Jump to content

Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Extradition now / sex crimes later

Here, but also on other Law sites, is why I am convinced that the circumstances of the sexual encounters are less important right now. More precisely: they are important for shaping public opinion - Wiki editors included - and rallying support, including donations to his defense fund, but not for the legal process. And why the issue of (alleged) political motivation may be of great importance to the Assange team:

"He was arrested under a European Arrest Warrant for his extradition to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning. [It] was issued at the end of November, but Sweden had to reissue it [a week later] due to a procedural error that prevented him from being arrested in Britain.

Khawar Qureshi, a Queen's Counsel and international law specialist, said that under European agreements, British courts are not entitled to look at evidence against Assange in making their decision to extradite him.

Mark Ellis, the executive director at the International Bar Association, said it would be a 'challenging task' for Assange and his legal team to counter the extradition request from Sweden. '[Assange] would have to argue that he wouldn't receive a fair trial, that his rights have been violated, or perhaps that this is a politically motivated step.'

Generally the extradition process is done within 21 days of his appearance before court, which started with the December 14 hearing. KathaLu (talk) 12:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it is you're getting at here, and I may be wrong, but it looks to be original research and crystal balling. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 17:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
It's neither crystal balling nor original research it's the law. I posted at as information for other editors, in order to improve the article, which is one of the purposes of the TP. Do you need a newspaper source for it, or will a law blog or the EAW act in question do? KathaLu (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Assange bail

We've had two or three edits adding information about notable people offering to contribute to Assange's bail (£240,000), including Jemima Khan, Ken Loach, John Pilger, Vaughan Smith and Michael Moore, so far all reverted. My personal view is that the names are a little peripheral to the topic, and as such this is maybe best excluded from the article. (one would not want to see a situation where donation to a cause bought entries on Wikipedia, though I'm not suggesting in any way that this is the intent of those involved) I'd like to see what others think. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

within 8-ish hours the question of assange's bail will be resolved. revert for now is my instinct. Kaini (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd recommend reverting such edits for the moment till something comes to fruition from it. That way, it can be decided whether or not it is notable for inclusion. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 05:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
The names of noted celebrities, especially noted journalists, such as John Pilger, who are prepared to put up large sums of money to help ensure Assange is bailed are notable. Given Pilger's efforts to help free Assange, I'm rather surprised that he receives no mention in the main article. Uncensored Kiwi Kiss 05:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
The discussion isn't of the notability of the persons involved but rather the notability of the actions in question and whether or not anything will come to fruition of it - that is, to say, if this call for contributions indeed did lead to the granting of Assange's bail. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 06:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Clearly notable as pointed out and verified in tons of high value sources. IQinn (talk) 08:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Assange has been granted bail :) --Kaini (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Then something has indeed come to fruition of it :P ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 16:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I think there is a relevance to having their names, and creditability linked to the support of Julian Assange. That and there is a sentiment of western culture that includes the proverbial "truth" as Joseph Conrad once said, "You shall judge a man by his foes as well as by his friends." If you think of ways people decide which bias to believe, which media to give credence, I think that many people ascribe to Joseph Conrad's way of judging people and information. There is a notable number of high profile people who label him a terrorist, on the other hand he seems to have plenty of journalistic patrons. I say, let the associated names stand and let people make up their own minds about it.--Sparkygravity (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

An age question

Not sure where to put this, but anywho. I'm no maths professor or anything, but I'm pretty damn sure he wouldn't have been ELEVEN when he moved in with his girlfriend.

Not sure about your maths either. The article says he was born in 1971 and moved in with his girlfriend in 1989. That makes 18, not 11. HiLo48 (talk) 09:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
No maths professor indeed. -bran —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.192.190 (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Sex offense allegations

This is from WP:BLP: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material." The sex allegations are far too prominent in the lead-in, and way overplayed in the article. Remember that these are still ALLEGATIONS, that the actual circumstances are still unclear, and the terms being used may mean different things in different countries. Ghostofnemo (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

While it is true that they are allegations, it is also true that it is the most prominently discussed topic next to WikiLeaks itself when discussion is held about Julian Assange in international media. Think of it like O.J. Simpson: Sure he had one hell of a football career, but in the grand scheme of things, the most discussed topic in relation to him was the alleged murders and the later imprisonment resultant of the robberies. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 19:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
We are all (or at least mostly) very aware that these are allegations. However, there is no separate article for these allegations as of yet, meaning all information must be deposited here. I agree that some portions of that section could use trimming or consolidation, but it'd be nice if you could point to specific examples of material that might be appropriate to review or remove. Otherwise, all of the information is well sourced and stated (for the most part) as concisely as possible while still illuminating the subject as best possible. As for the order of the sections, placing such allegations beneath praise and criticism section actually gives too little weight to the allegations in my opinion. As it stands, the first four sections are ordered to chronologically detail the major events of Assange's life: Early Life > Studies > WikiLinks > Allegations; then ancillary and non-linear information follows: Support > Criticism > Residency. To place the allegations under support and criticism breaks the continuity of the biography and artificially deflates the importance of these allegations in a biographical (and possibly historical) context. DKqwerty (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
That's the difference between the news media and Wikipedia. "Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libelous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy." Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Most BLPs with scandals have that info towards the bottom of the article, unless that is the person's only claim to fame. Obviously Assange is not primarily known for being a sex criminal. Ghostofnemo (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Currently, he's known for two things to most people: WikiLeaks and the sex allegations. The latter appears below the former so as not to be prejudicial, but to separate them would unduly deflate the importance of the subject in Assange's life (and again, this is a biography and the chronology as it pertains to his life is solid). You've also not provided any suggestions as to what should be reviewed or removed from the section. DKqwerty (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Assange shouldn't be 'known as' anything before any trial. On the more general point, we have to maintain a balance between reflecting the widely-reported allegations, and respect for individual privacy. I've just revered an edit that though it was well-sourced and contained nothing that hasn't been reported elsewhere, seemed to me to go into too much detail about the alleged offences. I'd say that as long as we are getting complaints from both sides about 'bias' we are probably getting it about right. As always, it helps to see what others think. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
There's no privacy concerns about repeating widely reported information about a public personality. We can exercise discretion as to how much detail to include, but we shouldn't paint it as a privacy matter. Gigs (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't see anything in the policy above that says it's ok to discuss unproven allegations about people if they are public figures. Public figures have lawyers, too. It says "living persons". Assange is a living person. This is not Wikimedia. We DON'T have to include every breaking accusation and detail, only material that is encyclopedic. If he's arrested, that's notable. But we don't have to mention every twist and turn of the case. Ghostofnemo (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Good luck getting it taken out.. ;) believe me, we tried that more than once. Getting to this stage has been an effort. However, currently the content is not too bad. We kinda have to mention the fact he is currently on bail and under legal difficulty seeing as how it is all over the place, it's hard to do so without at least a little context. --Errant (chat!) 20:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
(ec) You are right, we should exercise discretion in terms of which details to include. It's not a privacy matter though, and nothing in the BLP policy is meant to prevent us from discussing high profile allegations against public people. Gigs (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Ouch I just noticed the "toned down lead", that is definitely not toned down IMO! Without any form of description it strikes me as something of a BLP issue... certainly incredibly negative! --Errant (chat!) 20:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
ErrantX, I agree. While sentences such as, "The White House calls Assange's actions reckless and dangerous" should be included in the content of the article, they have no place in the lede. And mention of the allegations of sexual offensives should not be in the lede. Uncensored Kiwi Kiss 20:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I moved that line down into the body where it fits better. The lede, however, must reflect the major controversies covered in the article, per WP:LEAD, and removing all mention of them would be inappropriate. Gigs (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
It seems your efforts to move the inappropriate sentence are being stymied. I'm not sure why — while generic references to critical or praise-worthy events may be justfied, evaluative commentary has no place in the lede.
In no way is a negative evaluative criticism by the White House balanced-out by the relevant references to Assange's journalistic awards — that's like saying the lede in Barrack Obama should balance the reference to his 2009 Nobel Peace Prize with a critical comment from Rush Limbaugh. Uncensored Kiwi Kiss 21:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Have any criminal charges been laid against Assange yet? The allegations should not be mentioned at all, just the fact that he's wanted for questioning about 2 one night stands. This is 1 of the few times when consensus should not rule the day. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
9 days in prison and an extremely high-profile legal battle over Assange's possible extradition. That deserves some mention in the article. You're right about the possibility of criminal charges - until they're laid they didn't happen, and should not appear in the article. Uncensored Kiwi Kiss 03:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I have now put in the actual offenses (in legal terms, not explicit details) in connection of which he is wanted by the Swedes because they are in the EAW and I put in a link to the Swedish Prosecution's English webpage on the Assange case where they are listed. I can provide Uk legal sources if requested but it may take a while until I have found them again. I added links to three sources but can't make the link to the pdf file in the References list work (www.aklagare.se/In-English/PageFiles/346/Chapter 6.pdf), I am having a problem with the space before number 6. Can someone fix it, please? KathaLu (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

What was the name of the lawyer, what is the source, what is the lawyers source?

"A lawyer, however, accused Assange of having unprotected sex with a woman who was asleep"

Viralmeme (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe all cyber-terrorists and rapists eventually get what's coming to them. This guy is an arrogant POS in every sense of the word, and I wouldn't be remotely surprised if he raped those women, just as he stalked another in emails when she wouldn't date him a second time. Yeah, those emails have been exposed. Julian should love that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.48.227 (talk) 08:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

honey trap

A user is wanting to add that it was a honey trap, is this supported, it seems a bit tabloid to me. Off2riorob (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


"Some journalists and bloggers have speculated that Assange may have been the victim of a honey-trap orchestrated by the Central Intelligence Agency aimed at discrediting Assange, or at extraditing him to the U.S. to face espionage charges."


I think it might be OK, but that wording that is proposed is a little too weasely. Gigs (talk) 02:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I can't see where you mean, Rob, but anything containing the words "honey trap" should clearly be blasted on sight. --FormerIP (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
ETA: How is the above statement sourced? --FormerIP (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Here is the diff that shows the references that were also deleted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julian_Assange&diff=402793047&oldid=402792970
I am not speculating here, reliable sources are, so that means this is relevant to the article and WP:NPOV supports inclusion: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Content was cited to low grade titillating reports

