Jump to content

Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Threats against Assange

There is just no way speculation about why a person is still alive and haven't been murdered belongs in a BLP. Tijfo098, if you disagree, please discuss it here before reinstating it again. If it is reinstated, it probably needs to be worded very carefully. Nymf hideliho! 02:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Your edit summary here can be read as I having left a death threat, which is obviously untrue, and can be perceived as an WP:UNCIVIL attack on me as a result. Further, the sentences are sourced well enough. Goldberg's article was obviously controversial because of that subtitle, and has received WP:SECONDARY coverage. Even more reason to mention it. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
The editorial [1] in question is using Assange's case to make a totally unrelated point about conspiracy theories and perceptions of intelligence agencies on the left and right. It's completely rhetorical has no place in his article. Stop restoring it. Gigs (talk) 03:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
By the same argument he's also not an "enemy combatant" (except in the wet dreams of some conservative commentators), so that passage about him should be removed as well. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
If the enemy combatant comments were meant seriously, and it seems that they were, then that's a different kind of thing than using Assange's case as a rhetorical coat rack to talk about conspiracy theories and perceptions of intelligence agencies. If the new editorial actually called for the CIA to kill him, that would be another thing entirely. Gigs (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


Is that your definition of rhetorical? Tijfo098 (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
He goes on to talk about how the CIA isn't like the movies and blames the left for painting them that way. It's all a rhetorical framework for him to make a point about intelligence. A disgusting one, but still rhetorical. Your recent removal of all of the conservative response seems kind of pointy, unless your addition of this editorial was pointy in the first place. Either way, just come out and state your point. Gigs (talk) 03:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The point is simple: either conservative opinion (about him) that has WP:SECONDARY coverage is worthy of inclusion, or it isn't. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Further Christian Whiton, who is the only named source for the "enemy combatant" quote, is even less wikinotable than Jonah Goldberg.Tijfo098 (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I completely reject your false dichotomy, and I suspect other editors will as well. Direct comments calling on the president to treat Assange as an enemy combatant are fundamentally different from an editorial using Assange's case to make an unrelated point about perceptions of intelligence agencies. Lets wait for some more uninvolved editors to comment instead of going around and around in circles here. Gigs (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
False dichotomy, eh? Goldberg bothers to say that Assange is (1) a "bad guy", (2) not a journalist. Both of these claims in Goldberg's articles are discussed by Alex Massie in [2], but of course, they're "fundamentally different" (according to User:Gigs) than a red-link conservative commentator saying he is an "enemy combatant". Tijfo098 (talk) 04:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Further, this is what Salon.com had to say about the Goldberg article:


(emphasis in original) That kinda dents your own your interpretation of the subtitle of the Goldberg article, doesn't it? Tijfo098 (talk) 04:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
And, by the way, another Salon piece (by Glenn Greenwald) even compares Whiton and Goldberg's opinions! Tijfo098 (talk) 04:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this material is not appropriate for the article. Jeannedeba (talk) 06:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

  • I thought that the comment that he should be classified as an enemy combatant and interned in Guantanamo Bay, which was removed here, was worthwhile to have, just to illustrate how irked some people are by him. I didn't care much for the rest of the material that was deleted in that edit, and don't object to its removal. --JN466 18:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
    • The wording of this passage had become strangely inflated since it was added here, but the spelling correction from "interred" to "interned" was rather important. --JN466 18:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

More unreliable interpretations of unreliable sources: "increasingly shrill statements from American commentators who have called for his assassination" in Net closes on Assange: arrest by British police expected in days; The Independent is only seconded by The Guardian as a shrill left-wing newspaper! Tijfo098 (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The inevitable "mum fears" article(s) [3][4] and a quote from an AP story titled The noose tightens around WikiLeaks' Assange:

Zomg. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Moar from The Daily Telegraph, WikiLeaks' Julian Assange 'taking precautions' after death threats:


Some details [5]:


Yet another conservative who misspoke himself. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

From [6]

Et tu, Canucus? Tijfo098 (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Article neutrality

I just put a POV tag on this article, because it seems it is only showing one side of the events: Asssange's and his friends side. The tone of the article is clearly sympathetic toward Assange. While there is no reason to put any shame on him, we should (especially for a controversial subject like him) be careful to quote the view of all sides, not only his. One example among many others: "Assange and others, including Glenn Greenwald, have criticized a New York Times article on Assange. Greenwald wrote that such "gossipy" and "slimy" articles "based on quotes from disgruntled associates" are not standard journalistic practice and are reserved by the New York Times for figures like Assange.". Well the only valid comment is from Greenwald, quoted twice, and the other is a reader comment on a NY Times forum. So an editor did not hesitate to put 3 lines and 3 quotes just for one source, one twice, and one invalid. Of course, the NY times article is not quoted, only the Greenwald answer. This is an example on how POV this article can be. Hervegirod (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Assange himself asserts that it's biased against him. It's going to be a pretty intractable discussion if each side thinks the article is biased toward the other. I take it as a sign we are probably getting the neutrality mostly right. Gigs (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I think that a lot of informations are biased toward him, not against. I he himself thinks it's biased against him, I guess he has a problem about neutrality. Another example (the article is full of these): "A volunteer told Wired that Assange said in a private conversation "I am the heart and soul of this organization, its founder, philosopher, spokesperson, original coder, organizer, financier, and all the rest", omitting the last part of the citation: "If you have a problem with me, piss off". This kind of quote, voluntarily quoted out of its context, is clearly POV. It transform a statement which is a critic on Assange by someone in its own organization in a praise of the character. This is clearly not right. Hervegirod (talk) 02:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
That kind of semi-anonymous hearsay really has no place in the article at all IMO. Gigs (talk) 03:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Assange has written here many times, even asking and getting, a more favorable photo. His every wish was granted. Then he sent out a twitter asking others to polish this article. Then dozens and dozens repeated the twitter. Then blogs, dozens and dozens, repeated the request to polish his image here. And then talk forums and more blogs... The article is amazing, starfucking at it's best.99.141.243.84 (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the article is biased against Assange, but this is hard to avoid because it reflects a predictable defensiveness of institutions such as the government and the media against someone like Assange. The fact that Assange "sent out a twitter asking others to polish this article" is not really worrying, considering the resources of those who would wish to disparage Assange (i.e. the Pentagon) are far greater than the resources of his supporters, and therefore the rish of biased against Assange is much higher than the risk of bias for him.
I agree with Gigs that a quote from an anonymous source about an alleged private conversation should be removed altogether. Hervegirod, if you want to add in some stuff from the New York Times article to which Greenwald refers then I encourage you do so if you can find anything in that article that is worth mentioning (I personally couldn't). Gregcaletta (talk) 04:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The subjects of articles are welcome to raise issues on the talk page, and volunteers will try to help to the extent they can while still following Wikipedia's core policies. Not all of Julian Assange's requests were fulfilled, because he doesn't have control over this article and he's not going to get control over this article. Reach Out to the Truth 04:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't see that this tag is merited and I don't think any real reasons to retain it have been provided. I propose to remove it in 24 hours or less unless substantive arguments are given. --John (talk) 06:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Concur; the point of such a tag is not to notify people of a neutrality issue - it is to prompt editors with the time to clean up the content. In this case, as in many cases, the tag is being use to prove a point. So there is no call for it; the page is under active editing. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 17:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The guy asked to have his resume puffed up with a number of things, including being described as a writer in the lead. It was granted instantly and remained for a very long time. Without a single fucking ref, making him the only writer on Wikipedia without a Bibliography - and the only subject who has successfully rounded up dozens of sycophants to publicly do his bidding here. They may have polished Assange's ass with their kisses, but it comes at the further cost of continuing to degrade Wikipedia's credibility. There was a time when not even Jimbo could hope for such meat-puppetry. Assange's campaign, and it is a longstanding and multi-pronged campaign to polish his Wiki article here, is an embarrassment. 72.5.199.254 (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This kind of quote, voluntarily quoted out of its context, is clearly POV. It transform a statement which is a critic on Assange by someone in its own organization in a praise of the character. This is clearly not right. - hmm, I just spotted this. I swear; I am getting fed up of being accused of pointyness here... the quote was added after a very long deliberation with myself - the final sentence was left out because it was unrelated to the point being made in the quote, which was - to highlight the role Assange considers he holds in Wikileaks. Given the complex and controversial nature of the role I consider it intensely significant (and plan to make another attempt at securing consensus on its inclusion in the coming days). The quote is neither favourable or negative against Assange (to my mind) and is why I eventually decided to try including it. The final line of the quote is not related to the context of his own percieved role in the organisation - and including it would be disparaging in the context the quote was used. To be clear; the balance we have to get here is the apparent "god complex" Assange appears to have with regards to Wikileaks in a neutral and relaxed way. I contend that doing so via his own words is the safest route. When I am being called pointy by both those supporting and disparaging Assange I suspect I am doing something right ;) --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 18:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
"pointy"/"pointyness" if it was present (in this thread before the above entry) got edited out. Unclear if this means expressing a POV or what. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
It's a reference to WP:POINT. siafu (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Errant, the way you quoted the fact is clearly misrepresenting things. I can't imagine that you are not seeing this. Hervegirod (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Can't see it, sorry. If you are able to point it out though I am listening. Imagine whatever you like, but better to explain on the [{WP:AGF|off chance]] I missed the point --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 23:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I originally included this quote, not as a way of praising him, nor as a way of criticizing him, but merely to include his own description of his role within the organisation. The "piss off" thing from the same conversation isn't relevant to his description of his role within Wikileaks. His role within Wikileaks used to be described like this in the article: "While newspapers have described him as a "director"[22] or "founder"[9] of Wikileaks". I.e. it was rather unclear, and a clear description of his role, in his own words, is a lot better than "newspapers have described him as a "director"[22] or "founder"[9] of Wikileaks". Jeannedeba (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of the NPOV tag. The article introduction is grossly POV because it fails to summarize the content of the article, "including any notable controversies" per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section). The fact that the controversies in question are notable is evidenced by the mere fact that they have extensive sections in the article, and this needs to be summarized in the lead per the manual of style.

