Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:18, 19 October 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Julian Assange article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Australia Mid‑importance Julian Assange is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Julian Assange article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Fugitive

Swedish police issued an arrest warrant yesterday, but apparently he has not been caught yet. As such, he is a fugitive and belongs in the categories Fugitives wanted on sex crime charges and Fugitives wanted by Sweden. Jeannedeba (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, no. A fugitive is someone on the run from the police. Assange has or intends to turn himself in. Nymf _hideliho! 15:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

He hasn't turned himself in yet. He remains a fugitive until he does. (He would have had plenty of time to do it by now). Jeannedeba (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

No, a fugitive is someone on the run - someone fleeing. Not having turned himself in is something completely different. Nymf _hideliho! 15:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur that we should not refer to Julian as a fugitive until there is some indication that he is actually avoiding the long arm of Johnny Law. Hammersbach (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you point to any credible source that is calling him a fugitive? Or are you just inventing it to suit your agenda? Jebba (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The charges were already dropped as false. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE67K08R20100821 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.132.80 (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The charges weren't dropped, only the rape charge, apparently. Jeannedeba (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually in point of fact there were never any charges because he was not arrested. :) There was an arrest warrant for the rape allegation which has been dropped. There appears to be a remaining allegation of molestation but, again, this is not a charge and is simply an investigation into the allegation. --Errant Tmorton166 19:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect, he was charged by the prosecutor and arrested in his absence. Jeannedeba (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Be sure not to forget the false translation, since what you call a "molestation charge" is something entirely different in Sweden. More like slight harrassment. And even for that Julian has not been charged as of yet. They have not even spoken to him about the charge. 82.168.66.131 (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

This properly referenced source keeps getting removed, and yet the unfounded smear against Assange's alleged victims (the 'source' is one blog in the US), remains. I this what Misplaced Pages has come to?

“Two women, both volunteers at Wikileaks, put accusations to the police according to police statements which are available to Swedish and other media. (Details of sexual acts were blanked from the documents, apart from the key facts relating directly to the allegations). ‘Woman A’ claimed that the sex itself was consensual. However, a condom Assange used split. Woman A suspected that he had deliberately split the condom. ‘Woman B’, who claims to have had sex with Assange two days later, claimed that the first sexual intercourse was consensual, and she had insisted that Assange wear a condom. He did this on the evening of their first sexual encounter. However, in the morning Assange insisted, according to the allegation, that he should not use a condom, despite the protests of Woman B. At first, Woman B said nothing to the police, but did worry about pregnancy and STDs. However, when Woman B learnt about Assange's sexual encounter with Woman A and the split condom, from Woman A herself, they both made a joint approach to the police.”

1. 29 August 2010

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmond Black (talk • contribs) 13:01, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Looks like all sexual charges have been dropped

Even the one on sexual molestation, as of yesterday; however, there is a new molestation one (which has nothing to do with sex - the Swedish term "ofredande" is not quite synonymous with the English term), over him supposedly staying at the house of a woman for one day more when she asked him to leave. See Aftonbladet. Nymf _hideliho! 06:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• how is "snoring" pa svenska? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The rape case has been reopened hope this helps, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cymbelmineer (talk • contribs) 17:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

WP:NOTNEWS

Just a reminder that Misplaced Pages is not a tabloid newspaper. In cases of any doubt, we should remove any negative material that violates WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE or WP:BLP. --John (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hypocracy

It just difficult to imagine how the rape investigation is covered on this article in brilliant detail, but the same exact type investigation is left out of other articles, with a vengence. Picture me just sitting back and shaking my head and wondering why. Either it needs to removed here, on the same arguments it was left out there, or it needs to added there, using the same arguments to keep it here. But I digress--Jojhutton (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm 100% for removing it. Sadly the POV brigade have overruled BLP consensus. In a few months either he will be convicted or I will bring a hammer down on it. Till then I'm just grumpy :) --Errant 21:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Convicted for what? Staying over at a girl's place while they had a verbal argument and he would not leave immediately when she asked him to? Come on. This entire thing is ludicrously blown out of proportions by 'the press'. Firstly because nobody seems to be able to translate swedish correctly, and secondly because nobody seems aware of the amount of gossipy press competition ego's Sweden is loaded with. 82.168.66.131 (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

