Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Notes from Julian Assange: please do not move

As it would not be ethical for me to edit this article directly,I am placing some notes here:

1. I have historically been a private person. However I accept that the public has a certain interest in what I am doing and speaking for and that the article may be valuable to people, if it is done with care.

2. The nature of my work, exposing abuses by powerful organizations and nation states, tends to attract attacks on my person as a way to color debate. The history of this page has numerous examples and, because this page is used as media input by lazy press, the stakes are high. Similarly, even when edits are factually true, there is a spectrum of truths about any person. What is inserted, and its tone, need to be not only true, but fair and representative.

3. The top photo of me is unusual for a public figure and tends to undermine my message.The edit history shows a lot of fights over the photo. The one used is not a press shot, and was not taken with my agreement, and is not suitable to my public role, since it presents me as an eccentric. It is a random photo taken by a random person at a random moment during a talk. Please use a *cropped* version of http://iq.org/j-big.jpg or another photo that suits my public role. A nice black an white photo was uploaded by photographer Mark Chew, but then deleted by persons unknown.

4. The 'market desire' for information about me and my status as a controversial figure has led to people inventing, and reprinting, a *lot* of junk about me that is either a distortion or is wholly untrue. While the Guardian (with some exceptions) and the New York Times (with some fewer exceptions) have got things right, all publications major errors and distortions. Even multiple publications saying the same thing can not be trusted, because they requote each other without attribution. I am attempting to get more information into the public record to avoid this tendency, but I *need* to spend my time on exposing major abuses by governments and corporations than exposing shoddy journalism about me. Please do that for me, so I can spend time on what I'm good at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.182.151.66 (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Since this comment is largely identical to the earlier one made on this talk page on 21 April 2010 (with some modifications and addditions), allow me to largely copy+paste my reply from there, too:

First, let me say that your restraint from editing the article yourself is appreciated - as remarked above, this ethical commitment sets you apart in a positive way from many people who abuse Wikipedia's openness to edit "their" article for PR purposes.

(Please be aware that based on the edits alone, there is no way to verify for certain that they were indeed made by Julian Assange, beyond noting that the IP is registered in Sweden, where Assange is known to at least have been recently. But I am going to reply to your remarks on the assumption that they are genuine.)

1. & 2.: It is of course very important that an article about a living person like this one conforms to Wikipedia's principles, because of the repercussions it can have in the "real world", and you are certainly entitled to remind us of that responsibility. Unfortunately, in your remarks it remains entirely unclear which edits in the version history you perceive as "attacks" on your person, and which contributors to this article are suspected to have edited it on behalf of "powerful organizations and nation states". Focusing on the present version, you have not specififed which parts of the text you find unfair or not representative, which makes it hard to accommodate your concerns. - People come to Wikipedia for a neutral, balanced view, which (as you appeared to hint at in the earlier version of your comments) also has the potential be a valuable corrective to the self-image that a person or an organisation is presenting to the public. In any case, it is not identical to that self-view, see WP:NPOV.

3.: You are referring to File:Julian Assange 26C3.jpg. The fact that a photo was taken "by a random person" instead of an official photographer does not mean that it can't be used. (Actually, most of Wikipedia's content is being contributed by "random" people instead of official representatives or authorized personnel.) Also, it does show you in a "public role", in fact at the occasion where in the opinion of another user (not necessarily mine, but it is still present in the article) you exerted that role "most notably". And I am not aware that you had objected to photos being taken at the event; at the very least you must have agreed to the official video recording that was done at the same time. Portrait photos in Wikipedia articles must not present the subject of an article in a false or disparaging light, but they also do not need to convey the subject's "message", a very unclear notion anyway. - While I am struggling to understand your objections to that photo, there would be nothing wrong with using a different photo that everybody can agree on. A version of http://iq.org/j-big.jpg had been uploaded earlier as File:Julian Assange full.jpg - thank you again for the statement placing it in the public domain (although I wish this would have been made earlier, saving us several deletions and lengthy discussions). This image was recently replaced in the article by another user (Cirt), giving the reason "replaced poor quality pic with non exact date, with better quality pic with exact date". And indeed the photo is undated on your website. An earlier upload of it here, apparently made on your behalf, stated it was taken in 2007, but this claim was proven false by means of the Wayback Machine, which shows that it had been present on your website since at least 2006. It should be clear that a more up-to-date photo is desirable. I have recently found a high quality freely licensed photo of you from 2010, which I am going to upload shortly. I hope this will resolve the situation.

4. You are of course right in pointing out the downsides of journalism that come with freedom of the press. Misinformation can spread and irresponsible journalists can disclose information about organizations and public figures (or emphasize it to distortion) against their will, which can have a negative impact on their aims. (I noticed your recent protests against the leaks from within Swedish authorities of information regarding your person, and I fully sympathize with them.) But by its policies on verifiability, neutrality and no original research, Wikipedia is to present information according to reliable published sources, regardless of whether we personally want to support or criticize the article's subject. "Reliable" means that the publication has a good general track record, not that it has never made any errors (so the NYT isn't excluded just because of Jayson Blair). The "no original research" policy means that Wikipedia is not the place to "expose shoddy journalism"; on the other hand, "attempting to get more information into the public record" first is exactly the right thing to do - then we will be able to cite your view alongside the disputed statement, or (depending on its importance and the circumstance) remove it as dubious. I note that you made exactly the same announcement five months ago on this talk page; when and where will this information be released?

Summarily, while you certainly have the right to demand that the article describes you fairly and accurately, you have so far not explained (apart from the photo issue) where and why it should have failed to do so. Instead of vague innuendo and general remarks about the press, please name specific statements and issues that you find objectionable, so that your concerns can be addressed.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Verifying, that these notes are indeed from Julian Assange: As HaeB mentioned these notes were already made earlier on this talk page on 21 April 2010 and HaeB states "... there is no way to verify for certain that they were indeed made by Julian Assange ...". Here is a source [[1]] from dn.se published on 16 August 2010 were Julian Assange anweres to the question "Was it really you who commented on the talk page on "your own" article?" with "... It was me who commented, yes." --Orangwiki (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but (as you say) this referred to the earlier (April 2010) notes, where his confirmation had already been noted by Jebba, and my cautionary remark referred to the September comments.

Rereading my above comment, I realize that my statement "I fully sympathize with them" might have been ambiguous - by "them" I meant Assange's complaints against the leaks of confidential information about himself, not the Swedish authorities. (Although if this web page is to be believed and Assange "specifically demanded (and received) guarantees from the authorities that there would be no further leaks" I would find that a bit weird.)

And for the record, I have since uploaded the above mentioned "high quality freely licensed photo" as File:Julian Assange (Norway, March 2010).jpg.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

If you are reading this Julian, I would encourage you to register an account here and then verify that the above statement was made by yourself, by contacting a member of WP:OTRS. We're happy for you to comment on the article, but I'm sure you'd agree that we would all prefer it to be verified as a comment by you, to ensure it is not a comment by a complete stranger. Smartse (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Julian Assange, if this was indeed written by him, asks in the title of this section "please do not move". Shall this section be protected from being automatically archived? --Orangwiki (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No, why? Hammersbach (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Why stop it from moving to the archive page? Because this happened to Julian Assanges Edit here before, and after it got archived he put it here again with the addition "please do not move". Why not stop it to be moved to the archive page? Of course there is also reason to not handle this section in any different way than the other sections. For me either option is ok, I just though a short discussion about this is useful, so Julian Assange if he should read this knows why his comments might disappear from the main discussion page again. --Orangwiki (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"...so Julian Assange if he should read this knows why his comments might disappear from the main discussion page again." Seriously? Hammersbach (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

NYT Reliable source?

The NYT article at WikiLeaks Founder on the Run, Trailed by Notoriety seems to be fairly disparaging and biased. However, as it is published by a RS, would it be appropriate to include in the article? Smallman12q (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If there is anything factual and new in the article, then we can include that, but it appears to be mainly rhetoric. Statements such as "Julian Assange moves like a hunted man" are useless to Wikipedia, and to any fact-based publications. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

How does a comment page prove it's biased? I thought the New York Times were considered a reliable source.72.199.100.223 (talk) 03:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Try reading my above comment. There is no such thing as a reliable source for rhetorical statements. Gregcaletta (talk) 04:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It is definitely usable as a source for factual statements, and notable as a source of opinion statements (although, as always, these need to be weighed and attributed explicitly, per WP:NPOV). There is no Wikipedia policy mandating that sources must be excluded if Assange doesn't like them (and in fact in his comment above, before the present article, he himself singled out the NYT as one of the most reliable newspapers with regards to the coverage of him). Caution should apply in case of specific factual statements that are put in doubt by other reliable sources, but so far the supposed "evisceration" of the NYT article does not seem to have necessitated a single correction to the article, and although I haven't read through all (currently 482) of the readers comments that the Wikileaks tweet and Reddit post refer to, at least the first few pages don't contain any specific claims of factual inaccuracy. And NPOV does not apply to sources in themselves - some of the references currently cited in this Wikipedia article could as well be called biased in favor of its subject.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is not factually inaccurate, but there are no new facts, and the article is mainly rhetoric which is useless to Wikipedia; the article actually avoids making clear statements about anything. For example, is the statement "Julian Assange moves like a hunted man" useful to the article in anyway? If we take the rhetoric out of the statement that Assange "demands that his dwindling number of loyalists use expensive encrypted cellphones and swaps his own as other men change shirts" it becomes "Assange takes security precautions and ensures that his staff do also", which presupposes that Assange has a "dwindling number of loyalists" without actually stating it directly, and what is a "loyalist" anyway? And in what sense are they "dwindling"? Apparently Assange "sleeps on sofas and floors" too. Who hasn't? There is nothing I can find of factual value in the article. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Your WP:OR opinion as to the veracity of the Reliable Source is not relevant. Wikipedia's purpose is to record, not to act as house publicist.99.144.244.4 (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It is impossible to declare a source "reliable" without context about what claim you want to use. There is no such thing as a universally reliable source. Reliability or lack thereof is entirely dependent on the claim you want to use the source for. Gigs (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. You would have us dismiss the concept of a Reliable Source entirely and substitute Editors personal research and opinion as over riding factors for inclusion. The fact is, this article is simply another example of Wikipedia editors bending, twisting and Gaming for POV. Assange is the Hero - therefore the article will only be written, as much as possible, to polish his image. Neutrality apparently has no role to play here, wikipedia is merely an instrument needed to further a political goal. Or maybe it's just internet Starfucking at play here. Either way, the lack of neutrality is palpable. .99.144.244.4 (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

So you think we can state the "Julian Assange moves like a hunted man" in the article as if it were a fact? Rhetorical claims are not verifiable. Do you think we should include the fact that Julian Assange "sleeps on sofas and floors" just because it appears in a rhetorical New York TImes article? Gigs is correct to say that "There is no such thing as a universally reliable source. Reliability or lack thereof is entirely dependent on the claim you want to use the source for." Read this Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(natural_sciences)#Choosing_sources Gregcaletta (talk) 05:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That's quite the cherry-picked Red Herring. Why not take a bid from a chandelier while you're at it? Dismissing the New York Times because it does not agree with your POV bias is ridiculous - and really a glaring example of the problems that dog Wikipedia. You'll "Win" of course, because it's all about the Game. But you'll have done nothing at all to further the interests of a neutral Encyclopedia. Just don't lie to yourself that everyone else is blissfully unaware of the deceit endemic here at the "Club". .99.144.244.4 (talk) 10:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll also add and point out just for the hilarity of it that you've made an observation - newspaper articles contain, as you put it, "Rhetorical claims". You then take that universal constant and find that because the article states that Assange sleeps on sofa's - tada, presto-magico- The New York Times is no longer a WP:Reliable Source. That's fucking genius level logic. Your talents are wasted here, you belong at a leading research uni. BTW, David Leigh and a number of other reputable (well in your eyes, formally reputable now) journalists have published the same slander. .99.144.244.4 (talk) 10:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

99.144, that kind of attitude is not constructive. Continued incivility is liable to get you blocked from editing. No one is claiming that the NYT is universally unreliable either. If you aren't going to bring up any specific content that you want to cite from the NYT, this discussion is pointless. Gigs (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Mr IP you seem to have misunderstood me. The article is still a reliable source for any factual statements. The problem is the article consists only of old facts (which have been reported elsewhere and are already included in this article, or which are simply too obvious and rhetorical to bother with, like the fact he sleeps on sofas) and rhetorical opinions (which cannot be stated in this article as if they were facts, but could be included in this article if they were worth quoting, which I don't believe any are). If you think their are pieces from that article you think are worth incorporating into this article, then please point them out. As far as I can tell there aren't any. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

