Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:25, 10 October 2013

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

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

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

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

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Australia Mid‑importance Julian Assange is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Journalism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. International relations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sweden Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ecuador Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ecuador, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ecuador on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EcuadorWikipedia:WikiProject EcuadorTemplate:WikiProject EcuadorEcuador Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Espionage Low‑importance Julian Assange is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Computing Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A news item involving Julian Assange was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 16 August 2012.

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

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

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

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

This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This note in a nutshell: It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit. See Help:Edit summary.

Some problems with the section on "Allegations of sexual assault and political refugee"

The Fifth Estate

A small omission -- where and to what degree should information from the article on the Assange biopic The Fifth Estate be included here? — Catherine\ 22:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I would say that it is worth mentioning that a film has been made. I don't think anything from the film should be treated as fact worth including in an encyclopedic article. Wikileaks has made it clear that they view the film as a "work of fiction masquarading as fact", with a number of inaccuracies, which are elaborated in detail here: http://wikileaks.org/IMG/html/wikileaks-dreamworks-memo.html#about Totorotroll (talk) 09:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the precedent of the film The Social Network about Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg, mention of the film appears on Mark Zuckerberg, under Depictions in media, and on Facebook under In popular culture. Perhaps this is the way to go here too: a Depictions in media section for this page, and an In popular culture section for the Wikileaks page. Totorotroll (talk) 10:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Brief summary of Sex events

I added one, largely taken from the Guardian article. No doubt people will scream that any details provided are NPOV for whatever POV they want to push. But something like this is needed. I do not think that the bits I added are in serious dispute. Below is the added section. Tuntable (talk) 04:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Assange is accused of sexual misconduct with two women while in Sweden in August 2010. The first woman, Miss A, had allowed Assange to stay at her flat while she was away. When Miss A returned she accused Assange of aggressively pursuing sex with her on 13 August, to which she reluctantly agreed. She also accused Assange of not properly using a condom. Assange denies these accusations. Miss A put on a party for Assange the following day and continued to let him stay in her flat.

The second woman, Miss W, took Assange to her flat and had consensual sex with him using a condom. However Miss W accused Assange of having unprotected sex with her the next day, starting when she was half asleep. Assange again denies these accusation.

Miss W later contacted Miss A compared stories, and went to the police wanting Assange to have a STD test to which Assange did not initially agree.

Conspiracy theories on US extradition?

I see little evidence from credible RS that Assange's fear that Sweden will extradite him to the US is anything but a convenient conspiracy theory. The article should reflect the simple facts: that was accused of sexual assault in Sweden and refused to appear before a court to answer these allegations. These conspiracy theories can be mentioned, but it's absurd to mention them in an unchallenged fashion, in the lede, when reliable sources don't support them. Steeletrap (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Steeletrap - there have been several well documented but rarely reported (in U.S. mainstream media) facts. I agree with you that withinout these facts just a general statement about "fears" may sound like a conspiracy theory. I also agree with you that such facts as are stated need to be cited - what authorities admit, what newspapers have (even if on infrequent occasions) stated, etc - These should be added to the article. These include:

* 1 Assange stayed in Sweden and offered to answer any additional questions and stayed for many days. His offer was declined despite what were (I believe) several times he offered to do this. They said no we do not have questions for you/won't meet with you.

* 2 Finally he asked them something else: he asked the prosecutor (staying so many extra days in Sweden when he has a busy international schedule as he has long had) if it was ok to leave

* 3 The prosecutor said, yes, you may leave

* 4 Assange has in the UK offered to be questioned electronically, and Swedish officials have refused to do this.

* 5 Assange has in the UK offered to be questioned in person at the Ecuador Embassy, and Swedish officials have refused to do this

* 6 Another fact - these above two methods have been used in the past with other people who were "wanted for questioning" (Swedish law does not require custodial orders in relation to the allegations)

* 7. It is also extremely rare (if not unique) to issue an interpol Red Notice for someone facing the allegations Assange faced (not Genocide or Crimes Against Humanity etc, but in this case, consensual sex, but later waking up at night and sex while the other was not fully awake, and accused by one of deliberately breaking the condom..) to have such a notice issued for questioning, in light of the person already willing with multiple offers to make themselves available for questioning.

