Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:58, 20 February 2011

Page created

There is much more important information on the Assange case that has been reported in reliable sources, but we cannot expand the section any more in the Julian Assange article because it already takes up an undue amount of space, so I have created this article for the case. This way, we can include all of the information on the case that has been reported by reliable source while making the necessary reductions to the sexual allegation parts of the Julian Assange article. The new article currently relies heavily on the material from the Julian Assange article](copy pasted) plus this handy timeline from MSNBC. I won't link this article to that one until significant improvements to this article have been made, and the size of the section in the Julian Assange article has been carefully reduced. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a) rather biased, and b) will not be interesting after extradition. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

a) This can be {{sofixit}}ed through editing b) if he is extradited the title will become the trial of Julian Assange in Sweden or somesuch. victor falk 13:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

b) In fact, once he is extradited, the case may still be called "Swedish Judicial Authority v. Julian Assange" although it might become Swedish Prosecution Authority v. Julian Assange.

a) In what way is it biased and for which side? Pretty much all I did was copy the segment from the Julian Assange article and missing facts using a timeline of factual material published in a reliable source, and then I tidies up a bit. In any case, "biased" is rarely if ever a reason for article deletion; it's a reason for adding more factual material from reliable sources and finding quotes to represent opinions that are not duly represented. So far, The only "opinions" are the charges against Assange, the response to the charges from his defence, plus a few quotes from the Swedish prosecutors and one from an alleged victim. The article is mainly factual with few opinions, so there is not much room for "bias" unless you believe there are some important facts that have been omitted, in which case we can find reliable sources for those facts and insert them. Gregcaletta (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

This article clearly gives most weight to Assange's defense. Part of this may be because his defense has been quite succesfull in presenting that side in English-language media, and because some wikipedians have removed references to sources in Swedish. But this article does more. For example, the lede almost starts out with: "He is wanted for questioning, having not yet been formally charged." I do not quite see that in the two references given. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry wrong refs. I'll fix that. Gregcaletta (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but it doesn't seem clear to me that the article gives most weight to Assange's defence. What statements by the prosecutors are missing? Feel free to add them if you can find them in reliable sources. Gregcaletta (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Part of this is the space given to the defense, which is of course due to the enormous volume of statements by Assange's defense compared to the terse statements by his accusors. But what is obviously missing is the fact that Swedish courts (not just the prosecution) have seen probable cause for the suspicion of rape. I an not going to do work on this article until the case has been decided. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

According to Misplaced Pages, "probable cause" simply means "the standard by which an officer or agent of the law has the grounds to make an arrest", so if they have issued a warrant, then by definition they must have found probable cause. That does not say anything about the quality of the evidence against Assange, only of the Swedish standards for issuing an arrest warrant. The term "probable cause" is obviously not being used here in the second sense of "the standard to which a grand jury believes that a crime has been committed", because Assange has not yet been tried in front of a judge or jury. Gregcaletta (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Sophistry. And wrong, because Swedish courts can also order someone to be detained on "reasonable suspicion", when the evidence is not as strong. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I actually think this was a good initiative. The matter is to complex to be covered well in the main Assanga article. The new article as it stands has way to much gossip material though. We don't know enough yet about neither Assange's or the prosecution's version of the story. Most of the current information is secondary sources reporting what other secondary sources reported from unnamed sources.Mbulle (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

As long as it appears in reliable sources, material should be included, but in cases where the factual style statements are in doubt we could change it to quotations of the reliable source rather than stating their material as fact. Gregcaletta (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Although I don't participate in editing this article anymore I must express my amazement about what is happening here. At this moment in time, there is no court case involving the two Swedish women. The events in Sweden have been mentioned in the extradition hearings only to the extent that the English court can decide on whether the offenses are extraditable (offenses 1-3 under English law and offense 4 under EU law). The decision of the extradition court is not known. The two women are only notable for this one single event. They have not been heard in court. Their lawyer has not been heard in court. They have not given interviews. Yet you blow up the section about the allegations and remove it from the Assange article to publish a separate Wiki article ("Swedish Judicial Authority v. Julian Assange") with details and gossip about their life and justify all this with "as long as it appears in reliable sources"!? What about WP:BLP? Shouldn't there be a speedy deletion of this article or shouldn't it be put into sandbox or whatever is the appropriate procedure? Assange has not been indicted for the offenses! The matter of the current case is: are offenses as described extraditable? The extradition court does not deal with the offenses as such so there is no need for detail now when it is not even clear whether there will be a court case in Sweden! KathaLu (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The condome

