Those allegations caused the leader of the group to take refuge in a nation's embassy and stay there for years. They seem incredibly relevant to the organization, regardless of it's "purpose".

No, I'm not referring to the article in this case. I'm saying just in general, Wikileaks is hardly the angel some people make it out to be sometimes.

> Personally I'm mixed on whether those belong in a documentary about WikiLeaks given how irrelevant they are to the organizational purpose.

It's a documentary about Assange. Why would it not include "personal stuff"?

I was under the (perhaps wrongful) impression that it was about WikiLeaks in main, and referenced Assange only to serve that topic.

All the coverage I've seen indicates it's primarily an Assange documentary, and that it was one even in the earlier cut that Assange approved of.

Even if it were explicitly a Wikileaks documentary, I don't see how Assange and his personal life wouldn't be a fair subject. A documentary about the Civil War will probably include info on Lincoln, a WWII one will probably talk about Hitler and his life, etc.

The rape accusations and Assange himself are intricately tied to Wikileaks, how it functions, and responses to it's actions. Not including those accusations or his response to them when they were widely speculated by some to be brought force by Sweden at the behest of the United States in retaliation to Wikileaks would be odd in a documentary about Wikileaks that happened to cover that period.