Jump to content

Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

He is currently on conditional bail and at the house of a friend[

He is currently on conditional bail and at the house of a friend - this sounds so sweet - but he is electronically tagged and has to report to the police station every day has a night curfew, so imo on bail and at his mates house is a bit of a poor description of his actual situation. Shall we edit it back to earlier today when it was clear.Off2riorob (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"less serious crime"

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

There are three severity degrees for rape in Swedish law, but none of them are considered a "less serious crime", just like second degree murder is not a "less serious crime". Even the least severe degree of rape in Sweden carries a sentence of up to four years in prison. There is no crime in the Swedish penal code called "rape (less serious crime)".

Please supply a source for the claim that he is suspected of a "less serious crime", or revert. 85.225.222.10 (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see the source cited in the article: http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/The-Assange-Matter/The-Assange-Matter/ aprock (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I wonder was "rape (less serious crime)" was when it was still in Swedish? Any Swedish speakers still around? It is stupid to reproduce a (translated) word that has been picked from here or there, instead of writing in a way that conveys meaningful facts to the reader. The same website http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/The-Assange-Matter/The-Assange-Matter/, i.e. English text provided by the Swedes, that has "rape (less serious crime)" on it, also has, on the very same page, this statement: "Marianne Ny, Director of Public Prosecution, takes a decision to resume the preliminary investigation concerning the rape charge". In fact, the expression "rape charge" is mentioned 3 times on this very same page. So why don't we use that, too? Do people just pick what suits them and their personal idea about Assange and/or this case? I know for certain, and so do others, that there is no crime called "rape (less serious crime)" in the Swedish Penal Code. Two months ago I had put the following description into the article: "He is wanted for interrogation in connection with the following offenses under the Swedish Penal Code: Rape of a lesser degree, Sexual molestation, and Unlawful coercion" but that was deemed OR and Primary whatnot. I still think it was a pretty accurate, well sourced and well researched description, and in any case a more meaningful term than rape (less serious crime). KathaLu (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Your contribution was deemed OR because it was OR. The use of the term "rape charge" in the time line is always framed as "preliminary investigation into the rape charge". I have no problem with using that phrasing to describe the events as they are laid out in the time line. Note that according to time line the "preliminary investigation into the rape charge" appears to end sometime in September whereupon the investigation commences and the warrant is issued. The final wording of the warrant is what's included. With respect to Do people just pick what suits them, I will again remind you that you should assume good faith, and avoid casting such unhelpful aspersions. aprock (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
You have failed to address the issue: is "rape of a lesser degree" a better description of the crime under Swedish law for which the EAW against Assange was issued than "rape (less serious crime)". It was not OR then and it is not OR now, and for those who request an English language media source with the very same words, here it is, from BBC News of 8 February 2011, referring to the extradition hearing of 7-8 February 2011: "The second witness, Mr Assange's Swedish lawyer, Bjorn Hurtig, said the alleged crime was downgraded from "rape of the normal degree" to rape of a lesser degree following discussions with Sweden's Court of Appeal. KathaLu (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're asking me here. I think we've all agreed that official translations from www.aklagare.se are reliable sources. If you've got a reliable source that is more clear and complete, by all means be bold and make the edit. aprock (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, clearly it is the lesser rape as defined in Swedish law, lets attempt to keep the article stable as possible please, its basically hair splitting until next week when we get the result for the extradition. imo - just keep it as simple and stable and educationally informative as possible. Off2riorob (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The translation "less serious crime" for "mindre grovt brott" is not very good. It may be "official", but the English is amateurish. The Swedish penal code has degrees, and that word is used for "normalgraden", "the normal degree", or standard degree. When the crime is worse, it is called "grovt brott", aggravated crime. When the crime is less severe, the degree is termed "mindre grovt brott". This is legal terminology. The corresponding term in legal systems in English-speaking countries would be "of a lesser degree". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
If you've got a reliable source that is more clear and complete, by all means be bold and make the edit. aprock (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
One could use the summary in English of this report - it mentions the division into degrees. Anyway, a google search makes it clear that all occurences of the phrase "rape (lesss serious crime)" derive from that amateurish translation on the prosecutor's site. It is not correct in English. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
It is not correct in English. In that case, it would be beneficial to have a reliable source which spells out the terms of Assange's warrant in correct English. aprock (talk) 01:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The word "rape" is not a perfect translation of the Swedish word "våldtäkt". The word "våldtäkt" is used in Swedish for "rape", but it is also used for lesser sexual offences, such as when consent is given in a "helpless state", which is English speaking countries is not called "rape", thus the confusion. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, not sure I follow. When consent is given in a "helpless state". As in, where a person in extremely drunk an unable to truly consent? If that is the case, this IS considered rape in the U.S. (and many other nations.)JoelWhy (talk) 19:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
A new law, in effect from April 1st 2005, extended the definition of rape with new acts. Paraphrase from sv:Sexualbrott_i_Sverige#Brottsbalken_skrivning_om_v.C3.A5ldt.C3.A4kt. I don't know what these acts may have been. walk victor falk talk 20:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
No, I believe "helpless state" is much broader, for example, it may refer to women with whom one is already in a consensual sexual relationship. If a husband and wife get drunk together and have sex then that doesn't make it "rape" in English speaking countries; I think it might be called "våldtäkt" in Sweden, but I'm not an expert. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

And in the quest for the suitable and reliable English source one should bare in mind on what all secondary sources are based on: the European Arrest Warrant against Assange and the Swedish Statute Book. Where it reads, concerning the offense in question, as follows:

  • Våldtäkt 6 kap 1 § 3 st brottsbalken (EAW at fsilaw.com)
  • Rape Chapter 6 section 1 paragraph 3 of the Swedish Penal Code (as above)
  • Är ett brott som avses i första eller andra stycket med hänsyn till omständigheterna vid brottet att anse som mindre grovt, döms för våldtäkt till fängelse i högst fyra år. (Swedish Penal Code 2005)
  • If, in view of the circumstances associated with the crime, a crime provided for in the first or second paragraph is considered less aggravated, a sentence to imprisonment for at most four years shall be imposed for rape. (Swedish Penal Code 2005 at regeringen.se)

"Less aggravated" would seem a suitable term to me but then I am not an English native speaker. And just to counter the quasi inevitable OR etc argument: yes, one IS allowed to use a source that could be considered as primary source if many secondary sources have written about it, as is the case here. OR means that there is only one source and no one has written about it!!! Not the case here!!! KathaLu (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that says that all secondary sources are based on ... Swedish Statute Book, and can provide a reliably sourced translation of that book, I would very much support including content from that translation. aprock (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
@Aprock: please see my reply on your TP. KathaLu (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with KathaLu that "less aggrevated" seems like a better translation of "mindre grovt" than "less serious". 85.225.222.10 (talk) 07:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't put outdated quotes into the article

So someone has just put "Assange's legal team say Assange offered himself for interview before leaving Sweden" into the article, based on the pre-extradition hearing material posted by Mark Stephens on his website fsilaw.com before the extradition hearing began. The sentence was put right after the reference for an article on the actual extradition hearing, written after the hearing, with the title "Lawyer admits that he was wrong about interview" where the very same Swedish lawyer admitted in the very same hearing that he had been wrong to claim that Assange offered himself for interview before leaving Sweden. Well, they may have said it ONCE but they are not saying it NOW. Sheesh.KathaLu (talk) 08:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

And also, why is this old stuff being dredged up of what one or the other said in August, or September? If any of this matters to the current court case (I doubt it!), the extradition judge will say so. To every quote by a legal representative in favour of Assange you can find a quote to the contrary by another legal represenative. If you want NPOV, you have to put both in!
Yep, that was me. Well of course the POV of the prosecutor is already given because the charges themselves are inherently the POV of the prosecutor. It does not matter whether the statement was false, because it is an important part of the defence's argument, which is not out of date because they are still using it. You have misread the article "Lawyer admits that he was wrong about interview". What did he admit he was wrong about? The lawyer admitted he was wrong about the length of time that Assange was available in the country before he attempted to organise an interview between the prosecutor and Assange, but he was not wrong that Assange was in the country for weeks after the investigation was reopened, and that the prosecutor waited until the day Assange was leaving to issue an arrest warrant. Assange was not in hiding during this time, but openly living in the country. Gregcaletta (talk) 09:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Hurtig said in the extradition hearing that he could not reach Assange. But anyway, this whole discussion between us is besides the point. The court will rule on the extradition in a weeks time and that is all that matters. One can try to influence world public opinion through the Wiki article but I very much doubt that it influences the UK courts. I would not say that an Arrest Warrant is a POV, lol, it is a fact. There are not always two sides to a story. KathaLu (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The existence of an arrest warrant is a fact; the veracity of the charges laid out in it is a POV until proven in a court of law. I think that was Gregcaletta's point, "lol". siafu (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Crowley (use section headings on talk page please)

I now agree with Victor. It (Crawley's opinion) seemed notable at the time but not now. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation of the name

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

We can have both. The Australian media often pronounces it as (/əˈsɑːnʒ/ ə-SAHNZH) and Assange himself appears to vary the pronunciation. It's not actually a French name; it's a Chinese name, but Assange is used to pronouncing it with a European accent because most Westerners find the Chinese pronunciation too difficult. Gregcaletta (talk) 13:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
It's not a Chinese name - it may derive from a Chinese name, but the notion that 'Assange' is correctly pronounced the same as the Chinese name from which it may derive is bizarre, to say the least. Plenty of names derive from older names in other languages.116.28.114.194 (talk) 05:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
http://fora.tv/2010/04/18/Logan_Symposium_The_New_Initiatives
So yes, if we are going to have only one pronunciation, it should be the one he uses most (/əˈsɒnʒ/ ə-SONZH), but I don't see any problem with having both. Gregcaletta (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

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

I'd still encourage changing it to (/əˈsɒnʒ/ ə-SONZH) or including both pronunciations. "əˈsɒnʒ" is closer to the Chinese pronunciation anyway. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Although Assange is a Chinese name, having it's origin in "Ah Sang", Julian Assange himself is not of Chinese descent. Rather, his birth father was John Shipton, and he gets the name Assange from his step-father. I have just added that information in the article (yes, it's sourced), but like most things of real importance, some busybody will likely remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphazip (talk • contribs) 03:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Just as I thought, Off2riorob immediately removed the sourced information on Mr. Assange's parentage. Apparently, he doesn't want people to know who Julian's biological father is. Reason unknown ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphazip (talk • contribs) 03:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

In Australia, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) is the government broadcaster, and goes to a lot of trouble over pronunciations, with a formal style guide for its announcers. In the past two days I have heard three different pronunciations of Assange from the ABC. Wikipedia is in no position to be prescriptive. HiLo48 (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The online encyclopedia that isn't