Here we have a guy who is wanted by Interpol and investigated by a number of countries and the only thing the introduction mentions, is that "Assange has lived in several countries and has told reporters he is constantly on the move. He makes irregular public appearances to give talks on freedom of the press, censorship, and investigative reporting, and has won a number of journalism awards." The introduction of the article is nothing but puffery, and a prime examle of how an introduction should not be written (why is the "journalism awards" relevant, and not his Interpol arrest warrant?). Jeannedeba (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I actually agree; a short mention of his warrant is needed. I've always supported it along with the rest of the lead. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 23:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, my political orientation will be evident on my talk page and I'm obviously close to the subject's political orientation, but I haven't read the article and to the extent that the concept makes sense think I can make determination of the objectivity of the current text. The problem with NPOV is that without a POV you can't really do anything in the field of thinking, so as with the newly discovered WP:POINT above I think it's simply a matter of good intellectual faith. I've seen WP:POINT summarized elsewhere as "don't be a dick" and do obviously wrong stuff to push your POV. You can still be human and have a POV. Here goes. Lycurgus (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
See the tag is removed. This is one of the least POV and most heavily sourced articles I've seen, for the amount of text, so I guess this is a dead thread. So what the NPOV accusation was was that there wasn't a POV expressed that cast the individual as an enemy of the established order and its state power and therefore a criminal I guess. Lycurgus (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea of what you're talking about and this is not a dead thread. This is not one of the least POV and most heavily sourced articles I've seen, it's an unfinished and poorly structured article with some severe POV problems, specifically in regard to it's lead section and categories. Jeannedeba (talk) 10:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
It seems those who have written this pathetic entry have again gone out of their way, yet again, to defend Assange. The sentence concerning the "red notice" from Interpol makes no mention of the fact that Interpol has asked member states TO ARREST Assange. In fact, this entry's authors try to convey the exact opposite. The Agency France Presse descbribes Interpol's actions thusly: "The global police agency INTERPOL said Wednesday it had alerted member states to ARREST WikiLeaks' founder Julian Assange on suspicion of rape on the basis of a Swedish arrest warrant"(emphasis mine). The notion that Interpol merely wants info on Assange's whereabouts, as this joke of an entry implies, is ludicrous; they want him arrested. This article implicitly tries to claim otherwise. The bias contained in this entry is absolutlely amazing to behold. Quit trying to turn this piece into an apologia for Assange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.155.184 (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
"Trying to turn this piece into an apologia" ? Dude, they've succeeded beyond their wildest wet dreams. Hey did you know about all the Reliably Sourced press reports regarding his own son Daniel's comments about how his dad always has these kind of problem's with women...? It would be in the Lede if it were most anyone else's article that lacked the sycophants....99.141.243.84 (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I thought it was settled because the tag was removed. That was before the new thread below was started. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Just reading this page for the first time today, so I'm a little late to the game; but, as it stands, this article most certainly warrants a 'Neutrality is disputed' tag. The intro reads like a fluff-piece rather than an encyclopedia. I mean, including this line in the introduction:
"According to The Guardian, this has placed Assange "at the centre of intense media speculation and a hate campaign against him in America".[12]
How overtly biased can you be?? It's fine to include this information in the article, but it's completely inappropriate in the location in the article and surrounding context. This is just one example of bias; there are plenty of others, which is why the tag should be added.JoelWhy (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

correct me if I am wrong, but most of Assange's praise and awards are given to him on the basis of wikileaks whistle blowing, and most of his criticism is based on his releasing of classified US documents. I mention these as two different things because he is not disliked for all of his work. In fact, Amnesty International has Awarded him for one, and criticized him for the other. Seeing these as two separate things could help better organize the article. There could be a paragraph about famous non-controversial leaks, and then a break down of more recent controversial leaks. Especially Those where question the benefits and risk are raised. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I think these ctiticisms should be added from this article:

"The letter from five human-rights groups sparked a tense exchange in which WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange issued a tart challenge for the organizations to help with the massive task of removing names from thousands of documents, according to several of the organizations that signed the letter. The exchange shows how WikiLeaks and Mr. Assange risk being isolated from some of their most natural allies in the wake of the documents' publication.

The human-rights groups involved are Amnesty International; Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict, or CIVIC; Open Society Institute, or OSI, the charitable organization funded by George Soros; Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission; and the Kabul office of International Crisis Group, or ICG."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703428604575419580947722558.html?mod=WSJEUROPE_hpp_MIDDLESecondNews

Gordonlighter (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This is already included in the wikileaks article and I'm not sure if its relevant enough to Julian himself to include.

If it is determined that it should be included, the wording of it in the wikileaks article is very good and could be copied as article summaries often are.

What is the status of the link between George Soros/ Open Society Institute and wikileaks? I just recall cryptome posting emails in regards to this. --41.15.27.10 (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Do this and this ring any bells? Not sure what this has to do with Assange though and they not be reliable sources either. SmartSE (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Text of this from Wikileaks article: "In 2010, Amnesty International joined several other human rights groups criticizing WikiLeaks for not adequately redacting the names of Afghan civilians working as U.S. military informants from files they had released. Julian Assange responded by offering Amnesty International staff the opportunity to assist in the document vetting process. When Amnesty International appeared to express reservations in accepting the offer Assange disclaimed the group as "people who prefer to do nothing but cover their asses." Other groups that joined Amnesty International in criticizing WikiLeaks subsequently noted that, despite their displeasure over the issue of civilian name redaction, they generally appreciated WikiLeaks work."

Washington Irving Esquire (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Status as Journalist

The first paragraph in the wiki article for Assange should refer to him not only as a publisher but as a journalist. Given that journalists "report" facts and news, and he is clearly accomplishes the same task, he should be referred as such. This is important, because journalists haver certain rights that in this case seem to be stripped away in this article.

answer to unsigned comment: above is a discussion about it --Orangwiki (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
There is no evidence that he has ever been employed as a journalist anywhere. Having a website where you simply dump stolen information with no regard for the law or the consequences does not make you a journalist. "Wiki"Leaks is clearly not a journalistic product. American authorities consider it to be an act of espionage, not journalism. Jeannedeba (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
There is evidence Assange has worked in the capacity and role of a journalist, and he has given many lectures on the subject. That reliable sources have referred to him as a journalist, particularly in regards to his work and interests, is not in question. Viriditas (talk) 06:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Where did he work as a journalist? Jeannedeba (talk) 06:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Assange and WikiLeaks are part of the neo-journalistic citizen journalism movement, categorized as new media. For Assange, this approach begins with raw data:

I want to set up a new standard: ‘scientific journalism.’ If you publish a paper on DNA, you are required, by all the good biological journals, to submit the data that has informed your research—the idea being that people will replicate it, check it, verify it. So this is something that needs to be done for journalism as well. There is an immediate power imbalance, in that readers are unable to verify what they are being told, and that leads to abuse.[7]

The Collateral Murder video project can be described as the work of a journalist, and it is the general consensus of media organizations and political authorities, that the Afghan War documents leak covered an important story that was not being told, a story that was delivered to the public by WikiLeaks.
Assange told Time in August:

I am a journalist, a publisher and an inventor. I have tried to invent a system that solves the problem of censorship of the press and the censorship of the whistle-blower across the whole world.

In that same article, Time magazine described WikiLeaks as an "online journalism Web site." Yes, there are many critics disputing these assertions, but one must consult the sources and use them judiciously. Viriditas (talk) 09:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

His status as journalist is disputed. There are opinions on both sides. See [8]. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Please note the qualitative difference between the subjective opinion pieces you refer to in regards to a "dispute", and the more objective news story authored by Time that not only quotes Assange saying he's a journalist, but also describes his site as a journalism web site. Furthermore, Assange's work has been recognized as that of a journalist. Regardless, this is his biography, not a repository for comments by his detractors. See WP:BLP for more information. Viriditas (talk) 10:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
It's also not supposed to be a hagiography. It's reasonable to say that his status a journalist is disputed. More sources [9] [10] citing a US State Department spokesman. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Court appeal denied

Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet is reporting that Assange's appeal to the supreme court to drop the warrant has been denied. That means that the arrest warrant stands, and he has exhausted his appeal possibilities in Sweden.

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article8214618.ab —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.222.10 (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's a source in English:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-12-02/sweden-high-court-won-t-review-assange-warrant-appeal.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.222.10 (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Added to the article from newer sources. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Suburbia

The page suggests that Julian Assange started one of the first ISPs in Australia known as Suburbia in 1994. It's citing a journalists article. This is not the case. Suburbia was started in 1990, and went online in late 1993. Julian was an administrator of the system alongside the founder. He was deeply involved with running of the system, but to suggest he founded it is incorrect. Mdorset (talk) 04:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Any sources? Gregcaletta (talk) 12:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm the source, as the founder of the system. I'm not disputing that Julian Assange was a key member in part of the history of the system for some time in the mid-1990s, but he did not found it, create it, name it, nor get it the system on the Internet. The system was around as a BBS since early 1990, and switched over to a Linux based Internet connected system in late 1993. This work migrating it from DOS based multi-line BBS to linux based ISP was done primarily by another administrator and me. Assange become part of the team shortly after that. Mdorset (talk) 11:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
What Gregcalleta means, is do you have a reliable source which backs up what you've said? We have to ensure that everything is verifiable from a reliable written source, rather than based on what someone says (we call that original research, which is not permitted). If you do have a source, we'll be happy to update the article accordingly, but if not I'm afraid we can't even though you may be correct, since we are more interested in verification, than the truth. Thanks for commenting and I hope you can find a suitable source. SmartSE (talk) 11:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I told the Forbes reporter, but he used a different quote ... so we don't have a source from Forbes about the founding of Suburbia, but we can cite from Forbes that Assange has titanium balls ...
(And yet again I wonder how anyone who's ever, ever been quoted by the press could use the phrase "reliable sources" for them. But anyway.) - David Gerard (talk) 11:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

A genuine left wing view

The persecution of WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange 72.228.177.92 (talk) 05:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It is good to have a variety of view-points. Are there an particular facts or quotations from this WSWS article that you would like to include in this Wikipedia article? Gregcaletta (talk) 06:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Well the calls for the death penalty by the likes of Huckabee, which can be sourced from their origin I presume, stand out. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 07:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
That was in relation to Manning not Assange, but you could find the stuff that Palin has said and put that in if you like. Gregcaletta (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