Recall that the extradition to Sweden is supposedly to question Assange. If this is the reason, item 1 is strange, and the combination of items 1, 2&3, and 4-5-6 in combination particularly make one wonder. Does this "mathematically prove" they are trying to bring Assange to Sweden with political motives? Nothing is provable to such a 100% certainty in human affairs, and the article should not claim it is a *fact* that they are doing this with political motives. However, the article could (and imo should) cite the above items, with references and citations (I can provide some but am a bit too busy at the moment - perhaps the above list will inspire some - drop me a note at my Talk if you need help) and say something along the lines of,

"in light of the above, Assange and his lawyers, and many his supporters feel, and some analysists/reporters have publicly suggested that, political considerations are likely to be at least *part* of the motive " for demanding Assange physically go to Sweden.

Of course citations would be needed for "some have argued" or "many supporters have stated"...I believe some of the above items (certainly item 5) are in the article - a brief summary with citations of them together, would accompany a statement similar to the one in italics, suggested above, and would, yes, avoid any statement of being "sure" and avoid any statement as "fact" but also not be worded as some conspiracy theory, either, but a summary of the specific facts behind why many feel there is a very real concern about motives behind the request (about the wisdom of Assange complying with it) that Assange must only be questioned in Sweden and not in any other place or any other format.

I will of course not add any items above to the article unless/until I have time to get references, but it does address your implicit request for knowing what the specific factual concerns are. I hope some will have the time (before I do) to locate references (the UK's The Guardian, and DemocracyNow.org, and RT.com are three sources that have covered a lot of this) Harel (talk) 05:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC) (I think item 8 I forgot is that were Assange to go to Sweden, it is now such that he would be put in prison so could not even take the legal steps to challenge things that, those who criticize Assange's refusal to be questioned in Sweden have said, he should "just challenge it when you arrive")

P.S. It may take the efforts of several of us editors to gather up the citations. One of (several) citations which together point at item 7 for example is namely that by comparison Libya's Gadaffi got a "Code Orange" but Assange a "Code Red" a higher (the highest) Interpol_notice. In 2010 an Assange attorney stated ""it is highly unusual for a red notice warrant to be issued in relation to the allegations reported as having been made, since Swedish law does not require custodial orders in relation to the allegation - indeed to our knowledge this is a unique action by the Swedish prosecuting authorities in applying for a red notice on the basis of these allegations...We are also investigating whether the Prosecutor's application to have Mr. Assange held incommunicado without access to lawyers, visitors or other prisoners - again a unique request - is in any way linked to this matter and the recent, rather bellicose US statements of an intention to prosecute Mr. Assange.”

As far as reasonable concerns about possibly unfair treatment by Sweden (in general, not necessarily extradition to US) one can also add item 9 that police leaked to the press that Assange would be arrested, before they even notified Assange himself that he was "arrested" technically - "He was arrested in his absence, but he... they never got in... got in contact with him so, but he was arrested in his absence. It's a technical... technical thing in Sweden, Swedish law, yeah."" said police so he found out only upon reading some headline in the Expressen Tabloid with front page "Assange hunted for rape in Sweden" rather than, and before, being notified by police. Possibly illegal "leak" but certainly....prejudicing press, much?

