Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

walks out and false passport

two important subject not found in Current article :

• WikiLeaks boss walks out on CNN interview after reporter asks him about HIS private life,dailymail
• Julian Assange, Wikileaks founder, walks out of CNN interview (Video),The Washington Post
• Julian Assange: WikiLeaks chief held in British prison on rape charge, daily telegraph-A district judge remanded the 39-year-old into custody at Wandsworth men’s prison, saying there was a risk he would abscond after the court heard that no record of his entry to Britain had been found - suggesting he travelled under a false passport.Lookhot (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The first two articles are from late October, and don't seem of any great significance to me. What do others think?

The Telegraph article doesn't actually make entirely clear who is suggesting that Assange travelled on a false passport, so is of little use as a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

walks out is important:Julian Assange to Larry King: 'you should be ashamed',daily telegraph

• It was the second time in less than a week that Mr Assange has lost his composure on television. He stormed out of a previous CNN interview in London at the weekend.

'You should be ashamed': WikiLeaks boss blasts astonished Larry King after he's quizzed over sex abuse claims,dailymail:WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange lost his cool on television for the second time in three days when he was again quizzed about allegations in his private life.Lookhot (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

This is still old news though, and nobody else seems to have thought it of much significance at the time. AndyTheGrump (talk)

in Current article :

• As of 7 December 2010, he is leading the poll for Time magazine's "Person of the Year, 2010"

despite that poll for Time magazine's "Person of the Year, 2010" not finished !!!Lookhot (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

As of 9 December 2010, Assange is in the first place in the TIME 'Person of the year, 2010' poll, which remains open until 31 December 2010. I fail to see, even with the original version of this sentence, how it is not clear. --Kaini (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

He is leading at the moment, apparently, whether he finally wins is yet to be seen. If Time chooses to publish ongoing poll counts, we can report them, though whether we should is another issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Conflict between assange and cnn in two accisent reported by several sources and WP:NRVE:

• Notability requires only the existence of suitable reliable sources.Lookhot (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Notability is not our standard for the inclusion or exclusion of text within an article. Editorial discretion is. Gigs (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

firstly :Wikipedia:Editorial discretion is a essay and not a POLICY ; Wikipedia:Verifiability is a policy :

Reliable sources and notability

Further information: Wikipedia:Notability'

• secendly:in Wikipedia:Editorial discretion:

Consensus may determine, among other things, whether a given source or claim is appropriate for article inclusion; meeting Wikipedia policies and guidelines is necessary to allow inclusion, but not necessarily sufficient to warrant inclusion

• Wikipedia:Consensus:

There is no single definition of what consensus means on Wikipedia, but in articles consensus is typically used to try to establish and ensure neutrality and verifiability.Lookhot (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Lookhot; Notability is about article creation not the content. For content we deal with significance; i.e. significant content from reliable sources. Relevant reading: WP:V, WP:RS and particularly WP:UNDUE. Verfifiability is not about what to include, but is a policy on which information is allowable to be included. Due weight is the relevant policy. There is also our WP:BLP policy which cautions against including things only of long term biographical interest --Errant ^(chat!) 16:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Errant!

your say's :There is also our WP:BLP policy which cautions against including things only of long term biographical interest.

In current article:

On 3 June' he appeared via videoconferencing at the Personal Democracy Forum conference with Daniel Ellsberg.[57][58] Ellsberg told MSNBC "the explanation he [Assange] used" for not appearing in person in the USA was that "it was not safe for him to come to this country."[59] On 11 June he was to appear on a Showcase Panel at the Investigative Reporters and Editors conference in Las Vegas,[60] but there are reports that he cancelled several days prior.[61] On 10 June 2010, it was reported that Pentagon officials are trying to determine his whereabouts.. On 21 June 2010, Assange took part at a hearing in Brussels, Belgium, appearing in public for the first time in nearly a month.Lookhot (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Influence of the Fitzgerald Inquiry on Julian Assange

Source - http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/magnet-for-trouble-how-assange-went-from-simple-island-life-to-hightech-public-enemy-number-one-20101208-18pb3.html

This source has a quote from Julian Assange "I grew up in a Queensland country town where people spoke their minds bluntly. They distrusted big government as something that could be corrupted if not watched carefully. The dark days of corruption in the Queensland government before the Fitzgerald inquiry are testimony to what happens when the politicians gag the media from reporting the truth," he wrote in the hours before his arrest yesterday.

"These things have stayed with me. WikiLeaks was created around these core values. The idea, conceived in Australia, was to use internet technologies in new ways to report the truth."

The era he was referring to was notorious for it's police and government corruption and abuse of the media - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitzgerald_Inquiry. Of note is episode where the Queensland Premier Sir Joh Bjelke-Peterson insulted his friend businessman Alan Bond, owner of News 9, which resulted in a libel suit, the outcome of which was a $400,000 settlement paid to Sir Jon. This is widely accepted as being a money laundering scheme to cover bribes paid the Bjelke-Peterson by developer Alan Bond to enable him to do business in Queensland. - "He purchased QTQ-9, Brisbane and settled an outstanding defamation dispute the station had with the Queensland premier, Joh Bjelke-Petersen by paying out AUD$400,000. He said in a television interview several years later that he paid because "Sir Joh left no doubt that if we were going to continue to do business successfully in Queensland then he expected the matter to be resolved". - http://wapedia.mobi/en/Alan_Bond_(businessman)

This seems to be some important background information that would have shaped Julian Assange's world view. 98.208.12.203 (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Russian response

Should something of this be in the article? --John (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed a poorly sourced and badly worded reference to this earlier in the "awards" section. But this is a much better source and would work in the responses to the cables section. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Added something minimal, it probably needs work. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

"assassinated without a trial"

This phrase is linked to Hate speech, which is editorializing. Link should be removed. 67.252.54.152 (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I've removed it. SmartSE (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Beaunic, 9 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

 On hold

Please amend the following (Alleged sex offences):

On 20 August 2010, an investigation was opened against Assange and an arrest warrant issued in Sweden in connection with sexual encounters with two women, named Anna Ardin and Sophia Wilen, aged 31 and 26. Ardin had invited Assange to stay with her at her apartment in Enkoping, and they engaged - according to Ardin's Twitter feed - in consensual sex. Assange then met Wilen, and again engaged, according to Wilen, in consensual sex. However Wilen then learned of Assange's relationship with Ardin. (Both women knew each other through membership of the Swedish Christian Social Democrat Party. Ardin served as the Party's press secretary). Ardin and Wilen then went together to the police station at Klara, a suburb of Stockholm, to seek information about their encounter with Assange. (Seeking information is a Swedish juridical formula for opening a police enquiry without risk of being branded a false informant). The two women then telephoned Niklas Svensson at the Swedish tabloid, Expressen, to report what had happened.

The Swedish police passed news of their visit to deputy prosecutor Maria Kjellstrand, who notified prosecutor Eva Finne. Finne dismissed the matter as groundless. However Ardin and Wilen, with backing from Expressen, engaged lawyer Claes Bergstroem to represent them. Bergstroem approached Swedish Director of Prosecutions Marianne Ny, whom he knew well, and who had been evolving a new legal concept of sexual molestation based solely on accusatory testimony. (In accusatory testimony an offence is deemed to have taken place unless an accused can prove the contrary). Ny then commenced court action.

Sweden's Prosecuting Authority then applied to Stockholm District Court to detain Assange for questioning. On 20 November, Sweden's National Criminal Police force issued an international arrest warrant for Assange via Interpol, and an EU arrest warrant was issued through the Schengen Information System. This warrant was passed to the authorities in the UK, but jercted by them on the grounds that it was too imprecise. (It is interesting to note that the grounds for an accusation of sexual coercion are not clearly defined in Swedish law, and that Assange was consequently only summoned to appear before an investigating magistrate, rather than charged with a defined criminal offence. There is some argument as to whether loosely defined sexual coercion can actually rank as a cross border European criminal offence, and also whether an European Arrest Warrant can be enforced when a person is merely wanted for questioning, rather than accused of a criminal offence).

The Swedish authories then issued a new warrant, and Assange was arrested in London on 7 December 2010. He appeared before Westminster County Court, and was remanded to a superior court capable of ruling on the intricacies of the matter. He will appear in court again on 14 December 2010. Beaunic (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• -Can you be a bit specific as to what you actually are suggesting, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, to amend the article, we need sources. You have not provided any. In any case, it isn't really appropriate to speculate on the finer points of Swedish law in the article, since we don't have the information necessary, and aren't qualified to make statements about such matters. Sorry. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• You said: "There is some argument as to whether loosely defined sexual coercion can actually rank as a cross border European criminal offence, and also whether an European Arrest Warrant can be enforced when a person is merely wanted for questioning, rather than accused of a criminal offence." This is really interesting though I am not sure that it belongs into the Wiki article at this point! The European Arrest Warrant is something fairly new, many people don't know what it is and what the legal implications can be. Not sure what your point is as much of what you posted is in the article already. I think there is consensus not to use full names but I think we should use "A." and "W." since it seems that the British court identified them as such. At least one woman went public herself in the summer. As always with current news, one should not rush to put every bit of detail that you read in a newspaper or hear on the news into the article because in the long run it is just not that important. KathaLu (talk) 07:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Incommunicado/solitary/no lawyers condition on Interpol red notice

Is it appropriate to note that the notice was not a typical notice with respect to the desired conditions of imprisonment given in the red notice? It is unreasonable in my opinion for a modern society to hold any alleged criminals "incommunicado without access to lawyers" [1]. Ansell 03:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Er, sadly your opinion isn't really much use to us. Can you find a proper source stating the same opinion? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

So all comments from Assanges lawyer relating to the case are taboo? Or is it the fact that MSNBC isn't a proper source?!?! Interesting how quickly wikipedia editors contradict themselves when it comes to editorial bias about the suitability of sources. Shouldn't you go and remove the two current citations from MSNBC while you are at it? I now remember why I stopped editing wikipedia a few years ago... "reliable/proper sources" is an ill-defined notion. Good luck keeping the article to your satisfaction. Ansell 04:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Er, Just to clear this up, am I being accused of pro-Assange or anti-Assange bias, I've lost track...

Additionally, the source you cite is from a week ago, well before Assange was placed in custody by a "modern society". Hammersbach (talk) 03:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that it was a week ago. It relates to the intentions of the Swedish prosecutor with respect to his ability to defend himself. That hasn't been outdated by the fact he was since arrested under british law where the clause may be invalid. Ansell 04:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If you wish us to include 'facts', i.e. what the prosecutor requested, then we can. You seemed to be asking for us to include opinions, which is what I asked for sources for. Of course, I'd be interested to see if the prosecutor (a) is still asking for the same thing, and (b) if he/she is likely to get it. If there is anything much to this story, I'm sure there are more up-to-date reports. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Er,* looks to me like you're being accused of using your own opinion over fact, you tool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.179.21 (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Reaction to leaking section

This section is not really about this persons life and should really be elsewhere. Considering that Wikileaks has its own article the whole of the wikileaks section has become excessively bloated and requires trimming to about a quarter of what is there now. Off2riorob (talk) 11:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, most of it really belongs at Reactions_to_the_United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak#Opinion_on_the_diplomatic_cables_leak or in appropriate article going with the leak. (The WL article is already way too large so moving it there isn't a great idea in my opinion). SmartSE (talk) 11:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I saw most of the content in the section as duplicated anyways, if someone was to trim it from here, there might be no value in moving it anywhere. Off2riorob (talk) 11:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Kindly help : Policy of Wikipedia on naming persons central to an episode or event

Hi, NTV (MSNBC's partner organisation in Turkey) has publicly disclosed that the 2 women are AA and SW on their website [from Turkey -- and S--]. My question is as follows : What is Wikipedia's policy on making names of persons appear in their articles once these persons have been freely quoted on internet websites of mainstream media ? Sometimes I see there are articles where persons are quoted directly by their name and even occupation and at other times this info is redacted. So, I am confused. The Wikipedia 'policy section' is rather vague on this an eit appears to be that this is left to the discretion of the writer. Or is it ? Thanks for an answer and please don't flame me ... the question is sincerely genuine. Natobxl 17:10, 10 December 2010 (CET)

Current consensus seems to be not to name the women as there is no real need to do so. We usually err on the side of caution in such cases, even when reported widely in the media. I cut the names from your post, BLP applies on the talk page too --Errant ^(chat!) 16:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus of the people who work on the article. In this case, the decision not to use their full names is helped by the fact that they are not named by UK authorities or in the British media where most of the initial reporting on the current court case originates. It is a matter of seconds to find their full names through Google. KathaLu (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it might be better phrased as current consensus seems to be that not giving names is in line with BLP policy We generally don't give names of non-notable people (or at least, we shouldn't: BLP policy seems to get forgotten far too often), and being the alleged victim of a sexual assault by a notable person doesn't in itself make someone notable. Clearly, this may change with time, but for now, not giving names takes nothing of significance from the article anyway, I'd think. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yea, presently there are not many reliable coverage about the ladies, if they were making statements and they were covered widely then clearly it would be a bit silly to keep them out but right now, the names would be a bit gratuitous, imo. Off2riorob (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Computer Scientist and/or hacker

