Talk:Edward Snowden/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Reaction section is almost all negative

That doesn't have much of a NPOV. Cowicide (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• It should be weighted according to the occurrence of each type within reliable sources, not necessarily fifty fifty. See WP:UNDUE for more info WhisperToMe (talk) 07:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it feels horrbly POV (against him). Plus, that early line that his family had "no choice but to move to Ellicott City, Maryland" leaves one gasping that this town is such a compelling destination. Onanoff (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems to have swung the opposite direction...let's try to get some balance, shall we? This is not a forum for making him a hero or a villain. There are opinions on either side, let's try to include relevant ones until history settles out on the issue and a consensus arises.204.65.34.238 (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposition to lock the article from editing

..by IP editors and newly-registered users. Because vandalism à la "traitor" and similar lore. -Mardus (talk) 03:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The wording should have been "Proposition for page protection", but it looks like someone already made a request for it. -Mardus (talk) 03:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

BLP1E concerns

On it's face this article appears to be an obvious BLP1E, this person is known for one event and one event only.

That event is clearly important to the nation of the United States and the world at large.

Many people have used BLP1E as an argument for deletion, I do not feel that should happen, but I would like to bring this up now before that happens, and suggest that this article be retitled to focus on the event. Is this an exception to the BLP1E rule or can we rename this article?AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Clearly a BLP1E. Most of this is covered at PRISM. --MASEM (t) 16:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. BLP!E is vastly overused as an argument for deletion, usually at the creation of a new biographical article around a current event. as long as he is receiving massive media coverage, he DOES qualify for an article based on a single event. single events need to be much less significant for blp1e to apply, esp. if the persons role in a single event is not that newsworthy/notable. the details of this person belong in an article separate from the whole leak event itself, as details about his life will not fit well into the leak article. not to necessarily draw a comparison, but i doubt that Daniel Ellsberg would have had an article on WP prior to the leak of the pentagon papers, but would definitely have had one right afterwards.(mercurywoodrose).50.193.19.66 (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)=confirmed as IP for Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The spirit of BLP1E most certainly applies here. This person is known for one event, and one event only. Should this article be redirected to PRISM? or refactored to a new title? or...? AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I do think we need an article on the leak separate from both Prism and Mr snowden, something like "2013 PRISM data leak" (a really bad name, but you get the idea).(merc)50.193.19.66 (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with that statement: BLP1E applies to people who are not involved significantly in a substantial event. As it stands, PRISM is a significant event which Snowden himself precipitated. I would also argue that Snowden is far from low-profile individual as per the high media coverage regarding him. This article doesn't fall under BLP1E criteria, so I don't believe it should be deleted. --RAN1 (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

BLP1E covers people that are only notable for their activity in one event. Snowden is only notable for being involved in the release of PRISM. Ergo, this so far fails BLP1E. Just because one can fill in the pieces about his background before this break, doesn't make for a notable article. (This also edges on NOTNEWS as well). --MASEM (t) 17:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hate to be a broken record here, but I am simply stating that this article as titled is not congruent with BLP1E, and would like to reiterate that I do not think this material should be deleted, simply refocused. AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Um, how do you mean? You're not making what you're saying clear; could you please clarify? Thanks, RAN1 (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Who pays you to be a broken record here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.59.40.139 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

My two cents is that it's an active, current event involving a single person. There has already been some pushback regarding the breathless and apparently inaccurate way the Washington Post and the UK Guardian reported the PRISM leak. The U.S. news media generally has a hard time figuring out and presenting accurately any news item that has any degree of complexity or context to it, so the best thing may be to just allow more time for things to hopefully sort themselves out. -BC aka 209.6.38.168 (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The Guardian is British. As for the rest, yeah, we'll have to see how it works out. Judging by this article's AfD page, this page isn't going anywhere anytime soon. --RAN1 (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Gee, I thought it was UKish.... -BC aka 209.6.38.168 (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• BLP1E is the wrong policy. Snowden fails BLP1E at first glance, per the third criteria: "It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented – as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981." Thus, this article is not a candidate for deletion or merging based on BLP1E.

The correct policy is WP:BIO1E: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Federales (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Page protection?

Anyone else feel like we could do with some semi-protection right now? --— Pretzels ^Hii! 19:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Um, I would say go for reopening it (the request), this page is turning into one heck of a mess. --RAN1 (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I did semi-prot it for a week; IPs calling him "traitor" is far out of line --MASEM (t) 21:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I might even opt for full protection honestly. I suspect that this page is about to blow up. 76.100.136.17 (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think full protection would be helpful. I do however support semi-protection to protect from IP vandalism. — -dainomite   23:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

References to "chinese handlers" not supported

In the first paragraph, Snowden is alleged to have failed to complete education necessary to carry out the commands of his Chinese handlers. The citation provided makes no mention of Chinese handlers.

Surely this page needs to be locked. References to Chinese handlers or Snowden "falling in love with the Chinese way of life" have no basis in the citations listed, and are simple trolls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.153.89 (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, this page definitely needs to be protected for a while. Vandals are having a field day. Sprhodes (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Grew up in Wilmington, NC

This article says that he grew up in Wilmington, NC

What we know about NSA leaker Edward Snowden, NBC News, http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/10/18882615-what-we-know-about-nsa-leaker-edward-snowden?lite 74.101.128.155 (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Citation reminder

Remember, NO UNCITED INFORMATION. --mboverload@ 19:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Defected?

Is there a source for this being a "defection"? He's in a hotel, he didn't go to an embassy, etc. "Defected", unless factual, seems to paint Snowden in a strongly biased way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrycojones (talk • contribs) 00:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, this has been corrected.

And what about the bio on the right, which says he's "currently in hiding"? That doesn't seem accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrycojones (talk • contribs) 00:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You could say his travel plans are unknown. In a day or two, we'll know where he has 'asylum.' — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Ellsberg quote

WP:VERIFY does not prohibit offline sources. The lack of a hyperlink is meaningless. If Dan Ellsberg was interviewed on CNN television, that is a perfectly reliable and citable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You're mistaken. "Like text sources, media sources must be … properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist." See [1] If the archived copy is not accessible via the Internet, please tell us where it is and how you know (apart from personal belief) that it exists. --JohnValeron (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

All major news networks archive their video and have transcripts made. CNN transcripts are available right here. Please tell us where on WP:RSN a major news network has ever been ruled to not be a reliable source just because you can't get access to a copy of their video right this very second on the Internet. It might take a little work and time contacting CNN, but that doesn't make them inaccessible — just as citing to an obscure foreign-language book is permissible even though it might take quite a bit of effort for someone in the United States to dig up a copy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The link you provided does not list any CNN Breaking News transcripts after June 1, 2013. Accordingly, there is no way for anyone to independently verify that what you claim you heard on CNN was actually said. You seem not to understand the concept of verification. --JohnValeron (talk) 02:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You seem not to understand that it would not be under "Breaking News transcripts", and that the transcript may not immediately be available on the Internet right now. That does not mean there is no transcript nor does it make the content unverifiable. Your argument is uncommonly silly and would mean that a vast number of citations on this encyclopedia are invalid merely because you can't get them on the Internet whenever you want them. You might have to gasp write to CNN and ask them for the transcript. Oh noes, the snail-mail, what is that? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

What it comes down to, then, is that you heard something on CNN today and rushed to incoporate it into this brand new Wikipedia article based solely on your perfectly recalled hearsay of Mr. Ellsberg's remarks. Sorry, I'm not buying it. --JohnValeron (talk) 02:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't add anything on my own, and no, it's not hearsay to quote a television news report — moreover, this isn't a court of law and we're not concerned with legal rules of evidence. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, I get that you're butthurt. It'd be better for you to adopt a more collegial approach. Wikipedia is not your personal blog. --JohnValeron (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on deducing that Wikipedia isn't a blog. You win one Internets. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Insulting someone, then lecturing them on manners in the next breath, while exhibiting a textbook case of psychological projection, aren't very effective argument techniques. Are you just filibustering, or actually trying to win an argument and remove the information for ten minutes until the transcripts come online? Xardox (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that NorthBySouthBaranof ought to have waited until CNN posted a transcript, video clip or related article verifying what Ellsberg said on air to Don Lemon. As it happens, that video is now available.[2] So why the rush yesterday? Surely the Ellsberg quotes reported by reliable third-party sources, posted promptly to this article, conveyed the essence of what Ellsberg said, and moreover could be verified by Wikipedia users. I think NorthBySouthBaranof let his ego and sense of a "scoop" get in the way of sound editorial judgment. --JohnValeron (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Please mind WP:NPA. --85.197.5.34 (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing that this Washington Post quote was taken from the CNN interview:

• "He’s clearly ready to give his life or his freedom for the interests of his country."

But in the CNN interview Ellsberg states:

• "somebody who really was prepared to risk his life for his country as a civilian."

Unfortunately the news media don't provide sources, and I can't link to the relevant YouTube clip. It seems slightly strange that the newspaper could get the quote wrong but said error would be entirely acceptable despite evidence to the contrary. (Although that may not be the case here.) -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 02:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The Washington Post article you link to does not mention CNN. Why do you assume the interview to which the Post refers was on CNN? Surely it's plausible that the Post could have done its own interview with Ellsberg in which he makes the same point as on CNN but with slightly different wording. --JohnValeron (talk) 00:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Whistleblowers ?

should this category be added? what are the Criterias for that? --93.172.33.216 (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

He's in the subcategory American whistleblowers. Which is appropriate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

This issue/question has already been settled in a previous section (see above).Jonny Quick (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 June 2013

I’m trying to append the following paragraph to the “Quest for political asylum” section but found the page semiprotected and I’m not an auto-confirmed user yet.