Just saw this today on Assange's lawyer's website. It is the sort of factual information that I would have liked to find in Wikipedia, instead of having to trawl the net for it: "The formal decision to indict is made at an advanced stage of the criminal proeeedings [in Sweden]. There is no easy analogy to be drawn with the English criminal procedure. The EAW was issued because [the prosecutor] was satisfied that there was substantial and probable cause to accuse Julian Assange of the offences." Quoted from an official letter from the Swedish Justice Ministry to the British Crown Prosecution Services, dated 4 February 2011. It is yet another proof that the constant mantra of "but he hasn't been charged yet" is irrelevant for cases prosecuted in and by Sweden. Pity that Wiki does not work the way it could, at least not for high profile current events. BTW, that section of the article is now in an abysmal biased state again, it is more a soap opera transcript than a factual description of events but I am not going to re-edit it. KathaLu (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide the link to that quote? If you want to add material on the extradition case, the appropriate article is now here: Swedish Judicial Authority v. Julian Assange. Gregcaletta (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
In relation to the "probable cause" claim, of course there was probable cause. 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 they must have found probable cause. That does not say anything about the quality of the evidence, only of the Swedish standards for issuing an arrest warrant. Gregcaletta (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
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 that will not take place until Assange is actually tried. Gregcaletta (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I mentioned the link in the first sentence. "Substantial and probable cause" refers to Swedish law. There are no juries in Swedish law, whether grand or other. KathaLu (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
KathaLu, your research is useful and you have a point, but you need to find this issue described in a secondary source not a letter from inside the Justice Ministry. If you can find a cross-national legal analysis by a major newspaper or international law expert, then maybe we can use that opinion. But going straight from the primary source, to identify the significance and context of the point, is not on Wikipedia because it borders on WP:OR. Find that source which mentions it and it won't be a problem.
I made this comment on the TP to point out what _I_ had been missing in this article or in the discussion about it, not what I am planning to contribute to it. KathaLu (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you mentioned the link, but can you post the URL please? Gregcaletta (talk) 05:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

decision day

I am really looking forward to the decision day tomorrow, I am looking to rewrite the rape allegation section as it is currently awful with lists of cites no longer supporting anything, all the detail has been removed, I am looking to update and replace some detail tomorrow, the legal case article is imo so poor that there is no excuse to remove content from here, anyways, lets see tomorrow, reminds me of Polanski. Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You'll find most of the detail in the Swedish Judicial Authority v. Julian Assange sub article. At this point, the section should be a short summary of that article per WP:SUMMARY. Various details which are WP:UNDUE for a WP:BLP should be added to that article if they are missing from wikipedia. aprock (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't support that position at all, the recently created sub article is very poorly written and has multiple npov issues is no excuse to remove content from here, as I said, the content here has been hacked to death and tomorrow after we know the result of the extradition I am looking to update and rewrite it. Off2riorob (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:SUMMARY is an editing guideline. I suspect the proper approach would be to work to the improve the sub article. If you think that's not a common sense approach, it would probably make sense to explain why you think that's the case. aprock (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Rob regarding the sub article - if it wasn't for the fact that the decision was due, I'd probably have moved it for AfD if it couldn't be written to NPOV. What we do with this article will obviously depend on the decision of the court though - and it might even go to appeal (I think this is a legal possibility, but I'm not sure). I can't see much point in debating what we do until we get a decision tomorrow. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of the decision, it's pretty clear that there is some tension between editors who want to include expanded coverage of the subject, and the issues of WP:UNDUE that were plaguing the section before it's trimming. I'm sure there will be plenty of time to discuss the finer details down the road. aprock (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Wahey, another POV fork on this issue. It strikes me as odd that an article about a UK extradition case consists almost completely of "background" about the Swedish prosecution ;) --Errant (chat!) 13:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing Swedish Case

Now that we know this case is likely to go on for quite awhile, including the extradition appeal, I think we need to come to some consensus as to how to deal with it structurally. I think because of the pure mass,existing and upcoming, of content related to the sex case it pretty well has to have its own article, but I don't really care that much anymore, 1 way or the other, now that a British judge has deemed the matter serious enough for extradition; but I do care that it get dealt with structurally asap; we oughta be able to reach a consensus about that now, I think. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't really think we need to go down the Afd road because of all the talk here about it that may as well not have happened if we let Afd process pull the trigger either way. Afd is too simplifying a process to deal with this particular matter, I think. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually the fork wasn't really needed at all and the appeal is going to be a simple affair, the extradition hearing could easily have been contained here. This is his life story and as such even if there is another article this is the main and the story needs to be explained here. After the appeal we can update more, as we update old content becomes less relevant but we need a basic time line here. Off2riorob (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Rob, I don't see that happening; I just tried, in good fauth, to trim out some clearly no longer notable content to the section here and you, in good faith, put it back in; suggesting yet another discussion. That is exactly why this whole thing is bloated, regarding every little minor detail, what 1 person thinks should be in or out, someone else is ready to revert and discuss. That's fine for notable stuff but here it seems to be over the top. But ok, here we go: Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Writing the biography as it happens is always going to be a tough slog - and we are not even at a trial in Sweden yet (if it gets that far). I was holding off for the moment because really we have very little good content to work with BUT when he does go to Sweden and if a trial appears (or looks relatively certain) perhaps we can work on a userspace draft (I don't mind hosting it) which we can expand to our hearts content (within reasons, and erring on the side of BLP caution) whilst events conclude. Anything that becomes solid and locked down there could be moved or (better) summarised here. That way we avoid further POV content forks (which ultimately will probably be redirected anyway) and related fall out, whilst still maintaining an article. There is absolutely no rush to have a main space article at this stage - and I am quite happy to keep plugging away at it for the next few months. --Errant (chat!) 23:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Remove No Longer Notable Details

I am suggesting this:

  • Assange was detained by English police on 6 December 2010 and was subsequently granted bail by a High Court judge. On 24 February 2011 at an extradition hearing the British Judge ruled Assange should be extradited to Sweden to face the sex offence charges. Assange again denied the allegations and plans to appeal.

instead of this:

  • The most serious charges were dropped the next day by the Chief Prosecutor. The investigation was reopened a few days later and the case was taken over by Swedish Director of Public Prosecution Marianne Ny, who later on 18 November 2010 issued an European Arrest Warrant. Assange was detained by English police on 6 December 2010. He was initially remanded in custody by the District Judge (Magistrates Court) but was granted bail by a High Court judge, subject to conditions of surety and residence. On 24 February 2011 at the outcome of the extradition hearing the Judge ruled Assange should be extradited to Sweden to face the sex offence charges. He denies the allegations and plans to appeal. District Judge Howard Riddle, commented as to the chances of a successful appeal, that the defence team had already "left no stone unturned".

Rob reverted the change and suggested it be discussed here before changing. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The first version is more suitable for his biography. The various legal minutia adds nothing, and is WP:UNDUE. The desire by various editors to include endless legal details was part of the impetus for the creation of the sub article. I suggest that the WP:SUMMARY guideline be followed and the various intricate details be handled in the appropriate sub article. aprock (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd cut some bits. District Judge Howard Riddle, commented as to the chances of a successful appeal, that the defence team had already "left no stone unturned". is troubling me, that's not really what was said (in the context implied) in his report, at least as I recall it from earlier. He denies the allegations and plans to appeal.; is conflating two issues. I'd cut it down to "Assange plans to appeal the ruling" (i.e. just deal with the extradition, we already say he denies the charges). Otherwise it seems reasonable content - although it does need a bit of a copyedit. --Errant (chat!) 23:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah. Ok I checked the source purported to support the "No stone unturned" content - it's actually not what that source says either, this is an opinion we need to attribute to Maddy Savage interpreting the Judge's words. Just a matter of clarity --Errant (chat!) 23:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Yea, the comment is in the bbc cite, anyways I removed as I was perhaps adding a touch of interpretation. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12564865 - brouht here from the cite only to aid educational discussion of the content and not for republication. Julian Assange looked calm as District Judge Howard Riddle read his conclusions. But he remains in limbo as his lawyers begin to construct an appeal. It's likely to be tough - the judge commented that the defense team had already "left no stone unturned". Off2riorob (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
That the Swedish prosecuter issued an EAW on November 18 is highly relevant and necessary in order to understand the proceedings in UK, and that fact must not be deleted. Yger (talk) 05:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
It's not deleted. It's in the sub article. aprock (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Consensual sex turned into abuse

I removed the quote about consensual sex turning into abuse, since the article used as a source for the quote actually claims that one of the encounters started while one of the women was asleep. Only quoting the consensual part is misleading and unbalanced.Mbulle (talk) 07:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

New article: Swedish Judicial Authority v. Julian Assange

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 this article because it already takes up an undue amount of space, so I have created a separate 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 this article. The new article currently relies heavily on the material from this article (copy pasted) plus this handy timeline from MSNBC. I won't link this article to that one until significant improvements to that article have been made, and the size of the section in this article has been carefully reduced. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations. I doubt if I could have constructed a better violation of WP:NPOV if I'd tried. Speedy delete, anyone? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Hahaha. How can it possible be NPOV to start an article? Unless the title of the article were "Assange is a rapist". Gregcaletta (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Ouch, please remember BLP applies to talk pages too - even though it was said in joke, please don't say such things.
  • I can not with any authority comment on the policy aspects, but I have to say, I like this approach as long as this portion (of the link Victor provided) "However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material..." is strictly adhered to; i.e. "summary" and "NPOV". Gregcaletta, regardless of how this goes; Thanks for your good effort. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to start reducing the material here into what I regard as an NPOV summary. Any help would be appreciated. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Although I don't want to participate in editing this article anymore I cannot but 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 UK extradition hearings only to the extent that the UK court can decide on whether the offenses are extraditable (offenses 1-3 under UK - yes, UK not 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 lives and you 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 seperate article or shouldn't it be put into quarantaine in a sandbox or whatever is the appropriate procedure? Assange has not been indicted for the offenses, there is no court case! The matter of the current extradition case is: are offenses as described in the few lines in the EAW 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 which will deal with them! If Assange or British Crown Prosecution Service appeals next week it will be another long wait until we know whether he even gets extradited to Sweden, let alone indicted in Sweden. KathaLu (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • - that new article is a joke, or it would be if it was funny, what a load of POV driven rubbish, this article is also being spoilt, I turn my back and you allow a decent content to be edited like this, please. Off2riorob (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
@Off2riorob: I do not know how to link to prior versions but the section was still ok when you added lawyer Robertson's name which was on 00:26 12 February in my time zone. It went downhill when the section got blown up by the insertion of old stuff like this: Eva Finne "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape." or Karin Rosander, communications head ... (long quote) as well as newer stuff like Assange's legal team have argued that there is no such thing .... The latter was inserted between Svea Court of Appeal upheld the arrest warrant and Supreme Court of Sweden upheld the detention order which gives the impression that Assange's legal team made statements in November 2010 in Sweden at the arrest warrant hearings while in fact they were made at the extradition hearings in the UK in February 2011! KathaLu (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I've substantially cut the irrelevant detail out of the new article; we have a strong consensus here, developed over several months, on how we are going to record these events - and that mostly consists of avoiding too much detail until the cases come to a head. The new article very clearly identifies as being about the extradition hearing; the massive "background" is basically an excuse to run a POVFORK and subvert the consensus established here. As I said; I cut out a lot of the detail not immediately related to the extradition hearing itself. I think the article probably will stand OK on it's merits as an article about the hearing. But at this stage an article about the whole event is too problematic to construct. Certainly, this was not a very good attempt I am afraid. --Errant (chat!) 14:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
A link to the new article should be placed in this one. Gx872op (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
It is (or was) linked in the allegations section --Errant (chat!) 14:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
It is back there now, your edits to the new article helped it a lot ErrantX, many thanks.Off2riorob (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, Greg has pretty much rejected our consensus on how to report this and reverted back in all the "well sourced material" (the number of times I hear that ;P). I frankly am fed up of the POV forking around this article and am about to get angry, so gonna step back for a bit to cool off. But someone else might want to go and have a look at it. I am coming down somewhere between an RFC (to decide if our current consensus on reporting is still good) or an AFD (as a disruptive content fork). --Errant (chat!) 10:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

rape investigation

My edit was reverted by Aprock with the explanation "the investigation that was reopend was not a rape investigation)". What is your source for this?

Here is the timeline from the prosecutor Chronology:

  1. On Aug 20, an investigation on suspicion of rape and sexual molestation is opened
  2. On Aug 25, the rape investigation is dropped, but the other investigation is still open
  3. On Aug 27, Claes Borgstrom appeals against dropping the rape investigation
  4. On Sep 1, "Marianne Ny, Director of Public Prosecution, takes a decision to resume the preliminary investigation concerning the rape charge"

How can this possibly mean that "the investigation that was reopend was not a rape investigation)"? I will revert. Mbulle (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. The timeline is pretty clear about this. There are multiple charges, not just rape, and the investigation is a preliminary oue. If you'd like to say, "the preliminary investigation concerning the rape charge was resumed on September 1st", and include the other charges, I would support that based on the sources. With respect to this article, that is probably WP:UNDUE detail, and should be included in the sub article. aprock (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Repeated efforts to expunge the word "rape" from the article seem strange to me. Write as much as you want that it is not rape in the sense an unaware reader would understand it at first, but you cannot circumvent the fact that this case is so notable because of the Swedish rape allegations, rape investigation and (at least in the opinion of UK Judge Riddle) prosecution for rape. You cannot remove it on the grounds of WP:BLP because WP:WELLKNOWN applies, see in particular 3rd example of WP:WELLKNOWN. It is ironic to find the Wikipedia article on Assange devoid of the word "rape" when Assange himself has publicly complained on numerous occasions in September 2010 and December 2010 that his name is now associated with the word "rape":

  • according to Google, my name is mentioned in one tenth of the mentions of the word rape, all the way back to pages about Helen of Troy, he said to ITN on 17 Dec 2010,
  • As a result of the case mishandling and the smear, there are currently millions of web pages with my name and 'raped' or 'rape' and over six million with 'sexual,' he wrote to CNN on 31 Aug 2010,
  • as well as here on 8 Sep 2010 or here on 17 Dec 2010.