Regarding another "conspiracy theory" (to some) or "raising concerns" (to others) about - motives of accuser(s)

I add this in case someone asks about those. Although the sex was said by all to be consensual, that does not mean Assange behaved well. Although it is not illegal to do so, is it not nice behaviour, in fact not decent many would say, to say you're "too busy" to take an STD/STI test (he eventually agreed, but by then it was Sat, the clinic closed, and the women had gone to police - initially with the intention of not filing charges but just to ask a simple question: "can we legally force him to take the STD test?") At the same time, as the for personality of the first woman (do not click on this link if you don't want to know her name - it has been reported in many many news outlets though) she had posted a blog later deleted, but saved by many others, a blog posted not long before she met Assange, called "7 Steps to Legal Revenge" for example if the boyfriend cheats on you or leaves/breaks up with you..she says it's usually better to forgive, and that revenge should be proportional..but then suggests "For example if you want revenge on someone who cheated or who dumped you, you should use a punishment with dating/sex/fidelity involved." and then "Send your victim a series of letters and photographs that make your victim’s new partner believe that you are still together which is better than to tell just one big lie on one single occasion...The ideal, of course, is a revenge as strong as possible...Step 7...Get to work. And remember what your goals are while you are operating, ensure that your victim will suffer the same way as he made you suffer. She ("Woman A") posted this in January 2010 " and also ..seven months later in Aug 2010 she had sex with Assange and later found out that the second woman did too, and that both of them were told (initially) he was too busy to take an STD test. If one takes the women's statements, as true, then Assange does not behave nicely: getting consent first, yes, but very sexually pushy, and bossy, telling her what refreshments to fetch him after sex and initially, for a while in fact, "too busy" to take STD test..not admirable qualities. The above about Woman A are not nice either, to say the least..but what's relevant here is, it does make at least raising questions about her motivations far from "conspiracies" either (although again, either both women or at least the second woman W, initially just went in to merely ask police whether they can force Assange to take the test. Woman A claimed to Woman W that that was her (Woman A's) motives, too).

At police station

The text currently reads

The second woman, Miss W, took Assange to her flat and had consensual sex with him using a condom. However Miss W accused Assange of having unprotected sex with her the next day, starting when she was half asleep. Assange again denies these accusation.

Miss W later contacted Miss A compared stories, and went to the police wanting Assange to have a STD test to which Assange did not initially agree.

On 20 August 2010, Swedish police began an investigation into allegations concerning Assange's behaviour.

In light of the info below I suggest we had at "" the info is here by the Australian national broadcaster ABC (From July 2013 and updated in May 2013, "Sex, Lies and Julian Assange"] and at that page, either watch the 46 min video or click on the "Show Transcript" button, this part:

Three days later on August 20th, Wilen, accompanied by Ardin went to the Klara police station in central Stockholm to seek advice about whether Assange could be forced to take an STD test. Ardin had gone along primarily to support Wilen. Sometime during Wilen's questioning the police announced to Ardin and Wilen that Assange was to be arrested and questioned about possible rape and molestation. Wilen became so distraught she refused to give any more testimony and refused to sign what had been taken down.

Remarkable. And, certainly seems relevant - at least for a short addition at to the effect of Woman W "upon hearing this was not just to see if Assange can be forced to take test, but would be arrested, became distraught, refused to testify any more, and refused to sign the police summary" Harel (talk) 07:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Typo corrected Aug 30. Also, in the actual article (as opposed to Talk page) if consensus is that BLP means that (despite fairly widespread coverage of actual names) that the names should not be mentioned, the suggested quote above would say, ", accompanied by went to the Klara police station..." etc, in the format of my suggestion in the "conspiracies?" section above

Finally, if we do keep their names anonymous for now, I suggest something like "Woman W" or "Ms. W" rather than the "Miss W", not so much as a feminist issue but as an "out of date language" issue in this context...even if the official translation by Swedish authorities might (I don't know) use that term Harel (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it's fine as it is. Woman W sounds a bit jarring and I've never seen this used in publications written by people who have English as their mother tongue. If a precedent has been set elsewhere, I'm happy to stand corrected. But Woman W sounds a bit like "swenglish" to me. Totorotroll (talk) 09:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Political and economic views

The whole paragraph regarding his interview with Hezbollah leader Hassan Nassrallah seems biased. By stating he "accepted Nassrallah's answer", it implies that he agrees with the answer. It is foolish to infer from the transcript that he agrees or disagrees with the answers given. He is merely asking the question and receiving the answer. Even if a questioner were to challenge an answer, it does not mean they disagree with it. This is an interview, not a debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitaeterna (talk • contribs) 05:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree and have accordingly reworded here to avoid the word "accept". The paragraph now does not really describe Assange's views, so editors may wish to move it, maybe to above the views section. -84user (talk) 07:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Bana?

