Wikipedia

Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 7

< Talk:Julian Assange
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Xtempore in topic Julian Assange as a Journalist
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Claes Borgström

Latest comment: 13 years ago13 comments8 people in discussion

There has just been a discussion over Claes Borgström, a legal representative of the alleged victims of the supposed sexual assault, I think this came up before, but the article as it stood recently read "Claes Borgström", who represents the two women...". An edit changed this to read "Lawyer Claes Borgström, former Equality Ombudsman and current Social Democratic gender equality spokesperson who is representing the two women...". The editor, Victor Falk, says that this "is a statement of fact providing context", whereas I'm inclined to think it is putting undue weight on the political affiliations and past history of a legal representative, and tending to suggest that these may be somehow significant. As far as I'm aware, there is nothing to suggest that the Swedish legal system prevents people from choosing their own representatives as they see fit, and nor will these necessarily have any direct relevance for the proceedings. I feel that unless we can find external reliable sources which see this issue of significance, we should exclude details about minor participants in this, and confine our article to discussing the subject himself. I'd like to see what others think? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It's in that gray area about details, but I don't see an obvious political message. What's so politically weird or suggestive about the equality guy representing alleged rape/molestation victims? If anything, the title is just a little long. We should at least identify him as a lawyer. How about we drop the 'former Equality Ombudsman' but keep the 'Social Democratic gender equality spokesperson'. The rest of the info is available on his Wikipedia page. Ocaasi (talk) 06:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Presumably Borgström is representing the women as a lawyer, rather than as a 'gender equality spokesperson'? The reason I see this as perhaps contrary to NPOV is that Assange himself has claimed some sort of feminist conspiracy as being involved, and one might well see a 'gender equality spokesperson' as participating in this. Of course, this could actually be true, but we'd need reliable sources to suggest this first. In general, we only discuss the past, affiliations etc of minor participants in an article subject where they are of direct relevance, and I think that to do otherwise here is questionable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why any lawyers need to be named in this article at this point. aprock (talk) 07:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You may well be correct. I suspect that many of the names added have been cited to show 'support', rather than as their significance for the role they are playing. Maybe we should remove the lot? I think it would be wise to see what others think first though... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
The lawyers named at the end of the article are a leftover of previous edits that did not get cut out when the article was trimmed. Maybe someone from Sweden can comment, it seems to me that Claes Borgström is a very well known lawyer in Sweden, I would leave his name in the article, in the given context, without any further qualification than being a lawyer. I am actually not sure what the exact legal situation in Sweden is, whether the women have chosen him, or whether these are legal proceedings in a criminal case where a lawyer is appointed by the judicial system - possibly another question of cultural/legal/linguistic differences to which editors should pay attention. There is a Wikilink to the article on Borgström with information about his other functions. He was initially and wrongly labelled by Assange's lawyer/spokesperson Stephens as a "right wing government politician", but he is left wing, never held office, and his party is not in government. I seem to remember to have read in a reputable but unsuitable source (law blog) that both Borgström and Ny have been instrumental in shaping the present Swedish law on sexual crimes so this may well be relevant, is interesting for the reader but not suitable for the article, due to WP editing rules. KathaLu (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Very unlikely that Claes Borgström was selected by the Swedish judicial system for this. In Sweden, victims of crimes can get someone to assist them in the legal proceedings (paid for by the court), but that does not need to be a real trial lawyer like Borgström. Probably, Claes Borgström had been approached by the women bringing the complaint, and/or he may have volunteered. His first action was to appeal the decision of the prosecution to stop the investigation. For the women, he was a good choice. As you say, he is very knowledgeable in these laws. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
In Scandinavia, ombudsman is a top political office, equal in clout and prestige to a minister. walk victor falk talk 08:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Here we go again, what does "political" mean to the English reader? The office of an Ombudsman is politically neutral, so it is factually wrong to say that an Ombudsman is a politician. The British monarch also has a top political function but you don't call the Queen a politician. KathaLu (talk) 08:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
An ombudsman is not apolitical like a Governor General (to say nothing about a constitutional monarch). Perhaps comparable to a US Supreme Justice? I just tried to provide a rough and ready comparaison, Parliamentary Ombudsman provides more detail. walk victor falk talk 09:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Both Claes Borgström and Marianne Ny has had key roles in geting the revison of the law on sexual offences from 2005 in place. Clas B being a lawyer/politician/Civilservant(ombudsman) was a key person in demanding it, Marianne Ny a compentent lawyer in detailing the wordings and actually being one one the foremost legal expert knowing what the law actually says. So the two namne tells a lot for a Swede with insight, but as with most of these issues its significance will be lost for non-Swedes. There were a broad support for the changes in 2005 for brodening the demands for concent, but it has been hard to work with legally - how to prove what level of concent there were between two persons. So for a Swede the names points to the importence in this case of the law changes of 2005, including both the discussions beforehand and problems implementing it. Yger (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Think what people are hinting at (here and elsewhere) is that two politicly appointed lawyers are putting together a Test case (law) which requires the defendant to be held in custody and questioned before the exact charges can be formulated and then spelt out. There are however, no verifiable sources to this back this hypothesis up. Just that it appears to waddles like a duck etc, etc. --Aspro (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

All this is very interesting, but without some reliable secondary source (in English per WP:BLP, WP:NONENG), there appears to be no reason for listing the lawyers at this time. aprock (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Spiegel scandal

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I'm from Germany. In the 1960s the German magazine "Der Spiegel" has published an article about the German army with classified material. As a consequence the publisher Rudolf Augstein and some other people have been arrested by the police, the magazine was acccused of treason and the Spiegel office was occupied by the police. The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany decided, that it is legal to publish information like this in Germany.

I see some parallels to Julian Assanges arrestion.

I would like to insert a link to this Spiegel scandal which is very common here in Germany. Do you aggree? --Muggel78 (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, this is more similar to WikiLeaks than to Assange. But either way, you'd need to show that a reliable source connected the two. If you can find an article discussing their similarity, for example, in current Der Spiegel, then there might be room for a very small mention, but probably in another article. Ocaasi (talk) 10:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
The parallels are obvious if you are living in Germany. The Air Force is cencsoring magazines and newspapers like "The Guardian", "Le Monde", "New York Times" and "Der Spiegel" for their people. Some American politicans say, that Assange is a traitor (and should be executed). This is what Germany had in 1962, as politicans said that is was not right to publish confidential material.
I have 3 references. Unfortunately they are not in English, they are in German:
Reference 1: The Preamble of "Der Spiegel" (49/2010): http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-75476870.html
I will try to translate it into English: "What are journalists allowed to do, what is their criterion, where is the limit? Spectacular publications are triggering different sights: So it had been in the Spiegel-Affair 1962, in the case of Watergate 1972 and so is it again since SPIEGEL, the "New York Times" and "The Guardian" and "Le Monde" and "El Pais" are reporting on the correspondance between the superpower USA and their embassies."
Reference 2: A interview between SPIEGEL and the former embassador of Germany in the US: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,734909,00.html
"If such a leakage would have occured in Germany or some of our neighbour contries, we would also have a big debatte about the necessary reactions. Government and Parliament would rampage. Just think about the Spiegel-affair!"
Reference 3: A report in the German newspaper "Sueddeutsche Zeitung", a big newspaper from Munich: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/medien/enthuellungen-und-ethik-wikileaks-und-die-systemfrage-1.1034936
"Here are the older people, also the older journalists, which see a radical call for transparence sceptical. On the other side the younger people, which are bristle at the WikiLeaks-persecution in a similar way as the old people about the Spiegel-Affair 1962." --Muggel78 (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Not in this article, nothing to do with this living person at all. Perhaps the wikileaks article or an article about changing views of society and censorship but not here. Off2riorob (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Muggel, there are no parallels between Assange's arrest and the arrests in the Spiegel case. Assange was arrested for a short time because he is wanted for an extradition in a case that is not connected to his professional activity and he did not give a fixed address in the UK. Spiegel journalists were arrested because of their reporting on the German army, and accusations of treason were made. Assange may be arrested and accused of treason one day, maybe not. It has not happened. KathaLu (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Extra Digit?

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I have read in many places that Assange has an extra digit on one of his hands. Sources differ as to which hand and I have never seen any pictures of his hands. Can anyone confirm this story? 155.136.80.37 (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you got a search engine to look for reliable sources on your computer? Off2riorob (talk) 14:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Assange's hands. Troll? Nymf hideliho! 14:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Talk page trolling. Off2riorob (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Publisher/Journalist/bibliography list?

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Does anyone think there is a need to add such a list? I am not sure if he has written books (apart from the one just announced) but I actually found one article he wrote 4 years ago [1]. This led me to see that he wrote another article for the same organization which is already referenced here [2] although the reference actually doesn't address the article but the little "who is he" blurb at the bottom of said article. I would imagine he has written more? If such would these be notable enough to be added as a list of publications at the bottom? I am not sure at the guidelines regarding this but I will try and find cases where I have seen this in other wiki articles about journalists and hence how I was reminded in this case. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Here are two examples I found on other Wiki articles: [3], [4] I saw many others but they were clear bibliographies of books that they have published.Calaka (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
In case it helps, I added {{Authority control}}, the English equivalent of the German Normdaten template. That links to a few external databases, but nothing that shows more than the "Underground : tales of hacking" book. There is also this toolserver report. -84user (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Well that was quickly reverted with the edit summary "primary". I have added such templates to other biographies without problem. Could someone explain to me what the problem was? -84user (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
You yourself said it added nothing. If there is anything worthwhile in that link then please add it to the article body. Off2riorob (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
As far as his writings and such like, imo they are not extensive enough to warrant their own section. His book upcoming is already mentioned. Off2riorob (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Political Views

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The article does not say very much about Assange's political views. What aspects of this should be covered?--Nowa (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

He's been described as a bit of a technoanarchist. He disputes the anarchist component as asserts that he merely believes in fully-informed democracy with institutions, and even with secrets (though I'm not sure which). He believes in competition with transparency. Strongly against abuses of power. Skeptical of wars waged by powers. Skeptical of power in general but not categorically opposed to it. We'd need a few sources for all of this, but there have been some nice profiles in the news lately. Ocaasi (talk) 09:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd be wary of using any source but Assange himself for this: you can't really cite someone else for his opinions. If he has stated his politics relatively clearly and concisely, maybe it might merit a sentence or two. First, we need a source though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I hope I am doing this right by editing the comment here.

