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.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!
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.
RFC: Calling Assange a journalist
CONSENSUS AGAINST
While an RfC is not a vote, and consensus can change, with over two-thirds of comments being opposed to the change, in order to find a consensus for, the arguments supporting the change must be a truly compelling reading of our policies and guidelines, or the arguments against exceptionally weak. I can see no such difference in the quality of the arguments, and thus I find a consensus against any change in the status quo. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Document the dispute There is a real dispute, I don't think it can be said without attribution. Changed from yes but attribute, with a real dispute weshould document it. NadVolum (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[]
Comment What sources support the claim that Assange is a journalist? My understanding is that most sources reject the claim, including the Committee to Protect Journalists. In addition, where do you propose including it? We currently note a few times in the body that some individuals have called him a journalist (Assange's defenders have responded to U.S. accusations, describing him as a journalist who did nothing more than publish leaked information that embarrassed the U.S. government., O'Hagan refused the request and said to he "would not give a witness statement against a fellow journalist".) and that there has been a debate about whether he is one (After Assange's arrest in 2019, journalists and commenters debated about if Assange was a journalist.) If the proposal is to add it to the lede then I think that would be WP:UNDUE, given the lack of support for this claim. BilledMammal (talk) 08:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[]
No I seem to recall the last time we had this some sources were brought forth saying he was a journalist, and other saying he was not. Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[]
Not without reliable sources: this isn't just a poll for Wikipedia editors; our personal opinions are not relevant. Wikipedia:Verifiability applies: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations." As well: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[]
Status quo (summoned by bot). Per Moxy and BilledMammal above, I don't see any reason to alter the status quo from the previous RfC that we don't call him a journalist in Wikipedia-voice or in the lede, but we can document the controversy in the article body, to an encyclopedically appropriate extent. -- Visviva (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[]
Status quo I don't see a compelling reason to make this change or an argument for what has changed since the last RFC. Nemov (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[]
No, keep the status quo: I don't want to repeat my lengthy answer in the previous RfC, but the points remain valid. It remains controversial whether Assange is a journalist: see for example, [1]. He does not fit the conventional definition of a journalist which involves producing written and photographic content for news publications. This does not preclude us noting that he has been hailed as a journalist or noting his awards for journalism. What it does preclude is describing him as a journalist in "Wikivoice".--Jack Upland (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[]
No He is not a journalist by any conventional definition of the world. Simply winning awards for breaking a story does not a journalist make. Avgeekamfot (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[]
Yes Julian Assange is a journalist. What exactly is a conventional definition of 'journalist,' and why would a journalist be required to meet such a definition before being called such? The Internet has changed how such things get defined. There are millions these days who perform journalistic functions online but whose content isn't produced for mainstream media organizations. Does that make their content any less journalistic or them less than journalists? I think this gets into opinion territory, so it would seem to be a discussion that may not come to a point of consensus, but it seems to me that someone who has performed the role of a journalist, as I believe Mr. Assange has, cannot be said to be anything other than a journalist.Coalcity58 (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[]
No. He is not trained as a journalist and has not performed normal journalistic work. In fact, his actions violate journalistic ethics. He's something else. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[]
"Assange presents a particularly painful example of journalistic misconduct";[2] "Julian Assange is not a journalist, said Kathy Kiely, a veteran reporter with four decades of experience in newsrooms and classrooms. He’s a broker of information, often motivated by his own political interests and rarely adherent to a code of ethics."[3] The following article shows why the question of whether Assange's actions are good or bad is not a settled one, and thus why we should present both sides here, without taking sides. It's complicated. (The article doesn't take a clear stand on whether or not he's a journalist.):"Why Journalists Aren't Defending Julian Assange"
Whether he is or is not a journalist is not always relevant to those issues, so that makes this question a potential red herring in some cases. Whether he's a journalist and whether his actions are defensible are two different matters. This RfC is about whether he's a journalist, and I say he isn't. It's possible to take that position and still defend some of his actions, but that's not the purpose of this RfC. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[]
Well at least that is something citable even though it is stupid. That Kathy Kiely should have been aware of what happened about the release of the unredacted files and not used it to back up an allegation of not having ethics. If anything it was the newspapers attacking him for doing it particularly the Guardian which lacked ethics. NadVolum (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[]
Comment Could people come up with something objective that can be reasonably easily checked thanks if they want to say a definite yes or no. NadVolum (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[]
No, keep the status quo: per reasoned, detailed argument of Jack Upland. He does not fit the conventional definition of a journalist which involves producing written and photographic content for news publications. This does not preclude us noting that he has been hailed as a journalist or noting his awards for journalism. What it does preclude is describing him as a journalist in "Wikivoice". Pincrete (talk) 06:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[]