References section is weird

What's with the references section? I've never seen one like it. It's completely filled. Normally there's nothing but a code. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Section should not be empty. See WP:LDR. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
You say "should", but this is the only article where I've seen this form of reference section, so it's obviously not "should", but someone's personal choice, and a very odd one at that! It's apparently an option, but one that isn't used. I don't understand the formatting, so I'm not sure where on that page to look. What's the advantage? -- Brangifer (talk) 08:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
"Should" as in: if you delete them from there, you need to move them in the body of the article, otherwise you'll get a ton of errors, as you probably noticed before you self-reverted. There's some general disclaimer about changing reference style without discussion (ask User:CBM); I can't be bothered to find the wikilink for that because I don't care how they're listed as long as it's not a page full of errors. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The reference section features BROKEN CODE as of tonight and i personally don't have the time to work on it -- but it is red inked all over and FUBAR, so i hope someone takes the time to straighten it out. Sorry, it's almost one a.m. here and i am going to bed. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 08:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? It looks fine to me in this version. There was a broken version up for a very short time due to (later self-reverted) changes by BullRangifer. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I made another attempt to fix it by simply deleting all that stuff and replacing it with standard ref code, but a better version which works great on articles with large numbers of refs. Most of the 142 refs show properly, but a number are red and it is them that should be fixed, not go back to an odd and rarely (this is the ONLY place I've seen it) used code that duplicates everything. There's no advantage in that, since all the refs are still in the article as they should be. So whoever did it, please fix the redlinks and make them standard refs. If that isn't done, we can't use the improved ref section format. -- Brangifer (talk) 09:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
You just broke it again, so I reverted. Please do further experimentation in a sandbox. Repeatedly breaking a high traffic article is not acceptable. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
It's not practical to do that in a sandbox. A complicated one would have to be created first. This trial edit didn't work and you reverted it. Fine.
I agree that it's not good, but the solution is to restore standard reference formatting. The new and improved refs code can't be used to make the box smaller on that article the way it is. It's a mass of duplicated refs. There's no need for that. Please edit the redlinked refs so they will work properly with standard {{reflist}} code. I know you're a newbie here, and you're no doubt very good at coding (I don't understand it that well), but please don't singlehandedly try to change Wikipedia without a wide consensus. It just creates confusion (and in this case no real improvement) and makes it harder for ordinary editors to edit. We need to make sure all editors can edit, not only those with advanced coding skills. -- Brangifer (talk) 09:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Above you mention that "There's some general disclaimer about changing reference style without discussion (ask User:CBM);". Where is this mentioned "discussion" in which you got a consensus to change from standard reference style and start using this odd and rarely used formatting style (if you are the one who did it)? If not, who did? -- Brangifer (talk) 09:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Some of the refs are using List-defined references, where refs can be defined in the reflist section, and used in the text. I much prefer this, but I'm aware that others may not. I changed the Julius Malema article so that all refs are now List-defined references. [11] This made it possible for me to change the ref to all use cite templates, and fix a number of errors. I feel that this also makes it easier to edit the article text. If you take a look at the wikitext, it's now much easier to grok, and locate text you want to edit.
I've actually started working on making the same change for this article. As this is quite a large change, I work off line, using Bazaar_(software) to merge my changes with changes made on the site since I started. If any one is opposed to this, please, lets discuss.Gary van der Merwe (Talk) 09:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Gary, I see you've been here a few months longer than I have (with our usernames). You're apparently pretty good with code, and we do need people like you. In this case, do you have a consensus for making these changes? What real advantage is there? Having the ref and its content together may look messy, but it's far easier to edit than to have to compare two widely separated places, if that's what it takes with the new LDR code. This also conflicts with other code. I tried one that works very nicely, but it doesn't harmonize with this format. Try what I've done on another article with a very long list of refs and you'll see how nice it works. Here it is: <div style="height: 220px; overflow: auto; padding: 3px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA; reflist4" >{{reflist|colwidth=30em}}</div> -- Brangifer (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Here is a example of it being used the above mentioned article: User:Garyvdm/Sandbox/LDR_Scroll Gary van der Merwe (Talk) 11:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) BullRangifer, I did not add those LDR-style refs. Stop acting like a bull in a China shop. Do you seriously claim that having broken HTML and red syntax errors [12] [13] all over this article's reference section is an improvement? Tijfo098 (talk) 09:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No, above I admit that it's not good and you reverted, which is fine. It was an experiment to see if I could fix it but it didn't work. No harm done. -- Brangifer (talk) 09:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict): Gary, it seems that people object using LDR-style here. I don't know when you introduced those, but they have the distinct disadvantage that one cannot add new material in one edit to a section (because the refs are in a different one). On a heavy traffic article like this, it is a big deal due to edit conflicts. It would be better if you migrated them back to the text, without breaking the article, of course. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I obviously agree. Gary, don't take this personally. I'm sure you have very good intentions, so please continue to use your skills for the betterment of the project. -- Brangifer (talk) 10:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'm (still) very calm :-p.
I've actually not edit the article at all yet. All of my changes are still sitting on my computer. Other people have been using the LDR-style.
Regarding LDR being harder to edit, as you can't work in just one section, I was not thinking of this issue. Wikimedia does suck in that it does not allow you to do this in 2 edits, with out having a red error message in the reflist, even if just for a short period. But I feel that it is not an issue for the following reasons: Generally people don't edit references, unless editing the formatting, in which case they are likely to be just editing the references, and not article text. When people edit both article text and references, they are likely to be adding a references. I'm going to move all existing refs to be LDR, but this will not force others to make new refs to be LDR.
Regarding the scroll box style, I was not aware that that was actually the issue being discused. I don't have a strong opinion on this, but it goes against the cite guidelines
Gary van der Merwe (Talk) 10:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't object to LDR-style being used or to someone converting refs to LDR-style but I object to it being the only style used because it takes a full article edit (or two section edits in reverse logical order, i.e. add ref first) to add some new development that way, so it's more likely to produce edit conflicts. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree, the current way is not good either way as it's a mixture of two systems. LDR works well for articles which are unlikely to change much, but on an article like this it's probably better to stick with the normal format. It would be good to change it to be consistent, but now probably isn't the best time to make major changes to the article, so we should wait a while till things die down a bit. SmartSE (talk) 13:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok - fair enough. Gary van der Merwe (Talk) 13:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Scroll-box visual style

There is actually no conflict between the LDR logical style that Gary prefers and the scroll-box visual style that BullRangifer wants. See [14]. I don't have a strong opinion on these issues. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone removed a similar change by BullRangifer at WikiLeaks with a reference to MOS:SCROLL. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it looks like that code isn't allowed for this purpose so that editor has removed it from the six articles where I used it. Learn something new everyday! Now I've got to try to find where else it was used, because I found it somewhere else and thought it was pretty nifty. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

An outside comment

I was asked to comment on the references, so here are some outside suggestions. First, I think there is a general consensus against scrolling reference lists. This is one of the few general consensuses about references, actually.

The article right now has a mixture of list-defined references and references defined within the article text. At some point, it would be good for the article to use a single method of adding references, rather than two different methods. The original style in this article was to have the references inside the article text. The article already had over 50 references before many of them were move to LDR-style in July [15].

While there can be benefits to LDR references, it can be problematic to switch an established article from one style to another, unless there is clear consensus for the change. In this article, because there will be such a large number of editors, making such a large number of edits, it's hard for them to know that some less common style had been picked. I think this is why there is now a mixture of styles. So if I had to suggest an outcome I would suggest returning to the refs-inside-the-text method. However, if there is a general consensus here that you prefer LDR, I'd suggest going through and standardizing the refs into that format.

My final word of advice is to remember that because this is such a heavily edited article, many editors will arrive who don't know much about how to format references. This is normal and expected; it's better for casual editors to add a reference in any style than to leave it out. So more experienced editors can expect to have to clean up references added by casual editors, to bring the references into whatever style is used in the article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Interview

If anyone wants to do some personal research, you can personally ask Assange a question in 45 minutes. He intends to respond to the questions live: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-julian-assange-online Gregcaletta (talk) 12:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Not just wanted for questioning

I notice several misconceptions on this page that I think stem from reading second hand souces instead of the original Swedish ones. I'll try to correct some:

1) Some reports say that he is only wanted for questioning, not being charged with anything. That is not true. There are three levels of detaining people in Sweden: Gripa, Anhålla and Häkta. The prosecutors are using the most severe form "Häkta" with Assange, which requires a decision by a court. The prosecutor writes in the official statement: "Julian Assange has been detained in his absence charged with rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion." (http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/)

2) Some people have also claimed that he is not suspected of anything, and just wanted as a witness. This is also not true. There are four levels of legal suspicion in Sweden. The prosecutor is using the second highest level "Sannolika skäl" (somewhat similar to "probable cause"). The highest level is rarely used outside of the actual trial.

So yes, Assange is a suspect, and is charged with rape, as confirmed by all three levels in the Swedish court system. That doesn't mean that he is guilty, but it certainly means that the prosecutor thinks he is.

All of this information is confirmed by the offical statements by the prosecutor. Please try to use these instead of second hand sources.

http://www.aklagare.se/Media/Nyheter/Assange-begard-haktad-i-sin-franvaro/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.222.10 (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

"Some people have also claimed that he is not suspected of anything, and just wanted as a witness." I understand his lawyer said that in relation to the EAW. It's still quotable if properly attributed. We're not here judge ourselves if the EAW is valid or not. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The quote in question however is from Nov 30 [16] "So far he has not been charged, Stephens says – an essential precondition for a valid European arrest warrant." So, it seems it's outdated and should be removed. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Just noting that in a browser like Google chrome, translation is built in, and of course there are plenty of free services that can translate web pages. Typically editors weighing in do have a bias which a mechanical translator can be assumed to lack. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I think it's problematic if we give bigger weight to second hand reports of statements by JA's lawyers than to the actual court proceedings. The actual court decision is that he is a suspect and that he is charged with rape. No statements by anyone can change what the court has already decided. We can certainly quote the lawyer, but should be clear with what the actual court documents say.
As the article stands today it only has Stephens assertion that "Julian Assange has never been charged by Swedish prosecutors. He is formally wanted as a witness", not the offical statement by the prosecutor that he is charged (http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/). Why not at least report both sides? If the prosecutor and the court say that he is charged, then he is de facto charged.85.225.222.10 (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Tijfo's point seems to be accurate, this from the BBC today says that the first arrest warrant was "rejected on legal grounds" so whatever the prosecutors said on 20/11 would appear not to apply now. SmartSE (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Again, why go by BBC's second hand description instead of the original source? Here's what the prosecutor herself wrote yesterday:
"The arrest warrant is based on the detention decision that has now been examined by all three legal instances. The additional information requested by the British Police concerns the penalties for the other crimes, in addition to rape, that Julian Assange was arrested for. This information will be supplied immediately. The previous arrest warrant stands."
(http://www.aklagare.se/Media/Nyheter/Arresteringsorden-om-Assange-galler1/)
The British Police has no authority to reject a Swedish arrest warrent. Only the Swedish Supreme Court can do that, and yesterday they decided not to.85.225.222.10 (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

We should off changing anything for now. The second source provided above clearly says that he is wanted for questioning only, and the first source in English does not have a date on it. Nymf hideliho! 16:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The BBC is clearly saying he's charged with rape. [17] Swedish Prosecution Authority spokeswoman Karin Rosander .... "We usually only include the most severe offence, which was rape in this case" That seems crystal clear to me. Gigs (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Huh? It doesn't say anything about him being charged with anything. SmartSE (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. Sweden doesn't have an indictment system like the US, if that's what you are trying to imply. Even Assange himself called the rape charges, charges. It's kind of silly to play a word game claiming that he's "wanted for questioning" when there is an outstanding warrant for his arrest on rape charges. Gigs (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
There is a detention warrant for probable cause. Nothing else. Have a look at [18] and see if you can find them mentioning anything about formal charges or an indictment at all (åtal in Swedish, and we do an indictment system). Nymf hideliho! 22:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
It was my understanding that there is nothing like a "grand jury" there. Is that correct? Gigs (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Yep, that is correct. The prosecutor files a petition for a lawsuit, and the court together with the prosecutor in question and "Åklagarmyndigheten" decides if it is enough for an indictment. Nymf hideliho! 23:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Swedish Wire -- not a very reliable source

This has several ambiguities if not downright mistakes: it's not clear what the "International warrant" is. The red notice is not a an "international warrant"; see Iterpol's own description [19]. Swedish Wire doesn't explicitly say EAW either (which would qualify as an "international" warrant, I guess) although the reference to SIS indicates that the 1st EAW might have been released on Nov 20. But it's not clear, because SIRENE processes other types of notices besides EAWs [20]. A better source is needed. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I added that source earlier today, replacing four that were previously used to say the same thing, which was unneccesary. The Swedish Wire article is basically a rehash of an AFP article, here which has been slightly reworded so should be reliable. Maybe it is best to just use the original article and if the text is currently inaccurate, reword it accordingly. (The reason I removed the yahoo version was because the links go dead quickly, but if we webcite it, that won't be a problem). SmartSE (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I've changed the source. I hadn't understood what you meant about the difference between the red notice and IAW before, but do now. This is quite problematic, as the AFP would be considered an RS. The Guardian ref used in the lead for this says "Swedish prosecutors have issued an international and European arrest warrant (EAW) for him in connection with rape allegations" - is this in addition to the red notice? SmartSE (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Sharonmil