Anyway, AlJazeera interviewed Julian Assange where he clarifies just that. He mentions that he is not opposed to governements and organization having secrets but the problem being when they become corrupt and try to hide unlawful and unethical behaviour, thats what where he opposes secrecy and sees a need for whistleblowers. He also clearly denies being an anarchist and mentions the need for governement and hirarchical structures in governement and organizations/institutions but the need for transparency where democratic processes benefit from information and/or to uncover unethical behaviour. Andythegrump, there is a source where J. Assange first hand is heard explaining just that- Source: http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/frostovertheworld/2010/12/201012228384924314.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.148.172 (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Autodidact/self-taught journalist

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I'm not too crazy about this new 'autodidact' business. For those who haven't scoured SAT vocab guides, it means 'self-taught'. I don't see how it's relevant, really; we don't care if New York Times writers went to journalism school or just figured it out by themselves. I'd like to take it out and just leave 'journalist', if there's no objection. Ocaasi (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You have a point. A university degree in journalism is not important, but has he really been employed as journalist, or in any other way worked professionally as journalist before wikileaks? Ok, he was awarded as journalist for his work with wikileaks, which could be helpful for him from legal point of view. Mange01 (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
He is widely citable as a journalist, the issue of how it may help or hinder him is not important to us as wiki editors. Where is this autodidact claim coming from? Thank goodness it has gone, at least that saves me googling it to see what it means. I still think his intro is a bit undue, we currently have ... is an Australian publisher,[4][5] journalist,[6][7][8] software developer and Internet activist. He is the spokesperson and editor in chief for WikiLeaks ..... to me he is clearly most well known as editor in chief of wikileaks and I would put that first ..as a journalist .. who has he worked for as a journo? I don't think he can claim to be a journalist as most people would understand one. Publisher is covered by editor in chief of wikileaks and I personally wouldn't describe him as a software developer from what little software he has developed, looks more like a little code work to me. Internet activist is what he is doing as editor in chief of wikileaks so that is already clear, All in all , the current primary definition seems a bit undue imo and considering the article and reports I have read and seen. Off2riorob (talk) 13:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Ocaasi. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Death threats

Latest comment: 13 years ago44 comments7 people in discussion

A very nicely formatted table has been added which adds anyone who every called for Assange's head on a platter. Problem is, this deserves one very short paragraph at best: Assange's activities have been described as terrorism by some in the media and several figures, including A, B, and C, have gone so far as to call for his execution. Done. That table is going to have to go, sadly, for the work that went into it. Ocaasi (talk) 12:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It was totally undue weight and excessive reporting. Easily covered by a single sentence. After the release of the American diplomatic messages there were politically outspoken calls for Assanges imprisonment and even a couple of comments that he should be classed as a terrorist and killed. Off2riorob (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. It's noteworthy that current and former government officials are trying to paint him as a terrorist, and you have to name names and quote people to avoid implicating people who HAVEN'T done this. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
That thinking doesn't quite hold up. We haven't implicated all politicians just because we don't specifically name every one. If that were the case, this encyclopedia would be a nightmare of lists. Your first point, that the general statements are notable, is true. But we do not have to name all names, and there's no risk of implication, so long as we don't say all politicians. Ocaasi (talk) 13:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
How do you propose wording that to show some have called him a terrorist and some have called for his assassination? ...Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you'll get an answer to the first part of what you said (I've moved the 2nd part below).
If Assange had made very public death threats against Sarah Palin and Mitch McConnell and Newt Gingrich (along with Jeffrey Kuhner, Eric Bolling, Bob Beckel, Ralph Peters, Rush Limbaugh, William Kristol, Thomas Flanagan and Gordon Liddy) then his biography would be full of them, perhaps a paragraph each in a large section. No matter if the threats were ridiculously unlikely to lead to anything. However, Assange has been labelled a public enemy so threats against him (no matter that they could very well be direct precursors to his death or indefinite incarceration) are listcruft trivia and can be instantly swept away by unanimous consent.
Somewhat like the business of Paul Bethune - both are national hate figures (Bethune of the Japanese and a "judicial" system of 99% convictions) therefore the actual or threatened abuse of them must be treated as irrelevant - while their jerking, involuntary movements while slowly twisting on the wire of psychological torture will be paraded to discredit them.
I was the author of that new section we're attempting to discuss "Death threats on Assange" and I'd defend it anywhere as being vital to the biography. Templar98 (talk) 12:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC) =Banned User
Maybe the fact that there have been calls for Assange to be killed might merit a sentence or two in the article, but as it stands, this section is hopelessly overlong. This article is about Assange, not about loud-mouthed politicians etc playing to the gallery. Why should we give them more publicity than they deserve? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree, Rob's point about it already being covered by a single sentence is pertinent. I think Templar98 thinks we are attempting to censor these details from the article, but per WP:WEIGHT they do not deserve to recieve the detail of coverage that the section added goes in to. SmartSE (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I reverted your recent addition, though it's going in the right direction. It's in the wrong section, partly (afghanistan wasn't part of cablegate), and the only relevant part for this article specifically involve Assange, not WikiLeaks. Aim for one paragraph, and we'll see if it fits better here or at WikiLeaks. Ocaasi (talk) 13:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
From WP:TEND: "There is no rule on Wikipedia that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article. Such a rule would clearly contradict Wikipedia:Be bold. There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption.[1] Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information." Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Arbcom, schmarbcom. Let's keep the focus on content. The content you added involves a) afghan war log responses; b) cablegate responses; c) terrorist accusations; d) death threats. You put all of that content under a sub-heading of US Cable Leaks at the Julian Assange article. That means: 'a' does not belong; 'b' also does not belong, because responses to cablegate should be on the Cablegate page not the Julian Assange page; and, 'c' and 'd' can be combined into a single, short paragraph, as I suggested above. Verifiability (sourcing) is the threshold for inclusion; but that's just where we start from. Then we have to write balanced, focused prose. It's getting closer. Fewer threats and more focus, if you don't mind. Ocaasi (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

A question. Was this 'new' section copied from an earlier version of the article, or from somewhere else? Much of the phrasing seems to match exactly that found on other websites, though they look like mirrors or paste-jobs (without attribution by the look of it sometimes at least). If this is from an earlier version, it should have been restored properly to maintain the edit history, and if it is from somewhere else, we may have real problems... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of it being from a prior section, nor does it seem overly plagiarized. By the time we're done editing it should be sufficiently transformed anyway. Ocaasi (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
To address your concerns, I moved it to a subsection of the Wikileaks section. However, the entire section was deleted by another editor who has not been taking part in this discussion, for no apparent reason other than to keep this material out of the article. But it has been widely reported that Assange has been accused of having "blood on his hands", of terrorism, and that threats have been made against him. This seems very noteworthy, considering the people who are making these accusations and threats. That being the case, I am going to restore the deleted section. If someone wants to make changes to the material, feel free to edit it, or if you have a specific problem with something being inaccurate or not supported by the sources, let's discuss it, but removing the ENTIRE section completely is clearly not NPOV. From WP:NPOV "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I won't restate everything that has already been said above, but the content was clearly not neutral, concise, or overly relevant to list every person who has made threats or comments about him and his actions.--Terrillja talk 20:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be an unreasonable insistence on making this article harmful to the subject. All possible material that may end up counting against Assange is included while not making it clear that other accusations have already turned out to be baseless. An innocent man deserves better. Templar98 (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC) =Banned User
Huh? If anything, including info about claims that his work/organisation has harmed people makes him seem worse. Perhaps you need to rethink that argument?--Terrillja talk 22:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Or perhaps, mentioning the widely reported hysterical over-reaction of the U.S. government and media, to the point of trying to whip up and justify the lynching of Assange, actually backfired and turned out to be not only extremely embarrassing, but also very counter-productive to having him extradited from Sweden. So this material must be suppressed to make the authorities in the U.S. appear to be saner and more rational than they actually are. But it is a matter of public record, widely reported by the media, and its definitely notable in a biography of Assange that the U.S. government is trying to portray him as a terrorist with blood on his hands, and that assassination threats are being made against him. There is NO REASON to totally expunge this well-reference, notable and neutral material entirely from the article. I hear people saying it is overplayed, but instead of trimming it, it is being completely deleted time and time again. Actions speak louder than words when determining motives. This is not NPOV! Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I think you would be well advised to redact those remarks, Ghostofnemo. Please discuss the article content rather than the motivations of editors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Ghsotofnemo, in this very prominent and controversial article, contentious additions will be more easily worked out on the talk page. Propose the text you want to include in the next sub-section, and we'll discuss how to edit it, and see if it fits. And yes, please keep the focus on content not editor motivations; it makes the place miserable. Ocaasi (talk) 05:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing controversial or contentious about this material, which has been COMPLETELY DELETED, not trimmed or edited, about four times now. It's reliably sourced, notable, widely discussed in the press, and neutrally worded. There is no excuse to completely delete this material. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, lets have another look at this content, there has been two or three differing additions, what are you proposing to add? I think we should have a mention of the ones where the person giving death threats and suchlike was officially reported, I think that gives them note. I don't think we need a huge addition though as basically imo the comments are more about the person making the threat than they are about Assange. Off2riorob (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

here's the most recently added version
Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mike Mullen, said that "Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing, but the truth is, they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family." Assange denies this has happened, and responded by saying, "...it’s really quite fantastic that [Robert] Gates and Mullen...who have ordered assassinations every day, are trying to bring people on board to look at a speculative understanding of whether we might have blood on our hands. These two men arguably are wading in the blood from those wars."[91]

A number of commentators, including current and former US government officials, have accused Assange of terrorism. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell has called Assange "a high-tech terrorist".[92] Former US House speaker Newt Gingrich, has been quoted as saying, "Information terrorism, which leads to people getting killed, is terrorism, and Julian Assange is engaged in terrorism. He should be treated as an enemy combatant."[93] Within the media, an editorial in the Washington Times by Jeffrey T. Kuhner said Assange should be treated "the same way as other high-value terrorist targets";[94][95] Fox News' National Security Analyst and host "K.T." McFarland has called Assange a terrorist, WikiLeaks "a terrorist organization" and has called for Bradley Manning's execution if he is found guilty of making the leaks;[96] and former Nixon aide and talk radio host G. Gordon Liddy has reportedly suggested that Assange's name be added to the "kill list" of terrorists who can be assassinated without a trial.[97]

Tom Flanagan, former campaign manager for Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, commented in November 2010 that he thought Julian Assange should be assassinated. A complaint has been filed against Flanagan, which states that Flanagan "counselled and/or incited the assassination of Julian Assange contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada," in his remarks on the CBC programme Power & Politics.[98] Flanagan has since apologised for the remarks made during the programme and claimed his intentions were never "to advocate or propose the assassination of Mr. Assange".[99]

Here's the proposal
Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mike Mullen, said that "Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing, but the truth is, they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family." Assange denies this and responded, "...it’s really quite fantastic that Robert Gates and Mullen...who have ordered assassinations every day, are trying to bring people on board to look at a speculative understanding of whether we might have blood on our hands. These two men arguably are wading in the blood from those wars."[1]
A number of political and media commentators, including current and former US government officials, have accused Assange of terrorism. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell called Assange "a high-tech terrorist", and said, "he has done enormous damage to our country. I think he needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law".[2] Former US House speaker Newt Gingrich said, "Information terrorism, which leads to people getting killed, is terrorism, and Julian Assange is engaged in terrorism. He should be treated as an enemy combatant."[3] Former Nixon aide and talk radio host G. Gordon Liddy said, "Julian Assange is a severe national security threat to the U.S., and that then leads to what to do about it," Liddy told WND. "This fellow Anwar al-Awlaki – a joint U.S. citizen hiding out in Yemen – is on a 'kill list' [for inciting terrorism against the U.S.]. Mr. Assange should be put on the same list."[4] Tom Flanagan, former campaign manager for Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, said he thought Julian Assange should be assassinated on the CBC programme Power & Politics.[5] Flanagan has since apologised for the remarks.[6]

In the right section, I think most of this is notable, though it could use a little reworking. I removed a small piece about Bradley Manning, which seems off-topic. Ocaasi (talk) 13:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC) I think the Flanagan piece is too long and should be part of a more general paragraph about calls for death. Ocaasi (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I would accept that, but I'd reword the K.T. McFarland part (who by the way, was "the deputy assistant secretary of defense for public affairs at the Pentagon from 1982 to 1985 under President Ronald Reagan and speech writer to Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger" according to her Wikipedia bio) to read "has called Assange a terrorist and Wikileaks a terrorist organization". Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The Fox news guy is trivial and liddy reportedly is of little note imo, but the rest looks definitely noteworty. A couple of the quotes need checking for accuracy in the citations and the brackets are incomplete. Democracy now is like a wiki virus link, totally opinionated Off2riorob (talk) 13:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I did some copy-edit/tightening of the prose, combined Flannigan into the second paragraph. Ocaasi (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