He repeatedly and publicly let the world know that he is (wrongly in his opinion) suspected or accused of rape. But the Wiki reader must not know this? KathaLu (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the point being made is that if you have sex again in the morning with a woman who consented to having sex with you the night before, and who has presumably been sleeping in the same bed with you, it usually isn't considered "rape" by most people, and so it's unfair to use the word "rape" in the article except to point out that in Sweden this is considered to be rape, especially when you do so without a condom when your partner has insisted that you use one. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think what you think 'isn't considered "rape"' is relevant here. The fact is that Assange has been alleged to have committed an act which would constitute rape under Swedish law, and I suspect under the legislation of most countries, which require consent. We should report what has been alleged, not what we think ought to have been alleged. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
@Ghostofnemo, @grantevans: It is a POV to consider Swedish laws as unfair or how they should be applied. You are entitled to your personal assessment of Swedish law and how it applies in a particular case. Can you find reputable secondary sources that discuss this point? And if so, is a discussion of the view that Sweden's laws are unfair suitable for this article or this TP? KathaLu (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
@AndyTheGrump: Assange has been alleged to have committed an act which would constitute rape under Swedish law, and I suspect under the legislation of most countries, which require consent. More OR from you? Really? aprock (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether you or I think it is rape or not. This is what the British judge said: "what is alleged here is that Mr Assange “deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state”. In this country that would amount to rape." The British judge does not seem to think that there is any substantial difference between the meaning of the word rape in Sweden and the UK. Mbulle (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Certainly, and including content that mentions that the British judge said that is fine. aprock (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
These are still ALLEGATIONS, and are therefore not suitable for a BLP. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
No. The fact that allegations have been made is entirely relevant to this particular BLP - it would be nonsensical to state that Assange was facing possible extradition to Sweden without explaining why. Frankly, this whole attempt to minimise the issue is becoming more farcical by the day. I'd have to ask what exactly people are trying to achieve through this? It isn't as if this is an article on a subject that isn't covered elsewhere, and an article that misrepresents the seriousness of the allegations would just make Wikipedia look foolish. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The incident is certainly serious to Mr. Assange, but as far as it being especially notable otherwise, I still haven't seen anyone provide that evidence. We certainly have a lot of press speculation about it, mostly because Assange is such a public figure, but outside of Mr. Assange being notable, how is this case really all that notable or unique? -- Avanu (talk) 08:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
As the British judge points out, forcing yourself on a sleeping woman is rape, but if the woman had sex with you earlier in the evening, and is sleeping with you, that is entirely different from a situation where a stranger breaks into your home and crawls into your bed. The latter is clearly rape. The former is a more like "additional sex without further consent" and it's misleading to call it rape in most countries. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Whether you think it would be called rape in most countries isn't terribly relevant - the accusation is widely referred to as "rape" in reliable sources, and the applicability of the term "rape" to the accusation has been confirmed by an expert in a relevant jurisdiction, the judge in the UK. Referring to the crimes Assange is accused of as sexual assault and rape seems to me to be entirely verifiable, and I don't see any reason not to include the word "rape" in the article.VoluntarySlave (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, using the word rape is fine, as long as it is used in a manner consistent with high quality reliable sources. aprock (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

i would - perhaps - suggest the phrase 'sex crimes'? it is verifiable (as in, it is mentioned in the ref, and therefore fairly indisputable by any editor) and also provides, to a degree, a sort of halfway house between the entrenched POVs that are clearly present in the edit history of the article. Kaini (talk) 06:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Please stop further attempts to censor the "inflammatory" word rape in the article. Since when is the name of an alleged offense, named in a legal verdict, an inflammatory word. Even if he is tried and acqitted of rape, you will have to use the word. As was said already, WP:WELLKNOWN applies, in addition to everything else. If anyone is in any doubt about it: Assange has applied to trademark the name "Julian Assange". BTW, isn't that noteworthy in itself?KathaLu (talk) 07:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
@Kaini, I see that you removed "rape" from the line "rape investigation" again and gave as reason that the single source that had been used, dating back to early September 2010, doesn't mention that word. This secondary sources game that is being played is hilarious to watch. I know this would be close to an ad hominem argument but what is the average age of Wiki editors for this article? KathaLu (talk) 07:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Prosecutore

Why are we removing Ny's name again? There seems no clear reason (aprock has said "non-notable public employee", but article content is not governed by notability). It seems innocuous but also pertinent, particularly as her evidence was specifically entered in the extradition hearing --Errant (chat!) 17:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Supporters of Assange hate her and see her as the reason Assange is going to be extradited and prosecuted. Its just a case of they don't like her name being included. Off2riorob (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
@Off2riorob: This isn't a forum.
@ErrantX: she is a non-notable public servant. Naming her here in a two paragraph section does not improve the article in any way. aprock (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Disagree; notability is irrelevant. Significance to the article is what we need to consider; seeing as she is the prosecutor, has spoken publicly on the events and has submitted evidence to the extradition hearing. Specifically removing her name seems to defeat the object :) and does nothing to improve or worsen the article either way; hence - what was the point? Nothing seems to be served by the removal --Errant (chat!) 18:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and she is the one who pursued charges and such. Given that she has a finite lifespan and will only hold the position for so long, it is worth mentioning who held the position when the case went forward.--Terrillja talk 22:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

@ErrantX: Yes, significance to the article is what we need to consider. The name of the prosecutor is not significant here. Is there something that she has done that some other public prosecutor would not have done? If so, then that might be worth mentioning. If not, her name isn't relevant to this BLP. aprock (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

She is not important in herself. The name of prosecutor is important in helping the reader finding further info. Remember what wikipedia is for most people: a starting point for research. walk victor falk talk 23:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Certainly. There is an entire sub-article which goes into much more detail, including the names of various people involved. aprock (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and they should be merely mentioned in the main article (per wp:ss), while their doings should be examined in greater detail in the sub-article. walk victor falk talk 23:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Given that she's only mentioned once in the sub-article, including her here seems undue. aprock (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
So? As prosecutor she has a central role. walk victor falk talk 00:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Swedish wiki has 1 paragraph on sexual allegations

So why does the English wiki have so much more? Does this stuff really warrant all the attention we are giving it, or is this trial by media, as another editor has said? -- Avanu (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Other language Wikipedias generally have much much shorter articles and less coverage than en.wiki. Because of their relatively (to us) low editor count it is not a good idea to measure anything against them :) FWIW the Swedish article, you should have noticed, is substantially shorter all round. Relative to the rest of that article they have substantially more coverage than we do :) --Errant (chat!) 19:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
And although the Swedish Wiki is so much shorter than the English one, they have managed to squeeze in the r-word twice (EN: currently once) and the names Marianne Ny and Eva Finné in full (EN: currently none) ;-) KathaLu (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC).

Julian Assange Files to Trademark Own Name

As mentioned earlier. Sources: Guardian, PC Magazine (also mentions his new giftshop), and application itselfKathaLu (talk) 07:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC on the names of public prosecutors in this BLP

The question at hand is whether or not a non-notable public prosecutor should be mentioned by name in this biography. The prosecutor, Marianne Ny, is mentioned in many sources with regard to the legal proceedings against Julian Assange. Some editors feel that such coverage is enough to warrant naming her in this BLP, while others do not view inclusion of her name as adding significant value to this BLP. Note that her involvement in the affair is detailed on wikipedia in the sub-article Swedish Judicial Authority v. Julian Assange, where many of the legal particulars of the case are spelled out at a level of detail not suitable for a biography of a living person. Uninvolved editors are welcome and invited to comment. aprock (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

If it really bothers you that much, sure, remove it. Otherwise it seems just part of the information in relation to the case. I find the comment in the prior discussion r.e. the position being given to another at some point in the future compelling reason to record her name. *shrug* it does seem rather trivial for a whole RFC though :) --Errant (chat!) 23:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "bother" here. I removed it, then someone reverted saying they wanted the removal to go through an RfC. aprock (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
'keep - completely ridiculous, simple informative detail about the case. Off2riorob (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll ask you to strike the insult. aprock (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Ask away, if you think thats an insult you need to get out more. Off2riorob (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
While I'm not surprised by your continued derision, I will say that I am disappointed. aprock (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
You can be as disappointed as you like its still not an insult. Off2riorob (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Guys, calm it. I think Rob was referring to having a full RFC as a bit of a ridiculous escalation - not the best choice of words but it is somewhat overkill seeing as an active discussion is still underway above :) --Errant (chat!) 00:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The purpose of the RfC is to get outside views. Having various editors who disagree comment that they still disagree doesn't really add any perspective. Given that Marianne Ny has been discussed repeatedly over the last two months without consensus, it seems only appropriate to invite outside comments. aprock (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Remove (most) I'm not sure that the overall incident warrants as much coverage as it is being given. Other than someone saying its somehow bad to remove 'cited material', you really have to ask 'why is this so worthy of so much attention?'. There is no longer as much of a threat of extradition, the British judge ensured that. There wasn't actually any proof before that it was a threat. Mostly, you have one well-known guy who is afraid of retaliation, but in the end, might just be guilty. There's not enough for us to say one way or the other. So really, why the hubbub? Why the fuss? -- Avanu (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Strong keep As she is the prosecutor who pursued the charges, it is notable that it was this person, not the office of the prosecutor, moved this case forward. Given that the position is not held by one person for an infinite period of time, it is worth noting who the prosecutor was at the time when the charges were filed. Think to the future rather than today. Future readers may be interested in who the prosecutor was, and there is no credible reason to exclude it.--Terrillja talk 21:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Keep as per Terrillja. Kaini (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Remove Doublethink in play. Name the prosecutor and not the Accusers.Absolutely not notable while there are only allegations being made by unnamed(at least here) women. And maybe the reason RFCs are being done could be because some Editors just get stubborn, dig in, keep repeating their opinions like broken records, and never,never,never change their minds about any aspect at all, great or small. Thus, irregular views are sought for some sense of objective perspective. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Mr.grantevans, i would tend to agree as regards the deadlock you mention. you have absolutely hit the nail on the head as regards 'views are sought for some sense of objective perspective' - the regular editors of this article are too entrenched and invested with regards to both sides for the deadlock to be resolved. and that is the purpose of an RfC. RfCs are underused in my opinion. regarding the naming of prosecutor, but not accusers, WP:BLP comes into play. there's a clear consensus that naming the accusers would violate that. i don't believe there's a similar violation when it comes to the chief prosecutor; it's public knowledge in the clearest possible definition of that term who the prosecutor is. you can turn on your television, switch to any BBC or Sky report regarding the whole 'Assange affair', and there she is. and i'd add, you are borderline violating WP:AGF with your comment above. Kaini (talk) 05:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
That was a thoughtful comment,Kaini. Regarding AGF, hopefully I do not give the impression that I do not do so. I absolutley believe that every single regular Editor here and particularly Andy, Rob and Errant are editing in good faith. Good faith does not always equal open mindedness nor lack of persistence. I was also referring somewhat to myself as I am often too repetitive, dig in and get stubborn...all of which goes to why, as you and I seem to agree, RFCs are a good tool. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I can't say I disagree with that analysis, and you make a good point about taking a look at some of the issues via an RFC. Although I do think I do a pretty good job of being open minded ;) --Errant (chat!) 13:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep. Just a couple of reliable bytes of info more to the article and doesn't hurt anybody.--Neo139 (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep of course She has the second highest rank a prosecutor can have; only the riksåklagare (roughly equivalent to attorney general) is superior. And even a more "run-of-the-mill" prosecutor ought to be named when involved in a case relevant to the article. Frankly I believe the nominator has completely misinterpreted blp here. walk victor falk talk 16:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC on the names of The Subject's Accusers in this BLP