This user is very banned. Could a few people please check their extensive edits to this article with a critical eye for subtle NPOV issues. If in doubt, please remove their work. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Dispute over status as "journalist"

Excellent work by whoever added this section. When in doubt, find a wide range of sources and describe all of them. Gregcaletta (talk) 04:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree, great section. There was a lot of discussion about this before in differnt sections of this discussion page. Now with mentioning the different sources with the different opinions in the article it gives a good understanding to the reader. --Orangwiki (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Gregcaletta's wikibreak

I'll be on a wikibreak for the next few months. I trust you guys to keep the article factual accurate and as NPOV as possible. Keep in mind that the opponents of WikiLeaks have far more resources than their supporters, and public officials have in the past shown that they are not beyond resorting to such tactics as attempting to bias an article. Assange has made powerful enemies, so we need to go the extra mile to find sources who do real investigative journalism to dig deeper than just the surface when is comes to attacks on Assange. Have fun! Gregcaletta (talk) 04:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Lots of HTML refs

Could someone with a little more authority on this article start putting in refs that aren't liable to WP:linkrot? This man at the moment is such a controversial figure, that I thought that perhaps a more prominent wikipedian than I could create some non-html links.--Malleus Felonius (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean exactly? Most of the references shouldn't go dead for a fair while, I've replaced a few dead links today, and they can be archived with webcite, but this takes quite a while to do for each reference and adds to the size of the reference, making the page harder to edit. Dead links can also be fixed by finding versions in the internet archive (if they exist). SmartSE (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

European arrest warrant

On the European arrest warrant page, it says that one can only be issued if the suspect has been charged. The lead of this article, last paragraph, says that he hasn't been charged with anything yet. On the section about the Swedish warrant, it says he has been charged. Which is correct? 75.221.55.103 (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Latest (2 Dec 2010) material on Assange

Alleged "sex crimes" in Sweden

A lot of this article is still based on poor sources. There is a lot of general curiosity regarding his supposed "sex crimes" in Sweden as well, but our Wiki article still carries the same superficial / hearsay stuff that has appeared in poor quality sources that reference what someone heard somebody else's mother-in-law say about these alleged crimes. However, the following two recent articles / posts are not only the latest regarding this "crime" issue but also ones that actually go deeper into the SPECIFICS and DETAILS of the cases rather than simply "he-said-this-they-said-that" kind of gossip that that section of the article currently is. It would be great if someone with access to edit this locked article can use the below two sources to edit that section accordingly:

Thanks for the "reliable" sources - way beyond what passes in most wiki articles and certainly this one. Both women who were vilely assaulted get on the web and brag about their sexual exploits with Mr Assange - sure sounds like rape to me. 159.105.81.31 (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Second article almost as good - if only they would keep out the PC rape garbage ( ie most rape accussations aren't false - well actually college cops usually let a few days go by on most(90%)cases because by then the happy couple are usually back together - he only threatened to leave yadayadayada But a really good article ortherwise on Assange's problem - just cut the PC rape theology.159.105.81.31 (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Both of these articles show a complete lack of understanding of Swedish law. Sweden prides itself with having some of the the most radical sex crime laws in the world. Arguing that the allegations are false because the British definition of rape is more narrow than the Swedish is a moot point, since the events took place in Sweden, under Swedish law.

And the assertion that Sweden will change the current laws to be able to convict Assange is just laughable. Swedish law does not allow someone to be convicted retroactively for acts commited before they were outlawed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.222.10 (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the crime in question differs significantly from the understanding of "rape" in all English-speaking countries is not "moot", since the rape allegation is being repeated endlessly in the media. Arguing that it's not a crime because it doesn't fit the British definition of rape, of course, is moot, per your argumentation. It is necessary to clarify just what the allegation is, however, since most people seeing the word rape will assume that it is, in fact, rape in their understanding. siafu (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
According to this web page, that might not classify as a reliable source, but describes very understandably and plausible what might have happened, one of the two possible "rape victims", --- ---, who allegedly was a victim the night from 13 to 14 August 2010, posted on 14 August 2010 at 14:00 a tweet (original is in Swedish) "Julian wants to go to a crayfish party, anyone have a couple of available seats tonight or tomorrow? #fb" and on 15 August 2010 at 2:00 "Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world's coolest smartest people, it's amazing! #fb". A reliable source, The New York Times states "According to accounts the women gave to the police and friends, they each had consensual sexual encounters with Mr. Assange that became nonconsensual. One woman said that Mr. Assange had ignored her appeals to stop after a condom broke. The other woman said that she and Mr. Assange had begun a sexual encounter using a condom, but that Mr. Assange did not comply with her appeals to stop when it was no longer in use. Mr. Assange has questioned the veracity of those accounts." Julian Assange ist wanted by Swedish Authorities currently for questioning, as the BBC states, not as an accused person. Now I see in this Wikipedia Article six times the word "rape" used for the accusations. As this is an English Language article, the word rape should be used, as what is understood as rape in the English language, and not what might be understood as rape in Swedish law. If Swedish law takes this term much wider, then the use of the word rape in this article should indicate that this word is used in this different meaning (e.g. writing "rape as defined in swedish law"). As this is an article on a living person we should make sure this article doesn't state that anything more is or was charged against Julian Assange as truly was by swedish authorities (currently it seems, nothing is charged, as he is just wanted for questioning, as mentioned in the BBC link). It seems to me, in most cases it would make sense to replace the word "rape" with "sex offence" in this article. --Orangwiki (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
And this Link to Wikinews should in my view be deleted immediately from this article as it is wrong "Wikinews has related news: Interpol orders arrest of Wikileaks founder to face rape charges". There is no interpol arrest order, but only a red notice, so London police if he should be there will definitely not arrest him because of a red notice. He is not facing rape charges but wanted for questioning, see my writing above. --Orangwiki (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Along those lines I would like to see the condom use clarification made following the "not constitute what any advanced legal system considers to be rape" sentence in the original article for clarification. The word "rape" in this context is confusing as both women confirm that the sex acts were consensual. NYT (link above) has a bit and also Newsweek —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.229.72 (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

London police or better said Scotland yard already made it clear for now that they won't arrest him even so knowing about his whereabouts). Give me a sec. to pull up the link.TMCk (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh well, CNN changed their story from "according to Scotland Yard" to "... a British newspaper Thursday that said police are "fully aware of where he is staying."[21]. Will check a German RS again where I saw it first.TMCk (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
CNN must have taken it off w/o comment. This here is yet the closest I can find where the following part is interesting:"Swedish police said Thursday they would issue a new international warrant for Assange on suspicion of "rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion" to replace one that could not be applied because of a procedural error." which explaines why they didn't arrest him yet [22].TMCk (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Add on. This AFP article reveals the sources (The Times and the Independent) for my comment which I had initially based on CNN:The Times and the Independent quoted British police sources as saying that Assange had supplied Scotland Yard with his contact details when he arrived in the country in October. They have his telephone number and know where he is staying, the police sources said.".TMCk (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
It seems that some people play with words: The persons concerned are wanted by national jurisdictions (or the International Criminal Tribunals, where appropriate) and Interpol's role is to assist the national police forces in identifying or locating those persons with a view to their arrest and extradition. These red notices allow the warrant to be circulated worldwide with the request that the wanted person be arrested with a view to extradition.. A Red notice is not an arrest warrant because it is based on an arrest warrant. Just go to the Interpol web site rather than invent. Hervegirod (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Just to keep any interpretation out of the loop here, the following is exacly what Interpol says about "Red Notice": "Red Notice - To seek the provisional arrest of a wanted person with a view to extradition based on an arrest warrant or court decision." [23].TMCk (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe that Mr Assange has not been indicted or even charged or even an official complaint. Maybe this is not correct. If there has been none of the above then there seems to be, even under Swedish law, no action to be taken by anyone. The original prosecutor walked away from the whole deal some time ago. The current interest in an old matter seems to rise and fall with USA displeasure. N'cest pas? Has --- --- lodged any official complaint - any source, when if at all?Is there a warrant without the above?159.105.81.31 (talk) 18:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

NewsWeek & The Guardian : According to Newsweek magazine, Claes Borgstrom is a partner within the Stockholm law firm Borgstrom and Bostrom, who is representing two women who said they had "Consensual but unprotected" sexual relationships with Julian Assange. Claes Borgstrom's allegations triggered a sexual-misconduct investigation of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. These allegations led to the issuance, thereafter subsequent rapid cancellation of the warrant on a rape charge, and finally to a parallel investigation into alleged “molestation." In this context, the The Guardian reported that : "neither of the two women had originally wanted the case prosecuted; that Ms W had wanted to report the alleged rape to police without their pursuing it, and that Ms A had gone with her to give her moral support and then become embroiled with the police, who had insisted on passing a report to prosecutors". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.108.181.199 (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Swedish blogger Göran Rudling on proposed rape-victim --- ---'s destruction of proof, from September 30, 2010, http://rixstep.com/1/20101001,01.shtml

"When --- --- files a police complaint against Julian Assange on 20 August these tweets (--- ---, who allegedly was a victim the night from 13 to 14 August 2010, posted on 14 August 2010 at 14:00 a tweet -original is in Swedish- "Julian wants to go to a crayfish party, anyone have a couple of available seats tonight or tomorrow? #fb" and on 15 August 2010 at 2:00 "Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world's coolest smartest people, it's amazing! #fb") are removed. Why? As far as I can tell, it's not common for victims of crime to delete blogs, clean up their cellphones, and try to get witnesses to attest to things that aren't true. Why is it so important to remove these particular tweets?"
"If you know that the 'reported molestation' takes place on the night towards 14 August, then it all becomes easier to understand. The tweets actually indicate that --- --- really liked Julian and that there had been no molestation 24 hours earlier. You can't divine in the tweets that --- --- thinks Julian has a 'warped view of womanhood and can't take no for an answer'. The tweets are more an attempt by --- --- to shine in the brilliance of Julian Assange. Why else would she publish them on the Internet? The tweets don't match Anna's story given to the police on 20 August. So she simply deletes them."
"In the beginning of September, I note that --- --- has two identical 'miniblogs' - one at Twitter and the other at Bloggy.se. It looks as if --- ---'s tweets are posted to both blogs at the same time. The tweets that are deleted from Twitter are still visible at --- ---.bloggy.se. ---missed the fact that she has to delete on each and every blog. Bad luck."
"To see if --- --- is really trying to hide her Twitter tweets, I post a comment to Sara Gunnerud's article 'WikiLeaks Heroes Can Also Do Stupid Things'. The article is published at the Rebella blog, a social democratic feminist blog where --- --- contributes and runs the website. In my comment I mention the deleted Twitter tweets. After five days, on 13 September, my comment is reviewed and removed directly. I then post a new comment where I mention that one can read the deleted Tweets at --- ---.bloggy.se. My comment is removed directly. A few hours later the entire Bloggy.se site is taken offline. When Bloggy.se reopens at 04:00 in the morning of 14 September, the tweets deleted from Twitter are also deleted from --- ---.bloggy.se."
"But it's not as easy to remove things from the Internet as --- --- thinks. Google takes snapshots of how web pages look - so called caches. If you search for the cached page for --- ---.bloggy.se you can see what it looked like on 19 August. (If the cache disappears, go to http://www.samtycke.nu/doc/--- ---_cache19aug.htm.) Then you can compare the page with how --- ---.bloggy.se and twitter.com/--- ---look."
"As we can see, --- --- is doing all she can to hide her tweets. Tweets that indicate Julian Assange is actually innocent of at least the charge of 'molestation' that he's been accused of. It looks like --- --- is doing all she can to get Julian Assange convicted. By deleting and denying acquitting circumstances, she's perhaps making herself guilty of false accusation" [1] Parrotistic (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Interview with TIME magazine

Assange gave a lengthy and very revealing (with respect to his views, opinions and philosophy regarding what he is doing) interview to TIME magazine earlier yesterday. That would also be valuable material to appropriately enhance the quality of several related sections in our Wiki article on him:

I hope someone with access / permissions to edit this article makes use of the above referenced links to improve the quality of this article accordingly. Thanks.