[[Dmitry Peskov]], the Press Attaché for the Russian president, has suggested Russia’s willingness to open the discussion on asylum upon Snowdon’s request.<ref>{{cite news |title=若有请求俄罗斯将探讨给予美国人斯诺丁政治庇护问题 |date=6/11/2013 |publisher=俄罗斯之声 |language=Chinese |url=http://radiovr.com.cn/news/2013_06_11/221394511/ |accessdate=6/11/2013}}</ref>

If anyone find this useful feel free to add it there. Justifiably Concerned (talk) 03:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done — -dainomite   03:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Calls for granting asylum in Austria

Don't know whether that's topical enough, but here in Austria, the Pirate Party and two notable politicians (Peter Pilz of the Greens and Jörg Leichtfried of the Social Democrats) have called for political asylum for Snowden in Austria, a source having all three in German would be http://www.format.at/articles/1324/692/360008/asyl-prism-aufdecker-edward-snowden-mehr-schnapsidee. —Nightstallion 12:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 June 2013

Please change Senator Mike Rogers to Representative Mike Rogers.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Mike_Rogers_%28Michigan_politician%29

Bjcoops (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Done - Thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 14:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

And Sen John Thune needs to move the other direction. Iglew (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done, I think, someone want to check them all to be sure? Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

The page says he first contacted Glen Greenwald and Barton Gellman. However, according to a interview with Laura Poitras ( http://www.salon.com/2013/06/10/qa_with_laura_poitras_the_woman_behind_the_nsa_scoops/ ), he first contacted her. Also Greenwald strongly denied ( https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/343960115227025408 ) the version of events in Gellman article, which is cited as source for the claim. 89.24.20.224 (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I saw that Greenwald tweet and forgot about it. We should try to clarify the chain of events, or at least note that there are differing accounts. Thanks for the heads up .224 -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 18:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Alhough, I just noticed the article does already make some attempt to point out the differences in the story. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 18:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I've revised this section somewhat, but there's still a lot of untangling to do. — Pretzels ^Hii! 20:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

There is lots of new information and timings in this piece published a few hours ago. — Pretzels ^Hii! 21:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

In the career section it says he was fired on June 10, but under the reaction section it says 11 June. Can that be fixed to the correct day? Thanks. 216.241.241.30 (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Done — Pretzels ^Hii! 23:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It said the 11th in two places, one of which was sourced, and the source said he was fired on the 10th. I changed both to the 10th. Is there another source that says the 11th? Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Typo

In the article it says "next employment was as an National Security Agency (NSA)". Shouldn't this be "a National Security Agency". I believe perhaps the writer had heard "NSA" in his head and not "National Security Agency", therefor making the mistake of using "an". 174.32.173.1 (talk) 23:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Done AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced claim in lead removed

I removed the second paragraph from the lead:

Snowden said his disclosure of PRISM and FISA orders related to NSA data capture efforts was an effort to expose what he believes is excessive government surveillance of the American people.

If he said something like that then it should be easy enough to get and cite a direct quote. I also noticed no mention of FISA or 'Surveillance Court' in the body of the article. A WP:LEAD summarizes what's in the body. There was a bit of WP:WEASEL in that I see a debate on this talk page about if he is or is not a whistleblower. The removed paragraph had "[[whistleblowing|expose]] which concealed the link to "whistleblowing" in violation of WP:EGG. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to ban Jonny Quick from this article and talk page

Wrong venue for this kind of request. --RAN1 (talk) 04:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Jonny Quick is evidently not interested in our core policies including WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. For this reason, it would be best if he voluntarily refrained from editing the article and even commenting on this talk page. Failing that, he should be unceremoniously banned from doing so. Just my 2 cents. --85.197.5.34 (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC) If you wish to propose a topic ban, this isn't the place to do so. Please confine any comments here to matters of direct relevance to article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Like I said, it would be best if he voluntarily refrained. --85.197.5.34 (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC) That comment is also inappropriate. At this point I oppose semi-protection in order to allow maximum input with a greater degree of anonymity, but your non-constructive comments are giving reasons to go the other way. Perhaps it would be more helpful if your (Germany based) IP were prohibited from the Talk Pages.Jonny Quick (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Considering this isn't gonna happen here anytime soon and it's guaranteed that this is not going to help the development of this article, I'm going to collapse this. If you have a problem with a user's comments, you should resolve it with discussion, not with topic ban proposals. This doesn't help article discussion one bit, and to be honest this seems like a proposal with frivolous (verging on dubious) grounds. --RAN1 (talk) 04:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

How did he travel to Hong Kong?

This talk page is intended solely for discussions directly related to article content. It is not a forum for general discussions on the subject. Off-topic posts may be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