Now that it appears that the Prosecutor will be named, the question at hand is whether or not the notable 26 and 30 year old Accusers of the Subject should also be mentioned by name in this biography. This RFC is also timely because, once again, a fresh contributor to this article tried to name an Accuser and was quickly [2] reverted. There are 97,000 google hits for 1 of the Accuser's name and several reliably sourced articles [3][4] ,in addition to the one recently reverted, which mention their names. It seems inherently against the spirit of a BLP policy which respects the reputation of Subjects in any practical way to name the Prosecutor, name specific reputation harming and totally unproven accusations against the Subject before there is even a trial, and at the same time claim license to block the names of adult Accusers; based, imo, upon extremely conservative application of BLP policy. Basically an obvious double standard wherein a liberal application of disclosure related to the accusations and a conservative application related to the Acccusers. It also may violate NPOV policy, it seems to me. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Speaking personally, I have never been too worried about naming them per se. Particularly A. On the other hand naming them invites more of the speculation and attack content that, frankly, is a BLP problem. So the balance I guess is whether having the names in causes more or less headache :) Certainly there is no reason to discuss them in detail at this stage --Errant (chat!) 13:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
This has already been discussed, and a decision made that naming the individuals involved would be unnecessary, and a violation of WP:BLP1E (their names are of no direct consequence to the nature of the charges). Nothing substantive appears to have changed since this decision was made. As for violations of NPOV, and double standards, that works both ways and I'd take this RfC more seriously were it not started by a contributor who has persistently refused to permit the allegations made against Assange to even be named. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Don't you think this has gone too far at this point? How many other people in Wikipedia get this much attention for an allegation? The level of coverage for this incident is way beyond 'too much'. Now we want to start naming people who bring complaints to the police. To what end? Is this really going to change the facts or help enlighten people? If there is a *REAL* story here, then lets focus on that. Otherwise, this is a run-of-the-mill exceedingly non-notable event that is getting *WAYYYY* too much attention and is really just skewing the article and endangering the article as a whole. -- Avanu (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I self-reverted a source [5]when it was pointed out it contained the identity of the alleged victims. On the talk page, someone said it was meaningless not to display the identities as they were "trivially googable". I replied:

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

walk victor falk talk 04:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)}}

The accusers names should NOT be mentioned, and I agree that this has been overplayed. Just mention that he has been extradited to Sweden to face allegations of sexual misconduct, with NPOV references. That is sufficient, in my opinion. If he is found guilty, then we can go into more detail. Discussing all the lurid details based on allegations is not appropriate in a WP:BLP. But if we do discuss them (the lurid details), we have to give Assange's side of the story too, to be NPOV. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

kinda clunky statement

Assange has asserted that: "Capable, generous men do not create victims; they nurture victims." He says he is a combative person and that perhaps he is not so good at nurturing, but that "there is another way of nurturing victims, which is to police perpetrators."

"he says he is a combative person and that perhaps he is not so good at nurturing" - well, this statement could definitely do with improvement imo. but i'm at a bit of a loss as to how we could be more succinct and encyclopaedic whilst preserving the spirit of the statement, which i do understand. Kaini (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This quote is clearly meant to embarrass Assange, as there is a double-meaning (i.e. the sex scandal). It should be removed. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree that its too nuanced,esoteric and philosophical to usually be notable in 2011, but on the other hand it adds a bit of elevation to an otherwise non-thought provoking (as well it must be in accordance with non-thought provoking RSs on this Subject) BLP. I don't think the possible double interpretation is a problem. Actually I like the quote a lot. Maybe this guy is a bit of a philosopher in which case this quote could be quite notably representative of his way of thinking about things. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Ménage à trois

Again the sex allegations section ended up reading, to a fresh Reader, as if Assange and the 2 women had a threesome. I fixed it months ago, but the nonsensical nature of this soap opera keeps making the sex section misleading and gossipy; which is why I think the whole thing should be scrapped in his BLP and kept in the prosecution article. The point here now is, how to word it in a brief manner which portrays the reality that it was 2 women involved in seperate, multiple?, escapades with the Subject but not both of them at the same time? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

perhaps change "On 20 August 2010, Swedish police opened an investigation against Assange in connection with sexual encounters with two women" to "On 20 August 2010, Swedish police opened an investigation against Assange in connection with two separate sexual encounters with two women"? Kaini (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
That's better, but didn't he have sexual activities with the older woman on more than 1 occasion? Or were both of the women with him sexually on 1 occasion each? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
For now I did it like this "On 20 August 2010, Swedish police began an investigation against Assange in connection with separate sexual encounters(not a Ménage à trois) he had with two women, aged 26 and 31,...." just to take the 3some off the table, but maybe someone can word it better. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
meh, maybe leave the details to the separate article (which was such a good idea). we at least communicate the fact that it wasn't some sort of assange+2 encounter with the addition of just that single word. really, the difference, for once, probably is without the scope of this article and doesn't violate WP:BLP imo. Kaini (talk) 03:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) i think your edit is over-zealous, Mr.grantevans, particularly the (not a menage a trois) in parentheses. we can communicate this idea in a more encyclopaedic manner without it coming across in a forced manner. Kaini (talk) 03:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I see what you mean, I do not seem to be able to find the right way to word it where it reads well and accurate. If you wish to go with what you suggest above until something better comes along, go ahead, that'll make it better than it was before, I think. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Tried my hand at it. Not a big fan of adding a sexualized term in when it probably isn't needed. -- Avanu (talk) 04:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
i like Avanu's revision and my small edit to it; it's concise and communicates the situation pretty well. Kaini (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think any version of the article I've looked at implied there was a threesome involved - though with the way people keep trying to remove the essential facts (the allegations - what else supposedly occurred between Assange and the women involved is irrelevant), and adding superfluous details, it may have ended up like that. Kaini's latest edit seems to restore clarity anyway. We don't need to report what didn't happen, but only the accepted facts, and the allegations, and only in enough detail to demonstrate why the case was brought. We have gone through this discussion many times, and I'd hope that by now people would have stopped trying to editorialise in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

you nailed it, andy. with so many contributors, it seems that the muddling of the article (and in particular, this section) with clauses and clarifications is near-impossible to avoid. i really hope that this revision is to everyone's satisfaction. it's pretty neutrally worded. Kaini (talk) 04:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no objections to the section but want to point out that it makes funny reading, for the following reasons:
  • fully consensual. You may misunderstand the importance of this, i.e. it is not as important for the sexual allegations to be sexual allegations as you probably assume, but will refrain from further comment as it is not allowed to comment on legal niceties.
  • having proceeded to Britain on business. Implies that he had business to do and did not try to evade justice. Again, I am ok with this. Do you know that his laywer Hurtig is being investigated by his bar association because he may have misled a British court? Again, a mere legal nicety.
  • Swedish Authorities had filed a European Arrest Warrant (EAW). No objections to the edit but Judicial authorities don't file EAW, they issue them.
  • to demand he return for questioning. Again, I would not dream of touching that text again but there is no demand made to him. The authorities in UK are requested that he be apprehended and surrendered. KathaLu (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Well he certainly wasn't going to be given a choice to return. Whether you use the word 'request' or whatever, it is a demand in fact. We can change it to request if you like that word better, but I feel that the word 'demand' conveys the sense better. Also, if they 'issue' the EAW, ok, let's fix that, seems a little nitpicky because file implies much of the same meaning. 'Having proceeded to Britain on business' is simply neutral. It neither says he was fleeing or was just going. 'Fully consensual', we could take out the word 'fully', because it would still pretty much be the same overall meaning without the word 'fully'. -- Avanu (talk) 05:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Added Kath's suggestions also. -- Avanu (talk) 05:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
It does not matter whether you write demand or request; it's the "that he return" that makes it sound funny. It is like saying that "an arrest warrant was issued so that a person takes himself to prison". IF (and it is an if) Assange loses his appeals, he will not simply board a plane to Stockholm all by himself. He has missed the chance to do so a long time ago. Instead, he will be taken there. KathaLu (talk) 05:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Assange presented himself to UK authorities every time he was required to, to the extent that he was locked up for a time, and had various measures taken upon his release in the unlikely scenario that would choose to flee; the whole 'takes himself to prison' in light of that is not entirely unrealistic! anyway i can't really envision a scenario where he goes on the run; he is about as in the public eye as it is possible to be. it's not like a manhunt will commence upon his (potential) extradition. anyway, that's debating the ifs and buts of a theoretical situation which may or may not exist in the future. maybe it's a slight paraphrase, but a request was put to Assange to return for questioning, and there was an assumption that he would be honourable with regards to said request. perhaps a word or two could be changed, but the statement is basically ok as far as i can see. Kaini (talk) 06:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll try "be returned", i.e. they are not asking him to return, they are asking the British to return him. 85.225.222.10 (talk) 07:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Allegations of Sexual Assault

I am responding to a suggestion that I or someone try to shorten the content of the sex allegations section.

Here is a shorter version for the body of the section that I think has appropriate weight for the current status of the event within the context of the rest of his BLP. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

On 20 August 2010, Swedish police opened an investigation against Assange in connection with allegations of a sexual nature made by two women, aged 26 and 31. Assange denied the allegations, saying they were politically motivated. Assange has not yet been formally charged with any offences, but Swedish authorities initiated extradition proceedings to bring him to Sweden from Britain in order to be interrogated. Assange was arrested and attended an extradition hearing In London, England on Feb. 7–8. The outcome of the hearing is scheduled to be announced on 24 February.

I'm not sure how you can say that 'assault' is ambiguous: this is what has been alleged. And strictly, I think you'll find 'assault' may not imply violence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd also recommend reading thesexual assault article - it doesn't cover Swedish law, but what Assange is alleged to have done would probably come within the definition of English law, from what I can tell (ok, OR, I know...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
ok, Andrew,I'm redacting the title aspect as the main purpose is to consider the downsized version and I don't want the discussion to get deflected into disagreements over semantics. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd leave it until others have taken a look - I should have gone to bed hours ago, so can't really comment sensibly - I'd just say that we need to accurately reflect the allegations, and not try to make any implications about credibility, one way or another. I think so far we've done this reasonably well, and there is little doubt that for the moment, this is a major issue regarding Assange - one can't make assumptions about how significant it will turn out to be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I certainly prefer this matter of fact summary to the endless legal proceduralism we currently have in the article. aprock (talk) 05:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Not until the 24th Remember that wikipedia is dynamic and has the purpose to provide in-depth knowledge. While I'm sure that everybody is unhappy with the current version, it does provide some more information and nuances to the reader who might be interested in the coming hearing than a casual overview. After then, we could have a (complete if need be) rewrite trim based on the outcome. walk victor falk talk 06:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
@Victor: I am starting to hope for a quick ending and that there is no appeal. Someone wondered on this TP whether this Nordic saga deserves an article of its own. All these furrin' ways of doing things and supranational EU legal stuff is hard enough to understand for us Europeans but seems to be particularly taxing for our cousins across the ponds (sic). In the UK, the Assange's December "bail hearing made legal history with the Twitter ruling" [6] and has "stirred fresh controversy about the EAW legislation" [7], [8]. After the February extradition hearing, Assange tried to cash in on this by saying that "perhaps we will have an opportunity to set a new precedent about the abuses of the European Arrest Warrant" and referring in particular to the "thousands of Poles being extradited to Poland" [9] [10]. It is of course way too early to know how this case will be seen in the future. KathaLu (talk) 07:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
A problem I have found in trying to reduce this section is that it tends become quickly inaccurate in its implications. For example, if we were to simply state "Assange is awaiting the result of an extradition hearing in regards to charges of sexual assault in Sweden", the reader is very likely to assume a number of things -- that Assange has been formally charged; that he is wanted to stand trial rather than for questioning; that he has not already been questioned; that some evidence against Assange has been presented; that Assange did not have consensual sexual relationships with these two women; that the allegations are that these women said "no" to Assange; that there is no dispute among Swedish prosecutors as to whether an arrest warrant should have been issued -- all of which are negated by reliable sources. So it may be necessary to have a section slightly longer than usual in order to maintain accuracy and avoid the presumption of guilt. The only other option (which I prefer) is to say something that doesn't reflect badly on Assange in any way, such as "Assange is currently awaiting in England the result scheduled for February 24 of an hearing on whether he should be extradited to Sweden for questioning regarding allegations of two women against him", and simply link to the article where the facts are given in full. I think this second option would do for the next three days until the extradition hearing clears things up a bit. Gregcaletta (talk) 05:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why the specifics of the complaint are not included in this section. The linked MSNBC article explains that he is accused of holding Miss A down after she asked him to stop having sex with her because of a broken condom. The article also says that he is accused of raping Miss W while she slept. I think it is a huge oversight to leave this information out of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.73.61 (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

