The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page
Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.
If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles
Julian Assange is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ecuador, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ecuador on Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. 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 articles
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 Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Julian Assange is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia'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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism articles
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
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.
Latest comment: 1 month ago7 comments6 people in discussion
Julian Paul Assange ... is an Australian editor, publisher and activist who founded WikiLeaks in 2006 in order to commit "acts of journalism".[1]
The source doesn't say that WikiLeaks was founded "in order to commit 'acts of journalism'". The way this sentence is phrased makes it sound like Assange said he wanted to commit "acts of journalism". I think we should go back to what we previously had. We go on to show what WikiLeaks was used for. Jack Upland (talk) 01:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
"acts of journalism" is a strange phrasing especially for the lead and we should just call it what it is... for example he "founded WikiLeaks to force transparency of large organizations" or "founded WikiLeaks to reveal contradictions and corruption among governments and other institutions". Avoid euphamisms or misleading quotes and just call things what they are. Jorahm (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 19 days ago7 comments3 people in discussion
I am not familiar with the details of this article subject, but when reading today the article goes from:
Julian_Assange#Appeals_and_other_developments "On 20 May, the two High Court judges, Dame Victoria Sharp and Sir Jeremy Johnson, found that the assurances regarding the First Amendment and the nationality question were not sufficient and gave Assange leave to appeal against extradition."
to:
Julian_Assange#Plea_bargain "Assange agreed to plead guilty to one count of violating the Espionage Act in exchange for release on 24 June 2024."
Was there any activity by the subject or his legal team that can connect these two points? Seems a crucial encyclopedic period of time to cover to explain why the flip flop on the part of the UK and US govts. They were both preparing to extradite, then the court ruling. Was there any filings or due activity in between?
This ABC News source seems to infer it hinged on free speech protections. Comments? Do we have a source tied to Assange that states that non-citizens are not afforded first amendment rights? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
This Fox News has some decent coverage of the first amendment issue and also notes that Biden was considering a request from Australia to end the extradition request. Seems both of these would be good to bridge this gap. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I guess NOTFORUM but can I comment on that the BBC has this as a front page minute by minute business - whereas they practically completely ignored anything about his extradition case and his most important entry before was his marriage in prison. It just blanks things it doesn't like. NadVolum (talk) 08:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is encyclopedic that we include the legal analysis of why he was released. We include all kinds of other analysis. The craigmurray blog is great, and as Cambial noted, not an RS. Hopefully we can get some RS analysis of this to follow. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
At the moment there is very little text in this article about the release. If this changes, we can certainly have a new article. If not, I don't think this venture will succeed.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think by now there is more than enough content on all major media regarding his release. Also given the length of the main article, I think it merits having a new entry on his release. Frankserafini87 (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
TOO-SOON, lets discuss if and when we have sufficient content. This article has long suffered from excessive wikileaks content and lack of BLP content. Now that we have some BLP content, lets rejoice. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Can't see the point. But what could be useful is tidying up some of the stuff prior to his release now that the phase with him in jail awaiting extradition is over. NadVolum (talk) 10:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 days ago9 comments5 people in discussion
Under Personal Life: “Assange is the cousin of Australian-British academic and former Iranian hostage Kylie Moore-Gilbert.” If you click over to her page, it looks like this is quite questionable. Should probably be reworded to reflect that? 2600:1700:8B41:A4C0:D085:B718:4B14:5D4D (talk) 04:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
It appears this is a "claim". What kind of cousins are they anyway? First? Second? Third? I don't see what this adds to this article.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think it is important to include the claim as that, in itself, is odd. Why would his lawyer do this? Perhaps to garner some sort of attention or sympathetic feelings. In any case, it should be rephrased here to indicate it is a claim with a questionable background, similar to what is found on the link. 104.177.197.158 (talk) 04:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
The material at Kylie Moore-Gilbert says nothing more than "A 2011 account of Gilbert and Assange's meeting, written by the former for The Western Advocate newspaper, head-quartered in Bathurst, New South Wales, said nothing about the two having known each other before". This is not contradictory to the material on this article. TarnishedPathtalk05:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