In the lead we politely identify Assange as a computer scientist, but wasn't he slightly better known for the hacking exploits that led to early trouble with authorities. I don't particularly care about advertising these, but it seems like a bit of a whitewash to use the CS term, particularly when his roots to the hacktivist community began with his early online activities. Thoughts? (I'd be happy to dig up sources, though I've seen the hacking issue described all around). Ocaasi (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Section reactions to arrest

This section header is a recipe for any old valueless addition or soapboxing to be added, I have remove this twice today but its again been replaced. This is the guys BLP not a soapbox for such irrelevant comments that belong either on Putins article or somewhere else, the trash bin in my opinion. Filling up the article with such dribble weakens the worthwhile content.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said that Assange's arrest indicated that the West's criticism (of Russia’s record concerning democracy) is hypocritical.http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/wikileaks-backers-threaten-more-cyber-attacks/article1832334/

If thats not soapboxing and irrelevant to this persons life story I don't know what is and from a person who would have certainly silenced him if he was in Russia. Off2riorob (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here. Myself and 1 other editor thought it belongs. It seems to be getting more headline coverage now and here. Yes its soapboxing but that's what most politicians do most of the time, isn't it? I don't think our prohibition against soapboxing applies to politicians, that's their job. And it addresses specifically Assange's arrest, which is relevant to his life,I think. We could ignore it if it were not the leader of the largest country in the world with the second largest military machine, but I don't think we can ignore Putin. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Putin.s opinion about the west and democracy is pretty valueless to the life story of this living person, you might add it to Putin's article. Off2riorob (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

RfC on the arrest warrant in the lead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is a dispute as to whether the lead of Julian Assange should mention that Sweden has issued an arrest warrant for him. The suggested sentence is (or words to this effect):

Assange has also come to public attention over allegations of sexual assault made by two women in Sweden. An international arrest warrant was issued for him on 19 November 2010 by a Swedish prosecutor on charges of rape, sexual molestation, and unlawful coercion. He has denied the allegations."

Should this be included or not? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Support inclusion. There is widespread international coverage about this, including in the high-quality media, and per WP:LEAD, we should include in the lead any notable controversies. LEAD also says: "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources ..." and this is clearly of great importance to Assange and his future. To tuck it away toward the end of the article makes the whole article seem POV. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• I said above that It wouldn't be proper even if it wasn't a BLP to mention the current charges in the lede either. If they turn out to be significant in the big picture in a few months from now, then we could include them. --John (talk) 07:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion. WP:LEAD tells us that the lede serves as "an introduction to" and "a summary of" the article's "most important aspects." I don't see a legitimate argument that including the proposed sentence complies with that definition; the arrest is clearly not one of the "most important aspects" of the article. If something ends up happening from the arrest warrant, like a conviction or even a trial, I might change my mind. But let's not give undue weight to the arrest warrant in the lede. As policy tells us, undue weight can include, "[f]or example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." All we know is that there was an arrest warrant, the warrant was rescinded days later, the warrant was re-instated, and at every step Assange has disputed the charges. To place these facts, while verifiable, in the lede would give them undue weight and is inappropriate. The proper way to address this topic in an appropriate section within the text of the article; just because its placement may not satisfy some who want it in the lede does not make its placement a POV violation. JasonCNJ (talk) 07:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion, more or less on the grounds given by Jason. Charges on their own are not significant at all; there needs to be a conviction or at least a trial. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion until we are past the recentism territory and have hard DNA or other good evidence, conviction, or at least a trial. The fact that the rape accusation was dropped due to lack of evidence and then revived, tells us that this is not a typical case and caution is warranted. We need to take a wait and see approach. Viriditas (talk) 08:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

DNA? DfuckingNA? DNA is now required for inclusion? Is this a new change to W:Verifiability? And some kind of special "hard DNA" at that? We appear now to have passed completely through the looking glass. 72.5.199.254 (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

If you are not going to stay civil, please do not comment at all. This is not the first time you have been warned. As for the DNA, Assange has confirmed that they had sex, but that it was all consensual. Nymf _hideliho! 14:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I am highly critical of any effort to require DNA evidence as a precursor to inclusion in the encyclopedia. I am also opposed to using Wikipedia as a venue to try the case. These are legitimate concerns. If you feel that the use of exclamations commonly referred to as "swear words" to underline a point is offensive - please remember that Wikipedia is not censored.72.5.199.254 (talk) 14:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

May I direct your attention to WP:CIVIL? I don't think DNA is required to make a mention of it either, but that is besides the point I am trying to make in regard to your conduct here. Nymf _hideliho! 15:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a point there though... DNA evidence is immaterial; this is getting coverage and is ongoing so really has to stay (the section content) but in the long term it will only stay, in such extensive form, if he is convicted (this is the traditional, and just about only, bar of entry into BLP articles). Long term I would say; if convicted it stays, if there is a trial but no conviction then reduce it to the essentials and if there is no trial, a sentence at most. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Now that would be recentism. If this is a widespread practice, it needs to end. We should mostly only include subject matter that would be in a "finished" article 100 years after the subject died. The level of detail that we are able to document is a good thing, and shouldn't be sacrificed after the fact. Gigs (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of how this turns out, the formal charges and his Interpol arrest warrant that attracted worldwide attention will be a major event in his life as a public person. Just imagine if Interpol issued an arrest warrant for Jimbo. Jeannedeba (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, a lot of misunderstanding here. Yes, we know Assange has admitted to consensual sex, but the collection of DNA evidence indicates that a crime was reported and a rape exam was submitted as evidence. This is not essential or necessary for the inclusion of a rape allegation, but rather shows that there is an actual case to be made. Looking at the article and related news reports, there does not appear to be a good case against Assange, and an "arrest warrant was required" not because there is evidence of a rape, but "because it had not been possible to arrange an interview." Furthermore, Gigs is mistaken about how we write articles; very often, the "level of detail" we document is sacrificed after the fact as a biographical topic progresses from start to completion, and for this reason, Wikipedia editors have to be very careful when dealing with accusations and allegations about BLP's that have no basis in solid evidence, but simply amount to a sensationalized, smear campaign in the media. This is not a news organization, this is an encyclopedia. We are not in a hurry to publish the latest and greatest accusations from women involved in a love triangle with Assange. Our job, our role, our task as editors, is to write a biography based on good, solid information, not rumors or accusations. Viriditas (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"Looking at the article and related news reports, there does not appear to be a good case against Assange" [...] "sensationalized, smear campaign in the media"

Excuse me, but this is not for us to decide. We just report what other sources report. No, we don't need to report "accusations from women involved in a love triangle". But we do need to report formal charges, a formal detention order and a formal Interpol arrest warrant that have received worldwide media attention. Jeannedeba (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right, we don't have to decide anything. Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union[2] states that "everyone who has been charged shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law" and that "respect for the rights of the defence of anyone who has been charged shall be guaranteed." Furthermore, the circumstances of the charges appear to be in question. His attorney claimed "he had been falsely accused and that the original prosecutor, Eva Finne, dismissed the investigation. He said the case was raised again after intervention by a Swedish politician."[3] This source is already in the article. Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You are not adding to our discussion now. This is just your personal opinions and/or original research of dubious or no relevance to any content decision at this talk page. Jeannedeba (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a presumption of innocence here, not just in BLPs. Anyone can make an accusation, and according to the sources in the article, the charges were previously dropped and then revived due to political pressure. This is not my opinion. This is all in the sources used in the article. We need to focus on writing a biography, not on adding play by play commentary on the latest trumped up charges to the lead. When things settle down, we will gain some much needed perspective. Accusations do not merit mention in the lead unless there is good evidence supporting them. Viriditas (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support inclusion the very fact that the charges are unusual is what cements their place in the lede. They have drawn a large amount of coverage in relation to the total coverage that Assange has drawn, so they deserve a prominent place in his article. The lede should roughly reflect the article in terms of major points. Leaving mention of them out of the lede would be an absurd conclusion, when the charges are clearly a major part of the article, and the coverage of Assange in total. Downplaying these serious charges does Assange no favor. If these charges are indeed politically motivated as he and others claim, then more light on the issue will help him, not harm him. Our biographical articles are required to cover both positive and negative information, and our guidance from the foundation specifically expressed that overly positive BLPs have no place in Wikipedia. Gigs (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion. If you start looking around (I know, other stuff exists...), these things are often left out in the lead of biographies, even though jail time has even been served. I think we should hold off until/if there is a conviction, or at least a trial. Nymf _hideliho! 14:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. It was included following a clear consensus and has been thoroughly debated. Jeannedeba (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Can you point to where that clear consensus was formed? --John (talk) 15:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
    • It was included by other users following consensus reached in this discussion: Talk:Julian_Assange#Lead_section. Jeannedeba (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Well that consensus has obviously been challenged by multiple good faith editors, so it's kind of irrelevant now. It would be better to make a substantive argument. Gigs (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
        • I have made numerous substantive arguments elsewhere on this very talk page. I refer to them. Jeannedeba (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion of that specific test - it may be possible to enter a single line that is both due weight and neutral w/o being pointy. But the current text is simply point-pushing --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Errant, this isn't about the specific text (which is why I wrote "or words to that effect"). Could you say whether you think any reference to the arrest warrant, and some words about why it was issued, should be in the lead? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion in lead for now per WP:NOT#NEWS and "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid". He's not in Roman Polanksi's position, yet. Further, reading the whole section on that issue, the text proposed for the lead by SlimVirgin fails WP:NPOV; I'm not going to watchlist this article, but suffice to say that picking only one of the details of this rather complex story and emphasizing it in the lead is not a neutral summary. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. Charges are important; even without a trial, charges of sex offenses in particular have changed the courses of careers and lives. For Assange, this arrest warrant is also a significant factor in where he now can and cannot travel. It also relates to the Wikileaks work, as he is trying to frame the charges as being part of some shadowy government conspiracy. Quigley (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• I don't think it's a good idea to mention the arrest warrant and resulting broo ha ha in the lead, because it falls foul of 'undue weight', and 'recentism' - in a few days virtually all the sources will just be going on about the latest release, we shouldn't rejig the lead for that either, although it will likely make the article body. Privatemusings (talk) 03:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion in the lead. This is a BLP, and wikipedia is still not a news source. Obviously, this issue has garnered a great deal of attention, but it's not at all clear how this will pan out in the future. If the charges are dropped at some point in the future, I think it would be uncontroversial to reduce it to a note in the main body, and conversely if he's convicted, this fact would be notable lead material (including his then-current prison whereabouts). IF consensus holds that this should be mentioned in the lead, I think care should be taken to keep it at a reduced and explicitly neutral level. The lead does not mention any other facts that are nearly so specific: the mention of the Afghan and Iraq wikileaks dumps, for example, do not contain any dates or specific information about them, and his entire professional history prior to wikileaks takes up precisely one sentence (namely the second one). A developing specific incident like this should not be elevated above such other, broader and arguably more important, facts. siafu (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion in the lead. This is a very unique case and is hardly straightforward. He has co-operated with swedish police in the past, had it dropped, now re-issued arrest warrent. He is openly living in EU member states that fail to act, he has offered to videolink with swedish police. this is not the definition of a 'fugitive' who is fleeing capture 220.101.4.140 (talk) 04:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion in the lead. This may be a pertinent fact, but it is not among the most pertinent facts for the lead. Just because something is "in the news" at the moment, doesn't mean it is among the most important things about the individual. No objections to it being in the article itself.--Scott Mac 13:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support inclusion reluctantly, WP:LEAD says that significant controversies should be mentioned in the lead and looking at the reporting, the warrant and the Swedish allegations are certainly a "significant controversy". WP:NPOV also says that viewpoints should be presented in rough proportion to the coverage they get in sources, and the warrant gets enormous coverage. There is a recentism point to be made against inclusion with which I agree, and the text in the lead should disclose that the warrant is controversial and the point that it may be politically engineered shouldn't be absent. --Dailycare (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion in the lead per WP:NOT#NEWS, recentism and undue weight, as extensively explained by others. --Elekhh (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• oppose - as stated - I could support a simple comment but not as written. Off2riorob (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as written. The criminal situation is premature to have that much/that particular detail in the lead. I'd support a different summary, something like: "Allegations of sexual assault made by two women in Sweden have lead to an international arrest warrant for Assange. He has denied the charges and claimed they are an attempt to discredit him and Wikileaks." Ocaasi (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as written. Same reasons as Ocaasi above; mention needs to be made about Assange's opinion of the ongoing investigation into his Swedish criminal charges as this is one of the few notable things regarding the charges that is an undisputed fact.--Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• I notice the Interpol arrest warrant has once again been unilaterally removed by a user, despite the fact that it was included following a consensus decision. I think it should stay until we arrive at a new decision. Currently the lead section includes his "number of journalism awards" and tons of less relevant information, while hiding the main reason he's currently discussed in the media, which is hardly neutral. Jeannedeba (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, the lengthy lead section now includes information on his travel habits(!) ("has described himself as constantly on the move"), but doesn't mention with a word the fact that he is the subject of numerous controversies, has been arrested in Sweden and is under an Interpol arrest warrant on a serious charge. Outrageous! It makes the introduction look more like an advertisement for Wikileaks than a neutral encyclopedia article. Jeannedeba (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tom Flanagan's assassination comment.