With regard to recent self-confessed POV edits by Gregcaletta (he does not like the coverage in the media, he says on his user page), it is not relevant whether Assange had consensual sex too. The relevant thing is the seriousness of his legal predicament, that he has been ordered detained by Swedish courts with probable cause for suspicions of rape and sexual molestation. And that he is fighting tooth and nail to avoid trial. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, assault does actually imply violence. Whether it be verbal or physical. THC Loadee 01:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify a bit...at least in the US and the UK, "assault" has a very specific meaning: being placed in fear of unlawful physical contact. The actual unlawful physical contact is the definition of "battery". Other countries, I'm fairly certain, have comparable definitions. Disclaimer: IANAL. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Sexual allegations section: remove or cover adequately

I would support the suggestion of some to remove the sexual allegations completely from this article for WP:BLP reasons, as all the material is now covered at its own article. If, on the other hand, we decide to keep it here, then we must be very careful in what we include. It can't be too long, but there is also a danger in making it too short, and by doing so mislead the reader. For example, when we say "Assange says the encounters were consensual" this would lead the reader to believe that the this was a matter in dispute, whereas in fact the women acknowledge that the sexual relationships began as consensual. Also, when we say there has been an extradtion warrant issued and upheld, this will lead the reader to believe there have been formal charges, when the prosecutors say that they intend to charge him but need to interview him for a second time first. Also, when we leave out the fact that the case was initially dropped very quickly and only reopened two months later, we may lead the reader to believe that there is no dispute among Swedish authorities as to whether this is a legitimate case when in fact there clearly is, and we also may lead the reader to believe Assange fled Sweden upon the opening of the investigations, when in fact he was questioned once, then remained in the country for a couple onf months and only left to England once his application for Swedish residency had been denied. So there is a limit to how much we can shorten the segment if we are not to remove it altogether from the article. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

@Gregcalette: "when we leave out the fact that the case was initially dropped very quickly and only reopened two months later" - only the rape investigations was dropped (i.e. the arrest warrant for rape was dropped), the investigations into molestations continued; the rape investigation was reopened in early September, ie. 2 weeks after the alleged events. "when in fact he was questioned once, then remained in the country for a couple onf months and only left to England once his application for Swedish residency had been denied" - he was questioned on 30 August, left Sweden on 27 September (makes less than 4 weeks), his application for residency was denied on 18 October (nearly a month after he had left the country in which he had stayed for about a month and a half)." These are undeniable facts. You don't seem to be aware of them. Could this be the reason for your constant re-editing attempts?KathaLu (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
"For example, when we say "Assange says the encounters were consensual" this would lead the reader to believe that the this was a matter in dispute, whereas in fact the women acknowledge that the sexual relationships began as consensual".
it is a matter in dispute. otherwise the section or case against him would not exist. the women claim the encounters began as consensual, but that the encounters went beyond that. Kaini (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, whether Assange had previously had consensual sex with the women involved is beside the point. The question is whether (a) the events alleged to have happened actually occurred, and (b) whether, if they did occur, whether it was consensual. These are the issues that will be decided in court (if it comes to that), and other 'facts' are largely irrelevant. I think that were we to go into the level of detail implied by covering everything Assange has to say on every allegation, it would be a breach of NPOV not to cover alternate versions in equal detail, and we would likely end up with a long, lurid, and questionably-sourced section coverinp peripheral events that are actually not proper subjects for a BLP. We have repeatedly discussed this issue, and only the apparent eagerness of a few contributors to 'spin' the article has prevented us from merely detailing the undisputed facts - that allegations have been made, and denied. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
It is worded fine as it is. The nature of the encounters *IS* in dispute or else we wouldn't have Swedish authorities asking for Assange to come visit. Whether a reader assumes there are charges is kind of not relevant. The text doesn't say he was charged, it says he is being ....slowly.... arrested. The fact that the case was partly dropped and reopened is irrelevant also, there is no dispute among Swedish authorities about legitimacy. You have a person in higher authority that wants it open, that's all. Again, it doesn't say Assange fled, it simply say he left, enough said. Overall, it appears to me like every change that Greg is asking for would slant the article to Assange's favor. -- Avanu (talk) 03:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that the reversions you have recently made all slant the article against Assange. Seeing as there is debate about whether the allegations hould be mentioned at all, if we are going to include material on the allegations then we need to present it in the best possible light given that this is a BLP and we should really be waiting for a "guilty" verdict before we even include mention of this in the article. To even include the allegations in this article at all is threatening to violate WP:BLP, so I don't see how any such section can be in "Assange's favour". Gregcaletta (talk) 04:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you that we need a collaborative spirit and the team consensus can change over time. I would hope that we're doing that in this section now. When I looked over the edit log, most of these edits were made in sequence by you, Greg. Although it might be somehow helpful to revert each of your items in turn with individual explanations, I think we're giving you that here on the Talk page. From what I see so far, 3 of us have given you responses to the issues that you posed. If you are honestly wanting to hold me to a rigid approach to this, I can certainly oblige in the future, but please keep in mind that the large majority of the edits were yours. Specifically on the revert, the issue with the women saying the encounters 'began as consenual' seems out of place for a summary, since it only serves to cloud the issue, which is that the women did not agree that the overall encounters were appropriate. -- Avanu (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
"...if we are going to include material on the allegations then we need to present it in the best possible light given that this is a BLP and we should really be waiting for a "guilty" verdict before we even include mention of this in the article." No. Just plain wrong. BLP policy applies to everyone, not just the subject of an article. Skewing our reporting to present Assange's version of events, while he is facing serious allegations, is a simple breach of NPOV. Given that you have suggested that it is your intention to spin the article in Assange's favour, and given that this would be a breach of Wikipedia policy, can I suggest you should maybe stop editing, and leave this to those that are willing to contribute in a neutral manner. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
No, it's not my intention to spin the article in Assange's favour, although it appears to be your intention to spin my words. I said it is impossible for a section entailing sexual allegations against Assange to be "in his favour", therefore we need to take the most conservative possible approach if we are going to mention the allegations at all (several editors have said we shouldn't) Gregcaletta (talk) 05:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Andy please STOP ! You do not OWN anything here and its just plain silly to keep telling Editors with whom you disagree to leave your sandbox; Gregcaletta has done a lot more real production here in the last while than everybody else put together. Good grief. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 05:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Allegations section: finetune versus overtune

From what I could tell earlier with Kaini's response, and Ironman's corrections, we had this section pretty much down. Can we maybe just collectively move back for a bit and let it have time to air out or whatever the right word is? I left this morning and by the time I came back tonight it had simply been chopped to bits and POV slanted. I don't want to discourage useful edits, but is it really that bad at the moment? (Also be aware, it might change by the time you read this, so who knows...) -- Avanu (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a work in progress and consensus can change. The argument that "we have consensus on this section now so I am going to revert any further changes, even minor copyediting" is completely contrary to Wikipedia policy and spirit. Gregcaletta (talk) 04:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
You need to make a justification for each controversial change that you make to Wikipedia separately. For example, recently a whole series of my edits were reverted, including this one, which is merely a simplification of language. Gregcaletta (talk) 04:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
This edit you point to is fantastic. My apologies for missing it initially. It is more neutral and a good revision. -- Avanu (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, it was confusing me a lot why you objected to that oneI made the same mistake when I reverted the changes about the appeal. Now do you have an objection to this one? It avoids the word "deny" which is a word to watch and it puts it in Assange's own words. Gregcaletta (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, it was fine before this last change. Although the Manual of Style does give us suggestions on words to watch, that doesn't mean we have to remove all occurences of them. Swedish authorities say 'we think you aren't telling us everything', Assange denies it. The way I read it, it is an unequivocal statement of innocence, which is in line with how Assange has portrayed himself. Its good to have a guide for writing but in this case there is no reason to be a slave to it, lest we have WP:BORING. -- Avanu (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but "It was fine before" is not really a justification for reversion is it? You need to argue that it was better before to justify reversion. Gregcaletta (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Changing something to be longer and more wordy because the Style Guide says you *might* do it is hardly cause to change either. Just food for thought. -- Avanu (talk) 05:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Well this edit was hardly "wordy". It added the date and reduced the word count without removing anything that the reader didn't already know, but you reverted that one too. Gregcaletta (talk) 08:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I've spelled out the accusations, because not to do so leads people to imagine all kinds of things, especially when the word "rape" is being used in some circles. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The reason the word "rape" has been used is because this is included in the allegations. I'd like to point out to Gregcaletta and to Ghostofnemo that we are not responsible for putting the case for the prosecution, nor for the defence, and neither are we obliged to report anything at all beyond the facts - that allegations have been made, and denied, and that there is an ongoing legal case. If, as both of you seem to wish, Assange is either not charged, or is tried and found innocent, all the lurid details discussed in this article will do little for his reputation, and should he be found guilty, we will be obliged to state what he has been found guilty of. Until then, any unnecessary detail about the events is in nobody's interest except those wishing to smear Assange, and/or to present the entire sequence of events as some sort of wild conspiracy - neither of which belong on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Saying he has been extradited or questioned in relation to "sexual assault investigation" as we do in the lead section, but not explaining the nature of the accusations could lead people to believe he brutally raped several strangers in Sweden, when this is not the case at all. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous reason to go into lurid details. We can hardly write articles on the basis that if we don't include everything, people will assume the worst. If you cannot accept a neutral statement of facts as sufficient, I'd suggest you would be better off making your case on another forum. Wikipedia isn't here to defend Assange, and nor is it here to prosecute him. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
This one paragraph gets SO much attention from editors who want to tinker with it. Feels a bit like tug of war with editors pulling one way toward Assange and then the other way toward the authorities. It is my sincere hope that we can say at some point 'looks good' and let it be for a while. -- Avanu (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Summerwithmorons has just edited the 'assault' sections to use the word 'misconduct'. I'm not sure whether this strikes the right balance or not. From what I recall, the penalty for this 'rape-lesser' can be 4 years, so I'm not sure whether 'misconduct' is a grave enough word, to strike that NPOV balance between what the Swedes say and what Assange is saying. Any thoughts? -- Avanu (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
"encouter" seems a bit too far towards positive - sexual encounters are not a negative thing to most people. If the allegations are true, and that is a big IF, they most certainly would not be accurate to call encounters. Misconduct seems more in the right direction and rape seems to be overkill. Why not assualt - it seems pretty accurate. Unless we expand on the specifics of the allegations here, misconduct sounds like a prank more than a violation of another person's personal body space/desires. I prefer assault. I think most people would define unwanted sexual activity as sexual assualt. In fact, look at Sexual assault - seems to cover what we are talking about. Whatever we do, it needs to be consistent throughout the article.Bevinbell 17:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
In a SHORT summary (like in the lead paragraph), I feel that 'assault' (or 'misconduct') is fine. In the slightly more expanded section, I feel that re-using the above word in the *header* is fine, but in the body of the section, since the events are in dispute, the more neutral word 'encounter' seems appropriate. -- Avanu (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
the two sources attached don't use "assault" so we shouldn't either.Strike. Looking at the wrong sources.TMCk (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This is downplaying the seriousness of Assange's legal problem. Swedish courts found probable cause for suspicion of rape. The English judge agreed that this would be rape in the UK too. See also Rape in English law. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