References in the lead

Could I ask that people stop removing the references in the lead? Leads needs refs just as any other section of the article does, particularly BLPs and particularly for anything contentious. See WP:V and WP:LEAD. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, WP:LEAD says that a lead should ideally be a summary of information cited in the body of the article, and that redundant citations (for material cited elsewhere in the article) should ideally be avoided. However, you are correct that citations and cited material should never be merely removed; they should be moved to the body of the article if they are unnecessary for the lead. Gregcaletta (talk) 09:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Political views of Claes Borgstrom not relevant

The current article mentions the political views of both the women involved in the rape case and their lawyer. How is this relevant? To me this implies a link between the case and their political views that is not backed up by sources. Claes Borgstrom is one of Sweden's most well-known lawyers, not because of his political views but because of his work as a lawyer. Furthermore, the political views of Assange's lawyers are not mentioned, giving the impression that they are impartial while the "other side" is acting out of political motivations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.222.10 (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone believe the lawyers of a person accused of a crime are "impartial". But I agree the political views of the victims and their lawyers are probably not relevant. Jeannedeba (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Assange lost his appeal

I would just like to draw attention to the fact that Assange lost his appeal against his detention a few hours ago. Hence, the decision to remand him is final.[2][3] Looking at it again, it seems he can appeal to the Supreme Court. However, a decision to remand him takes effect immediately (and the Interpol arrest warrant has already been issued), and is valid until it is overturned. Jeannedeba (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"Heart and soul" Julian Assange

Assange has said that he is "the heart and soul of this organization [WikiLeaks], its founder, philosopher, spokesperson, original coder, organizer, financier, and all the rest"[4]. I think this quote should be included in its entirety somewhere, as there has been much speculation regarding WikiLeaks' founders and leadership, and it's good to have such a specific quote from Assange himself regarding his role in the organisation. Jeannedeba (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I changed it as lengthy quotes can be awkward in the lead, making it hard to read. Nymf _hideliho! 20:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It could be included in its entirety somewhere below. Jeannedeba (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I removed the quote before reading this discussion. He said this according to a volunteer in a private conversation with that volunteer. Assange has dispute the accuracy of the article, so whether or not he actually said that exact statement is not verifiable. At most, we could say that the volunteer claims that he said that, and it certainly should not be in the lead paragraph. Gregcaletta (talk) 09:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It is now back in the body of the article but I have changed thw wording to more accurately reflect the source of the information. Gregcaletta (talk) 09:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It might be of interest that it was added to the WikiLeaks article as well. Anyone who can tweak the wording there? Nymf _hideliho! 16:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyediting

I've been going through the sources for the interpol section; as expected for a section that has grown very quickly from a number of contributions it doesn't appear to be very well attributed. As an example - the first source doesn't is totally unrelated to the content of the first sentence (I think it was meant for the second sentence but has been mixed up). The plan is to copyedit things to get it flowing better and to be more accurate/clear. Please at least give me a chance to get it right before you throw the bricks ;) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 21:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, done for now. I rejigged things to get the general facts and prosecutors stuff in the first paragraph. Second para is now his responses (although I think the quote from his lawyer is way too long and needs looking at) and the third relates to the appeal. I think I got all the facts in. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

British visa

A number of sources say his British visa is about to expire, either this year or early next year. More details on this would be appreciated.

"It is also thought that Assange’s British visa will expire this year, and that the Australian government will co-operate with the US authorities if he returns there. The Swedish migration board recently rejected Assange’s bid for a residence permit."[5]

"Earlier this month, the Swedish Migration Board denied Assange a residency permit. Though he is currently residing in London, his British visa is said to expire early next year, further complicating his efforts to elude his foes."[6]

It would also be interesting to have more information on whether his status as a fugitive from justice in an EU country and his Interpol and Schengen arrest warrant will influence his visa and residency opportunities. Jeannedeba (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Not really significant at this stage. When working with current events it is important to remember that the media is able to work on speculation - it is interesting and "sells papers". However, we have to treat such things with care. If it becomes significant to the case then we can look into it. Regarding the other matter; find the sources and perhaps it is of relevance. Although at this stage I doubt anything meaningful will be about. BTW a careful reading of the sources indicates you should be careful throwing about the fugitive thing again. The phrase "fugitive from justice" does not really line up against "wanted for questioning"... it smacks strongly of WP:POINT and I remind you that BLP applies to talk pages too. You may have tried this man already in your mind; thankfully, the Swedish legal system has not. All of your actions here on the article (I believe) relate to negative material about Assange. This is not uncommon for controversial figures but I'd encourage you to take a more neutral stance --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Arrest

I believe "arrest" is incorrect wording for what has been issued in Sweden. All of the sources are very specific in referring to this as "detain", my Swedish law is rusty, but I believe they make a distinction between arrest and detain for questioning (actually, many legal systems do, and it is commonly mis-worded). As there is no sources calling this an arrest warrant I would propose using detain for the Swedish order. Also; I'd request a verification source for these being "formal charges" - the current sources refer to this as detention for questioning, which is usually "on suspicion of" rather than formal charges (which come later).

We must have accurate wording on this; as should be clear above - even slight word changes can mean significantly different things. As I understand it now; a Swedish court has issued an order to detain Assange for questioning on suspicion of those charges, and a subsequent Interpol arrest warrant has been granted to allow them to get Assange back to the country for detention. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

In addition the new quote "We made sure that all the police forces in the world would see it" seems cherry picked and insanely pointy! I plan to cut it unless a reasonable explanation for its significance (and a reason for it being cut down to that specific text) can be made. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I see the yahoo source calls the Swedish order and arrest warrant, that makes me less concerned about that matter. But they do still relate it to questioning and not to formal charges... --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The Swedish term in this case is "häktad i sin frånvaro", or literally "arrested in his absence", which is the term used by most English sources.[7] Jeannedeba (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You beat me to it :) I dug around and found a dummies guide the relevant legal system. And, yeh, that seems correct. Still uncertain over the whole formal charges thing --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Errant, you are correct that "häktad" does not literally mean arrested. We do not use "arrested" or any form of it in Sweden. There is no English word to properly describe "häktad", but "arrested" is the most closely related one. By the way, you can normally only "häkta" a person for 7 to 14 days at most in Sweden. After that is has to be tried again, or the person has to be indicted. So technically, there is no formal charge against Assange yet. Nymf _hideliho! 23:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Häkta means arrest to the extent that it is translated as such by dictionaries[8]. Of course, it's not etymologically the same word as arrest (that is derived from an Anglo-Norman (ultimately French) word with a roughly similar meaning), but that's not really relevant. It's the Swedish word for the concept known in English as arrest (that is, "the act of depriving a person of his or her liberty usually in relation to the investigation and prevention of crime"). When translating terms, it's (usually) the meaning of them, not their etymology, that's important. "Arrested" is a perfectly adequate and proper English term for "häktad". Jeannedeba (talk) 00:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, what I meant was that we do not use the word "arrestera" in Swedish law, but it does exist. The literal translation of arrest would be "arrestera" in Swedish. Try translating the word "lagom." for example. You could say "not too much, not too little - just right," and get the gist of it, but it would still not accurately describe the word. Same goes for "häkta," which is why you need to be careful when describing the situation. Nymf _hideliho! 01:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

A limited detention for questioning prior to formal charges being filed seems to me to be pretty much exactly what arrest means in commonwealth and US law. In the US, you are arrested, often questioned (you have a right to refuse to talk), and then there is an arraignment. The time limit is even stricter usually though, not more than 2 or 3 days usually before charges must be brought. I'm not sure there's a significant difference here worth making a distinction over. Gigs (talk) 03:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Quote, again

Assange and others, including Glenn Greenwald and the New York Times own readers have disputed the accuracy and journalistic integrity of that particular article.; is definitely not the content we want in the wiki... in fact, the source used to support this does not indicate Assange disputes the exchange. If the NYTs source is inadequate (it isn't IMO, but there you go..) then there are plenty of others. Trying to undermine a source like that in the text is the height of point pushing. I understand the concern regarding the quote; and I did consider this carefully before placing it. However I can find nowhere that Assange disputes saying this, and it was verified by a couple of people independently. In addition I thought the quote is a) edifying b) a pretty accurate description and c) certainly not negative about him. Sure the rest of that exchange may not cast him in a brilliant light, but the quote works well to illustrate his unique position within WL's. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 10:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears this wired piece is the root source, Wired are definitely very good at confirming this sort of stuff. If there are issues with the NYT piece we could use that instead? --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 10:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the reference didn't support the statement that it was cited for. I reworded it just seconds before you posted your comment, but I think it should better be removed altogether.

I'd also like to point out that this disparaging statement about Burns' NYT article that Gregcaletta inserted is not only not supported by the cited reference, but also contradicts his own statement just a month ago: "The article is not factually inaccurate ... Gregcaletta (talk) 07:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)".

Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

My first problem is that we simply have no way of verifying whether he actually said this exact thing because it is merely the claim of a volunteer based on a private conversation. My second problem is that even if he did say it, private correspondence of this type is never worthy of a WIkipedia article unless the statement itself were the subject of considerable controversy, for example used as evidence in a court case. Gregcaletta (talk) 10:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that I did not represent the source quite accurately. This is partly because I was basing it partly on a different article by Greenwald, which I have now provided. Gregcaletta (talk) 10:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

About [9]: Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Reliable sources ("Posts left by readers may never be used as sources"). Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course they cannot be used as a source of information, but here I was merely using it to verify Greenwald's claim that "Assange and others" have been critical of the NYT article. Gregcaletta (talk) 14:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh and I really don't think it's appropriate for the lead at all. Gregcaletta (talk) 10:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

My rationale for including it is that it is extremely good at putting into place his unique place within WL. It's not necessarily for us to judge over private correspondence; that verification is done by the reporters. To the best of my knowledge there is no policy or guideline precluding the use of such material if reported in public and reliable sources - the only real bar for content inclusion is significance. And this is relatively significant in highlighting his role at Wikileaks (which is a notable and significant "controversy" in itself). The NYT comments are not RS or usable as a source, sorry. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 10:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The NYT's piece is obviously under attack (possibly rightly, no opinion on that) - but the quote itself does not appear to be. So I've used another source that appears to be in no dispute. However, if Assange has denied saying this quote or called it inaccurate etc. then that would change my opinion --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's pretty absurd to use unverified quotations from private correspondence but I'm going to give up on arguing this point. Gregcaletta (talk) 14:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I moved it all to the "Descriptions of Assange" section and placed the criticism of the New York Times article in a separate paragraph. Gregcaletta (talk) 14:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

NYT Comments page

Is not in any way a reliable source. Why is it back? Also; I plan to remove that whole text - it was commented out to give greg the opportunity to relate it to the new source if possible - from reading the sources, this is not possible because it is the NYT article as whole that is at dispute and absolutely no one seems to be disputing the quote as accurate. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

See my comment above. Gregcaletta (talk) 14:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Not our place to verify them in any case. The Salon articles I am finding more and more dubious; intensely partisan and hissy without actually addressing the quote. The NYT's article was problematic, they are abysmal. Their use in that paragraph seems to be to discredit the NYT article and, by association, the quote. Unfortunately that does not quite work based on the Salon content - certainly I don't think the second sentence is an accurate representation of the Salon piece, picking specific phrases and stringing them together - in particular it puts "standard journalistic endeavor" in the voice of Wikipedia, as it is not, in the source, even in the voice of Salon that becomes hugely problematic. I think the use of neither NYT or Salon is appropriate --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I am still not sure I understand your problem with the Salon article. I concede that it should not be used in reference to the "heart-and-soul" quote, lthough I still do not believe that quote really comes from an acceptable source for an encyclopedia. I have placed Greewald's statments in a separate paragraph to show they are unrelated to the above quote. If you think I have misrepresented Greenwald's article or I am stating opinion as fact then please feel free to change the wording. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Claes Borgström

If someone has an objection to the keywords from the Claes Borgström lead/introductory sentence being used here, e.g. if you think that he is not a Swedish Social Democratic Party politician, then please go over to that article, deal with it there, and when there is a new consensus over there that e.g. he is not a Swedish Social Democratic Party politician, based on WP:RS, then it will make sense to remove the info here. By Wikipedia standards, Claes Borgström is already Notable. Assange's lawyers are apparently not (yet) Notable. If they become notable and get their own articles, then their NPOV-ed brief descriptions can take their place in this article, it seems to me. Boud (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has denied that Claes Borgstrom is a Social Democrat. So is a large part of the Swedish population. What I don't understand is how it is relevant to an article about Julian Assange which party the lawyer of the women prefers. Including information that is not relevant is a way of implying something without having to state sources. Linking the Social Democratic party to the charges in this way could very well be interpreted as

1) Implying that political considerations are behind Claes Borgstrom's actions. If so source it.

2) Implying that the Social Democratic Party is somehow involved, or has an opinion on the charges. If so source it.