We should not include these legalese type statements "said nothing about." We need active statements to produce an encyclopedia, not comments on something missing that is an invitation to WP:SYNTH. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree with @Jtbobwaysf. The source we cite may cover that an account of the two meeting "said nothing about the two having known each other before", but that doesn't mean that we should necessarily cover it if it invites our readers to engage in original research. Further there is a question of significance. There are many things that articles don't say. Should we enumerate every claim that is not made by an article, just because some other article notes that those things weren't said? I think not. TarnishedPathtalk04:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Its a different thing if the source says affirmatively the two had not met each other before. It moves into legalese and is WP:UNDUE when it becomes this double negative. Just remove and it we can discuss restoration of it if it is due, as WP:BLPRESTORE applies to this. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
In a technical, legalistic sense he's guilty of a crime, but not necessarily in the commonly understood meaning of words like "guilty" and "criminal". Under the US system, innocent people sometimes plead guilty so as to avoid incarceration either as a possible punishment if their trial results in a conviction or in the form of a long period of pretrial confinement. That's especially true when the defendant can't afford to pay for an expensive private lawyer or when the defendant does not believe that they'd get a fair trial. Assange is clearly in the latter category. NightHeron (talk) 07:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
In over 10% of the serious cases they plead guilty to things they are innocent of as far as I can see. Doesn't mean they're not being fitted for something else sometimes of course. Hate to think what the percentage is for minor things. In this case it has been pretty evident the US has been preying on Assanges fears and wanted to keep the case in the UK for as long as possible as it would be a very damaging media circus in the US. Anyway pleaded guilty about covers it I think. NadVolum (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
No per MOS:FIRSTBIO, The opening paragraph of a biographical article should neutrally describe the person, provide context, establish notability and explain why the person is notable, and reflect the balance of reliable sources. Criminality is not a reason for his notability. Given the significance of the guilty plea, I'd expect it to be covered somewhere in the lead, but not the first paragraph. For something similar refer to Donald Trump, who was recently convicted of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in his attempt to conceal campaign financing violations. Discussions on the talk page for that article resulted in consensus that he should not be called a criminal in the lead, but that the convictions be covered in the lead (not the first paragraph). TarnishedPathtalk10:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
This kind of label up top "felon" "conspiracy theorist" etc. are generally not encyclopedic. But to be clear, there is no question that he is a criminal. He's been fleeing the law for how long, and now cops a plea for time-served. WEIGHT of RS don't say he is not a criminal. SPECIFICOtalk12:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Re:there is no question. There is plenty of question about that. Many people around the world consider him a courageous journalist and not a criminal for having exposed massive violations of human rights by the US military. NightHeron (talk) 12:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
In the ″eyes of law″ of which country? The US law Espionage Act of 1917, passed during the height of the patriotic war fever as the US entered the First World War? Assange isn't even American citizen though. He shouldn’t have had to plead to any charges, it was the political persecution of an Australian citizen not even Obama dared. The serious war crimes that he uncovered in 2010 and 2011 remained unpunished. The cause célèbre that this had turned into shows it was a popular cause and that Americans prefer Free Speech. Assange's flight back home was for a period of time the most tracked flight on the planet and even eclipsed Taylor Swift's jet, which is the most tracked jet on the planet, so the amount of interest in Assange's freedom is huge. Maybe Biden did not want to have to deal with this in his debate with Trump this week. We don't want journalists going to prison — that's a very core principle. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is the solid bedrock of the country for a reason. The Pentagon Papers case (New York Times Co. v. United States) defined one of the purposes of the First Amendment: that the American public has the right to know what their government is doing. Assange walked free and US imperialism took its pound of flesh. It ultimately goes to the brutal exercise of US extraterritorial power against any publisher, irrespective of outlet and irrespective of nationality. America’s Espionage Act, for the first time in history, has been given a global reach, and made it a weapon against publishers outside the US, paving the way for future prosecutions. There was another, rather more sordid angle, and one that the DoJ had to have kept in mind in thinning the charge sheet: A trial would have seen the murderous fantasies of the CIA regarding Assange subject to scrutiny. --87.170.199.80 (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
