- Avanu (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

'Alleged conflict of interest' section

I've deleted this because (a) it is nothing to do with the extradition case (the subject of this article), and (b) it was a gross violation of WP:BLP - and quite possibly libellous. Can people please discuss such controversial edits on the talk page first, and pay due regard to policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The very title of this section should set off alarm bells for the editors. We are talking about people who are allegedly the victims of a crime, yet we are taking up the cause of the defense attorney and making the case for him. This section specifically is what prompted me to start the section below in this Talk page. -- Avanu (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Is the name of the section, objectionable?

I am open to re-naming the section, depending on the wording. Perhaps "Claims of acquaintance between lead investigator and one accuser"? --Arendal janitsjar (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The question to ask is whether it is relevant and in line with the Biographies of Living Persons guideline. You have 4 people's biographies tied up in this section. Julian Assange, the 2 women, and the police official. We have a requirement to be attentive to all 4 of them. -- Avanu (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

What has this got to do with the 'Swedish Judicial Authority v Julian Assange' case - the article subject? Nothing whatsoever. Instead it seems to be an allegation that might (or might not) come up in any possible Swedish trial. Adding it here is spin, plain and simple, and possibly libellous if the 'acquantance' is alleged to have had any bearing on the actions taken by the authorities. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The WP:BLP policy says to remove unsourced or poorly sourced material, not material reliably sourced as well as this. Whether or not it is "relevant" is decided by whether the reliable sources deem it relevant. This article is about the entire case, not just the extradition hearing. Gregcaletta (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

See the extended debate below. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

None of this is notable at all, In few weeks the appeal will be over, Assange will be likely off to Sweden to face the real issue and this will become irrelevant, that is an example of how actually encyclopedic-ally valueless it is now, this content will be written in a single paragraph when he is extradited as looks extremely certain, the case for extradition is already proven, just a rubber stamping appeal remaining and all of this will have been a total waste of editors time. You should get yourselves together and consider the reality and condense this article to a single paragraph and redirect it back to where it belongs Julian Assange - Off2riorob (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, "knowledge" is any material stated as factual in reliable sources and not disputed by other reliable sources. It would be great if you could consider and appreciate this noble mission, rather than the ignoble mission of removing factual material from the encyclopedia. Gregcaletta (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not see this awful mess of POV and disruption anything to do with human knowledge. In the United Kingdon we have tabliod newspapers where we read titillation and opinion. Off2riorob (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

How is the particular section being discussed "POV"? It is factual material reported in reliable sources and confirmed by the police themselves. Gregcaletta (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Much of the details that you put in, Greg, is taken from the Daily Mail, which is a UK tabloid. Their article is based on privately translated and leaked Swedish police interviews which should not be in the public domain at this point. To say that the police confirmed these details themselves is being economical with the truth, Greg. And btw, a tabloid like the Daily Mail can print all this stuff only because they are reporting about a foreign country. If it were related to a case in the UK, there would be an court injunction against reporting such details, but that is besides the point, of course. It is up to a Swedish court to decide the case, you should not attempt to try it in Wikipedia. You pick details that are not necessary to include and that are POV (in favour of Assange and against the complainants). I refrain from adding stuff that would balance your POV because this stuff should not be included in the first place, and certainly not at this stage. KathaLu (talk) 07:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Swedish Judicial Authority v Julian Assange

This article is titled "Swedish Judicial Authority v Julian Assange", yet it contains MASSIVE amounts of gossip and hearsay, and point-of-view-pushing material. I'm not sure what the goal is here anymore. Is this supposed to be encyclopedic, or just popular news?

It sort of makes me think of two teams looking at an elephant between them. One team says "this is the greatest horse we've ever seen", and the other team says "No, this is the greatest gorilla we're ever seen." So the media reports that a "horse and/or gorilla is out by the Jack-in-the-Box on I-270 and wow it is something to behold." and we just add it into Wikipedia as such without regard to what we know is going on ... that both groups can't see and need some glasses.