If anyone wants to check the quality and accuracy of the citations, here they are. Off2riorob (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

  • - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40517039/ns/politics/40516927
    • Article is not actually about Assange, brief mention of him. McConnell called Wikileaks founder Julian Assange “a high-tech terrorist. He has done enormous damage to our country. I think he needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law” - the addition regarding this comment has broken a cited comment, the whole cite should be included. Off2riorob (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Citing the entire comment is fine with me. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
done - Off2riorob (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • - [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=234905 http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=234905 ]
    • Liddy said - "Julian Assange is a severe national security threat to the U.S., and that then leads to what to do about it," Liddy told WND. "This fellow Anwar al-Awlaki – a joint U.S. citizen hiding out in Yemen – is on a 'kill list' [for inciting terrorism against the U.S.]. Mr. Assange should be put on the same list." - Liddy appears to comment quite extreme things pretty often, perhaps that could be mentioned, the outspoken or controversial radio host? Off2riorob (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Heat+Flanagan+inciting+murder+WikiLeaks+founder/3932545/story.html#ixzz19tSdoj4y

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange isn’t some well-meaning, anti-war protestor leaking documents in hopes of ending an unpopular war. He’s waging cyberwar on the United States and the global world order. Mr. Assange and his fellow hackers are terrorists and should be prosecuted as such. Off2riorob (talk) 14:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't know if you saw this above, but K.T. McFarland was "the deputy assistant secretary of defense for public affairs at the Pentagon from 1982 to 1985 under President Ronald Reagan and speech writer to Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger" according to her Wikipedia bio. She a Fox News commentator, so millions watch her broadcasts. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Thats cool, but is there any independant reporting of her comments? Off2riorob (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I've never seen an article edited on the discussion page! Why not be bold and add your proposed version, and we can go from there? Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I do think it is important if we are to quote somebody that we don't take a sliver of the content and remove the content in which it was said. Off2riorob (talk) 14:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Where would be a good place/section to put it? Off2riorob (talk) 14:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I boldly readded the deleted section, incorporating much of what has been proposed here. Feel free to make improvements. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Editing on talk pages is great for controversial articles. Nice work all around on this. I propose we move the two paragraphs to a new section in which the Praise and Awards would also go, and rename the overall section, 'Criticism and Praise' or somesuch. I'm not sure it makes sense to have a praise section all by itself when there has been such fill out of the entire spectrum of responses. Ocaasi (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Sound like a good plan. Off2riorob (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

non notable newspaper awards

Latest comment: 13 years ago33 comments10 people in discussion

This and that not notable newspaper polls of users and suchlike are worthless. As the actual award isn't notable there is no long term value at all. On the 24th of December, the french newspaper Le Monde named him person of the year - so what is notable about that? I s this le monde award noteworthy, no its not, who won this fantastic thing last year? the same goes for the other recent not notable promotional so called awards , and the Postmedia Network named him the top newsmaker for the year. So what? A worthless promotional award, in a week when I remove them again you will say, oh they seems notable at the time. If these so called valuable awards are worthy of addition then show me a secondary report about it? Only primary reports with no assertion of any note. John awarded harry the John award. cited to John.org Off2riorob (talk) 04:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can make value judgements like that, without at least debating them first. The article reads "In December 2010, Julian Assange was named the Readers' Choice for Time magazine's 2010 Person of the Year,[12] as well as runner-up for 2010 Person of the Year.[132] On the 24th of December, the french newspaper Le Monde named him person of the year[133]". I don't really think you can simply say that Time magazine is notable, but Le Monde isn't - you are talking about a major French newspaper, and we need to avoid the excessive US-centric perspective that has always seemed problematic to me with this article. Though such polls etc may be individually of only limited significance, there do seem to be a lot of them. I'm not saying they all need to be mentioned, but I think we need to include a few, just to illustrate a broader international perspective on the issue. I take your point about primary sourcing though - this should really be how we decide what to include. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I think you are conflating notability requirements for article creation with notability requirements for article content. un☯mi 04:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


When it comes to content, the specific policy that applies is WP:UNDUE, which is a close relative of WP:NOTABLE. aprock (talk) 08:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
The only notable award or nomination is the TIME Person of the Year nomination, which has been around since 1927 and is known worldwide, also in non-English speaking countries, but Assange was not nominated TIME Person of the Year 2010. Being TIME Person of the Year runner-up, TIME Reader's choice, Le Monde's choice or Postmedia's choice are minor nominations, probably all on the same level of notability (POV: I had never heard of any of these nominations until now). You may want to include a sample of such nominations to illustrate the world-wide impact of Wikileaks, which is now more closely associated with the person Assange than before. KathaLu (talk) 09:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
? I can't remember ever being in any UK College library or public library that did not have a subscription to Le Monde. Do you want to run that buy me again?--Aspro (talk) 22:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
TIME Person of the Year is a famous feature of TIME since 1927. It is described in detail in a separate section in the TIME article and has even its own article. That Le Monde selects a person of the year is not even mentioned in the English article. In the French article, it merely says that Le Monde selects a person of the year since 2009, and then names the two nominations so far. Le Monde did a tiny article on Assange when they nominated him, TIME I think does a large feature and puts the candidate on the cover page. I have no objections to the inclusion of such nominations. KathaLu (talk) 08:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
It is nowhere said that an award has to have its own article in Wikipedia in order to be mention in an article.walk victor falk talk 20:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that Le Monde's award isn't notable is anglophone bias. It's by far one of the largest and most well-known French newspapers. The Time runner-up and Time reader's choice both received significant external media coverage. --75.28.52.27 (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I am happy with however the majority of people decide to go with this. When I added them I just assumed they were in the same line of notability as the Time award (never knew that time had specific polls and editor picks for a specific person to be on the cover once a year until this year - but I guess that was just me!). Cheers!Calaka (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with AndyTheGrump's reasoning plus Le Monde is huge globally. Keep it in. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • There are lots of secondary reports that turn up when one googles Le Monde,Assange, and person of the year; I just reinserted the content and added an ABC News one for the Le Monde award. The Montreal Gazette is secondary for the Postmedia award as its not part of the postmedia network. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I see a SkyNews one; I'll add that as well. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I am afraid you seem mistaken in your claim about The_Montreal_Gazette please see there that they are in fact owned by postmedia. If there is no independent claim for that it should be removed again. Off2riorob (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • You are correct; I see it is part of Postmedia network. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The Daily Gleaner, owned by Brunswick News Inc. WikiLeaks founder named newsmaker of the yearwalk victor falk talk 23:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, but really, does it make it a notable award, imo - no. Off2riorob (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
It is not necessary for the awards to meet WP:GNG; these criterion are for writing articles about them. It is sufficient that a) the organisation is sufficiently reputable (leading news outfit, major human rights organisation) and b) confirmed by secondary sources (that not necessarily have to be included as references)walk victor falk talk 00:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Victor, the press write all sorts, an award should be a valued respected thing, just to have a primary report and a report of that report in some minor publication doesn't make it worthy of note. Off2riorob (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
No, the award does not have to be worth jack shit in itself. The reputation of the giver confers respectability.walk victor falk talk 00:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, its of no long term encyclopedic note at all if you ask me. As far as awards go, that one is irrelevant. Keep the strong - delete the weak, avoid adding content of little value as it distracts from the real worthy awards. Off2riorob (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Like Stalin said, "quantity has a quality all of its own". It is extremely unusual that an individual is awarded so many at once.walk victor falk talk 01:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, presently very very newsworthy, and the Le monde award has clearly been clarified as noteworty and I am happy for that, I always appreciate worthwhile additions that will have a long term lasting educational value, the others have yet to give me that same feeling. To be honest these others shouldn't even be called awards, they are just fluff really. An award is a valued thing. If there is an insistence to add such trivial claims the title of the section needs changing or we should integrate the content into the article body, as people have a high expectation of what is a worthwhile notable award. the one you have added doesn't meet those expectations by a long margin. Off2riorob (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, the term "TIME Readers' Choice for Person of the Year", widely used in the media, is somewhat misleading, as it was an online poll, you could participate even when you had never laid eyes on a TIME magazine in your life. But the poll result is certainly a measure of the interest for Assange amongst those who are active online and cast a vote in this poll. KathaLu (talk) 07:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
If it was open to non-Readers of Time, then you are absolutely correct; but maybe synthesis? What do we do when OR rules bang up against obvious reality? I think we should change the wording to Time's Online Poll Results: Assange "Person of the Year"Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
We may not use the same interpretation of OR or SYNTH, I would call it careful reading before writing and disseminating. I can't help starting to think when I read something that's odd. First, unlike other media, TIME never refers to "TIME readers" who chose Assange in their online poll, just "readers" in Assange being Readers' Choice. Secondly, it was Assange on first place (382,020 votes), Recep Tayyip Ergodan, Prime Minister of Turkey on second place (233,638) and Lady Gaga was third (146,378 votes). That's a suprising choice for the TIME target audience. Could it be that it had something to do with the fact that you could vote online and publish immediately to Twitter and Facebook? Thirdly, although the poll is now closed you can still see here HOW TO: Vote For Julian Paul Assange — TIME’s 2010 Person Of The Year [ONLINE]. This online poll is PR tool, TIME is not obliged to pick the online poll winner and they didn't. Nevertheless, 382,020 people cast thier vote for Assange (ok, maybe less people but that many votes were cast). KathaLu (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I assume you think the wording in the BLP should be changed. What do you suggest? I also thought the Turkey PM's support was odd and I especially think the Zukerberg choice seems really outdated, chickenshit (controversy fading rapidly) and asinine ( almost anybody was more important in 2010), but I don't run Time. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I personally would change the wording but I am not fussed about it. Wikileaks, and now Assange, had a huge impact, on the media, on readers, on people who are active online, and has been able to rally supporters from all quarters, and the BLP has to reflect it. KathaLu (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Another award was announced for Julian by a Romanian national newspaper (that according to Wikipedia is no longer functioning?) [5] (english: [6], although I also did a google translation of the first [7]). Looking to see if other references referenced the above article all I managed to find is non-english websites such as [8] and [9] although based on what I read above I will not add it. Unless of course more note about the award is to be found.Calaka (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The Romanian "honor award" is referenced here in English, and if you put it into the article it may well turn up in more English sources, given the multiplicator function of Wikipedia. KathaLu (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, there we are, the Romanian award has been reported by the following: CBS News,Sky News, USA Today KathaLu (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
roflmao; its too early in the morning for that one. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

external links

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Quite many external links were recently removed from the external links section, including:

  • Full coverage at The Guardian
  • Special report at Reuters
  • Video profile on SBS Dateline
  • "Meet the Aussie behind Wikileaks". Fairfax New Zealand. 8 July 2008.
  • "WikiLeaks editor on Apache combat video: No excuse for US killing civilians". RussiaToday. April 2010.
  • Julian Assange: Why the world needs WikiLeaks video at ted.com
  • Frost Over the World - Julian Assange David Frost interviews Julian Assange, December 22, 2010 (video: 24:00)

