Jump to content

Talk:Julian Assange

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Julian Assange list)

Journalist

[edit]

In this statement, the subject's attorney repeatedly refers to Assange as a Journalist. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did the prosecution though? NadVolum (talk) 10:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His attorney is not third party. Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have had two RfCs about this. Can we move on?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Attributed claims doesn't entail that we refer to the subject as the same. There was an RfC on this recently. TarnishedPathtalk 00:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here we have AP stating his attorney's claim he is a journalist. Certainly an RS. I think we can state in wikivoice that he claims he is a journalist, we dont have to state in wikivoice he is a journalist. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we could say "describes himself as a journalist". But not in the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Agreed. TarnishedPathtalk 10:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The subject's notability is partially due to this discussion if he is or is not a journalist. There is no reason to whitewash both sides of the debate. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We mention this under Commentary about Assange. Jack Upland (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added it to that Commentary section. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

agreed a has what special meaning in commonwealth English?

[edit]

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)[reply]

I’m an Australian and I think “agreed to” sounds better. Jack Upland (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I don’t know about a “special meaning”, but “agreed to” is simply factually incorrect. The editor who added the note says this common meaning in Brit and Australian (as per Macquarie) is not used in American English. The sources indicate that he and his lawyers negotiated a deal with US prosecutors; this included the specific charge and the location to the plea etc. (hence the odd location). The verb “agreed” here means “to come to terms” or “to reach agreement about” rather than “to acquiesce (to)”. Cambial — foliar❧ 03:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
To back up the facts about Assange and the deal or about the verb? The Assange deal see e.g. The Washington Post and numerous other mainstream newspapers. I don’t have easy access to a Macquarie (esp at the weekend ha) to look up their definition but the transitive “reach agreement” is in there. The phrasing in my above comment “To come to terms” is from Collins Dictionary and “to reach agreement about” is from the OED. Cambial — foliar❧ 04:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Australian news sources seem to prefer "agreed to":
Perhaps it would help to hear Australians using the word "to" in this context?
Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you on the basis of preferencing Australian sources denying that the deal was negotiated? Numerous RS state otherwise. As there is evidently some cross-dialectal confusion I'll change to negotiated. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't be disingenuous. "Agreed to" does not preclude negotiation. Multiple Australian sources discuss the negotiations and still just say "agreed to a plea deal" or similar. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not being disingenuous. The phrase “agreed to” indicates the (currently singular) subject of the sentence simply agreed to something pre-existing. As sources such as the Washington Post, Guardian, BBC etc have documented in detail, there was an extensive negotiation process on both sides. In looking to summarise that accurately, we should avoid a phrasing that implies a different sequence of events. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on common usage in Australia media about this topic, "agreed to" seems to be the most common phrasing and that phrasing does not seem to conform to your interpretation of what it means. It's used in articles that discuss the negotiations such as this one and this one. And the article is written in Australian English. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We needn’t make guesses about Australian grammar from newspaper articles. The meaning is available in Australian dictionaries. Oxford Australian Dictionary: agree v...2. intr. (followed by to, or to + infin.) consent 3. intr. (followed by with) become or be in harmony 4. tr. reach agreement about (agreed a price)
There’s no reason in this summary that we have to use the word “agreed”. We could use the word “reached”, thus neatly summarising the events as described in RS. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • If it has a special meaning, then we shouldnt be using it. We dont use jargon. I think we can ignore the special meaning and just use the dictionary here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    agree Softlem (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Good. But... Looks good, better now. Thanks. RememberOrwell (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Julian_Assange&oldid=1239176460"