Please show how his political preferences are relevant to the Julian Assange article, or remove them.85.225.222.10 (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Him being a Swedish Social Democratic Party politician is in the source(s) provided and although they don't lay out a direct connection it is verifiable information that they found worth to mention. Likewise I find it relevant not to omit that fact but would only keep politician so readers can make up their own mind about any possible impact. His (political) affiliation can be looked up by following the link.TMCk (talk) 01:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should use party affiliation labels unless it's really important for context.TMCk (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

More notes from Julian Assange

• There are attempts to remove first amendment and other journalistic protections from me.
• My correct description is
  • Publisher
  • Writer
  • Activist
• I co-authored my first book by the time I was 25 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.182.149.63 (talk) 05:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

HeaB: Could you comment on this one? First, of course, there is no verification that this was indeed written by Julian Assange. As Julian Assange edited this discussion page before and it was verified by a source, let's assume it is written by him. I understand the wish of Julian Assange, to be called "writer" and "publisher" in the article, as not just a wish for having a good article on him, but to make sure he gets the legal protection he deserves, as the first amendment of the US constitution prohibits infringing on the freedom of speech, and or course there is more legel protection in the legislation of the US and other countries for writers and publishers. Having co-authered a book with 25 confirms to be a writer, so this again is probably not for the importance of stating his involvement about the book published but about the journalistic protection. HaeB, could you comment on this, check the issues and if appropriate update the article? --Orangwiki (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The first amendment applies to everyone equally, whether or not they are called a journalist or writer. I'm not opposed to putting such a description in the lede if it's accurate, but we really shouldn't be concerned with legal implications. Gigs (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems an accurate enough description to me. I'll make the change. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It might be wise for Assange to have an official page created on himself for us to link to. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

First, I'd like to note that I didn't write the previous versions of the statement in question, and that Orangwiki (as s/he clarified here) directed the above question at me solely because I happened to have been the user who had replied to the previous notes from Assange.

But I had a look at the issue after Orangwiki's comment, and I don't see a basis for the additions that Gregcaletta has now made twice (silently readding the terms yesterday after another user had removed them).

About "editor" or "publisher": Assange's activities for Wikileaks are already subsumed sufficiently under "internet activist," and in any case they differ too much from what is usually understood under these terms to use them without explanation. Until there is evidence of other notable publications where Assange acted as editor, this should be left out.

About "writer": 93.182.149.63 states above "I co-authored my first book by the time I was 25". In typical Assange PR spin manner, this insinuates that there have been further books by him - which are these? And it leaves the reader guessing at which book was meant. Underground does not credit him as a writer, but as a researcher[10], and the online edition specifically does not call him a co-author ("its author, Suelette Dreyfus and researcher, Julian Assange" [11]).

It may be that Assange has published opinion pieces in notable media, and he probably authored most of the official statements on Wikileaks. But that is not sufficient to list "writer" as one of his main occupations in the lede, just like we don't call a politician a writer solely for having published opinion pieces in newspapers.

In any case, it is certainly very weird to have an article about a "writer" which doesn't have a section titled "Bibliography", "Publications" or similar. If Gregcaletta knows of more books written by Asange (or other texts that he is notable for, apart from WIkileaks), I invite him to first add such a section to the article.

Wikipedia articles are not tools to support certain activities or goals (however laudable they may be) by promoting the PR spin of activists, or to provide article subjects with ammunition in legal proceedings.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It's absurd to say Assange is not an editor just because he is only the editor for one organisation, and "internet activist" is certainly not sufficient on its own to describe him -- it's a vacuous term -- but I won't protest the current wording. Gregcaletta (talk) 09:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is another statement of Julian Assange in a Forbes interview 29 Nov 2010 were he talks about others attempting to take the journalistic protections from him: "... 1993. Since that time, I’ve been a publisher, and at various moments a journalist. There’s a deliberate attempt to redefine what we’re doing not as publishing, which is protected in many countries, or the journalist activities, which is protected in other ways, as something which doesn’t have a protection, like computer hacking, and to therefore split us off from the rest of the press and from these legal protections. It’s done quite deliberately by some of our opponents. It’s also done because of fear, from publishers like The New York Times that they’ll be regulated and investigated if they include our activities in publishing and journalism." --Orangwiki (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Attempt to hijack article

This article seems to be under attack by Assange and/or his supporters (he has told his supporters to "fix" the article), most recently this edit which was not a constructive edit (removal of valid categories supported by reliable sources, the validity of which have so far not been contested, and with a fake edit summary (he removed more than edit 397993058)). I take for granted attempts to hijack one's "own" article isn't tolerated. Jeannedeba (talk) 04:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Implying that I am a vandal and a meat puppet is quite a serious accusation. I suggest that you take this to ANI or drop it immediately. Nymf _hideliho! 11:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I only know that Assange has sent out a message to his 178,288 Twitter followers to hijack this article, which is very disturbing. I don't know anything about you. Jeannedeba (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Assange was right that the article was biased, and he wanted to correct that bias. In fact, the article is still biased. What Assange apparently does not understand is that the bias of this article reflects a bias in the media, which unfortunately is unavoidable given Wikipedia's policies on using mainstream sources in order to achieve consensus. All we can do is to make the article as even as possible is to include all necessary facts and use our own discretion in their presentation. The risk of pro-Assange editors is certainly not greater than the risk of anti-Assange editors, given the expected defensive aggression towards Assange of government and corporate institutions including much of the established media. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

mainstream in my country is not the same as mainstream in america. can one give english version sources from other countries? or even non-english sources? 188.2.174.63 (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. In fact, this is highly encouraged, because Wikipedia is supposed to have an international POV. This article already includes some sources from Australian and English newspapers, which show rather different POVs to the US media, but translation of coverage in a non-english newspaper such as La Jornada would likely provide and even more alternative viewpoint and is greatly encouraged. Gregcaletta (talk) 05:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Marianne Ny red link

I'm not terribly convinced that Marianne Ny would survive a deletion request, unless some Swedish speakers first create sv:Marianne Ny, convince Swedish-speaking wikipedians that she is notable apart from her alleged inability to communicate with Assange's lawyers in order to arrange an interview, and then bring over the key RS's and claims they make to Marianne Ny. Someone this senior sounds like she could reasonably well be notable - the lack of extensive English-language easy-to-find info does not necessarily make her non-notable this is not the USA.wiki.x.io. There's also the factor of a search-engine difficulty linked with the ambiguity between her surname and the abbreviation for a US state (New York). In any case, if anyone thinks that she might survive deletion, here are some things that could be used:

• you could start with her official CV at the Council of Europe: {{{{cite web| last =| first =| authorlink =| coauthors =| title =Marianne NY| work =| publisher =[[Council of Europe]] | date =| url =http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/childjustice/Marianne%20Ny.asp |format =| doi =| accessdate =2010-11-24 |archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/5uSqw799K |archivedate=2010-11-24 |deadurl=no }}}}; this has plenty of key facts (specialist in child abuse etc.), but a lot more third-party sources would be needed as well;
• the prosecutor's office website in Swedish seems to have half of all its recent news items focussed on Assange and talking about Ny in relation to that; in that sense Ny's activity in the Assange case is considered notable by the prosecutor's office (OR: does that mean that Assange's encounters with the two women constitute about half of all the recent major sex crimes in Sweden?);
• the prosecutor's office website's English front page is explicitly about Assange http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/ - again, the prosecutor's office considers Ny prosecution of Assange to be its most important (or only important) fact that is worth publishing in English.

Just to state the obvious: being notable for prosecuting someone of historical importance is a "one event only" notability argument, at least for the moment. That means not normally enough for a standalone article. Boud (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Marianne Ny is överåklagare, translated in English as Director of Prosecution[12][13], a title held by only a handful of prosecutors in Sweden to my knowledge, and the second highest title for a Swedish prosecutor after the attorney general (riksåklagare). She is the lead prosecutor for sexual crimes in all of Sweden, amongst other things. This is a very senior position and she is obviously notable. As a high-ranking official she has obviously been the subject of media attention unrelated to the website owner we are discussing here.[14] Jeannedeba (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe she is a Deputy Director (one step below Director?); at least that's how they've described her at coe.int. Nymf _hideliho! 02:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

That is an old link. What Jeannedeba says is true. There are 5-10 Directors of Prosecution in Sweden, and she is one of them. The only higher title is the attorney general himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.222.10 (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think this is the right venue to argue about if she should get her own bio on English wiki. If one thinks she does they should create one and see if it will stand on it's own w/o being just a coatrack for Assange's article. I'd say go for it if you think there is enough substance for a stand-alone article. Likewise you might want to encourage Swediapedians to create one on their wiki (first?) as they sure will have more sources and knowledge about the subject.TMCk (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Brotherhood

What is the role of the Brotherhood movement in the charges against Julian Assange? Are they involved in any way? If not, why are they mentioned? Is it common practice for Wikipedia to list the religious faith of all participants in a criminal investigation? If so, maybe we should add everybody's faiths?

I suggest we remove the information about the woman's faith unless it is somehow relevant to the article. If we don't even list Julian Assange's own religious beliefs why would we list hers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.222.10 (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you've misunderstood the purpose of this particular article.99.141.243.84 (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it. It's an article about Julian Assange. If you think we should keep the reference to the woman's religious faith, please explain why it is relevant to an article about Julian Assange.85.225.222.10 (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

She was acting as Assange's spokeswoman prior to the charges so yes, it is relevant. Think about her being mentioned in the article assuming there wouldn't be any allegations. It would be (and therefore is) uncontroversial to clarify who she when explaining her connection besides from the case.TMCk (talk) 02:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it. Unless someone can add some content as to why her religion and political affiliation are relevant, then it doesn't need to be there. It seems to have been put there to imply something about her motivations for bringing charges, as if she had an ulterior motive. That's entirely unacceptable. As well, these BLP claims about her religion and political affiliation are unsourced as far as I can see. They need to stay out unless they can be given context sourced to a good source. Gigs (talk) 04:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It is clearly sourced and the connection is made (ref. [84], page 2 [15]): "...a news conference and seminar in Stockholm on Aug. 14 that had been organized by the Brotherhood, a Christian affiliate of Sweden's Social Democratic Party, to explain the arrival of WikiLeaks to the Swedish public." "The Brotherhood was acting as Assange's host during his visit in Sweden, and a woman who belonged to the Brotherhood was working as his spokeswoman and assistant. Assange was staying at the woman's home."
So there is no BLP vio here.TMCk (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the point is that this article is about Assange, and not the woman or the Brotherhood. If a reliable source were to attach some significance relating to Assange about the Brotherhood, we might use that information. Until that happens, it is not relevant (and somewhat cherry picking) to this article. If this incident develops into a fullscale conflict (I would bet that it will), then all sorts of details can be added (or a separate article made), but such details are not helpful now (I acknowledge that they would appeal to many readers, but that is not our encyclopedic role). Johnuniq (talk) 03:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Such a huge effort to define her as religious - this works hand in hand with previous biased edits that removed her subordinate employee relationship. 72.5.199.254 (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Legality of his actions?

Isn't the legality of his actions with wikileaks a seemingly important piece of information to mention in his page? Boone292929 (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. There a few reports by legal analysts I have seen in the media. Feel free to find them and integrate them into the article. Most that I have seen say he has done nothing illegal. Gregcaletta (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Ahem, the last leak of United States diplomatic cables is not legal. I don't think that disclosing confidential diplomatic documents can be defined as legal. IN a more general way, the way Assange is viewed here is not really neutral and much too sympathetic toward him. Only one point of view is really presented here: Assange's and his friends. After all, his behavior is questionable, but it is not really questioned in this article. Hervegirod (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

If what WikiLeaks has done is illegal then so would be the actions of the New York Times, The Guardian and Der Spiegel. WikiLeaks is the publisher and distributor of the material, not the source. This is a blog from the New York Law School: http://www.lasisblog.com/2010/11/12/wikileaks-has-committed-no-crime/

There are two paragraphs that are very critical of Assange in "descriptions of Assange" along with a some neutral paragraphs and some defending him from criticism. I wouldn't say the point of view of the Swedish prosecutors or US government presented in this article is the point of view of "Assange and his friends". Gregcaletta (talk) 05:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the point here. I really don't know how you think that making sensible informations public may be legal. Newspapers did not make them public, because they where leaked before. Their behavior may be questionable, but they are not technically violating the law. Hervegirod (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hervegirod: please read the lasisblog article above. Gregcaletta went to the effort of finding it for you. You can see the article human rights for more in-depth background. But please also read WP:FORUM.