Off2riorob suggested that we "upload it to commons or add it to the article if its added value" instead. I see no reason why we should not keep at least the TED talk and the personal interviews. Above all, is uploading to commons really an (legal) option? --spitzl (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Its just repeated external link farm and ads nothing at all. Feel free to add anything that adds something to the body of the article or ask at commons if you are allowed to upload the media . Off2riorob (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Some of the links are profiles, interviews with Assange, or talks by him, they seem valid external links. un☯mi 05:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
The current references, starting with al-Jazeera and ending shortly thereafter at the Wayback Archive of Assange's own website make it obvious he's a villain.</sarcasm alert> Everyone knows that Assange plans to kill the Pope</sarcasm alert> - we only need signposts towards the dark places where the death threats are obviously hiding.</sarcasm alert> Templar98 (talk) 13:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC) =Banned User
We are here to write our own article, our article is pretty extensive, we have already one hundred and fifty external links, we don't need a linkfarm to someone else's profile, I trimmed it back, kept the bbc and aljazeera, as one of this and one of that. There might be a case to add one or two of the video links, Ted seems ok and I replaced the David frost interview but to the original so as to avoid copyright issues. I also replaced the Russia video, those three seem to be spread over the year and from three different continents and have some added value to link to. Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
We're here to produce an article that is resolutely establishment and very western-centric (obviously excepting Europe and Japan and Australia and probably Canada). Almost every one of the current references either looks dubious or is obviously hostile - coverage at Aljazeera - Profile, BBC - Hero or Villain? – Archived versions - Russia Today - ted.com - Frost Over the World ... Al Jazeera.
Why can't we give Assange a fair crack of the whip, as he had before?
*"WikiLeaks editor on Apache combat video: No excuse for US killing civilians". RussiaToday. April 2010. =Banned User
*Julian Assange: Why the world needs WikiLeaks video at ted.com
Templar98 (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC) =Banned User
  • - WP:LINKFARM avoidance - the last three video interviews are now added and considering we already have over 150 external links imo the others are not additionally beneficial to the reader. I am not seeing that the externals currently in the article are attack in nature, please point out those problems and users will likely remove them or feel free to remove them yourself if you feel a link is attacking in nature. Off2riorob (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Templar seems to have stuffed them all back in with this edit summary - "It is long past time to clean up the external links and move depreciated or nationalistically hostile links below the good sources that actually quote him" - as I said we are not a link station, we write our own article and only link to something that adds something, which of these links does templar think are nationalistically hostile ? None of them are, they are respected reports, the BBC and so on.Off2riorob (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Public reception

Latest comment: 13 years ago16 comments6 people in discussion

Per the discussion about Death Threats (see above thread), I added a new section called 'Public reception', and combined the criticism with already existing Support and Awards sections. A few small questions:

  • what to call it (does Public reception work?)
  • which goes first (criticism or support, I chose criticism so Awards could go at the end after Support)
  • is there some redundancy with the Wikileaks section (I think might be because it discusses awards as well--we should corral stuff together)
  • should we add a [see also] link to the reception section of the main WikiLeaks article? Ocaasi (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks good. Though if Assange had declared that the Taliban should use their top technology to bomb Sarah Palin to death it would be considered headline material - so I can't quite understand why the fact that Sarah Palin said he should be "targeted like the Taliban" is not considered worthy of mention. Templar98 (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC) =Banned User
Since Sarah Palin is fortunately not in the position to order anyone to 'target' Assange, this amounts to little more than her producing a soundbite to suit her supporters. If it merits mention anywhere, it is in her article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The Taliban is not in the position to bomb Sarah Palin to death. Nevertheless, threats of this kind against her (particularly if they come from a dozen or so other top Talib opinion-formers, and are backed by similar actions, thus making them very credible) would almost certainly appear in her biography. That Assange is denied similar consideration, even in his own biography, tells us a lot about the editing of this article. Templar98 (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC) =Banned User
The contents of this article aren't based on what you think would happen if it was about somebody else entirely. And if you have specific complaints about the way this article is edited (as opposed to vague assertions based on dubious hypotheses), I suggest you raise them in the appropriate place, rather than here. If you want this issue to be discussed in the article, I'd suggest finding a reliable source that does the same, as a phenomenon. These things were said, noted by the media at the time, and are now largely seen as what they were - attention-seeking hype. Or if they weren't, provide evidence to the contrary. You clearly attach significance to them, but I see little evidence that others do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Thankyou for stating the obvious, special rules apply to the most hated man in Christendom.
Assange is threatened with death (or being made a life-long political prisoner) by major opinion formers in a nation that does this without any meaningful form of judicial oversight.
The danger to his life and liberty is being censored from his biography, the death threats against him have been thoroughly censored already. The accusations of terrorism have been censored and the external references are chosen to be hostile (see above). Templar98 (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC) =Banned User
If you persist in making personal attacks, rather than offering useful contributions to this talk page, you are unlikely to be taken seriously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Templar98, please step back a moment and look at what you are saying. Do you really believe Assange is more hated in Christendom than Osama? That's what you said. I doubt as much as 1% of Christendom hate Assange; after all, we're not supposed to hate anybody plus Assange is not a very hateable guy in any way. But even if he was hated by many, the inclusion of death threats would still not be customary here. Have a look at the BLP on Osama bin Laden. It contains little if any mention of death threats (there must've been thousands by now). Death threats, in my opinion, are not appropriate for inclusion in any BLP in an encyclopedia for many reasons. One reason is it spreads hateful rheteric and could incite crackpots. If I were Assange I would not want a bunch of death threats published about me, especially not in an encyclopedia. Another thing you say is that "danger to his life and liberty" is being censored. Content for BLPs here is supposed to be notable. Regardless of what political stripe a person is in 2011, don't you feel that each and every one of us faces "danger to (our) lives (e.g. when we drive a car) and liberties (e.g.when we get patted down at an airport) on an almost daily basis? So, there is nothing notable at all,imo, if Assange's life and liberty are in danger. I think Andy and others have been real dilligent in addressing your points, but there comes a time when, perhaps, you may wish to re address them yourself. At least that's my view of your comments here. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 05:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Templar, you've come here with an assumption that we dislike Assange and are censoring the vitriol against him. Since you have commented, however, an entire section on death threats has been added, and it is the prominent first sentence in the intro's third paragraph which states: "For his work with WikiLeaks, Assange has received public condemnation and calls for his execution as well as glowing praise and accolades." If you think we're doing something wrong, I think you might have a POV which is stronger than an encyclopedia should have. Mentioning Sarah Palin is a possibility, but it's just not that important. Her media value is really trivial compared to her political impact, and it's not clear why that mention is notable enough to be included over any of the others. We have to pick some, and we didn't negate her, we just didn't specifically detail what she said. Consider if this article is really that 'biased' or if you are just a particularly strong defender of Assange. Also, whatever you've adopted as your accusatory mode of communication, it's not how we like to work. Make proposals and suggestions, write up actual text and include the sources, discuss where it would go and why it fits, let other people respond... That's how we like to work. Ocaasi (talk) 09:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Will you defend me from the accusations of "persisting in making personal remarks", or is this something you can do to me but I mustn't do back?
As it happens, I was about to make my first personal remark, something to the effect that, in fairness, you did compliment my work and you did invite discussion of it here after deleting the entire table of threats and accusations I'd put in. I might choose to address such a "personal comment" to you in the hope of getting an explanation of why you didn't move the table here and invite discussion.
But it's already much too late for that, I'm told I'll not be taken seriously, there is nothing notable about the danger to Assange's life and liberty (however badly impacted already) and the hostility of Sarah Palin is not worth mentioning. Templar98 (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC) =Banned User
Do you have a source on Palin's comment? I think, since she was the Republican Party's Vice Presidential candidate, that her comments are notable. That makes her a very senior Republican Party official. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Accusing someone of being a terrorist goes far beyond "criticism". I think that subsection needs a new title - how about "Demonization"? But seriously, what was wrong with the previous title? Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC) I suggest we drop the "Public Reaction" section, and just have "Criticism" and "Support" sections. However, one problem is you may have Wikileaks criticism blending with sex allegations criticism, which would be confusing. I think we should have these sections as subsections of the "Wikileaks" section. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC) I made that change, hope it's acceptable to everyone. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I have actually changed my mind over the past week about how notable quotes by politicians are and whether they should be going in the BLPs of the targets of those quotes. The quotes are usually of very short-term notability(e.g. Bush and Clinton BLPs likely have few of the name calling labels that were hurled at them by other politicians) and they also could easily comprise part of a campaign for getting their political messaging out to the public; e.g. Palin will likely pick up more votes than she'll lose by her comments. What I'm saying is that many politicians are admittedly "actors on a stage". If a member of the uniformed military leadership or Obama as Commander of the Armed Forces of the USA calls Assange a "terrorist", that's more notable for inclusion, I think, but when it come to any other politicians; let's stop giving them so much free publicity for their sound bites which are not notable in a longer term perspective. I think we should remove all of the inflammatory rheteric by politicians that is already in this BLP or the WikiLeaks article, and take out any praise by politicians, US or others, as well. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Leaving the criticisms out was creating NPOV issues, I think we have the most notable people that criticized him and the detail and quotes well presented. Off2riorob (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
You're correct for the present moment, but I doubt the Praise and Criticism sections will hold up over time in terms of notability; the Brazillian President's opinion for example. I would prefer to see 90% of both sections removed but I don't see a consensus for that at this time. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Its hard to find a balance, most of it won't be long term worth reporting, fluffy praise and worthless so called awards and soapboxing criticism of no long term value. I felt I had to expand what was being added to portray it correctly, I felt they were cherry picked extracts from larger comments, and john called him a terrorist and harry wanted him dead and frank said he should be killed , and when investigated those were isolated comments out of context, that needed clarification. First we had the terrorist investigation section that was supported but there wasn't actually any investigation and we had that huge table added by templar, then there was some support appeared to be a preemptive attempt to assert that he would be killed if he was sent to America supported by all these death threats and now that the possibility of his extradition to the USA has declined the death threats are less important. Personally I am a neutral I don't care about assange one way or the other, I care about wikipedia and BLP and NPOV and if anyone thinks there are problems in the article about that them lets have a look at them. Off2riorob (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Alleged sexual crimes - facts are removed, opinions included

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I note that hard facts about the case get removed while opinions are included, and I object to this. Most recent incident:

  1. Removed: "The court ordered detention as a suspect with probable cause for rape, sexual assault, and coercion", referring to the Swedish court order of 18 November 2010. This court order is at the heart of the current extradition case before the UK court, and the misunderstandings of what the Swedish charges mean and how the judicial system in Sweden works are one of the reasons for the worldwide hoopla. The charges have been correctly referenced in numerous major English language media, and I think the above term "suspect with probable cause" is the best rendering into English so far.
  2. Added: "Assange said he had been staying in Sweden for five weeks to be interviewed by police, but no interview would have taken place. He also complained that Swedish authorities, as part of their application, would have asked that he, if extradited to Sweden and arrested, would be held incommunicado, and that his lawyer in Sweden be barred from making public statements about the case."