I have taken away the wording that the condome broke during the sex act, as this is one of the many unclear and contested facts in the story. In some ways it is good to be more clear in a description like this of what actually happened. At the same time, though, it will be then be based on secondary sources, and therefore will in details include errounous and/or contested facts. And to evaluate what version from the two parties of what happened is to beleived is up for the court to descide, not us editors. I general I also agree with Peter K above that the whole story has a biased undertone. For example the details of the problems the prosecuters had getting an interview wih Assange is presented by them very differently from what is written in this article and what the legal represenatives for Assange state. There has in Swedish newspapers (I know this is not acceptable source for en:wp, but why state here contradictory statements?) been presened a detailed account of all telephone calls, mails etc in relation to try to get hold of Assange for questioning.Yger (talk) 13:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Umm... in relation to the broken condom, both the reliable sources and the victim herself say it broke during sex, not before. If you feel there are facts or opinions missing and can supply reliable sources for them, then feel free to add them. Gregcaletta (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I have but they are in Swedish, and I have learnt sources in Swedsih is not acceptable in en:wp.(and reliable - this is a case for court to decide on and before they give a verdict, no seconadry sources can be seen as reilable).Yger (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Swedish sources are acceptable if it is a reliable source to begin with (not a tabloid newspaper) and you can find a reliable translation. Otherwise, find it in an English newspaper, or remove the tag. Gregcaletta (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

POV

The article is in general biased in what facts its include, see for exampel fact about condiome, and the process of the prosecuters trying to get in contact with Assange. Also the factual description is based on one secondary source containg contested facts which is at the very center of the legal case (if the condome broke during the sex act or before). There are other secondary sources givining these facts differently, and the selection of source is then a POV act.Yger (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

If this is true, then you should be able to provide us with the reliable sources that contradict the material in this article, or provide these missing facts. Gregcaletta (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Here one of the most serious Swedish newpaper refers what is stated in the offical summary from the prosecuters (ie a most official version). Especially the facts relating to the condome is different from the version in this article.Yger (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I used Google translate and it seems no different from what appears already in the article. What does it say that does not appear in this article? Gregcaletta (talk) 13:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

This passage När han gör det upplever värdinnan ”ett stort outtalat motstånd” från Assange. Under samlaget märker hon hur Assange börjar greja med kondomen. Efteråt förstod hon att den var trasig. She is implying that Assange delibetly broke the condome with his fingers. This is also what other newsarticles report miss A has been stated to friends. Whatever is the truth is not for wp to then state that it broke during the sex act implying by the sex act.Yger (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

This article with~insight into the investigation, state that the way the condome broke is a key issue and the most urgent question the prosecuters want to inteerrogate Assange about. Also the articls says the critical reason for the investigation was reopened was that the broken condome was presented to the police by miss A.Yger (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

A similar article with a picture of the actual condome .Yger (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

This article already includes that allegation: "Miss A would later tell police that this sex involved "unlawful coercion", and that Assange deliberately broke the condom". Gregcaletta (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes but after the "fact" that it broke during the act. It is not a fact but a contested and critical issue.Yger (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No, even the victim doesn't dispute that. She is claiming that he broke it on purpose with his fingers during sex. Gregcaletta (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The Google translation of the very source you cited says "During intercourse, she notices how Assange start tinkering with the condom". Poor english but I assume the "during intercourse" part is correct. Gregcaletta (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It is quite a difference between "a Condome broke" - A passive woding implying it broke beacuse of bad quality etc. And something lie "a condome was broken". I suggested the wording Involving a broken condome or something like that. If you want to be true to the source you use that source can be used up to these wordings. And then a different set of sources for just this part describing the condome.Yger (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The second pãrt I see as POV is the inclusion of the statement Assange's legal team say Assange offered himself for interview before leaving Sweden and offered to return on 10 October but that Ny said these dates were not acceptable, at which point they made Assange available for interview "by telephone, videolink, Skype, on affidavit or during his proffered attendance at the Swedish Embassy or New Scotland Yard" and that Ny also refused these offers.. The prosecuters describe these contact very differently, and to be neutral we should then not use any of their statements. Ie the sentence above should be deleted.Yger (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I added a reference to BBC's description of the prosecutor's version of this, that they asked him 10 times to be interviewed before issuing the arrest warrant.Mbulle (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Your new sentence improved this issue of mine quite a bit. Still I see a major problem that Assange view is presented first and the prosecuter must dispute this. Should it not be the other way around. The statement from the official side first and the defence tema disputing this? The same goes with the condom part too. First Assange version, then the victims view disputing this. Should it not be the other way around?Yger (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)