Talk:Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to be extradited to Sweden
Review of revision 1184554 [Passed] edit
 |
Revision 1184554 of this article has been reviewed by Microchip08 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 13:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: NYT source was down for me, so I have edited out those sections; I shall readd them in a moment for independent review by someone that can access it. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Revision 1184554 of this article has been reviewed by Microchip08 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 13:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: NYT source was down for me, so I have edited out those sections; I shall readd them in a moment for independent review by someone that can access it. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Incorrect "correction" edit
{{editprotected}} This article includes a "correction" to the effect that "This article mentions that Mr Julian Assange was to be extradited on charges of Sexual Assault." but that "The offences specified in the Arrest Warrant were of "Sexual Molestation", not Sexual Assault." This is doubly incorrect. First, the article does not mention "charges" of sexual assault, but accusations (Assange has not been charged with anything); second these accusations do not merely include molestation, but (according to the BBC and Guardian sources) "sexual assault" and "rape," or (according to the NYT source) "sexual molestation," "unlawful coercion" and "rape," which the NYT collectively refers to as "sexual abuse." In both cases, the article is correct, and the "correction" inaccurate. Please remove it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.6.128 (talk • contribs)
- Citing different sources as saying different things and then authoritively stating which ones are correct and which are not is somewhat disingenuous. The obvious conclusion from what you have stated is sources are in conflict, not that any given statement is true. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, there is no basis for the correction. A collective term could be "sex crimes". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- I believe the terminology should be used carefully. I mentioned the problem of using the term "Sexual assault" under "Comments" and am relieved to see that it is to be rectified. All these terms are vague as their meaning varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. He has not been "charged" and I believe the incidents involve "sexual molestation" which is a very different category in the US than sexual assault. Mattisse (talk) 01:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- US legal terminology is not the most relevant here, and it also varies between states. Swedish courts found probable cause for the suspicion of rape. The English judge wrote that those accusations would also be considered rape in the UK (compare w:Rape in English law). A careful choice of terminology should follow British usage. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- To the original poster, (24.6.6.128, whoever you are), I suggest you take up the correction with the person who informed me the article was wrong in the first place, User:198.185.18.207 on the Opinions page of this article. I made the relevant correction, probably got one word wrong, but I followed what I was asked and confirmed the detail with the text of the warrant from the Swedish Prosecutors office. BarkingFish (talk) 13:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- On the Opinions page, User:198.185.18.207 wrote a stupid rant, that you qualified as "spot on". There is no basis for that red "correction" banner. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- On the contrary, Pieter, if I think there is cause for a correction banner, I will add one. The poster quite correctly pointed out that the accusation was of Sexual Molestation, and not assault, thus the article required correcting. If you think you're better qualified to make the call that there is "no basis for that red "correction" banner", hang around here a few months, do some work and you're quite welcome to try your hand at the job yourself. Until then, kindly don't tell me how to do mine, thanks. BarkingFish (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- The request for an edit to the page associated with this talk page is
denied. — μ 18:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