Did he hire Eric Bana to impersonate him in his ad for the 2013 Senate election campaign? -- Jack of Oz 08:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit clarification

I trust the two edits by Andy the Grump are in good faith but they allow the first paragraph to omit the Manning leaks which are critical to the initial public attention to this article .Manning was convicted of violations of the U.S. Espionage Act. If my grammar is wrong, please fix it rather than delete the facts.Patroit22 (talk) 02:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The lede goes into extensive detail about Manning already. We can't put everything into the first paragraph, and it makes more sense to describe the broad outline ("WikiLeaks... publishes submissions of secret information") first, and the details later. You should also bear in mind that this article is about Assange, rather than about Manning, and that we have other articles (e.g. the one on Manning, as well as Wikileaks, and United States diplomatic cables leak) covering aspects of the topic in greater detail. I can see no particular reason why the specific details of Manning's conviction need to go in the first paragraph of an article about Assange: why do you see it as so important? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The Assange article first paragraph resembles and even uses as an objective reference the Wilkleaks webpage about their sources, which does not mention espionage violators. Espionage leakers are a major source of their disclosures and to hide that with terms like whistleblowers is a farce.Patroit22 (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

If the OP thinks that Assange was a nobody before Manning's escapades, he is really very out of touch. HiLo48 (talk) 04:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

This HiLo48 comment about someone being out of touch sounds like a personal attack rather than a comment on content. If so, please strike it.Patroit22 (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Describing this article as 'a farce' isn't exactly civil. It has had input from multiple contributors, and has been the subject of considerable debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I did not describe the article as a farce. The sentence in the lede that cites the Wikileaks web as a reliable source on its founder makes the sentence a farce, in my opinion. I am being civil and do not invite any personal attacks.Patroit22 (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

A personal attack, eh? Well, you described the Manning leaks as "...critical to the initial public attention to this article." Sorry, but that's ridiculous. Assange's article is older than Manning's by some time. If you write ridiculous things, perhaps your judgement on what's a personal attack is ridiculous too. HiLo48 (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48 My judgement on what is a personal attack is not subject to your determination that it is ridiculous. Please refrain from personal attacks.Patroit22 (talk) 01:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

LOL. Please give up now. You're just digging a deeper hole. HiLo48 (talk) 01:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48 Calling me ignorant and wondering if I am stupid is persistent personal attacks ..Patroit22 (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at Ignorance. HiLo48 (talk) 01:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Ignorance is used as an insult. Patroit22 (talk) 01:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it can be. But I've pointed out that you displayed the other, more traditional and, fortunately, curable form of ignorance in your suggestion that Assange's fame only came after Manning's leaks. When we're building a quality encyclopaedia it's important to point out when someone has their facts wrong. If you choose to also read my comment as an insult, that's really your problem. HiLo48 (talk) 02:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

No it is your problem. I never said Assange's fame or infamy was due to Manning. I said the Assange article downplays the important role of espionage leaks to the disclosures. My intent is to improve the article by including facts to clarify the self serving descriptions of sources quoted from the Misplaced Pages web site.Patroit22 (talk) 03:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Oops. I meant Wikileaks web site rathe than Misplaced Pages in the post above.Patroit22 (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC).

You said "...the Manning leaks which are critical to the initial public attention to this article." My simple point is that Assange already had considerable attention long before Manning did anything of note on the leakage front. It was NOT the Manning leaks that gave this article its initial attention. Do you understand yet? HiLo48 (talk) 03:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I meant initial reader reaction today is often about the espionage leaks of Manning. You have no clue of what I know about international intelligence and count-espionage activities. Do you understand ?Patroit22 (talk) 04:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC) .