This article is so much stuff that is "Assange's lawyer said xxxxx" and "Posted blah blah on their Facebook page". If the article is titled "Swedish Judicial Authority v Julian Assange" and ALSO is supposed to be adhering to the strictness of BLP, why is all this extra stuff here? -- Avanu (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It is here because some editors can't accept that an article just giving the facts (that serious allegations have been made, and denied, and that there are ongoing legal proceedings) is 'balanced'. Instead they seek to include extraneous POV-pushing fluff and spin to suit their own agenda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Of course it looks bad when the police officer supposed to lead the investigation doesn't disclose her relation with one of the accusers. That's not a point of view, it's a fact. ^walk victor falk ^talk 16:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It isn't a 'fact', it is an allegation in a Swedish newspaper. It also has nothing to do with the extradition hearings, the subject of this article. This is potentially libellous, and should not be stated as fact, even in a context where it is relevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Victor, that's not the point now. This case is not in that officer's hands. It might become relevant at some point, but at this moment, it is simply gossipy and although it might represent poor police work, the *implication* in the presentation now is that there is some collaboration between the accusers and the dirty cop, designed to violate Mr. Assange's rights. We have no evidence of that. That is why this is really not good as presented. -- Avanu (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Also the argument about what a reliable source is needs to be addressed. It seems irresponsible to say something like "The New York Times is always a reliable source." Without really doing some degree of fact-checking, how do we know? Do we simply say something is a reliable source because it is a well-known source? Paris Hilton is well known, but I don't imagine most of us would take her word as gold for most subjects. -- Avanu (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Victor; this is the whole underlying issue of why this article gets filled up with crap. It's the sort of tabloid journalism we should be rejecting out of hand. Avanu; generally speaking places like the NYT are considered reliable unless you have a sensible reason why it is not. The comparison to Paris Hilton is not relevant, NYT is widely accepted here by precedent as a reliable source (the NYT passes part of our guideline on RS's - that of being reliable publoshed - by default because they have editorial oversight, and that weighs very strongly in their favour. But sources can be questioned over the authorship and content, and if that counter-balances the positives then we can reject it). In terms of fact-checking, it is not for us to do such things. The reason we use reliable sources is because they do the fact checking - which is why our RS guidelines on newspapers talk about editorial oversight as a key consideration. I'm not sure why you raise it though, the WP:RS policy is there for the reading, and any specific issues with specific sources can (and should) be raised here on the talk --Errant ^(chat!) 16:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to get too sidetracked, but we are supposed to use reliable sources.

"The word 'source' as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (The New York Times, Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability."

"The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context."

What I'm saying is that there is a lot of tossing in material from a well-respected media outlet, without regard to the entirety of the concept of reliability, and then its presence in the article is justified *only* as being from a well-respected media outlet. -- Avanu (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• It's a breaking story on all major swedish media: Expressen, Expressen, DN, SR, SR, SvD, SvD, SvD, Aftonbladet, Aftonbladet, Skånska, The Local. And Verdens Gang in Norway. ^walk victor falk ^talk 17:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Possibly, but see WP:NOTNEWS. It also has nothing whatsoever to do with the extradition case - the subject of this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Wp:notnews is a notabiliy guideline for the inclusion of articles in wikipedia. You should know that. Policy for material in an article is WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:RELIABLE SOURCES. You might also wish to learn wish to learn about the Five Pillars of wikipedia. ^walk victor falk ^talk 17:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Do you not think that WP:BLP, WP:BRD etc are also relevant to policy? Or is policy only relevant when you aren't trying to edit-war off-topic spin (and Twitter postings - are these 'reliable sources now?) attacking third parties into articles? I don't need a lecture on 'Five Pillars', thank you very much. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Your are course completely correct; might I also remind you of wp:agf and wp:npa. ^walk victor falk ^talk 19:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

http://www.smh.com.au/world/police-officer-in-assange-case-friends-with-accuser-20110311-1brbr.html its just squealing lawyers, no value or issue on the case at all, when is the appeal date that is something you should be reporting, what date is extradition day? Not all the claims from defense lawyers that are without any value at all - I see it has also been added to the BLP as well? Off2riorob (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