He's not going to be convicted. There's no evidence. It's clearly part of smear campaign. I support removing it, and we seem to have a pretty good consensus on this. If he actually got convicted of something, that would be worthy of being in the article. These allegations are not much better than gossip. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Is there a reason so many simple points have multiple refs after them? For example:

Like all others working for the site, Assange is an unpaid volunteer.

1. Cite error: The named reference leakonomy was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. WikiLeaks:Advisory Board – Julian Assange, investigative journalist, programmer and activist (short biography on the Wikileaks home page)
3. Harrell, Eben, (26 July 2010) 2-Min. Bio WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange 26 July 2010 Time Magazine.
4. Rumored Manhunt for Wikileaks Founder and Arrest of Alleged Leaker of Video Showing Iraq Killings – video report by Democracy Now!
5. Adheesha Sarkar (10 August 2010). ""The People'S Spy"". Telegraphindia.com. Retrieved 22 August 2010.

I've started to remove them but wanted to check in case there's something I'm not thinking of. SlimVirgin 22:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a heavily controversial/disputed article, so the more reliable sources there are...the less likely editors figure content will be challenged/removed.Smallman12q (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Having multiple refs makes the point look insecure, as though a POV is being pushed. Either we have a good source that says this, or we don't, and if we do we should just use that one source—esp for something like this which depends on the word of Wikileaks. SlimVirgin 00:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Three refs should do, no? SPLETTE :] 08:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless there's contention one should do, even if that one is WikiLeaks. __meco (talk) 08:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Most of those references were erroneously moved around when a user rewrote parts of the article. See here what it looked like before that user started editing the article. Nymf _hideliho! 16:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Re: Assange contacting the White House

The 3 or 4 paragraphs are not only undue, but also a copyright violation, word by word. See this link. A sentence or two describing Schmitt's response is all that is needed. Nymf _hideliho! 16:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Translation

"splendide mendax" in Latin does not translate to nobly untruthful, but to magnificent liar. The first version is more of a romanticism, I think if that's the correct word. 72.199.100.223 (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Section "title" for section dealing with the Rape allegations/investigation/charges

Section title "Rape investigation" or "Rape allegation" or "Rape charges" and topic are notable, well ref'd and quite significant - and accurately surmises the section - a header summarizing section contents is quite standard. Topic is simply what it is.99.142.13.144 (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't need a separate title though, because it fits under the above title too, "legal difficulties". Gregcaletta (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, we are currently considering removing the section altogether. Actual convictions can be included in BLP, but mere investigations are not for legal reasons. It is very easy to bring false charges against someone as part of a smear campaign, and then later withdraw the charges. If he is ever actually convicted of something, it would be worthy of inclusion, but until then, having it in the article validates this unsubstantiated gossip. If you would like to respond, please see the argument above. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

And where is it, precisely, that 'we' are as you claim, "considering removing the section altogether"? I find nothing here on that topic. Is it on some back channel email list? 99.144.244.4 (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it's right here on this page under "Hypocracy". Gregcaletta (talk) 05:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record: strongly oppose POV/attack header :) --Errant 07:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow. "Convicted for what? ... Come on. This entire thing is ludicrously blown out of proportions..." ... "He's not going to be convicted. There's no evidence. It's clearly part of smear campaign" ... "same exact type investigation is left out of other articles, with a vengence."

You can't seriously be putting that conversation among Assange apologists (and those are textbook examples of non-neutral apologists making claims of unseen "evidence", 'other stuff exists', simple misdirection and classic rejection of the reality that neutral, secondary sources record the notability of this event) as the basis for your contention are you?

99.144.244.4 (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Australia articles
• Mid-importance Australia articles
• WikiProject Australia articles