The article reads:

Tom Flanagan, former campaign manager for Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, commented 30 November 2010 that he thought Julian Assange should be assassinated. A complaint has been filed against Flanagan, which states that Flanagan "counselled and/or incited the assassination of Julian Assange contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada," in his remarks on the CBC program Power & Politics. [96]

Perhaps it should be mentioned it clearly seemed to be a terrible and tasteless [possibly criminal] joke, rather than a real threat?

Flanagan: Well, I think Assange should be assassinated, actually. I think Obama should put out a contract and maybe use a drone or something.

Solomon: Tom, that’s pretty harsh stuff, just for the record, that’s pretty harsh stuff.

Flanagan: Well, I’m feeling very manly today.

He appologized for the "joke" the next day. He also said that he never “seriously intended to advocate or propose the assassination of Mr. Assange.” http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2010/12/04/let-flanagans-remarks-die/

I think the "joke" may have been just that, but it may also have been a serious comment. There is nothing definative about the comments made by Flanagan that suggest he was making a joke (bar the "manly" comment, which could very well be backpeddaling). It sounds to me like a politician trying to boost an approval rating an misjudging public opinion. His appology should be mentioned though. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Crystal balling?

I do not believe the fact that Assange is in the running for person of the year belongs in the article, and I removed it once but it has since been re-added. For me, it would be better to wait until he wins it before adding it. What do others think? --John (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not clear why it was removed. It seems relevant and important. This news item is covered in dozens of reliable sources about the nomination, and my understanding is that the outcome will be reached next week on the 15th.[4] Recommend restoring it. Viriditas (talk) 07:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. That is not what "Crystal balling" is. RS's can crystal-ball all they want, and we can report it. WP:CRYSTAL just means wikipedians can't.John Z (talk) 07:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The closest analogy I can think of is how we describe award nominations in film articles. Whether they win or lose, the nomination is still valid. Viriditas (talk) 07:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

using your analogy, nominations vary from award to award. an oscar nomination is and accolade in itself, but a Nobel Peace prize nomination is insignificant. The difference being that it is much easier to be nominated for the Peace Prize. The question is, how important is "the person of the year?" do nominees who haven't won cite their nomination after they have lost? 168.93.95.58 (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thankfully, we have secondary sources to make the determination of importance, and our very own article on Time Person of the Year, indicating notability. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The correct way to address it is to make more mention of it; that he is in the lead, sourced to the primary reference is pure crystal ball. That he is nominated is significant, and if that has RS's then why not approach it from that angle. (I can't believe it was fucking restored again after it was explained that primary sourced crystal balling is inappropriate and silly) --Errant ^(chat!) 12:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It was restored after being sourced to an article in the Herald Sun which was syndicated by NewsCore.[5] It was neither "primary sourced" not crystal balling. Viriditas (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• - I don't see any long term encyclopedic value to it unless he get it. I support waiting for the result before inclusion. Off2riorob (talk) 12:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed, I just dug for sources describing it as significant (in relative depth) that he was nominated and.. nada. Kill it. People are too eager to shove this stuff in. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
    • • Not true. It was sourced to the Herald Sun, and it appears you failed to look at the actual source in the article. Viriditas (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Heh, well thanks for assuming that ;) Actually, I read the source, foun it trivial and wondered why on earth it was added back. Crystal balling with a source is still crystal balling. There is no rush to cram information in :) I recommend calming down and taking it slow --Errant ^(chat!) 08:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Duly killed. We can put it back if he actually wins it. Merci a tous. --John (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Duly restored, as the arguments for removal have been shown to be based on a misunderstanding of the reliable secondary source used to justify its inclusion. Furthermore, there are other sources that can be added to also support it besides the article in the Herald Sun. Viriditas (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Just because we can include it, that doesn't mean we have to. I'm with Off2riorob and Errant on this - basically trivia, in the broader context of the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
          • I believe that I've put to rest every argument made against inclusion. First it was claimed it wasn't sourced to a secondary; I added one. Then, it was claimed that the award wasn't notable; I believe I've shown that the award is notable, and our article on the topic gives weight to that claim. Now, you claim that the nomination is "trivia". Could you take a moment to explain what you mean by trivia? Because, your use of the word is at odds with how Wikipedia uses it over at WP:TRIVIA. This is not trivia. Viriditas (talk) 03:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
            • Don't include it now. Unless you think that it has encyclopedic value to mention that a person was put on the list of candidates in any given year? Amongst the current 25 candidates for Times person of the year 2010 are David Cameron, The Chilean Miners, Jonathan Franzen, Lady Gaga, Steve Jobs, Hamid Karzai and Barack Obama. So what? Is that such a great achievement? Doesn't that show that you should wait until someone has actually been put on the cover page? KathaLu (talk) 04:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

IDONTLIKEIT arguments aren't valid for exclusion. The Herald Sun and The Times of India think it is notable for several reasons.[6][7] Time itself has explained why this is notable:

Assange's exploits have cemented him as a candidate for TIME's 2010 Person of the Year -- so much so that past TIME 100 honores went out on a limb to explain why he was their choice. "For better or for worse, Julian Assange has changed the accessibility to knowledge of the two wars that involve the U.S., within a matter of months," said Lauren Zalaznick, president of NBC Universal Women and Lifestyle Entertainment Networks. "He has also put journalistic integrity on a knife-blade edge: What is the responsibility of the journalist to make public or keep private?"[8]

The New York Times has also covered the subject of the nomination and the role of Anonymous in the voting,[9]. This is notable, timely, and relevant. Viriditas (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it is ephemeral, speculative, trivial and lends undue weight to the possibility that Assange may receive an award in the future. Wait until he wins it, then cover it. --John (talk) 08:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems significant that in the midst of all of this brouhaha, he still manages to lead a poll for Man of the Year. It's part of the reception and response, and it's been picked up by reliable sources, it's not negative, it doesn't involve primary sources, or pending criminal allegations, or victimization issues. It will be better in a few weeks, but I don't think it's disqualified now. Ocaasi (talk) 08:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

@Viriditas, so why the hell was all that information not mentioned in the first place? Instead there was a rush to cram in "he's leading the 2010 poll" with little of no context or established interest. Facepalm Bear in mind nomination for this poll is fairly trivial, it does not take "much" to get included. That he is leading is interesting, but I don't see any significant coverage of that at this stage. No harm in waiting till conclusion of the poll. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd also point out that despite a user box saying contrary it is disappointing to see Viriditas edit warring the content back in with no attempt to add the additional information he has provided above... really? Not great there --Errant ^(chat!) 08:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

My user box says I prefer discussing rather than edit warring, which is true, and I've discussed and responded to every objection raised about this item, only to have John and Off2riorob continually remove it based on no valid reason other than IDONTIKEIT. Several users have described it as "trivia", yet the secondary sources clearly state that it is not trivia, nor does not meet the Wikipedia guidelines for trivia. So we have a case of editors removing this material for no reason whatsoever. That is certainly "not great". Viriditas (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is just a poor dismissal; you;re edit warring in content that people have expressed consensus not to include.. You wrote above The Herald Sun and The Times of India think it is notable for several reasons, which is fair enough (although it is worth pointing out the correct word is "significant"). BUT you have made no attempt to include any of those details. Why is it notable? What is interesting about his nomination? What is significant about him being in the lead? Until he wins it this feels like pure "navel gazing" on his behalf :) I realise it is exciting to try and get information in as quickly as possible, but there is nothing wrong with waiting for the results to come in and the right sources to be available. Patience is the best virtue here :) --Errant ^(chat!) 15:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It isn't crystal balling and it isn't trivia, and there has been no attempt to reach an informed consensus based on policies and guidelines, only IDONTLIKEIT because of x, y, and z, all of which have been shown to be false. One does not have to include all of the information from a source in an article, and editors who are concerned about a source are welcome to read it. Viriditas (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense; it's trivial information placed before the end of voting. You can't support that by saying sources find it significant then failing to address that in the article, it is the burden of editorship. The content is just valueless at this time, we are mostly agreed on that. Warring it in doesn't really change that. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not nonsense. This is a collaborative enterprise, where if you see something that needs fixing, you are welcome to help. If you feel that more should be added, you are welcome to add it. It is not valueless, as the award is considered prestigious, and the fact that he is 1) leading the poll while in police custody is unique, and 2) he has 298,975 votes as of the 8th, which is hundreds of thousands more than Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Lady Gaga, in 2nd and 3rd place, and 3) Bookmaker YouWager.com is betting against him winning. In other words, the award is notable enough, and per WP:CRYSTAL, the anticipated event is verifiable (the award will be given next week), and the subject matter has an article (Time Person of the Year). Again, per WP:CRYSTAL, discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals is properly referenced. The information is legitimate and acceptable per Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Viriditas (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

So, source that information and add it to the article. Job done. You're basically using reasonable content to defend one trivial piece :) (and it is crystal balling because we don't know if he will win) --Errant ^(chat!) 16:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The information is already appropriate and sourced. Your interpretation of CRYSTAL is yours alone, as the content is neither speculation or predicting anything not already reported by reliable sources. The deletion of this material is not supported by anyone. You cannot make up policies and guidelines to remove material you personally disagree with. Clearly, we have several misguided, misinformed, and tendentious edit warriors who have put their own personal opinions above that of the sources. The nomination is notable, the reports noting the nomination and his lead are reliable, and its removal is unsupported. Viriditas (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I also agree completely with removing this, if he wins it then add it if not then don't, also the fact that it is a public vote open to all and repeated votes from the same IP and that it is as valueless as the fanzine best ever album award where the bands fans all phone in to support their idol. Off2riorob (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Except, the information is neither trivial nor an example of "crystal balling", nor can you show that it is by quoting the policies and guidelines. We can't make decisions based on your opinion unless it is rooted in the actual policies. Per WP:CRYSTAL, this information is acceptable, as it is verifiable and based on reliable sources. Viriditas (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Its noteworthiness will only be if he actually wins it. Having a citation is not a gold star for inclusion. Off2riorob (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thankfully, we do not rely on your opinion to determine noteworthiness. We rely on the secondary sources, which have provided several reason why it is significant, hence its inclusion. Viriditas (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The actual results and award are out in about a week, can't you wait a few days to see if he actually is awarded it? Off2riorob (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

<Undent> I previously removed this Time Magazine stuff from the lead, but deliberately left it in the "Award Section". I continue to think that's a good compromise (assuming it doesn't go anywhere else like in the infobox). You all do realize --- don't you? --- that this is a silly conversation given that it will soon be moot seeing as how the magazine will soon make a decision. Surely, if he doesn't get it, we would not mention that some hope he might.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

note - After a discussion on my talk and considering the comments here and there I have replaced this Time award content, as Anythingyouwant says, the result will be out in the next week and it just isn't worth any stress. Off2riorob (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it. Consensus here seems to be against it. I agree with that. If he wins it, that's he wins it is important - not the fact he was winning it a week before. If he doesn't win it - it is also trivia. The fact he's in the lead now just isn't important. It's trivia and even then it's only interesting for this one week (see WP:NOTNEWS - especially when we know this "news" has no lasting significance).--Scott Mac 00:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. I've responded to all objections. Consensus is not based on IDONTLIKEIT, and the fact of the matter is that this information is encyclopedic, and it can easily be demonstrated that reliable biographical encyclopedias include award nominations in their print and online editions. Wikipedia does not seek to lower the bar, but to meet the standards already upheld by reliable tertiary sources. It also important to note that this is neither crystal balling nor trivia. This is encyclopedic content normally found in biographical encyclopedias, whether he wins or loses. I'm sorry if YOUDONTLIKEIT but consensus must rest solely on the facts not on fiction. Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL is about unverifiable speculation. This content is clearly verifiable and contains no speculation. It's a verifiable fact that as of December 8th, Assange was the leading candidate in Time's online poll. Nor do I agree that it is trivia. Trivia is mentioning "Medal of Honor: Rising Sun is a first-person shooter video game which begins at Pearl Harbor" in our Attack on Pearl Harbor article.[10]A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

