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: 14 days 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: 4 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: 8 hours 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
Latest comment: 14 hours ago5 comments4 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
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
No he wasn't deported from the US. For him to be deported from the US, he would have to had been there in the first place which he wasn't. He spent his time in custody in the UK, so its impossible for him to have been deported from the US. Refer to this article from the BBC which clearly states that he was held in a prison in London prior to his release and return to Australia. TarnishedPathtalk11:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
He had no handcuffs leaving court and the plane was not American so I believe the answer is no, he wasn't handcuffed. And as said source please for any other ideas that occur to you while eating eating your breakfast. NadVolum (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=logo}
.svg){kind=small}
Not done: We don't include unsourced bullshit on Wikipedia. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.