Interview with Assange attorney

Another source:

This should put the whole fugitive discussion to sleep:

"Now, he obviously has had to travel for work and had meetings to attend. And in order to leave Sweden, he sought the specific permission of the prosecutor to leave, on the grounds that there was an outstanding investigation, and she gave that permission. So he left Sweden lawfully and without objection by the prosecuting authorities."

— Assange’s attorney in London, Jennifer Robinson, http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/2/attorney_confirms_wikileaks_founder_julian_assange

Nymf hideliho! 23:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Founder

There are conflicting reports on whether Assange founded Wikileaks, even from Assange himself. The article currently quotes him saying "I don't call myself a founder", but it seems that within internal correspondence he does: "I am the heart and soul of this organization, its founder, philosopher, spokesperson, original coder, organizer, financier and all the rest." I think it's important we resolve these discrepancies as best we can, or at least provide an account of them. I'm interested in other editors' input. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think he was trying to make a statement when he said, "I don't call myself a founder," as opposed to being a literal meaning. There must be a word for what I mean for this, but it is escaping me at the moment. I mean, under Computer programming and university studies it says he registered leaks.org way back in 1999 under similar intentions as wikileaks, but never did anything with it. I also think that if you read the quotes you cited in context a similar impression is given, but that may just be me. 74.83.33.194 (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

current location

http://current.com/news/92836079_british-police-know-assange-s-location-await-arrest-orders-report.htm

just gonna leave this here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.71.120.121 (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Assange's Hollywood-style insurance policy

Here's some breaking news: [24]. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 17:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks but that isn't breaking news, see WikiLeaks#Insurance_file. SmartSE (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Line edits

Under the heading Release of American diplomatic cables

Reads: 'On 28 November 2010, WikiLeaks began releasing more than 251,000 American diplomatic cables, mostly unclassified but including many labelled "classified" or "secret".'

The word "classified" should read "confidential". "Classified" covers all possible classifications, and to date, the highest classification released in this set of cables has been "SECRET/NOFORN". My apologies if the placement or format of this comment is not up to specs. It might be better to list the specific classifications as they are listed on Wikileaks itself or its mirrors?

At present these include: CONFIDENTIAL, CONFIDENTIAL/NOFORN, SECRET, SECRET/NOFORN, and (possibly an error on Wikileaks' part) UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY with a nonsensical/typo error hovertext of "confidential//noforn". I leave it to the eds. to decide whether that is overkill, or whether the comment ought to have a link to any article that discusses US classification conventions.

Ebbixx (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

some news

Probably should be something about swiss bank account closure and plan to meet police tomorrow(?).[25][26]John Z (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Mentor to Canada's Prime Minister calls for Assange's assassination

There is an important piece of information missing from the Reaction section of the Assange article. It is very recent and indicative of a recent pushback by Assange.

Tom Flanagan, former principal adviser and mentor to Canadian Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper has called for Assange's assassination on Canadian television. Flanagan, an American, is one of several of Harper's inner circle who are members of the US Republican Party; a first in Canadian politics. Calgary City Police are now investigating Flanagan's comments to consider whether to press charges based on Assange's complaints. 70.26.75.229 (talk) 06:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Information regarding the location of this person should be given to Interpol.

The warning to report to Interpol which is not a real institution by any means seems rather inapropriate for wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockman200 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Wanted "for sex crimes"

It is important to remember that Assange is wanted "for questioning on suspicion of sex crimes" and very different to saying just that he is wanted "for sex crimes", which is vague and could imply he has actually been charged with something, which he has not.. The interpol notice just says "sex crimes"; it is not written in full sentence form because it is a notice. As a primary source, we need to rely on secondary sources for its accurate interpretation, and from the many reliable secondary sources in the article it is clear that he is wanted only for questioning. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Even the primary source (Interpol) states besides other about red notices (with a bold red warning label):"The person should be considered innocent until proven guilty. We shouldn't do different. This is a BLP and rules apply no matter if some like it or not.TMCk (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that the rape charge that is being issued in Sweden is different to what we know as a rape charge in America, Australia, England etc. CONSENSUAL SEX is considered RAPE if a condom is NOT used. These are the circumstances surrounding Julians current arrest warrant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.72.217 (talk) 10:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

then how do they get more swedes? 98.206.155.53 (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Great googly moogly! Can you back this up with RS's? - Amog | Talk • contribs 08:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
There is no such legislation. 202.124.72.217 is incorrect. -xwingsx- (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The whole deal with the "case" is that he supposedly broke the condom purposefully. It's what spurred the women to go to the police in the first place, as they thought that he might have had an STD. There are plenty of sources for this, such as [27], [28], etc. Nymf hideliho! 04:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Too much detail in sex crime reports

I think the current reporting of the sex crime case is too long and detailed. As often happens with current events new developments have just been added after one an other, creating a very long section. The length of this section is bordering on undue weight in my view. We should try to summarize the events instead of having a detailed description and comments on each event.

I also think the reporting is too detailed, bordering on crude. Saying that there are "reports" of a broken condom is very unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a gossip column. The reports about the condoms seem to always be of a second hand nature. We should try too stick to the major developments until there are more detailed reports by better sources. 85.225.222.10 (talk) 10:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I kind of agree with you, but it is a complex issue and I can't really see how it can be fully covered with all the necessary details in fewer words. The condom mention should be moved from the lead, since it isn't mentioned in the larger section and should be worded differently, which I will try to do later. The Daily Mail report says the information came from "a police source" which isn't ideal, but it has also been reported elsewhere. It's difficult to say whether this is "gossip" and should be removed or whether it is providing an alternative POV to him being labelled a rapist by other sources. Overall, I personally don't think WP:UNDUE applies, since this topic has evidently been reported so widely, because of this it is right for the article to reflect that, whether the allegations are accurate or not. SmartSE (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
There's a big difference between forcible rape, and consensual sex in which a condom breaks, precipitating the supposed offense. "Sex crime" is a loaded term which would be consistent with archaic and conservative, traditional attitudes about sex that seem to be present here and also this has already been worked out in a prior process in this article It's just a simple biological function that mature intellectually developed adults (and children with exceptional parents) can be expected to be able to deal with. Wikipedia policy in not catering to the sensibility of individuals who take offense at the description of such normal functions are fairly well established. In this case, it is highly germane to the facts of the article. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the condom bit is important as well considering it gives context to the nature of the charges. There are many associations to the definition of rape, and I think it puts the Swedish definition in context to help clarify what he is being charged with doing. 74.83.33.194 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC).
Agreed, the detail is necessary to prevent an interpretation that the crime was more serious than alleged. 156.98.129.1 (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
is there a source? It seems people are going to great length to make it seem he is practically innocent. Assange himself has not put forward this defense. This is not at the trial stage yet. Right now the story is more about him being a fugitive, than him being guilty. we are wikipedia editors not a grand jury. It is enough to say that he has only been charged, because he is not considered guilty of either a greater or lesser crime. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I dont believe it is up to us to ensure people interpret the charges in a certain way. So long as we accurately cover what reliable sources are reporting. So far the only claims that it was anything less than rape have come from his lawyers, but I believe this should have limited covereage here. Every defense lawyer will always claim their client is innocent (whether true or not) so I dont believe the statements should be included as a reliable source. A live that Stephens disputes the charge is fine, but currently quotes from stephens pepper the section almost taking over and giving the section a defense argument feel. Definately not balanced. 207.216.253.134 (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur that it is not up to us to ensure people interpret the charges in a certain way. Rather it is our responsibility to provide relevant facts in a neutral manner. Here’s what we know for a fact:
1) that Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny filed an arrest warrant for questioning in connection with allegations of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion after Assange was involved with two different women in Sweden in mid-August of this year,
2) that Assange was arrested in Britain and denied bail,
3) that in that court, “Gemma Lindfield, for the Swedish authorities, told (City of Westminster magistrates court) Assange was wanted in connection with four allegations.
She said the first complainant, Miss A, said she was victim of ‘unlawful coercion’ on the night of 14 August in Stockholm. The court heard Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.
The second charge alleged Assange ‘sexually molested’ Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her "express wish" one should be used.
The third charge claimed Assange ‘deliberately molested’ Miss A on 18 August 'in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity'.
The fourth charge accused Assange of having sex with a second woman, Miss W, on 17 August without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home.” [29]
4) that Assange and his attorneys are strongly denying the charges/allegations and are going to fight extradition.
There has been a lot reported beyond the above that seems to be of the second- and third-hand variety. The section in the article should basically reflect just the above four items and not much more, save for a little bit of the background and one or two of the more applicable quotes from the involved individuals. Also, I concur with SmartSE that the condom information should be moved from the lede to the body of the article. The lede should simply state that he was wanted, arrested, denies the allegations and is fighting extradition, appropriately worded, of course. Hammersbach (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the Daily Mail article from the lead and reworded it accordingly per Hammersbach's suggestion. On second thoughts I realised that the DM article is really not suitable for a BLP and now that we official details of the allegations, these can be included in the relevant section. One thing I'm unsure with is whether he has been charged with anything or not, his lawyer said on channel 4 news earlier that he is still only wanted for questioning, but apparently EAWs can't be issued without charges... The Guardian reported yesterday or today that this is the case as well. SmartSE (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I can't decide what the best course of action is regarding whether we should include what the charges are or not, so I've dropped at note at WP:BLPN to get some advice. SmartSE (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: I've removed the name of the 'second woman' from the article - the inclusion violated BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

He has not been charged with anything at all, he is wanted for questioning only. Off2riorob (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Wanted?

This page is about a current person wanted by Interpol[11]. Information regarding the location of this person should be given to Interpol.