If I could add my opinion on the matter; I think that, in light of all the negative attention Assange, mainly people calling for him to be excecuted, that his inclusion into the "Man of the Year" award nominations is a significant piece of information and should be displayed on this page until the results of the poll are out, when if he wins or loses it should still be noted. I'm basically agreeing with Viriditas here as the information does not seem trivial while the reasons given for not including it do seem a little bit based on IDONTLIKEIT. I do not agree with, however, adding information that he is in the lead; a mention of his nomination should be enough for now as it could affect peoples voting if they susspect Assange is way ahead in the lead. I want him to win the award but I wan him to win it fairly :D --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

More Personal Info

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/julian-assange-wild-child-of-free-speech/story-fn775xjq-1225969230839

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian?currentPage=5 (page 5 onwards) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.243.170 (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the Australian Electoral Roll, the Assange family lived in the Melbourne suburb of Upwey from 1987 to 1994. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itemroad2 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

NetBSD advocate

Assange has been (still is?) a member of the FreeBSD and especially the NetBSD community. He also contributed some slogans for its fortune file. http://www.lemis.com/grog/diary-dec2010.php#8 --Athaba (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

But is this significant to the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

don't know, as yet I am not brave enough to click on the external. Off2riorob (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a blog by what seems to be a non prominent individual, so not reliable by definition. Hervegirod (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how significant it is, that's why I added it. The blog isn't the reference, but it sums it up pretty well. The fortune file file would be a better reference http://web.mit.edu/games/src/bsd-games-2.13/fortune/datfiles/netbsd Also the mailing list is a reference for his involvement: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Amail-index.NetBSD.org+%22Julian+Assange%22 Don't know whether it's significant, but since it proves he contributed to open source projects it may be relevant as a reference. --Athaba (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

How would Assange contributing to open source projects be significant? Has this been reported by the mainstream media while discussing him? Wikipedia biographies are supposed to be about notable people, and the things that make them notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Praise by Governments for Assange

I think much of this content belongs in this BLP because it is specifically praising Assange himself. Right now it's all in the Wikileaks article. Would it be reasonable to transfer it over here or cut and paste it for here and leave it there as well? Surely it belongs here as much or more than there. Right now there is an unintentional pov fork in effect by ommitting all of this praise from Assange's BLP. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Brazil: President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva expressed his "solidarity" with Julian Assange following Assange's 2010 arrest in the United Kingdom. He further criticised the arrest of Julian Assange as "an attack on freedom of expression".

Ecuador: In late November 2010 a representative of the government of Ecuador made what was, apparently, an unsolicited public offer to Julian Assange to establish residency in Ecuador. Deputy Foreign Minister Kinto Lucas stated "we are going to invite him to come to Ecuador so he can freely present the information he possesses and all the documentation, not just on the Internet, but in various public forums." Lucas went on to state his praise for WikiLeaks and Assange calling them "[people] who are constantly investigating and trying to get light out of the dark corners of [state] information." The following day, however, president Rafael Correa distanced his administration from the offer stating that Lucas had been speaking for himself and not on the government's behalf. Correa then criticised Assange for "breaking the laws of the United States and leaking this type of information."

Russia: In December 2010 the office of Russian president Dmitry Medvedev issued a statement calling on non-governmental organisations to consider "nominating [Julian] Assange as a Nobel Prize laureate." The announcement followed commentary by Russian ambassador to NATO Dmitry Rogozin who stated that Julian Assange's earlier arrest on Swedish charges demonstrated that there was "no media freedom" in the west.

United Nations: In December 2010 United Nations Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Opinion and Expression Frank LaRue stated he agreed with the idea that Julian Assange was a "martyr for free speech." LaRue went on to say Assange or other WikiLeaks staff should not face legal accountability for any information they disseminated, noting that, "if there is a responsibility by leaking information it is of, exclusively of the person that made the leak and not of the media that publish it. And this is the way that transparency works and that corruption has been confronted in many cases." High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay subsequently voiced concern at the revelation that private companies were being pressured by states to sever their relationships with WikiLeaks. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd say there may be a case for including this here though it probably needs trimming, and careful editing to make clear that this is their opinion, not ours. It all relates to what Assange is doing in relation to WikiLeaks though, so I'd wait for other comments first. Any thoughts? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Some of this is already there. Gigs (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it should be trimmed down a bit. Also, perhaps it should be mentioned that the following are conspiratory beliefs:

"Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva further criticised the arrest of Julian Assange as 'an attack on freedom of expression.'"

"Dmitry Rogozin who stated that Julian Assange's earlier arrest on Swedish charges demonstrated that there was 'no media freedom' in the west."

Assange's arrest has nothing to do with Wikileaks that we know of. Gordonlighter (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It is very strange for Interpol to chase Assange the way they have for sex crimes. The whole thing stinks of corruption and fear; however, it is not an irrefutably proven fact yet that Wikileaks and Assange's sex crime charges are linked. EDIT (14 December): Assange himself has stated that he believes his arrest has everything to do with Wikileaks and is aimed at discrediting him and his organisation--Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 14:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Content forking issue

When one looks at this BLP objectively, it is obvious that an unintentional POV fork has occurred,wherein most of the praise for the Subject of the BLP, Assange, even praise by Heads of State (see above) has been ommitted, yet is present within the WikiLeaks article. Conversely, this BLP's "Release of United States diplomatic cables" section and the "Reactions to Leaking" section probably have 2/3rds+ negative content and contain very little information which is Assange specific. That content more properly belongs in the Wikileaks article. Right now it looks like a complete rewrite is in order, it seems to me. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a rewrite is necessary, but the "response to leaks" section is an issue right now. Gigs (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I think 'unintentional' is probably entirely right. It makes a sort of sense, in that the 'pro' comments are likely to see it in terms of WikiLeaks being a good thing, whereas the 'antis' are perhaps more likely to make Assange out to be bad in person. A tricky one though, perhaps indicating the limits of what can be objectively covered with an encyclopaedic format. Which is another way of saying I don't have a clue how to get around this really. There will no doubt be an opportunity to rewrite at some stage, but it is all a bit fluid at the moment AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely with Gigs, the response to leaks does not belong in this article at all. I removed it, no point in moving it anywhere as it seems pretty much already duplicated. Off2riorob (talk) 12:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that was a good thing to do. It was actually Off2riorob's comment(above) about Putin's remarks belonging more in a different artilce that got me looking at what else might be in here that shouldn't be or elsewhere that should be here. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone is whitewashing this article to portray Assange in the best light possible. There were well sourced critisicms of Assange that have been removed and replaced with the "Support for Assange" section. If we are going to include positive reviews of Assange's role in the leaking (which I fully support), then we must add the negative reviews he's recieved.Gordonlighter (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I found the section I was referring to that was removed by Off2riorob:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julian_Assange&oldid=401768328#Reactions_to_leaking

Most of these should remain as they are explicitly about Assange. I would advocate dividing it into a "positive reactions", and "negative reactions" section. Thoughts? Gordonlighter (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

assange rape prosecution due to STD concerns

Assange reportedly could have avoided the women contacting authorities by submitting to STD testing. reference: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/report-assange-rape-case-sparked-std-fears/ Can anyone else find a more reliable source? Aaronchall (talk) 05:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Speculation (or claims) about what motivated A. and W. to go to the police can be found in a variety of newspapers. Broken condoms, the non-use of condoms, the fear of having contracted an STD, finding out that Assange had sex with another woman within days of having had sex with him and the fact that he did not answer his phone when they wanted him to do so no doubt motivated A. and W. Does it matter for the Wiki article, now or later? No. What matters are the legal charges against Assange. If there is a court case, he will either be cleared or convicted of some or all of them. Wait until then.KathaLu (talk) 10:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Alleged sex crimes

I also am finding myself wondering about the Alleged sex crimes section but not regarding its current composition which I think has been made to be quite good and NPOV . I started remembering another BLP I worked on where the issue was whether or not to include accusations of crimes when no charges had been laid. The consensus was "no". Assange's lawyer was on CNN last night saying that no charges at all have been laid as yet, and, in fact, the actual accusations themselves are not defined. That ,in effect,he's being held for questioning at this point in time. His lawyer painted a confinement for Assange that looks a bit Kafkaesque. I guess what I'm suggesting is that until defined criminal charges are laid that the event be summarized in 3 or 4 sentences. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed this in 1 of the sources we use for the section:"For anyone other than 39-year-old Assange...the charges would have barely rated a mention." Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Clearly the sexual claims is a little bloated at this time, although has been kept neutral and pretty well in line with policy, difficult to trim more but in a few days it will be clear, the details of the extradition or not will be released on the 14th I think he is back in court, extradition is only allowed for charges not investigation. Clearly it is easier to request a red note arrest than it is to action the extradition. With this being a hugely high profile case the UK will want to see some details and will need convincing of the legal claims to hand him over. Off2riorob (talk) 15:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the section to a new article as it was quite long. I know this had been discussed here in the past. I did not change much. Simply a copy paste job. But hopefully this will clear up some of the issues of "what should be included HERE?" ... Tim.thelion (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC). OK Off2riorob reverted my edit imediatly. The page I had created was Assange sex charges and trial not really sure what to do now. Please say more Off2riorob... Tim.thelion (talk)

Given that the allegations are so central to reporting of Assange right now, a move to a new article looks unwise to me. It is also entirely possible that further comments (and perhaps evidence) about the possibility that these charges are related to Assanges other activities may arise. Having separate articles would complicate reporting this greatly. For these reasons, I'd oppose the move. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Tim, did you open a discussion and ask anybody if it was a good idea? Its good to be bold, but also easy to ask, do you think its a good idea if I create a sex allegations article. I opened a thread at the BLPN to get some advice, I don't think the issue should need its own article. Off2riorob (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob it was discussed in an earlier version of this talk page. Specifically in regards to the identities of Miss. A and Miss. W. While I did not do any major additions when moving the content, I believe that there is significant information to be added. I posted on the linked noticeboard Tim.thelion (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC).

Great, lets get some opinions. Off2riorob (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to add here my proposed solution Wikipedia:Splitting resolution to the question of whether we should have a separate article on the sex charges or not... I think that the incubation process is best. Tim.thelion (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

European Arrest Warrant?

The Wiki article states that an "international" arrest warrant was issued against Assange. Was it a European Arrest Warrant? I think you are drawing too much information from US and Australian media who are writing on the basis of their familiarity with their own legal systems and procedures and not from a European position. If it is an EAW, then it does matter a lot that the alleged events occurred in Sweden (an EU member state), that the person involved is not an EU citizen and not even an EU resident but a third country national with residence outside the EU, that a UK judge (i.e. a judge from another EU member state) deals with all this, and the whole lot happens within the context of not only two national European jurisdictions but also European Union legislation. KathaLu (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

If you can provide a source that states this, it may well merit inclusion. Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It was an Interpol red note, arrest and hold with a view to extradition, it will need a European extradition to move him to Sweden. Off2riorob (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

According to BBC News of 7 December 2010 or a recent Time article it was indeed a European arrest warrant. And, surprisingly, it is spelled in small caps, see the English version of the EU legislative act Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States. It is still fairly new, I think EU wide implementation was achieved only five years ago. KathaLu (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

European arrest warrents are issued within the EU. Interpol is non-EU. Apparently an EAW was issued via our Schengen Information System in which the UK participates for law enforcement purposes, as well as the Interpol thing. The EAW is what counts here and before the UK court, not Interpol, because this falls within the framework of judicial cooperation between EU Member States. KathaLu (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This really proves my point about European news and how it gets reported because this apparently did not get picked up by US media. Press agency AFP, Nov 20, 2010: ""Late last night we gathered all the information and sent it out in the different systems," Tommy Kangasvieri of the Swedish National Criminal Police told AFP. These are the Swedish system, the Schengen Information System (SIS) -- the massive security database for Europe's border-free Schengen zone -- and Interpol, Kangasvieri said. "The prosecutor had already decided to issue an international arrest warrant. We made sure that all the police forces in the world would see it," Kangasvieri added." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathalu (talk • contribs) 17:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I also read about the speculation about false passports (earlier on this TP) and remember a comment (by the UK judge?) that it was not known when Assange entered the UK. Not important in the current context of the Wiki article but probably also totally trivial from a European Union POV as I can imagine that an Australian passport does not get stamped each time the passport holder crosses a border within the EU, even when travelling from the Schengen area (Sweden) to a non Schengen area (UK). Just mention this in case it is brought up again. KathaLu (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I have pieced it together now: There were problems with the paperwork of the November EAW and, as the Telegraph reports here on 06 Dec 2010, a "fresh European Arrest Warrant has been issued by the authorities in Sweden" and this move, according to the Telegraph, removed the "legal impediment to holding Mr Assange and making him appear before City of Westminster Magistrates' Court". KathaLu (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Is someone willing to add/clarify that he was arrested on the basis of a European arrest warrant that was issued on 6 December by Sweden and that's why and when he went to Westminster Magistrates Court? I don't want to touch the article - it could probably do with some editing - and I am not a native speaker. KathaLu (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

continued tangential bloat

This has just been added, its complete twaddle, valueless bloat. Off2riorob (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg said that Assange "is serving our [American] democracy and serving our rule of law precisely by challenging the secrecy regulations, which are not laws in most cases, in this country." On the issue of national security considerations for the U.S. regarding Wikileaks's publication of American diplomatic cables, Ellsberg added that "He’s obviously a very competent guy in many ways. I think his instincts are that most of this material deserves to be out. We are arguing over a very small fragment that doesn’t. He has not yet put out anything that hurt anybody’s national security". An editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald by Bryce Lowry described Assange as "the Ned Kelly of the digital age" comparing him to a bushranger who defied colonial authorities in Australia in the nineteenth century. An editorial in China's Beijing Daily, a publication of the Beijing city government, suggested that this year’s Nobel Peace Prize not be given to the Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo but to Julian Assange.