  • I think that the inability to reach consensus on the wording, after so much discussion, is proof that nothing at all, except a link to the spun off article, should be included in this BLP until a real trial commences, in a real court, where the Accussed, whose name is already published here on Wikipedia in connection with the claims, can face Accusers, whose names will also be published here on Wikipedia.
  • Until that time, to include anything at all in this widely read Biography about the unproven claims against the Subject, while simultaneously hiding the names of his Accusers and also hiding published negative claims about the background and motives of 1 of the Accusers, is seriously biased, prejudicial and contrary to basic journalistic standards and I think contrary to BLP policy here as well. Obviously others disagree, but this is my opinion. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 05:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
i disagree. this is an encyclopaedia. people visit wikipedia to find out about things. sometimes, people visit wikipedia for an overview of the facts - they don't want the minutae of the situation. to limit Julian Assange's present predicament to a "by the way, there's an ongoing rape case; see here for the details" would do a disservice to the many people who would like a summation of the current situation without having to read a separate article. and by that line of reasoning, my feeling is that the section should be concise, but at the same time try and sum things up in a neutral manner. and that's why it's a particularly tricky section to get 'just right'. Kaini (talk) 05:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
The complaints arose because Assange misused or stopped using condoms during sex, according to the referenced sources. Why does this need to be covered up? Not explaining this makes it sound more sinister. And these were more than "encounters" - both relationships took place over several days. The current edit is misleading. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
And not reporting that one of the allegations was that one of the women was asleep at the time wouldn't be misleading? Not using a condom when your partner has insisted on it is almost certainly sexual assault, and doing it while she is asleep is almost certainly rape, under most legal systems. This is all verifiable, unlike your endless opinionating. It isn't Wikipedia's job to present our version of Assange's defence arguments - if you can't accept this, I suggest you find a forum somewhere else - your persistent attempts to spin the article, and your accusations of a 'cover up' are counter to Wikipedia NPOV (and WP:CIVIL) policies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment:Andy, your comment is a non sequitur,ad hominem and, ironically,counter to WP:CIVIL. Nobody else here keeps doing this with a variety of Editors. Its a deflection from constructive discussion, at least it distracts me somewhat. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe my eyes: censorship at Wikipedia/Wikimedia, pure and simple. The section on sexual allegations is linked to Wikinews. Not only is the Wikinews article purged of the word rape - there is only a reference to rape cases heard in Sweden in general - and already archived but also, in a big notice above this piece of Wikinews, it says: "Correction — March 3rd, 2011 - This article mentions that Mr Julian Assange was to be extradited on charges of Sexual Assault. This is incorrect. The offences specified in the Arrest Warrant were of "Sexual Molestation", not Sexual Assault. We apologise for any offence the incorrect information may have caused.". No lie, just less than half the truth, because the offences specified in the Arrest Warrant are: 1. Unlawful coercion; 2. Sexual molestation; 3. Sexual molestation; 4. Rape. See copy of the Certified Arrest Warrant that Assange's own lawyer Stephens has put on the web! On his lawfirm's website, under the heading "Assange case papers". Good plan: first we don't use the word rape, but the more general term sexual assault, then we say it is not sexual assault but only sexual molestation. KathaLu (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
"Censorship?" "...purged of the word rape?" You don't seem to have payed much attention while reading since I read the following.
"Assange has been accused of raping a sleeping woman, during his visit to Stockholm last year. Another woman has alleged that the Wikileaks founder sexual assaulted her thrice."
Furthermore, this is to be discussed at wikinews and not here.TMCk (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Very well, I will ignore the big misleading apology in the headline of the linked Wikinews article and only refer to the text of the article to which this TP belongs: I note that the text does not contain one word with the linguistic root of "rape" in it. I can't make myself read it all but a search for the string "rap" came up with only one such word, in footnote 19. Footnote 19 links to a BBC article of 21 August 2010, with title "Swedish rape warrant for Wikileaks' Assange cancelled". I express my surprise at the vanishing act that this word performs. KathaLu (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
If you really feel that the word rape must occur in a WP:BLP, you're going to have to make a strong case for it, and that case will have to rest on the highest quality of sources. Casting about conspiracy theories without doing the dirty work of sourcing isn't going to improve the article. aprock (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
and anyway, wikinews is not wikipedia. it's comparing apples and oranges. i fail to see what relevance the wikinews article has to this article. it's a separate wikimedia project, and by my understanding we certainly can't use a wikinews article as a source. Kaini (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
@Kaini, I agree with you, the wikinews article is of no relevance to this article, and as it is badly researched and of low quality, not meeting the high standards for this article, I have removed the link. KathaLu (talk) 08:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

@aprock: you may remember that I tried, unsuccessfully and already months ago, to contribute to a NPOV edit of this section by a) naming the offences for which Assange is wanted and b) qualifying them by explaining what they mean under Swedish law. Others did likewise but it inevitably got edited out again. It seems that some editors are anxiously trying to avoid that readers read what the fuss is all about. As to high quality sources, where the alleged offence "rape" is named, there are hundreds, as you certainly know. I list half a dozen, all very recent, and it does not get more high quality (under Wikipedia editing standards) than the Certified Arrest Warrant which is published, for the medias' and the public's benefit, by Assange's lawyer Stephens on his law firm's website, the ruling of 24 February 2011 of a British judge to extradite him, which is publicly and officially available on BAILLII, and up to date articles in high quality British newspapers The Guardian, The Independent, The Telegraph, and the Associated Press:

Having made my point clear, I can add that I have no objections to the section as it is. It is weird, though, that it is so short in comparison with the long sections on residency, praise and criticism, support and whatnot. For example, "3.7 Retractions of, or apologies for, criticism" is longer than "4. Allegations of sexual assault"! There seems to be a glaring imbalance. KathaLu (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Those generally look like high quality sources, and are quite suitable for using as a basis for including content in wikipedia. If you feel that something is being left out from those sources and should be included in the article, I suggest that you be bold, being careful to make sure that you adhere to the content of the sources when you make additions. The length of the section in Julian Assange's biography relates to WP:BLP policies, and to the fact that there is a specific sub-article where many of the non-biographical details can be included. Probably the most straightforward approach would be to make sure the issues are covered appropriately in the sub-article, and then properly summarized here. But editing this article directly is also a good option. aprock (talk) 09:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I've posted concerns on the BLP Noticeboard here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Julian_Assange Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

His two accusers "allege that Assange's conduct during sexual relations with them was improper." Improper? One alleges the sex became "violent"; the other alleges he held her arms and legs down. I don't know if the guy did it or not, but "improper' is a highly misleading characterization of the allegations. JoelWhy (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's give the complete context of both allegations. The first comes from this full sentence: "She told police that she had tried a number of times to reach for a condom but Assange had stopped her by holding her arms and pinning her legs." She didn't say she told him to stop having sex with her but only that he pinned her down. He just prevented her from getting a condom. I'm at a loss as to how to characterize that as a crime. The second wasn't something that the accuser said but something that someone else said the accuser said: "Not only had it been the world's worst screw, it had also been violent." There's nothing criminal about "violent" sex (whatever that is) if it's consensual.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
That is the sort of thing several of the editors are trying to prevent getting added to this article. You say, "There's nothing criminal about 'violent' sex (whatever that is) if it's consensual." But that isn't really relevant here... we're not supposed to be taking positions on this. We're supposed to look at the information available, and try to be as neutral as possible, given an inherently non-neutral situation. We're not trying the case or making the case for either side. Obviously common sense and logic need to play a part, but saying "there's nothing criminal" about something is a decision for their court. -- Avanu (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
The assertion, as previously worded, did not conform to the source. Period. According to the source used, the women did not allege it was "abusive" or "non-consensual". My comments about crimes have nothing to do with any adjudication by any court but relate to how to categorize the allegations in the source. Because they were inherently uncategorizable, I chose a neutral wording. Saying something is "abusive" or "non-consensual" is effectively a legal conclusion, and it wasn't stated, nor was it even a reasonable inference. At least not from that source.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
This is all utter nonsense. There is no question that the allegations include rape - this is a fact. We are not supposed to misrepresent facts for 'balance': that is lying. If contributors cannot understand the difference between reporting an allegation and asserting that an allegation is true (or false), they have no business editing this article. The 'context', and all the other (POV) interpretation we could put on events, has no relevance to the fact that specific allegations were made, and have been recognised by the English courts as adequate grounds for extradition (subject to the upcoming appeal). As to whether there is any truth to the allegations, that is for the Swedish legal system to investigate - not Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
According to WP:BLP we are supposed to be conservative and NPOV when writing about living persons. Using emotive words like "abusive" and vague terms like "sexual assault" without providing details could be viewed as libelous by the subject of the article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I would say that the way the sexual allegation stuff is written in the article now is practically perfect from a neutrality standpoint. It says just enough to explain without getting off track. However, I can't say the same about the sub-article ( Swedish Judicial Authority v Julian Assange ). -- Avanu (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
While that version is much more NPOV, it is also so vague that it doesn't tell the reader anything. Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
What does it 'need' to tell that it doesn't? -- Avanu (talk) 12:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
For one thing it doesn't reflect the huge media impact. walk victor falk talk 21:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
surely this $YET_ANOTHER_EDIT_WAR could be avoided by the addition of something like 'the allegations have received substantial media coverage', appropriately referenced? just a thought. Kaini (talk) 04:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
How does "a lot of the news media covered this" make it less vague or provide insight? The media love to cover things that give them ratings; they are generally driven by a profit motive. Less glamorous programs like Frontline will give you an in-depth perspective that the general media almost never does. -- Avanu (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
From how it's formulated now, you'd think it was a mere notice somewhere instead of major international story that has been on the frontpages for months. walk victor falk talk 23:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I hope don't sound obtuse, but I not sure I'm asking this correctly. What about this incident makes it a "major story"? Is it because Assange is famous? Is it because some governments don't like Assange? Is it because one of the principal people involved in Wikileaks is having legal issues? -- Avanu (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm a loss about what to answer. Are you seriously doubting it is major story? walk victor falk talk 04:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not asking whether it has been covered at length by major media. That is obvious. I'm asking you a different question. I'm asking why. Because the answer will be a clue to the context it needs to have. -- Avanu (talk) 05:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Ours is not to ask why. Ours is but to do and die. walk victor falk talk 07:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
:) -- Avanu (talk) 07:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It's too vague because the key issue is condom use and fear of HIV infection. My edit spelled that out fairly clearly. Now it says he "mistreated them". Does that mean he slapped them around, or he was nasty in the restaurant over breakfast? Neither. He stopped using a condom. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No. the key issues are the allegations, not the ludicrous spin you keep putting on them (and by the way, if Assange is found innocent, your assertion that he 'stopped using a condom' when this was a requirement for consent would quite likely be libellous, so I suggest you be a little less definitive about events). AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
This sort of makes me wonder how the Swedish Authorities are really going to determine anything. In a situation where only 2 people are present, how are they going to determine with certainty whose version of events is accurate? -- Avanu (talk) 02:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
A good question, but not one we need to answer. If this comes to trial, and a verdict is reached, we can report the verdict as fact ("Assange was found... and ...."). We have no need to make any statement whatsoever about what actually occurred. We aren't here to reach conclusions ourselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
From the referenced source:
"According to the statement, Miss A then realised he was trying to have unprotected sex with her. She told police that she had tried a number of times to reach for a condom but Assange had stopped her by holding her arms and pinning her legs. The statement records Miss A describing how Assange then released her arms and agreed to use a condom, but she told the police that at some stage Assange had "done something" with the condom that resulted in it becoming ripped, and ejaculated without withdrawing."
and:
"Early the next morning, Miss W told police, she had gone to buy breakfast before getting back into bed and falling asleep beside Assange. She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no. "According to her statement, she said: 'You better not have HIV' and he answered: 'Of course not,' " but "she couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night. She had never had unprotected sex before."" Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Although I strongly oppose citing the allegations of the women in the article, I nonetheless reworded the sentence. I made the allegations more specific (to conform to what A says above) and removed the word "non-consensual", which is clearly original research in that it draws a legal inference from the allegations that is unreasonable.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
"Non-consensual" means "against their wishes". I don't understand how this can be OR - either the women consented or they didn't. If they didn't consent, it was non-consensual. If they did consent, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Also, I removed the part about Assange restraining the woman who tried to get a condom. If you'll read the excerpt from the source (just above your comment) you'll see that "Assange then released her arm and agreed to use a condom." Your edit made it appear that he restrained her and then did not use a condom, clearly a distortion of the source which makes Assange look much worse. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I saw your edit, and I'm happy with it because it keeps the word "non-consensual" out of it. The only reason I put it in (because I saw what Assange supposedly did later according to the woman) was because it was the only thing that was "non-consensual", so it was an effort at a compromise. The women don't say that the sex was against their wishes. Saying that Assange refused to use a condom is not even close to being the same. Show me a quote where it can reasonably be inferred that the women said the sex itself was non-consensual. I am unwilling to infer that Assange's supposed refusal to wear a condom is the same thing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. Just so it's clear, with all the recent bouncing back and forth (unfortunately predictable), I am (strongly) in favor of Avanu's version.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I love Avanu's version. :)

But seriously, we could write "Alleged to be consensual, but this is disputed" just as easily as "Alleged to be non-consensual, but this is disputed", so why have it at all. No one is 'alleging' something happened. All parties agree that something occured. The only alleged part is the characterization of it. So its simpler (and still accurate) to just say "several sexual encounters", because everyone agrees that it was sexual and it was an encounter of some sort. I like simple. Short and sweet. -- Avanu (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, I'd like to emphasize that this is an investigation that produced an arrest warrant and then an extradition. He hasn't been charged. He hasn't been convicted. There's no reason or justification for going into the she-said-he-said allegations as to what happened.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Censoring the lede