If you really think that the point is notable enough, e.g. with various lawyers' points of view available, then i suggest you go over to Talk:WikiLeaks and see what people over there think. i don't see why legality of WikiLeaks' actions are especially relevant to Assange rather than WikiLeaks as a whole. On the contrary, i suspect that illegal actions by the US or UK or Australian authorities against Assange might occur. But that hasn't happened so far (depending on whether e.g. US behind-the-scenes involvement occurred for the consensual sex legal case), so it's not relevant for this article. Boud (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Blogs are not considered reliable sources. Jeannedeba (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Blogs are perfectly fine for helping someone curious about a question learn about something, and somewhat kinder than referring to WP:FORUM without even giving the person a hint where to start. If that person is motivated, then s/he may then try searching for RS's. As for blogs as RS's, please read the guideline more carefully. It's a guideline, not a blanket rule. And 5 years from now, chances are it will have evolved. 10 years ago, Wikipedia was still a month and a half away from being officially born. Guidelines are going to be rewritten based on common sense, experience and consensus. Criteria for judging which blogs are "reliable" will undoubtedly evolve, IMHO. 5 years is a long time in wikidom. Boud (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

a number of awards?

it says in the lead that he was been given a "number of awards." Sure two is a number, but the connotation is more than that. second, are these really journalism awards? 98.206.155.53 (talk) 07:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

He has one three awards, and they are journalism awards. If you want, you could mention them each separately in the lead. Gregcaletta (talk) 09:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

yeah, I see someone added another award. I wonder if you have examined what these awards are. The Sam Adams award is for whistle blowing, Assange is the only journalist to have gotten it. After looking up The Amnesty International UK Media Award, I realize it is a journalism award, and not a media award. The Freedom of Expression award is given to many nonjournalists. Anyway, It seems to me that the description is misleading because Assange is not really a traditional journalist, and got his awards for his contributions to whistle-blowing, not typical news reporting. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Greenwald

None of my concerns have been addressed r.e. this piece. It was introduced to undermine text from a NYT article - which it didn't actually do. The source is highly partisan and focuses on a single NYT article which it claims attacks assange with tabloid gossip; the merits of that aside it doesn't really dispute any of the content, just how the article is phrased. On the one hand that seems a reasonable thing to include; but given the partisan nature of the source, the fact it deals with one article only and its "hissy fit" tone I don't think it is reliable or significant. Even more problematic is that the text here dramatically misrepresents the source to an astonishing degree; as an example are not standard journalistic practice and are reserved by the New York Times for figures like Assange is given in the voice of WP (i.e. of fact), when actually it is a rehtoric in the salon article (and not even in greenwalds voice, but that of the NYT authors). This is then collated with selected phrases to conclude an extraordinary amount. It's inclusion is extremely pointy and distinctly problematic. Even more problematically; that NYT comments thread is included as a source; we have said about three times now that there is no conceivable way it could be considered a reliable source - failing on all three counts! --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 10:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't put it in the voice of WP. It puts it in the paraphrased voice of Greenwald, specifically saying "Greenwald says' [these] are not standard journalistic practice and are reserved by the New York Times for figures like Assange". He actually says almost exactly that in the article "standard journalistic practice" is Greenwald's phrase so you can put it in quotation marks if you like. The comments ref can be removed, although it does not really need to be removed because it is only being used to verify Greenwald's claim that many others have also been critical of the article. Gregcaletta (talk) 10:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

it is only being used to verify Greenwald's claim; even worse because that is then WP:OR. "standard journalistic practice" is Greenwald's phrase; doesn't appear to be, it appears to be the NYT authors phrase, and is carefully quoted in the Salon article. Essentially the article says "NYT claims this is "standard journalistic practice", which is a load of tosh" - our article says a distinctly different thing. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 10:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Just ot be clear; he talks about a "standard journalistic endeavour", a phrase used by Burns in his defence, in relation to the actions of the NYT. He does not use it in his own voice. Our article then presents this as a wider critique, suggesting that the NYT article was factually outside of the normal journalistic practice (by some unknown measure). The content we have was written, badly, to discredit a source; it doesn't reflect the source, which I don't think is significant anyway. If we want to make a general point about the quality or focus of reporting about Assange then I fully support that - but I suggest we need much better qualitym, and a wider range, of sources than this snatch piece. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The quote is no longer being used to discredit a particular source. Rather it is being used as one of the best examples of the belief there is biased reporting against Assange. Yes, it is originally Burns's phrase. Burns says it is "standard journalistic endeavour" and Greenwald negates this directly by saying it is not, and that articles like these are reserved for Assange. This is what Greenwald says:

What Burns did to Julian Assange is most certainly not a "standard journalistic endeavor" for The New York Times. If anyone doubts that, please show me any article that paper has published which trashed the mental health, psyche and personality of a high-ranking American political or military official -- a Senator or a General or a President or a cabinet secretary or even a prominent lobbyist -- based on quotes from disgruntled associates of theirs. That is not done, and it never would be. This kind of character smear ("he's not in his right mind," pronounced a 25-year-old who sort of knows him) is reserved for people who don't matter in the world of establishment journalists -- i.e., people without power or standing in Washington and, especially, those whom American Government authorities scorn. In official Washington, Assange is a contemptible loser -- the Pentagon hates him and wants him destroyed, and therefore the "reporters" who rely on, admire and identify with Pentagon officials immediately adopt that perspective -- and that's why he was the target of this type of attack.

and this is how I paraphrased it

Greenwald wrote that [articles like these] are not standard journalistic practice and are reserved by the New York Times for figures like Assange.

It seems like a very accurate paraphrasing to me. I don't understand your objection. If you would like to replace the paraphrasing with the longer quote then I don't object. Gregcaletta (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I've changed it around a little bit now. Gregcaletta (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem I have with the whole wording is how you paraphrased it; because it entirely changes the tone of the source. He is being sarcastic about Burns' defence. Burns says "this was standard journalistic endeavour for the NYT", Greenwald says "what nonsense". Our article implies a much stronger thing. I'd propose simply scrapping the second sentence as it is simply too problematic, the first sentence seems to adequately cover the specifics. I also propose we find some better sourcing for this topic because I still am not happy this is a particularly good source. If nothing else for the fact that it deals almost entirely with one article - and so is useless in critiquing general coverage of Assange (and if we are to critique every specific article, that could take a while :D) Although; I am sure it is a significant topic. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I still don't understand your objection to this paraphrasing. I thought my examples made it fairly clear that I have used almost the exact same wording as Greenwald. Look at the parts in bold and then look at my paraphrasing. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

This is like hitting a brick wall ;) What Burns did to Julian Assange is most certainly not a "standard journalistic endeavor" for The New York Times. is not the same as are not standard journalistic practice for the New York Times and are reserved for figures like Assange. Let me be clear in my issue; you are changing, completely, the tone and meaning of what Greenwald has written. You have conflated several points into one thing. And worst of all, you've turned Greenwalds rhetoric and Burns' words into our voice! --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 10:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha. Yes, it does feel like hitting a brick wall. It seems to me that "is most certainly not a "standard journalistic endeavor" for The New York Times [and] is reserved for people who don't matter in the world of establishment journalists" is virtually exactly the same as "are not standard journalistic practice for the New York Times and are reserved for figures like Assange", but you can replace it with a direct quote if you like. Gregcaletta (talk) 11:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You would have to make it longer though to do so. I would recommend "What Burns did to Julian Assange is most certainly not a "standard journalistic endeavor" for The New York Times. ... This kind of character smear ... is reserved for people who don't matter in the world of establishment journalists ... the Pentagon hates [Assange] and wants him destroyed, and therefore the "reporters" who rely on, admire and identify with Pentagon officials immediately adopt that perspective -- and that's why he was the target of this type of attack." Gregcaletta (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

No. What I would do is not mis-quote the source and use the content properly. So I would say... "Burns defended his article saying it was an "absolutely standard journalistic endeavour", Greenwald disputed this, saying "What Burns did to Julian Assange is most certainly not a "standard journalistic endeavor" for The New York Times." There is a vast difference between that, and what we currently have --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

And now we have a vastly overlong quote; I think it is undue and possibly a copyvio due to length. It also cuts out vast amounts of the quote and does not seem a reasonable representation; I'd suggest instead dealing with the content. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not a copyright violation. How can you complain both that it is "vastly overlong" and at the same time that it "cuts out vast amounts of the quote"? Surely we have to find a compromise between the two. How is it unreasonable representation and what do you mean you suggest "dealing with the content"? Gregcaletta (talk) 12:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It is exactly that; very long, and cuts out even more of the content of the quote. Fair use is somewhat complicated but we are verging on way too long a quote I feel. It doesn't really flow or follow the point of the sentence. I propose simply stating what Greenwald says in a simple clear sentence. But I think, TBH, what we had pre-quote is fine too; almost all of that quote is soapboxing on Greenwalds part and isn't really appropriate. The source is already extremely poor and we are giving it a lot of air time for little good reason. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The source is extremely poor in what way. Gregcaletta (talk) 12:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

POV

Does seem pro-Assange. DYK that you can have a multitude of pro-Assange sources and still have a non-NPOV? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It still seems biased against Assange to me. The media have focused a lot on his teenage hacking and the unsubstantiated rape allegations and this article unavoidably reflects that predictable bias in the media. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

And it seems objective to me, at least in the sense of factual sofar as is known, although I didn't look at the sources and when I started this thread the first time earlier today as duplicate of the one above earlier toady, I deleted it after having the one above pointed out. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 03:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"the unsubstantiated rape allegations"? Says who? You? Two courts have ruled that there is sufficient reason to issue an international arrest warrant over these charges. Hence the charges are by definition not unsubstantiated (Swedish courts do not approve international arrest warrants over "unsubstantiated allegations"). Assange has in fact admitted to the facts (sexual intercourse with two women), as always (almost) in rape cases, there is a dispute over whether it was consensual[16]. Jeannedeba (talk) 10:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"Unsubstantiated" according to the fact that he has not yet been pronounced guilty, in fact, no evidence at all has yet been presented and he has not even been formally charged; he has merely been issued a warrant for his arrest in order for them to question him (they even expect for him to pay for a flight over there and submit himself to the questioning, and if he is innocent then that would be a waste of his time and only further its coverage in the media). The fact that the US media have given such credibility to the arrest warrant by giving it so much heavy coverage is what I am calling the "predictable bias" which is reflected by a huge segment on the charges in this article. Gregcaletta (talk) 11:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

most law enforcement organizations do not disclose what evidence they may have during an investigation so no one can know if they are substantiated or not. Labeling them as such would be NPOV. It could be stated that he or his lawyers characterize them as unsubstantiated but then those statements must be attributed to them specifically rather than making a generalized statement. This section definately violates NPOV as it is basically a defense of Assange in its current form. 207.216.253.134 (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

As it is, the section "definately" attributes the statements to the people who made them. You can see this in the fourth paragraph of that section. siafu (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "unsubstantiated" is not placed in the voice of WIkipedia anywhere in this article. This is because it does not appear in reliable sources. But if the sources were being neutral, they would treat the claims as unsubstantiated until Assange had been declared guilty, or some evidence had been disclosed to them. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

2010 legal difficulties

There is more than enough material in this section to warrant having subheadings, particularly as the section now covers two completely unrelated incidents:

• the investigation over "rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion" and the related Swedish, Interpol and Schengen arrest warrant[17]
• investigations undertaken by the US and Australia over the leak of classified government information

Per previous discussion, the general view was that a subheading specifically on the Swedish case, with a title that accurately describes it, was appropriate. The section would obviously be way too long and hard to follow without subheadings.

Subsequently, I have divided this section into two sub sections:

• 2010 legal difficulties
  • Swedish investigation and arrest warrant
  • Wikileaks release of US diplomatic cables

Jeannedeba (talk) 13:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Descriptions

how come the descriptions of Assange only mention negative depictions when they are being disputed. The section starts out with 3 positive reviews from the media. Another positive review from another activist. then a quote discussing the danger to afghan civilians. followed by a paragraph in Assange's defense. Then a paragraph of Greenwald criticizing Burn's article. All of this tells us little about Assange, and contains no negative or even neutral descriptions of him, while criticizing such descriptions. Plus the whole thing is poorly written.

I think the part about the danger of the leaks should be expanded and put under the wikileaks section of the article. Rather then focusing on the reliability of media profiles, it should give an idea of what they are, and note that they have been criticized for not following journalistic standards. It should not contain the whole debate on whither one article meets journalistic standards. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at BLPN

There's a discussion about this article at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Ecuador Offer

It appears there is change in the offer from Ecuador: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/30/AR2010113003727.html 207.216.253.134 (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Made the change. I'm in class right now, so I'll have to look into the matter further later; I'll also format the recently added references at some point. [18]. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 20:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Offer has been rescinded; article updated. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 02:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Date of Birth?

According to the Interpol 'Red Notice', his date of birth is 3rd July 1971 (making him 39). Source: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/11/assange-interpol/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xexei (talk • contribs) 23:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

i made the change. There were a superfulous amount of sources for Assanges birth as well. Got rid of them and just used the interpol source for his birth. if anyone finds a less condeming source. please replace. Being at the top of the edit page it is the first source:( --Ninja247 (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Dadi897, 1 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} His date of birth and age can be found at interpols website http://www.interpol.int/public/data/wanted/notices/data/2010/86/2010_52486.asp Please update with this information Dadi897 (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Already done Note that, by default, the template only displays month and year, not date. But the actual date is listed in the article's source. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Associated Press: 'Assange on most-wanted list, arrest sought in Rape probe'

Here is the latest neutral, Reliable Source, Associated Press report:"Interpol placed Julian Assange on its most-wanted list after Sweden issued an arrest warrant against him as part of a drawn-out rape probe" . It seems pretty clear. 99.141.243.84 (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, come again. The Interpol warrant has already been mentioned. Nymf _hideliho! 02:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Now go read the article. It states: "The notice is not an international arrest warrant, but requests that the public to contact local police with any information about his whereabouts" ...99.141.243.84 (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Just for fun, let's compare those side by side:

• Actual source document from Interpol:

Categories of Offences: SEX CRIMES

Arrest Warrant Issued by: INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTION OFFICE IN GOTHENBURG / Sweden

• The Associated Press, a Secondary Reliable Source:

"Interpol placed Julian Assange on its most-wanted list after Sweden issued an arrest warrant against him as part of a drawn-out rape probe."

