Talk:Julian Assange

Content gap
I am not familiar with the details of this article subject, but when reading today the article goes from:


 * Julian_Assange "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 "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?

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Undoubtedly there was, but it’s not yet been reported in RS as far as I know. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * RS with some possibly useful detail here. Excellent but not RS summary of the legal context here. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

New article called "Release of Julian Assange?"
This is one of the biggest stories of the year so far, and presumably will remain relevant. We have Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange, Commentary about Julian Assange, Surveillance of Julian Assange. I'm not sure of the title, but I feel like "Release of Julian Assange" would be sufficient. MarkiPoli (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Ok. More text could definitely be added, and I anticipate it will be. MarkiPoli (talk) 04:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I would rather see it trimmed. I think there's too much irrelevant information about his charter flight. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Is it, or just one of the biggest relating to him? No we do not need another fork, why is saying a few sentence not enough? Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see reason for a spin-off at this point in time. Tarnished<b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 00:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Content questionable
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 05:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * The source we cite describes it as a "claim".--Jack Upland (talk) 04:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 04:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I've removed the material in my edit at Special:Diff/1231597959. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 05:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Criminal Status
Since he pleaded guilty it's important to list that he is a criminal in the first paragraph. 178.203.13.112 (talk) 06:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * No, it's not. That's not what he's primarily notable for. Riposte97 (talk) 06:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. In fact, it is the only basis of his notability.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * RFC on convicted felon in leade?207.96.32.81 (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikileaks, anyone? We have 4/7s of the lede about the persecutions already. Aaron Liu  (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not any basis for his notability, as has already been long-established on this talk page, not to mention in reality. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 12:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * No, we dont do that. He is hardly known as a criminal. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That would be inappropriate, and it's not "important". <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 08:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * NO, i do not think so, it seems undue. Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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). <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 10:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

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.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 12:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * But in the eyes of the law, he is one, that is not affected by what people think. Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Our infoboxes are not required to include all criminal court findings, cf. Hunter Biden, Donald Trump. Britney Griner, Paul McCartney, Phil Spector (while alive).Burrobert (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I had already said we should not include this. Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please provide your due weights of reliable sources that brand him a criminal. Aaron Liu  (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * AT a quick guess weight of RS doesn't say that any of us is not a criminal. NadVolum (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)

Journalist
In this statement, the subject's attorney repeatedly refers to Assange as a Journalist. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Did the prosecution though? NadVolum (talk) 10:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * His attorney is not third party. Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We have had two RfCs about this. Can we move on?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Attributed claims doesn't entail that we refer to the subject as the same. There was an RfC on this recently. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 00:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Yes, we could say "describes himself as a journalist". But not in the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This leaves it open to cite sources which say he’s not a journalist. I think we should leave it as it is. Jack Upland (talk) 07:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 10:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * We mention this under Commentary about Assange. Jack Upland (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I added it to that Commentary section. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Legalese
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)
 * "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)
 * I think this could be improved.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  19:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * RSes are. Many sources expressed relief that SCOTUS cannot act on the case since it was a plea. Aaron Liu  (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Then we have a policy for such musings of the sources. It's called WP:DUE. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  03:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Yes, please remove legalese. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I think that's better, but I don't think we should say "chill".--Jack Upland (talk) 02:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 'chill' hews closely to what the first citation suggests, without quoting it. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 02:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * The cited sources take SCOTUS's inability to rule as a good thing because it cannot endorse nor expand such prosecution. Aaron Liu  (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I just added 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, likely to be in favor of the prosecution and to solidify the effect on journalism. Aaron Liu  (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)
 * Fifth paragraph. You sure you opened the right link?;) Aaron Liu  (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That quote doesn't say that the ruling would be in favour of the prosecution; it only talks about that "risk". ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Second pass
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 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)
 * 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.