User Gregcaletta is removing all details about a major issue in relation to this person from the lede, this is basically censorship and appears to be a case that he doesn't like it. He claims its WP:UNDUE to be there until a conviction but wp:undue doesn't support that at all, actually yesterday there actually was a legal verdict, assange will be extradited to face charges and thats a simple fact and needs clearly to be in the lede, stop censoring content you don't like. The detail is a simple overview to the basic extremely noteworthy detail. There is no excuse to remove this content within policy, please don't do it again. Off2riorob (talk) 10:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, totally agreed over this. We hashed out how best to deal with all of this in detail over numerous discussions & the content that was there was germane and reasonably neutral. --Errant (chat!) 10:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually policy clearly supports me. I have not "censored" it, but instead created an entire article to deal with the material. WP:LEAD carefully lays out that the point of the lead is to establish notability. Assange is not notable because of the sexual allegations. The only reason that there has been so much media coverage of the allegations is because he is already notable before the allegations. Such allegations would not make a layman notable, even if there were a conviction of guilt, and for 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. It is not censorship because the material appears elsewhere in the article and is expanded upon fully in its own article. Gregcaletta (talk)
The lede is an overview of his article. Stop censoring it. Off2riorob (talk) 10:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Don't simply ignore what I wrote. If it were true that a lead is supposed to be an overview, then why do the allegations, which make up less than 4% of the article, take up more than 20% of the lead? In any case, a lead is not simply an overview. Maybe try actually reading WP:LEAD. Gregcaletta (talk) 10:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Again, I have read it so many times already. The attempts to expunge details of this from the article and yet bloat some tangent article that well..., perhaps its time for you to reread WP:NPOV or WP:COI gives a running kiss by kiss commentary that amounts to some attempt as character assassination you are currently involved in insisting on keeping in you other article, please remember this article is not for you but readers have a right to this detail presented in a way to represent the level of notability in his life. Off2riorob (talk) 10:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
You still haven't read what I wrote. Gregcaletta (talk) 10:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
You're wrong r.e. the lead, it is a summary of the article. Nothing to do with notability. You are right, the lengths don't entirely match up; but the content there is not about the allegations (apart from one sentence) but about the recently completed extradition case - which we are able to treat with acceptably. --Errant (chat!) 10:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally happy with the compromise, it gets the weighting "just so" at this stage. I stuck in a date for context, and it might also need to be broken into two sentences to avoid a run on/confusing sentence structure. --Errant (chat!) 11:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not perfectly happy with the compromise, but I am at least willing. Off2riorob just reverted it without giving a sensible reason. Gregcaletta (talk) 11:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Censorship and npov and a user that is a supporter of the subject attempting to remove all mention of what is actually ther most notable thing about him now. The rape allegations and his attempts to avoid facing them. Off2riorob (talk) 11:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Hahaha. No, that's WP:RECENTISM. My compromise was to remove some details which are included elsewhere in the article and which are expanded upon in another article. How is this censorship? Gregcaletta (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
By the way your assumption that I am a supporter of Assange is quite inaccurate. I am only a supporter of Assange in so far as I am a supporter of the fair representation of the facts. Gregcaletta (talk) 11:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Of course this should be in the lead. Assange is primarily known for two things: Wikileaks, and the current legal investigation. They should both be in the lead.Mbulle (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think rape ALLEGATIONS are notable enough to mention in the lead-in of any living person's biography. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Off2riorob Sex allegations are not the most notable aspects of Assange. His work exposing secrets is his most notable aspect. The sex allegations are a Red Herring designed to marginalize Assange in the mass media, especially in the U.S. Wikileaks has released more documents than all other news organizations and journalists combined. That is notable, not a sex allegation smear campaign. If you take the time to look into this story you will see that the accusers are actually the police not the women involved. They only went to the police to see if Assange could be compelled to have an STD test. It was the police that pushed the issue. The first Swiss prosecutor to look at the allegations decide they were unwarranted. THC Loadee 02:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The word "rape" in the lede

I remember somewhere 1 of the Swedish prosecutors saying something like "If Sweden calls it "rape" then its "rape"". I don't think we can be taking that approach as a multi-national Encyclopedia. Just think about it. If in Country "A"', the crime of "indecent exposure" is a woman's face being exposed in public, then in the lede of an analogous article we would say in the lede that woman is wanted for "indecent exposure"? Either the "rape" word should go from the lede or be explained there, I think. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

How does Wikipedia handles this? There must be a policy, as there must be dozens if not hundreds of people with an article who have been suspected/prosecuted/indicted/convicted/put to death for an act that we do not regard as an criminal offense in "this country", whereever that is. Like, when a woman is stoned to death for "adultery" while she was in fact raped by a married man, do we avoid saying that she was accused of adultery (because that is not a crime for most of us, and rarely one punishable by death) and merely write that she was executed for being raped? Not mentioning that she was prosecuted for adultery in her country is the same as not mentioning that Assange is prosecuted for rape in Sweden. You want to treat Assange as a special case, and that is POV. KathaLu (talk) 13:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
And in which countries would at least one of the acts Assange is accused of (having sexual intercourse with a sleeping woman) not qualify as rape'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
You're question above is just playing OR games AndyTheGrump. That accusation, which does not match the actual accusation, clearly violates BLP, and does not belong in the lede. aprock (talk) 06:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
The reference attached to that sentence describes the investigation a "rape investigation," and many other sources describe the allegations as including rape. I don't think it's unreasonable for us to use the word in the article.VoluntarySlave (talk) 07:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't see what you're referring to in either reference. aprock (talk) 07:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I was confusing the reference in the lede with the Guardian article referenced in "Allegations of Sexual Assault" section. However, the BBC article referenced in the lede says "The 39-year-old denies three allegations of sexual assault and one of rape last August in Stockholm." There are also a number of references in the Swedish Judicial Authority v. Julian Assange article that refer to allegations of rape in the renewed investigation.VoluntarySlave (talk) 09:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
What is your source for it not being called rape in English? This is what the British judge says in his verdict: "The position with offence 4 is different. This is an allegation of rape. The framework list is ticked for rape. The defence accepts that normally the ticking of a framework list offence box on an EAW would require very little analysis by the court. However they then developed a sophisticated argument that the conduct alleged here would not amount to rape in most European countries. However, what is alleged here is that Mr Assange “deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state”. In this country that would amount to rape." Claiming that there is some sort of language confusion is just POV and OR. Mbulle (talk) 08:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Source: [11]. The source you quote is the judges finding of fact, not the allegation. There is no language confusion here. You are confusing one judges finding of fact with the allegations. If you would like to include wording related to the judges finding of fact, as opposed to the allegations, then that would be fine. Is there a particular reason why you feel the word rape needs to be used here instead of sexual assault? aprock (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I have no interest in what the crimes are called, but even the source you quoted describes it as "suspected of rape, three cases of sexual molestation and illegal coercion". If both the Swedish prosecutor and the British judge use the term "rape" why would we call it sexual assault instead? Mbulle (talk) 10:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I am fine with using the word rape if it is used in the appropriate context. On the other hand, per WP:BLP, it is not acceptable to just throw that sort of accusation around without conforming to the sources. aprock (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
He is wanted for questioning regarding a suspected rape of one woman and sexual coercion and sexual assault on another. See: http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/The-Assange-Matter/The-Assange-Matter/ 213.112.194.162 (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

Please remember to hand wash and not to tumble dry the criticism section - it seems to be prone to shrinkage ;) Seriously, I find it hard to believe there's any reason to make the criticism section smaller and smaller over time. After all, Assange is a controversial figure and new criticism is voiced against him every day. I'm not saying that the section should be updated with EVERY piece of criticism directed at Assange. But the fact that Domscheit-Berg is nowhere to be found is the article is, at best, suspicious. Another thing that looks pretty suspicious is that in dealing with the privacy issues it is deemed to be sufficient enough only to list one source of that particular criticism. After all, this criticism has been raised by several people and organisations, including Amnesty International. Also it is a bit strange that around one third of the section is composed of Assanges response to the criticism.

To make a long story short, the section reeks of being deliberatly edited as to present Assange in a positive light. Someone unimaginative (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Since you are able to edit the Article as well, or at the very least, post to this Talk page, I could equally make a claim of 'suspiciousness' for not simply adding the information or providing more information to your fellow editors to be helpful. This undertone in the comment as if we are conspiring with one another to distort the facts is unwarranted and unneeded. Please choose a different approach in the future if you need to make a point. -- Avanu (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I've chosen not to edit article texts on Wikipedia for a very obvious reason. I really don't have enough command over the english language to warrant me contributing to the actual written content of the articles.
Also, I don't see any reason to spend time on editing an article if most people disagree with the edit. It wouldn't take more than a few seconds for anyone to delete your contribution. In other words, it makes a lot more sense to me, to present a valid argument in the discussion section and thereby (hopefully) secure the necessary backing for the edit not to be deleted the moment it's implemented. Wich brings me to my next point. I really couldn't care less if you are offended by the "undertone" of my comment. This is a discussion section and I've presented a valid argument. Meaning: I can't see any valid reason for your attempt at refuting my comment by way of ad hominem attacks.
All I've done is to point out the obvious anomalies in the construction of the criticism section. Anomalies that I'll gladly point out again, in the hopes of them getting the attention they deserve.
It seems strange that the criticism section devotes about one third of the content to Assanges rebuttal of criticism. Personally I've never seen this done in any other comment section. The "normal" approach is to separate the criticism and the replies to said criticism from the criticised person into two seperate sections.
Furthermore it seems strange that many high profile critics and their criticism are totally absent from the article. For example it seems like an obvious choice to include Domscheit-Bergs criticism in the article. Domscheit-Berg has had a very close relationship with Assange and he has raised some very relevant questions in regards to Assange's role as the "face" and "CEO" of Wikileaks. Someone unimaginative (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
and again, WP:BOLD. Kaini (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Someone-unimaginative, I believe that the assumption we are acting strangely or suspiciously for having left out material you deem important was only ad hominem attack present. My response was merely to indicate that without proof it is a bit overreaching to assume that the entire collective of Wikipedia editors is conspiring. On a more substantive note, if you don't have confidence in your writing, please just post suggestions in this Talk page for people to review. The point is, starting off a suggestion with an attack isn't the right approach, and my feeling is that many of the editors are more than willing to review suggestions and comments. After seeing a lot of time and effort put into making sure we hit just the right tone with articles, I don't feel that the editors here deserve to be looked at with suspicion. Wikipedia editors are constrained to use what are termed 'reliable sources' [WP:RS], and so we don't get to put everything we might read on Wikipedia. It has to reach a certain standard. -- Avanu (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, rather than persisting in just mentioning somebody's name (Domscheit-Berg), while actively attacking every other editor here in a generalised way, does not help the article. The OP's English seems good enough to me to be able to suggest specific content. At this stage I have no idea at all what he/she wants. HiLo48 (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
The OP is complaining that (1) the criticism section is unbalanced in that it spends more time defending Assange and less time criticizing him and (2) the criticism section isn't properly structured. Both claims are unfounded. With respect to the first claim, criticism is not a mathematical exercise. It doesn't have to be 50-50. If the OP believes the article doesn't have enough criticism, then s/he should suggest some relevant criticism with reliable sources that isn't present in the article - and as HiLo points out, just mentioning someone's name isn't enough. With respect to the second claim, he is just wrong. Criticism in articles is handled at Wikipedia in a variety of different ways. Some people believe it shouldn't be in its own section but should be interwoven with the article. Others feel that a separate section is cleaner and easier. Certainly, when there is a separate criticism section, the criticisms and the defenses are generally handled together, contrary to the OP's assertion. To do otherwise makes no sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
As noted, english is not my first language. But I do feel certain that the word "criticism" doesn't have anything to do with the person being critized defending against criticism. In fact, the wiki-article about "criticism" defines it as "the judgement of the merits and faults of the work or actions of an individual or group by another"(emphasis added). Seen it that light I feel that it's a bit odd that one third of the criticism section consists of Assange replying to criticism. Not that you always have to be strict about it. It does makes sense to sometimes balance out the criticism section. I just find it odd and to be honest, unfair to have Assange critize his critics in the criticism section. I mean, he isn't even addressing the criticism, he's only countering with ad hominem attacks. It's just... you guys seriously think that stuff like "These two men [Gates and Mullen] arguably are wading in the blood from those wars" belongs in a section about criticism against Assange?"> Someone unimaginative (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
On the section you just quoted, there is a quote from Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mike Mullen, and a response from Assange. How is that not balanced? And from what I can tell, Mullen is saying Assange is putting people's lives at risk, and Assange is saying that Mullen is the one who has actually put lives at risk. Two perspectives on the same thing. Mullen is a government official and Assange is replying partly in hyperbole. Assange is not saying Mullen literally or personally killed anyone. He is making the point that Mullen's actions might have caused others to die. The specific section you quoted from seems balanced and presents a view, if somewhat limited, from both sides. -- Avanu (talk) 08:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
your english seems pretty good to me, certainly good enough to not present a problem - if you think the section has a problem, i'd encourage you to find references, fix the problem, and if your additions require a small amount of copy-editing, there are plenty of editors invested in the article who i am sure are willing to do so. Kaini (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
As far as I know Mullen didn't make personal information about for example afghani collaberators of the US army publicly available. It's an ad hominem attack. How is it objective and balanced to put ad hominem attacks against the critics in a criticism section? Someone unimaginative (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
It is called hyperbole. Common sense tells us that it is an exaggeration rather than a strictly factual statement. -- Avanu (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an idiot... I know that Assange doesn't think that Gates and Mullen literally are standing knee deep in blood. My point is just that Mullen voiced a criticism: i.e. that Assange, by distributing the war logs verbatim, has put american soldiers' and afghani civilian collaboraters' lifes in danger. Now my issue with the way that the Mullen-voiced criticism is handled in the section is:

A: Assange is not only given a substantial part of the criticism section to argue against the criticism he receives. He's also "allowed" to do so with an unvalid argument.