Hey, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, remember? not a message board. --BlackKnight (talk) 07:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

And he turned himself voluntarily in as soon as the local authorities received and processed a proper warrant [30]. As expected. I guess all the people who constantly wanted to call him a fugitive in the article can give it up now. Gigs (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Curent event

Shouldn't a current event banner/warning be added to the top? --24.94.251.190 (talk) 11:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm neutral on the idea. On the one hand it does serve to document a current event in many ways. On the other hand, this is his biography and should be written in a more or less timeless fashion, and not be overly driven by current events. Gigs (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
{{Current}} should only be used when hundreds of people are editing an article each day, rather than to notify that it is related to current events. This isn't the case at the moment and so I don't think it should be added. (I removed it a couple of days ago by the way). SmartSE (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


concomitantly

Concomitantly? Concomitantly! Is this fancy word really necessary? Is some preparing for his junior year SAT test and concomitantly writing wiki articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.67.84.104 (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I've changed it to "at the same time". Thanks for pointing it out. SmartSE (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Smear campaign

The article should mention that the allegations are nothing more than a smear campaign. --J4\/4 <talk> 15:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Proof? You obviously must have read all the sworn statements by the (allegedly) raped women? Jacina (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The "victims" have committed perjury. --J4\/4 <talk> 16:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
You need to find sources, and say "XX sources say this is a 'smear campaign' WhisperToMe (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The article already says "Assange said "the charges are without basis and their issue at this moment is deeply disturbing"; his supporters say he is the victim of a character assassination and smear campaign". To say it is "nothing more than a smear campaign" is something extra, but I don't think you'll find any reliable sources saying that. SmartSE (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Australian Prime Minister's name misspelled

Julia Gillard's name was misspelled as 'Julia Goddard' under the section 'Release of United States diplomatic cables'.

--175.137.209.28 (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out, User:Nymf has fixed it. (Think it was my mistake earlier!) SmartSE (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Source

Contains background on the origin of the rape charges --JN466 01:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"Warrant for alleged sex offenses"

The warrant is not for alleged sex offenses. The warrant is for [arrest on charges of] sex offenses. The fact of the allegation is not in dispute and, indeed, is implied by the existence of a warrant. 98.169.195.207 (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

American politicians threatening Assange with execution?

The article presently quotes Assange's attorney, Mark Stephens, as saying that that Assange would fight attempts to take him to Sweden over the allegations due to the possibility that it could lead to the Swedish handing him over to the US, where politicians have called for him to be executed. Although the passage seems to reflect Stephens' words accurately, it is misleading for two reasons. First of all, the wording is poor, since it is ambiguous whether the last part about politicians calling for Assange's execution is a fact added by an editor or part of the Stephens quote. It turns out that it is the latter, but it is still misleading, since it appears to be factually incorrect. Stephens' quote comes on the heels of a number of former American politicians, pundits, and political operatives calling for the execution of the original leaker (presumably Manning), and some calling for Assange's prosecution, but there doesn't seem to be any reliable source that quotes an American politician as calling for Assange's execution. The wording of this passage should be cleared up because it presents opinion as potential fact and the opinion seems to be wrong anyway. Ketone16 (talk) 05:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ought to mention the controversy...

If the article is going to reference a connection to a "controversial New Age group", it ought to at least mention the controversy, otherwise it's an impediment rather than a help. Makes me wonder how a New Age group can be controversial. Do they do bad things on stage? Take unpopular political positions? etc... It's distracting.

99.137.251.249 (talk) 06:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Jonny Quick

Defining Moment

In article integrity. So far our articles are about the only neutral reports (with a large audience) on this organization and its people. The "you're either with us or against us" threat, from both points of view, has expanded its global duress to media reporting in a frighteningly rapid way. I hope this and related articles can withstand the pov pressure which is likely going to get much worse, from both directions. So far, so great. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Including Accusers Names

[Trolling and WP:BLP violations removed - Robofish (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC) ]
If the reliable sources use the names, I don't see where "privacy" applies. But if they don't, then it's original research and the alleged info can't be used. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
There's more than that: Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Putting an individual name just because a source mentioned them is not Wikipedia policy, AFAIK. Now, if (just to take an example), the individual does a press conference, or an interview in a newspaper about the subject, it changes because it appear that he/she intentionally disseminated his/her case. Which is not the case in the Assange article.Hervegirod (talk)
This thread does not cohere. If you have a specific recommendation for this article it may be best to break it out into a more focused and separate thread. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I may have recommendations for this article, but this thread was about the disclosure of an individual in the talk page which was breaching Wikipedia:LIVING#Privacy_of_names. It had nothing to do with the article itself. Hervegirod (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Adjusted your indentation. Mr.Grantevans2 started this thread. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Title given for this topic. There does appear to be many Reliable Sources which have named the accusers and even published photos of them, not in any mean-spirited way. There may be valid reasons, as outlined above, for not including the names or ages of the accusers in this BLP; however, I will only say that up until 2 days ago I had only browsed major USA and Canadian media articles and TV reports about the sex issue and I had formed a vague impression in my mind of Assange manipulating young if not underaged girls into something akin to date rape. Many or most Editors would maybe not form such an impression on such a superficial exposure to the story, but perhaps many of our Readers might? Maybe we could include the ages and not the names? Pardon me if their ages are in the BLP, I could not find them as yet. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Please don't consider my answer to be partial against Assange, but a title like "APPARENTLY having consensual sex in Sweden without a condom is punishable by a term of imprisonment of a minimum of two years for Rape" is absolutely not neutral IMO, therefore invalidating the source AFAIK. Furthermore, that valid sources have disclosed the name does not mean that we should. As for the age, I don't know, but I suppose that just mentioning them without the names is OK with the BLP. Hervegirod (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I must agree with you. There is not much use in adding any personal details about the accusers at this point in time when the RS reports on the 2 sexual encounters are so convoluted and ambiguous. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Those who willingly hide the identities of accusers while blithely naming the accused are enemies of freedom, of being innocent until proven guilty, and lastly are misandrists who will reap what they sow.Wondergay (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I have now removed 20 something references to alleged names of the victims from this talk page. BLP applies even in talk pages. "Outing" the women in a case like this clearly is against WP:BLPNAME. Much of the speculation about the women on this page has been in violation of both WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. Remember, it is not for us to judge who is guilty in this case, just stick to reporting the actual, verifiable events, not what some blogger thinks might have happened.85.225.222.10 (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with that. Hervegirod (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Miami Herald today has an extensive article about one of the Accusers' political activities. It's now starting to feel to me like we're trying to keep a lid on something. So I'll try to include some of the Herald's content. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The BLP policy prevents early publication of names of crime victims based on rumors, obscure blogs, or original research, but does not require a permanent blanking of such information after it has been widely reported in reliable news sources. Wikipedia only looks silly when it tries to "unring the bell" by citing WP:BLP and withholding an accuser's name after it is widely reported in newspapers and widely followed news sources, such as the Miami Herald article cited above, the Herald Sun, and The Raw Story newsblog [31] (US Alexa ranking 6201 indicating a widely viewed site. The only question is how widespread the reporting of the names has to be to cross the threshold. Certainly if it reaches the point that the victims, with names published, are giving interviews and holding press conferences, the threshold is crossed, but I haven't seen that development (yet). Edison (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Assange Chinese rather than French Origins

I have noticed that many newscasters mispronounce Julian's name in a French manner i.e. Assange as in Blancmange, his name is in fact Chinese in origin- all Australian/New Zealand Assanges originate with a Chinese immigrant to Queensland in the 1870s, George Ah Sang, Ah simply meant Mr but this was merged into one name, more information can be found at Rootsweb below: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/genanz/2008-07/1215931599 .

How does he say it? He may go by that now, which is fairly typical of immigrant families. My families names were completely anglicized when we moved here and are nothing like their original names. 74.83.33.194 (talk) 03:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I believe the correct pronunciation is Ass-arnge with a light 'n', with the last syllable rhyming with barn rather than blancmange as I think the head of the article indicates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LPostit (talk • contribs) 00:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

In custody and charges

[32] He is in UK custody now. Notice when the BBC discusses a rape case they don't mention the alleged victims name nor their political and religious affiliations. also, the charges have been made public. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting point. In a British court today, Gemma Lindfield, representing Swedish authorities referred to the alleged victims at “Miss A” and “Miss W”. We now have editors who feel that their names (or at least one of them) should be listed in the article. The question is, should their names and other details be listed or is this a BLP issue? Hammersbach (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Per WP:BLP policy, there is no valid reason at this point to disclose their names, regardless of what certain newspapers could have done. This policy is there for a reason. Hervegirod (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
herve: I think the main question in addressing whether they should be named or not is... are they making public statements about the case and willingly disclosing their names. If the newspapers are naming them, but there is no evidence that they are openly disclosing their names or wanting their names to be publicly known, then they shouldn't be named on Wikipedia. It's like with the Star Wars Kid. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree, as this article discusses, the women are under attack all over the internet and we should not be part of it. If we need to distinguish between them, then “Miss A” and “Miss W” would be the way to do so, but I don't think we need to so it's pretty irrelevant. SmartSE (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
we can find nowhere informations on these two women making public statements about this situation, so their anonymity should be preserved here. Hervegirod (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think adding the women's names adds any encyclopedic value at this point. --JN466 01:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with keeping the names out, for now. That situation could easily change depending on how the coverage shapes up in the future though. Gigs (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I've just had to remove the (dubiously sourced) alleged victim's names from the article (as inserted for the second time here), as a breach of WP:BLP. can people keep an eye on this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Miami Herald today used one name in such a matter of fact way that I think "the horses have left the barn" on holding back at least this one person's name. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

OMG he once took a science class

The lead currently proclaims that he was a math and physics student. The cited source says that he "enrolled in a mathematics and physics course at Melbourne University." Big fffffffffffffing deal. This article is full of bloat that needs to be removed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} Gigs (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I have just made the lead a bit more concise.[33] I don't have time right now to tackle the rest of the article, but I urge people to cut, slash, and delete the bloat.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't know why you would think that the fact that he has won 3 journalism awards is "bloat"? Nymf hideliho! 04:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
It was misleading. Neither Amnesty International nor Sam Adams Associates are journalistic organizations. If it was a Pulitzer, that would be another thing. The awards are adequately described in the body of the article, I think.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. In biography articles, it is a standard convention to mention awards received by the subject in the lead section and to briefly describe aspects of their early life and education. Viriditas (talk) 07:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
So, the fact that he once took one crummy science class during his early life needs to be in the lead? The source didn't even say that he sought a degree ( or even a minor) in math or physics.
As for awards, all three are in the infobox, and described in detail in a section of the article. Do we really need them a third time, in the lead? The nature of the awards matters. They are not fairly described as journalism awards, which is what the lead said. I once got an archery award at summer camp, but I doubt it will go in my lead if ever Wikiprdia honors me with an article. The awards Assange got are more notable than that, but they're not Pulitzers or anything close.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

No, but if a major organisation gave you an award for archery, and you were notable as an archer, then it would belong in the lead. SmartSE (talk) 13:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

If it was a bowling organization that gave the archery award, it would not go in the lead. Also, as I recall, the main archery organization in the US supplied the awards and certificates to summer camps. It was a shiny medal with a ribbon.
More generally, this article has a whole subsection devoted to the question of whether he's a journalist or not. Calling these 3 awards "journalism awards" in the lead struck me as POV-pushing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree; "awards for his work with Wikileaks" perhaps? They are awards (two at least, anyway) from very notable orgaisations so it is a bit hard to see an argument for them not being a significant part of his biography. --Errant (chat!) 13:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'll work the word "award" back in somehow. Gimme a minute, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, it now says: "Assange founded the controversial WikiLeaks website in 2006 and serves on its advisory board. In this award-winning capacity, he has been involved in...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
If I had a criticism it would be that it sounds like his CV :P I might have just put in another sentence. But it doesn't matter too much. The lead looks a lot better BTW, good work. --Errant (chat!) 14:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

the talk page is better than the article!