I'd say that the speculation was more than 'tabloid'. You'll probably find hints of this in many sources. It is still speculation though regardless of sourcing. The trouble with including this is we'd then either have to let all the speculative stuff in, or start making value-judgements about what we thought 'believable': neither seems satisfactory. It is also worth pointing out that 'honey trap' speculations will definitely fall foul of WP:BLP policy in regards to the two women. On this basis alone, I think we have to exclude it unless and until it ceases to be just speculation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The source here also says "Are honey traps real, or are they found only in James Bond movies?". I don't think we can report something on the basis that someone else has reported that some bloggers have claimed it where the source has depicted it as something belonging to the realm of fantasy. BLP is in play here, it must be remembered. --FormerIP (talk) 02:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
According to WP:NPOV you DO have to include all reliably sourced "stuff", especially since not to do so slants the article against Assange. You are allowing speculation that he committed sexual offenses, but not allowing speculation that he didn't. And the women in question are not named in this article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
And here is the rest of that quote: "Oh, they're real. Honey traps, also called "honey pots," have been a favorite spying tactic as long as sex and espionage have existed—in other words, forever." You can check out the wikilink to honey-trap too. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
We are not saying anything about guilt or innocent, we are just stating the simple facts, he is wanted in Sweden for charges or interview after sexual allegations, we are not adding the this side suggested and speculated and rumored this and that side suggested that. Off2riorob (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
No. For the allegation or suggestion that, essentially, someone has acted as a prostitute as part of a global conspiracy would require extremely strong sourcing, per WP:BLP. WP:NPOV is secondary here, like it or not.--FormerIP (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
You're including the allegations in the article, so denials and counter allegations must also be included. The women are not named in our article, so there is no BLP issue. And here's the direct link to the "honey trap" section of the wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey-trap#Love.2C_honeypots_and_recruitment Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
"The women are not named in our article, so there is no BLP issue". Simply not true and BLP is not negotiable. --FormerIP (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Its still accusatory speculation in regards to two living individuals, they will get named at some point, the fact they are not yet named is not a get out clause to add attacking speculation. Off2riorob (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
"You are allowing speculation that he committed sexual offenses". No we aren't. We are reporting the fact that he has been accused of sexual offences. If there was only 'speculation' about this, it wouldn't go in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
You are reporting the fact that he was accused of ... and Ghostofnemo was reporting the fact that there is speculation about the accuser... Tim.thelion (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
That's right. And on the basis of these accusations, he was arrested, hauled up before a court, and spent time in custody. These are facts. The accusations are questionable (they may or may not be true), but the fact that he has been involved in a legal process isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tim.thelion. We can report the fact that there is speculation, if that fact is reported in reliable sources. That doesn't mean that we are speculating, as long as we word it in a properly neutral manner. I don't agree that it's "all or nothing" and that we'd have to allow any manner of speculation in if we include this. As editors, we have to make value judgments constantly about what facts are relevant for an encyclopedia article and which ones aren't. So I think the material is "fair game" under our policies. That doesn't necessarily mean we should include it, but I don't see any policy based reason preventing us from doing so. We would need to be careful not to imply something that goes beyond what has been reported, however. From what I've read in reliable sources, most of the question revolves around Swedish prosecution's handling of the case, rather than speculating on the women's motivation. Gigs (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The Nation is not low grade. If it reports one thing and the New York Times reports another, I'll bet on The Nation. Wnt (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes , but the totally opinionated vague article is written by the blogging activist Tom Hayden an American social and political activist and politician, known for his involvement in the animal rights, and the anti-war and civil rights movements of the 1960 who was married to that other political activist, - hardly an uninvolved write up. Off2riorob (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
It's either a honey trap or a short lived love triangle, so if you include speculation about the former you should also include speculation about the latter. I opt for leaving both out.KathaLu (talk) 12:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
According to today's Daily Mail (not the best of sources, in my view) he gave an interview to the Times (accessible online only to subscribers) where "Assange has admitted that there was no evidence for the claim, made by his lawyer [Mark Stephens], that the sex assault allegations were part of a 'honeytrap' to ensnare him. He said: 'Maybe he just flubbed a line. I have never said that, because we don't know.'"[1] KathaLu (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
More from the same interview: Assange says that "they found out that they were mutual lovers of mine, and they had unprotected sex and they got into a tizzy about whether there was possibility of a sexual transmitted disease". And he claims that the law says (not sure which one that is) that "I have certain rights, and these rights mean that I do not need to speak to random prosecutors around the world who simply want to have a chat, and won't do it in any other standard way". Sounds like it's Assange's way or no way. KathaLu (talk) 10:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Let's wait a bit but I propose to replace some of his earlier statements in the article by these newer statements. KathaLu (talk) 10:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


I would be very careful when adding references to UK newspapers, they are very tabloid-ish even the ones that are seen to be respectable in some circles (i.e. the Daily Mail, the Guardian and the Times) and have about the same credability as a blogger. However, I think that, if a reputable source is found (i.e. BBC News, CCN etc.) who sees the speculation of a "honey-trap" as significant enough to comment on it or mention it, then I don't see any reason why we shouldn't include it.--Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 10:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with your caution. I usually check stuff in several sources who haven't copied from each other before I post about it but then often pick Guardian or Independent for convenience, BBC is not always reliable either. I am not proposing to include the bit about the Mark Stephens's honey trap that turned out to be non-existent after all, just added it here because there was earlier discussion about whether to include it or not. Good thing we didn't. Will try to get today's Times since this is an interview between Assange and The Times. I am proposing to include/replace/update how Assange views the case / women were in a tizzy (about HIV and pregnancy) / women got bamboozled / he has a natural right not to go to Sweden, etc. KathaLu (talk) 11:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Conelly90, No where did you get those ideas from?! UK newspapers are usually reliable sources and are vastly superior to blogs. The BBC is often better than the newspapers; but only because it tends to be brutally neutral and avoid anything contentious. Of course; reliability deals with three factors (author, publisher, content) so there can be issues with such sources. The Times, for example, is usually going to be pretty reliable. The Daily Mail does require caution over tabloid-ism. The Guardian does have issues with being a little libertarian/hardline so opinion & slant needs to be treated with care. But they are reliable sources. --Errant (chat!) 11:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I got those ideas from referring to my experience with those sources; admittedly, the main problems with tabloid-ism and being unreliable are found in the Daily Mail and this is where most of my objections are, but the others are also guilty of this in some way or another. The UK newspapers frequently manufacture or excaudate "scandals" to stir up controversy; you only need look at the current cold weather situation for an example of this.--Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 12:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Apparently the accusations of a honey-trap are all based on the alleged CIA links Israel Shamir and Paul Bennett claim one of the girls, who has serious credibility issues, has. Those links are rather tenious. She has published anti-Castro papers in a journal with CIA ties, she was involved with the Las damas de blanco which is funded by the US government and while a student at Uppsala University she was in charge of the Students Union gender equality department and wrote a blog on how to get revenge on men. Add to that that the girl socialised with Assange after the incident and as Australian journalist Kate Harding put it 'It would be irresponsible of journalists, bloggers and average citizens... not to wonder if it was a honey-trap but there is no evidence.' Wayne (talk) 13:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Wayne, I propose that we do not include the wonderings of "journalists, bloggers and average citizens" in the article and stick to what we hear directly from Assange, the two women, the assembled lawyers (six at the last count, plus CPS), the prosecutors and the courts. "The honey trap has been sprung" was said by Assange's lawyer Mark Stephens on 8 December, when he was surprised to learn that bail had not been granted to his client who did not give an address in the UK, and two weeks later his client now qualifies this statement as a "flubbed line". KathaLu (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Accusation details leaked to the Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden Dylan Flaherty 09:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I recommend the above Guardian article to every editor as background information - it sounds more credible than most of what has been swirling around the net and in the media in recent weeks: "Unseen police documents provide the first complete account of the allegations against the WikiLeaks founder".KathaLu (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
It does fill in some blanks. For what it's worth, my impression is that Assange may perhaps not be the most considerate of men, but the accusations against him have some serious credibility issues. Dylan Flaherty 10:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
He said, she said cases are always difficult. As for credibility issues, I agree: Miss A. threw a party in honour of Assange, and let him stay in her flat/bed for a week, after the alleged incident. As for the torn condom - have you ever tried to deliberately tear a condom? Those things are damn near indestructible. And Miss W.'s complaint seems to be solely about whether Assange wore a condom. Miss W.'s txt conversation with a friend suggests that monetary gain was at least one of the motives behind her complaint. Some paragraphs are especially salient:
"There are many more text and SMS messages from and to the complainants which have been shown by the assistant prosecutor to the Swedish defence lawyer, Bjorn Hurtig, which suggest motivations of malice and money in going to the police and to Espressen and raise the issue of political motivation behind the presentation of these complaints." — Assange's solicitor, Mark Stephens.
"We understand that both complainants admit to having initiated consensual sexual relations with Mr Assange. They do not complain of any physical injury. ... The first complainant did not make a complaint for six days (in which she hosted the respondent in her flat [actually her bed] and spoke in the warmest terms about him to her friends) until she discovered he had spent the night with the other complainant." — Assange's solicitor, Mark Stephens.
"The second complainant, too, failed to complain for several days until she found out about the first complainant: she claimed that after several acts of consensual sexual intercourse, she fell half asleep and thinks that he ejaculated without using a condom – a possibility about which she says they joked afterwards." — Assange's solicitor, Mark Stephens.
"Both complainants say they did not report him to the police for prosecution but only to require him to have an STD test." — Assange's solicitor, Mark Stephens. Uncensored Kiwi Kiss 10:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
UK, those points only tell half the story though - and as we discussed a few days ago, of course his lawyers are going to paint this in as positive a light as possible. About the only new thing in there that I could spot was "... Assange himself told friends in London that he was supposed to return to Stockholm for a police interview during the week beginning 11 October, and that he had decided to stay away. Prosecution documents seen by the Guardian record that he was due to be interviewed on 14 October." This obviously tells a very different story to the quotes you've highlighted. To be honest though, we shouldn't aim to record the nitty-gritty of the events per WP:NOTNEWS so including any of this seems inappropriate to me at the moment. What do you propose would actually be added to the article from this source? SmartSE (talk) 11:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Smartse, here a second source to corrobate that he had plans to go to Sweden, namely Reuters, Stockholm, Dec 3, 2010, i.e long before the arrest: In a telephone interview, Assange's Swedish lawyer Bjorn Hurtig "said that Assange had made himself available to speak with Swedish authorities, including the prosecutor handling the case, at an embassy abroad, but this offer had been rejected. Assange earlier offered to travel to Sweden to answer questions but authorities could not make themselves available at any of the suggested times, he said." Sounds to me that Assange wanted to be interviewed when and where it suited him, not when and where the Swedish authorities requested it.KathaLu (talk) 11:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Kathalu, as someone trained in the law, here's a lesson: Assange has the right to remain silent. He does not have to speak to the Swedish authorities or answer any of their questions. Any lawyer worth a damn will have advised Assange not to speak with the Swedish authorities, (it almost never does any good for a suspect to be interviewed by the police/prosecution). If they really want Assange to travel across Europe so they can speak with him, yet again, at the cost of considerable time and expense and risk to his physical safety, the least they can do is be amenable to a mutually agreeable time for such a "conversation" (read: interrogation).
At this point, the Swedish prosecutors haven't even presented any evidence against him in Court or to Assange or to Assange's legal representatives. If Assange's lawyers are even half way competent then they'll be advising him not to speak with the Swedish prosecutors. Uncensored Kiwi Kiss 12:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Kiwi, I take it that you are trained in law but not in European Union law? He can remain silent as long as he wants but he has to present himself to the Swedish authorities if they ask him to do so in a criminal investigation into alleged offenses that took place in Sweden and against Swedes, whether it fits into his travel plans or not. The Swedes have to present to the UK court whatever is required for an extradition, and that is not much under our EAW system. They have to present to a Swedish court whatever is required to convict him. They obviously had enough to convince a Swedish judge to want him for questioning, and since he did not come on his own they issued an arrest warrant/request for extradition. The UK court did not arrest him because of the alleged sexual offenses, they arrested him because he is wanted for extradition and as he gave no address in the UK, the judge had him arrested because he might flee. People totally ignore the two countries-two jurisdictions situation and argue as if it was a case like they know from home. KathaLu (talk) 13:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
And, Kiwi, it is not correct what you stated. His Swedish lawyers have been presented with the evidence against him, a long time ago, I posted a link to a source today and it says so in the very Guardian article we are talking about: "it is understood his Swedish defence team have copies of all the documents seen by the Guardian". One of his UK layers maintains that other "potentially exculpatory evidence" has been withheld. Oh dear ... the prosecution is withholding potentially exculpatory evidence during the investigation phase. Is that unusual? And if a court case is really opened in Sweden, all of it will be presented to a Swedish court, not to a UK court. Currently, he is wanted for questioning. In Sweden. By Swedish authorities. The UK court has been asked to get him to Sweden. KathaLu (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Kathalu, you said that, "They obviously had enough to convince a Swedish judge to want him for questioning, and since he did not come on his own they issued an arrest warrant/request for extradition." If Swedish judges are anything like judges in New Zealand, (curiously, New Zealand politics/laws are often likened to those of Scandinavia), then they rubber-stamp every warrant that passes before them. A judge issuing a warrant means absolutely NOTHING.
I see nothing in your comments to convince us that Assange should spend the time and money travelling to Sweden to voluntarily speak with the Swedish authorities on their terms, at a time and place of their choosing. As it is, it is legally prudent for Assange to refuse to speak with the Swedish Authorities and await a prosecution - where all the facts and evidence and allegations (including the exculpatory evidence) are laid out before him - before he responds. To do otherwise is legally foolhardy (and the kind of stupid behaviour that would be demanded by ultra-conservative arm-chair lawyers). Why on Earth would Assange (or anyone) respond to allegations without knowing the full nature of the allegations and the evidence against him?
As for your comment that "One of his UK layers[sic] maintains that other "potentially exculpatory evidence" has been withheld. Oh dear ... the prosecution is withholding potentially exculpatory evidence during the investigation phase. Is that unusual?" You say it like the withholding exculpatory evidence by a prosecutor is a trivial technicality. It is not. It is a serious breach of trust, and such a breach should not be rewarded with voluntary cooperation by Assange. Any lawyer would advise Assange not to speak with the Swedish authorities while they are deliberately withholding critical exculpatory evidence. If the prosecution continues to withhold such evidence into the prosecution phase, we call that "corruption" and grounds for appeal. Uncensored Kiwi Kiss 14:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Kiwi, it is important to understand the legal aspects to decide which lawyer statements and media comments to include and which to discard. Assange was and will be before a UK court because of an EAW surrender procedure, not because of the alleged offenses. He is wanted for interrogation, he has not been indicted. There is a low threshold as to the evidence needed for a surrender to an EU Member State.KathaLu (talk) 08:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Smartse, I agree that none of this should be added to the article, for now, (and there appears to be consensus for this position, as discussed by many editors on this page). Especially given that almost all the media reports about this issue are little more than prejudicial hearsay with little/no independent verification, (aside from other news outlets regurgitating the same hearsay). Dylan Flaherty's post (and link) appears to be a helpful update for the benefit of editors who wanted reliable and detailed background information. The update is appreciated. Uncensored Kiwi Kiss 11:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree (POV) with Dylan Flaherty's impression "that Assange may perhaps not be the most considerate of men, but the accusations against him have some serious credibility issues" but this is for a Swedish court to decide, not by the international media or self appointed judges of Sweden and their laws. Sweden made rape in marriage a crime some 27 years before the UK did so may be they are just ahead again with making sexual molestation an offense where it is not seen as such elsewhere. See also for some more balance to all the hype the Independent of 18 Dec: "Although the Swedish prosecutor's handling of the Assange case has seemed confusing at times, claims from figures like John Pilger that Sweden "should be ashamed" have left the country baffled. How can people be so sure about the lack of fairness of the Swedish justice system without having any insight into the ongoing investigation?" We should stick to the allegations, as they were put to the extraditing UK court, in general terms and not start own investigation into the case here. These details are good background material for the TP to bolster editorial decisions but should not be included in the article. KathaLu (talk) 11:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Kathalu, I agree that these "details are good background material for the TP to bolster editorial decisions but should not be included in the article", for the reasons I gave in my previous reply to Smartse, above. Uncensored Kiwi Kiss 11:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I have not suggested adding a mention of this Guardian item to our article here. I brought it up because it's currently very relevant, and may turn out to be a useful citation as the court case moves forward. (This is, of course, assuming he's not just extradited to the US, instead.) Dylan Flaherty 16:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