B: A number of other high-profile persons and organisations that have also voiced the excact same criticism is left out.

Now the "encyclopedic" problem with A, is that by presenting the information in this way, you're violating the principle of the encyclopedia being an accessible source of objective information for "ordinary" people. Assange's reply to the criticism is undeniably a logical fallacy. What he's basically saying is that because Mullen (alledgedly) also is responsible for the loss of lives, then it's okay for Assange to be the same. Presented in this way the argument is obviously useless for most people. But that's not the way it's presented in the article. Instead it's presented in its raw form, wich obviously is meant to make people believe it to be a valid argument. In other words, despite Assange's argument being wrong it's still a pretty powerful argument and if you don't have some sort of prior knowledge about semantical logic and/or rhetorics then you're likely to buy that argument at face value (that's why arguments of that type is so widely used: they work).

The problem with B is that many of the critics, voicing the excact same criticism, that are left out of the section are people and organisations that it would be absurd to reply to in the way Assange replied to Mullen. In other words, the critics left out are, for the most part, the ones that Assange's countercriticism has absolutely no rhetorical value against. Personally I find that a bit strange. But who am I to judge. Why is not really the point. The point is that the way the article is constructed with regards to the Mullen's criticism is, next to totally omitting the criticism, the best possible way to construct the section if the goal was to play it right into Assanges hands. Again, I really don't care about why I only care about what I find to be an extremly unbalanced way of presenting supposedly balanced facts.

As said, I'd still prefer for someone else to do the editing of the section. Firstly because writing stuff like that (especially in english) really isn't my strong suit. Secondly, because by doing so, I would have "converted" at least one person to my viewpoint, thereby making the edit significantly more likely to survive :) But fair enough. I'll write an edit one of the next days, then we'll see if it sticks. Someone unimaginative (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually Assange said that Mullen was being 'speculative' because he presented no proof that anyone's life was endangered by the release of documents. Mullen was essentially saying Assange was being reckless and dangerous. Assange, however, replied that he was, to the contrary, trying to exercise care, especially when he mentioned that Wikileaks withheld 15,000 of the documents for the very same reason that Mullen mentioned. Assange further argues that while he feels there is an overriding need to expose government corruption to save lives, Gates and Mullen are in a direct position to decide who lives and dies and where troops and intelligence personnel are stationed, as well as having great latitude to decide who is locked up, shot, etc. So while Assange might *speculatively* have some impact on a person's mortality, Gates and Mullen actually have much more direct power over people, and since many people have died in these wars prior to Wikileaks ever being involved, the proof stands that they have actually affected the mortality of many people, while there is no more than a speculative link that Wikileaks and Assange have done the same.
All in all, it seems to be balanced to this editor. One thing to mention at this point. Some of the suggestions you made in the previous paragraph sound like they are coming very close to 'synthesis' WP:SYNTH. We are supposed to present the material from reliable sources and attempt to maintain a neutral point of view, not come up with our own conclusions.
If you have some actual material to suggest, that would be fine; please post it here if you like, but without some information, I don't know how far this will get. -- Avanu (talk) 05:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see what speculative claims about Mullen has to do in a section devoted to criticism against Assange. Assange asserts that Mullen has ordered daily assasinations. Even if this is true, what does it have to do with the criticism against Assange? If, by your logic, it is totally within reason to present non-related and non-verified claims about people in a criticism section, would you then accept it if someone added some of Domscheit-Bergs more anecdotal claims about Assange? How about a paragraph mentioning Domscheit-Bergs criticism of Assanges eating habbits? To me it seem just as, if not more, relevant to include the claim that apparently Assange eats like a pig, in a section devoted to criticism against Assange, than to include claims about what an american military leader's role was in the war in Afghanistan. I'm not saying that it isn't interesting what Mullen's role was in Afghanistan, I just don't see it as something that should be discussed in this particular article. That information and those claims belong in the article about Mullen. I totally agree that the part of Assange's reply, dealing with the 15.000 withheld is fully justifiable in the article. I'd prefer it to be placed in a seperate section, devoted to Assange's responses to different criticisms and critics. But that's probably a matter of taste and it wouldn't be the end of the world, if such a section wasn't created. My beef with the quote is that it is way to long. Most of the quote just isn't relevant for the topic at hand. In my opinion the quote should be shortened by cutting everything after the sentence "That is why we held back 15,000 of these documents, to review that". Everything after that sentence is irelevant for the criticism and nothing more than unrelated ad hominem attacks by Assange. So could we at least agree to shorten the quote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someone unimaginative (talk • contribs) 16:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

To me, it says that Assange is saying the these two people's claims against him are hollow, since, in his eyes, they are hypocrites who attack him for putting lives at risk, yet their own actions have verifiably cost lives, while his actions have only speculatively cost or harmed lives. -- Avanu (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I still can't see what the statements are doing in that section. How is it relevant that Assange thinks his opponents are hypocrites? How is the part after "That is why we held back 15,000 of these documents, to review that" justified being in a section about criticism against Assange? How is statements like "These two men arguably are wading in the blood from those wars" relevant in a the section devoted to criticism against Assange? Please, enlighten me. But screw that, I'm choosing to be bold and cut the quote off at a more reasonable point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someone unimaginative (talk • contribs) 17:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone unimaginative, I'm ok with reverting unkind talk comments, but a strikethrough with an added comment might preserve the flow of the conversation better. Just a suggestion. I'm not totally sure of the Wiki-convention for fixing things if you put your foot in your mouth. Shoes have a funny taste. -- Avanu (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

My foot in my mouth? Would you please elaborate on what you're talking about. It seems to be a rather harsh comment, but I simply don't understand what you mean. Someone unimaginative (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to have humor while softly correcting you, Someone-unimaginative. You modified your original comments and made them more friendly, which was thoughtful, but the responses that were left made less sense in light of your changes. Talk page etiquette says we don't modify other editor's comments, but I don't think it prohibits us from modifying our own comments. Regardless, it would preserve the continuity better if you used strikethrough rather than changing what is already written. "I put my foot in my mouth" is an expression meaning that you said something that was accidental or embarrassing. Just one more thing. I'm not sure if you have noticed, but people tend to use multiple colon characters to indent their comments. It helps with readability. Just trying to be helpful. See Wikipedia:Tutorial (Talk pages) -- Avanu (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I did what?!?!? Please present some form of evidence, when making such accusations. The only thing that I've edited is my IP, wich I've removed from this discussion, and a few minor typo's (for example I forgot to put the "s" in "is" a one point). How is it making comments more friendly to correct a typo consisting of a missing "s"? I haven't changed or added a SINGLE word in this discussion, other than substituting my IP with my screenname. Please present some form of evidence in support of your accusations.

Also, I know what the expression meant, there's no need to be a condecending jerk. I obviously meant that I didn't understand wich comments you were referring to.Someone unimaginative (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Just never mind. It seems clear that there is a misunderstanding happening, and I already feel sub-par today. No one is trying to be a jerk to you, only helpful. Take care. -- Avanu (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
S-U, if it makes you feel any better, I looked through the history and see no indication that you softened your comments, either. I do see where Avanu struck through some of his comments. Despite Avanu's apparent mistake, there's no point in getting all heated about it. I know you characterize what Avanu said as an "accusation", but it would seem that it's just some well-intentioned advice based on a mistaken premise, hardly an accusation. Please let it go.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I went back and looked and I think my being sick is just making me miss things. It has happened a couple of times now. I just didn't see the end of S-U's first paragraph anymore when I looked earlier. I'd like to just move back on track with a discussion of the issues if we could, and if I seem as if I'm overexplaining, it is because S-U indicated earlier that they don't have a strong command of the English language, so I am trying to be extra careful to explain what things mean, rather than assume it is understood. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23 The reason why I'm getting "all heated" about it is that there were made some pretty serious accusations. You might not think much of it, but then again, it's not you trying to make a point only to find people trying to sidetrack the discussion with unwarranted accusations. Avanu goes on and on about etiquette and how to do things the right way.... only to fire of an accusation about me changing my comments, without any proof to support his claim. Someone unimaginative (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Avenu I totally agree that we should get back on track. But then please don't fill the discussion with ad hominem attacks. I know you're trying to worm yourself out of the fact that you made a pretty serious accusation without a shadow of proof to back it with. But you being sick just doesn't cut it buddy. If you're too sick to read the words on your screen, you shouldn't begin to accuse people of stuff like that. Let me give you a piece of advice. Never accuse anyone of anything, unless you're absolutely certain - seeing is knowing, if you'd taken a second to check your facts, you would've seen you were wrong. Also, please don't run discussions off the tracks, you were the one making the unrelated comments in this thread. You've spent more time discussing me than you have the issues I've raised. You've had a smug remark for every comment I've made... You've spent almost no energy discussing the issues at hand, instead spending your time correcting me. So please grow up and try to participate in the discussion like a reasonable human being. Only thing you achieve by being an anal douche all the time and accusing people of stuff they've clearly not done is just that people get the impression that wikipedia is run by small personalities that get a kick out of being an ass to any outsider venturing into the inner sanctum of this online encyclopedia. If you have something intelligent to add to the actual discussion, I'll be happy to engage further with you. But until that happens you can consider this my last reply to you. You've wasted enough time and space in this discussion already, with your unrelevant personal attacks, so consider this the end of my participation in any further discussions corncerning my person. And get well soon :) Someone unimaginative (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The issue that you raised initially was that we aren't including enough criticism of Assange. This is a valid point for debate. Blanket descriptions of suspicious behavior by previous Wiki-editors is not. We addressed that with you politely and moved on.
I'm trying to treat you professionally and thoughtfully, and I think everyone else here is also. No one, not even myself, made serious accusations about you. I raised valid points, then when I was making a mistake, my response was to offer a suggestion for you. I didn't demand your head on a plate, or call you names. I see that I was mistaken and I accepted the blame. With the exception of that mistake, everything else I said was on target with the issue you raised. Being a 'reasonable human being' doesn't mean we have to immediately agree. We're here to help. -- Avanu (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Assange's counter-accusation against Mullen should be restored to the article. First, the subject of an article is entitled to respond to accusations against him, and Assange's response is from a reliable source. Second, it seems fair to let Assange point out Mullen's hypocrisy in charging the Assange has endangered people's lives, while the U.S. military has killed scores of innocent civilians in "collateral damage" incidents, so many in fact that the Afghan president complains about it. You can't hold Assange's arms back and let Mullen pummel him, because that's not NPOV. Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You're making a biased assumption. It doesn't matter what you think about the war or what you think about Mullen. I'm trimming the quote again. Even if there were general agreement about Mullen being a hypocrite, it's not relevant for the section. Mullen voiced a criticism, Assange answered to that critism and then he accused Mullen of being a hypocrite. That part of Assange's answer is not relevant for the criticism being raised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someone unimaginative (talk • contribs) 18:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree; the quote has been appropriately trimmed to provide the relevant text. Including the rest of the quote provides no additional context to the accusations or Assange's position on the matter.JoelWhy (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Julian_Assange/Archive_10&oldid=1136858898"