 * I think we should get rid of it. We don’t know how the SCOTUS would have ruled and neither does anyone else. Jack Upland (talk) 07:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm with you, I also think get rid of it, but was open to listening to feedback from others. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I removed it here. Maybe this later will have more analysis in multiple RS, it certainly is an interesteing subject. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)

Kevin Rudd's Involvement
Can we add a section describing how the former prime minister Kevin Rudd was involved with the return of Assange to Australia? 178.203.13.112 (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Reliable source? GoldRomean (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We already mention this.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok. Sorry, and thanks. My bad. GoldRomean (talk) 01:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

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. 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. --91.54.30.174 (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I have no involvement or much knowledge in/of this article so courtesy ping to @Jack Upland. Thanks. GoldRomean (talk) 02:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * We already mention Albanese's quiet diplomacy on behalf of Assange.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Lets not give excessive weight to political involvement. We can of course mention, but at this point in time the suggested sentence is probably WP:UNDUE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * @93.211.209.212 Apologies, but non-extended confirmed editors are not allowed to engage in discussion here other than making edit requests, ideally using the dedicated template. Thanks for your understanding. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  19:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)  It's a different type of restriction in place on this page. My mistake. —  kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK

Australian diplomacy and plea bargain context
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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.
 * I took a crack at it here. To be honest I'm still not entirely sure how and where to include the context about how the plea deal came about, though I do think it's helpful context to include. Endwise (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Assange told Albanese that he saved his life . That's out of his mouth.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Looks fine to me. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Did Kevin Rudd ask the chinese to get involved with assange as he spents mandarin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.203.13.112 (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

"may have cost Clinton the election"
The following content was deleted with the IDONTLIKEIT summary of "doesn't seem to me to be due":

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)


 * 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 . 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. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 06:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 02:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Here is an actual proper discussion on the matter How Much Did WikiLeaks Hurt Hillary Clinton? rather than some random opinion piece. NadVolum (talk) 07:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion. There is a long history of excluding material unfavorable to Assange. Jack Upland (talk) 07:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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). — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  08:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 09:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's om the subheading, along with the allegation he conspired with the Russians stated as a fact. NadVolum (talk) 11:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, then, WP:HEADLINE seems to apply as well. Drop it. Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Remove per above concerns around WP:UNDUE and WP:HEADLINE. Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

agreed a has what special meaning in commonwealth English?
The page source reads What is this special meaning that is lost if it's changed to "agree to"?

-- RememberOrwell (talk) 09:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I’m an Australian and I think “agreed to” sounds better. Jack Upland (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm American and also think it sounds better. It looks like Commonwealth and American English agree on this one. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 02:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)”. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 03:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source to back this up? I can't see this in the Macquarie Dictionary.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 04:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Australian news sources seem to prefer "agreed to":
 * https://www.google.com.au/search?q=site:.au+assange+%22agreed+to+a+plea+deal%22
 * https://www.google.com.au/search?q=site:.au+assange+%22agreed+a+plea+deal%22
 * Perhaps it would help to hear Australians using the word "to" in this context?
 * Sky News Australia
 * ABC News (Australia)
 * Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 23:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 23:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 08:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I support use of "reached". I do think it is a bit of a misnomer to imply that Assange agreed to anything with the US govt. He just wanted to end his detention. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "Agreed to" is fine IMO. I think "reached", or the worse "negotiated", implies he was the one doing the negotiating. In reality it was the lawyers and diplomats who negotiated and reached a plea deal and presented it to Assange, who agreed. Obviously he could've declined it, which would've been daft. But he did have to agree. Endwise (talk) 10:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would have been daft. He had the option of continuing his appeal, but instead he agreed to the plea bargain.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * agree Softlem (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , : what are you agreeing about specifically, in terms of the text of this article?--Jack Upland (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We dont use jargon. I think we can ignore the special meaning and just use the dictionary here.
 * "agreed to" is better and "reached" is good but "agreed a" is confusing Softlem (talk) 08:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Good. But... Looks good, better now.  Thanks.  RememberOrwell (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)