That is how I took it. Uncensored Kiwi Kiss 23:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


Someone would called it OR if I said that Assange lies or expresses himself in a purposely misleading way so I won't say it, just post this timeline:
  1. "The leak of the police report to the Guardian was clearly designed to undermine my bail application," Assange told the Times. "It was timed to come up on the desk of the judge that morning."[2]
  2. On Thursday 16 December the appeal was dismissed, Assange was granted bail and placed under house arrest at Ellingham Hall, Norfolk. (this Wiki article)
  3. The article in question was published in the Guardian newspaper on Saturday 18 December, and online at 9.30pm on Friday 17 December. It is understood Assange's defence team had seen copies of everything seen by the Guardian.[3]
I have to tear myself away from this, just be extra careful when you make editorial choices regarding which statements to include or leave in the article.
KathaLu (talk) 12:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
In case you missed it: The Guardian states today that "the documents [police reports about his case] were not leaked to the Guardian by Swedish authorities". I thought so ... :-).KathaLu (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Uni

I propose to trim the second paragraph, based on this report in the Canberra Times of 12 Dec. Media reports claim Assange spent time at the University of Canberra before dropping out but "this week Canberra's two major universities, ANU and the University of Canberra, blew holes in claims he attended university here. A thorough search of their records revealed Assange had never enrolled at either university". The Wiki article claims he "reportedly" attended 6 universities, without naming them, so I guess that number should already be reduced to 4 and in fact be reduced even further to the one named university he did attend, Melbourne, where he was enrolled for maths and physics. In the dating profile attributed to Assange, he also claims to have a "formal background" in neuroscience and philosophy, so I suggest to word it like this, it could be anything, not necessarily uni. The organizer of the Physics competition at ANU does not remember him and has no longer records of the papers done by the students attending it but Assange did not win in any of the subcategories. So is there any merit in mentioning this competition or does it merely serve to make his poor academic record look better? KathaLu (talk) 10:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Careful, it sounds like you're getting deep into original synthesis there. When the sources are contradictory, just put in what they both say and wait until a third comments about the contradiction to even mention it. For example, Assange might have attended under a pseudonym, or the person thoroughly searching the records might have missed the ones that fell behind a filing cabinet, or hackers from one side or the other might have messed with their computing systems. Who knows? If someone is going to pick from all possible options to call him out as a liar, the complainant better not be Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I am getting more and more annoyed with the one sided reporting (i.e. mainly from the English side) but don't want to bloat the article section anymore than it is. We are led to believe that the Swedes simply did not want to do a telephone or video interview with Assange in London. But they have a reason: "Lead Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny says the latest arrest warrant was issued because Swedish law prohibits formal legal interviews over a telephone or video link. "We had a case in the southern Swedish city of Helsingborg where a suspect was heard via telephone, and it was heavily criticized by the Ombudsmen for Justice as not being in accordance with existing law," she tells TIME. "The Swedish embassy in London is not Swedish territory in the sense that we can hold interrogations there without formal approval of British authorities." Read more in Time KathaLu (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it is you're getting at. Are you saying that those who have been engaged in this article are deliberately censoring one side of the argument to impose their own views? I only ask because that's the way this accusation of yours comes off. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 17:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I,m not sure KathaLu's post is referring to bias on this talk page, Evilgohan. All the same, can we try to keep discussion on the talk page to article content, rather than discussions over the finer points of Swedish law? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
My point is, actually, that the whole section on the Swedish allegations is totally overbloated. "There is an investigation into sexual misconduct, he says he didn't do, there is an extradition procedure going on." That should be all that's in the article. Instead, people read a snippet in a UK, US, or AUS newspaper (and let's not forget the Time of India who publishes the previous day's Daily Mail), insert it into the article, and I try to give more voice to the Swedish side (women, lawyer, prosecutor, law) who don't have the same huge megaphones at their disposals. KathaLu (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
And, isn't it clear why I posted this particular item? It refers to this passage in the Wiki article "It is highly irregular and unusual for the Swedish authorities to issue a red notice in the teeth of the undisputed fact that Mr. Assange has agreed to meet voluntarily to answer the prosecutor's questions outside Sweden". If you don't mention why the Swedes don't do interrogations in London or via video, if you just have the quote from Assange's lawyer, properly sourced of course, you deny the reader additional information and give him the impression that the Swedes are in the wrong and Assange in the right.KathaLu (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
And btw, "agreed to meet" is particularly misleading in the above lawyer statement, which is in the Wiki article. When I read it first, I thought it meant that he had agreed to a proposal from the Swedish Prosecution. Far from it. He or his lawyers made the suggestion or demand to have the interrogation in London themselves.KathaLu (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd suggest cutting the whole second half of that section:
A lawyer for Assange said "It is highly irregular and unusual for the Swedish authorities to issue a red notice in the teeth of the undisputed fact that Mr. Assange has agreed to meet voluntarily to answer the prosecutor's questions" outside Sweden[127] and also said Assange would fight extradition attempts[128] due to the possibility that it could lead to the Swedish handing him over to the United States.[129] When the EAW was received in the UK, an error in the paperwork was found, and Sweden issued a second EAW on 3 December 2010.
The first sentence is confusing to the reader, who might think that there actually was an agreement to meet in London, and that an extradition to Sweden somehow makes it more likely that he will end up in the US. We can't really say in either case, since we know the prosecution has stated that they could not get in contact with Assange, and that Sweden cannot forward Assange to the US without consent from the UK. The second sentence is just uninteresting. Is an "error in the paperwork" really relevant to the bigger picture?85.225.222.10 (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree to the cut. I propose to also cut out the bit about the Interpol Red Notice because it played no role for his arrest; this is an EAW procedure. I put in the "error in the paperwork" bit because Assange and his lawyers knew from 18-20 November onwards that an arrest warrant was coming because his Swedish lawyer lost an appeal against the arrest warrant on that day; the sentence about the second EAW serves as an explanation why it took until 7 December until Assange went to the police. He wasn't on the run, he let the police know where he was in the UK (can find the newspaper article if requested). The whole thing was a lot less dramatic than it is presented. KathaLu (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
So the proposed cut is from "and on 30 November 2010, Interpol issued a red notice against Assange" to "and Sweden issued a second EAW on 3 December 2010." This will delete a number of references which may have other useful information. Do I delete them with the text or leave them attached to the previous sentence? KathaLu (talk) 09:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Leak of Assange Sex Details "Irony"

Just had this sent to me; "Lawyers for Julian Assange are "angry" and "concerned" that someone leaked confidential Swedish police files......It's unclear whether they see the irony. I suppose an encyclopedia doen't usually promote humour, but I find this funny as hell. Does anyone support putting this into the BLP? The irony line? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably not a good idea to include it, though it is a little ironic. Actually, I suspect Assange's lawyers may have complained as a useful backup for arguments that there can't be a fair trial - they'd perhaps be negligent not to complain, even if they knew it might be seen by some as hypocrisy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Don't include it. It's funny at first but they have a point because Wikileaks is, as far as I can tell, not advocating the publication of private personal information, like my salary, my emails, my sexual practices, but government and company information.KathaLu (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
You're probably right, Kahalu. But there's over 200,000 leaks yet to go, so you never know...--FormerIP (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
they have leaked private emails of public people. This raises a point, people have pointed out Assange and Wikileaks do keep their own secrets and are not transparent themselves. This is not me criticizing them for this. Btw look up irony. Also, Assange's lawyers do have their own opinions separate from their client. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 06:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
And that's exactly as it should be and usually is. If I ever hire a lawyer I simply want him or her to simply present the best possible case for me, irrespective of his or her opinion. HiLo48 (talk)
Good point about lawyers not necessarily sharing attitude and ethics of their clients, so don't equate Assange with his lawyers but it's still ironic. Wikileaks and Assange are not paragons of transparency, see financing of Wikileaks and private life of Assange, you can put an appropriate quote in the article but I wouldn't. I did a quick search of the published database and saw a document someone I know had worked on last year. It had perhaps already been made public before it was leaked but it makes you pause and think when a leaked document is close to one's own professional or private life.KathaLu (talk) 08:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

pentagon hack

why is there almost no information on the topic? they controlled pentagon servers for 2 years. 188.2.161.233 (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