How did Snowden manage to travel to Hong Kong? There are typically travel restrictions on people with the types of clearances that Snowden possessed and the job role he had. It's deeply ironic that the USG did not appear to notice he was gone until the release of the PRISM data. He could just as easily been in mainland China, North Korea, etc. It seems like it's a huge failure of US counter-intelligence, the TSA, no-fly list, etc. Basically, it's a failure of every system put in place since 9-11 to protect US citizens. I hope to see some reporters cover this issue in detail. Jsheehy (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC) @Jsheehy: Here's an exerpt from this article by the Guardian. "He then advised his NSA supervisor that he needed to be away from work for "a couple of weeks" in order to receive treatment for epilepsy, a condition he learned he suffers from after a series of seizures last year. As he packed his bags, he told his girlfriend that he had to be away for a few weeks, though he said he was vague about the reason. "That is not an uncommon occurrence for someone who has spent the last decade working in the intelligence world." On May 20, he boarded a flight to Hong Kong, where he has remained ever since." — -dainomite   05:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks. I read the same article. It says nothing to address my question. Specifically, it says nothing of how he traveled there. Normally, someone would need special approval to travel to a place like Hong Kong. I doubt he convinced them that he was traveling to Hong Kong for treatment of his epilepsy. Why was he not flagged when he bought a ticket, presumably a one-way ticket to Hong Kong? Why did the no-fly list not raise an alert? There are many more questions. Jsheehy (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC) That's silly, I would assume he travelled there by plane, or boat. I would be money he didn't tell his bosses where he was going and simply bought a plane/boat ticket. Why would he be flagged for buying a ticket to Hong Kong? Why would he have been on the no-fly list? Why would he need special approval to go? — -dainomite   06:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC) @Jsheehy: Seems highly unlikely he'd buy a one-way ticket. Apart from even people like me knowing that that's an obvious red flag, it makes it harder to get into countries and is also (in my limited experience) more expensive than a return. Terrycojones (talk) 06:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC) y'all are making WAY too much out of the "one-way ticket" thing. for someone coming to the US from an obscure country, yeah, it's a red flag, but in a backpacker mecca like hong kong, it's almost the norm. i traveled all around asia for over a decade; i cannot recall EVER buying a 2-way ticket. even for someone coming back, they often drift off to the PRC proper...then tibet...then thailand etc BEFORE heading home. HK is the one hub where you have LOTS of westerners "winging it" without fixed itineraries. as long as he wasn't on some weird "employee" no-fly list like others are discussing, there is nothing odd here. clean cut white guy shows up in HK on US passport with 1-way ticket - **yawn** - prolly 3000 of those a day. 209.172.25.175 (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC) To be fair, I don't know how common the later (more expensive) actually is in a case like this. At least whenever I've looked, primarily for cases between NZ or Australia to Asia (generally Malaysia and places nearby) and also some flights within Asia), the oneway has either been cheaper or the same price. It may be far more than half price, but not more expensive than the price of a return ticket. I guess it may occasionally happen at the boundaries where there's an ultra cheap strict condition ticket for the return but no such ticket exists for the one way, perhaps because they are all sold out. (In the Oceania and Asian market, I think even the policy of one ways costing much more than half a return may be dying given the growth of international low cost carriers and their general point to point fare structure, where there's generally no such thing as a return ticket instead you just book two one ways.) In fact back in 2001 it was suggested by a travel agent, I was coming to NZ to study but intended to come to NZ for a holiday/sorting out my plans first and then go back to Malaysia and later back to NZ. For various reasons it was easier to sort out my visa in NZ while here on my holiday then it was in Malaysia and price wise it also seemed better to buy a return ticket from NZ to MY than MY to NZ. All this combined meant I couldn't get a one way ticket in Malaysia because NZ wouldn't have been happy about it even thought it was slightly cheaper than a return ticket but needed a one way ticket at some stage. So after coming to NZ and sorting out my visa I booked a return ticket from NZ to MY and had the remaining return leg for NZ to MY of my original ticket cancelled for a tiny refund. IIRC even without the refund it would likely have been cheaper than keeping my return ticket and booking a one way in Malaysia travelling to NZ.) Anyway back to the point, from what I've read, it sounds like this is much more common for flights within the US, to the extent that some airlines even have direct bans of it ('Throw-away ticketing' or booking a return ticket but only using one-way) and reserve the right to charge you the full price for a one way ticket. From what I've read, I'm not sure it holds for flights from the US to international destinations. I presume a big problem is this sort of policy is very hard to police, for starters unless you're doing it all the time, it's hard for them to know if you did this intentional or were genuinely unable to make the return leg and if you lie and they challenge you on it, there's a big risk to them if they are mistaken. And even if they do want to challenge you their options may be limited particularly if you don't subscribe to the airline's reward point system, they could ban you from their airline or try to pursue you for the extra charges you allegedly owe them but this raises the cost. (I'm obviously only thinking of a case where you book a return ticket going from A to B and later back to A from B but you travel the A to B leg. Booking the same ticket but trying to travel from B to A is something much easier for them to police, they just cancel your whole ticket once you don't show up for the first leg A to B. Although I have read the legality of that in Europe has been questioned.) But I do agree with the main point, I don't see any good reason to think he bought a one way ticket, I don't know whether it would have done much for the US but it's very likely it would have bought a lot of scrutiny in HK, if the airline even let him travel at all (or buy the ticket). At the very least he would likely have had to show enough funds to buy a ticket back to the US and they may have also wanted evidence he intended to return. All in all, not a good idea if you're NSA contractor running away and not intending to return to the US. I'm presuming of course that he is or was only there on a tourist visa. (Speaking generally, those who intend to overstay their visa, seek asylum etc and are a bit smart about it nearly always book return tickets.) As for the US intelligence agencies not knowing, for all the controversy the US is no North Korea. As controversial as the no fly list may be, I'm not aware that agents or similar are ever placed on it simply because they are supposed to get permission to travel overseas, even for higher level agents. (Or that people are otherwise barred at the border from traveling overseas simply because they lack permission except perhaps for criminals.) Other than the obvious controversy about placing agents on such a list, even from a security standpoint, it's not necessarily a good idea. What if someone is supposed to travel overseas for important reasons (under their real names) and the listing isn't correctly removed. They would either prevented from traveling. Or at the very least a bunch of low level border agents, airline staff and LEOs become aware of this person? (Yes there may be there are so many false positives that it may not seem like much but it still gives unnecessary scrutiny and besides the process of clearing the person to travel may make the case seem less ordinary.) I presume if he had returned and the NSA or his employer had gotten wind of it, he may have been in for some serious questioning and it's possible a red flag was raised somewhere which would have eventually been noticed by someone in the system (presuming it was not, we don't know for sure that the agencies in the US weren't aware of him strangely going to HK). Nil Einne (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC) A google search will turn up quite a bit of policy and practical information on travel restrictions placed on personnel holding a TS/SCI or TS/SAP clearance. Here's a couple examples: http://www.dm.usda.gov/ocpm/Security%20Guide/S4self/Intro.htm http://www.afforums.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-19391.htmlgor Counter-intelligence is taken seriously. I am curious how Snowden worked around the restrictions and avoided detection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsheehy (talk • contribs) 04:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Why Hong Kong? i haven't heard a peep about why he picked hong kong - a claustrophobic megapolis with a heavy US presence and an extradition treaty. why not go straight to bangkok or kuala lumpur or his ultimate goal, reykjavík? was hong kong a head-fake, just a one-night stop to point the media at while he slipped off to the real target? or was he somehow targeting someone's EMBASSY there? does iceland, in fact, have an office in the SAR? 209.172.25.3 (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC) This is a good question, but a question that no one but Snowden knows. 192.136.210.191 (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC) i'm just wondering if it's come up in any of his comments. if i were headed to iceland, i don't think HK would be my first stop. and what's all this about HK being a bastion of free speech?! even in their pre-PRC days, they weren't as free as, say, the UK proper. why not hop a flight to london or paris to begin with? was it just a matter of PROXIMITY (starting in honolulu and wanting to get out FAST?) or is there something else in his background (prior trips, friends) why HK would be a place he'd default to? any chance that that GIRLFRIEND in hawaii is of HK stock? just a thought. 209.172.25.3 (talk) 03:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Unsupported speculation about his personal life doesn't really belong on this page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC) i didn't add anything to the article. i was asking HERE (talk page) whether anyone had any info on the gal. today there's torrents. to wit: http://www.newser.com/story/169321/meet-edward-snowdens-pole-dancing-girlfriend.html and http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/11/here-is-the-nsa-whistle-blowers-alleged-girlfriend-photos LOL. no HK connection i can see. 209.172.25.3 (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC) new interview today: http://www.newser.com/story/169241/hong-kong-a-huge-gamble-for-nsa-whistleblower.html "...he chose Hong Kong because they 'have a spirited commitment to free speech and the right of political dissent'..." huh? apparently he's never heard of LARRY FEIGN or NURY VITTACHI?! 209.172.25.158 (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC) UNHIDE ME! why is this section hidden - length or some perceived sense it is irrelevant? and how did my "why" section get sucked up into the "travel" section anyways? the "why" of choosing HK is a central question here, as evidenced by the fact that we have a whole new section in the article about it today!! (no, not my doing) so can i go ahead and "unhide" this section here? nobody's gonna even see it with it hidden like this. the title doesn't even match! 209.172.25.33 (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Heard about this on the news

We need more info on this guy. Heard about him on the John Curley show, came here. This article has zero info i needed for my report. Barry Sandwell (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

What info does the article lack that you would like to see? And please note that you could add that kind of info yourself, from proper sources. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me, this article is keeping up extraordinarily well; thanks a lot; keep it properly documented. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Weltverbesserer (in “Press and public”)

Again, this term is used in an exclusively ironical and slightly derogatory way in German. It thus does not translate into “world-improver” in a meaningful way, but into “do-gooder”. Check the two most popular German-English online dictionaries for reference, dict.cc and leo.org. -- 188.194.184.51 (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Could somebody be bothered to actually correct the article accordingly? -- 192.44.85.23 (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Section Press and public contains the following:

German online magazine Spiegel Online reviewed Snowden's action in an article titled "The New World-Improvers" ("Die Neuen Weltverbesserer").

As noted above, the term "Weltverbesserer" carries negative connotations, and "World-Improver" is an inaccurate ad hoc translation. dict.leo.org suggests "do-gooder" as the translation ([3]), which captures the true meaning of the German word far more accurately. Please substitute accordingly:

German online magazine Spiegel Online reviewed Snowden's action in an article titled "The New Do-Gooders" ("Die Neuen Weltverbesserer").

Thank you, --85.197.5.34 (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Someone put the sentence in as requested. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

False, it's still exactly as wrong as before. How hard can it be to replace a single word‽ Although judged by the speed other requests get answered, this is being deliberately ignored. -- 188.195.2.60 (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I took out the English. I don't find this sentence at all helpful and am tempted to just remove the whole thing. It would be better if someone could put in a summary, like we have for the NYT and New Yorker in the same section. Kendall-K1 (talk)

I concur that the sentence can come out. I read the article and didn't see anything worth summarizing that hasn't been said before. I will go ahead and remove it.--Nowa (talk) 00:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done? I search on 'Spiegel' and find nothing (in the Article here.) — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Someone might want to correct a minor error in the reactions' section. Not the German magazine Der Spiegel reviewed Snowden's actions but the German online magazine Spiegel Online.--134.34.147.11 (talk) 11:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

And just like written above, the translation of Weltverbesserer as world-improver is semantically simply wrong. -- 192.44.85.23 (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

And as noted above, the sentence is now removed. What do you think? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Page Protection, Related pages, and organization

This page needs protection. Far too much vandalism / unsubstantiated edits.

1. Related pages. The PRISM page is having similar problems. Propose we coordinate edits.
2. POV edits on both this page and the PRISM page. We need protection and a process for edits.
3. Do we feel confident that we have sufficient NPOV maintainers?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.93.61 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Why does a request for protection comes in unsigned from a non-editor? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Whistleblower means someone is either criminal or dishonest

A whistleblower (whistle-blower or whistle blower)[2] is a person who tells the public or someone in authority about alleged dishonest or illegal activities (misconduct) occurring in a government department or private company or organization. The alleged misconduct may be classified in many ways; for example, a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest, such as fraud, health and safety violations, and corruption. Whistleblowers may make their allegations internally (for example, to other people within the accused organization) or externally (to regulators, law enforcement agencies, to the media or to groups concerned with the issues).

While the release of classified information may or may not be considered "whistleblowing", Snowden has clearly "blown the whistle" on NSA Director Clapper, and I think an argument can be made that he also exposed President Obama for lying about the type of data that was being collected. (My recollection is that initially he said that all they were collecting was the records THAT a phone call had taken place, and not that the actual audio was being recorded.)

In any case, Snowden is a whistleblower because some elected official(s), some person(s) in power, some person whose statements held sway over public opinion lied. His whistleblower status is directly tied to the status of someone else being a liar.

My proposal is to include a detailed, referenced list of every legitimate, relevant, documented quote that was proven to be a lie by Snowden's whistleblowing actions as a part of this article, as well as any others where a person is described as having "whistleblower" status. I do not believe it is in the best interests of the article, the readers or wikipedia in general to only tell half of the story. If sufficient evidence exists to describe someone as a whistleblower, axiomatially there is also enough evidence to describe someone else as a liar (or an accused criminal, I suppose. At this point, all I am focused on is the dishonest liar/whistleblower relationship).Jonny Quick (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Edward Snowden support page?

Generally in these situations, particularly with Julian Assange, there was a lot of information and interest in the "support pages" for the whistleblower. Have any been done?Jonny Quick (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's one that I found:Edward Snowden Support Page

And another from CNet: Edward Snowden gets crowdsourced supportJonny Quick (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Contractor or sub-contractor?