This is WP:OR, we dont do our own interpretations of what a journalist is. We just follow what the sources say. This statement in fact indicates how weak the argument against using the journalist term is. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[]
No I do not see sources that support this claim and at most this is disputed. Perhaps we could document the dispute maybe but we would need to see more quality sources. Jorahm (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[]
Yes, in some way The article subject has won multiple awards for being a journalist, so there is no reason for us to downplay that. We can certainly state that the term is controversial. We see sources such as this that state explicitly that the subject's critics dont want him to be called a journalist freedom of press foundation, US Govt, and PBS. All of these over the top statements that 'black is not black' from our encyclopedic perspective lends a lot of weight that something might be black, and thus makes it WP:DUE. Here at DUE we read "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources", therefore it is contrary to policy that we exclude this discussion/controversy. It is easy enough for us to summarize the topic and note the term is controversial or in dispute, but to whitewash it, is contrary to policy. Should we call him a journalist in wikivoice? WP:DUE says: "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. " Therefore, we would not say the subject is a journalist in wikivoice without qualification/clarification, but we also would not remove that many newspapers take the position that he is not a journalist, nor would we ignore the multiple notable journalism awards, therefore we should include both sides of the discussion to provide WP:BALANCE. I think a lot of this discussion above misses this point, and that policy here trumps the opinion of the editors that seem to want to line up on party lines. This article is often one of frequent disputes, and this dispute should probably be covered according to policy to end the journalist discussion Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[]
You write "All of these over the top statements that 'black is not black' from our encyclopedic perspective lends a lot of weight that something might be black, and thus makes it WP:DUE". That is an argument from original research. We should not be stating that because quite a number of sources disagree with the attribution, that therefore it must be true. To do so is specifically not allowed according to WP:NOR. The fact of the matter is that there is no agreement amongst reliable sources and if there is no agreement we should not be saying it in wikivoice in the lede. TarnishedPathtalk05:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[]
No its not even remotely OR, you yourself admit the controversy and confirm my point, stating "quite a number of sources disagree with the attribution." Who are they disagreeing with? ;-) You also dont address the journalism awards the subject has won. There cant be controversy when there is consensus, the two concepts are diametrically opposed. The very point that, & according to you, many sources "disagree with the attribution", demonstrates according to you at least, that a controversy exists. WP:QUACK applies here and there is nothing here that prevents us from covering the controversy. Your suggestion to just make it go away, saying 'nothing to see here' is flawed at its very root and contrary to wikipedia policy. I also dont see that this RFC relates to the WP:LEAD. Did I miss something? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[]
When I do a search for the term "journalist" in my browser on the article, I saw only one mention referring to the subject as a journalist (I found many hits, but most were not related to the subject), and the hit I found was "Assange's defenders have responded to U.S. accusations, describing him as a journalist who did nothing more than publish leaked information that embarrassed the U.S. government.[428][429]" The only result that I found in the article seems to allege that only Assange's defenders refer to him as a journalist, and this statement appears to be non-neutral and conflicts with all the awards. Again, this RFC doesn't mention WP:LEAD so it seems you are alleging the RFC is based on the lead, I would like to see some evidence of this other than just your assumption. You and the editor above are putting forth this claim, but that is not part of the RFC. Do you have any evidence that the the subject of this RFC is the lead, or are you just arguing (without evidence) that point? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[]
I was going to respond the same as Steven however the Android app sucks so I had to wait until I got home. @Jtbobwaysf there is material about it being a matter of debate in the Julian Assange#Commentary about Assange section. Now if you wanted to add to that, that would be an entirely different discussion. You are correct that this RfC is about whether we should refer to him as an journalist in article voice anywhere in the article, my apologies there. However it still comes down to the same situation where there is no agreement amongst the reliable sources and no one during this RfC has presented any analysis to demonstrate how the discussion amongst reliable sources has changed since last time. Given that there is no agreement amongst reliable sources it would be WP:UNDUE to call him a journalist in article voice. TarnishedPathtalk10:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[]
As NadVolum says above, we can document the dispute/controversy and there should be no prohibition against using wikivoice in this description. A blanket ban on it is incorrect and against policy. We dont need agreement in RS to use that term in wikivoice if it is properly attributed, there is no such policy that states this, WP:BALANCE covers this. Too many opinions on this article talk page if Assange is or is not a journalist, this is not the point. The point is if our ban on use of the term in wikivoice adheres to policy, and I say it does not. Maybe we need to amend this statement "After Assange's arrest in 2019, journalists and commenters and wikipedians debated about if Assange was a journalist." I am joking here, we will not cover this, but it does forward my point that we are debating if he is a journalist here, and that is not the point. The point is if DUE and BALANCE allow us to use it in wikivoice and what circumstances. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[]
I don't see any argument against documenting the dispute/controversy. The question asks, should we call him a journalist, with the implication being that we do so in article voice. Now the answer to that question is simple and I'll repeat myself again. There is no agreement amongst reliable sources so no we shouldn't call him a journalist.