What is "this topic"? Who is "they"? Please don't assume that other editors will have the same knowledge and perspective on something as you. I have never understood the term "pentagon hack" to have any particular meaning, and certainly have no idea what the term has to do with this article. If you have sourced, notable material you think should be in the article, please share it with us. Don't just ask cryptic questions. HiLo48 (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
HiLo didn't your illuminati membership card come in the mail yet? Don't you know that Wikipedia editors are all part of "the conspiracy"? BTW, material for article contents is not required to be notable. Notability is only about suitability for a standalone topic. Gigs (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
[1] minute 3 second 45... 188.2.161.233 (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
A YouTube video doesn't satisfy the requirements of a reliable source here. (No, i didn't watch it. No point really.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
That's a bit stupid! It's probably a WP:COPYLINK but that doesn't make it unreliable - it is a documentary about Assange and WL. We already have details about hacking at Julian_Assange#Hacking but nothing about the Pentagon. I'd want some secondary sources, rather than his word before anything about a backdoor into the pentagon was added. SmartSE (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
All it amounts to is Assange saying they (i.e. he and his fellow-hackers of the time) had "total control" over a way in to US military servers. Firstly, we don't know this is true, and secondly, he isn't saying they had any control over the servers. Since this seems to have come to court, if there was any significance to this, I'd imagine it would have been reported in the mainstream media. If you want this included, find it there. AndyTheGrump (talk)
actually, since this is an article about him, we don't need a secondary source, but a primary can be used - his statement. we just qualify it as such - he claimed that... 188.2.161.233 (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Maybe we could, if we knew what he was actually claiming. Without some outside indication of its significance, there is no obvious reason why we should though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
well now, he received media attention back in 90s because of this hacking. isn't that enough. why shouldn't there be information about what he actually hacked??? 188.2.161.233 (talk) 01:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
current sentence sais: In response to the hacking, and doesn't say anything about the object of hacking!!! it is an unfinished thought! what hacking? 188.2.161.233 (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, you tell us. Exactly WHAT hacking? (Over to you.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
If he received media attention for what he did, then we can look at that, assess it's significance, and then make a decision as to whether to include it. Like I said, find us some sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
o.k. i see now my confusion. that sentence refers to australian computers hacking, and he was in court for that, not the u.s. military. i think if you place that in the in response to the 'university...' hacking there won't be confusion. 188.2.161.233 (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
It seems to make sense to me: we say 'Assange began hacking...', and later say 'in response to the hacking...'. Actually, if there is verifiable evidence that he did hack the US military, maybe it should be included. We can't take his word for this though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
If he did hack the Pentagon, they would have charged him with espionage already. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 06:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Not to mention submitting a demand for his immediate extradition to the United States to stand trial - though on what specific charges, I'm not sure of. But I digress, this isn't a forum and I'm clearly speculating here so moving on... ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 08:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Hilo, on the contrary, WP:YOUTUBE, though I question the reliability of the source. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 08:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

To save others the time, I've searched google news for info about the 1995 hacking incident but can't find anything. I'll have a look to see if any other archives have got any stories. SmartSE (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Addition of comments about "tizzy" and "bamboozled"

The following has been added:

On December 21, Assange gave an interview to the BBC where he stated that after having discovered they had both had sex with him, the women had got into a "tizzy" about the possibility of sexually transmitted diseases and had sought police advice "and then the police jumped in on this and bamboozled the women." The source is given as news.ninemsn.com.au

First, why do editors not go to the trouble and look up where information comes from. There is a transcript of the interview at the BBC website. I propose to change at least the reference to a reference to the BBC site (or would that be "OR"?), or add it as a second reference.

Second, the full answers are:

from the records that we do have, the suggestion is that they went to the police for advice and they did not want to make a complaint. What they say is that they found out that they were mutual lovers of mine and they had undertaken sex and they got into a tizzy about whether there was a possibility of sexually transmitted diseases. They went to the police. (...) One of the friends of one of those women, she says that one of the women states that she was bamboozled into this by police and others.

Are these answers accurately rendered by the NineMsn Summary? KathaLu (talk) 14:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, regardless of how it is rendered, it doesn't belong in the article. This is Assange's version of what he has heard about events when he wasn't present. It adds no useful information, but merely puts his spin on it (and might be seen as offensive, considering the nature of the allegations). It might be entirely true, or it might be totally false, but either way, it is hearsay. On that basis, I'm going to remove it, at least until it's inclusion has been discussed properly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump has suggested talk on location within the article of CCR statement at http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/ccr-statement-arrest-of-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange Any views? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I certainly agree it doesn't belong in the lead, per WP:LEAD, it should summarise the rest of the article and any information in it should be discussed in more detail later on. 2ndly it's referencing a press release, and I would prefer a 2ndry source having used it to demonstrate that their opinion is worth including. Then there are the problems with the statement - as a US organisation, are they well suited to discuss the EAW? E.g "Standard procedure in these cases is to call in a suspect for interrogation, and he has offered on numerous occasions to cooperate with the authorities." - but the arrest was made so that he could be ?ed in Sweden so this doesn't make a great deal of sense. "a suspect who has surrendered, having never gone into hiding or attempted to flee, would normally be allowed to post bail." that's not correct AFAIK since one reason I heard he wasn't bailed was because he didn't give an address at the first hearing. They also conflate these allegations with possible charges by the US, but as we don't know anything about the yet, (other than speculation) this too seems erroneus. Because of these problems, I'd need a fair bit (or a lot) of presuading to include it in the article. SmartSE (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I removed it mostly because the lede is intended to be a summary of the article, and this seemed the wrong place to put it. I note that this statement dates back to the 7th of December, and is only very general - I'm not sure it is really significant enough for the article anyway, as it doesn't really seem to be distinguishing between the allegations which have lead to his arrest, and the broader issue of WikiLeaks. What do others think? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Sex Allegations needs cleanup

It currently appears to be a dumping ground for every trivial detail. Details like every single prosecutor name, repeated mention of the allegations, repeated denials by Assange, and a detailed time line of every legal motion filed are all overkill. I'll be making some changes removing trivia, blow-by-blow legal proceedings, random names, and repetitive details. I hope I can get some support for keeping the section direct, straightforward, and clear. aprock (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not happy that you took out the description of the offenses for which he is investigated, including the link to the website of the Swedish Prosecution on the case while you left the Interpol red notice and the lawyer's PR referring to the notice. Reason: the offenses for which he is wanted by Sweden are important and there is much misformation about it in the media and on the net. The Interpol Red Notice sounds exciting but is of no importantce whatsoever for the arrest in connection with the current extradition request and case before the UK court. The Swedish Prosecution puts out very little information (rightly so) while Assanges's lawyers blurt about the case right and left. I propose to put back in the following shorter text: "He wanted for interrogation for Rape of a lesser degree, Sexual molestation and Unlawful coercion (Chapters 6:1-3, 6:10-2, 4:4-1 of the Swedish Penal Code)", including the link to the more detailed extract. One reason for the many misinterpretations is the fact that this is about a foreign country's laws. After all, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia where you can find knowledge, not just a repository for current media news. KathaLu (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
The description of the offenses was undue, a violation of blp, and unsourced. The prosecutors website is a primary source, and definitely not preferred for a blp. It appears that you're advocating using primary sources and synthesis to clarify misunderstandings in secondary sources. A better approach would be to find a good secondary source which does this, and use that as a basis for inclusion. Regarding the Interpol notice, this is part of the problem with including every procedural aspect of the affair. aprock (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, the names of the offenses is very definitely a fact we could primary source; of course, their significance might be debatable and I agree there is probably no real need for them at this stage under the policy of "undue weight". But there is a widespread misunderstanding of primary sources and their use, if we decide it is due, the primary source (in this case) is excellent :) The red notice should probably go as well IMO under the same issue, no real relevance at this stage. --Errant (chat!) 19:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by widespread misunderstanding of primary sources and their use. I can only assume you're not referring to what I wrote, but something else. aprock (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Errant, I was just composing something along this line. I probably read about the fact that the offenses had been named by the Prosecutor and that's how I found them. Surely, the primary source is the law book, and the website is a secondary source, in particular since the relevant text has been edited for the reader and for publication: it is a selective extract, targeted to the Assange case, and the relevant passages in the extract are put in bold.
Aprock, sorry, I was simply responding to The prosecutors website is a primary source, and definitely not preferred for a blp which in this case is not really accurate :) In the wider context, yes, there are issues. But to simply state his charges, yep, it would be 100% without problem as a source. --Errant (chat!) 19:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here about the prosecutor's site. Surely having secondary sourcing would be preferred. Additionally, keep in mind that the primary sources cited [2], [3] do not state any charges against Assange. aprock (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I took out the trivia about enjoying the fresh London air in the company of a crowd of photographers. Now there are still two separate passages where Assange says that it's all a smear campaign. Surely one is enough? KathaLu (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this was discussed above, but I don't see any problem with consolidating Assange's reaction to the affair. aprock (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I understand. First paragraph: "and said along with his supporters that they were an attempt at character assassination and smear campaign". Third paragraph: "This has been a very successful smear campaign and a very wrong one". I don't regard that as good article writing/editing.KathaLu (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
As to the offenses he is wanted for, see for example Wired: "The 'sex by surprise' claim appears to be wrong. There is no such offense in Swedish law. The international arrest warrant is an investigation into three separate offenses: rape, sexual coercion and sexual molestation, according to the Swedish public prosecutor’s office, which provides specific citations from the Swedish penal code on its website." That's written by a senior editor of Wired who is also writing a book about Cybercrime but it's a blog, so probably also not good enough as a source. KathaLu (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
The offenses were removed from the article on the grounds mentioned above. I don't agree with this removal. Here are the desired secondary sources:
  1. "That contest will focus on whether the Swedish request for Mr. Assange’s extradition to face questioning on charges of 'rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion ...' New York Times 8 Dec
  2. "He is accused by the Swedish authorities of one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation, and one count of rape ... London's Metropolitan Police said in a statement today" CNET 7 Dec
  3. "one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation and one count of rape, according to a statement from Scotland Yard" ABC News
and so on, and so on. Enter this text into Google and you will find many more hits from reputable sources. I find it pathetic that every tittle tattle is lifted verbatim out of a newspaper article, with a reference put next to it, and pasted without any modification into the article and that is supposed to be good writing while carefully researched and relevant informative facts, put together to make a readable coherent text, are removed because they don't fit into a simplistic idea of what writing a good article is about. What if not the offenses named in the Swedish extradition warrant are relevant for this case? KathaLu (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I have no issue with including content that reflects the sources you cite above. The content I removed was unsourced. aprock (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
No, it was correctly sourced. Insted of giving a stupid newspaper reference that referred to Scotland Yard that referred to the extradition warrant that referred to the relevant provision of the law, I gave a reference to the exact relevant provisions of the law. That's what's useful for the reader. KathaLu (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
That's called WP:SYNTH. The citations you gave [4], [5] make no mention of charges or allegations against Assange. aprock (talk) 21:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
No, WP:SYNTH means taking A and B to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. I created nothing new, I did not conclude anything. I simply searched text together, edited it and gave it a meaningful reference. Did you doubt for a second that the offenses that you deleted were not correctly described? KathaLu (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you're referring to different sources than these: [6], [7], which you added in the same edit as you added the charges [8]. If so, could you please let me know which references you are referring to? aprock (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I checked and see that I gave three references, the Swedish Procecutor's website on the Assange case in English, the Swedish Prosecutor's pdf file with the clearly marked offenses in English and the Guardian of 17 Dec as a safeguard against the kind of reaction you displayed, as this is not the first time I get that. In the Guardian, the offenses are described as follows: unlawfully coerced, sexually molested, deliberately molested and rape, with the following explanation: What is the Swedish law on rape? Three categories of rape are defined, with different sentencing guidelines. These were described in court on Thursday by Assange's barrister, Geoffrey Robertson QC, as "severe rape", "normal rape" and "minor rape". While the first carries a maximum 10-year sentence, he said, the last has no minimum sentence. The accusation relating to Assange and Miss W is held to fall into the third category. So I did what a good editor does and took the text from the three sources and shortened it and rephrased it to make it a good read, without changing the content. I, at least, believe that Wiki articles should not read like a hodgepodge of news bulletins but perhaps I am wrong.KathaLu (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
As has been noted, the Swedish Procecutor's website on the Assange case [9], and the Swedish Prosecutor's pdf file [10] do not contain any information on the offenses as they relate to Assange. The Guardian source is a fine source to cite. That said, I'm not sure this article is the proper place to detail the legal nuances of offenses which Assange hasn't yet been charged with. aprock (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, every single item on Ny's website in English refers to the Assange case and nothing else:

  1. Statement from Director of Prosecution: (...) The High Court in London decided that Julian Assange (…) I cannot, at the moment, provide information concerning the development of the matter. (…) As soon as new information can be released, it will be published on the web site www.aklagare.se (if that does not concern the Assange case, I don't know what does)
  2. Facts about extradition: Due to general agreements in the European Arrest Warrant Act (…) Sweden cannot, without such consent, extradite a person, for example to the USA (Assange claims he does not go to Sweden because he will be extradited to the USA)
  3. Chapter 6:1, 6:10, 4:4 (the offenses for which Assange is wanted for questioning)
  4. Review: It is possible to request a review of a prosecutor’s ruling concerning, for example, a discontinued preliminary investigation or a decision not to bring charges (Assange's lawyers and some media have been making a song and dance about this; they don't have this in England or the US so it can't be right!)
  5. Code of judicial procedure: The Prosecutor-General, Directors of Public Prosecution and Deputy Directors of Public Prosecution may themselves take on an assignment that would otherwise be the responsibility of a subordinate prosecutor (same remark as above)

But, honestly, I am about to give up. CIA dark plans, how an English lawyer present the Swedish justice system of which he knows little, that Assange thinks it is all just a smear campaign, that a condom was torn, how old the women are and where they live, that Assange breathes fresh air after his stint in prison, all that is more important than the very core of the matter, the offenses named in the European Arrest Warrant, the very reason why he is on bail and will be in court again shortly. KathaLu (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion that these unfiled charges lie at the very core of the matter isn't particularly relevant. What's important is that there is robust reliable secondary sourcing which avoids synthesis and original research, and which adheres to the policies of WP:BLP. While I agree that Ny's website discusses the Assange case, many of your bold remarks above constitute WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. In particular, those attached to points 3, 4, and 5 appear nowhere in any source that you've provided. At some point, you claimed that only the bolded part of the PDF relate to the allegations against Assange. That information is nowhere to be found. As I said, there should be little problem including more information about the allegations from the other secondary sources you provided. aprock (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Not sure why "unfiled charges" matter. The Swedes put these offenses in the EAW that's what matters. That's why the police arrested him in London and why an English court makes him wear an electronic tag and why he has to report at the local police station every day until his next court appearance. I don't know whether my remarks in bold are [WP:SYNTH] and [WP:OR], rest assured I have no plans to bring them into the article, THAT would be an uphill struggle. Nor have I any plans to provide secondary sources though I am confident that I would find them as Ny has given some interviews in English. KathaLu (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Renaming of section

On the basis that the following section is entitled support and praise, for parallelism and inclusiveness could the investigations section be renamed 'condemnation and investigations'? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The section as it stands consists solely of investigations, so this doesn't make much sense. There is perhaps an issue with not having a section for negative reactions, but it is difficult to see how this could be constructed given that he hasn't been charged with anything, so negative commentary on the alleged sexual offences might well violate BLP policy, and most of the negative commentary on the leaks is better placed in the Wikileaks article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

SNL

this guy was parodied on Saturday Night Live, and in more than one sketch. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 06:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow! (And you really think this is news, or relevant? HiLo48 (talk) 06:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Who is a celebrity or major topic of news coverage and isn't parodied in an SNL skit at one point or another? Not even close to notable. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 08:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Notability is about articles as a whole, not content within an article. For content within an article, the correct policy is WP:NPOV, or more specifically WP:WEIGHT. You might also be interested in reading the following discussion about the persistent confusion of notability with weight. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I love how wikipedia editors are so nice and sincere! 98.206.155.53 (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No Charges Laid/ Sex in Top Section Warranted?

I just had a fresh look at the BLP and it seems incompatible with BLP policy to have the sex references, with no charges having been laid as yet, in the top section. I think this :

  • Assange is currently wanted for questioning in Sweden regarding alleged sexual offences, and was arrested in London, England on 7 December 2010.[14] He is currently on bail and under house arrest in England pending an extradition hearing.[15][16] He has denied the allegations and claimed they are politically motivated.[17][18] As a result of Assange's bail appeal the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales issued a ruling allowing the use of live electronic reporting during court sessions.[19]

is covered in the sex section and does not belong at the top when no charges have even been laid by any prosecutor. Once charges are laid, ok, but not now, I think. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. The lede is supposed to be a summary of the article contents, and as far as I'm aware there is nothing in BLP policy to suggest this shouldn't go in, provided it isn't given undue weight. Given the general level of publicity concerning the allegations, and the fact that Assange has suggested they are motivated by attempts to stifle WikiLeaks, to omit any mention in the lede would seem strange.
The last sentence, regarding electronic reporting, is clearly misplaced in the lede though: I'll remove it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Andy, you're likely correct. I just seem to be hung-up on that with no charges, it seems 1 more step removed from fact and toward gossip(gossip then allegations then charges then conviction)Here is the part of our policy that I keep wondering about with these sex accusations;"Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." I just do not think its needed in the Lede, but so be it. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Part of the problem is that Assange is notable for WikiLeaks, and rightly or wrongly, many people (including Assange himself) see the allegations as being connected with this. In any case, being held in custody etc isn't gossip, it is hard fact, and if he isn't charged, or is charged and tried but found innocent, this may will still be a significant part of his notability. The balance between privacy and NPOV isn't clear-cut of course, but I think we'd get a lot of complaints if this issue was omitted from the lede entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I have seen several people say that Assange is wanted for questioning. Our own article on the EAW says: "An EAW can only be issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution (not merely an investigation)". Do we have any statement from the prosecution that he is wanted for questioning only, not for prosecution? 85.225.222.10 (talk) 10:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I think there is consensus that the finer points of law are not allowed to be discussed here, although I think without it one cannot understand what is going on. You have to bear in mind that the EU EAW Framework Decision is just that, it is not a law, which means that every EU country had some liberty in implementing the EU provisions into national law. This means that Sweden has an EAW act, and the UK has an EAW act, and they are broadly the same but not identical. Judicial systems are not the same in Sweden and the UK either, and the tasks of Prosecution in Sweden and in the UK are also not identical but broadly similar. I've tried to point out the importance of such differences for understanding the Assange case a few times on the TP but with little success.
The fact is that Sweden issued a valid EAW under the provisions of their EAW act, and SOCA in the UK validated it under the provisions of their EAW act, and hence a UK court acts on it now. The Wiki article refers in all likelihood only the the situation where the UK issues an EAW.
As to your second question, yes, there are numerous interviews, in English, with Swedish Prosecution officials where they say clearly that Assange is wanted for questioning.
Also note that a Swedish court has issued an arrest warrant, which is the basis for the EAW. We had that in the article until yesterday but it got deleted by an eager editor. It means that he would be arrested in Sweden on the basis of that court order, it's not that he would be just asked to come down to the station for a chat. If Assange is brought to Sweden, Borgström estimates that prosecutors will decide in February or March whether to pursue the case. (talk) 11:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Assange, the unpaid volunteer

I find it a little odd that there is no mention of how he finances his living expenses and travelling while mentioning that he does not get paid for working for his organisation WikiLeaks. I watched two interviews with ABC News and Today Show after his recent release from prison and found it a little odd how, in both cases, he holds up a copy of the Guardian into the camera. These five media partners, is that some kind of a financial deal? KathaLu (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Where does he say he isn't paid by WikiLeaks? As for the rest, this is speculation, though I doubt very much that newspapers are sponsoring him: I think this could have serious legal repercussions if they did.AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
It says so in the section "Wikileaks". Quote: "Like all others working for the site, Assange is an unpaid volunteer".KathaLu (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
For the purposes of this article, it's not important. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 19:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
This is an article about Julian Assange, the person, no? KathaLu (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
You will need to take "unpaid volunteer" out of the text, see Wired: "'At year end [Wau Holland] will give a breakdown of how they have reimbursed our costs and the staff salaries of people who are getting paid,' Hrafnsson said. It’s the first indication that some WikiLeaks staffers have been receiving salary payments for their work." KathaLu (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Again, this is crystal balling that is not for us to be picking over. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 17:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you misunderstood. Hrafnsson, who is a Wikileak spokesperson, refers in Wired to how the Wau Holland foundation who collects donations for Wikileak reimburses "the staff salaries of people who are getting paid" while the article states that "Like all others working for the site, Assange is an unpaid volunteer". One cannot conclude that Assange gets paid but it is clearly wrong to say that everyone who works for Wikileaks is an unpaid volunteer. KathaLu (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Some staff gets paid. There is nothing to pick over. "WikiLeaks’ expenditures have risen dramatically from a paltry $38,000 between October 2009 and July 2010 to more than $495,000 in the last five months, according to a foundation that manages most of the organization’s donations. The jump in expenses appears to be due to salaries the organization recently began paying staff members. "Personnel costs are a relatively recent development,” Hendrik Fulda, vice president of the Berlin-based Wau Holland Foundation, told the German newspaper Der Spiegel. “WikiLeaks now pays some of its employees salaries. The staff members give the organization an invoice, and WikiLeaks hands them over to us.” [11] KathaLu (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest... unless I am missing something the long list of sources used to support the "unpaid volunteer" sentence do not actually say anything along those lines... perhaps I am missing it :P Unless it can be sourced, cut it. --Errant (chat!) 12:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I cut it and have now just read in the WSJ that Assange receives a salary for his work for Wikileaks: "So far, the Wau Holland Foundation—founded in 2003 to honor the legacy of the late computer hacker Wau Holland—has paid more than €100,000 in salaries for 2010, including about €66,000 euros to Mr. Assange, Mr. Fulda said." KathaLu (talk) 02:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Lord Chief Justic electronic recording

Could you expand on your thinking behind dropping the following sentence [12], which is in the WP:LEAD to help establish notability. If you don't feel that it is the right location in the article, please could you take the time to move it further down. The explicit long-term allowance of real-time electronic reporting from court cases, by the highest judge in England and Wales is a fairly significant change, and was covered as standalone stories by all of the major news outlets in the British marketplace on the day it occurred. —Sladen (talk) 14:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

In answer, I'll say firstly that an article lede is intended to summarise article content, rather than contain details that aren't mentioned further. Secondly though, I'd have to ask whether this really belongs in the article at all? This seems to be an issue of general court practice, rather than anything that relates to Assange himself, and presumably would have arisen at another trial soon anyway. I'd think that the Lord Chief Justice would also suggest that his ruling has nothing to do with Assange. We can't include every detail of Assange's life in the article, and personally I think this is just too peripheral to merit inclusion. As for 'establishing notability', I'd hardly think this was necessary. Perhaps this would be better discussed on the article talk page though, so others can comment? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Assange's notability is already well established. A detail like that would just be another thing to perhaps incorporate into the section describing his publishing and legal (mis)adventures. I agree that it's not particularly focused on Assange, unless a source directly connects them, and even then it's not really central enough for a mention in the lead. Maybe it would fit at United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak or the reactions/to article. Ocaasi (talk) 05:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
This hasn't any direct relevance to the diplomatic cables issue, Ocaasi, this arose at Assange's court appearances regarding the sexual assault allegations.AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Apologies. I didn't have all of the details. It does still fit into the Cablegate narrative a bit. I'll let you handle this one. I just agree with the general statement that it doesn't fit in the lead either way. Ocaasi (talk) 06:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Internet petition organized by Avaaz

I propose to add the following (with reference) to the section on 'support and praise', on the grounds that it is a notable indicator:

An internet petition organized by Avaaz calling for the pursuit of WikiLeaks and its journalists in the courts, if they have violated any laws, and the cessation of the extra-judicial campaign of intimidation, had by December 21 2010 amassed over 694,000 signatures.

