Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 46

Archive 40

←

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

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 ^TALK 19:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC) It's a different type of restriction in place on this page. My mistake. — kashmīrī ^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 [1]. 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)

References

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)

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 ^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 ^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)

The outcome, then, averts the risk that the case might lead to a definitive Supreme Court ruling blessing prosecutors’ narrow interpretation of First Amendment press freedoms.

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

@Aaron Liu: we are currently using (I think you have edited this many times, I did edit once as well):

Assange's agreement with the plea deal avoided the possibility of a ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States based on the case; according to Savage, such a ruling would be in favor of the prosecution and solidify the effect on journalism.

The issue here is

• We are attributing in wikivoice that the supreme court would have ruled in x way, if the article subject had gone to court. That is absurdly WP:CRYSTAL.
• It is also WP:UNDUE in that the author stating it is not an expert in the field, as far as I can see. If Alan Dershowitz made a statement, or another renown constitutional attorney made some statement, then we might look at it, but as of right now, we are using the speculation of a journalist from New York Times.
• It also seems to be puffery MOS:PUFFERY in some way in that are we implying that Assange took the plea deal to protect US citizens from a supreme court case? That sounds very far fetched and contrary to basic logic, according to my opinion Assange would have taken taken any reasonable deal that got him out of prison and protected his personal dignity.

Is there a more reasonable way to put this theory forward? We are also not giving any weight to the US govt potential fear of a Supreme Court ruling on the matter, which is from a common sense perspective much more logical than a foreigner being concerned about a US ruling. Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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. TarnishedPath^talk 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. TarnishedPath^talk 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)

agreed a has what special meaning in commonwealth English?

The page source reads

agreed <!--do not change to "agree to"; this has special meaning in commonwealth English--> a [[Plea bargain|plea deal]]

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)”. Cambial — foliar❧ 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. Cambial — foliar❧ 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. Cambial — foliar❧ 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. Cambial — foliar❧ 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. Cambial — foliar❧ 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)

  @Jtbobwaysf:, @Softlemonades:: 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)

Requested move at Talk:Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange#Requested move 17 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange#Requested move 17 July 2024 that may be of interest. RodRabelo7 (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Far too much detail about the sexual assault matters

There is far too much detail for this article. The main "Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority" article is where all the details should be. Here we only need a long paragraph to sum it up. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree. For the moment, I've copied and pasted the version that existed prior to a 8500-byte expansion of the section on 17 March. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with th revert. In a section which refers to another article for details the contents should normally be an approximtion of the summary section of the other article. NadVolum (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

the user above points out we have this issue in many sections. maybe we can work together to summarize those other sections as well. let's try to get the article back under 10k characters...Jtbobwaysf (talk)

See my comment above. WP:PRESERVE is a policy, unlike Size, which is a guideline. Just be careful. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

If there is a another article which is main for the subject matter then the extra here that is not there can normally just be moved to the main article covering the subject matter instead. NadVolum (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I opened this thread with a link to the right article, Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority. There can be lots of very specific detail there. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)-- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I am concerned that considerations of size are being used as a smokescreen to cover censorship of this article.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anything like that. NadVolum (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I haven't made any claims relating to size to remove the now defunct sexual allegations. Size does apply to a need for better summarization of the large section, such as the leaks, etc. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree that the details should be reduced given the charges/arrest warrant was dropped. I believe it should be removed from the lead and maintained with reduced prose in the body. See my comments in the sexual assault in the lead thread. TarnishedPath^talk 10:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Fear of SWE to USA extradition

@Valjean: you removed some content here about if the subject feared extradition from SWE to the USA. Is this content controversial? I did a quick search and see a lot of sources for this, such as BBC. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

It would have been a lot more constructive to just look at the main article this is summarizing and copy over the citation. I'll do that now. NadVolum (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Seemed like an odd POV to me as well. The whole reason the subject sat in the embassy was he was presumably afraid of a US jail cell. Sweden is quite famous for releasing people, having comfortable prisons, etc. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

You did right to actually check though. It would be nice if more people did. NadVolum (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I've filled in two other citation needed bits there with cites copied from the main article about it. NadVolum (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Well done, all round. I note that the fact that JA described Sweden as a "US satrapy" has now been relegated to a footnote. But this is an important part in the saga. Why did he call Sweden a "satrapy"? Bear in mind that Sweden was not then a member of NATO. This is an important link in JA's self-justification. If, as Bob points out above, JA had little to fear from Sweden and as JA has repeatedly asserted that he KNEW the US indictment was in the offing, the only explanation is that JA believed that it was easier to be extradited from Sweden than Britain. But where did he reach this conclusion? He might be a genius but he is no lawyer. Did he receive legal advice to this effect? Apparently not, according to the sources I have seen. JA's legal team was reportedly blindsided by his entry into the Embassy. Therefore it is important to include JA's description of Sweden as a "US satrapy" in order to understand the saga.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Very interesting, I had never heard any of this. Might be interesting to put the content back in the article, as we do have an article Satrap we could wikilink to (something readers like me might find interesting and novel). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, what is currently footnote 240 - the discursive footnote that mentions "satrapy" - is obviously misplaced due to some editing bungle: cited for "He was limited to roughly 30 square metres (320 sq ft) and ate a combination of takeaways and food prepared by the embassy staff". --Jack Upland (talk) 01:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Fixed.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Very long

This article is too long to read and navigate comfortably. As of 31 August 2024, its readable prose size was 14,225 words. Consider splitting content into sub-article or condensing it. The article size impacts usability in multiple ways: Reader issues, such as attention span, readability, organization, information saturation, etc. (when articles are large). Total article size should be kept reasonably low, particularly for readers using slow internet connections, screen readers, mobile devices or who have slow computer loading. Some large articles exist for topics that require depth and detail, but typically articles of such size are split into two or more smaller articles.