That section is again overlarge and has two main article which are already linked to, I am going to trim it in half. Off2riorob (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Dispute about status as Journalist

This additional government created "throw enough mud against the wall and some of it will stick" attack is not worthy of inclusion at all. Just because a U.S. Government person makes an accusation doesn't make it notable. This entire little section should go out of this BLP. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I quite like that section as he is not a journalist as we would usually know one, can you please stop bloating sections that have their own articles , thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm suggesting 1 area where we can reduce the bloating is by taking this section out entirely. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but how would you usually know a journalist? He is investigating current events and exposing cover-ups. Just because he dosn't work for a major news outlet does not strip him of his status a journalist. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Role as a publisher

I changed the title of the header to be a bit more npov..thing is with that section is Imo a couple of the comments seem quite informative, especially Assange's rebuke of the dispute, which is him explaining how he sees his role in the organisation, but I am not attached to it, if a consensus arises that it is mud throwing then I will accept the consensus. I quite like the shape of the article and the size of the sections at the moment and as nothing is actually going on for the next couple of days it would be nice to see a bit of stability in the article to give the google bots and the mirrors time to catch up. Off2riorob (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

What the lawyers say and don't say

Assange's attorneys in the U.K. and Sweden have been making a song and dance about Assange's willingness to be interviewed by the Swedish authorities in London. They claimed that "an arrest warrant was unnecessary, as Assange was always willing to face questioning in a Swedish embassy abroad or via telephone or video link". But "lead Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny" told TIME earlier this week "that an arrest warrant was issued because Swedish law prohibits formal legal interviews over a telephone or via a video link". Again, I think this is an important point because a British reader (don't know about the USA) is not aware of such vital differences between jurisdictions / legal systems. KathaLu (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This is kind of dubious. While the lawyers are obviously spinning the story to their client's advantage, the prosecutor is also misleading: prior to the warrant, it would have been possible to question Assange 'informally' via telephone, video link, or at the Swedish Embassy in London. Further, there is a serious legal question here - whether a state may demand someone appear in person to face questioning, at their own expense, which is outside the Assange article. Given the lack of 'dual crimininality' on the alleged offenses, the other issue is whether Assange's efforts to answer questions while remaining in England satisfied English standards of 'reasonable'. Your comment is objective, but if Ny's comment is to be included for balance, then it too needs additional background, from someone more familiar with the current legal controversy. Again, a bit of time may bring clarity to the issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Geek 29A (talk • contribs) 17:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I posted this as background information. Tomorrow (14 Dec) we will know more. I am currently watching an interview between David Frost and Assange's lawyer Mark Stephens and again, it striking how the lawyer tries to put down the Swedish, makes comparisons to English and international law but never to European Union law, while the arrest warrant is based on EU law. Just be aware that you get your information from English language sources and there is a natural bias in favour of English sources. See also The European Arrest Warrant is an 'accident waiting to happen' for expats like WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. The arrest of expat WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for alleged sex offences has highlighted aspects of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) agreement which enable all EU member states to extradite defendants without producing any evidence in support of the charge. KathaLu (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Redirect

User mr grant evens 2 has again removed the sex allegations section even though it is only a redirect after the discussion at the BLPN. All the sexual content has been removd and more look how good mr assange has been added by this user, it seems like a promotional push. Off2riorob (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The redirect goes nowhere. So now the page doesn't include anything about the alleged crimes. Would someone who knows more about Mediawiki than me please restore whatever material about the crimes has been deleted.Huckfinne (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I tried to tell him , I am not reverting him anymore, hes adding promotional stuff and attempting to remove anything he see as negative. Off2riorob (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

He has also Cut and copy duplicate support content from wikileaks article this support section is cut and copy duplicate from wikileaks article Off2riorob (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• I put the info back at [23:05] after being told about the BLP Noticeboard decision (which led to a redirect ); btw, The BLPN discussion was not sufficiently promoted here on the talk page.
• The "support" comments by Heads of State were specifically supporting the Subject of this BLP. Obviously it belongs here. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

UK, European Arrest Warrants and minor offenses

Interesting Guardian article from 2008 (!) about the consequences of the introduction of the European Arrest Warrant and the increase of such warrants for minor offences that, in the UK, are dealt with by the City of Westminster magistrates court, which handles all extradition hearings. Many of these offences were so minor that they would lead to either a caution or no investigation at all in England and Wales. So contrary to what we are being told or what is widely believed, Assange's case is far from unique in this respect. More in Door thief, piglet rustler, pudding snatcher: British courts despair at extradition requests KathaLu (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Notability of U.S. Government's Word Definitions

Regarding "US State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley objected to the description of Assange as a journalist,[87] and also stated that the US State Department does not regard WikiLeaks as a legitimate media organization" Are we really at the point where a government's opinion as to the definition of "journalist" or "legitimate" news organiztion is notable? Will we be also including State Dept. movie reviews at academy awards time? I don't think the US State dept. spokesman's opinion about someone's journalism skills is any more notable than the opinion of any editor here on that topic and it should be excluded from this BLP. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It is notable in that it shows the need for the US government to get arround free speech when accusing Assange. It is also notable, because there are international laws that protect "journalism"... Tim.thelion (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I refrain from editing this article (except for minor word fixes or missing URLs) because I don't want to be involved in an edit war, but bear in mind that this talk page is not a free speech forum, but a space to improve the article itself. Hervegirod (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I see what Tim.thelion is saying and I agree 100%; but in thinking about it, I came to the opinion that we are we delving into OR synthesis if we apply that rational to determining what's notable at this point in time? Don't our views as you outline them construct a notability which depends upon the correctness of our speculation as to what underlying motives are in play? Looked at in a purely non-speculative or and non-tangential way, isn't the opinion of a U.S. State Dept. spokesman about journalistic standards as of today's date non-notable? My point is, unless the RS content says somewhere that this opinion being expressed by the Spokesman is being expressed to show the need for the US government to get around free speech when accusing Assange and to get around international laws that protect "journalism", then its OR synthesis on our part; I think. My personal opinion is that its a step in the very transparent agenda that you outline, but I don't see where the Reliable Source lays out that agenda. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tim.thelion. The use of New Speak by the US State Department to deny that Assange is a "journalist" reveals significantly more about the US State Department than it does about Assange. In that regard, that WP:RS is notable. As for concerns about this leading us down the path of WP:OR, the quote itself is notable as a significant part of the cut & thrust of the battle between WikiLeaks and the U.S. government. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 11:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I think how the US govt. considers him is notable, it fits nicely in the section now --Errant ^(chat!) 11:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Should this be added?: P.J. Crowly thinks Assange is an Anarchist

In reading thoroughly the daily press briefing used as a source for P.J.Crowley's statements referred to in the topic above , I see these contents which may belong in this article: "Mr, Crowley:Mr. Assange obviously has a particular political objective behind his activities, and I think that, among other things, disqualifies him as being considered a journalist. QUESTION: What is his political objective? MR. CROWLEY: Well, his – I mean he could be considered a political actor. I think he’s an anarchist, but he’s not a journalist. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

If we include Crowley's opinion that Assange is not a journalist,I suppose we must include his opinion that Assange is an anarchist because at least that characterization is directly within the political sphere. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I added a direct quote which is better than paraphrasing in this case. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Calls for death

I think calling someone a "terrorist" or "enemy combatant" is actually a thinly veiled death threat, because if you are one, you can be killed on the battlefield without due process. So anyone who calls Assange a terrorist or enemy combatant is actually calling for him to be "taken out". Don't you think? I haven't heard of any terrorists or enemy combatants being served an arrest warrant and being taken into custody. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC) An editor moved quotes calling Assange a "terrorist" and an "enemy combatant" out of the "Calls for death" section and into the "Criticism" section. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

If someone calls Assange a terrorist, maybe that means they want him locked up at Guantanamo.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No. Calling someone a terrorist is not the same as calling for their death. And yes, terrorists have been arrested and taken into custody. - Bilby (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

If someones leaks information that leads to the deaths of American soldiers, then the leaker deserves whatever he gets. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

But if someone exposes lies that covered up the killings committed by American soldiers, they are not a hero? We can't have it both ways, and yet, this individual has possibly done exactly that. Ocaasi (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Which is why we have an "Awards" subsection and a "Calls for death" subsection. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Stop making good points. We're trying to have an argument! Ocaasi (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Ghostofnemo, your opinion that 'calling someone a "terrorist" ... is actually a thinly veiled death threat' is just that, an opinion, until you can provide sources that state otherwise. Unless you provide such sources, this topic is closed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the entire section is a massive BLP violation and needs to be removed. aprock (talk) 06:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the reasoning behind this edit. I checked out the source and that sentence is appropriately representing it. How is it a "clear BLP violation"? Silverseren^C 06:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Um, it's part of the discussion directly above.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Alright. It's not a BLP violation though, so the edit summary shouldn't have said that. It should have said "removed per talk page consensus". Silverseren^C 06:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

For the relevant BLP violation, see [11]. Everything after the first two paragraphs in that section is just careless quote farming for the sake of sensationalism, and hardly qualifies as: presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone.aprock (talk) 06:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Errant that using the words "calls of death" for a heading is not good. But its important to include the intensity of mood( often shown by extreme language) coming from of both sides when its being so often reported by RSs. Leave it all in; let the Readers decide for themselves how to interpret it all. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I can see the point that Ghostofnemo is putting across and can agree with it in some respects but not completely. yes there is no doubt that some people calling Assange a "terrorist" are inciting violence and would like to see him excecutted (as a few US and even Canadian politicians have openly stated in interviews). However, I think that the person who added the phrases probably dosn't have their intentions in a death threat and is just trying to convey the opinion of Assange from a US perspective (something which shouldn't really be done at any rate, in the interests of combating bias). The words "Terrorist" and "Enemy Combatant" However, are too loaded for Wikipeadia I feel and shouldn't be used here. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This is besides the point. I saw here that there are people in fox news, a person in the canadian government, who call for his immediate assasination. These are definately death threats, not critisism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.110.61 (talk) 03:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Washington Times editorial

I've removed:

An editorial in the Washington Times by Jeffrey T. Kuhner said Assange should be treated "the same way as other high-value terrorist targets" and be assassinated.

The content is sourced to two articles: Washington Times and dcist. My concern is that the Washington Times article, as it stands now, does not specifically call for the death of Assange. It does have a provocative title, "Assassinate Assange?" and concludes with "If that's true, we should treat Mr. Assange the same way as other high-value terrorist targets", but I can't see anything which clearly calls for his death. The dcist article does think Kuhner calls for Assange's death, and quotes the article as saying "If that's true, we should treat Mr. Assange the same way as other high-value terrorist targets: Kill him." If that quote was accurate then yes, I'd agree that Kuhner is calling for his death, but it either is a misquote or has subsequently been redacted. Given the sensitivity of such claims, I've removed the section prior to discussion. - Bilby (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

In the editorial, which carries the emotive title, "Assassinate Assange?", Kuhner declares that, "It is too late for tough talk. At this point, we are beyond indictments and courts. ... we should treat Mr. Assange the same way as other high-value terrorist targets." Once you're "beyond indictments and courts", there are few options remaining - imprisonment as a POW, imprisonment as an "enemy combatant" at Guantanamo Bay, or assassination. Kuhner specifically mentioned only one of those remedies in his editorial - assassination. Upon reading that editorial, it is clearly a vitriolic call for the assassination of Julian Assange. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 11:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The question, I guess, is whether or not it is enough to strongly hint that Assange should be killed, or whether he needs to actually state, in unambiguous terms, that he should. I agree that in reading the article that seems to be what he is suggesting, but I can't see a clear statement. I suspect this isn't accidental, and that Kuhner is deliberately skirting the line of saying that Assange should be killed. However, I don't think we can say that he has called for Assange's death unless he explicitly states that, although it may be that others will disagree. - Bilby (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I've always been of the belief we should try to avoid such vitriolic editorial content in sourcing BLP material, unless it represents a widespread view or is particularly significant. I don't think there is much value in that source; it is mostly just soap boxing and complaining ;) And, reading it, there is a vast stretch between what the article says and the wording that was here in the article - it conflates the word assassinate in the title a little too much with the last sentence. I have no doubt that is what he intended to be taken away - but has carefully avoided saying so (and putting such words into his mouth should be avoided) --Errant ^(chat!) 11:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Bilby, some guidance may be borrowed from the legal industry. In statutory interpretation, certainty of XYZ can be gained if XYZ is the result of "clear and express language or by necessary implication" (this is a test that U.K. Courts will often apply when they are reluctant to enforce especially draconian clauses in legislation that attack people's fundamental rights and freedoms). While one could easily deny that the editorial makes a "clear and express" call for the assassination of Julian Assange, the editorial does "necessarily imply" that Kuhner is calling for the assassination of Julian Assange. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 11:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

All of which is irrelevant; because we definitely avoid such interpretation of sources. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The opening paragraph of the editorial says:

"Julian Assange poses a clear and present danger to American national security. The WikiLeaks founder is more than a reckless provocateur. He is aiding and abetting terrorists in their war against America. The administration must take care of the problem - effectively and permanently."