People happy with this? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Not unless this petition has been commented on in third-party sources, no. We can't include every pro or anti statement, without evidence it is being seen as significant by commentators. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
What? You're sort of contradicting yourself, did you forget a word somewhere? Because you make it sound like the Avaaz petition is opposed to WikiLeaks and want them to be prosecuted in courts when infact it's the complete opposite. Atheuz (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I think BrekekekexKoaxKoax has just been a little unclear over the petition wording: "We call on you to stop the crackdown on WikiLeaks and its partners immediately. We urge you to respect democratic principles and laws of freedom of expression and freedom of the press. If WikiLeaks and the journalists it works with have violated any laws they should be pursued in the courts with due process. They should not be subjected to an extra-judicial campaign of intimidation". From Avaaz here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

For third-party sources, please see Google.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g6jGUnrscfv2ZoqdOf5sS7zTafXg?docId=CNG.a3cd72112889141b0229f761dc840322.11 http://www.france24.com/en/20101215-wikileaks-operation-leakspin http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/media-says-governments-reaction-to-wikileaks-troubling-20101214-18vrb.html

For cited WP:BRD, please see Revert Rather than reverting, try to respond with your own BOLD edit if you can: if you disagree with an edit but can see a way to modify it rather than reverting it, do so. The other disputant may respond with yet another bold edit in an ongoing edit cycle. Avoid the revert stage for as long as possible.

For cited WP:notability, vid. ad loc. (Seems to relate to article creation, not content, where question is of due weight.) 700,000+ signatures is, in my view, reasonably significant, and warrants the brief mention I tried to give it. I think it's more significant than the 100 people protest deemed fit for mention in the article, though I understand this argument may be fallacious. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Please reinstate once satisfied, thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 04:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

This has also been added, and then reverted (by me) in the WikiLeaks article. As I explained there, I was getting a little mixed up with my reversions, and may have been a bit dismissive with the edit summary there - sorry, BrekekekexKoaxKoax. As I've stated on the WikiLeaks talk page, I can see the merits of perhaps including it there, though the wording needs some work. I'm less convinced it needs to be included here though, as the petition refers to WikiLeaks in general, rather than specifically to Assange. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
(I've deleted the reference to 100 people demonstrating in Madrid, as trivial - I'm surprised it hadn't been noticed earlier) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Unbalanced content

Being a Swede I get information from Swedish news, Swedish nwewpapers and flashback in Swedish, and can also read the blog and twitter from the person making the allegation. I am from that flow of information rather dissapointed of the selection of sources etc related to the incident in August in this article. Why for example is a speculative statement from one of the lawyers seen as relevant, but not the many reports in swedish newpapers. But instead of expanding the article with more statement being done in Swedsih media, I strongly propose to limit these kind of statements all together, and propose a deletion of the statement by the lawyer. My own attempt to do that just being reverted.Yger (talk) 13:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, blogs and twitter are not accepted as reliable sources by Wikipedia, regardless of who is responsible for them. Secondly, though what the Swedish newspapers say is clearly relevant, you have provided no links to any articles, and thirdly, the correct way to correct a perceived bias in a situation like this is surely to provide counter-evidence, not cut out well-sourced comments. It is a fact that some of Assange's supporters have seen political motives as being behind the attempt to prosecute him, and it appears that his legal defence may also be partly be based on this. We are reporting the beliefs of Assange's supporters as opinions, nothing more. On that basis, I'd argue that the paragraph in question should stay. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Just a few articles in swedish media. swedish foreign minister denies any discussion between Swedish and US authorites re JA, The girls advocate attack on JAs english lawyers, The grisl story what actually happende and what the allegation is about. As these articles gives counterview on statements existing in the article now, from a balance view these statement should be theree also. But as I said, I think it is best to tone down these statements all together and concetrate on facts.Yger (talk) 15:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the links. I can't read Swedish, so we'd perhaps best wait for someone who does to take another look before making any edits to the article. The First link you give is useful, in that it cites Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt as saying that the US has not contacted Sweden regarding extradition, though it is dated December the 8th, and the situation could possibly have changed. This may be worth adding, if there is no evidence to the contrary. From what Google Translate makes of the Expressen article, I think your summary of it is possibly a little misleading, and it is more of a case of the alleged victims complaining (rightly in my opinion) about the way they have been portrayed by some of Assange's supporters. We've tried to keep the more dubious details and trivia out of the article (along with the alleged victims' names), but we can't just ignore something that Assange may use in his defence. Sadly, I can't persuade Google Translate to work with the third article, so we'll have to leave that for another Swedish speaker to look at. I'd note though that we've had to take WP:BLP policy into consideration, and this discourages over-detailed accounts referring to persons other than the article subject.
Ultimately, much of the discussion about this article has come down to making judgement calls, and there have been complaints of bias from all sides, which may be an indication we are getting it about right, though really we need more input from other editors. Can others please respond? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Cut and pasting the text into Translate, gets around that problem.--Aspro (talk) 16:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)-
How about articles written in English? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
The third one is said to be a summary of an article from The Guardian.Yger (talk) 16:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Yger, I support your proposal to delete the lawyer's statement as well as your wish for a more balanced view through Swedish sources and to stick to the mere facts of the case. By quoting some lawyer or other, or by quoting Assange, editors can introcude any kind of wild speculation into the article, while claiming they are "just stating someone's opinion". The tide is turning away from sheer adulation, now that Assange has given a few interviews, and the chattering classes are slowly realizing that he can be as easily extradited from Britain to the US as from Sweden to the US. Other than Assange's posse, British or Swedish authorities have not said much about extradition to the US since no such request has been made. More here in a very recent AUS article. KathaLu (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Although I don't agree with everything, it does seem understood by the editors on this article, that the Guardian's first responsibility is to its shareholders and that includes selling more newspapers. If it thinks that a few tiny juicy excerpts from this confidential police report achieves this -then that is its privilege. The leaker of the police report on the other hand maybe attempting trial by media – and that is he's privilege. WP is involved in neither of those two activities so I think staying out of the gutter and remaining an encyclopedia should remain our privilege. Let us keep it that way by all staying on Terra Firma.--Aspro (talk) 17:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
"...the Guardian's first responsibility is to its shareholders and that includes selling more newspapers". Actually no. The sole shareholder of the Guardian Media Group is the Scott Trust: "Rather than benefiting shareholders or a proprietor, GMG’s profits are reinvested to sustain journalism that is free from commercial or political interference, and to uphold a set of values laid down by CP Scott, the great Manchester Guardian editor". [13] Whether you consider the Guardian to be genuinely 'free from commercial or political interference' or not may be debatable, but they aren't directly accountable to shareholders in the normal sense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted the passage (again) as I find support on this action in the discussion above. And I personally do not beleive in the alternative to secure balance - to start including statement from the girls lawyer and others, that approach gets too complex and creates nonencyclopedic text.Yger (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Book Deal

I just added some content about the book deal to the sex section since Assange said he is only doing the deal to pay his legal bills related to the sex allegations. Because of the holidays(less Editors available for discussion), I felt it would be be ok to put it in without prior discussion as its not likely to be a controversial addition. Maybe it should go in a different section though? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think it is really that relevant, myself, and it definitely needs to go somewhere else if it stays. I'll see what others think though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't seem relevant or notable to the present article in my opinion. Maybe when a book is actually made (and, if so, likely receives play in media). ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 23:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Signing a book deal worth more than $1 million is certainly relevant to the biography. Perhaps it shouldn't go in that section. But waiting for the book to be written seems like an odd choice. If indeed he has signed a book deal, he is receiving an advance on royalties now.76.127.21.51 (talk) 03:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Its now in the Wall Street Journal and 76.127.21.51 is correct as the WSJ says he receives an advance of over $1 million. Financial Times and Voice of America and many other papers throughout the world now run it; but not the big USA newspapers(excepting WSJ). Isn't this odd? [14] Maybe its just a time of day effect. I'll add the WSJ citation.Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Seems as if all sources reference the legal costs re: sex allegations as the motivation for the book, so I think that qualifies it for that section. Usually it would not be too notable but in this case it shows as how the sex allegations are affecting his life plus it fills in a bit of the puzzle as to where his money comes from and will come from now that donations are being stymied by the major U.S. money processors. I reduced the content relating to it. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I, too, think it should go into a different section and wonder about the wisdom of including that this is supposedly for legal costs in connection with the sex allegations. Facts: a defense fund was put up for him in early December, administered by John Pilger and two others, Larry Flint contributed 50 000 dollars alone; Assange seems to claim he has spent over 200 000 pounds already - hello, on what? This sum refers to the bail money which was not spent by him or anyone else. It was raised by others and no doubt they will get it back if he does not jump bail. So far for the facts which you can find in any major newspaper. Has he been asked whether he wants to counter Daniel Schmitt's book about Wikileaks which is due for publication next months, and give his own version of events? Before someone cries "OR" again, I just want to say to editors: "Put your thinking hats on before you include unverifiable personal statements into the article in order to give the article the slant you are aiming for". Mention the book deal but leave out Assange's "poor me, I don't really want to write this but evil forces make me do it" KathaLu (talk) 08:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree. It should go in a different section, and I think there are a lot of question marks about the money going to legal fees. I don't know about England, but certainly in Sweden all his legal costs will be covered by the state. Defence lawyers in Sweden send their bills directly to the court, not to the defendant.81.232.150.232 (talk) 15:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Given that there seems little enthusiasm for including this in the 'allegations' section, I'll delete it for now. If someone wants to make a case for putting it somewhere else, we should discuss this further. There are a couple of points that really need clearing up though: firstly, does Assange actually need funds for his defence, as opposed to bail, and secondly, should we be including details about a book deal that may come to nothing anyway? - this all seems a little speculative to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
That's fine with me, its getting lots more coverage now but as you say, the question of "does he need the money for his defence" is more notable than anything else and we could use more sources to back that up. Their website lists a bunch of ways to donate and a Guardian poll 3 weeks ago found 85% of Respondents would donate; so I don't know why he would be short of money. On the other hand, I think he could've gotten more money in the future unless...wait a minute...I bet the book is going to get quickly rolled out into a movie; and that's where the big money will come from and a movie is much more time sensitive (the sooner the better). (Sorry for the OR but KathaLu's "thinking hat" comment did get me thinking more about it). Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Assange, the victim of feminist radicalism

If editors insist on including statements from Assange and his lawyers about CIA conspiracy theories and similar claims about US government involvement in the Sex allegation section, for which there is no other source than speculation by Assange, his lawyers and his supporters, then you must also include this very recent statement straight from his mouth, Source: Interview with Marie Colvin, The Sunday Times of 26 December 2010. Direct quote from ST article: "Mr Assange regards himself as a victim of radicalism. 'Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism,' he said. 'I fell into a hornets' nest of revolutionary feminism.'". KathaLu (talk) 10:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Kathy, I agree. It would be better to include the original source of the quote.--Nowa (talk) 15:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
The above should be only included if editors continue to insist on including conspiracy theories, theories about future events (extradition to US in conncection with Wikileaks), speculation about motives etc in the form of quotable statements, IN THE SECTION ABOUT THE SEXUAL ALLEGATIONS. I personally think that such statements should not be included at all. A useful reminder about what Wikipedia is not:
  1. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories.
  2. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: News reports - Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion.
  3. When you wonder what to do: When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia. KathaLu (talk) 10:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Talking from a Swedish perspective, I find this a very interesting quote, which tells us a lot about Mr. Assange. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Pieter, I found the issue of Swedish law very interesting. I added a short note to safe sex. --Nowa (talk) 15:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the "Saudi Arabia of feminism" quote that Nova has just added, for now, as I think we need to discuss this further. It seems to me that we need to strike a balance between reporting the fact that some of Assange's supporters see a political motivation to the allegations, and going into too much detail, which risks violating WP:BLP regarding the alleged victims. I'd also point out that the article as it stands makes no reference to CIA involvement in any conspiracy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
If Assange blames radical feminism for the rape allegations then this needs to be quoted. It's a direct quote in an interview to a highly notable publication. Also it's a view shared by many others and supported by evidence and contradicts any suggestion that it's just the right who are attacking him.--Shakehandsman (talk) 04:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
If "it's a view shared by many others and supported by evidence" then provide a reliable source that says so. As for what Assange himself says, we need to remind ourselves that the alleged victims are also covered by WP:BLP, and we need to consider their situation too. The whole episode has been contentious, and there have been strong opinions expressed on both sides - it seems wisest in this article to keep opinions to a minimum, and verifiable fact to the fore. For now, I can't see any grounds for including this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the quotes have any impact on the victims. He's blaming the culture in the country as a whole and its laws rather than any people. There's certainly no problem with the "Saudi Arabia" quote whatsoever. If we want to be ultra cautious we can maybe leave out the "hornets nest" aspect but there's certainly no issue when criticising countries or their laws. I find these quotes especially notable as they totally contradict some of the previous claims in the media, for example this Guardian article previously reported it's was misogynists blaming feminism.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually I've read the article again and it's fairly clear what he means - there's already a quote suggesting it is a smear campaign so if anything that needs to go first. Please stop removing such important content.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Please conform to WP:BRD, and discuss, rather than reinserting. You have one opinion, I have another. The article is arrived at by consensus, and we should wait to see what others think. I note that you are still providing no sources to support your earlier claims, and have not responded to my comments about WP:BLP. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I have responded to your BLP claims. To clarify, I think the "smear" quote, whilst not very problematic at all, is at least worse in this regard than any of the feminism related content. All of it belongs in the article in my view but I cannot understand your inconsistency here. Also if you have an issue with one particular phrase please remove that rather the wholesale removal of content. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
This whole radical feminism piece is really tangential and barely relevant. It's an alleged motive or explanation for disputed charges that haven't even been formally brought. It's just not encyclopedic, certainly not at this point. Ocaasi (talk) 09:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Whilst the charges themselves might be doubtful and uncertain, their notability is huge. In fact it's their disputed and mysterious nature which makes them so notable and makes Assange's quotes here highly relevant. If the charges had been formally brought and were surrounded in less doubt then there wouldn't be so much controversy/discussion and his quotes would arguably be less encyclopaedic.--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Something that hasn't happened can't be notable. And your assertions as to why you think particular issues regarding the charges are 'highly relevant' needs sources: if this is true, then they shouldn't be hard to find. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
As seen below there exist official statments related to why is is asked to answer questions from the Swedsish prosecuter. These statement are not fully clear for a non Swede though, because of language/context problems. But the solution is then not to introduce even more confusing statemants on what this is all about. I agree with AndyTheGrump - keep all of these disussion of interpretations of the allagation away from the article, includign JA own interpretation.Yger (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
How on earth can the controversy surrounding the a charges not be notable? It's about the biggest news story on the planet this month. I really do despair sometimes at the arguments being used here, just ridiculous. And I still don't see why we can have the "smear" quote but not the feminism one. If anything the former is the more problematic of the two though no one is bothering to address that point.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Look, it's quite simple. Find reliable sources that have taken Assange's comments about "revolutionary feminism" seriously enough to suggest this is more than just him blowing off steam, and we'll look at them. All we have at the moment is a passing comment from an involved person, and a great deal of speculation on blogs etc. Frankly, given the little that even Assange himself has said, it isn't at all clear exactly what he is suggesting anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Specifics of Sex allegations

Is it appropriate to indicate the specifics of the "sexual allegations" in the article? I wasn't aware, for example, that it related to improper use of a condom or the fact that this is against Swedish law. If it's left vague, then readers will fill in their own preconcieved notions of what it might be.--Nowa (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

See my comment regarding the level of detail we reed to go into above. In any case, the sentence you added was potentially misleading, in that it reported a disputed version of events as fact. It also only relates to one of the alleged victims. As of yet, we don't know what offences, if any, Assange may be charged with, but by some versions of events, condom non-use was not the sole issue by any means. This has already been discussed on this talk page, so I won't go through all the details again.
(And BTW Nowa, I think you may need to read WP:PLAG regarding your edit - you might need to paraphrase a little more when not giving a cited quotation.) AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Good tip, thanks.--Nowa (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Have any charges actually been brought against Assange? It's not clear from the article.--Nowa (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Not as far as I'm aware. The extradition request was for him to be returned to Sweden for questioning regarding the allegations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Can we source that? It seems like an important point to make.--Nowa (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Asked and answered from CBS News 21 December

No charges have been filed against Assange in Sweden relating to the claims of sexual misconduct,

Is this worth including?--Nowa (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure. We could perhaps try to make the situation a bit clearer though. I've altered the word 'charges' that appeared in the section to 'allegations', as this was clearly incorrect, for now. It wants looking at further, as the wording is a bit messy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I'll add a 'no charges yet' sentence to the article, with the CBS link. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
This underestimates the legal trouble that Assange is in. After he was reported to the police, a sv:Förundersökning was started, stopped, and restarted by prosecutors. Then courts ordered sv:Häktning with "probable cause", which is the higher of two degrees of suspicion. "Charges" (sv:Åtal) will not be brought until the Förundersökning is completed. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I think you mean '"Charges" may not be brought...'. Even his extradition to Sweden isn't certain at this point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Pieter, Thanks for the clarification and links to Häktning, etc. From what I can get from Google translator, there are different levels of "charges" under Swedish law and Häktning is pretty serious. It's not like US law where "charges" and "no charges" are very distinct. Do I understand that correctly?--Nowa (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump, "förundersökning" roughly means police investigation. Nowa, I'm not sure how you use "charged" in English. Hard to comment on "how serious" häktning is, in my dictionary häkta is translated to "remand in custody". Arrested might be a better translation. Even if "anhållen"(anhållande happens before häktning) might sound like the correct translation of arrested, "arrested" might fit "häktning" as well or even fit better.
Reading the discussions here it looks like there are many translation issues. Many of them can probably be solved by more general descriptions instead of trying to use words with very specific meanings. Most of you are probably very aware of the problems with the translation of the word rape but I'll use it as an example. A normal translation of the word "rape" to Swedish would be "våldtäkt". In non law speak they mean roughly same thing, however in judicial(?) terms they clearly don't. For example an adult having sex with someone younger than 15 is by law "våldtäkt"(rape) in Sweden regardless if for example a 14 year old and an 18 year old are in a relationship and had sex because both wanted to. I imagine the correct translation of a situation like that would be something like "sex with minor" in English judicial terms and not "rape".
Like I said most of those issues can probably be avoided by describing the situation in general terms, "sexual offences" probably covers the definition of the suspected crimes for example.83.255.58.118 (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Timing of the arrest warrant

in source:

"Lawyers for Julian Assange were contacted by Scotland Yard detectives last night" (Dec 6)

in pedia:

"On 6 December 2010, Scotland Yard notified Assange that a valid European arrest warrant had been received.[113] Assange presented himself to the Metropolitan Police the next morning"

So there fact is presented in meaner skewing the fact - the time gap; because it is not true that JA was notified his layer was. He did not hidden all day the Dec 6 but asap, next morning, appeared in police. Do pedia wobble facts? Yes. Guess why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.41.247.20 (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The legal proceedings from 1 September until 7 December had been meticulously researched, and that sentence once read "On 6 December 2010, Assange's UK lawyers were informed by Scotland Yard that a valid EAW had been received by SOCA and validated by the UK authorities". Then some eager editor came along and cut out all the "boring" legal stuff and shortened the text to the extent that it did not make much sense any more. Snappy statements make more entertaining reading than boring facts, I guess.. I think people desperately want to believe that what's happening in connection with the allegations and how the Swedish justice system works, is highly irregular, while it is just a little different from how they do it in the UK, US and AUS. Also, Assange wasn't hiding in the UK, although some media presented it like that. Police knew where he was, his lawyers told them in November, UK police had no reason or right to arest him until a valid EAW was received. The much touted Interpol Red Notice is not a valid legal ground for arrest. It was all in the article but got cut recently. KathaLu (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
There is a difference between "boring" and WP:UNDUE. Keep in mind that all of the changes I made were done in good faith. If you have specific concerns, corrections, fixes, or improvements, by all means apply WP:BRD and work towards improving the article. aprock (talk) 03:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I stated clearly (see this TP, Cleanup) that I was not happy that the description of the offences, in legal terms, as stated in the European Arrest Warrant and read out in court in London during the preliminary extradition hearing, including the references to the relevant paragraphs of the relevant articles of the Swedish Penal code, were removed from the article. KathaLu (talk) 09:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
As to the timing, I think the following elements are essential to understand the sequence of events although they can be left out now already because all that matters in the end will be the result of the extradition hearings in January and February 2011: women went to police, he was questioned, investigation continued, he was wanted for second interrogation but did not show up, therefore Swedes issued arrest warrant and extradition warrant. KathaLu (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
The problem with the description of the offences that was in the article was one of sourcing and WP:SYNTH. I told you that there was no problem with using reliable secondary sources that described the offences. You presented a good secondary source (The Guardian IIRC) but did not add that content. aprock (talk) 14:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation of name - article needs correction

The article gives the pronunciation of Assange as əˈsɑːnʒ/ ə-SAHNZH. However in the following Time magazine video clip, at the very start Mr Assange says his own name, clearly pronouncing it "Assonge" and not "Assahnge".

http://www.time.com/time/video/player/0,32068,275343738001_2006959,00.html

Perhaps someone could correct the article?87.231.185.157 (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Ain't that 'cause 'e's speakin' with an Oztralian accent? If you listen he even say's Julion.--Aspro (talk) 17:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not convinced it's just that - anyway, the article gives no source for assahnge.87.231.185.157 (talk) 08:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Plus, if it's of French origin (?) then Assonge will be the correct pronunciation. Question is, does anyone have a source for Assahnge?87.231.185.157 (talk) 11:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I thought I read somewhere that it was actually of Chinese origins, though I'm not sure that helps. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, it could be derived from the Chinese Ah Sang. The sixth post here has a bit of ancestry research on it FWIW. [15]. Then there is this rather strained discourse here: [16] where there is a bit more about the possible Chinese origin. Looks like it will be difficult to please everybody on this one. The French -or pseudo French- pronunciation appears the most popular from what I hear on the news, so this maybe a case, for sticking with the status quo. --Aspro (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
The issue of how to pronounce a name in English must come up frequently and I guess you have rules on it. The language of origin is not the main criteria. Kissinger is a German name, however, Henry Kissinger's name who was even born in Germany was not pronounced the German way in English media (but this was done in German media, i.e it was pronounced like "kiss" and "singer"). KathaLu (talk) 08:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

misleading header?