• Wikipedia "interpretation":

"The notice is not an international arrest warrant, but requests that the public to contact local police with any information about his whereabouts"

It's like being at Alice's Tea Party. On one side source documents and the reliable source Associated Press, and on the other ... [strike]Meatpuppets, sycophants, starfuckers[/strike] and biased POV editing that gives not a Rat's Ass for even the most obvious and simple facts.99.141.243.84 (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Most editors around here are just trying to do the best they can. Whoever interpreted that source as something else probably does not appreciate being called a "starfucker". If you wish to continue contributing, please learn how to stay cool and offer convincing arguments without assuming bad faith. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 03:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I guess I was taken aback by the passive-aggressive FU found in the "Thank you, come again." brush-off above.99.141.243.84 (talk) 03:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Understandable—it's quite a heated and intense story that's unfolding literally before our eyes. I placed a "current event" template at the top. Thanks again for pointing out the sources. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 03:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Your correction lasted about a minute.99.141.243.84 (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not the first time you have called people star fuckers on here. I count at least 3 previous posts by you calling people this. I suggest you step back if there is a clear bias or COI on your part. Nymf _hideliho! 03:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I should take after you and use passive-aggressive FU's while ignoring legitimate, clear and concise references?99.141.243.84 (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...the BBC source cited in the article says "The Interpol notice is not an international arrest warrant but the public is asked to contact police with any information about Mr Assange's whereabouts."—the article seems to paraphase the source a little too closely, on top of that. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 03:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The warrant is both quoted and linked above - it clearly states it is an arrest warrant, as do the AP and many other sources. The dated BBC quote appears both wrong, and cherry-picked. Leaning on it the face of the now actually available source document and wide spread reports of the arrest warrant is, well, unwarranted. .99.141.243.84 (talk) 03:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I was also going on this article released ten-fifteen minutes ago: [19]. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 03:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Interpol on Wednesday issued a global arrest warrant for... Interpol on Tuesday issued an arrest warrant for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange over rape global police agency Interpol issued an arrest warrant for Mr Assange on a rape charge originating from Sweden. ...ruling means that an international arrest warrant for Assange is valid, . 99.141.243.84 (talk) 03:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

An Interpol Red Notice is the closest instrument to an international arrest warrant in use today (see [20] Criminal Resource Manual, 611 Interpol Red Notices). There are three different warrants for Assange: The Interpol red notice (an international instrument), a SIS notice (within the Schengen countries, also an international instrument) and the arrest warrant in the Swedish system. These have been widely described by reliable sources as an international arrest warrant[21], hence this description is appropriate. There is an arrest warrant, and the Swedish authorities are seeking his arrest internationally through Interpol and SIS. International arrest warrant is only a descriptive term referring to the sum of this, not specifically to the Interpol red notice which is only one of the instruments used by Swedish police to seek his arrest.

The wording "The notice is not an international arrest warrant" is misleading and pointy, and doesn't belong in the article. A more correct wording would be: "While not technically considered an "arrest warrant" in itself, an Interpol Red Notice is the closest instrument to an international arrest warrant in use today, and is widely referred to as such by reliable sources". But this discussion on the nature of Interpol red notices, commonly known as international arrest warrants, would belong in the Interpol article, not here. Jeannedeba (talk) 06:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

There are now three citations provided for the statement that it is not an arrest warrant; one is from Interpol itself. And you are correct that discussion does not belong on this page. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Strawman. Jeannedeba (talk) 07:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead section II

Assange is now included on the Interpol most wanted list for "sex crimes"[22], which is arguably the highlight of his life as a public person (regardless of how it turns out in the end) and one of his primary claims to fame. This needs to be included in the lead section per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section). Also, it's our moral obligation to help law enforcement agencies by not obscuring or censoring his status, this is the most central piece of information about Assange that a reader needs to know. Jeannedeba (talk) 07:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

But is the accusation really true? --Bsadowski1 08:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That is irrelevant and is not for us to decide, we just report what others report (the noteworthy case here is his status as a fugitive from justice in Sweden and the enormous, global media attention related to it, not whether it's "true" or not. Even if it's not true, it's still a significant controversy). Jeannedeba (talk) 09:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

- We must mention the reason for the charge - at the moment anyone who reads it will think its because of the leaks. --93.96.33.51 (talk) 11:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of that problem and agree in principle. The only problem is that some users constantly make fake claims that the inclusion of what the case is about in the lead section somehow violate Wikipedia's most abused and counterproductive policy (even though it's already included in detail elsewhere in the article and properly sourced). Jeannedeba (talk) 11:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Categories II

Assange is now included on the Interpol most wanted list for "sex crimes"[23]. He needs to be included in the following categories:

• Category:Fugitives wanted by Sweden
• Category:Fugitives wanted on sex crime charges

The inclusion in these categories is automatically warranted by his current status and cannot be subject to discussion on the article level, as long his status is proven by countless reliable sources. "I don't like these categories" is not a valid argument against his inclusion in them as long as they exist, i.e. are valid., and as long as reliable sources have proven that he is wanted by Sweden. The only reason he's not included would be because someone are making an exception just for him from the categories that apply to all other articles in order to deliberately obscure his status. Jeannedeba (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that those who were eager to prove that an Interpol red notice is not an arrest warrant (which is off the point anyway) also just provided a definitive proof that Assange meets the definition of fugitive (that is, someone who is "convicted or accused of a crime, who is hiding from law enforcement in the state or taking refuge in a different country in order to avoid arrest in another country"), by including this Interpol reference, which clearly states that any subject of an Interpol red notice is by definition a fugitive[24] ("Red Notices [...] are aimed at circulating internationally a national arrest warrant or judicial decision concerning a wanted fugitive"). Also note the main section on fugitives[25], which makes it clear that fugitive is the term used by Interpol to describe the subject of a red notice.

As we all know, reliable third party sources also describe him as a fugitive, his formal status, for instance The Independent today ("The fugitive - Assange needs new safe haven: Interpol adds to calls for arrest of Wikileaks ringmaster thought to be hiding in London"). TechCrunch points out: "While Interpol makes it clear that its infamous Red Notice list does not function as an international arrest warrant, it does serve the purpose of broadcasting internationally that the person in question is a fugitive and can aide in extradition process."[26]. The Globe and Mail writes: "Mr. Assange, 39, is an international fugitive facing rape charges filed in Sweden". Jeannedeba (talk) 10:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

These seem appropriate to me. I've added them to the article. Robofish (talk) 11:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I am reading the article incorrectly, but it appears that he has not even been charged with a crime yet. Can you be a fugitive without a charge of criminal activity? "Wanted for questioning" maybe. We must have an international lawyer on board - maybe he should get Polanski's attorney ( he, Polanski, was convicted and he seems to be doing well.) It's looking more and more like a political charge - when he releases info on the major banks he had better bring his toothbrush.159.105.81.31 (talk) 12:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

POV tag

It appears that this dispute is the reason for the "POV" tag at the top of this article.[27]Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Whistleblower website?

Should WikiLeaks really be considered a whistleblower website? Certainly some content falls under the definition of whistleblowing, but the recent additions to WikiLeaks are just releases of sensitive/classified information, most of which can't be remotely be described as whistleblowing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcostley (talk • contribs) 18:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the term "whistleblower website" is POV, as it has positive connotations and implies that the victims of his document theft have somehow done something wrong, i.e. that there is a legitimate reason to release this stolen and privileged information. Various states seem to consider his activities to be espionage and terrorism, not "journalism" or "whistleblowing". Jeannedeba (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That is completely false. Reliable sources, such as the BBC, consistently refer to WikiLeaks as a whistleblower website. I suggest you review our policies and guidelines regarding NPOV and how to use sources. Viriditas (talk) 06:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Personal Info

As the article is locked down, I thought that it might be good to leave the link here and then someone else could put the details up on the page if they feel it is of use:

http://www.news.com.au/national/wikileaks-founder-julian-assanges-mum-defends-her-son/story-e6frfkvr-1225964232832 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.119.252 (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Photos wrongly dated?

In the photos of him reportedly in 2009 and 2010 he is wearing exactly the same clothes? Error or limited wardrobe? 86.156.28.196 (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. I think that he most likely has only a few (or even one suit). He says that he has no real home and he is out in rural areas alot in Africa, so most of his clothing is probably non-fromal and it would be understandable if he had only one suit. But it should be checked. Sbrianhicks (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I have translated the article to Hebrew wikipedia, an authorizied person need to link it. I am not authorized to edit/

I have translated the article to Hebrew wikipedia, an authorizied person need to link it. I am not authorized to edit/

[[[he:ג'וליאן אסנג']]]

--Midrashah (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you got it. Gigs (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Ellsberg called Julian Assange "hero" and praised his work as "exemplary".

I suppose it could be considered POV but as long as it's sourced it's probably not a big deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.107.254.13 (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

One call it POV so what other have to say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 07:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This is okay, so long as those who criticise Assange are given a due weight proportional to them, and sourced, and the hero comment is sourced and weighted too. Cymbelmineer

Who and the hell cares what Daniel Ellsberg says? It is hilarious that people keep bring up Ellsberg when discussing this case, as if he is even remotely relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.155.184 (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Almost every commentator and media outlet out there has drawn parallels between what Daniel Ellsberg did in the Pentagon Papers case and what WikiLeaks has been doing. Exactly everybody also agrees that Ellsberg is much more relevant (at least than you and the POV you're trying to push). Ha! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.3.77.210 (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Fugitive

Assange now has an Interpol arrest warrant[28] outstanding, and thus meets the very definition of "fugitive". Even a person with only a national arrest warrant would meet the definition, but there can be absolutely no doubt that a person with an international arrest warrant does (you don't get more fugitive than that).

Accordingly, Assange now needs to be included in the categories

• Category:Fugitives wanted by Sweden
• Category:Fugitives wanted on sex crime charges

Whether Assange claims he's going to turn himself in (as a matter of fact, he claims the complete opposite, he's not going to turn himself in, he refuses to return to Sweden) is immaterial for his status as a fugitive following the issuing of his arrest warrant. Of course, the reason for the issuing of Assange's Interpol arrest warrant was his refusal to return to Sweden for questioning voluntarily. He now faces arrest in any Interpol and Schengen member state. Jeannedeba (talk) 04:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Recognized as a fugitive in his native country: "After the court's decision he's become a fugitive from the country he wanted to call home." (Australian Broadcasting Corp.)[29]

"He now faces arrest in any Interpol and Schengen member state." - Jeannedeba.

Assange is wanted for questioning. Interpol member states rarely arrest a individual wanted for questioning in another member state. Sigurdur Einarsson, former CEO of Kaupthing, was able to be free in his London mansion for several months while on the Interpol's "red notice list" because the British police wouldn't arrest him until charges were issued against him. - source Patroiz (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't we remove all "arrest warrants" from the article if it is indeed only a "detention order"? --spitzl (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe so. It should also be clarified in the lead that it's questioning that he is wanted for, and that no formal charges has been filed yet. Nymf _hideliho! 21:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to remove the descriptor "arrest warrant" from the article - as there is an arrest warrant that has been issued for him. Police in most countries where common-law is present are able to issue arrest warrants for people suspected of a crime and wanted for questioning. He has not been formally charged because he has not been questioned - it is usually the case that a suspect is questioned before being charged. Another note: Speculation on my part would have that British police have not arrested Mr. Assange because of the political shit-storm that would unfold should they do so.

Interpol Wanted for Sex Crimes Warrant put online

Here's the Wanted "poster" for Assange:Wanted for Sex Crimes It's pretty notable, mentioned and linked in most reports out today. 99.141.243.84 (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It also doubles as a very reliable source for the birth date we fail to list, 3 July 1971. 99.141.243.84 (talk) 01:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

We aren't supposed to pull birth dates from primary source documents like that per WP:BLP. For the record I don't really agree with that clause the way it's written. Gigs (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

"Red Notice" reference requires login to NYT

It appears that the New York Times reference for the "Red Notice" (currently reference #8) requires a login to the New York Times to view.