We have already this view of Assange's side in the article: "According to Assange's lawyer, Assange made repeated attempts to contact the prosecution, spending over a month in Stockholm before obtaining permission to leave the country, with the Swedish prosecution stating an interview would not be required" which is more than enough to give this particular part of "his side". It is also a distortion of major facts, btw. Attention, OR or SYNTH coming up: We had a detailed description of the events in the legal process but they were taken out. The rape case was opened on 1 September, he left on 27 September - that's barely four weeks, not five. We have only Assange's words for it that he would be held incommunicado, and in all likelihood lawyers are not allowed to give out details of the other party's statements, which is what he means when he claims that the Swedish lawyer is barred from making public statements. So please delete this again, as it is redundant, misleading in the given context, and speculation. He said a lot of things about why he did not return to Sweden for an interview in Sweden in October, as requested by the Swedish Prosecution, like having better things to do than go to random prosecutors worldwide for a chat, so either you include all these statements or none. Don't cherrypick the ones that make Sweden look bad and Assange the victim of injustice. And btw, what he was told in September was this: there is no arrest warrant on you, so you are free to travel. That's different from "we don't want you for an interview". KathaLu (talk) 06:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You have a point. However, Assange must be entitled to have his side of the business or "the case for the defence" fully documented here. How we best deal with outright differences (or simple inventions from him) is indeed tricky, as you've said, but unless we're in the business of prosecuting him there's no excuse for censoring any part of what he wants to claim that is in the reliable sources. Templar98 (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC) =Banned User
We are not a mouthpiece for any and all fantastic accusatory and opinionated claims assange may have about living people he is involved in legal issues with. Those people are offered the protection of our policies and guidelines and are editorial judgement just as assange is.Off2riorob (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Nobody is entitled to present a case for defence (or prosecution) in Wikipedia. This isn't a courtroom. We need to stick to verifiable facts. They are that allegations have been made, and denied, and that legal proceedings are ongoing. Excluding speculation and unverified assertions from the article isn't 'censorship', it is common sense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the paragraph with the two lawyer's names because WP:UNDUE. Assange's claim about having been in Sweden long enough to be interviewed is already mentioned at the beginning of the section, this does not need to be said a second time at the end. Three references went with it, not a big loss. One of them was a Guardian article, which was merely summarizing a BBC Today interview of 21 December. KathaLu (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Palin addition

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This addition breaks and distorts the diplomacy report and cherry pics an isolated comment from a lengthy diatribe from Palin and then has assange apparently responding to multiple comments, all king of distorting the situation imo. I suggest the Palin comment be isolated and expanded a bit to give it context, possible at the comment wherer she says he is not a journalist... 13:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

  • - The cite

Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin has called Assange, "an anti-American operative with blood on his hands" and suggested he be hunted down like an al-Qaeda or Taliban leader.

Palin says in the full quote from the cite about assange - Palin said of Assange "He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders?" In a post on her Facebook page, the former US Republican vice-presidential candidate wrote: "Assange is not a 'journalist', any more than the 'editor' of al-Qaeda's new English-language magazine Inspire is a 'journalist'."

Removing foreign language sourced material from a BLP

Latest comment: 13 years ago29 comments6 people in discussion

Significant content sourced only to foreign language sources has been inserted. This content violates several policies.

  • foreign language sources without translation are not verifiable and do not constitute high quality sources.
  • procedural court details are undue
  • some of the content is potentially libelous and requires very high quality sourcing

As the content violates significant BLP related polices I reverted the addition. Another editor reinstated the content. If there is a specific concern about having this sort of content included, the most important aspect is to get reliable sources which are verifiable and high quality. Discussion welcome. aprock (talk) 06:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no policy which states that non-english sources are unreliable or unverifiable. Rather, policies only state that English sources are preferred. If you are talking about Swedish court proceedings, then it makes sense to use quality Swedish publications, just as I wouldn't go to the NY Times for information about German law. I'm not passing any judgment as to the quality of the sources used, but the fact that they are not english does not violate any policies in itself.--Terrillja talk 06:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Please refer to WP:NONENG: When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language text and an English translation in the text or a footnote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. When citing such a source without quoting it, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors Please consider this a request for a translation of the source by a reliable source. aprock (talk) 06:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I had added the information about what crimes Assange is suspected of by Swedish courts, with a reference to the prosecutor's office in Sweden. The source is highly authoritative and easily verifiable. I am sure I can find a media source in English saying the same thing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
You do realize that the site is that of the Swedish Department of Prosecution, right? As in a bulletproof, reliable source. The text says that the prosecutor said X, the absoute best source is the prosecutor's office. And NONENG refers to quotes. This is not a quote, a simple google translation is sufficient. Any other source would not carry the reliability of the direct source from the prosecutor.--Terrillja talk 06:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I asked for a translation from a reliable source, not whether the foreign language source was reliable. Machine translations are not reliable sources. aprock (talk) 06:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
When quoting, provide the original and a translation. There is noting being quoted. Thus that policy is not applicable. And a machine translation is more than adequate for the purposes, but in addition, clicking the "In english" link at the top of each page gives an official translation. Satisfied?--Terrillja talk 07:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
When English text including the wikilinked "rape" is added to a BLP, it is necessary for gold-plated sources to be used. The word "rape" means one thing to English readers, while there is apparently a related concept in Swedish law that has an entirely different meaning. Usage of such loaded language violates WP:NPOV unless a whole lot of pointless verbage is added to explain that it is not "rape" as understood in English-speaking countries. Johnuniq (talk) 07:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
"Rape" is understood in English in different ways too. There is "date rape", "statutory rape", etcetera. The meaning is not "entirely different". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I see the content has been reinserted without addressing the problems of sourcing (and undue). I assume that these problems will be resolved in the next day or so. If the issues aren't resolved, content sourced only to foreign language sources that have not been translated by reliable sources should be removed. aprock (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Given that there is a link at the top of the page that gives an official english translation (it appears that this is of only the most recent release, though i may misunderstand the site), that is a reliable source with a proper translation, from the authority which is making the accusations. Therefore, it's fine.--Terrillja talk 07:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The "official translations" for the four sources all point to: http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/ which bears little to no relation to the content in the article. aprock (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
When I have more time I want to read up on what the rules on sources and references really are. The reasons why Assange is wanted for extradition are now common knowledge, I doubt that one has to give a source with the exact wording used in the article, in particular in view of the linguistic/translation issues we have discussed. In the meanwhile, use the following English language sources and add them to the Swedish Prosecutors website, which is obviously the best and most authoritative and very official source, and for which many secondary sources in English can be found: 1) The Stockholm district court on Thursday ordered an arrest warrant for Assange, a 39-year-old Australian, for questioning on "probable cause of suspected rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion" in Sweden in August; 2) On 18 November, the District Court in Stockholm ordered Assange's detention "on probable cause suspected of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion." Assange appealed, but the order was affirmed by the Svea Court of Appeals on 24 November; 3), verbatim from the transcript of an interview with the Swedish Prosecutor: "MARIANNE NY, CHIEF PROSECUTOR (TRANSLATION): The district court shared my judgment that Assange, on probable cause, is guilty of sexual assault and rape." KathaLu (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
These are certainly better sources, but they do not sync with the current content in the article. I assume this will be addressed once these sources are added. aprock (talk) 07:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
They do sync. And here is an article by Stockholm correspondent Naomi Powell explaining the Swedish legal procedure. Maybe one should mention that Assange was not wanted for "aggravated rape" ("grov våldtäkt") but for "våldtäkt av normalgraden". Svea Court of Appeal then reduced that to "less severe rape" ("mindre grov våldtäkt") (source). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The English source is: [10]. The text in the article follows. I've bolded the content which is not supported by the English source: On 18 November 2010 the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny asked the local district court for a warrant for Assange in order for him to be heard by the prosecutor. The court ordered detention as a suspect with probable cause for rape, sexual assault, and coercion. An appeal from the legal representatives of Assange was turned down by the Svea Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court of Sweden declined to hear the case. This is independent of the various WP:UNDUE issues of extended discussion of legal procedure in a BLP. aprock (talk) 08:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The English source (18 November) said: Assange had been detained in his absence "on probable cause suspected of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion." Where "detained" is a poor translation of "häktad". That is why I wrote "ordered detentention as a suspect", wikilinking to Detention of suspects#Häktning (Swedish law). And of course, the appeals are not included in the 18 November reference. I could add the Globe and Mail for that. But you don't seem to be interested, just nitpicking and wikilawyering. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
It seems that you are using the untranslated Swedish articles for sourcing content here. Above I requested translations from a reliable source so that the content could be verified. I suppose you might call adhering to WP:V wikilawyering, but verifiability isn't some esoteric rarely used policy. aprock (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

(od) Generally, this is why we don't do court reporting. We're not designed for this level of case-tracking. Encyclopedia... what can we say for sure, what will be the relevant level of detail in a few months or years? If we're outside of either of those, it's ok to just let the sources hash it out for a while. Ocaasi (talk) 09:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Per the discussion above, I have removed the foreign language sources which have no available translations. aprock (talk) 08:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
There was no consensus for doing so. Your actions do not have a basis in policy. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Seconded. And since there are english language sources for all of it, the information is sourced and it makes sense to keep the original cites to the official department of prosecution as they are the source of all the english language translations/secondary reporting. Best to include the source of it, english or not.--Terrillja talk 14:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Adhering to policy does not require consensus. Please review WP:NONENG, WP:BLP, and WP:V. A translation was requested to facilitate verifiability. If there are no translations available, these sources are not suitable for a BLP. aprock (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
There is no policy that prohibits the use of non-english sources. Again, NONENG only requires a translation when quoting. Nothing is being quoted. Your argument is not based in any policy whatsoever.--Terrillja talk 15:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
From WP:NONENG When citing such a source without quoting it, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors. Unverifiable sources are not of sufficient quality to be included in a BLP. I suppose an RfC is appropriate at this point. aprock (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
That says nothing about requiring a human translation. Anywhere. It only says that a human translation is preferred, just as English sources are preferred. If you want your translation, enter it in google translate. Nothing in policy prohibits using that as a translation. Problem solved.--Terrillja talk 16:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
From WP:NONENG, Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. I do not think that machine translations satisfy the requirements of WP:BLP, Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. Currently there is no translation. aprock (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
The horse's mouth is a high-quality source. Whatever language it is in, it cannot get better than that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Any source which is unverifiable is not a high quality source. It doesn't matter if it's Ed or Seabiscuit. I'll prepare an RfC for later today. aprock (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

New section on key importance of Sweden to US communications?

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I would like to add a new section as follows (with additional sources linking Karl Rove to the Swedish Prime Minister and better direct linkage of the material to this affair).

The telegrams published by WikiLeaks show that the U.S. considers the entire world to be its security zone, but that Sweden is of key importance to the U.S. efforts to prepare for future cyber-warfare, classified documents released by Wikileaks show. Documents reviewed by the Dagens Nyheter daily show on 2nd Jan 2010 show that Americans have been identifying important infrastructure throughout the world. Deputy US Ambassador to Sweden Robert Silverman, was asked to find out what was worthy of protection and should be added to America's secret list of core infrastructure.[7]

Assuming I can write this up better, I would expect to place it in this Assange biography, not in the Wikileaks section. Your thoughts please. Templar98 (talk) 11:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC) =Banned User

Umm, what relevance does this have to Assange? Surely this is related to the cables leak and has no relationship to him in the slightest. (we even have an article, National Infrastructure Protection Plan, that is directly the subject) --Errant (chat!) 11:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree its not appropriate for the Assange BLP. It might,in addition to other articles, be suitable for Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Julian Assange as a Journalist

Latest comment: 13 years ago51 comments17 people in discussion

I don't believe the assignation of "journalist" in the opening sentence is supported by the given citations. The only possible statement based on those sources is "Julian Assange is a journalist, according to one columnist in the Spectator, and was given an award for journalism by Amnesty International (which is a human rights group, not an acknowledged arbiter of what is or is not journalism."