[4] [5]

A subcontractor is a person who is hired by a general contractor (or prime contractor, or main contractor) to perform a specific task as part of the overall project and is normally paid for services provided to the project by the originating general contractor.

Most reliable sources describe Snowden as a "Contractor", however I believe it is more accurate to describe Snowden as a sub-contractor, as he was directly employed by Booz Allen Hamilton although I find no reliable sources that describe him as such. In fact, most say that he "worked for the NSA" or similar, which violates NPOV as it is percieved a more serious act to disclose classified information when you work for the NSA, than when you work for some anonymous Contracting company that most people have never heard of. It also places focus and responsibility more squarely (and unfairly) on Snowden, rather than the highly paid and presumably professional Contracting company that hired him, and is ultimately responsible for what their sub-contractors do. (I can cite common law to support this statement, it's not an opinion but instead is a matter of common law.)

Booz Allen Hamilton says he was a salaried employee. It would be inaccurate to identify him as a sub-contractor as that would imply that he worked for a 3rd party organization other than the NSA and the primary contractor. BAH contracted directly with the NSA, there is no subcontractor.Glammdr1ng (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I propose that we adopt a goal of inserting Booz Allen Hamilton into the article as an intermediary layer between Snowden and the NSA, and include whatever interesting and/or relevant information that there may be about them. There is some controversy with this company, if one reads the "Discussion Pages" of their wikipedia article, and some of that information may be worthy of inclusion into this article.Jonny Quick (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Response: Political figures: Style, amount of information, and sections

I gave all active politicians in the Response section their political affiliations in (Party-State) style.

I've also added relevant committee memberships to names that called for Snowden's arrest, because the press noted that those in the relevant security-related committees were against Snowden; Those supportive of Snowden are members of committees with "soft" topics, such as law, judiciary, oversight etc. My issue was whether adding committee assignments is necessary, or should there instead be a list-like breakdown? -Mardus (talk) 03:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The question is bourne out from the fact that while the previous version seemed cleaner, then I thought it important that the politicians' party affiliations and committee placements should still be known. I am still unsure about whether specific committee placements should be retained in the article, so that's up for debate. -Mardus (talk) 03:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Legislature

I've addeded the Legislature section and while it's meant for initiatives wrt any new law, the word Legislature itself may have connotations to anything associated with the legislature itself, including responses from active members of Congress. -Mardus (talk) 03:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

So the point here is that the subsection and relevant information might need to be moved around for clarity and relevance. -Mardus (talk) 03:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

There was a new edit after which I had to rename the subsection and expand it with information from above. -Mardus (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Toobin

User:TheBlueCanoe added a whole paragraph citing Jeffrey Toobin and only including a reference to him, despite "several" additional unknown people from here and there criticizing Snowden. Are there also weasel words in the new paragraph? -Mardus (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Is the issue that I didn't cite enough people to support the assertion that several commentator have been critical of Snowden's methods or motivations? I could add more, if you think that would help. What I'm trying to avoid is an endless string of quotes. I think some connective prose summarizing a given point of view, and then giving an example or two to illustrate, is far preferable to one paragraph after another of 'he said, she said.' Anyway, I'm open to ideas on how to make it better. The whole section on reception could use some work to consolidate, and I think it's important to try to maintain a balance of views (even among those who oppose the NSA program—and I'm one of them—not everyone is a fawning admirer of Snowden). TheBlueCanoe 03:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Update: I added a couple other sources. Let me know if you think still more are needed to represent this viewpoint adequately. TheBlueCanoe 04:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Because the subject matter is so contentious, then using the "several commentators" phrase is always vague, so it's best to refer to specific people and cite and recount what they have said or written. What you added may eventually lead to a breakdown or explanation in this Wikipedia article about why Snowden could not stay in United States, despite laws and regulations in place that appear to be favourable.

The arguments that Toobin brought are inherently weak, IMO, because I assume (because I can't really speak for him) that if Snowden actually perceived the mechanism suggested by Toobin to work, then he would not otherwise have taken the trip in the first place. So I guess that unfavourable laws and regulations currently have a much stronger effect, which means that the system is out balance.

The current responses vascillate between praise and blame (including calls for extradition, name-calling, etc.), and should perhaps left to be that way. What the responses seem to lack is analysis of Snowden's motivations and actions; maybe because his statements and actions appear to be already quite self-explanatory. So a possible future breakdown of text (outside Responses, btw) could be this:

A see-also reference to Federal whistleblower laws

Short summary of whistleblower laws. Despite these laws, there is another set of laws (Patriot Act, etc) that, if invoked, could harm Snowden anyway (Because Bradley Manning). So Snowden left United States because he did not believe that this system would work and he feared for his life.

Something like that. -Mardus (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• The China response is really interesting. I have to leave this article for now, which leaves it for other editors to dissect. -Mardus (talk) 04:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Ditto - it's bed time. Thanks for forcing me to be more rigorous! TheBlueCanoe 05:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The whole paragraph starting with Sullivan and ending with a sentence mentioning Schiavenza under subsection Press and public should be condensed without taking away the basic ideas these people presented. -Mardus (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Additional sources

• Reeve, Elspeth. "A Pundit's Guide to Edward Snowden Fan Fiction." (Archive) The Atlantic Wire at Yahoo!

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

David Brooks in "Press and Public"

"New York Times columnist David Brooks (stated) that "the founders did not create the United States so that some solitary 29-year-old could make unilateral decisions about what should be exposed.""

Clearly David Brooks thinks that the founders created the United States so that some sociopathic 51-year-old in the White House could make unilateral decisions about what should be exposed ---Dagme (talk) 06:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

To turn this into a more pertinent discussion, here's a comment on Brooks' column published in The New Yorker. --85.197.5.34 (talk) 08:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Ref formatting

Just come back to the article, and I just noticed the dates have all been reformatted to a different style. I spent a while making the dates consistent, just wondering why this was done? -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 16:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked. The default format should be unambiguous: 7 June 2013 or June 7, 2013. Using the m/d/yyyy date numbering format common in the U.S. is too ambiguous, because some people can and do read 6/7/2013 as 6 July 2013. Using the international yyyy-mm-dd format like 2013-06-07 is also acceptable, as I understand that this can also be automatically displayed in the defaultformat set for the whole article with a template, AFAIK. To me, the consistency of date formatting in references is a minor issue; just that it should not be ambiguous. (I prefer the international date format and apply it when there's ambiguity in dates or when there are missing dates.) -Mardus (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:DATE says in part, "editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable." Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Needs new image

Non-free use policy is seriously pendantic. I thought my image was fair use. Is there NOTHING that can be used then, considering the only images out there are non-free? RocketLauncher2 (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Non-free use policy is seriously necessary for copyright reasons. So yes, if there aren't any non-free images, we can't have one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

What's the point of fair use if it's not appreciated? RocketLauncher2 (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

What's the point of answering your questions if you ignore the answer? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

We can have non-free if its fair use..RocketLauncher2 (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you intending to make a specific proposal to add a specific image? If so, please do so. Otherwise see WP:NOTFORUM. If you want to make general comments about Wikipedia policy, this isn't the place to do it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The talk page is to discuss changes in the article, which is what I'm doing. That's also not a general comment about Wikipedia's policy, that's just you being confused. You said we can't have non-free images. I'm pretty sure fair use would allow some. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Not a "whistleblower"

The debate on his status is coming. Here's what wiki has to say about the definition of the word:

A whistleblower (whistle-blower or whistle blower)[2] is a person who tells the public or someone in authority about alleged dishonest or illegal activities (misconduct) occurring in a government department or private company or organization. The alleged misconduct may be classified in many ways; for example, a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest, such as fraud, health and safety violations, and corruption. Whistleblowers may make their allegations internally (for example, to other people within the accused organization) or externally (to regulators, law enforcement agencies, to the media or to groups concerned with the issues).

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Whistleblower

The premise of the government and pro-government parasites is going to be that the massive electronic surveillance was legal, nor do I believe there is an argument to be made that his release of information related to anything "dishonest".Jonny Quick (talk) 01:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

He is clearly a whistleblower for Wikipedia purposes by dint of the fact that a wide array of reliable sources are referring to him as such and it is completely in keeping with NPOV to describe him as one. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Wrong on both assertions. #1 Wikipedia's definition of the word "whistleblower" does not make an exception for those people that report activities that are not dishonest or illegal, but they are described as such in wikipedia articles if "reliable sources" report them as such. If people are determined to use the word "whistleblower" in this case, they should modify wikipedia's definition of the word in order to do so. Assertion #2 is also wrong, because "whistleblower" carries with it noble connotations of higher morality and superior values that justify civil disobedience and violating established laws, policies and rules. The parasitic government's POV will be to describe him as a criminal, traitor, felon, law-breaker, violator, etc... I haven't got a neutral word to describe him, however it is clear that "whistleblower" is POV as it tends to shade the perception of his actions in the most-favorable (to him) light possible. I'm willing to leave the word and it's use "as is" until a better, more neutral word is presented, however I do ask for consensus that everything that I've just posted is the correct perspective on this issue, and that continued use of the word "whistleblower" is only being done due the lack of a better, more NPOV word. Otherwise, people that post in favor of calling him "criminal" will have a valid argument and there will be much unnecessary furor and discussion.Jonny Quick (talk) 03:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

No, we wouldn't be able to call him a criminal because neutral reliable sources will not so describe him until and unless he is convicted of a crime, nor will our biographies of living persons policy permit the encyclopedia to describe him as a criminal/traitor/felon/etc. until and unless he is convicted of a crime. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