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/world/europe/02assange.html?_r=1

Is this appropriate as a source? Chrislaing (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is appropritate as a source, see here: "Verifiability in this context means that anyone should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable source. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." --Orangwiki (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not required to log in to view this article from New York Times. New York Times is the leading English language news source. Jeannedeba (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

For some reason, it is asking for a login on mobile devices. I'm curious if Chrislaing was on such a device when he clicked on the link? Viriditas (talk) 09:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia vs. Wikileaks

My comment is about the process above with the supposed input by the subject himself. This is not Wikileaks and the community of contributors here has an established system of self-governance which unlike Wikileaks is not dominated by a single arbitrary individual. I should think it was completely unacceptable for someone to come here and make pronouncements about an article about themselves without even using a registered account. I do most of my editing by IP but whenever there's an issue I use my account. I don't think it's right to allow anyone to say they are the article subject who isn't using an account. I use 72.228.177.92 and I'm more or less what in the US would be considered far left, but I think this is an important distinction. Lycurgus (talk) 06:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

We have always treated the supposed comments from Assange as suspect, until such time as he presents WP:OTRS with evidence verifying his identity. Gigs (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

"until such time as he" however, begs the question. Another comment is that, while he is apparently being given credit as an "intellectual", there doesn't seem to be any basis for this and in particular no political philosophy which could be the basis for the actions taken other than publicity seeking and self-promotion/satisfaction. I suppose this is consistent with the claim of being a "journalist" and an "entrepreneur" but in view of the great need for both principled and direct action a failure to point this out is egregious and could be considered pro subject bias. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing in the article characterizing him as an "intellectual". Gigs (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Current §: "Descriptions of Assange" ¶ 1, last sentence "He has been described as being largely self-taught and widely read on science and mathematics,[16] and as thriving on intellectual battle.[122]". I think 'intellectual' may have been quoted earlier making clear that it was a distinctive usage, if so that should be restored. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Assange confirmed in a chat with a Swedish newspaper that it was he who posted the initial comment. See this. "It was me who commented, yes." Nymf _hideliho! 17:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Quotes from the prosecution side

In the sex crime section there are three quotes saying that Assange isn't guilty:

* Assange said "the charges are without basis and their issue at this moment is deeply disturbing";

* Stephens dismissed the charges, issuing a statement in which he called the allegations "false and without basis" and said "even the substance of the allegations, as revealed to the press through unauthorized disclosures do not constitute what any advanced legal system considers to be rape."

* Assange's Swedish lawyer, Björn Hurtig, claimed that the evidence against Assange was "very meager. It's not enough to get him convicted for crime."

But there is no quote from the prosecutor or from the women's lawyer on the guilt question. I don't know which side is right, but it seems a bit one-sided to only have quotes from one of the sides in the case. Are there any quotes from the "other side" on the guilt question that we could use to give a more balanced report? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.222.10 (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• • I don't believe there would be a quote from prosecutors as to his guilt, as they don't seem to have actually accused him of anything yet - the warrant is to arrest him so that they can interrogate him pursuant to complaints made against him, after which presumably they would make a decision as to whether or not to charge him with anything. I think I saw quotes from the women in an article a few months ago, but I can't find the article now. From what I can remember, one of them was a regular partner and on one occassion during sex the condom broke and Assange persuaded her to continue without it. When she spoke to another woman Assange had slept with, she found that the same had happened on the occassion he slept with her, and so decided to go to the authorities. The allegations seemed to be that this was a trick on his part to have unprotected sex, and so constitutes rape. But I can't find the article now.--94.173.208.118 (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Interwiki Comparisons

The German article says that he can work without compensation because according to his statement, he has "made money on the internet" [that permits same]. (Nach Eigenaussage hat er „im Internet Geld verdient“ und konnte somit unbezahlt für WikiLeaks arbeiten.[4]) Perhaps one of the other langs has some details on this, don't see it here. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Fugitive 2

There's no reason to call him a fugitive. International criminal law is a complex thing, and there's no evidence that he is eluding capture currently. An arrest warrant in one country may never make it to any other country for arrest and extradition. As well, the other country may refuse to arrest him. Failing to return to a country where you know there's an arrest warrant out for you isn't fugitive behavior, it's common sense. Gigs (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There's been a series of back and forths on this one - let's hope it settles down. Please engage here, IP mr. 99 - it's more helpful to discuss at this point, rather than just re-do the same edits over and over. Cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"Failing to return to a country where you know there's an arrest warrant out for you isn't fugitive behavior, it's common sense." Language is a precise tool and fugitive means "fugitive - someone who is sought by law officers;". We also have a reliable neutral source clearly applying the term to Julian Assange:http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s3071847.htm .99.141.243.84 (talk) 02:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"Failing to return to a country where you know there's an arrest warrant out for you isn't fugitive behavior, it's common sense" - when did criminal behaviour (evading an arrest warrant, even an Interpol arrest warrant) become "common sense"? Common sense among criminals, maybe? But we aren't supposed to help the criminals, we are supposed to help the police. People who are sought by the police are obliged to turn themselves in, failing to do so is criminal in itself. Jeannedeba (talk) 05:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we've all done something that's a crime in Saudi Arabia. If they issue an arrest warrant for you will you obligingly travel there and turn yourself in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.149.187 (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Note also the article is and has for some time been included in these two categories:

• Category:Fugitives wanted by Sweden
• Category:Fugitives wanted on sex crime charges

He's included in those because he is a.... fugitive. .99.141.243.84 (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

per discussion above, I actually feel it's best that we remove these cat.s pending further discussion. In truth they're simply not a good fit. Privatemusings (talk) 03:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope. If you feel Wikipedia shouldn't use these categories, you need to nominate the categories for deletion, not remove them in one single article (that is, making an exception just for Julian Assange). As long as the categories for fugitives exist, they are valid categories that are to be used in the articles where they are relevant. Jeannedeba (talk) 05:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read the discussion before you create new sections on his status as a fugitive. There is already a section discussing this matter. This is very simple: 1) We have categories for fugitives 2) They are used for people who have arrest warrants, which is the only criterion for inclusion as far as I'm aware. 3) Assange not only has a national (Swedish) arrest warrant, he has an Interpol arrest warrant (most fugitives only have national arrest warrants). 4) Assange's lawyer has stated that Assange is deliberately going to evade justice (not turning himself in as he is required to in order to cease being considered a fugitive by Interpol and the Swedish authorities), although this doesn't really make a difference since he already became a fugitive the moment an arrest warrant (especially an international arrest warrant) was issued 5) Reliable sources such as the ABC have described him as a fugitive Jeannedeba (talk) 04:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I just had a look at the recent edit history. I think it's unncessary to describe him as a fugitive in the lead section (per this edit: [30]), because we have already said there are arrest warrants for him, which means the same. Of course, there is nothing wrong with calling him a fugitive, a sourced fact, but there's no need to say the same thing tategories for people sought by law enforcements agencies only from this article (making an exception just for him) because you like Assange or whatever is not the way to do it. Either nominate all the fugitive categories for deletion and have them wice. The categories are a different matter because we have a (very) extensive system of categories for people with arrest warrants used thoughout Wikipedia, and they are all named "fugitives... something" (check out the main Category:Fugitives). The inclusion of the categories is merely a matter of adhering to the existing category system, which we need to do, of course. Jeannedeba (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It is silly to use the "fugitive" label because that leaves us with no suitable term to describe a real fugitive – someone who is actually fleeing from arrest. Just above is an attempt to justify "fugitive" with this Australian ABC link. However, that only features the reporter saying "Sweden has already turned down Julian Assange's residency application. After the court's decision he's become a fugitive from the country he wanted to call home." which is not using "fugitive" in the technical sense of someone evading capture by law enforcement authorities. Johnuniq (talk) 05:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and further, I support the recent edits to the article by Greg. I don't believe the categories are a good fit at all either, and don't believe we are bound by policy or practice elsewhere in this regard. I feel there's a chance of consensus emerging that 'fugitive' is an unnecessary, and inappropriate term to be using at this time, and that that will apply to both the body of text, and categories. Privatemusings (talk) 09:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The relevant policy here is WP:BLPCAT - categories should probably go because they are somewhat loaded and we try to avoid using them unless uncontroversial --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 09:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

On balance, policy strongly supports removal of the categories, so I have done so. Please do not re-add them without sufficient consensus. The relevant policy says: Not all categories are comprehensive: For some "sensitive" categories, it is better to think of the category as a set of representative and unquestioned examples, while a list is a better venue for an attempt at completeness. Particularly for "sensitive" categories, lists can be used as a complement to categorization. and Exert extra precaution with regard to the categorization of living people as well as: Caution should be used with categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation. There is an unclear and controversial case for referring to Assange as a fugitive; so there is no basis for the cats at this time. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 09:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur with those siding against the use of the word "fugitive" and the adding of cats. At this point simply stating that a warrant exists is sufficient. Hammersbach (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Question: When is a fugitive not a fugitive?

Answer: When biased writers are seeking to obscure the unassailable reality of language, facts and reliable source references.

Only in Wikipedialand can a handful of partisans, after a call to arms, take the simple fact of an accused rapist and molester currently fugitive from an international arrest warrant and spin it into the mushnothingness of "2010 legal difficulties and charges" while obfuscating all basic elements under a pile of well, misdirection, smoke and mirrors. A basic description of reliably sourced facts should not be held hostage to extended negotiations with apologists, starfuckers and declared partisans.72.5.199.254 (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur. The consensus is that the categories stay (because they haven't been deleted). There is no basis whatsoever for removing the categories that are used for people with arrest warrants (=people sought by law enforcements agencies). His arrest warrant is extremely well publicized and notable. Arguing that a man who has an Interpol arrest warrant out for him, whose lawyer says he's not going to turn himself is (=actively evading justice), is "not a fugitive" is just plain silly and has nothing to do with serious encyclopedic work. If Assange isn't a fugitive, nobody is a fugitive (we don't have any other criteria/definition than being sought by law enforcement agencies=having an arrest warrant). Wikipedia practice doesn't agree with that point of view. I also refer to my above comment regarding the attempt by Assange to hijack/influence this article.

Removing the categories for people sought by law enforcements agencies only from this article (making an exception just for him) because you like Assange or whatever is not the way to do it. Either nominate all the fugitive categories for deletion and have them removed entirely, or they'll need to stay. Jeannedeba (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but BLP policy far outweighs article level consensus. Your argument boils down to a variant of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There is not much wrong with the category itself; but its use on BLP articles must be addressed with care. The rest of your arguments are the common non-policy based ad-hominem bits and bobs - i.e. irrelevant. I'd point out that it appears this is OR as well (to include the categories) due to the dirth of sources actually identifying him as a fugitive. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please quote policy verbatim and explicitly indicate the precise violation you allude to. Nothing in Wikipedia policy, BLP or otherwise prohibits Verifiable and Reliably Sourced text from any article .. at all. Nor the application of Categories. The subject of this article is a fugitive wanted by the lawful authorities in Sweden for, amongst other things, Rape and molestation. This may be uncomfortable, but our purpose is to record, not act as house publicists. More appropriate outlets for activism, idolation and willful distortion exist elsewhere.72.5.199.254 (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

BLP is of no relevance to this discussion, so kindly stop wikilawyering. Fugitive means "being sought by law enforcement agencies". The category is used for people who are sought by law enforcement agencies. The fact that Assange is a fugitive, being sought by law enforcement agencies is an extremely well sourced and publicized fact. BLP would apply if we didn't know for sure if there was an arrest warrant for him. But we know an arrest warrant has been formally issued by Swedish authorities, and by Interpol, and that he is one of the most famous fugitives from justice today, making it one of his primary claims to fame that the categories need to address. The issuing of an arrest warrant by Swedish authorities has by Swedish law formally made him a fugitive wanted by Sweden whether you like it or not (which is irrelevant). I'm amazed how some users are able to deny the fact that he is wanted by Sweden, and again refer to the attempt by Assange to hijack the article, which must be resisted. Jeannedeba (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Is that so? Wikipedia describes a fugitive as someone who is fleeing custody. It is a pejorative term, and as such, BLP does apply. Nymf _hideliho! 17:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

A person who is wanted by law enforcement agencies is in fact fleeing from custody. Assange has been arrested in his absence by Swedish police and is fleeing from custody by refusing to turn himself in. You are completely mistaken if you believe the word "fugitive" only applies to people who have already been in jail. The important thing is whether one is sought by law enforcement agencies (per Category:Fugitives wanted by the International Criminal Court and other categories used for people who have never been caught yet). Also see [31]: "a person who is running away or hiding from the police [...] Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid were fugitives from justice (= they ran away to avoid being tried in court).". It doesn't say anything about the term being "pejorative", so I assume this is just your personal opinion. Jeannedeba (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Is that the case, however? International warrants are not a simple matter. I read that his lawyer said it could take up to two weeks for the paperwork and red tape to be sorted out (but the source wasn't stellar). As far as we know, the police whatever country he is in knows exactly where he is, and he is making absolutely no effort to obscure his location from them. There really is no evidence that I have seen to claim that he is attempting to elude capture. Where is the reliable sourcing that he's actually trying to evade capture? "Waiting for the local police to be ready to take you into custody" isn't the same as "evading capture". I have seen no evidence that the former isn't the case. Gigs (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this somehow difficult for you to comprehend? His status in the UK is irrelevant, he is considered a fugitive in Sweden. There is a category specifically for people wanted by Sweden. Are you denying that he is wanted by Sweden? Almost any fugitive (plenty of infamous examples) could find a safe haven where the police didn't touch him, that doesn't change their status as a fugitive in other countries. This is a question of his inclusion in the category specifically for people wanted by Sweden. Jeannedeba (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"There really is no evidence that I have seen to claim that he is attempting to elude capture" - there is plenty of evidence that he is evading Swedish justice. In order to have his Swedish arrest warrant withdrawn, he must turn himself in to the police. Until then he remains a fugitive wanted by Sweden. Jeannedeba (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