Now if you want to further document the dispute/controversy, I'd recommend suggesting edits in another thread because this isn't it. TarnishedPathtalk10:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[]
Here in this RFC we are discussing if use of the journalist term in wikivoice is allowed/prohibited. My position is that "prohibited" is against policy. The arguments above that this RFC relates to LEAD are a convenient way to strawman that RS consensus is required to use the term in wikivoice. This position is false and against policy. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[]
No, it is an assumption of where we would say he is a Journalist (where else would we say he is a journalist?), based on past edits. And wp:npov is clear, we do not say something is a fact that is contested, RS contests the idea he is a journalist. So its an opinion, not a fact. Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[]
You and Tarnished are making the argument that for wikivoice we must have RS in alignment. WP:BALANCE states "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint" and WP:WIKIVOICE (under NPOV which you quoted) states "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them" as well as plenty of other text to that characterizes this discussion, but none of it offers up your view that we need consensus in the RS to use it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[]
Exaclty "describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint", not take a side in the said dispute. So we would say "has been called...but other disagree not "is". Slatersteven (talk)
Per Slatersteven, if you want to flesh out why there is disagreement, then certainly there are already others saying to discuss it. However that is not what is being asked here. TarnishedPathtalk11:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[]
The scope of this RFC is well defined and narrow, and it doesnt include going off into a discussion of the disagreement about our opinions if you or I think subject is or is not a journalist. This talk page is full of these yarns that I for one find tedious. I just weigh on on this RFC as it delves more into a policy issue and one that I dont care for these consensus bans on formulated on individual article talk pages. Broadly speaking it would be difficult to describe the subject if the use of the term is prohibited by a discussion on this talk page, and that ban is not encyclopedic and is contrary to policy. Both you of you editors are apparently unable to refute the policy issues I have noted and rather continue to try to get into a discussion of the subject (essentially 'is he or is he not a journalist!?!') rather than address the wikipedia policy matters that govern how we deal with content on this article and others. Too often these defacto content bans are put in place to steer content on these controversial subjects. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[]
No one had said the article can't mention he had been described as a journalist only that WE can't say something like "Assange is a journalist", which is what the RFC is asking. Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[]
No. the term has a specific defined meaning relating to principles, practices, and procedures. Assange's work does not stay within or observe those limitations to his chosen mission. Use of the term would confuse or mislead our readers. Description is more valuable than labeling. SPECIFICOtalk16:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
First sentence
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)[]
"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)[]
No, it does not matter how you try and reword it, consensus (via RFC) is against calling him a journalist, please stop this. Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[]
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
Not done: cf. English-born, not England-born; Canadian-born, not Canada-born; American-born, not America-born; French-born, not France-born; etc.... Cambial — foliar❧12:05, 26 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)[]
This kind of label up top "felonç "conspiracy theorist" etc. are generally not encyclopedoc. 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)[]
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)[]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Not done: cf. English-born, not England-born; Canadian-born, not Canada-born; American-born, not America-born; French-born, not France-born; etc.... Cambial — foliar❧ 12:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