"As I have not myself be given any information, other than through hearsay, then I am not prepared to comment," police spokeperson Ulf Göranzon told Expressen. Looks like he understands WP:BLP :) -- Avanu (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Avanu, I'm going to take this occasion to reply to the question you asked me at the AfD; personally I would have probably have waited the high court decision. The extradition is not even the beginning of the end, but perhaps the end of the beginning, like that old chap said. One thing I've been thinking about is what we should do if, against probability, it rules in favour of JA. It would seem natural to fold back into his article; but, as I said, it wouldn't be really be the end, since would be able to leave the UK and then there would motivated coverage of his erring across the globe evading the long arm of Fru Justitia (that's Mrs. Justice to you)? Or perhaps I've misunderstood the EAW, would he be able to travel in the EU? I admit little knowledge about such things. Nevertheless, it's good to think about them even if they don't happen. Say the extradition is granted. Now he will hardly go underground. Suppose he comes and it peters out in "ok, thnx 4 answering, U free 2 go" by the cops. Then, it should probably be merged back, and even no longer have its own section, just having a sentence or two in "personal life" (perhaps not even that? that's an interesting blp question). If the trial goes on... well, I wouldn't be surprised if it went all the way to the supreme court, and we might still be slogging at this article half a decade from now. ^walk victor falk ^talk 19:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You forget - this case is decided, outcome from the judge was completely in favor of extradition, there is no recourse to any supreme court, there is a simple appeal, and then extradition day. Off2riorob (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You don't think his UK lawyers will take it to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg? We could be in for a long haul if they do. I don't know whether they technically can do this from the UK (instead of from Sweden) but possible Human Rights infringement seems to be their strategy since they have no other recourse. BTW, it really makes me giggle that they argue publicly that his Human Rights were infringed because the Swedes did not translate all the pretrial material into English and they had to pay for it themselves. They must be saying this for the benefit of the public and the media, it cannot be addressed to prosecutors or courts in the EU who know better. KathaLu (talk) 10:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

:) -- Avanu (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump said "It also has nothing whatsoever to do with the extradition case - the subject of this article."

Ironically speaking, I guess newspapers Expressen and Verdens Gang, are wrong in coupling the information about the lead interrogator's acquaintance with the one accuser, with the extradition case.

Any judicial process, is more or less a house of cards. If a defendant gets "nifong"ed, then that is one, of many manners, in which a prosecution can be prevented from obtaining their goals.--Arendal janitsjar (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way, it is a fact. It has now been confirmed by the police themselves. And it is relevant according to the reliable sources. Gregcaletta (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Its completely irrelevant to the extradition case, in coming to the decision the judge did not even consider Assange's guilt or innocence, that is not for the British Courts to consider at all. Off2riorob (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is simply getting more and more gossipy each day. The title apparently has no bearing on what people are wanting to add. I'm not sure what to suggest anymore. It's simply out of control at this point. -- Avanu (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

@Greg, you fail to understand that the extradition case in the UK does not depend on the evidence for the case in Sweden!!! @Victor: in answer to your question - even if a British court rules that Assange is not to be extradited the European arrest warrant remains valid and he could be arrested at the next passport border control in say France or Spain. The EAW has to be formally withdrawn by Sweden to become invalid. KathaLu (talk) 08:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Residency permit

I'm trying hard to trim out all of the irrelevant details of this article, but getting reverted by Gregcaletta.

I want to cut the following section, as I feel it has no relation whatsoever to the case:

On 18 August 2010, Assange applied for a work and residency permit in Sweden.[15] On 18 October 2010, Assange’s request was denied.[15]

It might be relevant information in the general Assange article, but is not in anyway important to the case.

Does anyone besides Gregcaletta feel this is important to the case? Mbulle (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha. Try to keep the the rhetoric down. "getting reverted by Gregcaletta" is an exaggeration. I reverted one of your edits. The rest I think are good and totally agree. Gregcaletta (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - I think it is being added to assert a claim that Assange did not flee the country, although the judge said that in relation to the legal case whether he fled or left was irrelevant. Off2riorob (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

"Does anyone besides Gregcaletta feel this is important to the case?". Yes. The reliable source cited knows it is relevant, as do many other reliable sources, and it is their opinion that counts, not yours or mine. If I had to guess, I would say they believe it is relevant because this is an extradition case. Therefore, it is crucial to understand whether Assange was fleeing justice. Gregcaletta (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It may not be legally important in this particular case, but it is important for WP:BLP libel reasons to be clear about why Assange left the country. And again, the reliable sources say it is relevant, and it is their opinion that counts, not ours. Gregcaletta (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see your point. As the article states the recidency request was denied on October 18. Assange left during September, so the fact that he did not recieve permanent recidency is not related to the fact that he left. We don't know why he left the country. Maybe he just wanted a vacation in Britain? It's not for us to speculate on why he left. Let's just stick to the facts:

1) He went to Sweden in August.