A month from now I might agree with you. For all we know he's making arrangements right now in order to turn himself in. Failure to catch the very next flight to Sweden isn't evidence that he's eluding anything. Anyway to bring this back to Wikipedia reality and out of the hypothetical clouds, we need a secondary source that actually asserts he's eluding justice, something more than just an offhand comment by a reporter during a round table discussion taken out of context. Gigs (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

His lawyer has said publicly on his behalf that he is not going to turn himself in. Whether he has an intention of, eventually, turning himself in, doesn't change a thing anyway, since he became fugitive from Swedish justice the moment the arrest warrant was issued (it was issued because he didn't turn himself in voluntarily in the first place - believe me, Interpol arrest warrants are not issued for people who are willing to make arrangements for taking the next flight back and turn themselves in. Obviously, if he wanted to turn himself in, as he is required to do immediately, he would have returned to Sweden days ago).[32] Jeannedeba (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

From your own link: "It would normally take at least five working days, perhaps upwards of 15 working days after the appeal is treated, that The search is communicated to the authorities in the relevant country and at that point will we, if so, look at it and see if it is authentic." My point is that people are in such a hurry to label Assange as a fugitive when the police in the country he is in are probably not even seeking him yet. As I've repeated many times, international warrants aren't a simple matter. It's absolutely premature to call him a fugitive. Gigs (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Even further, the link you provide says he has no legal obligation to return to Sweden: "No, not under English law, not under European law." Gigs (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Jeannedeba, you can accuse me of Wikilawyering and the rest all you like - that is not a valid or useful argument. Quit it. The relevant policy, as I pointed out, is WP:BLPCAT. If your argument is that there is a Swedish arrest warrant and he has not been arrested, as yet, then that is pure Original Research, it is not for you to say I am afraid. The one source you have presented I don't think cuts it very much. So per policy we avoid such categories. This is getting tedious to say the least. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 19:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The categories stay per policy and practice, end of discussion. Jeannedeba (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Stunning. Fuck Verifiability. Fuck Reliable Source. Let's just make shit up about BLP policy - even though it says not one fucking word about censoring verifiable reliably sourced notable and fucking internationally known pertinent biographical information. People are jumping through hoops to change his photo here, directly at Assange's request - then they're buffing up his image, again directly at his request, all while proclaiming his innocence with wild conjecture about all manner of things. It would appear that intellectual honesty is decidedly not Wikipedia's forte. .72.5.199.254 (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I second this. BLP is totally irrelevant for the discussion and has nothing to do with the categories in question. Each time some disgruntled person (Assange or one of his friends here) doesn't get it his way, he makes up some nonsense about BLP. BLP is not a free card or a magic word to enforce a particular POV or disregard neutrality and sourced facts you don't like. Jeannedeba (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no feelings for or against Assange, and I'm familiar with the BLP policy. It would be inappropriate to add that he's a fugitive because it's poorly sourced. The single source the edit relied on was using the phrase imprecisely, rhetorically. When dealing with BLPs, we err on the side of caution for anything contentious, so an edit this like would need multiple reliable secondary sources. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not a question of describing him as a fugitive in the main text, it's a question of inclusion of the category for people wanted by Sweden. There are thousands of sources available for the fact that he is wanted by Sweden. If some believe the "fugitive wanted by [country]" categories, that is, the categories for people who have arrest warrants in various countries, shouldn't use the term fugitive (despite the fact that is the normal English term for a person sought by law enforcement agencies), it's a different question that would need to be addressed at categories for discussion. I don't understand how one could argue that he is not sought by a law enforcement agency, that he is not wanted by Sweden, when he actually is. This boils down to: Do we need a new set of categories for "people who are wanted by law enforcement agencies" (by country) and "people who are wanted by law enforcement agencies on sex crime charges"? And who's going to populate the fugitives by country and fugitives by charges categories, if not the ones who have arrest warrants? Jeannedeba (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That he is wanted in Sweden is not automatically a description of him as a fugitive, it's enough that we need to establish it with sources. Categories are relevant to the article content - so if there is no rationale to call him a fugitive in the text then I can't see how there is rationale to include the category :) If there is a category for "People with arrest warrants in Sweden" that would possibly be acceptable. If you want to create such a set of categories, though, you'd be best off working on a community page perhaps one of the crime wikiprojects? But fugitive is definitely distinct from simply having an arrest warrant issued and deals with those specifically making pains to avoid or flee justice; the colloquial usage is a bit of an Americanism and you definitely wouldn't find it much used over here. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue of an arrest warrant doesn't in itself imply fugitive status. People have arrest warrants issued because they failed to appear in court to deal with a parking fine. You become a fugitive if you're taking active steps to avoid detection by the authority that's looking for you, and we would need multiple reliable sources to call him that before we can add it to the article, or him to a cat. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree 100% with SV. So far what we do have is reliable sources saying that it might take up to 2 weeks to even sort out of the paperwork of an international arrest warrant. Even then, it's up to whatever country he's in to actually pursue the matter. Since he's already said he might try to get asylum status, that's not a given. This warrant could sit there for years while Assange lives a very open and public life if the country he's in declines execute the warrant. Happens all the time. Gigs (talk) 01:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"This warrant could sit there for years while Assange lives a very open and public life if the country he's in declines execute the warrant" - and the relevance is? This doesn't change the fact that he is fleeing from Swedish justice, making him a fugitive wanted by Sweden and a fugitive from justice by Swedish law. Almost any fugitive can find a safe haven, say, in some South American country or whatever. They are still considered fugitives (in other countries). What you are saying is that if some fugitive from justice finds a state in South America, the Middle East or elsewhere that doesn't extradite him, which is quite easy (lots of states don't have extraditition agreements), he ceases being a fugitive. Or say if one of the world's most wanted criminals, wanted by the law enforcement agencies of western nations and by Interpol, found refuge in North Korea, he would stop being a fugitive. Which is wrong, it's not how it works.

I don't think Interpol issues arrest warrants for parking fines, btw. The subject of this article is wanted by Interpol on charges of rape, a serious crime, not parking fines. We also actually have several sources for the fact that he 1) is taking steps to avoid Swedish arrest by refusing to return to Sweden as he is required to (in order to cease being a fugitive from Swedish justice) and 2) living "like a fugitive" (in a more informal sense of the term), seemingly fearing being apprehended by the authorities [33]. He does absolutely not live a "very open and public life", he lives like someone who has escaped from prison or like someone who is formally under arrest (in his absence) in an EU country (as he is). Jeannedeba (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they're called "fugitives".99.141.243.84 (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you a fugative if you are openly in a country that has an extradition treaty with the country that wants you yet local authorities have not arrested you? 220.101.4.140 (talk) 04:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Subheading for readability

When I first edited the discussion I was against the inclusion of the word "fugitive", and I still am. Having said that, in the article we say, "Stephens disputed this saying 'we were willing to meet at the Swedish embassy or Scotland Yard or via video link' and that 'all of these offers have been flatly refused by a prosecutor who is abusing her powers by insisting that he return to Sweden at his own expense to be subjected to another media circus that she will orchestrate'" This clearly implies that Assange is actively avoiding the arrest warrant by his refusal to return to Sweden, which makes it hard for us to say that he is not a "fugitive". Thoughts? Hammersbach (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Having a "video link" meeting with someone wanted by the police is not acceptable under Swedish law, and his lawyer obviously has told him that (unless he's completely incompetent). The arrest warrant in Sweden and through Interpol was issued because he didn't return voluntarily in the first place, and the only thing he can do to cease having an arrest warrant out for him is turning himself in by returning to Sweden and surrendering to the police. By not doing so, he is fleeing from Swedish justice, he is a fugitive from Swedish justice, no matter what his status is in other countries. Jeannedeba (talk) 15:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Per SV and tmorton166, we err on the side of caution in areas like this. Your opinion, while valid, isn't admissible in this discussion, which needs to examine what sources say. It wouldn't be proper even if it wasn't a BLP to mention the current charges in the lede either. --John (talk) 06:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"Your opinion, while valid, isn't admissible in this discussion" How very odd! I didn't realize that I was expressing an opinion per se, rather I thought I was merely asking a question based on what had been inserted in the article, you know, that whole continuity thing we strive for in articles. So tell me, what is my opinion on this? Feel free to base your answer on the first sentence of my previous comment. Hammersbach (talk) 07:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

When you said "This clearly implies that Assange is actively avoiding the arrest warrant by his refusal to return to Sweden, which makes it hard for us to say that he is not a "fugitive", " you expressed your opinion. Your opinion is interesting (though I don't happen to agree with it) but ultimately to include this material we would need reliable sources who make the point you wish to make, and a consensus here to include it. Neither of those is apparent at present and thus we cannot include the material. Make sense? --John (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Right. And have already stated all the relevant facts in the article. Why not leave it up to the reader on whether the controversial label of "fugitive" is appropriate in this case? We've stated the facts, so there is no need for us to apply rhetorical labels. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not a rhetorical label, it's the category for people with his status. If you think it's merely a "rhetorical label", why don't you nominate the large number of existing categories for fugitives wanted by country and fugitives by charges for deletion? We can't have categories which are merely "rhetorical labels", can't we? In any event, I don't think we can decide that categories are "rhetorical" and dismiss their general validity on an article talk page and on a case-by-case basis.

He we have a guy who has a valid arrest warrant on charges of a serious crime issued

• by an EU member state generally considered to be one of the world's most advanced legal systems and societies
• and additionally an international arrest warrant issued through Interpol, which is only done for serious crimes
• who has said publicly that he refuses to return to Sweden, knowing that it's the only acceptable solution under Swedish law (i.e. he will remain fugitive from Swedish justice until he does)
• who lives "on the run" fearing being apprehended[34]
• who is described as a fugitive from Sweden by reliable sources[35]
• And still: Some people claim he's not a fugitive from Swedish justice, believe it or not, turning the world totally on its head.

Once again, it seems someone are trying to make an exception from the category system just for Julian Assange, and I ask myself why?

If you do nominate the fugitive categories for deletion, it's worthwhile to remember that: Fugitive is described as "fleeing arrest"[36], "a person who is fleeing, from prosecution"[37], "fugitives from justice (= they ran away to avoid being tried in court)."[38]. Having found a safe haven doesn't change the fact that one is fleeing arrest by another country.