He's being called a whistleblower by major media outlets all over the world and in the USA. He's a whistleblower and whether you like it or not is beside the point. This isn't your personal blog. WIRED in USA says whistleblower & Gaurdian in UK says whistleblower among many, many others. Don't politicize Wikipedia, it doesn't allow it. Cowicide (talk) 05:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

They (the "major media outlets) could call him a "Ham Sandwich" and he still wouldn't fit wikipedia's definition of a ham sandwich. If they called him a "traitor" would you argue in favor of the use of that word? My definition of "Politicizing" Wikipedia is adopting the language that is popular and accepted over that which is accurate. Again, if Wikipedians insist on the use of the word "Whistleblower", they need only modify the definition of the word in order to make this article accurate. I think you should actually read the Wikipedia definition of the word "whistleblower" before making comments regarding my arguments against the use of the word.Jonny Quick (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

With the exception that you can easily tell that Snowden is not a ham sandwich by the fact that he is not pig meat on a bun. To be fair, though, Daniel Ellsberg did not report anything that was illegal; in fact, the only thing illegal about the case against him was the illegal surveillance of him in his trial, yet he is categorized as such, along with more than a few dozen others. I'm willing to bet that this article was written in the same vein. On top of that, I wouldn't say that whistleblower has as strong connotations as you believe. Calling him a whistleblower is far better than the the alternative... --RAN1 (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Different sets of reliable sources for different topics may have different usages for the same words. There's simply no way you can use a Wikipedia article as a reliable source for describing Edward Snowden. Accuracy for Wikipedia articles is about accurately reflecting the reliable sources on a topic, not accurately reflecting your own independent reasoning and research, nor accurately reflecting Wikipedia articles (when they are not reliable sources). If you disagree with his characterization as a whistleblower, I would suggest making a letter to the editors of the relevant media. If you disagree with the definition of "whistleblower" given in the whistleblower article, I would suggest finding some reliable sources to cite and change it to reflect those. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 16:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Well the matter is settled as far as I am concerned, given the quote from the NSA Director, etc... however you are still wrong. Your comments are misguided in that they seem to address the idea that I personally have a problem with the use of the word, rather than I expect Wikipedia to remain consistent from article to article. If Wiki is going to put the effort into defining a word like "whistleblower" and then forcefully demand that that definition be ignored I don't have a problem that needs to be solved (by letter-writing and whatnot), wiki has a problem both with internal consistency as well as editors that fail to appreciate the need for it. And as far as placing the burden of modifying an already-existing article in order to make the use of the word "whistleblower" in this article more consistent, that burden should be placed on you, and those others that have a political interest in using that word, despite the fact that it's at variance to wikipedia's own definition. I find it interesting, the lengths to which people will go in order to accomplish a political agenda, in the middle of an article that describes a story that illustrates the very same thing. 2 + 2 will never equal 5, no matter how much pressure people try to generate. Otherwise, someone please show me a wikipedia rule, policy or "pillar" that requires people to "confess" that they believe it does, in order to remain an editor in good standing.Jonny Quick (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me that there's no need to call him either a wistleblower or a traitor. Simply state what actions he took, his job positions, etc. Both words show bias and are unnecessary for reporting the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.242.134 (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

How about labeling him a leaker? There is no doubt that he release classified information to the press in violation of his NDA. Some see his actions as whistleblowing, others allege a crime. Regardless, he leaked classified material and can thus be fairly described as a leaker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.232.114 (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Leaker, definitely. Whistleblower, no. If this activity was being done under the Patriot Act, then it was "legal", whether this character likes it or not. Whether it's "constitutional" is presumably undetermined by the court system. Until such time, it is apparently "legal". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

What is legally correct may or may not be morally correct. Moreover, this information allegedly proves that the Director of National Intelligence lied under oath when testifying to Congress that NSA did not intentionally wiretap electronic information from American citizens. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure that the Congress will embrace the heroics of that guy in defying George W. Bush's Patriot Act. (Personal attack removed) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Just as Daniel Ellsberg was a tool of the global communist conspiracy when he revealed the lies behind the Vietnam War, I'm sure. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Refresh my memory: Did Ellsberg run off to another country? Or did he stay and face his detractors? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Given "the Obama administration's baying-bloodhound chase of suspected leakers" [6] I can't say I blame him. So much for "most transparent administration in history." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

This process started 7 years ago, so don't be blaming Obama. A lot of Americans seem to forget that there's a war on, a war in which we have been attacked on our own soil (unlike Vietnam). Giving aid and comfort and secret information to the enemy is a potentially treasonous offense. Oh, and how transparent is al-Qaeda's operation? Or is that somehow not important? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Just gonna mention WP:FORUM. Might be a good idea to move this to user talk. --RAN1 (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

First get rid of that biased, self-serving term "whistleblower". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is the money quote, sourced to the Guardian: At a Senate intelligence committee hearing, (Director of National Intelligence James) Clapper was asked by Democratic senator Ron Wyden: "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" Clapper replied: "No sir. Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly." [7] The actions of Snowden clearly call the truthfulness of that response into question. In fact, Clapper has now admitted on national news "I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful manner by saying no." [8] Least untruthful is a fancy way of saying "I didn't lie, much." Snowden blew the whistle on these false claims by a top intelligence official. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Tell us how alerting the enemy to our tactics serves the interests of the American people. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant to whether or not he is a whistleblower. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not irrelevant. The term "whistle-blower" implies some sort of moral superiority to the one he's "blowing the whistle" on. Aiding the enemy destroys any alleged "moral high ground". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Who's enemy is that, Bugs? Wikipedia is a multinational project... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The group called al-Qaeda is an enemy of the US, and supposedly this Snowden guy is a US citizen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I gotta say: wiktionary:whistle-blower <- doesn't have to be illegal. --RAN1 (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Why is it so hard to understand that our own subjective feelings on what a whistleblower is or isn't, or even a dictionary meaning of what it is or is not, are IRRELEVANT. We include what the reputable sources say, we are not on a quest for the truth. The reputable sources are the only thing that matters, not our personal opinions. If they called him a ham sandwich, yes, we would report he's a ham sandwich, as well as including that, as inevitably would be the case, some portion of (cited, reputable) sources declare him to not be a ham sandwich. Everything else is POV pushing, even if that POV is only in regard to one's feelings about the words. WE ARE NOT THE DECIDERS OF TRUTH, AND THIS IS NOT A FORUM.204.65.34.238 (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources call Snowden a whistleblower. Talk about "aiding the enemy" doesn't belong here because this isn't a forum for general discussion, and because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia rather than a combatant in the "war on terror." -Darouet (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