I have gotten a lot of great information from the talk page--actually much more and better information is on here. Maybe we should put some sort of link on the main page to the talk page so if people want the good stuff they know where to look! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.149.112.145 (talk) 06:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Err, there already is a link from the main page to here, how else did you arrive here? SmartSE (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Swedish women did not want him charged

This news website (the National Post) says that the two women just wanted to contact him to ask him to do some STD tests but he had turned off his cellphone to avoid being tracked by authorities. [34]

Please update the article with this important, relevant information. --70.76.68.118 (talk) 09:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Article seriously violates WP:BLP

I'm just wondering if anybody else thinks this article violates WP:BLP. This article and this talk page really push the limits in the accusation department. The "R" word is repeated over and over in the article and on this talk page and "consensual" is barely mentioned. The issue has been raised at the BLP noticeboard for those that are interested. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 10:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been encouraged to come back to this page... which I do tentatively, but with hope. I think it is reasonable, now, to propose a rework of the Sweden section. It has grown substantially over the last months and is becoming a large part of his biograhpy - which is undue. Certainly it is fine to suffer some recentism, but over time we should look to aggressively reduce this to the relevant neutral details. The main issue is that the section reads like a narrative from early this year up to now. I think substantial work could be undertaken to write a proper entry for the article - perhaps here on the talk page first? --Errant (chat!) 12:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree - that section is somewhat internally repetitive and over-long. A casual reader won't make it through it all - we need to be more succinct. There's no harm in having breaking story snippets but they need subsequent rewrites to ensure it doesn't become a dog's breakfast of incoherent snippets. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
As I've said a BLPN, I'm happy to try and help reduce the length of this section to make it more succinct. Would it be best to copy the section to a sandbox and work on it there? SmartSE (talk) 12:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Hack at it with an axe, it'll get expanded with rubbish again soon enough - David Gerard (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Either way is fine Smartse. I never use sandboxes, but then again I'm an astoundingly good editor.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree with David Gerard and Anythingyouwant. --JN466 17:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I think there might be an argument for having a standalone article about the rape allegation. What has to be clear each time the word "rape" is used in this BLP or elsewhere is that this refers to consensual sex without a condom, according to both Assange and the women involved, who were friendly with him before and after their sexual encounters, and who ostensibly went to the police for advice on how to get Assange to take an STD test one they had discovered he had slept with both of them, according to media reports. --JN466 16:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Assange's Accuser's Political Activity

Miami Herald today has an extensive article about one of the Accuser's political activities. It's now starting to feel to me like we're trying to keep a lid on something. So I'll try to include some of the Herald's content. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

ouch. No no no. That is a serious BLP issue; how is it in any way relevant? We do not deal in gutter press character assassinations like that. --Errant (chat!) 13:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I concur with Errant. At this juncture it would be highly inappropriate to include such information. Hammersbach (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
As do most people above as well as myself. SmartSE (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps if/when the rape case gets its own article - Amog | Talk • contribs 13:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
ahum alleged rape. SmartSE (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but what if it is actually true? 58.165.205.3 (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:TRUTH. SmartSE (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This is relevant because it shows that many impartial observers conclude that the decision to pursue this case is biased. --J4\/4 <talk> 20:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Names of the "victims"

Why were the "victims'" names removed? --J4\/4 <talk> 13:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Read our policy regarding living people and feel free to ask questions after that. SmartSE (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

BLP

Per WP:BLP (emphasis added):

Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I will add one of the names (--- ---) since its already widely disseminated and now The Raw Story reported she is connected to the CIA. That adds significant value to the section. The name of the other victim, should not be added.--Neo139 (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- - seems to be quite a public person and has her own blog and is tweeting away on twitter. She is a bit of a writer and I imagine before this is all over she will have her own wiki BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not entirely convinced her name needs to go in the article, and I think that allegations of CIA links sourced from a single website are dubious at least. Has the alleged link actually been reported elsewhere? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I have now once again removed the alleged names of the women in the case. Stating the names even on the talk page are a clear violation of WP:BLPNAME. Both women and their lawyer are currently living under police protection because of constant harassment from people who are against the case. Please use your best judgement in what you write. 85.225.222.10 (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
WP:BLPNAME says that it is preferrable to omit the names, but not that they automatically should. So please stop blanking until there is a consensus. Nymf hideliho! 17:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
It depends on how you define dubious. --- ---'s connections to the anti-Castro organizations are properly sourced to articles written by herself. Here is 2 articles published by --- ---, [35] and [36]. Here is the source of the article in the previous post by Neo139. "Professor Michael Seltzer points out that this periodical is the product of a well-financed anti-Castro organization in Sweden. He further notes that the group is connected with Union Liberal Cubana led by Carlos Alberto Montaner whose CIA ties were exposed here." There is more to it if you read the source provided above. Nymf hideliho! 17:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Nymf. Also, it is completely irrelevant to Wikipedia if the women and lawyers are living under police protection or not. A fact will not prevent Wikipedia to add other fact (See WP:NOTCENSORED). And it's not just a single webiste, The Raw Story is reliable source, and also there are other notable newspapers from other countries. You cited WP:BLPNAME, but in this case, the sources cited are not just naming her, but the article is about her, so this is enough weight for inclusion. And the recent news about her being linked to the CIA are notable by itself. --Neo139 (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
And now I once again removed the alleged names, from Nymf's comment. Please respect WP:BLPNAME, and do not add the info until there is consensus. 85.225.222.10 (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
BLP policy states that the assumption of privacy is strong. If in doubt we err on the side ofnot naming people. If there are sources in newspapers actually alleging direct links between the 'victim' and the CIA then perhaps they should be included, but at the moment, the link is just too tenuous - we do not make statements based on vague allegations. The inclusion of her name violates policy (which cannot be overriden by 'consensus'). The name, along with any linkage with the CIA needs to be removed until proper sourcing is provided. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'd just like to point out that the political affiliation or otherwise notable aspects of the woman is not relevant to this article. If that information exists and is reliably sourced then start a Bio on her. I can't help thinking that making such links in the article here is akin to "character assassination" --Errant (chat!) 17:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Agreed; this may change over the coming weeks, but at present I agree with Andy's interpretation of BLP. --JN466 17:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I really tire of wikilawyering control freaks who treat barely-consensus guidelines like absolute rules, and often without even understanding them. Even the text quoted above makes it pretty clear that the two accusers' names belong in this article...they are not peripheral family members, or loosely involved, low-lying persons...they are the central figures in his public life, right now. One of them, (--- ---), is actually rather high-profile, in Sweden: She's a PR person, has a blog, has translated a famous document that advocates "legal revenge" where a woman uses sex to harm some man who has offended her, and publicly claims to have been involved in anti-Castro operations with the CIA. This isn't some unknown niece whose name got mentioned in a People article because there's a snapshot of the BLP at her birthday party.
The question isn't whether her name "needs to go in the article", but whether it MUST be excluded. This is Wikipedia, not Censorpedia, and we are to be bold, and err on the side of inclusion, not silence information unless it can be proven absolutely necessary. Even the BLP guideline cannnot override this.--Kaz (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Quit the incvility, it looks silly. However; you have a point. It is probably reasonable to include their names - although not overly important. The further details you mention are irrelevant to this article. --Errant (chat!) 17:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree with much of the above. Kaz, BLP is not a guideline but a policy; probably our most important one. Do not break it and balance your boldness with the principle of doing no harm to real living people. If this woman is truly notable, why not write an article on her? --John (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Further to that, Including dubiously-sourced allegations of CIA links could risk legal problems. If and when mainstream media sources report this, it may merit inclusion, but Wikipedia editors shouldn't be trawling blogs etc to prove a point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Further still, in British court Swedish legal authorities are referring to the alleged victims as 'Miss A" and "Miss W". I would agree that until such time as the women identify themselves publically or their names are mentioned in court that BLP dictates that they not be mentioned in the article, or on the talk page. Hammersbach (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
It says that they preferrably shouldn't be mentioned, not that they can't. To the IP: I would prefer if you do not edit my comments. Nymf hideliho! 18:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
And since you've given no reason whatsoever why this 'preference' (actually policy) should be overriden, they shouldn't. Incidentally you'll find that people are fully entitled to remove breaches of BLP from talk pages. If you don't like it, stop breaching the policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
To @Errant. If some sourced information could change the interpretation of a notable topic, then the information should be added. In this case, she being linked to the CIA is the information. Not adding that would violate WP:NPOV and that's one of the WP:FIVEPILLARS. Of course only facts should be added, since the interpretation is not something to put in Wikipedia. But Wikipedia should provide all the relevant information to have an idea on the topic, so each person could make its own interpretation. To @John, on 'why we don't write an article about the woman'. When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified. (WP:SINGLEEVENT) So in this case, the event is the woman's accusation to Julian. We are covering the event, and thats is why the woman doesn't have article. Maybe in the future, she will have one. @Hammersbach, what you say about the name being intentionally concealed in the court case, that WP:BLPNAME says its preferable to omit it when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. This applies perfectly to the first victim, but clearly not to the second one (Miss A). --Neo139 (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Why does it apply to the first victim but not the second? Because she wrote a paper in school against the Castro regime? 99% of people in Sweden are against Castro, that does not make you a CIA agent. Her opinions on Cuba are definitly not relevant to an article on Julian Assange.85.225.222.10 (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
It applies only to Miss A because media is write articles about exclusively about her. This didn't happen with the other one. --Neo139 (talk) 00:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
The alleged 'links to the CIA' are tenuous and badly sourced. We don't include every vague rumour in articles, just because we think they may turn out later to be verifiable, rather than tabloid hype. Find proper mainstream sources that make claims about a direct link between the CIA and the alleged victim, and that suggest this has any relevance to the charges, and it can be included. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The woman miss A seems to me to be a public citable person and there is no reason not to name here, everyone else is. Perhaps we should create a separate article only about the court case and legal issues, these rape claims are getting undue weight and excessive coverage in his BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Further to that, as noted below, the charges do not seem to be 'rape' in any case. Perhaps someone can check that the current article reflects this. I'd do it myself, but the outside world calls... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
@Neo; utter rubbish, and the main reason BLP policy exists. There is no relevance demonstrated in her political ties or affiliation in this case. Including such information is purely designed to undermine her place in this; we are an encyclopaedia NOT the gutter press, always remember that. FWIW I agree with Rob, it is probably acceptable to name her now. However, am not sure about a separate article - it would solve the problem BUT we have no concrete end game to this and I feel it would be better to wait and see if a conviction is made. --Errant (chat!) 19:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
He allegedly didn't use a condom. Off2riorob (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
To Errant,apologies for not checking back on the discussion page before adding the sub-section, It took me awhile to do that edit and then I was away. Obviously I think the info about this Accuser should go in, I just googled her exact name coupled with wikileaks and got "About 24,600 results" and her name with cia and got "About 14,500 results". Sure, they are mostly not reliable sources but Raw Story,the Miami Herald and the major Australian newspapers and likely more are Reliable Sources. I think lots of Readers come here looking for real information as opposed to the spun and vacuous information they get elsewhere. I read a Reuters article this morning which several times referred to the Accusers as "young" women. She(Miss A)is 30 years old. My wife, who watches a lot of CNN, up until yesterday had the impression this was something about Assange being with 2 young girls at the same time; some kind of group sex that got out of hand. I myself had way off the mark impressions about what he was being accused of up until 2 or 3 days ago. My point is, I think the more Reliably Sourced and specific information we can include from all different angles, the better chance our Readers have to follow up themselves on what aspects of the article they find interesting. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to substantially trim all of this, and eliminate as much as I can that is speculative or covered by contradictory sources. In particular, the "rape" allegation is unproven, and sources are describing it as something other than rape. Some of the reliable sources are clearly wrong about this, particularly the early ones. Extraordinary claims (rape accusations against a public figure) require extraordinary sources, and a stale article by one major news source that is contradicted by a stale article by another major news source, both quoting unnamed sources or police investigators, just doesn't cut it. This recent Reuters article[37] casts a lot of doubt on things, and where that article or others like it contradicts earlier claims, I think we have to leave them both out until we get some more substantial sourcing in retrospect. BLP is a very serious concern here, as many people are searching and landing on this page to figure out what is all about. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I've chipped away at it. For BLP reasons the "rape" accusation should not be included without a disclaimer, and even there only in the context that this was the official charge. The two easiest things to trim to satisfy weight concerns are the self-serving official statements by lawyers and officials on both sides, and the blow by blow account of pre-trial procedural details, neither of which is biographically significant and neither of which are likely to survive in the final form of any article about this subject. The section is still way too long, but that's a start. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Nice work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, nice one Wikidemon. better, we should keep an eye on it and keep it close to policy as possible, with consideration to undue by section bloating. Off2riorob (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Can we include their ages to emphasise that it was in no way inappropriate age based relations? The comment above about someone thinking they were young girls would be removed if their ages were available to the world instead of being hidden along with their names. Ansell 02:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
The article refers to the alleged victims as 'women', and gives (possibly too many) details about the role one of them was playing at the time. I don't think anyone reading this could think that it suggested 'inappropriate age based relations'. If other media sources are being intentionally misleading, I'd say the issue should probably be taken up with them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Andy, I don't think there's much opposition to including the ages (31 and 26). Hervegirod agreed to it earlier also. I'll put them in but if you feel strongly about it, take them out until further discussion. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
No, this is probably ok, in that it doesn't actually identify anyone. As always, it is a judgement call. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