2) He went to the UK in September.

3) Sweden wants him back.

Nowhere in the article is it said, or even implied, that he fled to evade justice. Which is good, because we simply don't know why he left.Mbulle (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If you have a source stating why he left, that might be relevant. Speculating on our own is original research though. Mbulle (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Stating factual material that appears in reliable sources is not speculations or original research, and how is it not sticking to the facts? It is your own original research to say this is not relevant when the reliable sources say it is. There is not citation given for when he left Sweden. I believe he left and returned multiple times. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You believe he left and returned multiple times??? When would that have been? As far as I can figure out, he left Stockholm for Berlin (so stayed within Schengen, i.e. left Sweden without going through passport control!), then went to the UK (EU but non-Schengen), and left the UK only once for Geneva (non-EU but Schengen) before he was grounded in the UK which he has not been able to leave for the last three and a half months, since early December 2010. KathaLu (talk) 07:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Also notice that you removed the parts that were cited and left the part that was uncited. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I was the editor that originally put the information about him leaving Sweden in September in the article. My intent then was just to explain why the EAW was issued, i.e. he was now living abroad. I think your new edit ("As Assange was now living in England...") is even better, as it does not give anyone reason to speculate on why he left Sweden. Good job.

For what it's worth though, I think the information about his residency application is even less relevant to the case after your new edit though. Just because someone writes about it in a newspaper doesn't mean it's relevant to our article. Mbulle (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the residence permit is irrelevant for this article. I guess it is here because of the belief in dark forces at work. I tried to explain earlier that you don't get a residence permit in a EU country if you are a non-EU national who stays in one country for five weeks and leave. It is ridiculous to believe otherwise and a sure sign of someone who never had to deal with burocracy abroad, lol. KathaLu (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of initial events

Something is wrong with the dates in the current article.

It first states:

She planned to be out of town until 15 August, the day of the seminar.[5] Instead she arrived home on Saturday 14 August,

Later in the article it says the seminar was on the August 14. This does not make sense.

Most other sources seem to list the date of the seminar as August 14. In reading the MSNBC source, and the Daily Mail article that they base their reporting on, they don't seem particularily sure of the exact dates either. How exactly do they know her exact travel plans?

I suggest we remove the information about her travel plans, since 1) The sources we have seem to contradict each other 2) It's not that important afterall what she originally intended on doing. What actually happened is more important. Mbulle (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• What do you mean? All sources agree that the seminar was on Saturday 14, the crayfish party on Sunday 15, and that she returned one earlier on Friday. ^walk victor falk ^talk 23:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but why does the article say: "She planned to be out of town until 15 August, the day of the seminar" then? If she was arranging a seminar on Aug 14, why was she planning on being out of town until Aug 15? It just doesn't make any sense, and in my view is not that important. Why does it matter when she originally planned to return home? Apparently she changed her mind. How can we even be sure when she planned on coming home? Mbulle (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Which article? ^walk victor falk ^talk 00:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The Swedish_Judicial_Authority_v_Julian_Assange article. I have now removed that sentence though, for the above stated reasons.Mbulle (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• No, I meant, which source article? ^walk victor falk ^talk 03:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Renominating for move to incubator/deletion

Each day I return, I see more of the gossip-style material added into this article. I don't understand why so many editors feel that simply because the news media writes down a sentence, we need to include it in Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is biased or just blantant POV pushing. This article is at the tipping point of losing itself to this kind of stuff, and truly needs focus, or it needs to be moved/deleted. -- Avanu (talk) 04:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The article seems acceptable. (And I will search the article for any "gossip-style material ".) --Arendal janitsjar (talk) 05:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I think the biggest disconnect is the fact that Sweden claims they are wanting to question him about the incidents, and might possibly not even charge him or might not charge him with much. Given the level of detail we go into with this article, and the fact that little of this is under oath or in a court, it strikes me as inappropriate for an article that purports to be about a legal case. -- Avanu (talk) 05:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