This header

Espionage investigation in the United States

As far as I can Google and search there is no official investigation at all? Is there an investigation? The section just seems to be peoples opinions and soapboxing comments. Who is leading the investigation? Off2riorob (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It was I who changed it to that as it first said charges. Perhaps it could be changed to "Espionage accusations in the United States"? Nymf hideliho! 02:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
It should probably be renamed Grandstanding by politicians playing the law'n'order card. HiLo48 (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
(ec) yes agree with that HiLo48n - I would prefer if it was deleted , its rubbish. Its just a few opinionated peoples opinions that have no value at all in Assuages life story, I am sure they are duplicated at wikileaks, anyways...there is no espionage investigation at all. We could/should trim the comment to...in America there were political shouts of off with his headOff2riorob (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleting it completely is a good idea, in my opinion. It's rather WP:UNDUE with 5 paragraphs for a couple of comments by biased politicians. Nymf hideliho! 02:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Done, seems to be three editors in support. Off2riorob (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, include me in that too. I think when it was first added, there may have been suggestions that there was actually something significant going on, but with nothing from WP:RS since, we can assume it is either hot air, or something factual will emerge. Until then, it is purely speculation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Dito, section was undue. aprock (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it relevant, for cases in Sweden, whether charges are filed or not, and what does this mean anyway IN SWEDEN?

Perhaps someone who has a clue and is from Sweden, can answer this question? We know exactly why Assange is wanted under the Swedish Penal Code (was in article for a short while) and that these charges are named in the European Arrest Warrant and that the highest Swedish court has upheld Assange's arrest warrant, despite his Swedish lawyer's appeals against in November and early December. Yet editors do not allow these offenses under the Swedish Penal Code to be mentioned in the article because "charges are not filed". So how do things actually work IN SWEDEN? I read on the official Swedish Prosecution website: "Once the preliminary investigations have been completed, the prosecutor judges whether there is sufficient evidence to bring the case to court. If it is a minor crime, and the suspect admits his or her guilt, the prosecutor imposes a fine. This is referred to as an order of summary punishment, and no trial will be held." This must be alien to people who are only familiar with their own justice system. Does this mean that someone, say Assange or any one else for that matter, can be fined for a criminal offense, without these ominous charges ever being "filed"? Please note that this is not a discussion of a finer point of law but important to understand whether these editorial semi-laws make any sense when it concerns criminal proceedings outside familiar English speaking territory.KathaLu (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea that "editors do not allow these offenses under the Swedish Penal Code to be mentioned in the article"? As far as I'm aware, all that has been said is that until charges are laid, going into unnecessary detail is unwise, and that speculation about hypothetical scenarios isn't helpful either - we are trying to report the facts of a particular case (within the normal constraints of BLP policy etc, and accepting the need to keep the article to a reasonable size), nothing else. As to the particular question of Swedish law and an "order of summary punishment", If and when this arises, we can report it. If you want to investigate this for yourself, there is nothing stopping you, but this isn't a forum for the discussion of hypothetical questions relating to Swedish law. This has nothing to do with "editorial semi-laws", but with the fact that Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia, and article talk pages are for the discussion of article content. Until such an "order of summary punishment" is discussed in the mainstream media, it needn't be discussed here, per normal Wikipedia procedure. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
The criminal offences for which he is wanted either for trial or interrogation (if you read what one of the UK extradition judges said in one of the recent hearings you see that it is far from clear whether he is wanted for trial or merely for questioning, despite what CNN or whoever writes) are clearly stated in the European arrest warrant issued for Assange. These offences were read out in the recent court hearings in the UK. They were listed in the article for a short while, with references to the relevant articles of the Swedish Penal Code in official English translation: rape as described in the third paragraph of the article on rape; sexual molestation of the kind described in the second paragraph of the relevant article; and coercion, also as described in the Swedish Penal Code. For me, these are the kind of hard facts I would want to see in an encyclopaedia, not some rubbish about CIA, surprise sex or condoms. The clearly stated offences for which Assange is wanted, not by the police, but upon order of the highest court in Sweden, were removed on the spurious grounds that it is OR or that "charges have not been filed". I don't even know what that means, filing charges - in my country it would mean that trial is to be opened. I cannot imagine that someone is suspected of murder and a Wiki article does not mention murder until the moment trial is opened and just says "a dispute arose out of an encounter of two people". Bur this is exactly what we have here. The Wiki article says that a dispute arose out of an sexual encounter, followed all kind of speculation by Assange, the lawyers and supporters, but is mum about what what the offences are: rape as described above, sexual molestation, coercion, all as described in Sedish law. KathaLu (talk) 08:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

KathaLu, If the documentation exists as you say it does, then I agree, the specific alleged offenses should be presented in the article. Care to post a draft below for further discussion?--Nowa (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Here are the basics from the Swedsih prosecuters office:A request for JA to be "häktad" Häktad in this case menas he is demanded to answer qurestions (in the "förundersökning"), and the prosecurer must after these questionings starts in a number of days (10?) either let him go free, or press charges. To get approval for a "häktning" the court must approve it (ie evaluate the probability of the proofs for JA to be charged after the questionings). the court approves the häktning. the request by JA to cancel the warrant is turned down by the appealing court. The high court does not look into the request for the warrant to be cnacelled as there is no principal issue at hand. officiall stement re extradiction (in English). The official potential charges are stated as "våldtäkt", "sexuellt ofredande" and "olaga tvång" described in the article sv:Sexualbrott i Sverige. For an understanding of differnces to laws in other coutries the key is he changes introduced 2005. "Ändringarna innebar ökat skydd mot sexuella kränkningar och förstärkning av den sexuella integriteten och självbestämmanderätten. Begreppet våldtäkt utvidgades så att fler gärningar bedöms som våldtäkt, till exempel genom att kravet på tvång satts lägre och genom att de allvarligaste fallen av sexuellt utnyttjande arbetats in i våldtäktsbestämmelsen. Detta betyder att man vid studie av äldre rättsfall där viss gärning bedömts som sexuellt utnyttjande bör beakta att den nu kanske kan bedömas som våldtäkt". It says "lower demands on force involved for it to be defined as rape, sexual integrity, no affront to one's dignity and open consent are vital".Yger (talk) 13:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The prosecutor does not need to press charges after 14 (not 10) days. The prosecution can also apply for an extension of detainment, until they finish the investigation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Great links. Here’s a Google translation of the official Swedish statement as to why they issued an order to detain Assange.

Assange requested custody in his absence 2010-11-18
Chief Prosecutor Marianne New today November 18 submitted a request to the Stockholm District Court to detain Julian Assange in his absence.
"I request that the district court to detain Assange in his absence, on suspicion of rape, sexual assault and coercion. The background is that he must be interrogated in the investigation and that he could not be found for the implementation of these hearings, "said inquiry leader chief prosecutor Marianne New.
For the sake of the investigation and the parties involved, the prosecutor is not able to moment with the details of the suspected crimes or the investigative measures taken so far.
After the detention hearing, information will be published on www.aklagare.se the end of the hearing and the consequences of it. Marianne New, then, also available on the phone.
Detention hearing will take place at. 14 days in the Stockholm District Court.

It seems to me that it would be appropriate to use an excerpt from this in the article to clarify the reason for why they have ordered the detention.--Nowa (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

That seems reasonable but I honestly would like to ask that a person who is either a native or well-versed communicator of the Swedish language be found in order to make a proper translation free of grammatical errors. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 15:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
The translation as such is fairly accurate, but there is problem with diffent contexts. Detain/Häktad has different meaning especillay from a legal point of view, but I think that is understable and can be accepted. That the word Rape has different meaning is harder to pass by without clarifying. I have worked much with the article om sv:wp om rape, and know that English and US law defines this very differently from Swedish law and it is possible some mentioning of this would be necessary to make it understable for a person not from the Nordic countries. Also I think, but am not cetrain, that the actual charges are made in a more general wordings, more making references to several legal clauses. And that, if the interogation goes to a legal case, the actual wording of the charge then would be more specific, as one of the aim of the "prestudy" is for the prosecuter to be more certain of what legal cluses to persue. So in some ways to includee this into the article would clarify some parts, but in orher ways it could cause even more confusion (but on a higher level..). To make it properly understandable I beleive a little more then the bare translation is needeed, but would not this be too long then?Yger (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that anything more than 'bare translation' would constitute original research, and thus violate Wikipedia policy. This is the reason I've argued that looking into the finer details of Swedish law at this point isn't helpful. Unless we can find a WP:RS that describes the situation, we can't include it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Yger, there is an article Laws regarding rape with different sections for different countries. If you could put in a section on Sweden (properly sourced, of course), we could link over on the word "rape" in the quote for this article. That might help clarify what is said without introducing original research or making the section too long.--Nowa (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I did a compromise and included the three stement as of above, in order to get the sequence of events before the arrest in UK correct (it did not start with Scotland Yard).Yger (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Looks good.--Nowa (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I fail to understand the basis of this argument, which for a start seems to be cherry picking Swedish law workings. If he is charged or convicted then it will be notable. --Errant (chat!) 18:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as I have been made aware, he has been charged and Sweden is currently petitioning for extradition - or at least that's the impression that the cable news networks give me when they're not discussing inane things. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 20:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Errant, Apparently the status of a suspect under Swedish law is more complicated than simply “charged” or “not charged”. If I understand it correctly, an intermediate state of häktad means that there is sufficient cause to forcibly detain a person and question them. There is also an intermediate level of specificity in the accusations. We are just trying to get it right.--Nowa (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree fully with the points made by AndyTheGrump and Errant. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Nowa, this is no different from any other jurisdiction to my knowledge :). @Evilgohan; he has not been charged, he is wanted for questioning. Trying to get it right? This is right--Errant (chat!) 09:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
"Wanted for questioning" underestimates Assange's legal predicament. He is a suspect. The Swedish courts found probable cause for detention. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
The degree of his predicament will only be known after he's found guilty of something. Right now he's a 100% innocent person, at least under any "presumption of innocence" judicial system. If Sweden operates under the presumption of guilt ( I'm not being facetious,some countries do) then that may be worth noting somewhere. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
"Wanted for questioning" underestimates Assange's legal predicament. He is a suspect.; What nonsense; wanted for questioning is exactly, unequivocally and precisely the reason he has been detained. Yes, as a suspect. All standard and understandable terminology and extant in legal systems the world over. So again, where is the issue? --Errant (chat!) 15:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yger, Pieter, finally :-)! Thanks for the info, this is the sort of information I want to read when I come to Wikipedia for background information, I don't need an indiscriminate digest of newspaper articles, I can get that through Google News and Wiki News. Ben Goldacre (UK scientist, author), who also "got annoyed that nobody in mainstream media was sitting down and writing a straight, serious, focused and well-researched long piece examining whether it really is true that the allegations against Assange are being pursued with unusual zeal, by dubious process, etc" has put together some info on the Assange case, which is not allowed as source according to Wiki editor rules but maybe useful for anyone who is willing to translate not only words but context and concepts from Swedish into English. Also, should you not have seen it, there is http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/ in English, all of it directly referring to the Assange case, maybe also useful for translation purposes. KathaLu (talk) 08:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

At the "in English" site just suggested, the Director of Prosecution Ms. Marianne Ny. says "- As I have already stated I cannot, at the moment, provide information concerning the development of the matter." It shouldn't be this hard for the REliable Sources, and I am sure there are many of them trying, to get straight answers and straight talk if there really is anything else that is worthy of inclusion at this time. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340429/Im-promiscuous--I-just-really-like-women-WikiLeaks-founder-Julian-Assange-launches-astonishing-attack-media-defends-private-life.html#ixzz18jsW8UCT
  2. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/21/julian-assange-defends-decision-sweden
  3. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/21/julian-assange-defends-decision-sweden
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Julian_Assange/Archive_6&oldid=1140144177"