"If they called him a ham sandwich, yes, we would report he's a ham sandwich, as well as including that, as inevitably would be the case, some portion of..." ham, lettuce, and tomato? Does that include the mayo on your own private IP address? Please reply back when you are online. I suggest he is a whistle blower, that is subjective; and my feelings are the guy sits in Hong Kong afraid to go back to his Hawaii apartment before talking to the press again. And, in case the reporters want to photograph him for another interview - I guess another photograph of someone that claims to have completed a video interview before the news even broke, is just /pushing/ POV and articles are lost on an encyclopedia. Fatum81 (talk) 03:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Issue long since settled, enough already. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 02:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Here is the money quote... This persuades me in favor of the use of the world "Whistleblower" for purposes of this article, as Snowden's actions can at least in part be interpreted as exposing the dishonesty of Director of the National Security Administration James Clapper, whose comments are clearly intended to allay any concern that any kind of comprehensive surveillance of millions of Americans that are not suspected of any illegal activity had been done. Clapper lied when he said that. Snowden's categorization as a "whistleblower" is dependent upon Clapper's dishonesty, and he obviously lied. Which makes NSA Director James Clapper a liar, and Edward Snowden a Whistleblower. End of conversation, as far as I am concerned, as the only thing left for the opposition to the use of this word is to defend the fact that Clapper is a liar, whether or not it was "moral", or "legal" or "necessary" or "desired" for him to lie. None of those arguments change the fact that he is a liar, and Snowden has exposed that fact by being a whistleblower. Good work, NorthBySouthBaranof.Jonny Quick (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Yet again, what we think makes sense or not is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what the reputable sources say. He is almost universally referred to as a whistleblower. Therefore, it is correct to refer to him as such here. Whether we agree or not is irrelevant. 204.65.34.238 (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Just before coming here, I made a fast Google search of "Edward Snowden" and the top 10 results had him described as "Hero", "Traitor", "Leaker" and it's not until the 16th result does a British newspaper call him a "Whistleblower". Which one of those "reputable sources" should be used, and by what process would you determine the correct word to describe him. Should we vote, and ignore all other possible standards and process? I say we use the most simple and easy standard, which is wikipedia's own definition(s). The issue is already settled as far as I'm concerned. If you, or anyone else, would like to use a word other than "whistleblower", please make your proposal and a reasoned argument in favor of another standard and/or process, and why that standard or process is better than this one, which I think is the most obvious. I am not particularly happy with "whistleblower", but it seems a better alternative to all the others that the "reliable sources" are using, and also better than some of the words that could be used that are NOT being used by "reliable sources", such as "reporter", "snitch", "rat", etc... Your assertion that "reliable" "ham sandwich" sources be used is not comprehensive, but is only a part of the process, and steadfastly maintaining a centered position on the "ham sandwich argument" prevents any progress from being made past that point. Please read and understand what I've just posted before posting again, as it's pretty obvious the substantive discussion is over and all that can happen from this point is unnecessary bloat in the discussion pages, and frankly there are better things to do with this article than belabor a point that has already been settled.Jonny Quick (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC) The news stories have tended to call him a "whistleblower", even though it's a gross distortion of the term. However, as more facts come out, the assessment of this guy might evolve. For example, his decision to flee to a location near China may not be just a coincidence. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Wow. I can't believe this conversation is so jaded. See the Fourth Amendment ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.") So the FBI recording all phone calls under one "warrant" is most definitely illegal. Statues do not overwrite the constitution. Hence he is a whistleblower - in the truest sense. I am sorry your desire to vilify him makes it so you cannot see that. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC) If it's authorized by Bush's famous Patriot Act, then it's legal until or if the courts rule otherwise, or until it's repealed by the same folks who approved it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC) Sorry but thats not the way it works. Tomorrow they could pass a law saying christianity (or islam) is illegal - that wouldn't make it law. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC) You're wrong about "how it works". It would be the law until the courts threw it out, which would probably happen the next day. Your argument is a bit like those who argue against abortion and/or the death penalty. You might not agree that those things are morally right, but they are legal. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC) Not even close. Did you read what I wrote, it is expressly forbidden by the supreme law of the land. Thats the problem - people think congress people have way more authority than they do. YouTube Tom Woods, Milton Friedman, or anyone else worth listening to. Your way is obviously wrong as it is easy to pass that the president can kill anyone he wants see ndaa but that's obviously not true either. Your way the corrupt president could just close all courts with armed men and it'd remain law forever. Obviously not true either. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 01:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC) Your argument could be the basis for court cases and revision or repeal of the law. But until those institutions act, it remains legal. And your examples are bogus comparisons. Years ago the court ruled that the draft was constitutional, despite being "involuntary servitude". And just last week, the court ruled that cops can routinely take your DNA samples, just like fingerprints. Is that a violation of the bill of rights too? Maybe, but the courts say it isn't, and dat's dat. And until they rule on this current matter, it's likewise an open question. Meanwhile, all the hoopla for this guy might ebb if they discover he's been passing secrets to China or some such. And also meanwhile, the bigger scandal might turn out to be that our outsourcing of our security has put us into this mess in the first place. How does a guy less than three months on the job know so much? Or could it be he's lying or exaggerating? We already know he inflated what his annual salary would have been. Don't be too quick to deify this guy. The passage of time may indicate otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC) LOL Amazing. All those people died so 9 people could decide "dat's dat". Well my friend, your future is bleak indeed. Freedom is so rare. It could never be in such perverse system you propose. And why are they bogus comparisons? In your paradigm how would it come with an authoritarian controlling congress and the courts? Cause "dat'd be dat". Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC) I share your concerns. I just have more faith in the system. I lived through the Watergate era, which was much worse than this is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I like how Hillbillyholiday just declares it settled. Then puts a hat on debate. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 02:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Glad you appreciate it, Jason A. Jensen of USA, where are you from out of curiosity? -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 02:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Image

Guardian paper image should be removed (which i have just done). fair use would only allow it to be used in the article on the paper. as he is alive, we could presumably get a free use image of him at some time. until then, we cant even allow for fair use of copyrighted images of him, let alone newspaper/magazine covers.(mercurywoodrose)108.94.3.240 (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)=confirmed as IP for Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• While you are correct we can't use a portrait under fair use, I believe we are able to use the newspaper cover. The fair use rationale reads "to illustrate either the publication of the article or issue in question", and his reason for notability is specifically the publication of this series of articles in the Guardian. — Pretzels ^Hii! 15:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Thats a potentially valid point. Id like others to chime in, but i wont remove the image again if reinstated. I still think it may not be allowed, but im not sure enough to insist the image stay off the page. do as you will.(mercurywoodrose)50.193.19.66 (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)=confirmed as IP for Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

We need a better image for Snowden; there's one at File:Edwaed Snowden.jpg, but it needs to be cropped and the file name is wrong (and fair use/BLP needs to be checked as well to see if any such images would be ok with policy). If somebody more knowledgeable in those areas could do something about that, that would be great. --RAN1 (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, there's a better image here, it might be worth cropping that and uploading it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2013/06/09/National-Politics/Images/2013-06-09T202404Z_01_CLH100_RTRIDSP_3_USA-SECURITY-IDENTITY-6778.jpg . --RAN1 (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• The most appropriate image I've seen so far is here from the Guardian; however it wouldn't fall under fair use so we would need them to release it on an open license. The newspaper was used because it was likely to be permissible under fair use. — Pretzels ^Hii! 18:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• From a NFC standpoint, if the newspaper story is used both to illustrate Snowden (who, now considered to be a fugitive of the law, and thus we can't easily expect a free photo to be had), and highlight the specific story that broke news of this through the Guardian, you've got two good rationals to use for a non-free image here. If you take an image of Snowden just by himself from any other non-free source, it would be a very weak rationale; the use of the Guardian's version helps to strength this. (And if it is the case that this gets merged to PRISM, the image still works there). --MASEM (t) 21:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The template at File:The Guardian front page 10 June 2013.jpg states: "Note: If the image depicts a person or persons on the cover, it is not acceptable to use the image in the article of the person or persons depicted on the cover, unless used to directly illustrate a point about the publication of the image. Use of the image merely to depict a person or persons in the image will be removed." Unless there's a good reason as to why the image is included (i.e. to illustrate a point about the publication of the image), there's really no justification as to allowing this image on the article. If anyone contests otherwise, please reply rather than reverting, the image shouldn't be deleted for another week and in the worst case the file can be undeleted. We still need a picture for this though, so if anyone finds a free example feel free to upload and put it on the article. Thanks, RAN1 (talk) 01:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: As of 05:14, June 13, 2013 (UTC), the image is back up there. I'm moving my comment to this section from "Needs a new image" since the relevant discussion shows up here and not there. If somebody could please answer my concern about that note, please post a reply here. Thanks, RAN1 (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi RAN. I believe this image falls under fair use for the article Edward Snowden, as the individual is directly notable because of this series of reports, and the article specifically discusses his involvement with The Guardian. Therefore, it is being used "to directly illustrate a point about the publication of the image". More discussion was held at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Edward_Snowden_newspaper_cover.

Perhaps its placement in the infobox gives the wrong impression. Would you be happier if the image was in the "Media disclosures" section, about the reports in question? This may make it clearer that we are using it not solely for the inset portrait of Snowden. Alternatively, is there somewhere else we can post for more consensus? Thanks, — Pretzels ^Hii! 15:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Ken Langone, Home Depot co-founder, expresses views

Ken Langone, Home Depot co-founder, said on Fox News that this leak is no different than the leak of the Pentagon Papers. He also said that in regards to Snowden "I'd throw a party for him, I'd congratulate him, I'd say 'Thank you for helping protect Americans' privacy rights"

Unfortunately I don't see a written transcript. You can see the interview on YouTube. Keep your eyes peeled if it gets written, or find a way to cite the news broadcast. It was an interview with Neil Cavuto. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Lots of people have opinions, and I don't know that Langone's are worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.Jonny Quick (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Jonny, it depends on the # of opinions and the prominence of the person. Once we amass enough opinions, we can decide what to include and what to exclude. Keep in mind he was interviewed on a national news platform about Obama administration info. Also I found he has a Wikipedia article. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• I found an official Fox News video link so I used quotes and time marks. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of this at all. Uncounted pundits have commented on Snowden. If they are media or whistleblower related, that is relevant; a co-founder of Home Depot is not; at least, no more relevant than any of the numerous readers of this entry who have their own opinions on Snowden.Leslynjd (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Current status?

I believe his "Status" on the side box should read "Unknown" rather than "In Hiding" as there is no proof if he is hiding or has been taken out 96.52.196.132 (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The given source says "apparent hiding" and "unknown". "In hiding" without the "apparent" seems to be drawing a conclusion. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I tried to look into this, and could not find a place in the current article where his "status" is even mentioned. I also wonder why the word status is being used to mean "current location", and I also wonder if it is wikipedia's place to report it. Receiving continuously updated reports of a person who could be, or at some point might be called a "fugitive" seems more like "news" to me than encyclopedic content. How has this type of thing been handled in the past, such as with Christopher Dornan?Jonny Quick (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

suggest "Status: Living."Leslynjd (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

CNN article on revelations about China hacking

I found this article from CNN:

• Mullen, Jethro and Chelsea J. Carter. "NSA hacks China, leaker Snowden claims." CNN. June 12, 2013.

So what should a section about this be called? Will it be that sections on reactions to his initial actions and sections about all of his actions will be split in two? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• The original source is here -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 00:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

..he said he will stay in the city "until I am asked to leave", adding: "I have had many opportunities to flee HK, but I would rather stay and fight the US government in the courts, because I have faith in HK’s rule of law." In a frank hour-long interview, the 29-year-old, who US authorities have confirmed is now the subject of a criminal case, said he was neither a hero nor a traitor and that:

• US National Security Agency’s controversial Prism programme extends to people and institutions in Hong Kong and mainland China
• The US is exerting “bullying’’ diplomatic pressure on Hong Kong to extradite him;
• Hong Kong’s rule of law will protect him from the US;
• He is in constant fear for his own safety and that of his family.