Because this is a contentious issue (The US could conceivably have more trouble prosecuting him if he is a journalist), with arguments on both sides, I think the only good faith mentioning of this would acknowledge the arguments and actors on both sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.123.101 (talk) 08:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, nobody is "an acknowledged arbiter of what is or is not journalism", and if Amnesty International wish to give someone an award for such, that is their entitlement. Without a reliable source indicating that it has been suggested that Assange isn't a journalist according to some specific definition, I don't really see how there can be an argument from 'the other side'. As for the US having trouble prosecuting him, as yet he has been charged with nothing whatsoever, so this is speculation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Where I come from retired sports stars with two years of writing trash for the tabloids become journalists according to their employers. There is no formal definition. Do stop the Salem approach to discussing Assange, and stick to reality. HiLo48 (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

So much for

Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming

right HiLo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.123.101 (talk) 03:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The lead paragraph of this entry does seem to be an attempt at polishing the apple. Assange is primarily a hacker, and his main role in recent years has been as a distributor of stolen documents. This article makes him out to be a journalist, and nothing but a journalist: "Julian Paul Assange is an Australian journalist, publisher, and Internet activist. He is the spokesperson and editor in chief for WikiLeaks, a whistleblower website and conduit for news leaks. He has lived in several countries, and has made occasional public appearances to speak about freedom of the press, censorship, and investigative journalism."

That description clearly follows the (current) attempts by Assange and WikiLeaks to cast themselves as journalists (an attempt that has been ratcheted up in recent weeks to try to avoid prosecution in the U.S.), but calling yourself something, over and over, doesn't make it verifiable.

The bottom line: It's disputed whether or not he is a journalist. That should be noted. And whether one accepts that label or not, it's not all that he is. The article needs a more balanced, non-POV opening.

See also the description later in the article that he engaged in hacking in his youth, but no more. A laughable description for one who created a port scanner still in use today, and the rubberhose application for protecting hackers.75.216.156.127 (talk) 05:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

That would have to be one of the most POV posts ever among those I've seen asking for a non-POV approach. You really do seem to have made up your mind about him. The judge and jury needn't really bother. HiLo48 (talk) 06:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You've missed the point. If you were going to pick one word to describe Assange, computer programmer, computer programming wizard, expert in encryption -- you would have to include one of these, right? See for example this Reuters profile: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BB1LG20101213?pageNumber=2.

Yet the Wikipedia article on him begins with a full paragraph about him as a journalist.

One can make a case that Assange is a journalist, yes. And one can make a case that he is not. It is in dispute. It is at the heart of the dispute about him, and is an issue that may be tested in a U.S. court.

One has to ask why the Wikipedia article does not (also?) begin with something about him as a computer programmer, expert in encryption, and leaker of (stolen? leaked? people disagree on the adjective) documents. Why? Because the article has an overriding POV, one that favors Assange and his politics, and that chooses to endorse his story line about himself: that he is a journalist. (Again, maybe he is, and may be isn't. This is in dispute.)

So you could ask the question: Why does the article begin with a paragraph only about journalism? Or turn the question around: Why is no mention made of him, in the sumamry paragraph, as a computer programmer, (former) hacker, etc.?75.216.156.127 (talk) 06:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably because those earlier activities didn't make him notable enough to deserve an article and receive all the attention he is now getting. It is his efforts with Wikileaks that gained him his global fame today, not his hacking. HiLo48 (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but Assange described himself as WikiLeaks' first coder. Coding/hacking/encryption are at the heart of who he is, and what he and WikiLeaks do.

There are two points here: To describe him as a journalist, without allowing for the fact that this is in dispute, is clearly POV. And to leave out his hacker background is also POV -- it's part of the attempt, in his defense, to cast him as a journalist.

Take a step back, read this first paragraph, and see if it sums up Assange. No, it attempts to make a case for Assange, which is not the role of Wikipedia, however sympathetic editors may be to him and his efforts at regime change. (See the Wikileaks founding document for his description of the purpose of WikiLeaks. Nothing there about journalism, but a lot about regime change.) At a minimum, Assange is someone who has now come to call what he does journalism.75.216.156.127 (talk) 06:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, I am what I do now and what I define myself as now. I am not what others decree that I was five years ago. (In my case it was something entirely different from now.) It would seem that it is you who is wanting to define Assange in a way that best suits your POV. That's not wanted here. We must not draw our own conclusions on these matters. What do the sources say? HiLo48 (talk) 08:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

What do the sources say? Precisely the right question. They describe him first as a computer programmer and a leaker of documents, not as a journalist. Why? Because the sources do not take sides on the question. See for example this Reuters profile: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BB1LG20101213?pageNumber=2.75.200.176.168 (talk) 04:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The question isn't what he is described as first though. The question is whether he can be described as a journalist or not - you seem not to like the label 'journalist', but as I've already pointed out, he has been described as such, and given an award for it. These are facts. If you want to suggest he isn't a journalist, you will need to find sources that say so explicitly. This isn't an issue of bias, but one of relying on proper sources - and not cherry-picking a few words from a complex personal analysis, and applying your own spin, as you seem to have done with the Reuters article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

AndyTheGump, you say that I "seem" not to like the term journalist. No, I'm saying that the term is in dispute. It's perfectly accurate for this entry to say that he refers to himself as a journalist. But the entry should not swallow that description without pointing out that it's in dispute.

It is in dispute. As the New York Times editor, Bill Keller, was quoted recently, he may be a journalist, but he's not my kind of journalist. Note the "may be": It is in dispute. (Why is the Keller quotation not in this biography?)

I don't know whether he's a journalist or not. I don't take a position one way or another. I do see in the sources that Assange describes himself as a journalist, and has increasingly done so, as a tactic to protect himself and WikiLeaks from attacks, legal and otherwise. This is part of the story of WikiLeaks.

I hope now you see my point. I'm pointing out that it is in dispute whether or not Assange is a journalist, but the Wikipedia biography of him accepts that description without question. I am not saying that the word journalist should not be used. I am not saying that he is not a journalist. I am not "seeming" not to like the word journalist when attached to him. I am saying that it is in dispute, and that this dispute should be reflected clearly upon first reference to him as a journalist. Otherwise, as written, this article campaigns for Assange, expresses a POV for Assange, by accepting without question his (recent, increasing) description of himself as a journalist.

It's also clear that Assange (from many sources) is known primarily as a programmer/hacker, and that factor is left out of the biography lead entirely. It takes pains to say he was a hacker in his youth, though if so his youth extended well into his 30s. Why is his programming/hacking not mentioned in the top of this biography at all? Because it take's a pro-Assange POV, in which he now wants to be known only as a journalist, for reasons of legality and reputation.[Special:Contributions/75.200.176.168|75.200.176.168]] (talk) 16:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

You tell us that "Assange describes himself as a journalist, and has increasingly done so, as a tactic to protect himself and WikiLeaks from attacks, legal and otherwise." You were possibly doing OK until you gave us the reason he describes himself as a journalist. How can we possibly know? Do we have a reliable source to tell us, with certainty, his real reason for calling himself a journalist. Writing why someone does something is always a tricky area. We could write the reason he gives us for doing something, so long as we make it clear that's what it is, but that's not the same as drawing our own conclusion. HiLo48 (talk) 17:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I assume good faith on your part, but why do you duck the two main issues: Why does this bio unquestionably accept the claim that he's a journalist, and why does it downplay his activity as a hacker/programmer?

You chose to argue with my mention of an incentive for him to call himself a journalist. There is, undoubtedly, an incentive. But whether or not you accept that, you're still left with two issues you've chosen not to address:

Why does this bio unquestionably accept the claim that he's a journalist, and why does it downplay his activity as a hacker/programmer? I suggest that to accept that claim without question, and to downplay his hacking, is an expression of a pro-Assange POV.75.200.176.168 (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

It's only pro-Assange if being a hacker/programmer at some stage in the past is a negative thing for him now. This all seems to have a huge amount to do with what YOU think of Assange and what YOU think of the various career pathways he has chosen. We depend on sources. Not on what you think. HiLo48 (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, Assange got the award for 'journalism', as Amnesty saw it. He runs an organisation that publishes 'news', in that it is then repeated by mainstream media sources. His earlier activities as a hacker and programmer have nothing to do with his present notability. As for a 'pro-Assange' POV, I can only suggest that since I've been accused of being both 'pro' and 'anti', this is a matter of debate. Meanwhile, I'll repeat, have you got any reliable sources that state that Assange isn't a journalist? Wikipedia is supposed to base its articles on external sources, and I've seen no evidence of us 'downplaying' anything that is properly sourced and relevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Most profiles of Assange do not even use the word journalist.

From the New Yorker profile, a page cited by the Wikipedia biography: "Assange is an international trafficker, of sorts. He and his colleagues collect documents and imagery that governments and other institutions regard as confidential and publish them on a Web site called WikiLeaks.org." http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian?currentPage=all

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press forbids its staff to use WikiLeaks as a source, and its director says its efforts will be used against actual journalists: http://motherjones.com/print/52751.

On and on: Most of the profiles cited by the Wikipedia bio of Assange do not refer to him as a journalist. They call him a hacker, a programmer, a trafficker in purloined and leaked documents. Yet that's the word chosen by the Wikipedia biography.

Again, I'm not trying to make a case that he is not a journalist. He may be. But if so, he is not *only* a journalist.75.200.201.250 (talk) 03:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You have your opinion. It is irrelevant without sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I've just cited sources, and you dismiss them? I just went through the sources footnoted on this particular article. Assange is repeatedly described as a programmer, an activist -- rarely as a journalist.76.127.21.51 (talk) 03:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Andy is 100% correct about this. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
The article describes Assange as "an Australian journalist, publisher, and Internet activist", all sourced. These are the things that have made him notable and/or notorious. His programming/hacking background is interesting, and mentioned later in the article. I can see nothing wrong in any of this. Unless someone else chips in with something further to add, I really can't see the point of discussing this further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

AndyTheGump, you're misstating my point. You are saying that his recent activities are journalism, and his programming/hacking happened long ago. This misses the point that I'm making, and that the sources make.

I'll try again: His recent activities, the ones that make him notable now, the releases of leaked or stolen documents and e-mails, may or may not be journalism. This activity may or may not be hacking. That is in dispute. Some would characterize them as programming/hacking/encryption activities (theft using computer expertise is at the heart of WikiLeaks). Some would characterize them as journalism. This is precisely an issue that is likely to be argued in court if Assange is charged by the U.S.

See this New York Times article describing U.S. plans to charge Assange with conspiracy for inviting the theft of government documents:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/world/16wiki.html.

Again, I'm not saying he's a hacker. I'm not saying he's not a journalist. I'm not saying he's an activist, though many of his public statements declare an activist bent. What the sources say is that these characterizations are in dispute.

Do you see? It is in dispute whether or not his activities are journalism. Some sources describe them that way. Most sources describe them as an extension of the hacking culture.

Now, my point: Though it is in dispute, this Wikipedia biography doesn't take note of this dispute at all. Instead, it accepts as a fact that Assange's activities with WikiLeaks are journalism. It describes Assange, right off the bat, as a journalist.

In other words, this article takes sides in a dispute. This is the essence of POV.

Note that the WikiLeaks article here on Wikipedia itself doesn't make this mistake. Instead, in a neutral way, it describes WikiLeaks by what it does. On the other hand, this Assange article describes him as a journalist, without noting that this description is in dispute.

Why not note, on first reference, that this is in dispute? Why accept the characterization as journalist, when most of the sources describe him as a programmer/activist? Why not state, in a neutral way, what he does, as the WikiLeaks article does?76.127.21.51 (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

For a start, because his programming activities have nothing to do with his notability. There is no evidence whatsoever that the recent leak of documents involved hacking (or if there is, please provide a source). Frankly, I'm not prepared to debate this endlessly. Nobody else seems to be making the same objections. If this really was a NPOV issue, I'd have expected it to be raised by others as well. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

See for example this article today by the tech columnist on msnbc.com, whose word for Assange is "hacktivist." You say, his programming activities have nothing to do with his notability. No, his programming activities have everything to do with the current activities: hacking, programming, encryption -- these are among the skills Assange is bringing to bear in his current activities. You've decided that hacking was what he did before, and journalism is what he does now. Many of the sources on this article itself see it differently.