This article was created for two reasons: a) editors of the Assange bio article did not want to see the mention of the word "rape" in his bio article and objected to legal and factual details of the arrest and extradition proceedings and b) editors wanted to include as many details as possible from the leaked police interviews and other details collected on the internet that can show that the case against Assange is a trivial one that should not be prosecuted. FWIW. KathaLu (talk) 06:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well said Katha. Off2riorob (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

(a) sounds like a proper BLP reason, but (b) sounds a bit like it ignores BLP concerns and pushes a point of view. (Incidentally, on Off2riorob's advice, I've withdrawn the renomination for the time being.) -- Avanu (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, in (a), I was more referring to "objected to legal and factual details of the arrest and extradition proceedings", but in looking over I think I misspoke when I said BLP. I agree with the WELLKNOWN argument about publishing the charge. I think the 'details' stuff from (a) and (b) kind of ran together for me. As you say, Assange and crew are free to say anything, but the other side just essentially remains silent for the most part. So we have a constant bias to press back against in the article. -- Avanu (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

(a) sounds like a proper BLP reason - no, not in my opinion, as WP:WELLKNOWN applies. Assange is suspected of rape and other offenses (in the sense of Swedish law), and this had a huge impact, on his personal and professional life, his notability (significantly increased it), and in the media, so even if/when he is cleared of these criminal offences, they still need to be named as such in his biography. (b) sounds a bit like it ignores BLP concerns and pushes a point of view - I agree to some extent. The kind of detail that some editors are pushing for are a clear violation of WP:BLP and just unnecessary gossip. However, the fact that the very nature of these criminal offenses (not whether Assange committed them or not, but what they are and that they exist and how they are alleged to have occurred) has made them so notable should and could be described in an appropriate way. The problem is that editors believe - rightly or wrongly - that they have to stick very closely to the wording in this or that newspaper article; this makes it difficult to describe the issue accurately. What makes it also difficult to find a good balance is the fact that there is so much output from one party (Assange, his lawyers and supporters) and rather little from the other parties involved (Swedes and Sweden). KathaLu (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• point (b) (that details favours Assange) pre-supposes that he is innocent; if is not, details will damn him. ^walk victor falk ^talk 19:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

As referred to by Swedish authorities

- referred to as Miss A by Swedish officials - and - referred to by Swedish authorities as Miss W -. I am curious as this does not sound right to me, perhaps there are some editors who do know: did Swedish authorities ever refer to the two women in such a way? Is such language common for legal cases in Sweden? I know that the Swedish authorities used their full names in the European Arrest Warrant and that the "Miss A" and "Miss W" are used instead of full names in the extradition hearings in the UK. It's typical UK court speak/Uk media reporting about court speak. No big deal, I am just curious. But, if wrong, it would be yet another example of inaccurate editing, where one person or institution says one thing and it ends up attributed to another person or institution. You have more of this in the article, like "According to Miss A's statement to the police, this sex involved "unlawful coercion". I very much doubt that the woman said to the police that she had experienced a case of "unlawful coercion". This is how a legal officers interprets what she had described and what is listed in the arrest warrant and what may be decided by a Swedish court if it ever gets to it but not what the complainant said. KathaLu (talk) 06:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Good points as usual, KathaLu. FWIW I don't think we should cover who said what to the police in any detail at all, since ongoing police investigations in Sweden are always classified until charges are laid. All we have at this point are second hand reports from people who claim to have read the classified police docuements, but there is no way for us to verify what they actually say. I'd prefer if we stated it in terms of "According to The Daily Mail, Miss A said X to the police" instead of stating what she said as a fact. Mbulle (talk) 08:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The above points are why I keep stressing to editors that what they are calling "reliable" sources may not truly be such, and if we look at the reliable source guideline, we see that even something printed in the New York Times can be considered an unreliable source if used improperly. -- Avanu (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

To Gregcaletta - An up to date timeline from Assange's lawyer (a brief from March 2011)

I was looking for the numerous sources for Assange's whereabouts between September and December 2010, which I had seen earlier, when new and very recent links came up, pointing to a brief by Assange's lawyer Robinson to a Canberra meeting of a handful of Australian Members of Parliament in March 2011. I don't know whether this brief is authentic, it looks like it, though. Unfortunately, the source is http://wlcentral.org. Quote:

The following brief was submitted to the meeting by Jennifer Robinson of the firm Finers Stephens Innocent. She is part of the legal team representing Julian Assange in the extradition proceedings requested by Sweden: I am writing to you to provide a briefing for the meeting of members of Federal Parliament on Wednesday 2 March 2011 regarding the case against Julian Assange. This briefing note sets out the timeline of events and the human rights concerns that we have raised in relation to Julian’s case in Sweden. [...] 11. An interview was finally proposed on 22 September [...] for 28 September. Mr Hurtig was unable to contact Julian to communicate this request. [...] Before Mr Hurtig was able to contact Julian he had already left Sweden for Berlin for WikiLeaks meetings associated [...] He did not flee the country to avoid interrogation, as has been suggested by the Prosecution, but instead had left for a pre-arranged business meeting with Der Spiegel [...]. Julian telephoned Mr Hurtig from Berlin on 29 September [...] It was then he was informed of Ms Ny’s intention to interrogate him. [...] During October and November, Julian was in London [...]. He also travelled to Switzerland to present at a United Nations Human Rights Council meeting.

This is exactly what I had gleened from reliable secondary sources since December 2010, after careful cross-checking and double-checking. Greg, you expressed your belief that Assange returned to Sweden multiple times and I wonder whether this unfounded belief (as well as others of a similar nature) may colour your editing attempts. You recently inserted wrong dates about Assange's movements during the last quarter of 2010 which I had to correct (again - I had included the correct time of his departure from Sweden already a long time ago but it got deleted during other edits). So I need to ask where do you get your information from, how carefully to you cross-check and double-check your information and and do you discard outdated information before you insert them into the article? KathaLu (talk) 09:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

No I agree that he didn't return to Sweden during October or November. I did mean that he might have left Sweden during August or September for gigs in Europe and returned. However, the main point I was trying to make is that we cannot imply that he was fleeing Sweden, when he says that he was leaving on business, and we should be able to find a reliable source for the statement that he was in Berlin on business if that is true. Which wrong dates did I insert? Gregcaletta (talk) 02:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. If you are going to issue personal attacks on me then I would prefer you do that on my talk page. It is of course recommended by policy that you not do so at all and assume good faith. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

If he fled or not is irrelevant to this issue completely, is not even a consideration. You do seem to be fixating on this and you should give over and get over it, the judge said, something like, well it looks suspicious and the lawyers evidence was ...debatable to say the least.. but - it is totally meaningless to the extradition and as such irrelevant completely in regard to this case. If you want you can add that he wasn't even born when all this happened and is a reincarnation of one or other god go ahead, but it won't help assange, you are wasting your time and in my opinion spoiling this article and the BLP with your apparent inability to drop you POV as regards this person, please , take a break and stop editing them both. Off2riorob (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, please keep personal attacks to my talk page or don't make them at all. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This page is for discussing changes to the article. Which change of mine do you disagree with? I have been criticised for edits that have been "biased" both for and against Assangez: some who are pro-Assange have claimed that my creation of this page was an attempt to "assassinate his character", while others who are anti-Assange have criticised my attempts to make sure he is not incriminated by this article (which is the job of the prosecutors), so I find these vague attacks on my character rather useless. If there is a particular edit you disagree with, please point it out and I would be happy to discuss it. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There are many editors on here who appear to be biased against Assange and many who appear to be biased for him. All we can do is judge each edit to the page on its individual merit i.e. whether it makes the article more informative the the reader. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

@Greg, concerning your earlier question "which wrong dates did I insert": I refer you to my comment on this TP of 5 March 2011 where I told you already that I "corrected some dates today". The timeline source you had used "was already wrong on some dates in December 2010, when it was published, and by now more errors have become apparent". Having said that I am relieved to see that in the meantime the article has been knocked into a much better shape. KathaLu (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)