"People who think I made a mistake in picking HK as a location misunderstand my intentions. I am not here to hide from justice, I am here to reveal criminality." -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 00:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

"...I am here to reveal criminality." I just want to note that if this is demonstrated to be true, it fulfills the 2nd criteria of Wikipedia's definition of a "Whistleblower" (see "whistleblower" discussion above).Jonny Quick (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The only thing that matters is intent. To say something technically has to be illegal doesn't make sense to me. I could argue, I think reasonably well, that the people who "write" it don't have a clue as to what it amounts to. So using such a benchmark means that "whistleblower" is so subjective it could never be determined until after the fact and that defies logic. So, lets search for articles on his finances. If he took money he's dirty. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 03:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK?

The 5 day period for DYK nomination runs out tomorrow, does anyone feel like putting the article forward? Anyone got ideas for a good hookline? -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 00:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The article has been nominated with this hookline:

• Did you know that Edward Snowden exposed the NSA's top-secret PRISM program, and was described as "a hero" by Julian Assange?

Alternative hooks can be suggested here -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 16:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe any mention of Snowden is worthy of placement in "In the News" section of the front page. -Mardus (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Public

What's the difference between "public figures" and "press and public"? Shouldn't these be combined? Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The "public" in "press and public" refers to mass action, eg petitions and protests. These headings could be made clearer. — Pretzels ^Hii! 13:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

At large?

media reports he is in a "secret location" or in a "safe house" but does that include the possibility of someone's EMBASSY?

is there a list of countries with embassies/consulates in the SAR? is ICELAND on this list?

i assumed that's why he went to HK in the first place. it is a highly illogical choice otherwise. for all his statements about their history of free speech, they really do not have a great record. even before the PRC takeover, the press there was never quite as free as the press in, say, the typical european capital. see larry feign and nury vittachi for a start.

and the court system had its own problems. i would sooner take my chances in tokyo or seoul.

and of course pretty much EVERY source agrees that the PRC -- and probably HK -- does heavier surveillance of its citizens than the so-called oppressive country he's fleeing. so why indeed is he in HK?! 209.172.25.33 (talk) 08:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Snowden's quite savvy in playing the China card. The exchanges all month long about cybersnooping by China have set the scene well for his atomic bomb. HK's extradition procedures are quite well defined, and the time line allowed for appeals etc can be played out for up to 5 years. The city has EVERY interest in playing this one by the book, especially in such a high-profile case as this. Also papers mentioned the attractiveness of HK as a press hub for Snowden. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 08:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Did Snowden contract at Dell for the NSA?

Wikipedia may have confused NSA Sonic Wall with Snowden working for the NSA (National Security Agency) at Dell. NSA means "Network Security Appliance" in Dell's Sonic Wall line. I have no idea if Snowden worked for Dell ever, but the wikipedia information on Snowden's career assumes the "NSA" means National Security Agency. That is incorrect. There is no information that he ever worked for Dell. If he did, so what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.166.226.115 (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

This is another instance of unverified information. If Snowden said that he worked for Dell, then the only thing to say is that "Snowden said that he worked for Dell," and cite the reporter.Leslynjd (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Reaction section is out of control big and seriously needs to be cut down

Compare this article to any other BLP on a contentious person - half the article is not a bunch of back and forth opinionated arguing about what they did. That needs to be reserved for the PRISM page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• There is a distinction between opinions on the PRISM program, and opinions on whether Snowden should have leaked the details WhisperToMe (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Then we need a separate page on the leak controversy, a-la United States diplomatic cables leak. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• My suggestions for Press and public subsection:

• The first paragraph duplicates much of what's already been written in more detailed fashion in the Public figures subsection.

• Keep Bruce Schneier and Amy Davidson;

• Second paragraph from bottom (Sullivan—Schiavenza) should be heavily condensed. -Mardus (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Without taking away the main points of criticism, if they are relevant. ^ -Mardus (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Will someone please correct the missing title tags (currently citations 104, 105, 106, 107) on references in the Response from China section (which appear to have been initially added by Raintwoto with edit 559791124 [9].

98.70.82.37 (talk) 04:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

File:The Guardian front page 10 June 2013.jpg

File:The Guardian front page 10 June 2013.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 06:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

China Daily

In "Response from China", does the China Daily editorial belong here? It's mostly about the leak, not the leaker, and doesn't seem to add anything new about Snowden. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, I see that it's there to refute the idea that there has been no response from the mainland papers. But can someone please fix the garbled second sentence in this section? I can't figure out what it's trying to say. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

List of NSA surveillance leaks

Editors here need to keep in mind that Snowden leaked much more than just PRISM, though PRISM seems like the blockbuster so far. Here's a list, by my reckoning:

1. FISA court order for NSA call database (later identified as MARINA)
2. PRISM (surveillance program)
3. Boundless Informant
4. hacking of Chinese computers (is there an article for this yet?)

We need to make this list prominent, perhaps put it in the lead section. And wherever there's a discussion of leaks we should always either use LEAKS (plural) or specify which leak we're talking about. --Nstrauss (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Public figures - Ken Langone

I don't see Fox News reporting about what Ken Langone said as relevant, because a co-founder of Home Depot (a company that doesn't have much relevance to the story either) has little influence on the narrative of the story going forward. -Mardus (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It's under the section for public figures, and I think he's a public figure. I think a general 'Reaction' section would fair better though. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. -Mardus (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's my basis for saying it: Definition of 'public figure' is "a well-known or notable person". I don't know what other people would want to define it for use here so I'll just leave it at that for someone else to discuss. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

There are many public figures, but Langone is irrelevant to the story and his Wikipedia article reads like a self-serving account of his life. Fox News reporting about what he said does not make it more credible or more relevant. -Mardus (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Bruce Schneier calling Snowden a hero is more relevant, but I've restrained myself from adding Schneier because I don't think this article should become a laundry list of all the public figures who have come out on one side or the other. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

If someone had added Schneier with a line about who he is, then this would have been pertinent and relevant. Same goes for Lawrence Lessig and Cory Doctorow, and even Aaron Swartz, if he were still alive... -Mardus (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Why does the opinion of a founder of Home Depot belong in a Wikipedia article? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I took the quote out, and have discussed it with WhisperToMe (who reverted me) here. In my eyes, this guys' opinion is just not relevant enough. The section is already bloated, and perhaps the reactions should be split (which is what happened when Thatcher died), leaving only a few of the most relevant and interesting responses? -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 23:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

As said on the talk page, according to this article Langone has been an Obama critic expressing his anti-Obama views on news stations: Kroll, Andy. "The Home Depot Man Who Wants to Demolish Obama." Mother Jones. March/April 2012. - So he's not just the Home Depot cofounder - he's a big "private" (not employed by a news agency, not an elected official) critic of Obama who happens to be very wealthy. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the online encyclopedia, not the news. Wait a few days to see how opinions settle in. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

That said, I come here to read latest developments, edited and documented. THANKS, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Why is Langone back in? I don't see a consensus here for including him. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• I added him back before this discussion started. Are the participants interested in addressing the "private Obama critic" aspect? (I posted the source to illustrate this) WhisperToMe (talk) 02:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Do not include — For reasons that the character is not relevant to the story. This could alternatively be written as "Many critics of Obama have expressed support for Snowden's actions." Thing is, that it's already been noted in the article that many prominent right-wing members of the public (such as Glenn Beck) have expressed their support for Snowden, and Langone is not prominent enough to deserve to be noted. -Mardus (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Langone was also mentioned as supporting Snowden in the Atlanta-Journal Constitution - he is used as an example of how there are divisions in the Republican Party so I re-included him in that context WhisperToMe (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Wording change in the lead

I have changed the wording in the lead from "American people" to a quote from his statement "My sole motive is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them." It is my impression that he was/is thinking more globally than just about the American people. Gandydancer (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Boyce

One of the more relevant figures to have commented is Christopher Boyce, who was in much the same situation as Snowden, some 40 years ago.[10] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's interesting and should be included. But please, only a sentence or two. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure. And that's a sentence or two more than should be used for the opinions of corporate CEO's having no connection to the case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree. I thought we had consensus to remove Langone, but he still seems to be in the article. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I took it out. We'll see how long it stays out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

In the news?

Should this be suggested at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates for being "in the news"? Surfer43 (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It already was in the news a while back. My bad. Surfer43 (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources from Hong Kong?

May be overlooked by those living outside Hong Kong, at least one media had exclusive, moreover that is in English.