With phrases like "take care of the problem - effectively and permanently", in an article titled "Assassinate Assange?", I am not seeing much wiggle room for the suggestion that Kuhner is not calling for the assassination of Assange. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 12:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Just pointing out that, in addition to the above discussion, there's nice accompanying artwork in the form of a "Dead or Alive" wanted poster with Assange's face on it. Only the "Alive" part is crossed out, leaving "Wanted Dead or alive"...and a cross-hair target aimed between his right eye and nose...with what appears to be blood spatter behind his head. The illustration was made by Greg Groesch. R. Baley (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Ditto Errant's "All of which is irrelevant; because we definitely avoid such interpretation of sources" Its also important to include the intensity of mood( often shown by extreme language) coming from of both sides when its being so often reported by RSs. Leave this Wash. Times content in; let the Readers decide for themselves how to interpret it. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above, but it seems to me that Kuhner avoided the works "Assange should be killed" deliberately, either originally or, as the dcist suggests, by later redacting the point where he made that statement. I suspect he did so as he didn't want to be seen directly calling for Assange's death, as that would be incitement. On those grounds we can't claim that he did so, as I think it is a BLP problem to say that he did, as there are legal issues around this. Perhaps the best option is to stick to his words, and assume people will figure it out themselves if they read his article. - Bilby (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Swedish Sexual Crime

I have read that the crime was "Sex by Surprise" or sex without a condom! Is this really as serious as it is made out to be? 51kwad (talk) 12:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Some of the quoted sources (e.g. the SMH) address this.   Racconish ^Tk 12:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course there is no Swedish crime called "Sex by Surprise", it seems to be a deliberate attempt to:

1. Make the charges against Assange seem less serious
2. Make the Swedish justice system seem less advanced

This is why we need to be very careful when quoting lawyers on any side in this case. The "Sex by Surprise" claim has been repeated several times by Mark Stephens, and I doubt that even he believes it is true.85.225.222.10 (talk) 07:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The charges against Assange are basically that two women from Sweden are accusing him of having sex without their consent. The first is alledgeing that Assaange had unprotected sex with her while she was asleep and the other is accusing Assange of not stopping after she asked him to when the condom broke. Using a broken condom or no condom at all are not in themselves crimes and "Sex by Surprise" is more than likely to be a bad translation from Swedish. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Can we not fill this talk page with speculations about what charges Assange may possibly face, and what exactly Swedish law is. We need to deal in sourced facts, not guesswork. This is not a forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Sweden has not charged him yet. They merely want him only for questioning. What's odd about that is that you cannot extradite people for questioning. And the case was thrown out for lack of evidence by the first prosecutor. And his defense has (deleted: ATG)s texts revealing some hidden agenda. [12] etc. In fact, we don't know so much about his second rape accuser (deleted: ATG), but we know a LOT about the older one, named (deleted: ATG). If you want to read up on the accusations, just google her name, although [13] has lots too.

Bts, Assange has just made reader's choice for Time's Person of the Year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.214.157.157 (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Note, I have removed the alleged sexual assault victim's names from 134.214.157.157's comments above, per WP:BLP policy. Note that this applies to talk pages, as well as to articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, I support your edit. WP:BLP requires that BLPs be "written responsibly". Even to a free speech nut like myself, the publication of the name of an alleged victim of sexual assault is clearly irresponsible, (unless he or she voluntarily puts their name into the public domain, or is proven to have made false allegations). Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 19:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit based on FAZ undone, needs grammar fix

My recent edit was undone with the e/s "Edit doesn't make sense grammatically, and source specualtive".

• The source Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung is a high quality reliable source, it's like Germany's NYT. The article in question is not speculative, but factual. It provides background for the charges that adds to the article.
• If there are grammatical issues, please point them out or fix them, that should not be too hard. No need to revert RS-based content.

Could someone, best with some German language skills, go over the edit and fix the grammar, so the information is added back in? Thank you. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It was me that reverted. I don't have the language skills to translate the FAZ article myself, and was going by what you had written, which didn't make sense to me. With hindsight, the edit summary was badly worded, and I apologise for this. I'd agree the FAZ is a high quality source in general, though it will clearly need careful reading to ensure this particular article isn't merely reporting that such allegations have been made elsewhere: I've seen this in several newspapers, and one must make clear they can be a reliable source for statements that something is being said, but not that they accept its reliability. Sadly, there has been a great deal of speculation in the media, sometimes driven by lawyers etc trying to spin things their way. We've tried to keep speculation to a minimum and verifiable facts to a maximum in the article here. Possibly I overstepped the line with this deletion, and if I did, again I apologise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree regarding the speculation. Could you point me to the phrases of the edit which are in need of a grammatical overhaul? Skäpperöd (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see anything new in the FAZ article, i.e. nothing that I did not also read in The Guardian, Independent etc. I question the wisdom of including every little detail of the encounter with the women A. and W. at this point (or in the future, in fact). KathaLu (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Relying on the dubious method of feeding the FAZ article through Google translate (here), the article seems to be repeating Swedish newspaper reports, which is less than ideal. I note that it refers to the photographer as being 20 years old, which doesn't conform with other sources.

Skäpperöd's added text read: "The other woman was a photographer, who had spent one night with Assange in Enköping, and afterwards had a conversation with the woman Assange had stayed with in Stockholm if Assange could be persuaded to agree to an HIV test. On initiative of the Stockholm woman, the women went to the police". From looking at the article I think what was probably meant was "... the woman Assange had stayed with in Stockholm to see if Assange could be persuaded...". This seems to tie in with the FAZ article, though someone more familiar with German should ideally confirm this against the original.

Given that this seems to be recycling reports from unspecified Swedish newspapers, and also has apparently got the age of one of the alleged victims wrong, I'm still unconvinced it should be used in any case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, the FAZ article translates as "[woman 2] called [woman 1] in order to discuss with her whether Assange could be persuaded to have an Aids test. Thus [woman 1] learnt about Assange's infidelity [= bit on the side]."KathaLu (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Andy etc, I also found reference to some of the content Skäpperöd tried to include within an article which has been used as a source for days[14]. I just added something about what that source article refers to as the "7 step guide for revenge against ex-lovers" that includes a step called "the big lie"; a guide which the source article says Ms A put on her blog. Its unfortunate that the EDitors who used this article for sexual detail content did not also use it for this content as well. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I think given the cuts I've made to the rest of this section (see below), this issue is now of less relevance in any case, as it would make little sense to include it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

NPOV issue with Sex section

I just noticed in regard to the discussion directly above that this article was used to include graphic sexual details but all of the content about the Accusers was omitted. When it gets to the point that 1 of the accusers posted a guide called "7 step guide for revenge against ex-lovers" to her blog that includes a step called "the big lie"; and we choose not to include that in an otherwise very detailed account of sexual misbehaviour allegations against the Subject, then I think we've crossed over the NPOV line. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Which 'graphic sexual details' are you referring to? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

My guess would be:

Assange faces four allegations: two are for having "sexually molested"[115][116] the first complainant, once in a way “violating her sexual integrity” and, on another occasion, unprotected “against the complainant's explicitly stated wish”.[93] Though sexual molestation is the official translation of sexuellt ofredande in Chapter 6, section 7 of the Swedish Penal code,[117] some sources consider it to be a misleading translation[93] of the Swedish while some others stress “Sweden has some of the most stringent sexual-consent laws in the world”.[118] The two other accusations are for “using his body weight to hold”[115][116] down the first complainant and having sex with the second complainant “without a condom while she was asleep”.[115][116]

I suspect inclusion of this level of detail is undue, especially since these are "allegations" not charges, and they are referenced earlier in the section. Also, the analysis of Swedish law should probably be removed unless it is cited properly. It seems that the advice "extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing" is not being followed in any way shape or form here. aprock (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I've now removed Mr.Grantevans2's addition, on the following grounds: (a) it made no sense without further details, and (b) it would have no bearing on any allegations referring the the other supposed 'victim'. It seems to me to be a speculative linkage made to cast aspersions on the motivations of persons involved, and as such is best kept out of the article - there is a great deal of this about, and it is not our job to report all of it. The facts verifiable facts are that allegations have been made of a crime, and that these allegations have strongly been denied. The reliability of the evidence of those concerned will no doubt be considered in court, should this come to trial, at which point it will of course be worth considering for inclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

That still doesn't address the undue weight given the accusations here. aprock (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You may well be correct: I was explaining what I'd done, rather than addressing the issue raised directly. I'll take another look at the article, but I suspect you are probably right. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I have now cut back the article to the basic verifiable facts as I see them, removing speculations about Swedish law, and also removing the unnecessary, intrusive and repetitive details of the allegations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Good work,Andy. Looks much better now in my opinion. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The same article includes:

"[] had also annoyed many people by posting on her blog a seven-step guide to revenge on ex-lovers, which advocated the big lie, and getting the law involved."

I would say that's a big strike against credibility. Dylan Flaherty 02:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

OKCupid profile

http://blogs.forbes.com/kashmirhill/2010/12/13/leaked-julian-assanges-okcupid-profile/ Dylan Flaherty 01:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Trivia. Possibly a hoax. So what? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Mundane trivia, at best. Probably a fake, meant for humorous purposes. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 03:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Given the sourcing and age, it is not at all likely to be fake. Dylan Flaherty 05:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Articles that purport to open Assange to public ridicule about hisprivate dating life must immediately raise our suspicions, even from the most reliable of WP:RS. Forbes is far from being an objective source for such apparent satire, as the provocative and emotive language in the following article suggests:

"While Wikileaks criminal, Julian Assange, obviously didn’t get enough attention from his parents as a child, he may have, in his treachery, done the United States a favor. ... And to the extent that the Wikileaks exposures hurt people around the world or make American foreign policy more difficult to execute, Assange ... should be strung up by the toes."

Indeed, it looks like Forbes has embarked on a deliberate smear campaign:

"We will get through this period of embarrassment. Those on the wrong end of disclosures understand that their communications would also reveal some embarrassing comments were they to be exposed. As for anyone who pays the ultimate price as a result of Assange’s crimes, we can only hope that justice will be delivered to the Wikileaks founder in equal measure."

Take Forbes's evidence on petty matter like this with a grain of salt. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 06:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's not confuse reliability with neutrality, as Forbes has the former while clearly lacking the latter. Whatever Forbes' motive for reprinting it, it's been picked up by:

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2010/12/does_julian_ass.php

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/12/what_do_we_learn_about_julian.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/julian-assange-online-dating-profile-2010-12

In addition, http://blogs.forbes.com/kashmirhill/2010/12/13/leaked-julian-assanges-okcupid-profile/ contains a quote from the CEO of OKCupid, confirming its authenticity.

I won't claim this is hugely important or even that it deserves a place in the article, but it does seem to be real. The choice of nickname, the writing style, they all match perfectly. Dylan Flaherty 06:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

If you are not joking, please do not edit any WP:BLP articles. Assuming the above quotes from Forbes are correct, any info about Assange from that source is obviously unusable. Further, the blog you reference is plainly trivia and rubbish, and the "quote from the CEO" does not prove anything other than the CEO is enjoying the joke. Johnuniq (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It's nonsense on stilts, nonsense squared. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, thank goodness. Sources like these don't even come close to meeting our criteria for inclusion. --John (talk) 07:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan Flaherty, at the very least, Forbes comes nowhere near satisfying WP:NPOV when it comes to the topic of Julian Assange. And that's before we get to the higher standards of neutrality and reliability that are required under WP:BLP. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 07:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I made it clear that Forbes is hardly neutral, but that doesn't undermine reliability. I'm not quite sure why I'm getting such a strong reaction, frankly. Dylan Flaherty 07:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Uncensored Kiwi fails to understand that we use sources that are biased and definitely not NPOV here all the time. NPOV refers to editing behavior, not sources. Editors are required to edit in an NPOV manner. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't argue with that. In fact, I freely admit that the quotes above are so blatantly biased that even if we included them with attribution (which I'm not recommending), we would have to somehow balance them out. If there's any place for Forbes on this matter, it would be for authenticating the OKCupid entry, not for its editorializing. Dylan Flaherty 07:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Brangifer, we do regularly use non-neutral sources. But, a non-neutral source is one thing, tabloid fodder is something else entirely. And we certainly do not load-up BLPs with non-neutral gossip, especially when its obviously (see quotes above) a product of a deliberate smear campaign designed to discredit a public figure.

Dylan Flaherty, I agree. Any use of Forbes on this issue should be limited to its potential as a possible source of authentication. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 07:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I was only responding to your comment ("Forbes is hardly neutral"), not defending the use of Forbes in this case. I haven't taken any position on that matter. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, we seem to be more or less on the same page. Now, what should we do about the OKCupid entry? Report it? Ignore it? Dylan Flaherty 08:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

- Original source [[15]], Ignore it I think, its really only trivia (not related to wikileaks or arrest) Clovis Sangrail (talk) 08:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I can accept that. The only thing about it that I find at all interesting is the Tests tab, which offers some insight into his character. Dylan Flaherty 08:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan Flaherty, ignore it. The issues surrounding Assanage, WIkiLeaks and the release of the diplomatic cables are serious. Tabloid gossip about Assange's possible on-line dating profile brings Wikipaedia's discussion of those issues into disrepute. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 08:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Without arguing for inclusion, I'd like to point out that any attempt at whitewashing would bring Wikipedia into greater disrepute. Dylan Flaherty 08:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I honestly can't find anything notable in the profile - a profile of an odd scientist (and we could run into BLP issues as it is potentially (though unlikely) someone else's profile - since there is no absolute confirmation that it is his). Clovis Sangrail (talk) 08:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)\

The part I found interesting was that his political views were not particularly extreme. But that's just me. Dylan Flaherty 10:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems beyond dubious and into the realms of "almost certainly a hoax". (p.s. take OkCupid CEO's comment with a grain of salt, I don't know them directly but know people who do - they are pretty relaxed and fun loving, so there is not necessarily any guarantee they are serious) --Errant ^(chat!) 10:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea of what's behind that skepticism. Do you really think that the CEO of OkCupid would commit libel in the pages of Forbes just for fun? Dylan Flaherty 10:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Libel? Or treating it with the contempt it deserves :) don't forget sarcasm is hard to put across the internet. I will have a dig around though. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, given the language of the CEO's comments it does seem a legit comment... which is strange because the profile immediately looks like a blatant hoax. I'd say there is definitely something dubious here, and as a triviality we can ignore it. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly strange, and there doesn't seem to be any good reason to report it at this time, so we don't really have to worry about how true it is yet. Dylan Flaherty 10:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Lets just assume Assange wrote this humorous profile for a moment. Beyond the fact that it may be misinterpeted today, given the sex allegations, it was clearly written to be a joke(perhaps he was trying to advertise his sense of humor, in order to attract women?). I think the NPOV thing todo would be to add the line "Assange allegedly has a sense of humor and non puritan views regarding sex." citing his alleged profile for that claim. And then have that imediatly reported citing WP:OR as the cupid profile is a primary source :D Tim.thelion (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It is WP policy that, "BLPs should not have trivia sections." For that reason alone, Assange's on-line dating profile (even if it is legitimate, which has certainly not been verified) should not be included. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 22:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggested new Piped Link

It is appropriate to have a Piped Link to Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak in the section on the Release of United States diplomatic cables. After all, it is the contents of those diplomatic cables that brought mot viewers to the Julian Assange page. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 01:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I can see your point, but 'Contents...' is linked at 'Release...' anyway. I'm not convinced this is necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it. United States diplomatic cables leak is there, but Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak does not appear to be. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 02:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean that there is a link to 'Contents...' in the hatnote at the top of 'Release...' article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Ron Paul

Ron Paul's position on Assange needs to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parrotistic (talk • contribs) 02:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, two questions. (1) What is RP's position (we need sources), and (2) Why are they significant? Almost every politician in the developed world seems to have commented on WikiLeaks and/or Assange, and we can't include them all. If you think we should add RP's views, show why... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think the solution here would be to avoid excessive recentism/news by removing much of the political punditry from the likes of Gingrich, Kuhner, McFarland, and Liddy, instead of adding more commentary by any and all comments from public figures. I think making an exception for heads of state, and thus including Obama's view, is fine. I'm sure other editors have other opinions on how to handle the barrage of published reactions, and more guidance here would be apreciated. aprock (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The reaction of Ron Paul has been discussed in the article, Reactions to the United States diplomatic cables leak. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 08:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It is notable, as the opinion of RP strays from the typically presented US politicians opinion of wanting Assange excecutted; although we should avoid overly focusing on a US perspective and pull back this trend of including a "US opinion" section to every article about a world event. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 10:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Paul's opinion is notable; he has a big following. But, aprock's point about the barrage is well taken and I could live with no commentary other than Heads of State. But I think its much better to include all of these comments because this is a classic "poking the hornet's nest" event with Assange being the lead guy with a stick. The commentary and the politics behind them might actually be more important than the leaks themselves. Assange has exposed the limits and/or mirage (depending on your pov) of western governments',particularly the U.S. government's, committment to free speech and freedom of the press. There are already plans to legislate more restrictions. Thus, there's a battle raging all around Assange and Wikileaks and these published reactions are very much a part of it. So, I prefer that almost all of the RS published reactions be included. A simple list would work for me. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

We need to bear in mind that (a) this is an international project - RP isn't notable this side of the pond for instance, and (b) this is an encyclopaedia - lists of opinions are hardly of long-term significance. As for suggestions that "The commentary and the politics behind them might actually be more important than the leaks themselves", I'd say we'd need to find WP:RS saying the same thing before we considered that a factor. In any case, the commentary and politics are arguably more about WikiLeaks in general than Assange in particular. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm personally going to agree here. If there are notable responses to it that serve to provide any improvement to encyclopedic manner of the Wikipedia project, they can be left to Reactions to the United States diplomatic cables leak; especially being - with the exception of the calls for Assange to be declared an international agent of Espionage or supporter of terrorism - that most reactions are directed towards WikiLeaks itself as opposed to Julian Assange. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 05:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Sweden can not extradite to the US

According the the statement by the Swedish prosecutors one part of the European Arrest Warrant system is that if a country (e.g. Sweden) gets a person extradited from another EU state (e.g. the UK), Sweden is not allowed to further extradite the person to a non-EU country (e.g. the US).

I'm not sure this is terribly relevant at this point, since there is no extradiction request from the US. But since we include a quote saying that Assange fears that extradiction to Sweden might make it easier to extradite him to the US I think this is a good comment - releasing him to Sweden seems to actually make it harder to extradite him to the US, not easier.

Permalink: http://www.aklagare.se/Media/Nyheter/Fakta-om-utlamning-av-en-overlamnad-person1/

English: http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/ 85.225.222.10 (talk) 07:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to interpret this document. The English is either incorrect or written in so called "legalise" that only the most obscure of courts can interpret. I'm leaning towards the former. I suspect that this is also talking about a specific case and a specific crime. For example. If person A hacked into international computer network B. And Country C extradited him. Than country D could not extradite person A for the same crime. Not sure though. It wasn't clear from the link. But wikipedia should not give legal advice. Especially in this case, where Assanges lawers have admitted they don't understand the Swedish legal system. Tim.thelion (talk) 10:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I don't think it is particularily relevant at this point, since no extradiction request from the US exists. But I don't really agree that this is obscure legalese. This is a statement by the Assange prosecutor to counter the specific claims that have been made about extradiction to the US by Assange's lawyers:

"On the other hand, if the extradition concerns a country outside the European Union the authorities in the executing country (the country that surrendered the person) must consent such extradition. Sweden cannot without such consent extradite a person, for example to the USA."

Seems perfectly clear to me. Assange's prosecutor is saying that Sweden cannot extradite Assange to the US without consent from the UK.

I guess my point at this point is that the current article only contains the statement that "Assange would fight extradition attempts[109] due to the possibility that it could lead to the Swedish handing him over to the United States.[110]", which might make the reader think that this is the full story. As we see from the prosecutor's quote it is not clear that an extradiction to Sweden would make it more likely that he is handed over to the US. Maybe we should remove this statement entirely until an actual extradiction request from the US appears.85.225.222.10 (talk) 10:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; wait until an extradition request appears from the US before we mention it in the article. Encyclopeadias are based on facts and should not overly represent possibilities and speculation.--Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 10:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

From what I understand, in the US the grand jury indictment proceedings are not announced and take place in secret without the presence of defense council. If the grand jury indicts him, then there is enough evidence to go to trial and he can be charged. They can then get a secret arrest order, or something of the sort. So the indictment isn't announced until the person is arrested. So, in theory, there could already be an arrest order in the US for Assange and it just hasn't been announced. Though I'm not sure about extradition requests. Though the US may be waiting for him to make it to Sweden before announcing the request.74.83.33.194 (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

There are three legal sets of extradition, and one must be aware of the fact that they are all different: the rules for extradition between the UK and Sweden (EU member states), between Sweden and the US (outside of EU) and between the UK and the US (also outside of EU); the latter two are NOT the same. Assange was arrested under the EAW system which applies only within the EU. Under this system, he can be extradited or surrendered from one EU country to another EU country, but the second EU country cannot extradite him again without the consent of the Court of the first EU country. So far, so clear. But now the confusion starts because this is not made clear in any of the hundreds of articles: a) whether the UK applies stricter rules than Sweden if a US extradition request is received and b) whether Assanges waives his right to not be extradited by Sweden, without prior consent from the UK, IF he consents to being surrendered to Sweden in the first place. US law and procedures play no role in all this.KathaLu (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I remind everyone that is not a forum for general discussion of Assange, and of extradition law. Unless people are proposing changes to the article, this topic doesn't really need discussing here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, will stop. However, a lot of what has been going on with prosecution, court etc. in this case is not easily understood when you don't know this kind of background. The case and how it was handled seemed bizarre and absurd to me at first but now I understand at least how each party manoeuvered themselves into this mess. Just wanted to share it but don't have to. KathaLu (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The point is that we should remove the current statement about the risk of Assange being extradited to the US. It is misleading to the reader.85.225.222.10 (talk) 07:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

No, leave it in, it is an essential part of the whole thing. I do think that there is a greater risk in Sweden. I can't find the source anymore but I do think that if someone consents to being surrendered from one EU country (A) to another EU country (B), within the framework of the EAW, then the legal situation changes and country A can no longer oppose his extradition from B to a third country C. If he is surrendered from A to B without his consent, then country A can oppose any further extraditions by B. I believe this is why he was asked by the court whether he understands what it means if he consents. I think these particular EU laws are quite important to understand what this is all about. Without that background it does look like a circus. The EAW, which is hardly known to the public and the media but used a lot these days, has many flaws. KathaLu (talk) 08:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you think there is a greater risk in Sweden, I doubt we could find good reliable sources that explain why Sweden would be more likely to extradite than Britain. Sweden does not extradite for charges that could lead to the death penalty. I think it is wrong of us to speculate at this point, we shouldn't not mention it at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.222.10 (talk) 10:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

When I write "I think" it does not mean that I think it all by my little self, it means that I have read it in a reliable EU legal source or a reputable European newspaper and probably by a legal correspondent. I don't have time to search for the sources right now but these are facts, hard legal facts: The extradition treaty between Sweden and the USA is larger in scope than the extradition treaty between the UK and the USA, hence the risk of Assange being extradited to the USA from Sweden is larger than the risk of being extradited from the UK to the USA. The extradition between the UK and Sweden is not governed by an extradition treaty, it is governed by EU law, in the framework of the European Arrest Warrant system. That system says that if someone is extradited from one EU country to another, the first country can block further extraditions of that person to other countries. What I am not clear about is whether it matters that the person to be extradited (or surrendered, correct legal term in this case) consents to being surrendered, in this case by the UK to Sweden - whether this is of legal importance, whether the first country cannot block further extradition by the second country if the person has given consent to being surrendered in the first place. And all this is relevant to understanding the current legal manoevering in the Assange case. KathaLu (talk) 07:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

SMH Poll

I don't think we should include the Sydney Morning Herald poll. Online polls are notoriously unreliable, as it is so easy to skew the results, and, even if not deliberately skewed, their nature means that they are rarely a representative sample. In this case even the publisher makes it clear that "these polls are not scientific and reflect the opinion only of visitors who have chosen to participate." I think it is probably best to stick to polls which have a more rigorous methodology, as the findings on these sorts of polls are so questionable. - Bilby (talk) 11:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Have to agree with that. Such polls serve little purpose. HiLo48 (talk) 11:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yeh, online poll with no demonstrated significance (in a RS). Have removed. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I feel that a poll of that size from his home country of Australia, online or not, should be at least mentioned; especially since the result was that conclusive. I suppose I'll need to concede to the majority here though and leave it out of the article. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 12:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The major problem is the nature of the poll. It seems big; but what if a couple of people found a way to vote thousands of times? The issue of verifying the result is way too much and unless a secondary source notes this as significant it doesn't seem usable. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

A respected poll from Australia would be very interesting, if for no other reason than to explain the flip-flop of leading Australian politicians (Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd, Attorney-General Robert McClelland and Prime Minister Julia Gillard over their attitude towards Assange - they've gone from antagonistic and provocative sound-bites (saying Assange is "grossly irresponsible") to offers of sanctuary - all on the back of substantial popular support for Assange in Australia. But, internet-polls aren't worth the paper they're not printed on. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 21:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Including a brief reference to amount of US Government Classified Information for context?