WP:NOTFORUM applies here. please stop. Many editors are not providing RS and are what appears to be going into a discussion of opinions, which is beyond the scope of wikipedia. Please take this discussion over to reddit. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Here we have AP stating his attorney's claim he is a journalist. Certainly an RS. I think we can state in wikivoice that he claims he is a journalist, we dont have to state in wikivoice he is a journalist. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I disagree. The subject's notability is partially due to this discussion if he is or is not a journalist. There is no reason to whitewash both sides of the debate. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 days ago31 comments7 people in discussion
Currently (emphasis added): "Assange's agreement with the plea deal evades the possibility of an endorsement from the Supreme Court of the United States based on the case". Would "leaves open" would be better than "evades"? And what does "endorsement" mean? That the Supreme Court would somehow rubber stamp the deal? RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
"leaves open" would be the opposite meaning. The concern is that SCOTUS will further argue that there is no press freedom based on the case, and since the case ended in a plea, SCOTUS will not be able to do that based on this case. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well, let's workshop a better way. "...evades the possibility of [SCOTUS] endorsing such prosecution" sounds a bit awkward to me. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Has the case been referred to the Supreme Court? I'm fairly sure it's not reached that stage, so it's unclear to me why should we ever be concerned with SCOTUS. — kashmīrīTALK19:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
One sentence for one paragraph written in NYTvoice seems pretty due to me. (I also thought that there were more sources because someone added sources that didn't actually say it.) Aaron Liu (talk) 04:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
How about "By agreeing to the plea deal, Assange avoided the possibility of (SCOTUS) ruling on his case and casting a chill on journalism". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Instead of "casting a chill on journalism" how about "casting a shadow on journalism" or "with repercussions for journalism in the future"? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
1. The negative implications on journalism are already discussed in the previous parts of the paragraph. 2. All articles that mention this part take it as a good thing. This doesn't convey that. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Aaron Liu, please clarify: take what as a good thing? What doesn't convey that? What do you think the article should or shouldn't say? Just trying to understand. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I fixed it a little to make it past tense. We do need to improve the section to show why each party was potentially concerned about a supreme court ruling, we can find sources to it. My recollection is the Feds were concerned about a challenge of the espionage act and free speech. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
How about "By agreeing to the plea deal, Assange avoided the possibility of a (SCOTUS) ruling on his case which would solidify the effect on journalism"? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
That seems to imply that the possibility is directly going at Assange? I'd prefer the passive, or something like "Assange's agreement to the plea deal avoided...". I do like "solidify the effect". Aaron Liu (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's fine, or various other combinations. "Doing the plea deal prevents the possibility of the (SCOTUS) ruling on the case, agreeing with the prosecutor and solidifying the effect on journalism." (resisting the temptation to insert "thereby" in the last few words) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I did some cleanup of your edit. We need to be clear that pundits are speculating what might have happened, or it could be Assange was speculating if you have sources for that. But wikipedia itself doesnt speculate on this issue. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Currently the article says that Savage says that a Supreme Court ruling would be in favour of the prosecution. I searched for the word "Supreme" in the New York Times article and did not see that. Could someone please tell me precisely where it is in the article or give a quote or change our article if it fails verification? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
The outcome, then, averts the risk that the case might lead to a definitive Supreme Court ruling blessing prosecutors’ narrow interpretation of First Amendment press freedoms.
@Aaron Liu: we are currently using (I think you have edited this many times, I did edit once as well):
Assange's agreement with the plea deal avoided the possibility of a ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States based on the case; according to Savage, such a ruling would be in favor of the prosecution and solidify the effect on journalism.
The issue here is
We are attributing in wikivoice that the supreme court would have ruled in x way, if the article subject had gone to court. That is absurdly WP:CRYSTAL.
It is also WP:UNDUE in that the author stating it is not an expert in the field, as far as I can see. If Alan Dershowitz made a statement, or another renown constitutional attorney made some statement, then we might look at it, but as of right now, we are using the speculation of a journalist from New York Times.
It also seems to be puffery MOS:PUFFERY in some way in that are we implying that Assange took the plea deal to protect US citizens from a supreme court case? That sounds very far fetched and contrary to basic logic, according to my opinion Assange would have taken taken any reasonable deal that got him out of prison and protected his personal dignity.
Is there a more reasonable way to put this theory forward? We are also not giving any weight to the US govt potential fear of a Supreme Court ruling on the matter, which is from a common sense perspective much more logical than a foreigner being concerned about a US ruling.
Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Looking at Charlie Savage (author)'s WP page, he seems to mostly write about legal and won a Pulitzer for it. He seems pretty reliable. I also don't see the puffery connection. The "implication" is, as you say, easily defeated by basic logic. All in all, it's jsut one sentence, so I'd be fine if yáll see fit to remove. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would keep it, but not that version of the sentence. I'd keep one of the earlier versions that doesn't state that the ruling would be in favour of the prosecution. It doesn't say that it was or wasn't Assange's intention to avoid that outcome. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Please add: Prime Minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese, leader of the Labor government in Australia that came to power in mid-2022, had changed almost a decade of official passivity on the Assange case by the conservative governments that preceded him.[1] Australia's US ambassador and former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd accompanied Julian Assange to the US court on the Mariana island of Saipan - a US territory in the Western Pacific - after his release from British custody. At that court hearing the US deal on Assange's release, for which the Australian government of the Labor left of Prime Minister Albanese had campaigned, was ratified.[2][3][4] --91.54.30.174 (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Prime Minister Albanese personally lobbied US President Biden for this to happen, on an official visit to Washington in October 2023. That outreach was backed up three months later when Australia’s attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, visited Washington and raised it with his counterpart, Merrick Garland, who runs the Department of Justice. In February 2024 Albanese and his cabinet members voted in favour of a parliamentary motion urging the UK and US to allow Assange to return to Australia. Former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and the former Foreign Affairs and Defence Minister in previous Labor governments Stephen Smith personally escorted Assange to the US court in Saipan. With Smith travelling with Assange when he left the UK, and US Ambassador Rudd providing important assistance. Both Rudd and Smith boarded the plane with Assange in Saipan as he flew to Canberra to be reunited with family.(https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/26/julian-assange-return-australia-prison-release-albanese-government-lobbying-ntwnfb) We had the political persecution of an Australian citizen with a decade of official passivity of the Australian government. Yes, politics are political, so what? We should reflect the Reality here. --93.211.209.212 (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
There was already some existing discussion of the diplomatic efforts in Australia leading up to the plea bargain in the section above, so I moved it down to the plea bargain section for context. See here. Thoughts? Endwise (talk) 07:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
We have seen an attempt by Auzzie press to pump up the importance of govt intervention. Assanges's wife has made it clear it was the change in the UK hearing/appeal. Thus lets not inflate the WP:WEIGHT given to Rudd, by adding to LEAD, etc. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
This article from The Guardian is what convinced me that the diplomacy from Australia was important (some extra content from that article should probably be included). It's from the Australian press as you say. Do you have a link to Stella Assange's statement? Endwise (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
See also this BBC article: But the origins of the deal – after so many years of deadlock – probably began with the election of a new Australian government in May 2022 that brought to power an administration determined to bring home one of its citizens detained overseas.Endwise (talk) 09:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
There are abundant RS that state that the breakthrough was the appeal court ruling, including directly from Assange's wife's mouth. We shouldnt be pushing the Aussie govt PR. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Could you give examples that RSes overwhelmingly cite the high court lifeline as a bigger breakthrough than Australian lobbying? Other than the provided sources above that give nearly entire weight to the Australian government, I found a syndicated AP story that doesn't mention Australia and only cites the high court lifeline as "In but one example" of the process's slow pace while basically attributing all negotiations to the work of the lawyers with the DoJ; another BBC article that stresses Australia and some US; and an AP timeline that mentions both equally. I also did not find your claim that Mrs. Assange gave exclusive credit to the UK high court.
IMO, The section did contain a bit too much weight at the time your comment was posted, but now it seems fine after some of Endwise's edits. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your comment. I think it would be good to also include some extra explanation around how the 20 May 2024 ruling that Assange could appeal gave a kind of opening for the plea deal, at the very least in terms of timing. Only problem is that material already kind of makes a lot sense in the "Appeals and other developments" section. So I'm not sure where/how to include things.
Let's include that statement as a quote. We can also add a quote by the wife that she felt the breakthrough was the appeal verdict. We have a number of views and all are encyclopedic. We also have a number of politicians seeking to take the credit, so we need to be wise about what we do in wikivoice. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Here is the BBC source on Stella Assange referring to the high court ruling as the breakthrough. This Reuters source also covers both the diplomacy argument and Stella's claim. So if we want to include the Auzzie govt puffery, then we also least need to give due weight to the family's position on the matter, that it was instead a long and hard fought court victory, and not the Auzzie govt... We also also use common sense that the politicians will seek to take credit for anything, thats what they do in general... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
There is way too much weight on the Australian government, including the Reuters source you linked, to say that it was "not the Auzzie govt". Mrs. Assange doesn't even deny or mention Australia. To mention that it was "not the Auzzie govt" would be completely WP:OR. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have added a sentence about Stella's breakthrough claim at the end of paragraph 2, the one about the terms of the plea itself, where another sentence already has exclusive residence that sets the deal in context of the high court decision. This is already enough weight now. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 days ago12 comments9 people in discussion
The following content was deleted with the IDONTLIKEIT summary of "doesn't seem to me to be due":
Thomas Joscelyn, a senior fellow at Just Security, has described how Assange's "hatred of Clinton" and "WikiLeaks' collusion with Russian government hackers during the 2016 presidential campaign" may have cost Clinton the election. He wrote that "Assange made it his goal in 2016 to counter the 'American liberal press,' which he accused of supporting Clinton. He aimed to turn that same press against her. Ultimately, with Russia's help, Assange succeeded."[1]
That content is an opinion from a RS that is properly attributed. That's what we do with such opinions. We don't delete stuff because it's an opinion. On the contrary. It's an interesting commentary from a subject matter expert about the obvious success of WikiLeaks' collusion with Russian intelligence.