And moreover, the specific term "fugitive from justice", which is the relevant term here, is defined as: "a person convicted or accused of a crime who hides from law enforcement in the state or flees across state lines to avoid arrest or punishment"[39]. Assange is fleeing from Swedish justice, fugitive from Swedish justice as he currently taking refuge in a different country. Jeannedeba (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

All I see is a bunch of nonsense. Do you have a reliable source that says that he fled Sweden to avoid being prosecuted? Do you have a reliable source, except for the brief, almost non-mention in the source above, that describes him as a fugitive? The article describing him as "on the run" is well before the arrest warrant was issued. You are grabbing at straws where there are none. Nymf _hideliho! 16:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

All I see is a bunch of nonsense from you and a total disregard for sources, English language, neutrality and the category system. Jeannedeba (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

How suave. Now, can you answer my questions? Nymf _hideliho! 16:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

No. Your questions are not real questions. I refer to my above comment (15:42, 24 November 2010). -- Jeannedeba (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

In the case of pejorative terms it is not really for us to apply them. But in that comment you reference "reliable sources" but then only provide one (which isn't a particularly strong one in itself). It is a valid question to ask what the other ones are --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

No, because it's a rhetorical question and hair-splitting. And as a matter of fact, yes, there are secondary sources that use that specific wording ("In September he fled Sweden, where he faced charges of rape and molestation."[40]). But I don't consider them important. The important sources are the ones that deal with his arrest warrant, his refusal to return to Sweden, which makes him a fugitive wanted by Sweden as far as these categories are concerned/used. Whether the word "fugitive" is used by many or few sources is immaterial, and again, I suggest the categories are renamed if some consider that word a problem (although the above dictionaries don't). I haven't seen a single dictionary that claims it's a pejorative term (on the contrary some dictionaries used positive examples such a "fugitive from a dictatorial regime"[41]), so please show us your sources for that claim. As shown above, the term fugitive from justice is used as the standard term for someone taking refuge in a different country in order to avoid arrest in another country. Jeannedeba (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you noticed, but the "source" that you provided is the opinion of a contributing writer only. I could just as well send in an article to be published. So I repeat, you still have not provided a single reliable source that shows Assange fleeing to avoid arrest. On the contrary, actually, as Assange deliberately stayed in Sweden for a considerable amount of time when the allegations were first brought up. Assange has a job, though, that requires him to travel all over the world. He can't drop all that for the possibility that he might be charged with something. Nymf _hideliho! 17:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

He wasn't required to, either. But he was required to when the police told him that they needed to question him and told him to return to Sweden. As he refused to return to Sweden voluntarily, he was "arrested in his absence", and a Schengen and an Interpol arrest warrant was issued. Fleeing from justice=not surrendering to the police when an arrest warrant is issued. Jeannedeba (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

He has agreed to be interrogated while in the UK, so I don't follow your train of thought. Nymf _hideliho! 18:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

And he was told by the prosecutor that it was not an option because it's not permissible under Swedish law and that he was required to return to Sweden to be interrogated. He refused, and then he was arrested in his absence and two days later the Interpol arrest warrant was issued, as anyone who reads the papers are aware. Of course, he may have thought that his "celebrity status" or his habit of loudly claiming the CIA is behind everything would protect him from the law or that rape wasn't such a serious charge (on the level of shoplifting?), and he may have been genuinely surprised when he found himself on Interpol's wanted list. Jeannedeba (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As mentioned; the ABC Australia article isn't overly compelling as a source for using the term (due to the context and the way it is used as a rhetorical device). The NYTimes stuff is entirely unrelated to this; how he lives his life is irrelevant, in fact if he is simply living the same life he did before that sort of counts against your point ;) Anyway; it is synthy and certainly OR to collate those two sources in such a way. If we have some HQRS who discuss him as a fugitive then please - but as it is this is merely days after the warrant issue that seems unlikely. The crusade to get the word in started very quickly and is becoming tiresome; BLPCAT exists for this very reason. Also; quit rolling out the tired old line that we are doing this because of that Twitter status or because we like him. You must stop this now or I will push it to one of the civility boards. I won't detail my personal feelings for the guy (suffice to say; not a personal fan) but having that pushed as a counter argument is annoying and distracting. This is the last friendly warning I'm willing to give. m'kay? BTW your first argument in the above reply is a non sequitor and so not really relevant. To set that argument to rest anyway - I think people will probably be looking into the fugitives category sometime in the near future; I went through just now and have a "hit list" to take to the BLP/N. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

As a side note to this, is it worth noting that an Interpol "Red Notice" is not an arrest warrant? It's the closest thing Interpol can issue to one, but really all it is is a memo to police forces of member States that they may like to issue arrest warrants themselves, or enforce a foreign arrest warrant (depending on the status of foreign warrants under domestic law). Not sure whether this is important or not, so I thought I'd raise it as an issue [bit of a wikinovice :-)]Chrislaing (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead section

I definitely think we need to discuss the lead section again. Several editors have called for the inclusion of the arrest warrant and related controversy in the lead section. Assange only became known to a wider audience this autumn in connection with this controversy (I didn't even know who he was before). According to Google News Archive[42], the vast majority of the press coverage mentioning this person is from 2010 and it's reasonable to believe most of it is related to the ongoing controversy. In my opinion, this controversy deserves to be mentioned in the lead section, since he's primarily mentioned in the press in connection with it. Jeannedeba (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not really a conclusion that you can draw. Most of the press (and why people are talking about the charges to begin with) are because of the Baghdad airstrike video, Afghan War Diary and Iraq War documents leak; the latter being the biggest leak in military history of the United States. Nymf _hideliho! 22:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Even if a significant portion of the press coverage stems from these incidents, there will still be a very significant portion of it that stems from the incident in Sweden. Also, the latter focuses more on his person, making it at least one of his primary claims to fame (along with his activism). Most people who act as spokespeople/whatever for websites never become subjects of Interpol arrest warrants. Jeannedeba (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

This might be of interest to you. July, that's a month before the incident in Sweden. And even in August, about 60% of the coverage is before the incident. So as you probably can tell, the majority of the coverage is not related to the incident in Sweden at all. Nymf _hideliho! 23:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely his arrest warrant and related controversy should be included in the lead; the lead section of an article, according to the Manual of Style, should summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. Quigley (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur that this information can and should be included in the lede. I had twice restored this information to the lede after it had been deleted, by two different editors, for what they stated were violations of policy, although what exactly these violations might have been was left unexplained despite my specific request that an explanation be given on the talk page. Anyway, an event that finds its way on to the pages of newspapers around the world generally passes the notability test. Regardless of how this turns out, this event will be a permanent part of Assange’s legacy. Hammersbach (talk) 01:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I too think it should be covered, briefly, in the lede. No more than one sentence. Gigs (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:iLEAD, it should be mentioned; it's a significant controversy and there's a great deal of coverage about it. We currently don't even have a subhead that accurately describes it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Based on this discussion I added a single sentence of Assange's current difficulties to the lede. Looking at it though I don't know whether it is necessary to list all the charges against him, perhaps something simplier like "sexual related offences"? Hammersbach (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fine the way you expressed it, HB. Best to stick closely to the sources in a situation like this, and that's how they describe it. I think we should also add something to the lead about his work with Wikileaks, though, to flesh it out a bit more. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

< just fwiw I don't agree that the rape charges are appropriate in the lead - I feel they fall foul of 'undue weight' - in short, whilst they answer the question 'what's going on with Julian Assange at the moment?' quite well, they aren't so good at 'give me an overview of Julian Assange', which I think we should be aiming for. Privatemusings (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)I'd be cool with them in the body of the article, I think

Our policy on undue weight requires us to weight articles in proportion to the amount of secondary source coverage. Assange has unquestionably drawn a huge amount of coverage regarding these rape charges, so it's entirely appropriate for his article to have a section on them, and for them to be briefly summarized in the lede. A hazard of being someone who normally eschews the spotlight is that you might not have a whole lot of positive coverage out there when something negative gets a large amount of coverage. Gigs (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe this is a case of an awful lot of coverage on a specific, (very) narrow issue. The spread of coverage is to be expected, however doesn't, in my view, speak to the 'width', or importance, of the issue to the article. I feel that for this information to be mentioned in the lead is synonymous with an assertion that it is in some way as weighty as JA's involvement with WikiLeaks, or indeed as important as the rest of the overview. It's not, and that's why I continue to believe that the lead falls foul of 'undue weight' and could be improved. Cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

ps. I removed the 'fugitive' bit because, per my edit summary, I feel it's pejorative, and an inappropraite synthesis of information - per the above, it's also unnecessary. Privatemusings (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I see I've been reverted by an IP address - perhaps that's someone here who's accidentally logged out? - Either ways, I disagree with the edit summary stated. 'Fugitive' is not simply an english word, it is, I'm afraid, far from neutral. I will sit and wait for a while to see if the IP has a chance to engage here - I'm minded to re-do my edit. Privatemusings (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Labeling Assange as a "fugitive" is absurd, but I'm afraid Assange has attracted too much attention for a rational treatment to occur here. When this first blew up I read a bit about the background somewhere, and it is also absurd to conflate this case with what people understand by "rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion". Again, we'll have to wait for the dust to settle (a year or two?). Johnuniq (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ouch, no. Massively undue! The whole lead needs expanding under WP:LEAD BUT just adding that paragraph is extremely undue - it is worth reading this advice for the reason it is a BLP issue. Do not simply re-add it without significant consensus. I would support a fuller addition to the lead summarising the whole article, which could then deal with this in a sentence with ease. The whole section is suffering from exceptional recent ism, which is, as before, disappointing. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The lead is specifically supposed to include significant controversies. If you think other parts of the lead need expansion, then expand them, don't remove stuff that belongs there. Gigs (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

“I would support a fuller addition to the lead summarising the whole article, which could then deal with this in a sentence with ease.” May I join the suggestion, Errant, that you perhaps draft a version of what you feel would be an acceptable “fuller addition”? Your expertise in WP:BLP issues would help us all in creating an appropriate lede. I look forward to reading your proposal, cheers! Hammersbach (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the onus is on those adding controversial content to get it right. I will expand the lead - but have no time till this evening. However, if you want to add it back in the meantime I encourage you to do the expansion --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The content was "right" in that it is factually correct, relevant, and not excessively long. Gigs (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Just for future reference that doesn't really matter - the point it was shoved there on its own and so became an issue. It's moot now because I (and others) have expanded the lead. It's a bit rough and ready but a reasonable start point I think. Probably needs work on the detail. However; I do not think we need to list all the charges in the lead, that is covered in the article and it seems a bit pointy to list them again so prominently. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It is completely inappropriate for the lead. Charges on their own without a conviction are not a notable controversy. It's only notable if Assange is actually guilty of something. If he is pronounced "not guilty" of sex crimes it will not be worthy of going in the lead, so why is it worthy of going in the lead when it has not even gone to court, meaning absolutely no evidence has been presented? Please find a single featured article, or even just a good article, where mere charges are included in the lead. I will bet there is not a single such featured article on Wikipedia. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I disagree on that; there is an outstanding arrest warrant and this is recently notable and ongoing, and has been for some time now. I disagree with how it was presented, but it definitely deserves to be dealt with (perhaps with a single line?). The aim of the lead is to summarize the biography in a hands off way as best possible; ideally for an article of this length we would expect about four paragraphs. The rest of your argument is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 00:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The essay you point to says "Sometimes these comparisons are invalid, and sometimes they are valid". Can you explain why such charges without conviction should be mentioned not only in the article but also in the lead, when the sexual harassment charges against Al Gore do not appear anywhere in his article? To include them in the article would be bad enough. To put it in the lead would be outrageous. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Our policy on undue weight says that our coverage should roughly mirror the weight of coverage in reliable sources. Since Al Gore has massive coverage for things other than those charges, it merits much less prominence in his article. Assange has drawn a large amount of coverage for these charges in proportion to all the other coverage that he's ever gotten, so it should weigh more prominently in his article. It may not seem right or fair, but that's the way our policy is structured. Gigs (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't really think it's true that "Assange has drawn a large amount of coverage for these charges in proportion to all the other coverage that he's ever gotten". I think that's a perfect example of WP:RECENTISM. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue only began on the 20th of August this year. Assange recieved a huge amount of media attention in the six months prior to that, and a significant amount even earlier, but those sources receive comparatively little coverage in this article, compared to the currently huge section on Assange's charges. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right that the article should give more weight to the extent he was involved in the helicopter video and the wikileaks releases. We shouldn't overlap too much with the main article on Wikileaks though, it needs to be the material directly relevant to Assange's involvement. So expand those parts, don't remove the other parts which unquestionably deserve a prominent role in his article. Gigs (talk) 02:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I still don't think it "unquestionably" deserves a "prominent role". Charges can be brought against anyone with no real basis. It doesn't mean anything valuable until there is a conviction. I still think it's tabloid journalism, and it should not be repeated by an encyclopaedia. But I haven't removed any of the material from the article, just from the lead. I think the lead is more than large enough already for an article this short. Gregcaletta (talk) 02:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The arrest warrant should definitely be in the lead, along with the reason, per LEAD. The coverage of it is so widespread it looks very odd for us to tuck it away. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

No it looks very odd for us to include it the lead, considering that no other biographies articles include such charges without conviction in the lead, and many articles don't include such charges at all such as the Al Gore article. However, if we are going to mention it then, we would have to word it showing both sides by saying something like this:

In August, a Swedish prosecutor brought sexual assault charges against Assange but the charges were withdrawn the following day. In November, the charges were reissued by a new prosecutor and the charges were followed by an international warrant for his arrest. Assange has denied the allegation and Swedish lawyer representing Assange said that the evidence against Assange was "very meager. It's not enough to get him convicted for crime".

But I don't think we should mention it at all. It's merely tabloid style journalism to do so. Gregcaletta (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps if VP Dick Cheney is indicted, charged, "Red Alert" through Interpol with regards to conspiracy to commit bribery in Nigeria you all can take that for a lead on how to work this out, no? Emyth (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No, not really. If you think there is a problem at Cheney's page you should raise your concerns there. Same counts the other way around of course.TMCk (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Uhm, the part about him being wanted because a condom broke during sex is obviously BS. That unprotected sex between two consenting adults is illegal in Sweden is a claim that simply doesn't hold water - where would the swedish children come from? If that part shouldn't be removed it should, at least, be followed by better sources (a reference to the relevant part of the swedish penal code might be the way to go?). Anyway, referencing two american newspapers, who themselves supplies no hard evidence for their claims, is simply too sloppy in regards to establishing a correct representation of A: What Assange is being charged with B: What is and isn't legal in Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.89.60.53 (talk) 05:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)