EXCLUSIVE: Whistle-blower Edward Snowden talks to South China Morning Post — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.118.206.36 (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for finding it! Yes, the South China Morning Post has many articles about this. The "EXCLUSIVE: Whistle-blower Edward Snowden talks to South China Morning Post" by Lana Lam is dated Thursday, 13 June, 2013. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• • Here is the full list of SCMP stories on Snowden, and here is the Sina.com.hk page where they repost the Snowden-related stories from most local Hong Kong newspapers (with the exception of the Economic Journal, Apple Daily, and some others I'm probably not remembering). quant18 (talk) 06:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment: My suggestion is to add it to Edward Snowden in Hong Kong instead of merging it here. But of course, that requires consensus. -A1candidate (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• • The HK press is hyperactive. I believe using all the stuff from sources other than the English ones could seriously lead to undue weight. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 16:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

@Ohconfucius: Problem is that not even international English sources, like this one, has been included here. No reason why American politicians should be given so much more article space compared to Hong Kong politicians, per NPOV:Anglo-American_focus. -A1candidate (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• I added reaction from two HK politicians WhisperToMe (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 June 2013

The implication conveyed by the use of the word "exposes" in the first paragraph, that Snowden was the first to reveal the scale of US government intelligence surveillance and thus "brought the issue into the public domain" is absolutely incorrect. The massive scale of National Security Agency eavesdropping has long been public knowledge. Wikipedia itself in its article on the NSA, quoting a three year old newspaper article, reports that the agency monitors 1.7 billion emails, telephone calls and other communications daily. I suggest that this point should also be strongly highlighted in the subsequent paragraphs on the reactions to Snowden's leaks. I would argue that Snowden's claim to have acted in the public interest by "disclosing" anything new about the scale of US intelligence surveillance is utterly baseless. 49.176.33.238 (talk) 09:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Link to this article? Snowden did expose this, since PRISM was not known about. Furthermore, the scale of their data retrieval, from massive companies like Google and Microsoft was exposed. THat's what I think at least, but it looks like someone already removed the word from the first paragraph.Kude90 (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Public figures — Bruce Schneier

Bruce Schneier also published some articles in his blog; one essay was originally published in the NYT.[11] That yields…

[[Bruce Schneier]]<ref>{{cite web|publisher=[[The New York Times]]
|url=http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/06/11/in-nsa-leak-case-a-whistle-blower-or-a-criminal/before-prosecuting-snowden-investigate-the-government
|title=Before Prosecuting, Investigate the Government|date=2013-06-11|accessdate=2013-06-16}}</ref>

…for the {{edit semi-protected}} request added below. –89.204.135.134 (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}}

Schneier is already in the article, under "Press and public." Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I've disabled the edit request, thanks. Maybe I should read the complete article before asking others to fix individual sections, sorry. –89.204.135.134 (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Albert Ho Chun-yan

This line under "Response from China" is out of scope for this article. As detailed in the source, the politican is talking about the US surveillance activities and not Snowden himself, hence this would belong in the PRISM article. Hong Kong politician Albert Ho Chun-yan also spoke saying: "It's unlawful, unjustified and unscrupulous … We demand the whole truth be disclosed by the US administration, an unconditional apology from [President Barack] Obama and an assurance this interference will stop." — Pretzels ^Hii! 17:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

While I'm sympathetic to this argument, right now there doesn't seem to be a single place to put reactions to the leaks other than right here. The problem being that the leaks have to do with multiple projects, not just PRISM. I almost think we need a "Snowden leaks of June 2013" article, but I'm not sure we can separate Snowden from the leaks. Any suggestions? Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Kendall-K1, but I think 2 articles are needed:

• Snowden leaks of June 2013: For his leaks and domestic reaction from USA, and other countries
• Edward Snowden in Hong Kong: For his controversial stay in Hong Kong/China

There may not be consensus for this right now; but Im sure that as long as Snowden stays in HK, the necessity to create both articles will only grow stonger with time. -A1candidate (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I strongly believe that the China section is appropriate for the article. I also agree that this article will eventually need to be split (perhaps several splits before this is all over...). Gandydancer (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

China cartoon

Echoing the opinion expressed by Pretzels above, what does this cartoon have to do with Snowden whatsoever? Not to mention that this is a non-free, copyrighted image. Timmyshin (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It was merged from Edward Snowden in Hong Kong, but we need consensus to move it back. See Talk:Edward_Snowden#Merger_proposal -A1candidate (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The merger was a bad decision, and this is the predictable result. I think most, if not all of the merged article should be removed. Why does China get a special section "Response from China". Will there be individualized sections for all the other countries that might have some kind of "response"? Further, don't think the Chinese "response" was particularly noteworthy. If there is going to be only one section for a particular countries' response, why China and not another country more impacted by the story and the surveillance?Jonny Quick (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

China deserves special mention because one of the biggest revelations from Snowden's leak, i.e. NSA attacks on infrastructure, were directed against China, and because Snowden is now in China. -Darouet (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll mention this here, as it seems to be of interested to you (Darouet). There are at least a dozen pre-Snowden articles about US allegations of China hacking US computers, so if you are going to tell that aspect of the story, I'd suggest you start with that as a background and context. I don't think the story is about anything "new" or "surprising" but rather one of retaliation. I keep open the possibility that the timing of Snowden's whistleblowing was intentionally orchestrated by the US Government.Jonny Quick (talk) 06:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I liked the cartoon a lot. I believe that the reactions of the Chinese people are very important in an article about Snowdon--his future depends on their decisions. Gandydancer (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I like it too but I don't think we can claim fair use. Maybe put it in the EL section? Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, in truth I LOVED the cartoon but I was surprised that it was legit for use. There is no better way to connect with foreign cultures than through the universal language of art. How could it be legit at another article? Gandydancer (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

As the editor who added the cartoon, I just want to clarify that its not about the content about the cartoon, but the cartoon itself and therefore should be okay for fair use (identification purposes) -A1candidate (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Uh, no. The NFCC criteria on the file is nowhere near adequate. -- Veggies (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: Further, why is a copyrighted image on this page when the article is not about the cartoon, the cartoonist, or the cartoon publisher? If an inline citation points the user to the appropriate page, there is no reason to include the cartoon on Wikipedia itself. Remember that reaction from China far surpasses the importance of a cartoon. It's a serious political issue and should be addressed as such. There is no reasonable need for the cartoon on the page. -- Veggies (talk) 04:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Removed "Recentism" and "Geographic Imbalance" tags

I removed the "Recentism" tag as inappropriate because the recent events are the only reason for the article about Snowden to exist. There is no "historical perspective" to maintain, as Snowden was historically irrelevant prior to recent events. I removed the "Geographic Imbalance" tag as maintaining a geographical balance on Hong Kong in an article about Edward Snowden seems fundamentally wrong to me, as a non sequitur. These two tags, in addition to a 3rd which I kept, seemed to convey an unnecessarily strong sense of "under construction" and "we don't know what we are doing" to me, and so I removed them in the interests of increasing the article's readability.Jonny Quick (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I put back the recentism tag because even though it was created because of recent events, it still needs a past tense perspective instead of a current one. We are almost there and are close to removing the tag. I don't know what the other tag was about.Surfer43 (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the "Geographic Imbalance" tag was brought in from the merger of the "Eric Snowden in Hong Kong" article. Thanks for setting me straight on the edit status of deleting template tags.Jonny Quick (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think anything was brought over from the other article – there was consensus that not much was worth salvaging. Even up to today's papers, sources continue to say that China has not responded directly to the Snowden issue. However, there's little reason to continue soapboxing on the convenient coatrack that was handed to China to back up their gripes of having been the victim of hackers. It's easy to imagine that there is much mutual hacking and eavesdropping going on that not much of the denials of both are credible. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 07:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Surfer43, are there specific sections that you're concerned about regarding WP:RECENTISM? If so, could you please remove the recentism|article tag and replace it with recentism|section? That would help direct our collective efforts while not having such an immediate impact on readers. --Nstrauss (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I thought we had consensus about not including every 5,000-signature update on the White house petition without it being cited to a third party independent reliable source. Then, there's the Avaaz petition, which is cited to the WashTimes at "close to 900,000 signatures", but that someone keeps phantom-updating... -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 08:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

We have two editors who disagree with the majority view, and so far they have prevailed in the article. So I guess I wouldn't call that a consensus. I suppose Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard would be the next step. Kendall-K1 (talk) 10:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not like tags in general as I feel they are/should be seldom needed. I don't like this one. On the other hand, why should anyone be upset that a few editors like to update the totals frequently? I'd sure never be bothered to do it, but why should we care if some editors like that sort of thing? Gandydancer (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the tags are needed anymore. Surfer43 (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The only WP:RECENTISM concerns raised here are with respect to the Edward_Snowden#Press_and_public sub-subsection. Surfer43 says he doesn't want a recentism tag anymore. I believe all that's left is User:Epicgenius, the user who added the original recentism tag. Let's give him a little more time, then move the tag to "Press and public" (which, IMO, does still suffer from recentism). (And by the way, if there are ongoing disputes about recentism then the tag should remain until the dispute is resolved, regardless of whether it requires WP:DR). --Nstrauss (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Having a "recentism" tag immediately after a "current event" tag makes Wikipedia look kind of stupid. It can't not be recentism, at this point in time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree. I noticed Epicgenius, so let's give him 24 hours to comment before we demote the tag to the subsection about domestic reaction. --Nstrauss (talk) 04:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

China photos

Considering that this version was considered to be acceptable: [12] I am surprised that what I considered to be an improvement was reverted. [[13]] I did split a para but it was in a good and appropriate place. I do not care to see a string of photos at the head of any section. For example news stories always show the photos either throughout a story or at the end. Gandydancer (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The article will look different on different screens depending on various things such as monitor and font size. On my screen, my version looks better to me. But as I said in the change log, if you disagree, please go ahead and revert back to your version. I don't feel strongly about this. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I really do hate it but others seem to prefer your version so I will leave it alone. Gandydancer (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't hate it! I moved the cartoon up and the photos down. How does it look now? Seriously, if you still hate it, I'll put it back the way you had it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Perfect! Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Need a new article

More info seems to come out every day. I'm convinced that the bigger story here eventually will be the leaks(s) and not Snowden. Trouble is we don't have a catchy title for a new article. We need something along the lines of Teapot Dome scandal or Pentagon Papers. Something that doesn't end in "-gate". I expected by now the press would have provided a name but I don't see it yet. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not our job to create subjects for articles, it's the job of the newspapers and other reliable sources. