Talk:Julian Assange

Sexual assault in LEAD and elsewhere

I think we should remove the word "sexual assault" from the LEAD as normally we remove this type of wording when the allegations are dropped, per WP:AVOIDVICTIM. I think many of us believe, and we also have a lot of RS to support, that the allegations were politically motivated. Given that the charges were never pursued in the court, I think we need to reduce the WP:WEIGHT of those allegations on this article. Certainly the highest weight is in the LEAD. Here we have WP:PUBLICFIGURE which states "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." The question is if the allegations persist, or were dropped. If it is the prosecutor making the allegations, and they didnt follow through with charges, then we need to drop it. Do we have allegations (that were not retracted) from the 'victim'? I suppose if we had those, then we might keep it, although a discussion of weight is still in order. Normally if allegations are retracted, we remove from the article or greatly down weight it (and remove from the LEAD). Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

As the investigation was dropped, I agree this is awkward and inappropriate, as in the earlier discussion. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I apologize I re-opened a discussion that I had forgotten about. Jeez only a year later and I cant remember things, better not tell my wife this ;-) I see now it was maybe Valjean (talk · contribs) that re-added it? I will remove again. Valjean, I caution you about WP:BLPRESTORE, do not add again without consensus on talk. I removed it again in this edit with the intention to only remove the word sexual and leave the other structure the same more or less. I just merged two sentences and removed some piped text to make it more readable. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think Valjean has edited that section recently. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I was thinking that it was added back at Talk:Julian_Assange/Archive_42#undue_text_in_heading. Valjean, again apologies again if it was not you who re-added it. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't recall who added it back, but I won't do it now unless there is a consensus to do so. I don't edit war.

As far as WP:Public figure goes, I think you've got it backward. It lends weight to the inclusion, not deletion, of properly-sourced derogatory information about public figures, even if totally false, in contrast to how we do with non-public figures, where we tend toward not including such content, even if true. Even if there were (for any public person, not just Assange) never any prosecution and charges were dropped (which they weren't in this case), etc., we would not remove the historical record from here that the charges were raised in the first place. We should document what RS said, no matter what they said. They say he was charged with rape by the Swedish authorities, and editorial speculations that the charges were political in nature should never appear on this page. That's a big no no. Our opinions don't count. If some RS speculate that the charges were political in nature, then we may include that information.

We don't disappear history, we just include the later facts that the case was dropped, even though the charges were NOT dropped. We tell the whole story, from spilled milk and the mess it created, to when and by whom it was cleaned up. That way readers get the whole story and are not left wondering "I thought I heard that he was charged with sexual assault and rape in Sweden, but Wikipedia doesn't say anything." That would be a blot on our reputation if we didn't mention it. "If I go looking for info, and Wikipedia doesn't have it, then Wikipedia has failed." — Baseball Bugs. We are uncensored.

That still leaves the question of whether it should be mentioned in the lead or only in the body. In the body, definitely. Whitewashing and disappearing unpleasant history, no matter its nature, is against everything Wikipedia stands for. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I misread that previous thread and apologize for saying it was you who deleted it. Regarding the content, we dont include everything we find, and we have to follow BLP rules. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• I object to the deletion from the lead of "allegations of sexual assault" by Cambial Yellowing and then the far more radical removal of all mention of the nature of the charges from the lead by Jtbobwaysf. We are not censored. The charges were never dropped. This content is worthy of its own section in the body, and therefore should be mentioned, without censorship, in the lead. That's what we should do here, just as it is done in many other articles at Wikipedia. We have discussed this here: Talk:Julian_Assange/Archive_42#Awkward_and_Undue_text_in_lede. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

There were no charges. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Then what does this mean?

"The warrant was appealed to the Svea Court of Appeal which upheld it, but lowered the charge to suspicion of rape of a lesser degree, unlawful coercion and two cases of sexual molestation rather than three."

Just like other countries, Sweden does not issue arrest warrants without charges. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

What that text means is that, shocker, at some point a bad faith editor has added unsourced content to the article. Thanks for spotting it. The text about "lowering" "two rather than three" and "charges" is not mentioned in any of the sources added in pretence of supporting it. There were no charges. Yes, like some other European countries - including the UK - Sweden does exactly that. The EAW was for questioning. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I also support the removal of this content, I would have removed this too if I had noticed it. The whole mention of rape in the LEAD is highly pejorative. We are not going to get into WP:OR about your ideas if Sweden "does not issue arrest warrants without charges" nor what this could be WP:SYNTH to mean in this particular case. I suggest to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Whoa! I have made three comments and you have made five, and you tell me!!! to DROPTHESTICK? Ownership much? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it should be in the intro because it is an important part of the story. Otherwise readers will be wondering what happened.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