The msnbc.com tech article: http://networkedblogs.com/clpd7 "Until now, virtually all hacktivist efforts landed in two camps: online graffiti, such as Web page defacement, or online protests, such as denial of service attacks. The spreading of previously non-public information, against a government’s will, is a new form of attack, and one that can’t be stopped by added improved packet filtering. ... One lesser-discussed aspect of the WikiLeaks release of U.S. diplomatic cables is Assange’s hacker background, and the architecture of the WikiLeaks distribution system."

See: WikiLeaks = attack. Hacking. Maybe it's journalism, too, but the Wikipedia article defines it only as journalism, saying he did hacking in the distant past. This is POV.68.212.245.59 (talk) 06:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

One geek blogger coining a new word (Gee, they'd never do that!) in an attempt to claim Assange is really still one of them is not a suitable source for Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The "geek blogger" you seek to diminish is Bob Sullivan, who is the consumer and tech columnist for msnbc.com, the No. 1 news website.

Again, let me say: Most of the sources cited on this Wikipedia biography of Julian Assange refer to him as a programmer/encryption expert, as a hacker, as a promoter of hacking by others, and most of all as an activist, not as a journalist. Some call him a journalist. Again, it is in dispute, most of the sources cited in this article do not describe him as a journalist, and this article should reflect that, from the start, instead of beginning by taking sides on the question. It's perfectly neutral to say that he refers to himself as a journalist. But to call him a journalist, without noting that it is in dispute, is to express a point of view.68.212.245.59 (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

So find reliable sources that state that Assange's status as a journalist is being called into question. You say there is a dispute. If there is, provide evidence we can use. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
That geek blogger (from a geek blog source) is still a nobody to me. That may be because msnbc.com is not MY No. 1 news website. That may have something to with me not being an American, and you must be careful that you being one doesn't colour your perspective and assumptions. Remember, Assange isn't American either. It's obvious to me that fact is part of the problem a lot of Americans have with him. As for Assange's non-journalistic activities, to me it seems that most of them were in the past. Today, he labels himself as a journalist. Today I label myself, very justifiably, as something I definitely wasn't seven years ago. And what I was seven years ago is definitely not what I am now. We must not mix past and present. HiLo48 (talk) 03:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Another source: Today's Columbia Journalism Review, in an article asking whether WikiLeaks will continue to work with news organizations. Note the distinction: There is WikiLeaks, and there are news organizations. http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/the_wikileaks_equation.php?page=all. 75.200.86.175 (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

That is what we call synth. It only supports your argument by extension of the content. Something we do not do. --Errant (chat!) 21:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
75.200... - there's a real irony in you telling us that Wikileaks isn't a news organisation just after 68.212... told us that msnbc.com is "the No. 1 news website. msnbc.com didn't exist ten years ago. The Internet only began to be popularly useful 15 years ago. The world changes. Do keep up. HiLo48 (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
ErrantX, most of the sources already cited on this Wikipedia article describe Assange as an activist, not a journalist. It is, again, in dispute. (And will be a significant point of disagreement if there's a criminal trial in the U.S.)68.214.220.247 (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, HiLo, that's not an argument. Nor is it accurate. You could check the Wikipedia article for msnbc.com, and you'll see that your guesswork is faulty.68.214.220.247 (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Please either find reliable sources that state that Assange's status as a journalist is being called into question, or stop posting the same thing on this talk page. This isn't a forum. We can only work from outside sources. If you persist in this off-topic debate, I may seek advice as to whether your edits may be liable to be deleted as irrelevant to the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

AndyTheGump: What does your statement mean? "If you persist in this off-topic debate, I may seek advice as to whether your edits may be liable to be deleted as irrelevant to the article." First, the user doesn't seem to have edited the article, so how could you delete his or her edits. Second, why would the user making a point in the talk page disqualify him from editing the article? Third, and most important, the user is making a straightforward point: Most of the sources on the Assange article do not identify Assange as a journalist, but as an advocate; this is particularly true of sources that are what one would call reliable sources, such as news organizations, both in the United States and Europe. Nevertheless, the article itself identifies Assange first as a journalist. It's reasonable to ask, why is that? Why not identify him as an activist first? Why not note in the article that it is in question whether or not he is a journalist. It's unclear why you are afraid of entertaining this possibility in editing the article. Whenever the user raises this point, you reply with off-topic arguments, accuse him of persisting in an argument (if you don't want to continue the argument, don't continue it), and then when you are unable to persuade, you threaten to ban him from editing? This is bizarre indeed. Instead, why not look at the sources on the article, the ones that make the point the user is making: Assange is identified first by most sources as an activist, but first by Wikipedia as a journalist.Extremely hot (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Please read the note at the top of this talk page: "This is not a forum for general discussion of Julian Assange. Any such comments may be deleted or refactored". The anon IP has persistently used the forum to argue that the article should not be calling Assange a journalist. It has been pointed out that numerous sources do just that. Our responsibility is to reflect what other sources say. I have asked for links to articles from reliable sources also questioning Assange's status as a journalist. None have been forthcoming. Unless they are provided, we cannot do the same. This is standard Wikipedia policy.
With regard to my comments about deleting The IP's edits, I was referring to those on this talk page. As noted above, this is permissible where postings are off-topic. Since it has already been pointed out to the IP that we need external sources to question Assange's journalistic status, and he/she has persisted in trying to argue the point based instead on original research and synthesis, this debate is no longer relevant to possible article content, and is thus off-topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No, the poster has not once argued that we should not be calling Assange a journalist. In fact, he repeatedly has noted that he is not saying that. Why are you arguing against something he hasn't said. The poster has said that we should not be *first* calling Assange a journalist, that most of the sources cited on this article identify him as aan activist, and that we also should *first* identify him as an activist, instead of blindly accepting the (in dispute) claim that he is a journalist. It appears that you believe that when he says it is in dispute, you think he's saying that it should not be included. No, he is saying that it is in dispute, and the article should so indicate. Can you not discuss this valid point of editing without resorting to tantrums and false claims? (And why would it matter in the least if he is anon?) As for sources, the poster repeatedly makes the point that the sources already listed on the article cite Assange as an activist; this is the standard first reference in articles, including those referred to here. In reply, each time, you lecture about sources and original research -- no, he's saying the sources we already have references to call Assange an activist first. Why do you ignore this, resorting to arguments such as, let's delete his comments from this talk page, or let's close the discussion because it's original research. No, he's saying, look at the references already on the page.

Other editors, is the point not clearly made: Assange is identified in most of the sources already cited as an activist, and the question of whether or not he's a journalist is in dispute. This biography should indicate that it is in dispute. Could this be discussed on the merits?Extremely hot (talk) 05:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with EH, at least one poster is arguing that the first sentence should be reworded. I also agree that Assange should be called an internet or political activist first, then perhaps publisher or editor, known as spokesperson and founder/co-founder of Wikileaks. I have no idea how much he actually codes for Wikileaks, perhaps put the hacker/programming bit in the next sentence. He is not widely known as a writer or journalist. I realize that the question of whether he is a journalist seems important to Americans in view of future legal accusations, and it is addressed several times in the article. POV: Whether he is actually labelled a journalist or not, does not matter for freedom of press/freedom of speech issues, see Larry Flynt who was never labelled a journalist but a publisher, and won widely known legal freedom of speech/press battles in the US. You can find similar cases from other periods or countries, so publisher or editor-in-chief, as Assange seems to like to call himself these days, will do just fine for that purpose, don't get hung up on the word "journalist". KathaLu (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
'Internet or political activist first' might well be valid, and maybe 'publisher' might be a better term than journalist, but the IP was earlier insisting that we label Assange a 'hacker'. With regard to his present activities with Wikileaks, we have been given no evidence that they involve hacking, and since this would quite possibly be illegal, we cannot suggest he is still involved in such activities - yet the IP was earlier insisting we should. As for 'future legal accusations', see WP:CRYSTAL. As I've said, if reliable sources can be found that indicate that this is actually a significant issue now, rather than just an example of the general negative commentary around Assange that was widespread when the US leaks came out, we can look at the issue further. It seems to me that much of this debate is built on hypotheses: that Assange will at some point be charged (with something?) by the US, that he will use 'being a journalist' as a defence, and that this defence will be contested. This is all too hypothetical for now, so the only reason to discuss what exactly Assange should be labelled is if it is being debated elsewhere. I say 'debated', because a bare statement that 'he is not a journalist' without further explanation merits little weight in comparison to say an award for journalism from Amnesty International, I'd think. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Andy, I agree with you about "hacker". As to the journalist question and without getting too embroiled in it, I just want to say that I came to this article because I wanted a bit of rock solid background information about the furore concerning the Swedish case. As it wasn't there, I started to dig a bit and then things began to look quite different from what they looked like at first. Same here. You regard "an award for journalism from Amnesty International" as proof of Assange's journalistic qualities and it seemed so to me, too, but when I digged a bit, it began to look different: The awards are defined by Amnesty UK, who awards them, as follows: "The Media Awards recognise excellence in human rights journalism that makes a significant contribution to the UK public's understanding of human rights." There were in total 12 Amnesty Media awards in 2009 for 12 categories. Eleven of them were: Gaby Rado Memorial Award for a journalist at the start of their career; International Television and Radio; Nations And Regions; National Newspapers; Periodicals - Consumer Magazines; Periodicals - Newspaper Supplements; Photojournalism; Radio; Television Documentary; Television News; and a Special Award for a human rights journalist under threat. Quite a few of the winners in these 11 categories worked for media like the CNN, BBC, New Statesman, or Observer. The twelth award was for "New Media" and the winner was Assange, working for Wikileaks. How does that give him journalistic credibility? I don't see it. It is just Assange, Wikileaks, a new media. He got the award for "Cry of Blood — Extra-Judicial Killings and Disappearances" but I am not clear what he - or Wikileaks - actually contributed to it, other than just publishing it to a wider audience, as a report with that title was published in September 2008 by the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights and Wikileaks "brought worldwide attention to it" two months later. Also, when you enter the string "is Assange a journalist" into Google or Google News, you get 1000s of hits (I did not check their quality) but it shows that it is a subject currently under public discussion, see this article in Newsweek of 4 Jan 2011. KathaLu (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I've just entered "is Assange a journalist" into Google, and got 3,040 hits. Fair enough. But then "is Obama a muslim" gets 21,100,000 hits - this isn't evidence that mainstream sources are discussing the issue. From a quick look at the Newsweek article, it seems that (other) journalists are saying that Assange is one, but they'd rather not be associated with him. They aren't saying he isn't one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, funny, but Google News is different. Also, Assange did give an answer to the question "Are you a journalist" via the Guardian on 3 December 2010, he did not brush it away. But anyway, I will take leave of this part of the discussion, with the conviction that he isn't much of a journalist to me. If someone wants to change the order of Assange's collection of professions and functions in the first sentence, I have no objections.KathaLu (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
PS to Andy: I referenced the Newsweek article because you stated repeatedly that there are no reliable sources who question that Assange is a journalist: "There’s a lot of hair-splitting going on about whether WikiLeaks is journalism or Assange is a journalist,” says Bruce Shapiro, executive director of the Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma at Columbia" is one, and there are others. KathaLu (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Andy: You've just admitted that you don't know how to use Google. That's all. You entered the four words "is Obama a Muslim." You might have well entered the four words "Muslim a Obama is." Google disregarded the two common words in your search, "is" and "a." All you did was prove that the words Muslim and Obama appear on the same Web pages 21 million times, as in any page that refers to current international events. You didn't find 21 million hits for that phrase. Try it as a phrase, with quotation marks around the words when you search. You get about 50,000. If you don't know how to search Google, then don't cite the count of a Google search as proof of anything.Extremely hot (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I haven't 'admitted' anything. Evidently I omitted the quotes, for which I apologise - I should have been more careful, as I am well aware of the difference. Doing this correctly currently gives "About 59,600 results" (i.e. 'about 60,000', but let's not quibble). My point still stands though: you can find a lot more people asking whether Obama is a Muslem via Google than you can asking whether Assange is a journalist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think KathaLu has hit the nail on the head above, highlighting that it's clear that some posters don't want Assange to be able to claim to be a journalist, in the (probably) incorrect hope that if he is not a journalist he is more likely to be able to be prosecuted in the USA. Such a position is obviously a POV one and was definitely discernible. It probably influenced my approach to discussing this matter earlier in this now epic section. I think what attracted me to the discussion was the intensity of some of those who wanted to tell us he isn't a journalist. Lots of personal feelings on display here. If KathaLu is correct, it doesn't matter, so let's all stop stressing about it. Please. HiLo48 (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No, no one in this discussion has claimed that Assange is not a journalist. Not one. What has been claimed is that whether or not Assange is a journalist, or is primarily a journalist, is in dispute. Is in dispute. And the entry should so reflect. (Is this distinction really so difficult to understand? Saying that people disagree about something is not the same as taking one side or the other of the question.) The issue is discussed straight on in a new source, the extensive profile of Assange in Vanity Fair, which describes his activism, and draws distinctions between his actions and those of journalists. A sample quotation: "I'm too busy. I have two wars I have to stop." Note also the editor of the Guardian, which has cooperated with WikiLeaks, describing Assange and his subordinates as "a bunch of anarchists in hiding." In other words, whether he is a journalist, or primarily a journalist, is in dispute. Reference: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/02/the-guardian-201102?currentPage=all.Extremely hot (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that the problem here is that there's no clear way of defining if someone is a journalist or not. I could start a wordpress account tomorrow, proclaim myself as a journalist, and no-one can really say any different. You can certainly do a university course in journalism, receive accreditation, and all sorts of other academic fluff. But all that is essentially meaningless when it comes to the question 'is x a journalist?'. This is something that is inevitable in a world where methods of spreading information are so very drastically different to what they were even ten years ago. Everyone with a blog is a journalist. Everyone who edits wikipedia is a self-proclaimed academic and historian. Everyone who comments on an article for sale on Amazon is a reviewer. Whilst my observation regarding this situation is not hugely productive in itself with regards to this article, it is part of a bigger picture, which does have impact on the article. If I had a dime for every time someone on a talk page proclaimed 'yes, but it's the policies which are wrong!', I'd be rich. But in trying to source if Assange 'is a journalist or not', how much the landscape has changed becomes very, very apparent. My instinct is to leave the whole drama play out, and we can make a really good article afterwards. In the meantime, we should be happy with information which doesn't violate WP:BLP. Wikipedia is not paper. We can allow a bit of bloat now, as long as that bloat is balanced. We can pare it down later. Kaini (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Lets stop kicking the poor horse corpse around. Another 4000000000 pixels is NOT going to get him to move. Active Banana (bananaphone 05:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
This is a long section, so forgive me if I missed something along the way. Julian Assange is, and has been for many years a member of the Australian journalists union (MEAA). His membership did briefly lapse due to his accounts being frozen. The MEAA then waived his fees, making him a "member in good standing".
Victorian MEAA branch secretary Louise Connor has stated that "Julian Assange has been a member of the Media Alliance for several years. Clearly, with banking corporations freezing his accounts, his situation is quite extraordinary."
Given that the union which represents Australian journalists recognises him as such, I think that is pretty clear evidence.
I also think the point that others have made that his current notability stems from his work as a journalist (editor-in-chief of Wikileaks), and not as a hacker. It is appropriate and consistent that this be what is mentioned first. For example, if you look up "Jesse Ventura", it says he is a politician, despite the fact that many people would more likely identify him as a former wrestler. Xtempore (talk) 05:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Business McCarthyism