I realize this idea can be rejected for multiple reasons, but I'm thinking for the sake of encyclopedic background on this BLP as well as the other related articles, it might be good to include some context as to how much classified government information exists in comparrison to unclassified information. There are quite a few RS academic (Harvard for 1 ) reports and some news media articles that estimate the U.S. Government classified to unclassified ratio at between 1/1 to 3/1 in favour of the classified. I found this surprising, and it also brings into question several publicly pre-conceived notions about "classified" information, specifically;

• The degree of difficulty Assange/Wikileaks have in obtaining access to classified information.
• It's importance because its "special" information.
• There is a justified need to conceal it all from the public.
• There is a reasonable expectation that it all can be concealed from prying eyes.

I would draw the metaphor that much of the commotion related to the disclosure of US Classified Information is similar to Tulip mania wherein there was a perception of rarity contrary to physical reality.

So, I am wondering whether the Wikipedia "mission" precludes inserting such background information when it is clearly so tangential. I have been assuming its off limits in this BLP and WikiLeaks articles but I think it would add value for average Readers, so is there any support for including a brief mention of the volume of classifed info and/or the comparison between classified and unclassified? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little confused as to the relevance here, perhaps there is tangential relevance on the Wikileaks article but that seems likely also. The problem with what you are suggesting is that it doesn't seem to be something reliable sources are commenting on with respect to WL's. Certainly here on the biography I can't see any relevance. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

In this article, there's already a main article link to United States diplomatic cables leak. I suppose one could add a see also link which points to Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak. Anything more would be overkill, and even adding that link might not be warranted. aprock (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that this would only be relevant at WikiLeaks, if at all. A simple WP:WIKILINK to classified information should do. Wikipedia works so well because every page doesn't need to have all tangential information; instead, hyperlinks provide windows for anyone who cares to look. Ocaasi (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

ok,thanks very much, I think I better understand the tangential hazards now. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Accusers' names

(Deleted by ATG)

Comment created solely to reveal alleged assault victims names deleted by me, per WP:BLP policy AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

We already talk about there here (Deleted per WP:BLP - ATG)

And if people keep adding comments like that, maybe we'll have to edit the archive. If you don't like what we're doing, discuss it, don't play games.AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

When there are news stories circulating like Rawstory's "Revealed: Assange ‘rape’ accuser linked to notorious CIA operative", the publication of their names here seems inevitable - unless we're giving up NPOV. Also note that the administrator comments and block actions themselves lead one very quickly and inevitably (less than one minute) to the names, which are uncommonly widespread in the media anyway. So let's not get carried away. It is particularly important that all participants feel free to use sources that name the women, even if naming them here is held to be beyond the pale, because the articles that use the names will be the most detailed and informative in general. Wnt (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we shouldn't refer to (relevant) sources that use the names. All I'm saying is that WP:BLP policy suggests we shouldn't do it here. If people think this is wrong, they should argue the case properly, not ignore established policy and consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least that's a relief. Is it permissible to use initials so that people can keep the two straight? Wnt (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Given that most of the details about exactly went on are rather sketchy, and clearly being spun in different directions by various parties, I'm inclined to think that for the moment there is actually little need to go into such detail for the moment. This may well change later. Actually, I'd be keen to see what other editors think - but remember we are supposed to follow policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's a WP:RS for one of the names: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/09/anna-ardin-julian-assange_n_794285.html --70.134.49.69 (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Why do people insist on mentioning/linking the names of the alleged victims of sexual crimes? Even if such behaviour was not in clear violation of WP:BLP, it is a dispicable breach of their privacy. I am 100% supportive of User:AndyTheGrump's deletion of such comments. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 21:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think the cows have already left the barn, so to speak? Dylan Flaherty 21:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't violate BLP if it's in reliable, independent, verifiable sources. --70.134.49.69 (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The following WP:BLP policy is relevant:

"...biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."

Naming an alleged victim of a sexual crime clearly breaches this policy. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 22:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The reliability or otherwise of sources is not relevant: see WP:BLP1E, WP:BLPNAME. This article is about Assange, and until there are good grounds for naming other individuals, the don't need to be mentioned here. (And 'good grounds' doesn't include speculative spin by anyone). AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but take the example of that Australian newspaper articles that names one of the accusers but also states that her blog contained a seven-point plan for getting revenge on ex-lovers which includes a big lie and calling the police. Assuming we did not repeat the name (although we can hardly avoid linking to it), would it be a violation? Dylan Flaherty 22:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The name is relevant when there's evidence (covered in reliable, independent sources) that one of the "victims" may have made up the allegations. --70.134.49.69 (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Relevant? Perhaps. Appropriate? No. It's not our job to synthesize facts, and this only tries to imply that she may by lying. Until it's proven (by court verdict) that she was lying or telling the truth, the information only serves as an attempt to impeach the accuser's reliability, something which WP:SYNTH forbids. DKqwerty (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan Flaherty, Do you really think we want to include every bit of speculative spin in this article? The facts will emerge at trial, should it come to that (this is by no means certain at this point), and to repeat what I wrote earlier, this isn't WikiNews, or a blog. Those that are interested in reading such details can find it easily enough elsewhere. We are trying to remain neutral and encyclopaedic, as will be expected in any Wikipedia article. I for one see no reason to drop standards, and if anyone thinks we should, will they please make clear why? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You didn't actually answer my question. I'll ask again, more clearly: what stops us from reporting relevant facts about the accusers without necessarily identifying them? For example, I believe we already mention the country they live in. Dylan Flaherty 22:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

'Relevant facts'? The relevant facts so far seem to be that unspecified allegations have been made, and denied, and that everyone involved is pushing their own spin on events. As I've stated, further 'facts' may well come out at trial, but we don't know them now, and most of the 'sources' seem to be referring back to each other, with little real evidence either way. Now explain why putting spin into an encyclopaedia is necessary? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Just because something is true doesn't make it relevant (see WP:NOT). As I mentioned above, her blog contents offers no real information about Assange (this is a biography after all [see WP:BLP]) and only seeks to impeach the credibility of an accuser who hasn't even had her day in court yet (see WP:SYNTH and WP:CRYSTAL). Until a verdict is reached, this information can only cast aspersions while gleaning no real information about the article's subject, Julian Assange. DKqwerty (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, two comments, zero responses. You sure know how to make an editor feel loved. Dylan Flaherty 02:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

there's a WP:RFC underway near the bottom of this talk page. Plenty of input, and probably the best mechanism we have for such a contentious issue. --Kaini (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I just added request for comment so it will be easier to figure this out--Neo139 (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan Flaherty, this topic has been opened up as a RfC (Request For Comment) at the bottom of this talk page. I'm rather surprised you haven't already cast a vote down there. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 02:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not rape, it's surprise sex?!

This defense may be familiar to Encyclopaedia Dramatica regulars, but I have to see, it was rather astonishing to read out in the broader world. Supposedly what happened with Assange was actually that he was having sex with a radical feminist when the condom broke. When she found out he was having sex with another woman two days later, she charged "sex by surprise" because Sweden's laws specifically concern whether a condom is used. Apparently the fine is 5,000 kronor = $715? [16] Various other sites describe it as an allegedly "sabotaged" condom, or in the case of the second woman, that he continued having sex without a condom after first having used one. [17][18][19] I'm still not too clear on whether both condoms broke or just one, but this sounds like it's getting closer to the original story - and a bizarre one that will be. I'm surprised not to see discussion of this point in the article already. Is there any further insight to be had on this aspect of the story at present? Wnt (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This is all speculation, and as such not encyclopaedic. This isn't WikiNews, or a blog. There are differing versions of events, and it isn't our job to decide which ones to believe. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You gave a link to AOL News as the source and this is indeed were the whole story originated. It is now swirling around on the Internet and gets occasionally washed ashore in Wikipedia. There is nothing in the Swedish Penal Code on Sex Crimes about "sex by surprise" (it is a Swedish slang word for rape) nor about condoms or fines of this sort. Assange's lawyer Mark Stephens who was interviewed had misunderstood something he had been told in jest or he even made a crass joke, according to this article in the Washington Post. Mark Stephens, btw, is not a criminal lawyer but a media laywer, described on his law firm's websiteas "smart" and "with a ready soundbite". Useless as material for the Wiki article KathaLu (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to offer another link that might be helpful in putting things in context: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/jaccuse-sweden-britain-an_b_795899.html Dylan Flaherty 01:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly how much factual knowledge does Naomi Wolf have of British, Swedish and EU law? Just because someone with a known name writes something in a acceptable source does not make it a fact that should be included in a Wiki article.KathaLu (talk) 08:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Errata

When asked about the ideology and intended purpose of the site at the 2010 Oslo Freedom Forum, Assange stated:

"...it is also a good way of not making to many mistakes." --> "too many"  ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperHM (talk • contribs) 21:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks --Neo139 (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Mark Stephens

The sex crime section currently reads, in part, "Assange's lawyer, Mark Stephens, has compared the legal proceedings to a show trial." I'm just wondering of what value this information is to a biography. Simply put, the man is Assange's legal advocate, meaning he is not a neutral party; what exactly is he supposed to say? That the trial is just but they're fighting the charges anyway? I don't think a defense lawyer's characterization of a trail's proceedings can be seen as either neutral or relevent. DKqwerty (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I tried to balance some of the spin by providing facts about the legal proceedings on the TP. Today's Guardian has on overview and gives voice to "some critics" who say "Assange's lawyers should have been better prepared to anticipate the court's concerns at the hearing last week. Although his legal team were visibly shocked that Assange was remanded into custody last week, experienced criminal lawyers said that possibility should have been foreseen. Many lawyers have raised eyebrows that Assange is being represented by Mark Stephens and Geoffrey Robertson, whose expertise is in media law and human rights, rather than the specific proceedings surrounding extradition and European arrest warrants." Editors should be more critical of what they include in the article.KathaLu (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It may be worth mentioning that the 'show trial' sentiment was echoed by some protestors outside the court as per [20]. In fact public sentiment would probably be of more encyclopaedic interest than a statement from Assange's lawyer; however at this point we may again be approaching bloat in this section, so input from other editors would be appreciated on this prior to an edit. Also, although Stephens is indeed a lawyer versed in media and PR, Robertson is primarily, as you said, a human rights lawyer - and at this point, whether this is an issue of human rights or not is more or less one of the issues at the core of the matter with regards to media coverage. --Kaini (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, keep it short. The problem at this point is that so much speculation is going on even in reputable media, that it is possible to find a source claiming anything. Many of the sources are very contradicting, which makes it problematic for us to link to just one source. We are often better off just sticking to the clear, undisputed facts without speculation.85.225.222.10 (talk) 07:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

And by his Swedish Lawyer

The same applies to the quote added a minute ago by his swedish laywer, DKqwerty has already reverted it, but I just wanted to drop a note to say that I also reverted it at the same time, but he beat me too it. In this case BLP concerns also apply since the accusers are being accused of lying without any strong evidence to indicate how or why. SmartSE (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I am also getting edit conflicted by Andy trying to remove some of these additions. That one with the attacking content claimed to be from his lawyer was also from a completely not wiki reliable link,a blog basically, http://dscriber.com/ - like http://crikey.com/ - Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

detainee cats

Once a detainee on wikipedia you are always a detainee, that is standard wikipedia practice and I have replaced them. At least that was what arose out of a discussion I was involved in at Roman Polanski, although I see he has been remove from the cat, detainees of Switzerland - Pete Doherty and Tom_O'Carroll both still in prisoner cats and since released, perhaps there is consensus to remove..Assange from the detainee cats? Off2riorob (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree - this sounds like a (rare) valid exercise against WP:Recentism. But "cats" is a confusing abbreviation. For a moment you actually had me thinking the CIA was holding his pets as bargaining chips... Wnt (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't support labeling living people as detainees but category supporters say it helps when people are searching for the names of people who were ever detained in England, why they would want to I don't know .. seems like a bit much if you ask me. Also as he was only on remand and not charged or anything I support removing him and I think I will self revert as it was me that put him back. - I took him back out. Off2riorob (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)