Every single thing in that quote but the opinion is a proven fact that is common knowledge, proven in the Mueller report and Senate testimonies, and the opinion that WikiLeaks' actions "may" have cost Clinton the election is quite logical. Why? Because WikiLeaks' actions (in this case) were directed at Bernie Sanders voters, who then changed their votes to Trump, so it's a very reasonable "may". There is no justifiable reason to remove that content. It may not seem due to you, but it seems due to others, and the whitewashing/NPOV violation is what's undue. We don't write hagiographies here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
It’s always best to avoid speculating on other editor’s motives, especially in your opening sentence, as per WP:AGF.
WP:BLPBALANCE indicates that Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources. The source cited is very much the primary originator of the opinion piece. It’s an online commentary magazine, not a mainstream news organisation. Given the lack of secondary coverage of this person’s opinion, NadVolum is right to point out that it’s undue weight here. In addition, you have no evidence for your claim that Bernie Sanders voters...then changed their votes to Trump. The frothily hyperbolic logical jump from the view we ought not to include one online comment piece to accusations of whitewashing and hagiography is unnecessary and detracts further from an already weak argument. Cambial — foliar❧06:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would agree on inclusion. Just to be safe, we can trim it down to more of a summary by only including the first sentence.Aaron Liu (talk) 02:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Remove these non-notable pundit opinions are WP:UNDUE. Person making the statement lacks a wikipedia article, so if they are not notable, then we dont need to cover the opinion. Pretty easy test. The the source thedispatch lacks an WP:RSP entry. Am I correct about these two points (non notable pundit and non RSP listed source)? If yes, I am confused why we are even discussing it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC) WP:BLPRESTORE applies to this content, do not re-add it without consensus here. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Remove, pure speculation with zero evidence to back it up. Besides, here is Assange's biography, not an analysis of Clinton's career. (I won't even mention how dumb that proposal is – national support for Clinton was low at the time because of her performance, not because of the Russians or Assange). — kashmīrīTALK08:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I can't find the phrase "may have cost Clinton the election" in that reference. The closest I came was "But the tsunami of coverage surrounding Clinton’s and the Democrats’ emails likely had much more of an effect on Americans’ perceptions—and votes—than any social media ads". which isn't the same. TarnishedPathtalk09:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don’t know about a “special meaning”, but “agreed to” is simply factually incorrect. The editor who added the note says this common meaning in Brit and Australian (as per Macquarie) is not used in American English. The sources indicate that he and his lawyers negotiated a deal with US prosecutors; this included the specific charge and the location to the plea etc. (hence the odd location). The verb “agreed” here means “to come to terms” or “to reach agreement about” rather than “to acquiesce (to)”. Cambial — foliar❧03:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
To back up the facts about Assange and the deal or about the verb? The Assange deal see e.g. The Washington Post and numerous other mainstream newspapers. I don’t have easy access to a Macquarie (esp at the weekend ha) to look up their definition but the transitive “reach agreement” is in there. The phrasing in my above comment “To come to terms” is from Collins Dictionary and “to reach agreement about” is from the OED. Cambial — foliar❧04:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Australian news sources seem to prefer "agreed to":
Are you on the basis of preferencing Australian sources denying that the deal was negotiated? Numerous RS state otherwise. As there is evidently some cross-dialectal confusion I'll change to negotiated. Cambial — foliar❧23:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Please don't be disingenuous. "Agreed to" does not preclude negotiation. Multiple Australian sources discuss the negotiations and still just say "agreed to a plea deal" or similar. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I’m not being disingenuous. The phrase “agreed to” indicates the (currently singular) subject of the sentence simply agreed to something pre-existing. As sources such as the Washington Post, Guardian, BBC etc have documented in detail, there was an extensive negotiation process on both sides. In looking to summarise that accurately, we should avoid a phrasing that implies a different sequence of events. Cambial — foliar❧23:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Based on common usage in Australia media about this topic, "agreed to" seems to be the most common phrasing and that phrasing does not seem to conform to your interpretation of what it means. It's used in articles that discuss the negotiations such as this one and this one. And the article is written in Australian English. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
We needn’t make guesses about Australian grammar from newspaper articles. The meaning is available in Australian dictionaries. Oxford Australian Dictionary: agree v...2. intr. (followed by to, or to + infin.) consent 3. intr. (followed by with) become or be in harmony 4. tr. reach agreement about (agreed a price)
There’s no reason in this summary that we have to use the word “agreed”. We could use the word “reached”, thus neatly summarising the events as described in RS. Cambial — foliar❧08:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
If it has a special meaning, then we shouldnt be using it. We dont use jargon. I think we can ignore the special meaning and just use the dictionary here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