"sex crime" = sex without condom?

Breaking news points to this older article for background. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources. You are encouraged to integrate them into the article. Gregcaletta (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
We need more explicit and more reputable sources first. A new one: [38]


Tijfo098 (talk) 13:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
There's also this [39], which claims he continued to have sex after she requested to stop when the condom broke. That does sound more like a traditional rape situation, but so extremely hard to prove. Gigs (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


All these claims are being attributed to Stephens, no one else. As a defense lawyer his jobis to do anything within the law to get his client off (no pun intented). There shoudl be a single line about this claim, and little more from stephens in the article. Wikipedia is not a platform for his defense team to make arguments. 207.216.253.134 (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Also see [40]. In particular: The word "rape" was not part of the charges but "unlawful coercion" and Assange's alleged reluctance to use condoms was.

Now the same article does suggest that "rape" was one of the original things that the police went for, but it's not clear that this is one of the current charges?

Another point - surely whatever he's charged with is going to be in Swedish. And if we're translating it into English, since this is the English Wikipedia, we had better go by English definitions in order to describe Swedish law. So we should be careful before throwing around terms like "rape" - is it known whether the alleged victims say they consented, and do we have any sources for this? Mdwh (talk) 03:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it true that in the US and many other countries consent is not irrevocable? If a female agrees to have sex only if he uses a condom, and the male proceeds to penetrate her without using a condom, or removes the condom and continues intercourse over her objections, or continues after he knows the condom broke, over her objections, wouldn't that generally be considered to be rape? Granted, it would be a hard case to get a conviction in, or prosecutors in the US might be reluctant to bring charges, compared to a stranger jumping out of the bushes and raping her at knifepoint, because of the "He said/she said" nature of the facts in dispute. In general, the present US view is that "No" or "Stop" must be obeyed. Edison (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
There are two separate issues here. Continuing after someone says No is certainly rape. It's less clear about consent given under a condition - where someone consents, but says the consent is only given under a certain condition being true, which they later find out is not true. But it's not up to us to do original research on either the law, or definitions - if we know what thing he is alleged to have done, we can simply describe that, and then let the reader decide if it's "rape" or not. We could also mention which law he is charged under (which, as I say, is presumably in Swedish). Mdwh (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Sex without a condom does not constitute rape in Sweden. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101208/ap_on_re_eu/eu_wikileaks_rape_charges
"While unprotected sex cannot in itself be interpreted as rape in Sweden, sexual intercourse with a person who is asleep is considered nonconsensual."
I give more credence to AP than to some unknown Australian journalist.Wikieditorpro (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Definition of rape in English and outside of Sweden

Rape is defined in the English version of Wikipedia as "in criminal law, rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, by one person against another person without that person's consent". At no point did the two woman involved, A. and W., claim that their sexual intercourse with Assange was without their consent. W. claimed that they had consensual intercourse once but without a condom, although she had wanted a condom to be used or preferred. In English parlance that is not rape, and anyone, in particular any newspaper, that translates whatever the Swedes call it, as rape is dishonest or foolish. Don't use "rape" in the Wiki article, not even as in "he was accused of rape" or "cleared of rape". Use sexual assault, or sexual offense, or sexual crime, or sexual molestation or whatever, but not rape. If you want to write an encyclopedia article, that is.KathaLu (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

How Wikipedia defines rape is irrelevant: any charges Assange faces will come under Swedish law. If the Wikipedia article assumes that the laws regarding sexual offences are the same worldwide, it clearly needs correcting. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
No, this is a common problem, it is a question of how to translate words and meaning from one language to another, and the newspapers often get it wrong when they report about non English speaking countries, and the native speakers from that country get it also wrong when they speak in English to reporters. It is particular tricky when you translate legal concepts. Wiki editors should get it right. I realize that most of them don't speak Swedish and have to copy from English speaking newspapers but they should at least be very careful what they pick. Here is how the British Guardian reported the case before the UK court:
"Gemma Lindfield, for the Swedish authorities, told the court Assange was wanted in connection with four allegations. She said the first complainant, Miss A, said she was victim of "unlawful coercion" on the night of 14 August in Stockholm. The court heard Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner. The second charge alleged Assange "sexually molested" Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her "express wish" one should be used. The third charge claimed Assange "deliberately molested" Miss A on 18 August "in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity". The fourth charge accused Assange of having sex with a second woman, Miss W, on 17 August without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home." KathaLu (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
This source describes the events very differently from how Assange lawyers describe it. We don't know at this stage if it was rape or not. All we know for a fact right now is that there are contrasting opinions about what happened. The prosecutors are using the word rape, the defence is saying it wasn't. Until we know more, it's better to stick to the known facts.85.225.222.10 (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Gemma Lindfield is not Assange's lawyer, she is the representative for the Swedish authorities. She is a UK lawyer who specializes in extradition cases, btw. And she did not use the word rape before the UK court, which is what it is all about. The actual words used in English before an English court. Not some interview, or catchy headline, or statement from the Prosecution in a Swedish newspaper, which was then translated by a hurried low level press agency translator from Swedish into English and picked up by the English speaking press and multiplied over and over again. What is translated from Swedish into English as "rape" in this case should be better rendered as "violation of sexual integrity" because the concept "violation of sexual integrity" is much larger in Swedish law and language than the concept of "rape" in English and in Anglo-saxon countries. It is a disservice to the reader to use "rape" in this case.KathaLu (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The key allegation is the fourth one. Having sex with someone who is sleeping can in many cases be considered rape in Sweden, and in other countries. The prosecution used the word rape in the arrest warrant. I think if we are going to state that this is not a rape in other countries we need some reputable sources (i.e. legal experts, not random journalists) that are not connected to Assange. 85.225.222.10 (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
BTW, I am somewhat puzzled that you say "This source describes the events very differently from how Assange lawyers describe it." The allegations by Gemma Lindfield, for the prosecution, before the UK court, which I quoted above, are taken from the same source. Yes, the reporter and the headline writer used "rape" but the Prosecution did not. Proves my point. Mindless writers who don't know what they are writing about. And I even like the Guardian.KathaLu (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The Guardian at least managed to get the facts right about the Judge having rejected a claim that Assange should be denied bail on the basis that he was in personal danger if he remained at liberty; this was widely reported on the BBC and other media as one of the reasons for him being denied bail. Given the current confusions in many parts of the media, we should probably be cautious before accepting single reports on anything in this article currently, no matter how normally trustworthy the source. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
That reason for bail refusal isn't in the article, were are the cites to support - for his own safety? Off2riorob (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
James, thanks for mentioning that the Judge rejected that claim. I, too, had read in various sources that Assange's personal safety was a reason for the court to deny bail and I thought that was a truly odd way of reasoning for a UK judge, putting people who are not convicted of a crime into jail for their safety. What are reporters and editors thinking when they publish or regurgitate such stuff? Not much I guess.KathaLu (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, on the UN website, there is an English version of the Swedish Penal Code, published by the Swedish Ministry of Justice but called "unofficial", which is common usage because they do this "as a service" but they take "no legal responsibility for the translation or for any consequences arising from its use". Interesting to read what is considered a "sexual crime" in Sweden and when it is called rape. Hint: Do not only look at Chapter 6 Sections 1 and 2 which are relevant for the Assange case but also at Section 11. So be careful when you have sex in Sweden! KathaLu (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
It may not be that clear cut. According to The Guardian (here), "The fourth charge accused Assange of having sex with a second woman, Miss W, on 17 August without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home". Without making any statement about it's veracity, I'd suggest this might well be seen as 'rape' in most jurisdictions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Andy, correct. I still plead for using a more general term than rape in the Wiki article, because rape was apparently not used by the legal representative of the Swedish Prosecutor and a more general term would convey the actual allegations more acurately to the English speaking reader. As an aside, my impression is that the issue is more "without a condom" than (helpless and) "asleep". KathaLu (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Its clearly not rape as we know it Captain, this should be made as clear as possible through citations that report that fact. Off2riorob (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd say that having sex with someone while they were asleep might well be construed as rape - it can hardly be consensual. Frankly though, it isn't our job to pick through the finer points of law, just report the details as they are (a) found in reliable sources, and (b) according to policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Ow...I was asleep...yea yea....Accusations, I have had a detailed read of these claims and I won't post them here but, rape as we know it .... rape is something else, lets see how it pans out, I will eat my hat if ... I'm sure you can fill in the rest. Off2riorob (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

note: I removed the claim that the charge was "rape". While there are sources that suggest this, more complete reporting of the charges (such as here[41]) indicate that there were no specific rape charges, although there is a charge of "unlawful coercion". aprock (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

At what point in the sexual activity did she wake up, and did she express any objection, are points that prosecutors in many countries would seek to clarify before proceeding with prosecution. Edison (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://rixstep.com/1/20101001,01.shtml
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Julian_Assange/Archive_3&oldid=1069394259"