Word count	What to do
> 15,000 words	Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed.
Julian Assange 14,225 words	Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed
> 9,000 words	Probably should be divided or trimmed.

—◀ Isaidnoway (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC) ▶—

Good point. Lets start to summarize the sections where we have sub-articles. There are some very long sections right now where we can easily just summarize the sub-articles. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Just keep in mind that size alone is not a good argument for deletion of content. I disagree that this article is too long, but if done properly, it might be possible to make it smaller. Always keep WP:PRESERVE, a policy, not a guideline, in mind, so fix rather than delete. Size is a guideline, and there is no requirement that a reader has to be able to read an article in 15 minutes. A long topic may take several hours to read, and that doesn't mean the article is too long.

Look for unnecessary duplication, wordiness than can be condensed, etc. Sections that are so long that they create a due weight problem can be split off into legitimate fork subarticles. That is often the quickest way to make an article smaller without Wikipedia losing that content. It just gets moved. Those are just some things to keep in mind. Carry on. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The issue is too much of "they said this", we really do not need this much talking head content. A good bio should say who they are and what they are notable for, and really not much more, we are not a gossip column. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

We don't include trivia (only in gossip rags and bad sources) and non-notable gossip, but notable gossip should be included per WP:Public figures, even if slanderous and provably untrue (we have lots of articles for such content), unlike for non-public persons, where we tend to leave it out, even if true. Notability applies solely to the creation of articles, not their content, and an article will contain lots of content (possibly most of the content) that does not count toward "what they are notable for". Once an article qualifies for GNG (the most important and notable content), other stuff gets added that does not count toward "what makes them notable". It is part of the sum total of human knowledge found in RS about that person that we are supposed to include. Other guidelines help us deal with certain aspects of that (such as trivia and very short-lived headlines). -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

But none of that tells us anything about him, only what people think of him, and this is why this article is so large. Note, yes wp:n applies to article creation, as in what the subject is notable for, not everything about the topic that can be found. Most of this content tells us nothing about him, or his life. But if people are OK with the article being unreadable, fine, it will to have the effect they think it will. 16:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Some of it can be spun off into legitimate subarticles. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "unreadable", but it's common to not read a book in one sitting, and that's also the case with large articles about very notable and controversial people and topics. Those articles are not meant to be digested quickly. Size alone is not a good argument for deleting content, but it often is a good argument for splitting off content. Above all, we try to WP:PRESERVE it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if the Hearings into extradition section could be condensed without loss of factual content. It seems to me to be very repetitive and in some instances inconsequential.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• The offending sections that I see are Julian_Assange#WikiLeaks and Julian_Assange#Hearings_on_extradition_to_the_US. How about we just summarize those sub articles in this article? Those were the two largest that I saw sub-articles for, although there could be others that I missed. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  There is no subarticle for Hearings. Jack Upland (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  No, not with that title Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange. Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I would remind users this is Wikipedia not Assangeapedia, not everything about him is (or said about him) wp:notable (remember just because an RS has said it, does to mean we have to include it). Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

True, but the bar is fairly low. Especially if you include Pokémon characters and Simpsons episodes. NadVolum (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Which is a problem, too much silly trivia, but I am unsure that is a great justification for more trivia. Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Slatersteven, you must have missed my comment above, so copying it here. WP:N does not apply to what we're talking about.

We don't include trivia (only in gossip rags and bad sources) and non-notable gossip, but notable gossip should be included per WP:Public figures, even if slanderous and provably untrue (we have lots of articles for such content), unlike for non-public persons, where we tend to leave it out, even if true. Notability applies solely to the creation of articles, not their content, and an article will contain lots of content (possibly most of the content) that does not count toward "what they are notable for". Once an article qualifies for GNG (the most important and notable content), other stuff gets added that does not count toward "what makes them notable". It is part of the sum total of human knowledge found in RS about that person that we are supposed to include. Other guidelines help us deal with certain aspects of that (such as trivia and very short-lived headlines). -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Nad and Stephen, recent your comments here do not seem to be useful and seem to be mocking the process, referring to "Assangeapedia" and "Pokemon". I dont see any references in the article to pokemon or Assangeapedia, please refrain from making these comments that appear to mock either wikipedia, our process, or editors here. I am not sure what is being mocked (if that is what is going on), but none of it is ok. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

There is an article List of material published by WikiLeaks. We could cut down some of the repetitive stuff such as Assange released a leak about X, Assange released a leak about Y. Of course, we need to cover the major leaks and give the reader a taste of what Assange was doing, but I think we could cut this down overall.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, totally agree. Lets just trim all this and summarize while pointing to this list of material published. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I have shortened the intro which had excessive trivia and verbiage. Repetition is inevitable over time. We need to trim the repetition if we can and ensure the intro reflects the current article.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The intro is not the issue. Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)