They can always click the wikilink and learn about it. This is a weight issue, not a content issue. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I also think the sexual assault allegation should be mentioned in the lead as otherwise it is a gaping hole in the whole embassy business. That the case was later dropped should also be mentioned in the same or a just adjacent sentence. Any details should be left to the appropriate section and the article about it. BLP is quite clear that innocence should be assumed unless a case in proven in court. Whether people believe that or not or hate or love him for anything else he has or has not done their feelings are inappropriate in the lead. Wikipedia may not be censored, but on the other hand it is very definitely not Twitter or X ẚ Trump NadVolum (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The UK embassy saga is not related to the nature of the accusations, it was only related to the suspicion that Sweden wanted to collect the article subject so they could extradite him to the US to face charges. The saga would have been the same if Sweden sought to extradite for jaywalking. We all know that. The way that the US continued to attempt to extradite until the UK courts largely ruled against it, supports this position. We already have a wikilink to the sub-article and it contains all the info that the reader may want. The use of the term "rape" and "sexual" in the LEAD and headings unduly disparages the BLP subject with maximum possible undue weight. We have quite a lot of precedent for this on other BLPs, when the accusations are retracted (essentially what happened here per WP:QUACK) then we remove from the article, or at least down weight massively. At this point we are only discussing down weight. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the threat of extradition is relevant here. If I understand this correctly, it's about the reason he fled to the UK from Sweden. It's because of the accusations of rape. Without that information, his flight to the UK makes no sense. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

He didn’t “flee” to the UK. That’s simply fiction. He travelled to the UK for a journalism event. Before he left, he and his lawyers asked the Swedish authorities if it was OK for him to leave to the UK. The Swedish authorities said yes, it is. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Read the flipping article about it rather than making things up. NadVolum (talk) 10:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

It would help if that information was in the article. Is that "journalism event" and the request mentioned?

I rearranged the first two paragraphs so events are in chronological order. It was a mess. The same needs to be done with the rest, as it's a jumble, BUT, isn't this far too much detail for this article? The main "Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority" article is where all the details should be. Here we only need a long paragraph to sum it up. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Very long

This article is too long to read and navigate comfortably. As of 31 August 2024, its readable prose size was 14,225 words. Consider splitting content into sub-article or condensing it. The article size impacts usability in multiple ways: Reader issues, such as attention span, readability, organization, information saturation, etc. (when articles are large). Total article size should be kept reasonably low, particularly for readers using slow internet connections, screen readers, mobile devices or who have slow computer loading. Some large articles exist for topics that require depth and detail, but typically articles of such size are split into two or more smaller articles.

Word count	What to do
> 15,000 words	Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed.
Julian Assange 14,225 words	Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed
> 9,000 words	Probably should be divided or trimmed.

—◀ Isaidnoway (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC) ▶—

Good point. Lets start to summarize the sections where we have sub-articles. There are some very long sections right now where we can easily just summarize the sub-articles. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Just keep in mind that size alone is not a good argument for deletion of content. I disagree that this article is too long, but if done properly, it might be possible to make it smaller. Always keep WP:PRESERVE, a policy, not a guideline, in mind, so fix rather than delete. Size is a guideline, and there is no requirement that a reader has to be able to read an article in 15 minutes. A long topic may take several hours to read, and that doesn't mean the article is too long.

Look for unnecessary duplication, wordiness than can be condensed, etc. Sections that are so long that they create a due weight problem can be split off into legitimate fork subarticles. That is often the quickest way to make an article smaller without Wikipedia losing that content. It just gets moved. Those are just some things to keep in mind. Carry on. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The issue is too much of "they said this", we really do not need this much talking head content. A good bio should say who they are and what they are notable for, and really not much more, we are not a gossip column. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

We don't include trivia (only in gossip rags and bad sources) and non-notable gossip, but notable gossip should be included per WP:Public figures, even if slanderous and provably untrue (we have lots of articles for such content), unlike for non-public persons, where we tend to leave it out, even if true. Notability applies solely to the creation of articles, not their content, and an article will contain lots of content (possibly most of the content) that does not count toward "what they are notable for". Once an article qualifies for GNG (the most important and notable content), other stuff gets added that does not count toward "what makes them notable". It is part of the sum total of human knowledge found in RS about that person that we are supposed to include. Other guidelines help us deal with certain aspects of that (such as trivia and very short-lived headlines). -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

But none of that tells us anything about him, only what people think of him, and this is why this article is so large. Note, yes wp:n applies to article creation, as in what the subject is notable for, not everything about the topic that can be found. Most of this content tells us nothing about him, or his life. But if people are OK with the article being unreadable, fine, it will to have the effect they think it will. 16:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Some of it can be spun off into legitimate subarticles. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "unreadable", but it's common to not read a book in one sitting, and that's also the case with large articles about very notable and controversial people and topics. Those articles are not meant to be digested quickly. Size alone is not a good argument for deleting content, but it often is a good argument for splitting off content. Above all, we try to WP:PRESERVE it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Far too much detail about the sexual assault matters

There is far too much detail for this article. The main "Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority" article is where all the details should be. Here we only need a long paragraph to sum it up. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree. For the moment, I've copied and pasted the version that existed prior to a 8500-byte expansion of the section on 17 March. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with th revert. In a section which refers to another article for details the contents should normally be an approximtion of the summary section of the other article. NadVolum (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

the user above points out we have this issue in many sections. maybe we can work together to summarize those other sections as well. let's try to get the article back under 10k characters...Jtbobwaysf (talk)

See my comment above. WP:PRESERVE is a policy, unlike Size, which is a guideline. Just be careful. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

If there is a another article which is main for the subject matter then the extra here that is not there can normally just be moved to the main article covering the subject matter instead. NadVolum (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I opened this thread with a link to the right article, Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority. There can be lots of very specific detail there. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)-- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)