Misplaced Pages bases article content on published reliable sources, and not on the personal knowledge of contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Andy I know that. My point is Wikileaks web site is not a published reliable source. Ciao.Patroit22 (talk) 04:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, so we have a new definition of "initial"? Sorry I didn't know that. Actually, that's crap. If that really is what you meant, you didn't express yourself at all well. And I really couldn't give a rats how much you know "about international intelligence and count-espionage activities". It's completely irrelevant to making this a better article, to which you've so far contributed nothing but confusion and arrogance. HiLo48 (talk) 05:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Name calling and lack of civility adds nothing to making the article better. How about a yes or no answer? Is Wikileaks a reliable published source of information on its founder?Patroit22 (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

If you have questions regarding sources and what defines a reliable source, I suggest the wikipedia policy describe at Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources. If you have questions regarding how the lead section should be written, I suggest reading Misplaced Pages:Lead_section. Please note however that "My intent is to improve the article by including facts to clarify the self serving descriptions of sources quoted from the web site." is borderline unacceptable behavior for an Misplaced Pages editor. If you notice that a section is missing something that has been said in reliable sources, you are free to add that, but Misplaced Pages is not the place to Right Great Wrongs. As a general rule, if you are going to edit a article, start with a source. Belorn (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I have read the guidance and I am not trying to right great wrong. I have a simple question. Is Wikikeaks web site controlled by Julian Assange a reliable published source for citing information on Mr. Assange?Patroit22 (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Your edit added material. It did not remove any existing material. Frankly, I see nothing in the first paragraph of the existing lede that is remotely contentious, and that couldn't be sourced from multiple credible publications. It discusses the outline of what Wikileaks does - The Manning case is covered in detail both later in the lede, and in considerable depth in the body of the article. This is how a lede is supposed to be written. Dumping a poorly-worded statement about Manning into the existing first paragraph does nothing for style or comprehension as I see it. We expect readers to read more than the first paragraph of the lede - though frankly, given the article subject, it is rather implausible that readers won't know about Manning anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Andy-All of this discussion and conjecture on how much of the article readers view or know is not necessary. Forget my edit. A simple yes or no answer of my question will satisfy, Is the cite of Wikileaks web controlled by Mr. Assange a reliable published source in an article about him? I think not. I suggest you or another objective editor remove the Wikileaks footnote and cite one of the multiple credible publications that lists Wikileaks sources and does not include espionage leaks as one of the sources.Patroit22 (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I have replaced the citation with one from the BBC. I see no reason whatsoever why a citation should be selected on the basis of what it doesn't include. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Andy BBC is credible source. Thanks for your generally civil comments and getting rid of this blatant problem with a source that is clearly not objective in spite of several comments of editors that blame the messenger rathe than the message. Misplaced Pages may need Anger Management section to aid some editors in becoming more civil. Patroit22 (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

LOL. When you learn how to edit here correctly (Heard if indenting?), and stop playing POV games, all of which is quite uncivil, then we can talk about others' alleged incivility. I called you ignorant because you were. Hopefully you are less ignorant now. HiLo48 (talk) 07:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

1. ^ Cite error: The named reference 10 days was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Interpol warrant for Julian Assange ‘a persecution not a prosecution’ The Tech Herald

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Low-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Australia articles
• Mid-importance Australia articles
• WikiProject Australia articles
• B-Class Journalism articles
• Mid-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• B-Class International relations articles
• Mid-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• B-Class Sweden articles
• Low-importance Sweden articles
• All WikiProject Sweden pages
• B-Class Ecuador articles
• Low-importance Ecuador articles
• B-Class United Kingdom articles
• Low-importance United Kingdom articles
• WikiProject United Kingdom articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class Espionage articles
• Low-importance Espionage articles
• B-Class Computing articles
• Mid-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use Australian English