Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Removal of foreign language sources revisited

After the RfC above, which made it clear that using such sources for BLPs was not a good idea, I removed another foreign language source. User:Off2riorob restored the foreign language source with out any discussion. I would ask that he engage in discussion if he is going to be restoring reverted content, especially in the context of a fairly clear RfC about related sources. aprock (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• - discussion and comment and replacement google search revealing more than one replacement citation for the content you removed is on your talkpage. As I said there - there is nothing explicit in guidelines that rejects a foreign language cite. Off2riorob (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

aprock, the comments in the RFC above were more in relation to the fact they were primary sources, not foreign. I think you might be misconstruing the RFC. Nymf _hideliho! 21:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• - There is no explicit reason to remove foreign language cites from articles, also if you want to remove one, please don't just remove it and the content it supports, please post to the talkpage so that interested users can find a replacement citation to support the content, its not difficult to google it and find an English source rather than remove it, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The case for the removal. The claim is contentious and hard to verify if you don't speak German. Furthermore, Off2riorob's explanation of a lack of policy lacks reasons. We should not back up our actions with policies, we should back up our actions with logic and reasoning.

The case for the inclusion. The claim is contentious and not likely to be reported in the pro-US English language press. The Angloamericanism of Wikipedia is a known problem and is to be fought at all costs. The case is more clear cut when given the examples of the articles on the Islamic world, where most English language sources show the side of the story told by those who speak English, and the Arabic language sources show the other side. WP:NPOV is FAR more important than our ability to verify each sentence without the help of google translate. Of course if the source is not WP:RS that's a whole nother issue, but in this case I strongly support the sources inclusion. Tim.thelion (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources which are not verifiable are not reliable. BLP requires that high quality sources are used, and foreign language sources without reliably sourced translations are not high quality. This is an issue of sourcing. I'll replace the source with a cn tag presently. aprock (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Those cites are verifiable - just not by you. I gave you the google search results with more than one support for it, its not like it is contentious disputed material and yes BLP requires the best cites we can present but the is nothing explicit that requires a foreign cites removal they are as reliable as others. I have added one of the google search results in English to support the content. Off2riorob (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This is English wikipedia. The sources should be verifiable by any English speaker. Without a reliably sourced translation, the source is not verifiable. aprock (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have anything that would say that the google translations are inaccurate? Machines are pretty good these days.--Terrillja _talk 23:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

See WP:NONENG and WP:BLP. aprock (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Preferred - there is nothing explicit in policy or guidelines that rejects a quality foreign external - out of 150 externals related to Sweden issues, one or two is not at all a problem, suit yourself, but your imo being pointy, as long as you post here for interested users to find replacement citations for the content its not an issue. Off2riorob (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Since you linked to WP:NONENG you should not have first misrepresented it. "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, provided that English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." There is NOTHING that says we cannot use non-English language sources and in fact the section directly above that "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." And further up the page the definition of Reliable sources is "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." - nothing in there requring English language sources. Active Banana (^bananaphone 23:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not misrepresent it. Please see the above RfC for details. aprock (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You wrote "This is English wikipedia. The sources should be verifiable by any English speaker. Without a reliably sourced translation, the source is not verifiable" which in my book clearly misrepresents our policies, perhaps not deliberately, but your statement is clearly not supported by the actual policy. Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. aprock (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually that was also misrepresented as court documents when actually they were only press releases, just forget about it, present your problems here as they are all easily cited and I will do that no worries. Off2riorob (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem. A properly sourced English citation has been added. aprock (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to think I could be an unbiased (or at least uninvolved) outsider over this affair. Unfortunately, with no diffs provided, it's not easy to tell what's going on and I wonder if I'm intruding on something private.

Nevertheless, a bit of sleuthing leads me to think that this may be the particular diff at issue this time round.

The WP difference of opinion concerns this German language (Sunday?) newspaper article, which translates by Yahoo partly as follows: "Violent criticism practices [US Ambassador] Beyer at Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. “Its leakages are a risk for many, many humans.” Assange had announced at the beginning of November to possibly ask Switzerland around asylum. ... Swiss politician are ready to accept it. “Assange is to get asylum”, demands Juso president Cédric Wermuth. “Switzerland is to offer protection”, says also the green national council Bastien Girod to it. US Ambassador Beyer reminds Switzerland meanwhile to caution. “Switzerland will have to consider very carefully whether it would like to grant someone, which flees before the law to hideout”, says it. Beyer refers to the fact that against Assange in Sweden a warrant of arrest was issued and it on the interpole list stand – because of the suspicion on rape.".

The two paragraphs above were added to the bio in this form "In December 2010 it was reported that US Ambassador to Switzerland Donald S Beyer had warned the Swiss government against offering asylum to Assange." which looks like a very fair rendition to me.

While it would be better to have an English-language source for the same story, it's understandable why it does not appear in the English-language papers, and I cannot see a problem with the use of the German link in this case. It's inclusion would help combat the Anglo-American domination mentioned above.

Actually, there is more in the same German article that we're barely seeing in any English-language sources. Assange's bio currently reads as if he is more of a danger to the US than the US is to him ("severe national security threat to the U.S", Assange actions "reckless and dangerous") - there is only a roundabout quote from Ellsberg ("subsequent speculation by US officials ... "puts his well-being, his physical life, in some danger now."") suggesting that Assange himself is in personal danger. Maybe some use of the following from Sonntag (which I assume to be a major and reliable German newspaper) would redress the balance a bit:

"Swiss ex secret service boss Peter Regli is Assange in mortal danger. “I would not be surprised, if he suddenly victims of a car accident, of one underground-rise on the tracks to fall or at one cardiac infarct would die”, says it" Templar98 (talk) 09:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC) =Banned User

It's best not to speculate on these things. But, frankly, as part of the "establishment" we all find conspiracy theories along the lines of "I would not be surprised, if he suddenly victims of a car accident" completely hilarious :P --Errant ^(chat!) 10:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The speculation is there in the reliable source. I don't know whether a lot of people foresee Assange being murdered in a faux-accident, but the "Sonntag" clip is a valid clue. More examination of the German or (better) the Swedish press might find that it was widely foreseen, in which case it should be added to the article. Templar98 (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC) =Banned User

Confusing: For the benefit of other editors please could someone link to whatever content was being discussed at the top of this section? -84user (talk) 11:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Very confusing - if people want private discussions that nobody else can join, they should be held elsewhere, eg TalkPages. I don't really care for the use of foreign media and expected to support aprock. But looking at the article I could see the extra-angloAmericanism importance of what was contained in the German newspaper and now tend to support Off2riorob's view. Templar98 (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC) =Banned User

"Solitary confinement" is misleadingly emotive

I picked up the following comment from a UK lawyer on a leading law blog but think it is a correct description of this particular choice of words, now in the article, as Assange was not put into solitary confinement, as defined, but into a segregation unit at Wandsworth, for his own safety: "Describing segregation as 'solitary confinement' and bail with conditions as 'house arrest' is misleadingly emotive".KathaLu (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It may actually be factually incorrect too. As I understand it, a 'segregation unit' may house prisoners that (for various reasons) are considered inappropriate for the main prison section. The prisoners in the unit may very well not be segregated from each other at all. We'd need a source that actually said that Assange was being kept alone to state that he was. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree, I almost removed it earlier, there is no such thing as solitary confinement in an English prison. He means he was in a Prison single cell for his own protection because he was a high profile prisoner, this is done to protect venerable prisoners like Assange was, otherwise he would have been in serious problems like a fish out of water in the general British prison population and basically in personal danger.. - I have removed it as a misleading claim Off2riorob (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it is entirely normal that an unconvicted remand prisoner would be kept separate from the main prison population: remand prisoners generally have greater rights of access to facilities etc than those serving terms. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can make out, his safety (and possibly comfort) was the reason for putting him in this part of the prison. But one cannot help but admire his way with words "during my time in solitary confinement in the bottom of a Victorian prison". Conditions must have been truly abominable: he "reportedly asked for his personal laptop to be brought into the jail but was refused by prison authorities. However, he will gain access to a computer with limited web access that he can use to work on his case under a British prison initiative named "access to justice". He also complained about daytime television, said lawyer Stephens. KathaLu (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

FoxNews video

I see from the archive that there is a FoxNews video in which Geraldo Rivera makes a throw-away/possibly sarcastic statement "He's over in Sweden screwing young girls". (It's at time 4mins.02secs). There is some suggestion that other news-sources eg CNN have been saying this rather more forcefully.

Having previously had very carefully prepared material in this area simply torn up, I need to ask before I do the research - shouldn't this angle be included under "Criticism"? If we want these kind of smears documented, would we include the fact that the accusers are 26 and 31? (I have to ask, since the RfC said the women should not be named in the article.) Templar98 (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC) =Banned User

No, it's just nonsense of very little relevance to his biography. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't qualify as an "angle" on the story, and I've also changed the header, which is not really suitable for a BLP talkpage. --FormerIP (talk) 12:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The article does give the ages of the alleged assault victims. They were included after it was pointed out some time ago that such comments were being made in the US media. Are you seriously trying to get every anti-Assange "throw-away/possibly sarcastic" comment ever made put into the article? Perhaps you could point to some other Wikipedia articles that do the same? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia, not gossip blotter. Encyclopedia, birds-eye view, detached perspective, significance filtered, issue focused--speculation avoiding, hearsay deprecating, triviality dismissing... What will be relevant here in 10 years? Geraldo's off the cuff jab? Not a chance. Ocaasi (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Loach

Extra information about Ken Loach is not relevant. In fact, he simply offered a surety when the Bail was originally declined, I don't think it is significant so perhaps remove it? --Errant ^(chat!) 15:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the recent trim. Much as I admire Loach's work, I couldn't believe we had a list of his films here! --John (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I also don't think he has a significant input for a mention in the article - listing each and every person that has commented in support of Assange is not what we need, the significant ones yes but not the side dishes.... Assanga was supported by previous whistle blowers, yea really , that is amazing - yada yada - this comment is especially in relation to the self serving bloat that is attached to the Daniel Ellsberg comment. - and a group that supports whistle blowers and gives a yearly award to whistle blowers has given assange the award and five of the previous whistle blowers who won the award are signatories to the support - really wow, that is surprising. Hispanosuiza has stated on my talkpage his intention that it is his - "plan and my practice in these Assange pages, to enlarge the FACTual list of supporters of Assange's enterprise with WikiLeaks" - ! .. Off2riorob (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ken Loach wasn't the only person to offer to put up bail for Assange: an earlier version of the article listed several. NPOV would suggest that if we were going to name any, we'd have to look at naming the rest, and it could be a long list. I really don't see it adding much to the article - it is obvious that Assange has many significant supporters, but we don't need to list them all, any more than we need to list everyone who has called him a 'terrorist' or suggested he should be bumped off. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

What I keep coming back to when trying to determine relevance and scope is that this article is called 'Julian Assange'. Not 'supporters of Julian Assange' or 'would be assassins of Julian Assange'. So when there is content added, the point is what does this say about Julian Assange? It says he is a praised figure, a supported figure, a reviled figure, a targeted figure, a controversial figure... Those are the points we are making, and the specific quotations are evidence. Assange's biography is not determined by every mention of him in the media. I think we're on the right track and generally just handling single-issue editors who want Assange's perceived scapegoating and harassment to be front and center. Ocaasi (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the above. --John (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Likewise agreed. The degree to which quotes belong in the article is that required to establish the view. It's fine to include various sources which support those views, but having a quote from every Tom, Dick and Harry is undue. aprock (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• - note - I reverted a large copy paste unreabable post added by User:Hispanosuiza in this diff, (to all) if you have a comment to improve the content in the article, please make it, if not, please don't. Off2riorob (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Julian Assange Coloring Book

Okay, so I can kind of see that perhaps this doesn't belong in the external links, I just thought it was a pretty funny idea...

http://www.julianassangecoloringbook.com/

But when it was removed, it got me to wondering what "rule" it had broken.

Are images, in this case coloring pages, not valid commentary?

Although the site is very tongue-in-cheek, it provides a pictorial representation of the person whom this Wikipedia page is about. So what rule has been broken exactly? (just curious, not really trying to argue the case)

Xtempore (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure putting it in external links breaks any rule, other than the general principle of WP:WEIGHT, which might well be interpreted as suggesting that it should be excluded as rather tangential to the topic. Really though, this is much more a case of editorial judgement, and common sense. Would our readers expect to find a link to a colouring book in the external links? I'd have thought not. If we were to include this, but exclude some of the other things that have been argued on this talk page as being relevant, we'd justly be seen as being inconsistent. In the end it comes down to not being able to include everything - if we did, who'd want to read the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

We are not here to be a link farm to every vaguely related Assange site. Per our external link guidelines we select the links that provide access to additional factual information about the topic that we cannot provide within our article for reasons such as excessive detail. A coloring book is NOT factual information. Active Banana (^bananaphone 05:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Shortened opening paragraph on sex case

I have just shortened the opening paragraph in the sex crime case. I felt the amount of detail was making it hard to get a good understanding of the overall picture. Listing all the events that took place during the first hours/days of the investigation is probably not as important now as it seemed in August/September. Please discuss here if you have any objections. Mbulle (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I replaced it, WP:BRD there has been already a lot of discussion to come to that consensus version of that section, you are of course very welcome to see if consensus has changed, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, is there any particular part of my edit you object to? I was merely trying to make the section more readable. As it stand now it contains a lot of minor details that might have seemed important in August/September but don't hold much relevance to the overall process anymore. For example the case was handled by three different prosecutors during the initial days. This is a standard Swedish process of escalation as an investigation tries to find a "home" with the right prosecutor. This might have seemed significant in the beginning, but I am not convinced that the two initial prosecutors are very relevant at this point. For this reason I tried to shorten the text about them.Mbulle (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This was as I could see the removal, this does seem important timeline to me ? It also includes assanges refusal to return, which seems quite important, as that would have sloved the whole issue. Off2riorob (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• - Claes Borgström, who represents the two women, appealed against the decision to drop the rape investigation. The Swedish Director of Public Prosecution then reopened and expanded the investigation on 1 September.[126] Swedish investigators reinterviewed the two women, wanting to clarify their allegations before talking to Assange but he left Sweden on 27 September, according to statements in UK court, and refused to return to Stockholm for questioning in October, according to Borgström. According to Assange's lawyer, Assange made repeated attempts to contact the prosecution, spending over a month in Stockholm before obtaining permission to leave the country, with the Swedish prosecution stating an interview would not be required.[127]

I did not remove the part about refusing to return. Here's the suggested edit (in bold):

On 20 August 2010, Swedish police opened an investigation against Assange in connection with sexual encounters with two women, aged 26 and 31,[119] one in Enköping and the other in Stockholm.[120][121] He denied the allegations, saying he had consensual sexual encounters with the two women.[122][123]

Stockholm police questioned Assange on 30 August [124], after which Director of Public Prosecution Marianne Ny picked up the investigation on 1 September.[125] Swedish investigators reinterviewed the two women, wanting to clarify their allegations before talking to Assange but he left Sweden on 27 September, according to statements in UK court, and refused to return to Stockholm for questioning in October, according to Claes Borgström, the lawyer of the two women. According to Assange's lawyer, Assange made repeated attempts to contact the prosecution, spending over a month in Stockholm before obtaining permission to leave the country, with the Swedish prosecution stating an interview would not be required.[126]

I think this text reads better than the current version and has a more encyclopedic style.Mbulle (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, its difficult to see, what content do you actually want to remove? Can you post that here, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

What I'm seeing from Mbulle looks good, as is the explanation. I'm not entirely sure what's gone but if it bothered me I'd check and post it back here. Templar98 (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC) =Banned User

It reads better than what is currently there. aprock (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed text looks ok to me (I agree that these minor details can be cut from the text, they had been presented as important and unusual at first but turned out to be normal procedure in Sweden). KathaLu (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any need to remove timeline details at all. Can someone please post the actual content that is desired to remove so that people can discuss it and see what it actually is? Off2riorob (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's the current text (sentences I want to change in bold):

On 20 August 2010, Swedish police opened an investigation against Assange in connection with sexual encounters with two women, aged 26 and 31,[128] one in Enköping and the other in Stockholm.[129] Within hours, Stockholm's chief prosecutor Eva Finne reviewed the case and dropped the rape investigation, saying there was insufficient evidence to suggest rape but kept open the molestation investigation,[130] and on 30 August Stockholm police questioned Assange.[131] He denied the allegations, saying he had consensual sexual encounters with the two women.[132][133]

Claes Borgström, who represents the two women, appealed against the decision to drop the rape investigation. The Swedish Director of Public Prosecution then reopened and expanded the investigation on 1 September.[134] Swedish investigators reinterviewed the two women, wanting to clarify their allegations before talking to Assange but he left Sweden on 27 September, according to statements in UK court, and refused to return to Stockholm for questioning in October, according to Borgström. According to Assange's lawyer, Assange made repeated attempts to contact the prosecution, spending over a month in Stockholm before obtaining permission to leave the country, with the Swedish prosecution stating an interview would not be required.[135]

Mbulle (talk) 09:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Since on real objections to the changes seem to have surfaced and nobody else has commented for two days I'll try to put them back.Mbulle (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there was at least me objecting and there has been no clear explanation of what content the user desires to remove and after my repeated requests, the desired removal hasn't been posted here for investigation and discussion, so there is no consensus to remove it , feel free to post the content and any cites you want to remove here, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You objected but didn't state a reason. I have 1) Posted the current text with the sentences I want to change marked with bold, 2) Posted my suggested new text with the new sentences marked in bold, 3) Made the actual changes which can be easily examined with a diff in the article history, 4) Explained the reason for my edits above. What else could I possibly do to show you what I want to do? All information is readily available.

Again, which change do you oppose, and why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbulle (talk • contribs) 19:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I oppose your desired cited content removal, it affect the timelime which imo is quite important, why are you unable to clearly post the and the desired content removal and any removed cite here is beyond me. For example you are removing this - Claes Borgström, who represents the two women, appealed against the decision to drop the rape investigation. - why are you removing that? it seems noteworthy to me, the name of the womens lawyer and the fact that they appealed. Off2riorob (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I have posted it above but nothing would make me happier than posting it again. Here it is again. I have marked the content I want to change with bold. Since you asked on my talk page that another text size (!) be used I will:

On 20 August 2010, Swedish police opened an investigation against Assange in connection with sexual encounters with two women, aged 26 and 31,[128] one in Enköping and the other in Stockholm.[129] Within hours, Stockholm's chief prosecutor Eva Finne reviewed the case and dropped the rape investigation, saying there was insufficient evidence to suggest rape but kept open the molestation investigation,[130] and on 30 August Stockholm police questioned Assange.[131] He denied the allegations, saying he had consensual sexual encounters with the two women.[132][133] Claes Borgström, who represents the two women, appealed against the decision to drop the rape investigation. The Swedish Director of Public Prosecution then reopened and expanded the investigation on 1 September.[134] Mbulle (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Still confusing, you are only really removing content, I asked you about five times to just post the content you are removing here so that people can see what you want to remove, how difficult is that, anyway, its cited and informative quite important time-line and there is no good reason to remove it. What reason do you have to remove the womens lawyers name, Claes Borgström - and that they appealed the dropping of the rape claim, we have a list of assanges legal people? In fact there is no reason to remove any of the timeline detail, its not like the coverage is excessive or bloated is it. Off2riorob (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we are understanding each other. I will start a new topic and try to explain myself in the hope that more people chime in. Mbulle (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes , good idea, if you make a clear case and I will leave it till tomorrow to allow additional editors to comment, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Using untranslated and primary legal sources for a biography.

Currently there are four foreign language sources in the Julian_Assange#Allegations_of_sexual_assault section: [1], [2], [3], [4]. All of these are primary sources (from the Swedish prosecutors website). These source have no translation available, and are being used to support procedural legal details in the article. As I understand it, there are several policy problems with using these sources as the basis for including content.

• they are difficult to verify, and requests for translation have been unanswered violating WP:V, WP:NONENG, and WP:BLP
• there are many secondary sources which should be preferred to these sources to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH
• they cover unencyclopedic details of procedural legalities, and are WP:UNDUE

There are several editors who disagree with this perspective, and insist on detailing the various procedural aspects of the case based in large part on these sources. For more discussion on the topic, please see: Talk:Julian_Assange#Removing_foreign_language_sourced_material_from_a_BLP. Outside perspectives invited. aprock (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing really wrong in a situation like this that is attached to another country to use out of 150 external links - four from Sweden. I will translate them and look what is in them, could you please also add the content that each one is supporting so that users can also at the same time attempt to find better sources to replace them, thanks. All four cites are from the Swedish prosecutors office. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know Swedish, do you? Without knowing Swedish it's difficult to say much about the exact content. There is a discussion of some of the content issues at Talk:Julian_Assange#Removing_foreign_language_sourced_material_from_a_BLP. Even with proper sourcing, the issue of WP:UNDUE with respect to court reporting still needs to be clarified. aprock (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• - translated via google - two of the cites can probably removed if desired as they are combined with other supporting cites, the content I have added above is the only content that is stand alone supported by these cites. Off2riorob (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• No, no, a million times no. Per WP:BLP and WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. --John (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Well, they are hardly supporting anything but fair enough, the content we need to find replacement cites for is... On 18 November 2010 the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny asked the local district court for a warrant for Assange in order for him to be heard by the prosecutor.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.swedishwire.com/politics/7272-prosecutor-wants-arrest-of-julian-assange-for-rape|title=Prosecutor wants arrest of Julian Assange for rape|publisher=The Swedish Wire|date=November 18, 2010|accessdate=January 4, 2010}}</ref> - and - (an appeal from the legal representatives of Assange was turned down by the Svea Court of Appeal) and the Supreme Court of Sweden) - declined to hear the case.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7499889-swedens-supreme-court-upholds-julian-assanges-detention/content/67822113-supreme-administrative-court-of-sweden|title=Sweden's Supreme Court upholds Julian Assange's detention|publisher=ALLVOICES|date=December 2, 2010|accessdate=January 4, 2010}}</ref>Off2riorob (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I certainly don't think that using Google Translate is appropriate in a situation like this: one may be dealing with complex legal terminology that requires an actual understanding of the subject in question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think these original sources are important since there are so many distorted second hand reports in other media. The prosecutor is able to provide more precise and factual information than most other sources. If there is a language problem the proper responce shouldn't be to remove these sources but to find good second hand English sources that report the same thing.Mbulle (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, as John says, not allowed according to policy. Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• - As I can see, I have found two cites to support the supported content from the two and the other two can be removed and we can all move on. Off2riorob (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  The original press releases are the rock-solid references that all the hundreds of press reports of these events rely on. They should be kept in this article. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue of WP:UNDUE still hasn't been addressed. aprock (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I have boldly removed the Swedish language primary cites and replaced any uncited with secondary English support. Off2riorob (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• - I don't see an undue issue, simple timeline, what actual content do you see is undue? Off2riorob (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think input from external editors would be of value on this point. There is no reason to include most of the procedural details of the case. This is a wikipedia biography, not a legal journal. I'm confident that the level of detail included is more than is warranted for a BLP. For example, naming the various legal personalities in no way contributes to the article. aprock (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

So you want to trim the sexual section, why not present what you want to trim it to here for appraisal. Off2riorob (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• No, no, no. Per WP:BLP#Misuse_of_primary_sources, do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Also, without secondary sources, it fails WP:WEIGHT. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • It was only a small simple comment and the primary had no personal detail - see the content and the translated primary.

  These are press releases, not court records. And these are the statements that were used in hundreds of news reports, there is no problem with WP:WEIGHT. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• - On 18 November 2010 the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny asked the local district court for a warrant for Assange in order for him to be heard by the prosecutor. translated via google

• English sources are preferred to foreign-language sources, provided that equal-quality English sources exist. In this case, they don't. --75.60.13.19 (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd much prefer English sources, but one part of the story of Julian Assange is centred on Sweden, and their media is covering angles that we're not seeing in our media. Unless there is reason to doubt what we're told is in the Swedish, we should accept what we're told. We don't want anyone to think they can see our angloAmerican bias, now do we?

However, that must depend on cooperation from editors who support use of these Swedish sources, and I'm not fully convinced we're seeing that. We need a page with the original Swedish, a machine translation, and a cleaned-up english version of the same thing. Then we can decide for each individual point which parts are properly verified. Templar98 (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC) =Banned User

Eva Finne

During the first days of the sex crime investigation the case went through three different prosecutors: the on call prosector, her boss Eva Finne, and finally Director of Prosecution Marianne Ny. As I understand it this is a standard Swedish process of escalation as an investigation tries to find a "home" with the right prosecutor. This might have seemed significant in the beginning, but I am not convinced that the two initial prosecutors are very relevant five months later.

I find it strange that the only quote from a prosecutor that we currently have is from Finne, who only handled the case for a couple of days, before Assange had even been heard. Marianne Ny has been the prosecutor for over four months now. Finne's actions do not seem to have any bigger importance for the case than the initial prosecutor, which we don't quote. We don't mention Assange's inital lawyers.

I suggest we trim the part about Finne and focus more on the current prosecutor's views on the case. Mbulle (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't actually quote Finne, but summarise what she said. I think it is of some relevance as showing that initially there was some doubt as to whether the allegations of the more serious offence were worthy of investigation. As for 'more on the current prosecutor's views', what are you proposing we should add? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Mbulle's suggestion but realize that many people are attached to this part of the story as it is proof to them that the rape allegations are wrong and it is all a US conspiracy. Finne was right then and Ny is wrong now, that is how they see it. I would include the following statement by Ny, made on or around 19 November 2010, the day of Assange's arrest in absentia by the Swedish judiciary. It is a key moment and the reason for the events that followed: “We have exhausted all the normal procedures for getting an interrogation (and) this investigation has gotten to a point where it is not possible to go further without interrogating Assange himself,” Ny said.[5]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathalu (talk • contribs)

That you think that some editors are "...attached to this part of the story as it is proof to them that the rape allegations are wrong and it is all a US conspiracy" is neither relevant nor at issue - unlike what is reported in the international media, mainly that this wasn't a clear-cut case from the beginning. Leaving out the case history would leave WP's readers with a narrow view of what happened.TMCk (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I totally understand that events have to be presented as they are viewed in the international media (= US, UK, AUS). KathaLu (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Umh, did I miss something? Unless the world has suddenly shrunk the international media is not limited to the US, UK and AUS .TMCk (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the recent TP discussion on Swedish and Swiss sources? Anyway, we will now be told the story as it really is: Assange is reported to have hired the PR company Borkowski, and it amuses me to see that one of their clients are the Chippendales. Totally irrelevant, of course, but still funny in the context of Assange, even more so when you read that Borkowki had been "tasked to refresh this iconic (...) brand, and take on imitation acts. KathaLu (talk) 12:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

PS. The quote refers, of course, to the Chippendales, not to Assange and his 'ruined' image. KathaLu (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

@ KathaLu: I'm not sure the US media has anything to contribute factually (except as regards attempts to access the Twitter feeds of Assange and of Icelandic law-makers). We've even agreed it's a problem to document such opinion makers such as FoxNews appearing to accuse him of "screwing young girls", let alone Biden calling him a terrorist.

Meanwhile, the anti-Assange wing of the British press has said things like "Assange 'taking precautions' against the death threats" and the German press is saying he could meet an accident. I'd expect to see those things in his article. Templar98 (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC) =Banned User

Assange in the Eye

I wonder if this is newsworthy? [6]. For those who want some light relief in the Giant Ozzie Ego saga, Craig Brown's Diary features Assange in this week's Private Eye. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry, absolutely not worth looking at. If someone collapses this thread tomorrow, it won't be too soon. Templar98 (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC) =Banned User

Pro or anti- Julian Assange?

Looking round at other biographies, I came across a section of the biography of Ron Paul, his Republican Primary Campaign of 2008.

The section is pretty much gushing, in fact, the whole article is gushing.

Here are the first 3 paragraphs of that section: "Paul formally declared his candidacy ... His campaign had intense grassroots support—his supporters were said to "always show up"[96] — and he had dozens of wins in GOP straw polls. Paul's campaign showed "surprisingly strong" fundraising[97] with several record-breaking events. He had the highest rate of military contribution for 2008,[98][99] and donations coming from individuals,[100] aided significantly by an online presence and very active campaigning by supporters,[101] who organized moneybomb fundraisers netting millions over several months. Such fundraising earned Paul the status of having raised more than any other Republican candidate in 2007's fourth-quarter.[102] ... Paul was largely ignored by traditional media, including at least one incident where FOX News did not invite him to a GOP debate featuring all other presidential candidates at the time.[105]."

That article on Ron Paul reads much as I'd expect it to do - and it's a good article, perhaps because people who sympathise with him will tend to produce something readable and interesting.

Then look more carefully - note how, if the reliable sources don't give Ron Paul enough coverage, it's because the media is at fault, not because Ron Paul is not notable. Hyperbole ("obvious and intentional exaggeration" or "an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity”) doesn't bother me, I'm an adult and I can handle it.

The article on Julian Assange does not read as I'd expect it to do. Leaving out information necessary to understand what's going on, no mention of the threat to Bank of America, which may be the one reason that Biden calls Assange a terrorist (sorry, no reference for that at the moment). Templar98 (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC) =Banned User

WP:WTA, WRITEFORTHEENEMY, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Avoid flowery language, write so as to suit a detractor as well as a proponent, and it doesn't matter how many bad articles exist on Wikipedia--no number of them justify repetition of mistakes. It's not on us to bash Assange, but neither is it our job to promote him. The Ron Paul article is heavily watched by supporters. I think that's a flaw in the system, not a success. Contrarily, I think Chiropractic is unduly protected by skeptics. We have many articles with shades of bias and different opinions about whether or not it exists. The Bank of America details belong at Cablegate, and briefly, for now. Ocaasi (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I've stopped doing the kind of web-searching necessary to make a good case - this is the NYT on how bad it could be, but it may only be part of the story. Templar98 (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC) =Banned User

Good article, but it's way out in front of the story. How BoA prepares for a leak that hasn't happened yet is just not in our purview. More broadly, I think the world is waking up to leaks as a fact of life, the same way they did to Twitter and instantaneous PR. Businesses will adjust more than they'll fight it, because fighting it is going to be too costly and look even worse once it gets out. Also, Americans have a ton of anger at banks for their lending practices. Once/if the BoA leak happens, Assange should be better received in the eyes of many than when he was for merely exposing US classified documents. Ocaasi (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

good point - Assange could pull back some kudos on this!

However, the threats against the BoA have been out there for 16 months. Templar98 (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC) =Banned User

Yes, threats, but that's all we can say: There are rumors of a coming leak related to a major American bank involved in the 2007-2008 financial crisis; many have speculated the bank is Bank of America. One sentence, put it wherever it fits. But I don't think it fits at Julian Assange anyway, more at WikiLeaks. Ocaasi (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The wiki leaks section

This section (section 3) has become excessively bloated for his BLP , we have already two related wikileaks articles, United States diplomatic cables leak and WikiLeaks - I suggest trimming back and or deletion of duplicated material. Off2riorob (talk) 14:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Disagree - looking up "Julian Assange" one is expecting to discover his age and nationality and a few other things about him (including the state of the prosecutions and legal disabilities he is subject to) but most of all one wants a quick rundown on the latest about Wikileaks and Cablegate, with links to articles giving more detail of the more historical material.

Now, some of the most high-publicity details may get duplicated but only because people have rushed to get material from here over to the historical articles, the details still need to appear at this article first. If you can see a significant mis-match between what is at the other articles and what is here then the likelihood is that the other examples have not been updated properly. Invite improvements there but don't diminish what is here. Templar98 (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC) =Banned User

Yes, exactly a quick rundown - what is here now about wikileaks when we have other articles is excessive. Off2riorob (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Lets see if we can cooperate sufficiently to produce an article that treats him properly before we agree to removing the case for his defence. We have allegations of terrorism and threats to kill him still classified under "Criticism". No way is that acceptable. Templar98 (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC) =Banned User

Yes, seems correct to me, criticism. Off2riorob (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Death threats and terrorism claims is criticism, but including extensive coverage of that may be undue. aprock (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think what we have is undue at all, we have kept the strong and removed the weak and we have a rebuttal from assange. Off2riorob (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Aprock - the whole tenor of that section (in particular) is gravely prejudicial against a man who is legally innocent and (most people would expect) likely to remain legally innocent of all charges of terrorism. Not least because most people probably think the charges against him on that score are quite ridiculous. When a Canadian joined the chorus of threats and false accusations against Assange, he quickly decided he'd gone much too far and needed to apologise. Templar98 (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC) =Banned User

Yes, the whole section is likely undue. There is just no need to devote 500+ words to sensationalistic name calling. aprock (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

When I just tried to separate the reaction of the different nationalities who'd called for extrajudicial execution, I got reverted, something about everyone knowing there was a nationalist element so it wasn't necessary to document it. Templar98 (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC) =Banned User

The separation made no sense: "Calls for the killing of Assange were also heard outside the US" What, the US is Iran and word didn't get out to the rest of the world that some people in the US weren't too excited about him and felt he should be six feet under?--Terrillja _talk 20:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a good WP:NPOV claim to insist on some of the more notable critisism to be included. Off2riorob (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ditto Aprock about too much content on name-calling. The Flanagan comment was particularly a non-notable off-the-cuff bad joke. This happens a lot in Canada, maybe because of all the hockey game insults, and I won't bore you with detailed examples, but the fact the Flanagan off-the-cuff bad joke is in this BLP is a good example of bloat. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

ok, I removed the Flanagan non-issue and I thnk the criminal Felon, G.Gordon Liddy,'s comments should also be deleted or else he be identified as a convicted Felon (right now he's identified as a former Nixon aide). He served 4.5 years in jail and why anyone thinks his opinion is worth a pinch of horseshit is beyond me. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Well actually as I commented on your talkpage regarding the one you removed, Actually, there is an ongoing police investigation and both assange and his lawyers commented in regards to that one, so your description of it as a non issue is imo mistaken and I am going to replace it if your can't dispute my comments. You have to remember for NPOV , there has been a lot of coverage of people calling assange a terrorist and death threats, around twenty were added at one time, we have trimmed them to the most noteworty, removing the four or five that we have included is, well, basically out of the question as far as NPOV is considered, all the comment are specifically about assange and he or his lawyer has replied to a couple of them at least and that includes the one removed. Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a npov issue, especially if we reduce the "support" comments by an equal amount and I'd start with the Brandis,Rudd and Feris comments who are all about as little well known as Flanagan. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

These are life-destroying allegations and calls for extrajudicial executions, broadcast nationally, and it is disturbing people want them brushed under the carpet. Threats against Salman Rushdie get an entire article to themselves, with 131 in-line references, 14 other references and 9 other external links. Over and above the nationally broadcast threats, we have all this stuff going on: "shallow thinking idiot that needs to be stopped before his egotistical crusade gets a few million...or billion...people killed" - some reference to which should be going in too.

Obviously, there are substantial differences between the cases of Assange and Rushdie, but they're more apparent than real. The US threatens rather few individuals (can't remember it ever threatening Saddam) and hires professionals rather than offering rewards. However, Assange has probably been put in substantially more fear and restriction than anything that happened to Rushdie. In fact, many people must suppose that Assange is almost bound to be silenced, and not because "business McCarthyism" bankrupts him. His words - why don't they appear? Oh, because there's no mention his funding is cut off!

Meanwhile, are we supposed to see the hand of the censor in the total absence of the Bank of America business, potentially even bigger than Cablegate? It was October 2009 Assange claimed to have 5Gb of BoA documents, and they're due to come out "early" this year. Assange thinks they should lead to resignations - isn't that bigger than anything we've yet seen?

And don't ask me to add things to the article - most of what I've done here so far has simply been reverted, initially with politeness, latterly with prejudice. Templar98 (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC) =Banned User

A few points in response. Just to be clear how we try and base our decisions, Wikipedia doesn't care what any editor thinks is significant, only what sources suggest is significant. By describing the death threats as 'life-destroying, nationally broadcast...' it's making a case for their significance that is separate from the sources. Yes, there was a rash of calls for his execution. We've described several of those. Every one is not notable. We clearly give the overview that death threats are out there and then mention the most prominent ones. We're not 'sweeping anything under the carpet'; we're crafting an article which reflects the coverage in the sources.

Also, there was a lot of hyperbole flying around after the Cablegate dump, but it was no fatwa. The call for Rushdie's death was a Big Deal, not because one man was more of an enemy than the other but because the fatwa wasn't just a preference for his execution: it was an order. Not an idea or an opinion, but binding edict. The Assange equivalent here would be a bounty for his head, and there's no such bounty. And, sources made a big deal of the fatwa, lots of them. So to compare: Rushdie, one primary call for execution, a binding religious edict, amply described in sources. Assange, calls for execution from multiple places, a mix of political hyperbole and legal/military opinion, all sourced but not equally noteworthy. They're different. We're covering what we should. Don't forget that this is the Julian Assange article, and he is the focus, not all of the people who would rather he not exist. For this specific article, those opinions are only really relevant in relation to describing Assange. If you want to try and start Death threats against Julian Assange, go for it. But that's a different article entirely. Ocaasi (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

- I fully support the content and may even replace the noteworthy one that was removed yesterday, if and when I can be bothered, there is a police investigation and possible charges about that one. Some people thing assange is fantastic and some don't, it would be against npov not to include one or the other side of the most noteworthy aspect of those very noteworthy issues. Also , they are not just death threats, they are high profile people commenting on assanges actions and the detrimental affects were and still could be, this is not some promo public vote award list its a detailed life story. Off2riorob (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

(to Ocaasi) Thank you for spending the time to explain how the article comes to be suspiciously light on the accusations and "threats". Some of what you say is persuasive, but by no means all - nobody in the public media can afford to be labelled "anti-American", Sarah Palin has not only put Assange in fear, she's fired a shot across the bows of the whole of journalism.

Such nastiness shouldn't censor what I write or what appears here.

This self-censorship of the world media is not even entirely effective anyway, the Telegraph has "... Assange 'taking precautions' after death threats. Why is there nothing whatsoever in this article about it? A search on "threats" finds only "severe national security threat to the U.S". There is no mention in the article of "death" (as in threats) - in fact, that's double strange, since Assange has been accused (presumably falsely and likely maliciously) of causing deaths himself. Why's he not been cleared of this nastiness? No mention of "precautions" the Telegraph tell us Assange is taking. Why not?

And it gets worse - a quick google finds the Telegraph (I'm only giving you the best and easiest to find) says that the "Swedish government asked American officials to keep intelligence-gathering “informal” to help avoid Parliamentary scrutiny ... Wikileaks show", and commentators link this to Karl Rove and his known (?) influence on the Swedish Prime Minister. If Assange has enemies and sources say they're trying to get him, then we should say so.

However, I'm hardly going to waste time trying to produce a balanced article if it has to be controlled by the US Establishment and censored (mostly if not entirely by Americans, perhaps?). I think I'm up to at least 3 really important issues missing from the article. Templar98 (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC) =Banned User

The primary problem here is one of UNDUE and POV. This isn't always a malicious or intentional problem. People report on the news they get, and the sensationalist news is the stuff that sells papers. Some people think UNDUE means that things should be represented in the article in proportion to which they are reported (hence the massive section on name calling). This leads people to search for more information, but the lack of reporting on the boring details leads people to resort to using primary sources (see the discussion of foreign language sources above). The real solution is time. In time, secondary sources will cover the topic in a more encyclopedic manner. But for now, the article will have to be a mish mash of whatever people see in the news this week. aprock (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Templar, I'm not sure what you want from this article. I wouldn't censored what you write, so long as it's relevant. I'm an American, but I don't know what that has to do with it. I've cheered on most of Assange's behavior and find plenty of fault with our foreign policy. Some people think Assange is a hero, others think he's an enemy of the state. Some want him praised, others would prefer him killed. I see both sides reflected in this article. I think they're reasonably proportionate to their coverage in sources. I think you're wondering why we're not 'defending Assange from these horrible threats' but they're not just mean-talking, they're people's actual political opinions. Sarah Palin thinks Assange is a terrorist and should be treated like an enemy of the state. Ok, we can say that. But we're not here to clear Assange's name or to indict the establishment. It seems like you're looking for a little too much corrective work from this article, when Wikipedia is a reflective work. As for "death threats", if that's how they're described in sources, than we can use that term. If they're political/legal opinions that he should be prosecuted as a terrorists and punished as one, then I don't necessarily consider that a threat. As for connecting the fact that 'his enemies' are out to get him, we can't connect those dots unless reliable sources do. I know you don't like the tone of this article, but I think most of the content is there. If Assange has taken precautions for his safety, then it's part of his lifestyle and his response to the leaks. We can include it too. Just don't think that there's some great conspiracy to exclude what you think is missing. You might be partly right and partly looking for too much. Let's take the better pieces and incorporate them. Ocaasi (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I want the article to cover all the most important things that one might expect to know about Julian Assange and his campaigning.

For instance, today in the Telegraph (not the Wikileak friendly Guardian, but their ideological opponents) it says "Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has caused major embarrassment for both the Pentagon and US State Department, but his next target will be the private sector and an American bank in particular".

From everything we've seen (and what Assange has said, resignations this time) this leak could be even more sensational than Cablegate. It's been semaphored ahead since October 2009 and it's breaking "early this year". So why's it not in there - because it's the Bank of America and Wikipedia establishment editors don't want them embarrassed?

(Were you serious that a sub-article on "Life-threatening hostility towards Julian Assange" could have value? This story could run and run and there'd be all that useful material to turn into "The undoing and death of Julian Assange".) Templar98 (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC) =Banned User

Templar98 will you cut out the crap about 'Wikipedia establishment editors'. The reason why speculation like this isn't in this article is (a) because it is speculation (see WP:CRYSTAL), and (b) it is more relevant to the WikiLeaks article than this one. Your endless droning on about 'censorship' isn't doing anything except getting up peoples noses. If you want anything included in the article, try to do it without making snide insinuations - you might get further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Deal with the issues not the personalities.

Assange has been threatening a major US bank for 16 months now and the issue is not going to go away, in fact he's now threatening that it's about to break (with resignations, as we've not seen yet). That needs to be in the article. Other threats and the precautions that Assange is forced to take are also in the top UK press and belong in the article. None of the work will be wasted even if Assange's plans prove to be a flop.

There is also no mention of the totally unprecedented refusal of the banking system to deal with an individual, what Assange has called "business McCarthyism". This article is not about Wikileaks, it's about Assange and I've discovered what happens if one tries to add material - it disappears. Completely disappears. Now deal with it. Templar98 (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC) =Banned User

If you have reliable secondary sources which support Assange being "blacklisted" by the banks, that is probably worth considering for inclusion. aprock (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

And I'd not be instantly reverted? Templar98 (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC) =Banned User

Assuming the content was from a reliable secondary source which mentioned the issue in a more than passing manner there is almost certainly a place for it either on this article or the Wikileaks article. If it directly spoke to Assange's personal problems with doing business with banks, I suspect inclusion here might be me reasonable. aprock (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I saw that Templar98 had found the required links, and made the addition. It seemed to me that it needed rewriting with a more neutral title, and to better reflect the source, and I have now done so. Note however that only the first link is in relation to Assange's personal finances, and the remaining three concern the WikiLeaks organisation: they are dealt with in greater depth in that article.

I'm not entirely sure this section is in the best place. Any suggestions? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't have any reference calling these "financial implications", we have many calling them "business McCarthyism" (or sometimes "digital McCarthyism"). The sources make much of the fact that, financially, Assange is most of Wikileaks. I didn't find a source that directly links attacks on Wikileak finances with any fighting fund of Assange's. But then, I didn't look very hard, confident that any work I do will either disappear completely or turn into something that didn't answer the case. Templar98 (talk) 08:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC) =Banned User

Templar, If you want a lower chance of being reverted, bring your sources and proposals to the talk page first, and ask for suggestions. 'Business McCarthyism' is what Assange called it. That title is propaganda, the same kind governments use. We don't want anyone's propaganda in the article, which is what WP:NPOV is about. Assange is a big part of WikiLeaks, but the financial repercussions are only relevant for Assange if they involve his personal finances. Otherwise, take it to WikiLeaks. We will not riot with you, if that's what you're looking for. Time spent treating us like failed revolutionaries or establishment lackies, could be spent on sources, content, and writing. Ocaasi (talk) 10:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

G. Gordon Liddy threat removed

The first 2 sentences of Liddy's BLP show why his threats are not notable. The Watergate burglaries, a 38 year old botched robbery, is all he is really known for, so I thought about adding that to the description of him instead of just "Nixon aide", but it seems that noone here is saying that his particular musing shouild be in Assange's BLP. Some Editors want to include a sample of the threats that have been made, but please use someone else who is more known. If Liddy's comment is returned, he most certainly must be described for what he is most known for; as his BLP indicates he "masterminded" the Watergate burglary. Its inaccurate by omission to just refer to him as a presidential aide and talk show host, I think. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This could be the real reason there's such a problem. Assange is an Australian, he's wanted in Sweden and under house-arrest in the UK - all places where accusations of terrorism and death-threats are taken seriously. The US is just one of many governments he's upset - however, it's just happens to have hosted 19 out of 20 of the really notable threats/accusations of terrorism. The 20th threat was retracted but could yet be prosecuted. All this is good information that belongs in the article on Assange (ie personal to him, not about Wikileaks).

We're now down to just 4 of the threats/lurid allegations against him, no indication that this kind of thing is a police matter almost everywhere, and it's in a section called "criticism". We took the last threat out because it only came from a criminal and was only broadcast nation-wide. Sheesh. Templar98 (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC) =Banned User

Nope. We took the last 'threat' out because (a) it wasn't a threat - Liddy hadn't threatened to kill Assange, and (b) the opinions of loud-mouthed ex-burglars aren't actually all that relevant to an article. If 'they' (whoever they are) want to bump Assange off, I'm sure they can do it without Liddy's permission. Meanwhile, we should stick to facts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The Australian and British (and Swedish, judging by this) media consider the threats against Assange to be extremely serious and liable to have a permanent affect on his liberty and probably well-being. That's all of the media of all the nations most concerned, I would think, just checking the Telegraph suggests so. The underwriting (even if understated) of these threats by criminals is notable, making the problem worse. If we were talking about threats coming out of Iran, Liddy would be labelled a hate-filled imam of national importance and his views would be very prominent in this article.

Meanwhile, I'm trying to fill some of the glaring holes in the articles and getting nothing but constant knock-backs. Templar98 (talk) 08:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC) =Banned User

We've been over this a few times; I don't think anyone has been able to provide reliable sources which identify significant coverage of these threats identifying them as "extremely serious and liable to have a permanent affect on his liberty and probably well-being". You're link to the Local, for example, is not useful to establish this - it simply list Assange coverage, of which there is a lot, and does nothing to support your point. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Liddy's show had 2.25 million weekly listeners in 2002 per http://www.numbersusa.com/text?ID=998 and is broadcast in over 250 markets per http://www.kgam.com/show_liddy.htm Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

From his wiki article: "In 1980, Liddy published an autobiography, titled Will, which sold more than a million copies and was made into a television movie. In it he states that he once made plans with Hunt to kill journalist Jack Anderson, based on a literal interpretation of a Nixon White House statement "we need to get rid of this Anderson guy".[8][9] In the mid 1980s Liddy went on the lecture circuit, and was listed as the top speaker in the college circuit in 1982 by the Wall Street Journal....In 1992, Liddy emerged to host his own talk radio show. Less than a year later, its popularity led to national syndication through Viacom's Westwood One Network and later on, Radio America, in 2003." Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Liddy's show is a good representation of the response, and in the notability mix. Ocaasi (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It's quite difficult to accept (as I've been asked to do) that many editors present are actually sympathetic to Assange. The sheer hostility and threatening nature of significant sections of the US establishment towards the guy seems to have been pretty overwhelming and the fact that criminals are openly involved in the calling for his murder makes it even more urgent to include mention in his article. Radio stations and their hosts can be hugely influential in inciting murder, they're what caused the Rwanda massacres - of course Liddy should be included. Templar98 (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC) =Banned User

Look, it's my educated personal guess that many Wikipedians are pro-technology, pro internet freedom, leaning anti-authoritarian, etc. But that still doesn't mean we're supposed to write like it. Even if I think Assange is our savior on earth, the prose we use should be indistinguishable from someone who thinks he's Satan and writing about the situation neutrally. That's NPOV. Ocaasi (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed it again for 5 reasons: no consensus for it, sketchy single source,source does not mention "nixon aide", borderline notable & inflammatory. There's too many crackpots with guns,as we unfortunately saw today, to be broadcasting this kind of language if its borderline notable. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we're messing this up. It's simple: Liddy is notable today for his talk show, and his quote, though not a death threat is notable for critical reactions/backlash to Assange. The context in which Liddy said the quote was his talk show. Incidental to that fact is that he worked for Nixon, and completely unrelated is that he had a role in Watergate. So, my suggestion is that we put the original Liddy quote back in, identify him as a talk show host, wikilink his name so readers can find out what his background was, and move on. If we did want to include his political background, Watergate mastermind is a giant no--his work for Nixon identifies his likely political stance--his work for Watergate is just part of his own messy history and has nothing to do with Assange or contextualizing the quote. Thoughts? Ocaasi (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's notable, too. I agree, just identifying him as a talk show host, with a Wikilink to his bio article, is sufficient. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Grantevans and AndytheGrump appear to disagree. I'll wait for their input. Ocaasi (talk) 06:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure whether Liddy's comments merit inclusion, but if they do, we'd have to describe his political past, to indicate why his views were noteworthy - otherwise it would seem as if we were quoting him as just a random talk show host. If his comments matter, it is because of his past. Actually, I think it is highly unlikely he'd be a talk show host in any case were it not for Nixon, Watergate etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I still think he's just 'Former Nixon Aide and talk show host G. Gordon Liddy'. Mentioning Watergate seems like dredging up history that's only tangential to his relevance at this article. I think calling him a 'burglar' is out of the question, since it seems to indict him again for a past act. 'Watergate mastermind' seems needlessly grandiose to me. Maybe 'Watergate participant'? Ocaasi (talk) 07:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, 'Former Nixon aide and talk show host...' will probably do, as long as he's linked (abandoning NPOV, I'd call that 'guilt by association' ;-) ). AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

ok, I don't agree that it should go in at all, Roseanne Barr on "the view" a week ago said Palin is a "terrorist"; I think these kind of comments are very fringe from fringe political extremists and don't add anything to an encyclopedia nor to this BLP. Liddy likely mnakes a lot of similar comments about other people. However, most Editors seem to think Liddy's comments are worth including so I won't take it out again. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I just restored an edited version. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Belmarsh Magistrates' Court

I was a bit surprised to see that the venue of the upcoming extradition hearing had been added to the article but thought nothing much of it. I see now that the court has been labelled "terrorist" court by Wikileaks supporters. I find this explanation in a recent Sydney Morning Herald article more credible: "Such has been the media interest in the case that Tuesday's session has been moved from City of Westminster Magistrates' Court to Belmarsh Magistrates' Court in southeast London", so please keep this in mind/do more research, should there be future edits in this sense. KathaLu (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Trust me, its a lot better at Westminster, but it is not a terrorist court at all, there is no such thing in England. The court is opposite side of the road from Woolwich Crown Court on Belmarch road, which is the feeder for Belmarch jail which is a extremely high security jail which does house terrorist types. If the extradition request is successful then Assange will most probably be transferred there and held until transfer is arranged.|Off2riorob (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course, no WP:FUTURE, but I don't expect much excitement from the case management hearing on 11 January. It's reassuring to read that Belmarsh Prison does not only count terrorist types amongst its notable inmates but also celebrities like Ronnie Biggs, Jonathan Aitken and Jeffrey Archer. KathaLu (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, Belmarsh is where many of the high-profile terrorist and terrorism-related criminals are heard. It is the highest security court in London. It is true that there is no logic to argue that this therefore means Assange is being viewed as a terrorist by the UK authorities, but it does reflect the security concerns they must have. One can imagine for example that they may be concerned for his safety, or that they could be trying to send a political message suggestive of him being a terrorist, something the British CPS and Home Office are certainly not above doing. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Julian Assange as Founder of Wikileaks

I checked the archives and this question was never thoroughly settled, and I think it is very important because every media outlet constantly refers to him as THE founder of Wikileaks. Is there any real evidence to support this title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyrisch (talk • contribs) 04:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If reliable sources say he is, then this is what we say too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Misconceptions about NOR and No Primary Sources

Some time ago, I had included in the article the exact precise offenses which are contained in the European Arrest Warrant issued against Assange in November 2010 and which were cited at the London court hearing during the preliminary extradition hearings in December 2010. I added three references: a link to a detailed Guardian article on the court hearing, a link to short statements by the Swedish Prosecutor in English on their website, and a link to a pdf file, posted on the same website, containing the relevant Extract from the Swedish Penal Code where the offenses for which Assange is wanted for interrogation had been marked in bold by the Swedish Prosecution (Chapter 6, Section 1, third para; Chapter 6, Section 10, second para; Chapter 4, Section 4, first para).

This was removed on the grounds that it was Original Research and Primary Sources. Which is BS. First of all, I gave the Guardian as a secondary source in English where the 3 kinds of offenses are cited, and there are dozens of other English language newspaper sources of the same kind of information around the same date.

It is NOT against WP policy to directly refer to primary sources when they have been cited in many secondary sources, and it not against WP policy to cite no sources at all, as long as such sources exist. QUOTE from WP:OR "This means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed" and "a source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged". Which I did by providing the Guardian as one of the sources, in addition to the "primary" Swedish source. This in addition to the obvious fact that referring to the description of a crime in a national penal code is not a reference to a primary source in the sense of WP:OR but provides a valuable encyclopedic piece of information for the English language reader who is less familiar with criminal charges in foreign jurisdictions than in his or her own.

QUOTE from WP:OR: "Despite the need to attribute content to reliable sources, you must not plagiarize them. Articles should be written in your own words while substantially retaining the meaning of the source material." This is exactly what I did, I did not synthezise but summarized and wrote in my own words but as it is so common to plagiarize from newspaper articles, it seems that many contributors labour under the misunderstanding that this is the way articles have to be written and sourced.

I can live with badly written Wiki articles. I had no time to defend my editorial decisions in more detail at the time but I am doing it now as I knew that I was within WP policy. Much of what I have put together above will probably also apply to the earlier (and possibly future) discussions on the use of foreign language sources. KathaLu (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we have a degree of editorial leeway within policy and guidelines as regards such content and primary reports and pdf's and so on. unless challenged is pretty relevant and talkpage consensus adds further weight, the guidelines are debatable as to understanding and a case for both sides of an issue can be made, they are deliberately written that way so as not to benefit wikilawyering, although they are squarely rooted in the policy statements. It is good to look at the guidelines with a degree of flexibility as you are here. Consensus can and will change, if you want to re discuss any specific content there is no problem at all with that, in fact it is imo a good thing. Off2riorob (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

We have enough policies that there's always one which will support your approach. Editorial discretion, in a pseudo-legal sense, means making an argument that the policies you think apply do apply in a given situation. For example, WP:BLPPRIMARY is probably the place to look for guidance on court documents (you can't use them) and also primary source inclusion (you can use it to "augment" secondary sources which have already established the claim). I think that's the correct reading. Ocaasi (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree with that reading, court docs as in blpprimary, is talking about a specific type of detail included that on sight you would likely remove but there are also doc and content and statements released that are usable. here is an article to have a look at the cites used primary and pdf. This article has been well edited by experienced wikipedia editors.Andy Martin (American politician) - as you see, it in practice it is not so cut and dry. If you want to represent the cites Kathalu for users to look again at that would be interesting and possibly of benefit to the article. Off2riorob (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

For anyone (unlikely) following, the cites in Andy Martin are # 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 34... which involve court documents and rulings. I'm frankly surprised, though not displeased. I have always thought primary court docs were reliable for reporting on the factual outcomes themselves, but that they don't establish significance. This article uses the court docs to establish meaningful points and it excerpts rulings. That's a much more judicious (no pun intended) use than was permitted at Stephen Barrett, an article where court docs were/are basically verboten. Then again, there wasn't nearly as much supporting secondary source material. I don't know what the difference is otherwise. Ocaasi (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• - these are the accusation/charges according to the Guardian.

• That Assange : -

• 1 - "unlawfully coerced" Miss A by using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.

• 2 - That he "sexually molested" Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her "express wish" one should be used.

• 3 - That he "deliberately molested" Miss A "in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity".

• 4 - That he had sex with a second woman, Miss W, without a condom while she was asleep. Off2riorob (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm seeing contradictory information, but most of it points to Assange having not been charged. These are accusations, nothing more, at the moment and their exact nature should be treated with caution in any case.

In fact, Assange is innocent until proved guilty, at least under the British system that's holding him. Templar98 (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the claim that he has not been charged is a bit of a red herring, the guardian report clearly says Gemma Lindfield, for the Crown Prosecution Service, said in court that the European Arrest Warrant "quite clearly states [Assange] is wanted for prosecution". and these four allegation (posted just above) were read out in that hearing as the reasons for the charges and the prosecutor has linked on their website under the header Background information - [Extract from the Swedish Penal Code] where she has bolded the legal detail that corresponds to the allegations read out in the hearing http://www.aklagare.se/PageFiles/346/Chapter%206.pdf - Basically it is totally clear - Assange has not been charged because he has not stood in Sweden to be charged - they have asked for him to be sent there to be charged under these charges and for these allegations. Off2riorob (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be confirming that Assange has not been charged. As such, there is no way we should be stating that he has been charged. Templar98 (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Rob, I haven't been following these details, but I thought he was wanted for interrogation in Sweden in relation to those charges but that charges were conditional on the investigation. Am I dated or incorrect? Ocaasi (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for wiki for nudging me to look at this - it is exactly as I have stated above - he is wanted for prosecution - if he is sent there from England the Swedish prosecution say they will charge him and prosecute, their statement in the extradition is that he will be charged with the four allegations and their relative bolded charges. The Swedish people are also clear to state against one of Assanges claims that sending him there is a way to extradite him to America - Sweden is not legally allowed to send him to America without UK permission - which would mean UK giving permission to another country to send him to America, this would be a step too far under normal diplomatic protocol. Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• - suggested addition to clarify - we currently have As of yet, no charges against him have been filed by the Swedish authorities (43)

• Although Assange has not yet been charged in Sweden(43) the EAW from the Swedish prosecutor stated that Assange is wanted for prosecution.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-q-and-a Guardian|title=|Q&A: Julian Assange allegations|publisher=[[The Guardian]]|date=December 17, 2010|accessdate=January 9, 2011}}</ref> Off2riorob (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Assanges is currently described as wanted for interrogation for rape, sexual assault, and coercion in the article which is roughly ok and better than nothing as some editors argue these offenses must not be mentioned at all. The description would benefit from clarification, for example rape of a lesser degree as there are four categories of offenses that are called rape or are sentenced like rape in Chapter 6 of the Penal code, described in four separate paragraphs, and Assange is wanted for the offense in the third paragraph. Editors claim that these are finer points of law that must not be discussed on the TP nor mentioned in the article, a minority, myself included, thinks such information should be included when writing about a case in a foreign, different, less known jurisdiction.

Editors have claimed that information on the Swedish Prosecutors Website must not be used as it is court material. In addition to what Ocaasi has said about permissible use of court documents, this material is not court material, but press releases/public information put out by the Swedish Prosecution and picked up by the media. The Swedish Prosecution are tight lipped about the case anyway so what's there is for the public and the media. Very little is directly translated into English on their website.

WP:BLP is often quoted by editors to strike down a suggestion for the article, WP:WELLKNOWN less so. Assange is a well-known person, and he is known for more than the sexual allegations. Quote from WP:WELLKNOWN: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but The New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing The New York Times as the source. Why we should not be allowed to describe the criminal offenses (not the details of the event) in detailed plain language, given the world wide attention the case has gained and Assange's public/political role is beyond me.

Off2riorob referenced the Guardian where the offenses are described as unlawfully coerced, sexually molested, deliberately molested in in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity and he had sex with a second woman, Miss W, without a condom while she was asleep. That is a good example of how the issues at stake should not be described. While the first three vaguely correspond to the criminal offenses named in the Swedish Penal Code there is no name for the last one because there is no offense called "sleeping with a second woman without a condom while she was asleep"; it is rape, third paragraph plus molestation/assault. That is why I felt it is much better to use English terms that correspond as accurately as possible to the Swedish terms AND link to the relevant paragraphs of the Swedish Penal Code at the same time.

A good writer/translator adds context for the reader. "David Cameron said ..." is immediately understood by informed UK readers, also by US and AUS readers, "Guido Westerwelle said ..." less so. Even when the article from which one quotes does not mention it one should add "the German foreign minister" or "the leader of the German liberal party", depending on the context. The same kind of explanatory information is required when we write about "våldtäkt, sexuellt ofredande och olaga tvång" in English and for an English language audience.

Now let's keep all this in mind when reporting about developments in the case in the coming weeks. With some luck, the case will just evaporate anyway. KathaLu (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Precision is great, usually. But, basically, this is a situation where "plain english" and "detailed fidelity" are in conflict. Saying 'rape third paragraph' doesn't mean anything, so we serve our readers better by using very close approximations that are neither too general nor exaggerated. An alternative that I would be comfortable with is a footnote that detailed the exact charges. As is, I think putting the exact words into the main article is a waste of words for little benefit.

Mainly, this debate is a non-issue, because in a few months it will either be collapsed to a single small paragraph about an investigation that went nowhere, or we will have confirmation of exact charges to report. What we do in the meantime is more an issue of keeping Undue, Speculative, and Primary in their proper place. We're not perfect, but we're well within the acceptable margin of error. Since this particular debate can only minimally improve the article and in such a way that will be superseded by events regardless, I recommend we consider the footnotes option and otherwise table it. Ocaasi (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

@KathaLu: I can only assume you are referring to the objections I've raised. Please refer to the above RfC for external editors views about the specific sources you are interested in using as a basis for content. Even in this discussion, you continue to synthesize sources, drawing links and inference not in any source. Additionally, as has been mentioned repeatedly by myself, there is an issue of WP:UNDUE. I realize that you want there to be a lot of detail about Swedish legal niceties, but this really isn't the place for it. aprock (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Aprock, I don't want a lot of detail about Swedish legal niceties, and I said already AFAIK the article can stay the way it is. I wanted hard solid facts about the core of the case, i.e. the offenses he is wanted for. I did not find them in the article but lots of rubbish quotes instead (no surprise there). I did find the information elsewhere, I included it in the article, it was not "lots" and it wasn't "niceties", it added up to a line or two and two references, one to a Swedish website in English, the other to a pdf file on a Swedish website in English. And I feel really smug this morning because I finally found a copy of the EAW in the form of the full version of the Interpol Red Notice (which is referenced in the article). It shows again that I did not synthesize at all, I merely separated the wheat from the chaff. And here it is:

EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT 1 CHARGE: RAPE, UNLAWFUL COERSION, SEXUAL MOLESTATION LAW COVERING THE OFFENCE: 1. RAPE, CHAPTER 6, SECTION 1, PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE SWEDISH PENAL CODE 2. UNLAWFUL COERSION, CHAPTER 4, SECTION 4, PARAGRAPH 1 OF THE SWEDISH PENAL CODE 3. SEXUAL MOLESTATION, CHAPTER 6, SECTION 10, PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE SWEDISH PENAL CODE MAXIMUM PENALTY POSSIBLE: 6 year(s) Six (6) years of imprisonment TIME LIMIT FOR PROSECUTION OR EXPIRY DATE OF ARREST WARRANT: 16 August 2020 EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT: No. AM-131226, issued on 12 November 2010 by International public prosecution office in Gothenburg in Sweden THE ABOVE OFFENCE(S) APPEAR(S) ON THE LIST OF THE 32 OFFENCES REFERRED TO IN EUROPEAN COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 2OO2/584/JHA OF 13 JUNE 2OO2 AS NOT REQUIRING DUAL CRIMINALITY VERIFICATION: YES

KathaLu (talk) 07:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

When it comes to primary sources, separating the wheat from the chaff is synthesis. aprock (talk) 09:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Aprock, I am going to sit back now and watch with interest how all material from Assange's skeleton defense which has been published by his laywers today on their website and may or may not be used in its entirety by them for his defense in court in a month's time, as well as any reference to any US Code (like § 2703 Required disclosure of customer communications or records), will be rigorously kept out of the article on the grounds that it is a) primary material and b) no charges have been filed yet against Assange. Or maybe I am still not getting it and the skeleton material will be allowed because it is pro-Assange and is being peddled by his PR-savvy lawyers to the world press so they will quote from it and write about it? KathaLu (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You would do well to read and internalize WP:AGF. If you do see sysnthesis of primary sources, like sorting through the wheat and chaff, by all means revert and bring the discussion to the talk page, per WP:BRD. I'll certainly support any effort you put forward to move sourcing from primary source to reliable secondary sources. aprock (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, the more facts I read and the more "primary" stuff I see the less likely I am to donate anything to Wikileaks, let alone to Assange, something I considered when the story broke. He has no interest in transparency in this case but that has nothing to do with the protection of his privacy, he is really afraid that the Swedes do have a case under their law, hence the frantic spin. Amazing stuff. KathaLu (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

@Aprock. My apologies, I do think you acted in good faith. I need to stay out of this. I read the skeleton defense argument today, and my first reaction was doing a bit of googling, and without much effort, I found an official letter by the Swedish EU Representative, from 2009, where he notified the Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union, as required under the EU Framework Decision, of the competent judicial authorities in Sweden:

Brussels, 29 May 2009 Dear Secretary-General, Please find enclosed an update of the Swedish notifications and statements in accordance with the Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedure between Member states. Article 6(3) The following authorities in Sweden are competent to issue and execute a European arrest warrant. Issuing judicial authority A European arrest warrant for prosecution is issued by the public prosecutor. A European arrest warrant for the enforcement of a custodial sentence or other form of detention is issued by the National Police Board (Rikspolisstyrelsen).

I know this can't be used, I have to sit and watch how everyone and their dog writes articles and web comments about Ny not being qualified to issue an EAW, only the Swedish National Police can, because Assange's lawyers say so. It is sooo frustrating. And all this from the new paragon of transparency and truth.

It would be great if you could keep the lawyers' spin and attempts of influencing public opinion out of the article until 7 February or until the date a UK court has decided about the extradition but I am not holding my breath. KathaLu (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• - Swedish update to the EU regarding EAW - http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/polju/en/EJN785.pdf - Off2riorob (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced material.

This was added to the Wikileaks section, in the paragraph describing its founding:

On 7 January, 2011, Birgitta Jónsdóttir, a former WikiLeaks volunteer and current member of the Icelandic Parliament, announced (on her Twitter page) that the DOJ had served Twitter with a Subpoena, a federal court Order, signed by Theresa Buchanan, federal Magistrate Judge, Eastern District of Virginia. Seeking information relating to WikiLeaks' Twitter account, and from individuals currently or formerly associated with WikiLeaks, including Jacob Appelbaum, Rop Gonggrijp, and Julian Assange, the subpoena demands all mailing addresses and billing information all connection records and session times, all IP addresses used to access Twitter, all known email accounts, as well as the "means and source of payment," including banking records and credit cards . . . for the period beginning November 1, 2009, through the present.

I think it obviously doesn't belong there. Not sure what to do with it otherwise. Please make an effort to put well formatted material in the right place, and discuss it on talk if you're not sure how to execute that. Ocaasi (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is Assange specific enough to really be a correct addition anywhere in this BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree. I was just confused that it was placed in the founding section, since it is obviously a very recent development. But it doesn't belong anywhere in the article either way. Ocaasi (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

When it did break I was looking around for the official announcement from America that wikileaks had been officially classified as a Cyber terrorist organization but was unable to find a clear reliable statement for that. Have they officially been added to that list? Off2riorob (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Might be missing something. The US Justice Department is investigating possible violations of the Espionage Act of 1917, and Conspiracy to Commit Espionage. I don't think any particular classification is necessary for them to subpoena info under those statutes. (We should be grateful they didn't gag Twitter and do this under a state secrets investigation). Jeez. I really, really hope they don't push this prosecution. Ocaasi (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

http://wlcentral.org is where I'm getting news updates from (it's pro WL but very thorough). Here's their coverage on the Twitter issue: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11], and; from Glenn Greenwald ([12]), and the actual subpoena ([13]). Ocaasi (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The official grounds for the subpoena is this statue: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002703----000-.html . Ocaasi (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the links, I will investigate later today. FWIW - I think they are pissing in the wind going down that route. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think they are trying to a) target lower down the food chain, b) incite fear amongst the network of transparency supporters, c) establish their legal bona fides for counter-transparency measures, and d) flex judicial department muscle to create the appearance of strength and response. I think they're risking a major back from a large portion of American liberals and libertarians. And maybe twitter users. Ocaasi (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Extradition update

• 5 Jan - http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/01/05/wikileaks.assange/?hpt=T2 Asange warned after being late to sign for bail - he has a three hour time range. (you get one verbal warning and can be arrested if it happens again and returned to the juge for re evaluation of the conditions)Off2riorob (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• - 11 Jan - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1346104/WikiLeaks-boss-Julian-Assange-face-death-penalty-U-S.html

Assange said he never asked for asylum in Switzerland and declined to say if he would - http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/11/julian-assange-wikileaks-happy-extradition

Legal team to fight extradition as a violation of Article_3_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights - and that Ny is not a valid representative for the request -

Skeleton argument http://www.fsilaw.com/~/media/Files/Publications/IP_Media/Preliminary%20Assange%20Skeleton%20Argument%2011_01_11.ashx

Bail alteration -to stay at the Frontline Club, in Paddington, on February 6 and 7

Son?

(In info-box) What Son(s)? What age? Any info? It just looks silly having "Son" in the infobox like that. COULD son be the name of his son? --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Think it's been removed per WP:BLPNAME, which would be appropriate, even if having the word "Son" hanging there on it's own is a little odd. Possibly just unnecessary for the infobox. --FormerIP (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I trimmed it as it was confusing , it seems the infobox is one for a criminal which is a bit much, he is not a well known criminal and is only wanted on quite minor charges .. but infoboxes are a bit of a mystery to me, a person one or a businessman one would be more compatible. Off2riorob (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Is he 'a criminal' at all? Other than the hacking in his teens, he doesn't seem to have been convicted of anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of irrelevant sentence

I have deleted the following sentence As of yet, no charges against him have been filed by the Swedish authorities. This is as it must be according to the Swedish legal procedures. And has been mentioned many times, this article should not go into the details of the Swedish legalities. And as it was written it implied that something was missing from t~he Swedish legal side and it is not so.Yger (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, totally agree, its one of those things that just does not need saying, something that hasn't happened, and this hasn't happened either. Off2riorob (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Maybe if the section were clearer, there would not be a need for that specific sentence. aprock (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Yger. Most of the editors here, myself included, don't have a clue how legal proceedings work in Sweden, what the functions of the different agents of the judiciary in Sweden are, or what the stages of prosecution actually are. It is wrong to include such legal details that in all likelihood refer to US or UK jurisdictions, and the deleted sentence implies that something is missing which may not be the case. If there is something wrong with the process it is the task of the courts in the UK, in Sweden, or (unlikely to happen) in Strassbourg or Luxembourg, to say so, but not us and not at this point in time.KathaLu (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

@Aprock. The only way it oculd be clearer is to expand it and start to describe how the legal processe in Sweden works. This oculd be done, but I have understood from the discussions here, that this is NOT wanted. And consider what the sentence really says. It implies the Swedish handling is suspicious, while in reality it says, an non-Swedish readers does not understand how the legal processes in Sweden works. And it means the substance is either interpreted wrongly or is irrelevant.Yger (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

@KathaLu: I agree most do not understand Swedish legal proceedings, which is why having straightforward statements sourced to reliable mainstream sources is important. As it currently reads, I cannot tell whether or not he has been charged with a crime. If there is some reason he cannot be charged, and a reliable secondary source can be found for that, it should probably be included.

@Yger: It's not a question of what is wanted, it's a question of what belongs in a BLP. Extended discussions of legal process are not suitable for BLP articles. If there is a relevant wikipedia article which can be linked to, that might be helpful. aprock (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The prosecuters request to the local court is legally very simlilar to what charged means in English. So stating that he has not been charged is in its substance wrong. There is already a correct link in the section to detention as a suspect which gives more details of this diffrence.Yger (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If you have a reliable secondary source which says this, please present it. aprock (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not proposing putting my statement above in the article. I have deleted a misleading and irrelevant sentence and explanied why. Yger (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:Criminal charges: The charging document is what generally starts a criminal case in court, but the procedure by which somebody is charged with a crime, and what happens when somebody has been charged, varies from country to country. It varies from country to country. Why is this so hard to understand??? The article describes what has happened: a European Arrest Warrant has been issued by Swedish authorities. Extradition proceedings have started at a British court. We do not have to state which parts of the legal process have not yet taken place in the Swedish jurisdiction. That's legal niceties. This is exactly what Aprock has been claiming all the time.KathaLu (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

All I can say is that at this point I can't tell whether or not he's been charged. IIRC, he claims that he hasn't been charged, but I don't know Swedish law well enough to say. Given that it's not clear, not including the deleted statement seems the correct thing to do. At some point, this should hopefully be clarified by some reliable secondary source so that we can apply the appropriate level of coverage here. aprock (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that we only know that Assange was questioned on the 30th August by the Swedish authorities, and his stay in Sweden of 5 weeks (or maybe that should be 4) after this would suggest that there was ample time to charge him while he was still in their jurisdiction. Under these circumstances, we should not state that he's been charged and, in fact, the claim that Sweden now claim they would charge him is questionable unless we have quite precise translation. Which I'm not sure we have. Templar98 (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

A Nordic saga

Reading through the skeleton argument earlier today, it did not strike me as containing anything useful for this bio. However, it provoked the thought that at the conclusion of these events, this Nordic saga will - in itself - be WP notable. Rather than have people bring unsuitable stuff here, they could add it to a proto article on some user's subpage (I think article subpages feature is disabled now on WP).There, it could be written in the past tense. To try and name such an article now, would in my view be wrong, as it would require knowing the true nature of the 'whole picture.' Does anyone else think this idea holds merit?--Aspro (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it is way too early to know whether this is a Nordic saga of deceit and drama and Swedish prosecutors abusing their power, or Julian's Flying Circus, a hilariously absurd comedy of British lawyers and/or their client taking the world for a ride. KathaLu (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

If it all turns out to be piffle, it will be notable piffle. If it turns out to have a solid foundation it will be a notable aspect of Assange's personality - probably both will be pointers to that, as there seems to be no dispute that he met and had dealings of a personal nature with the women in question. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Assange is frightened for his life

This has been boldly added by User:Templar98 - there has been no discussion about it and it is a large addition so I have brought it here for discussion - it appears to be all cited to the telegraph newspaper, not that that makes it any better. Off2riorob (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, the primary source for the recent wave of media reports on what may happen to him in future is a document, announced by his lawyers to the press after the hearing on 11 January, called "Skeleton Argument - Assange" and published on the website of his PR lawyer, next to the appeal for donations to his Defense Fund, and preceded by the remark "The Preliminary Note of the Skeleton Argument in Sweden v Julian Assange is available for download here , at the request of Mr Assange." In it, some of the arguments that his lawyers may use at the 7-8 February hearing are outlined. This is the primary source, the world press, i.e. the secondary sources, have picked it up and written about it, I mention all this just as background info. Basically, it is a future court paper of the defense. KathaLu (talk) 06:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Fears for his life

Assange has repeatedly claimed his life is in danger from the legal maneuvers and extra-judicial threats against him. On 3rd Cec 2010 Assange first claimed, during a webchat with The Guardian, that the Wikileaks team were taking security precautions due to "threats against our lives".http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8180528/Wikileaks-new-diplomatic-cables-contain-UFO-details-says-Julian-Assange.html

On 18th Dec 2010 Assange again claimed there was a threat to his life and a threat to Wikileaks staff.>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8211648/Wikileaks-founder-Julian-Assange-claims-his-life-is-under-threat.html

On 24th Dec 2010, Assange said he feared he would die in a US jail if David Cameron allowed him to be extradited. There was a "high chance" of him being killed inside prison in America.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8223399/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-fears-death-in-a-US-jail.html

On January 11th 2011, ahead of his extradition hearing, Assange drew parallels between the language aimed against him and WikiLeaks and the rhetoric aimed at Democratic congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords who was almost killed by a bullet to the head in Arizona 2 days earlier. "[W]hen senior politicians and attention-seeking media commentators call for specific individuals or groups of people to be killed, they should be charged with incitement – to murder" he said.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8252665/Arizona-shooting-WikiLeaks-founder-condemns-violent-rhetoric.html WikiLeaks had engaged in "extreme security measures" to protect its staff, he said.

On January 12th 2011, after his first extradition appearance, Assange's lawyers warned that he could be sent to the Guantánamo Bay detention camp or even executed in the US if he is extradited to Sweden.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8253327/WikiLeaks-claims-Julian-Assange-extradition-could-lead-to-death-row.html

Yet again, I've prepared a significant section on the threat to Julian Assange's life, this time based on his own statements, using only sources ideologically opposed to his "journalism" (ie the Telegraph, not the Guardian) and I've been instantly reverted.

In this case, I've also referred to another target of hate-radio, Ms Giffords - this may look rather like "recentism" but in fact, threats of this kind are a very widely (perhaps universally) recognised danger to people in Assange's position. What's wrong with the man's own words in his own bio? It's insulting nonsense to call these fears "twaddle" and claim "he's wandering around without protection" when the police told him not to hang around on the steps of the High Court, he could be attacked. And he's holed up in a Norfolk mansion nobody can approach without being sighted. I'd find the reference for that as well if I was convinced that made a difference to anything that's allowed into the article.

(I should add that I'm grateful to Off2riorob for bringing the material I've collected to Talk, where it can perhaps be discussed). Templar98 (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Templar98 (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment Templar, presenting desired additions here is the best chance for disputed additions. Off2riorob (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Please don't make an OR parallel between Ms Giffords and Mr Assange, at least in the article, except if valid sources did it. Thanks. Hervegirod (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

This is the man's own bio and he is quoted as saying "In a statement issued ahead of a court hearing in London on Tuesday, he drew parallels between the language used against him and WikiLeaks and accusations that similar rhetoric led to the shooting of Democratic congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona at the weekend".[14] There seems to be hard-line opposition to allowing the man's own words from appearing in his own bio. Let me emphasise, this is not his ideological allies quoting him, it's his ideological opponents doing so. It is difficult to understand why an Australian, wanted in Sweden and currently under house arrest in the UK has such difficulty in getting fair treatment in his article - unless I'm missing something somewhere along the line. Templar98 (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

@Off2riorob: What problems do you see with the section? Unless there is some question about whether it should be included, there is no reason to revert it. aprock (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yea, its just opinionated rubbish from the subject and of no long term value and all primary claims of the subject and his lawyer. Off2riorob (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

This is the man's own bio, and we have ample evidence (from sources deliberately chosen not to be sympathetic to him) that he's in fear of his life. If that doesn't belong in this article then I don't know what does. I think you should put it back and apologise for making out that you're the arbitrator on what belongs and what doesn't. Templar98 (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

We have evidence that Assange is making claims that he is in fear for his life. Are reliable sources taking him seriously? Unless they are, we shouldn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

This is the man's own bio, and we have reliable sources repeating his claim that he's in fear of his life. Perhaps you have WP:RS disputing this and we should include that as well. Templar98 (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It isn't Assange's bio, it is a Wikipedia bio of him. We have reliable sources quoting him. We have no evidence that those same sources (or any other) are taking him seriously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes its just Assanges fear for his life and his lawyer talking about his fear - well, he released all the secrets and the American government who everyone knows, look upon such actions as terrorism and war crime, under punishment of death, as is their well known position within their law.....what is so notable about that? Shock horror - Assange released the secrets and then said he was scared. Off2riorob (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you make a habit of advertising your casual attitude to writing good, NPOV articles? Templar98 (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: How does one determine whether or not "reliable sources are taking him seriously"? Should we extend that same level of scrutiny to all the quotes in the article? aprock (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think there are a few issues cautioning against including these details. For one, this is his biography, not an up-to-the-minute status report on the investigation and its surrounding hoopla. Also, Assange made the quote, but he's not a particularly reliable source for the status of his safety. I'd like to see some other sources discuss whether those 'evasive' actions are anything other than common sense for a very public and controversial figure. If we do include the fact that Assange has taken efforts to protect his safety, about a sentence seems like the right length. But frankly, whether he's in fear for his life is pretty irrelevant to this article: shocking, but truthfully, what Assange does to protect himself will only matter to his encyclopedia if his efforts fail. Otherwise, we're hyping a lot of recentist news chatter. Little of this is encyclopedic. We're not here to protect him or broadcast his imminent danger. Just my 2 cents. Ocaasi (talk) 08:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculously, almost all the ample information from Assange himself is being kept from his article. Nothing of the fear he's been put in and the legal threats he faces. Nothing on Sweden's abuse of human rights on behalf of the US.

I think I can count 8 quotes (or positive references) from prosecuting authorities, nothing whatsoever from the defense. Despite their published case being essential to discover why Assange is fighting extradition.

This detailed explanation from the defense explains Sweden is such a dangerous place for Assange to be extradited to. (It does not mention the less well referenced claim that Carl Rove is an important advisor to the Prime Minister of Sweden - but that's also just the kind of thing I'd want to be informed about if I was a visitor reading this article). The joke made earlier about this article being edited for the establishment and anything from the defense is a "conspiracy theory" looks more and more like a sober explanation of what's going on. Templar98 (talk) 13:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

There are some good pointers to the sources for the "Karl Rove helps Sweden sort out Assange" story at ctwatchdog.com [15] - basically, as the article itself says, it's difficult to prove Rove's direct involvement and most of the scuttlebutt is coming from blogs. Personally I can believe it's true, but that's different to saying we should add it to a WP article. On the main theme of Assange's life being in danger, there doesn't seem to me to be enough agreement from the sources to say it's likely true but that's different to saying Assange and his supporters believe it and there's a lot of coverage on that and I don't see why we can't cover the latter in this article. It surely is strongly notable and likely to last, as either he will die at the hands of the US "justice" system (proving him right) or he won't (demonstrating his tendancy to fantasy or to put it more kindly, drama) which goes to personality and is long-term relevant. So I think the Ayes have it. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed tentatively, if we can find a source that discusses this. I don't think there is any need to copiously quote him as was originally done. To be clear; we need a source that sums up his concerns not a list of sources mentioning his concerns as he makes them. What was originally posted was not good; too much and lots of dubious content. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

What "dubious content"? What I wrote and posted originally was a taster (from the most conservative possible source) demonstrating that the UK media (ie the jurisdication where he's being held) consider Assange's claims of being in danger to be quite notable.

Indeed, more than just "quite notable", Assange's opinions and "demands" are worth broadcasting with no editorial opinion or "balancing" from anyone else required - look at it, almost as if the Telegraph wanted to demand prosecutions in the US and has chosen Assange as their mouth-piece.: "Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, condemned the violent rhetoric against him by a number of US politicians and media commentators and demanded that those responsible face prosecution."

Material of this notable kind doesn't seem to appear in the US press - however, we know what does appear in the US media and that can barely be mentioned either, it's too full of hatred and appeals to cause him harm.

The unofficial rule some editors are trying to operate at this article is that this story must appear as it does in the US press. Anything not headlined in the US cannot be included - despite it being a European and Australian story with minimum real US involvement! Templar98 (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

A quick look at the existing reference list for the article shows that your last point is incorrect Templar - there are a large percentage of references to stories from the BBC, British & Australian news media, etc. It is worth noting that probably the UK media are the closest to the story right now and so should be given weight, but it seems that they are. On the other points, we simply need to compare a few leading sources and see what write-up on this point comes closest to describing them. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

What dubious content? On January 11th 2011, ahead of his extradition hearing, Assange drew parallels... that whole sentence was pure soapboxing (by Assange) and has zero encyclopaedic merit. we are not reporting the news here! --Errant ^(chat!) 18:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You should check more carefully - that article is Assange speaking - the Telegraph considers him worth reporting. In fact, they consider his commentary so valuable that most of the article is his words verbatim. There is no "balance" whatsoever - they almost hand him the page as if he's speaking on their behalf: "Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, condemned the violent rhetoric against him by a number of US politicians and media commentators and demanded that those responsible face prosecution." That's a rather extreme example of doing what we should be doing, helping people to understand the subject. Templar98 (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I think you misunderstand what Wikipedia is about! Not everything reported in the news is applicable to his BLP, not everything he says is significant. We go for a brief overview of his life, with opinions of his own where significant; but a load of quotes from him is not useful. There is plenty of balance in the article. Not quoting Assange isn't unbalanced. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

We have constant references to what prosecuters say, almost nothing about what the defense says.

We've got a very limited selection of the threats and accusations against Assange (in fairness, we do allow him to rebut those we've used).

We've got practically nothing on what Assange himself believes over recent events. When we do put in a statement from him such as "internet archives being deleted" it's a dead link (a bot has found and labelled it for us). So much for improving the article, nobody's even doing the basics.

Furthermore, this silence about his views and statements is by no means universal - one of the articles I put in and was removed is the very MSM (but British) Daily Telegraph using Assange's words almost as if he was their journalist/commentator. Nobody else's journalese intrudes.

Meanwhile, real editing of this article (and at Wikileaks too) looks as if it's dried up - there is no mention anywhere that cablegate seems to have been blocked up (one release this year?). That's with less than 1% of the total contents released. You can't tell me that's not of first importance. I imagine a lot of people are calling it censorship and linking it to the threats and smears of mine that were stripped out - but I'm not checking it out because it seems as if research is irrelevant, the article is basically fossilised. Templar98 (talk) 10:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

@ Jamesinderbyshire - well done for checking what's actually in the references - unfortunately, if you dig any deeper into the BBC references, only one of them sort of quotes him, but only to say he's been smeared and the Swedish thing is a conspiracy. I mean, that could be entirely true, but the quote serves only to sell Assange short. Even the BBC photo is horrible. Actually, they don't ever seem to have really quoted Assange which might mean he's not notable, but more likely it means they're a bad choice as a reference. I'll leave it to others to check the other media - except the Telegraph, since it's obvious they do quote properly, contributing greatly to a more complete impression of the subject of this bio. Templar98 (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

All of the main UK media go up and down in quality a lot, including factchecking, depth of research, herd behaviour, etc - that includes the BBC, who often seem driven along in the feeding frenzies or "line of the day" that infects so much of the "mainstream" outlets and, yes, a reluctance to quote Assange directly. I would point out however that after his release, BBC Newsnight had a 15-minute interview with lengthy face-to-camera dialogues from JA, so it's not all one way. I don't share your positivity about the Torygraph, which frequently does not check it's facts well to my certain knowledge. We need more than one source for most things and even then we need to be sceptical. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, there is one proper "let him speak" reference from the BBC, that video in the "External Links". However, at least on that one source I think you'll find I'm right - in general, the BBC has not been quoting him. We may have to use sources like that for parts of the article, but we need a lot more of what Assange himself is about - we get that from the sources I've offered. Templar98 (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Templar, I moved the material back to Public Appearances. Criticism is for notable negative views of Assange; Support is for notable positive views. The information you moved was neither. If you want to try and draft a section about Assange's response to the criticism, please put it in the right place. Ocaasi (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Skeleton statement

OK, this is the contested sentence:

His defence team outlined seven strands of their argument, including a challenge for abuse of process as well as the potential risks to Assange's person were he "rendered" to the US.

I don't find most of the arguments (recentism, Assange's personal views, lack of referencing, etc) above for not including this to be very convincing and neither was Off2riorob's edit comment for his delete Trivia - defence claims - we alreadyy have he says he is innocent about four times. in the least convincing - it clearly isn't trivia, the article clearly does not say he is "innocent" even one time and the reference is a good example. I propose we re-introduce it, or something close to it, as it does mention the defence team arguments and the death risk as a strong belief, as discussed above. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

In general I agree with James here. The arguments against are all weak, except for the WP:UNDUE argument. An entire section is clearly too much, but one sentence in context does not seem like a problem. Given the level of detail currently in the section, this hardly seems out of place. There has also been some misunderstanding about WP:PRIMARY here. Quotes are generally primary sources, so using information in quotes factually without secondary sourcing is problematic. However, quoting someone is not problematic in the same way. If multiple reliable secondary sources use the quote substantively, there are no primary source issues with including the quote. I've added back the sentence. The edit summary description of the content did not match the content removed. aprock (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it did, this rubbish is promo statements from his lawyers and we already have plenty of them in the article -Assange said he didn't do it, assange claims he will be in danger , assange is worried about this , yawn. I look forward to the day the extradition hearing is over. Lawyers claim all sorts of anything, that is their paid job. We don't have any editorial responsibility to report such valueless short lived disputable claims. Off2riorob (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by rubbish. If you think there's a policy problem, please be clear about your concerns. aprock (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking we are careful with opinion, speculation and proposed stuff (which this all comes under, mostly the last one), in BLP's. At this stage there is absolutely no need to deal with the content of the defence argument - we are not doing news --Errant ^(chat!) 20:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it really comes down to weight in this case. As I said above, in the context of what is current there, the sentence is by no means WP:UNDUE. You might argue that the entire section needs to be trimmed according to the WP:NEWS policy. I would certainly support that position, but there has been considerable push-back by various editors that the legal details should be in the article. If those sorts of details are to be in the article, then I see no problem with the above sentence. aprock (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The sad truth is that throughout Wikipedia, BLPs carry news, absolutely regardless of the very many attempts to squash and control it. The best we can do is ensure that it is notable, well-sourced and tersely / objectively described "news" and not fresh-hit-a-minute tabloid. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Or, better yet, when given the opportunity we don't include it! :) @Aprock, well I am of the opinion that barely any information about the alleged offence is of value at this stage. It is the extradition/arrest that is significant, historical and has value. Waiting a few weeks to summarize the next lot of proceedings is definitely the right approach, it avoids the mess of before! --Errant ^(chat!) 21:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

@ErrantX, would you then support trimming all of the legal procedural stuff then? aprock (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Which stuff exactly? Everything that is there is historical and factual - yes, I think parts could be trimmed, but we have removed most of the content about the substance of the allegations, at least until a time as there is a conviction or trial. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

As a starting point, I would suggest that the entire second paragraph is entirely unneeded. Likewise the first three sentences of the third paragraph. aprock (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You really don't want the offenses in the article, do you. If all that goes, the second and third sentence of the first paragraph have to go, too (Eva Finne etc.). Every "he said" should go. In fact all that is worth keeping is this: On 20 August 2010, Swedish police opened an investigation against Assange in connection with sexual encounters with two women in Sweden. On 7 December 2010, Assange was arrested in London on the basis of a European arrest warrant issued by Sweden and later released on bail. He is currently awaiting his extradition hearing which is set for 7-8 February. KathaLu (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think the offenses should be in there. I meant to say the first and third sentence of the third paragraph. Sorry. aprock (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

@KathaLu, yup I expect that will the the length of the section eventually. @Aprock; at this stage, as I said, the main focus is the brief overview of the investigation, plus the extradition stuff and arrest. So, the second paragraph, I think, contains reasonable information - but it could be condensed to a sentence or two rather than a paragraph. But it is historical info so we can legitimately include it (I would have it less.. but there you go). My issue with the content proposed above is that it is vague and part of a future hearing that we can decide on after it occurs. I really think we should be working with week old sources here - there is no rush and it helps us get perspective. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

As I've tried to document elsewhere, we are hosting a considerable inbalance between what comes from prosecuting authorities and what comes from defense sources.

However, there is very little of Assange's own concerns for his safety, surely of considerable and lasting interest (I've just moved some of it out of "Public appearances" to the quaintly named "Criticism"). Assange stopped going to the US in June after Bradley Manning's arrest, long before Cablegate. By July it started to look as if he'd made a wise move.

Over the Swedish accusations I'm tempted to say they could be reduced to one sentence (but with links to more detail in the reliable sources). Not in order to cover it up, but because it's so widely covered in the media already - everyone who reads this article already knows some details. I can't see a real benefit from going deeper and deeper into detail, especially when everything we think we know probably will be made irrelevant if and when the case gets to court.

However, I feel that the defense case from the "Skeleton" (that we're not even linking to at the moment!) could and should be expanded. Not because it's the defense case, but because it does help to make for a rounded understanding of where this saga has reached. Whether Assange is eventually extradited or not, it will continue to hold it's value. Similarly Assange's concerns over his safety - proved or disproved in 10 years, they're permanently interesting. Templar98 (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Names

I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia's rules, but is there some kind of rule against posting names of accusers of a crime? Their names are all over the web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drwwht (talk • contribs) 04:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It's WP:BLPNAME and Wikipedia:BLP#Avoid_victimization. --FormerIP (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, 'alleged victims' is probably more neutral, and more specific. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Why the little green folding box for this section of the discussion ? If Assange is acquitted of rape will it then be appropriate to name his alleged victims? What country's jurisdiction covers Wikipedia's legal obligations in a matter like this ? I believe if the names of these two women are in public verifiable documents then the decision not to name them here should be revisited.--— Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 13:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

note I removed the little green box, it was messing up the edit options. Yes, we can revisit and discuss the situation if the overall situation has changed, personally I don't think in the coverage of the issue there has been much change, in fact the coverage of the alleged victims/accusers has diminished - I think we are going to revisit this if the BBC name them (they are usually very responsible in not naming disputed issues like this and protecting alleged victims) we can re visit the issue. Off2riorob (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)