Latest comment: 13 years ago28 comments9 people in discussion

"Business McCarthyism" is in no way an appropriate header; it is pointy and of little descriptive value. We choose headers to be neutral and adequately cover the section contents. --Errant (chat!) 10:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's quite descriptive, but I do take your point. What would you suggest? HiLo48 (talk) 10:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
"Financial repercussions" seems fine to me (which is what a couple of people, myself included, have changed it to). McCarthyism is mentioned in a source (it is the term Assange uses) but certainly not in relation to all of the material - if it was just the first paragraph I could buy it, otherwise such a title wouldn't cover the section appropriately ;) --Errant (chat!) 10:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
We have nobody calling it "Financial repercussions", we have Assange himself calling it "Business McCarthyism" (or sometimes quoted as "Digital McCarthyism").
I propose we stick to using what we have from reliable sources.
Actually, I'm coming to think this kind of conduct (ie following neither rules nor common sense) is a deliberate invitation to me to take many well-established editors to the Admin notice-board, where I'll find exactly what I thought, they are established/establishment editors and I can lump it. Well, if such an action didn't get me barred (at least from this topic), which I see is a distinct possibility too. Templar98 (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC) =Banned User
Sorry, but I am unconvinced that Assange's opinion is a neutral section header, we quote him in the section do we not? The idea is not to push any point but to organise the content logically and in an off hand matter. As to the rest, couldn't care less. Please discuss the content in a mature fashion --Errant (chat!) 12:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Where does it say that section headers have to be neutral? The practice of shutting down a person's access to the banking system has a name, it was coined by a victim, so what? It would appear that the very name McCarthyism was probably coined by a victim. "Originally coined to criticize the anti-communist pursuits of U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy, "McCarthyism" soon took on a broader meaning, describing the excesses of similar efforts. The term is also now used more generally to describe reckless, unsubstantiated accusations, as well as demagogic attacks on the character or patriotism of political adversaries." Calling Sarah Palin "McCarthyite" would seem to fit though naturally I'd not want to say anything so wounding about her. Templar98 (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC) =Banned User
WP:NPOV - we present EVERYTHING from a neutral point of view Active Banana (bananaphone 18:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Additional guidance and related internal links is here in WP:MOS headers and titles - Off2riorob (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Neutrality means not over-ruling the sources even if you don't care for what they use. From the MOS, article titles (and section headings are the same) here: "True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental". "Business McCarthyism" it is. Templar98 (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC) =Banned User
"Business McCarthyism" is most certainly NOT a common term. Active Banana (bananaphone 21:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't like perjorative labels(even though,embarassingly, I have used them myself at times); they are just a lazy form of non-communication that stifles openmindedness and debate. They should not be in an encyclopedia any more than absolutely necessary and then only in a very notable quote. "McCarthyism" communicates about as much about what Assange is facing as "terrorism" does about what Wikileaks is producing. I get it that he's under personal attack and is fighting fire with fire in a battle for the allegiance of shallow thinkers, but that's quite unfortunate that he chooses to sink into this kind of non-discourse. Obviously these labels should not go into any header. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Exactly, Assange uses the term 'business McCarthyism' to describe how he sees what the banks have done. The section isn't about his opinion of what they have done, but about they have actually done, together with his reaction. To simply use his description as the section header is to accept his opinion as factual, which is a violation of NPOV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Financial repercussions is just as WP:POV as "buisness Mcarthyism", in the other direction. How about "Microlevel trade sanctioning"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim.thelion (talk • contribs) 21:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
LOL!!!! cough cough. Um sorry. Active Banana (bananaphone 21:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
"Microlevel trade sanctioning" would certainly be a lot more honest than "Financial implications" - but why do we need to invent a term when we've already got one, and it's what newspapers have (almost eagerly!) adopted for this tactic? Despite what we were told, neutrality mandates we use the name that's in the sources, not invent our own. Templar98 (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC) =Banned User
Well, the use of the term Mcarthyism is undeniably loaded, and editorial. The sad part, is I was being serious when I sugested that term. Perhaps "Corporate level trade sanctioning" would be better though. I might even be WP:BOLD and go put it in. Not sure yet... It just seems to be the least likely term to be disputable. Tim.thelion (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Are the newspapers using the term themselves, or quoting Assange as using it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted User:Tim.thelion as the talk page certainly shows NO consensus to use such WP:JARGON. Active Banana (bananaphone 22:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Think about it Banana, as it stands. The heading is very WP:POV. These were not economic reprecusions. This was an offencive move by major corporations against Assange and wikileaks. My heading was WP:NPOV, which is more important than WP:JARGON. It is better to say something correctly then to make an understandable lie. Tim.thelion (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
PostFinance, the Swiss bank, says that it suspended Assange's account because he had "provided false information regarding his place of residence" when he opened it. This may or may not be true, but we can't assume it isn't, per NPOV. Perhaps the solution to this is to rename the section 'Bank account suspension', and not refer to the WikiLeaks banking issues at all - it could be argued that suggesting they are linked with this issue is itself POV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
No "financial reprecussions" is not POV. It is the use of standard english terms that reflect the content of the section. banks freezing assets are financial reprecussions. businesses refusing to process donations are financial reprecussions. expectationa of enormous legal costs are financial reprecussions. writing a book to generate cash to for expected expensess are financial reprecussions. Active Banana (bananaphone 22:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Andy is right, "Bank account suspension" is simple and factual. Tim.thelion (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Then we need another section title for the content of the section not related to the bank suspension. Active Banana (bananaphone 22:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Financial sanctions would cover it. Templar98 (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC) =Banned User
What about "Finances", sweet and simple. Tim.thelion (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Boldly edited to - Financial sanctions - pure and simple - what was all that mcarthyism crap - imposed is already inferred in sanctions. Feel free to revert if anyone has objections. Off2riorob (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Tim, This was an offencive move by major corporations against Assange and wikileaks. - please remember that we do not have opinions on these things :) which is the whole point of coming at it from a NPOV. Rob's suggestion is excellent & the best description so far. --Errant (chat!) 10:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Just to weigh in. Business McCarthyism is obviously a loaded phrase and the term sources reported Assange using, not the term sources used themselves. We can't assume the businesses were acting 'offensively' as opposed to 'defensively' or 'ethically' or just 'procedurally' or 'legally'. As for "Financial Sanctions", I actually find it slightly worse than 'repercussions', since Sanctions are always imposed by a party in a punitive way, whereas repercussions are just 'aftereffects'. But it's close. Ocaasi (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ Amy Goodman (August 3, 2010). "Julian Assange Responds to Increasing US Government Attacks on WikiLeaks". Democracy Now.
  2. ^ Tom Curry (December 5, 2010). "McConnell optimistic on deals with Obama". msnbc.com.
  3. ^ Shane D'Aprile (December 5, 2010). "Gingrich: Leaks show Obama administration 'shallow,' 'amateurish'". The Hill.
  4. ^ Drew Zahn (December 1, 2010). [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=234905 "G. Gordon Liddy: WikiLeaks chief deserves to be on 'kill list'"]. WorldNetDaily. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
  5. ^ Barber, Mike (2010-12-06). "Heat's on Flanagan for 'inciting murder' of WikiLeaks founder; PM's ex-adviser subject of formal police complaint". Ottawa Citizen. Retrieved 2010-12-09.
  6. ^ "Let Flanagan's remarks die – - Macleans OnCampus". Oncampus.macleans.ca. 2010-12-04. Retrieved 2010-12-16.
  7. ^ 'Sweden has key role in cyberwar': report Swedish english-language "Local", 2nd Jan 2010.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Julian_Assange/Archive_7&oldid=1136859086"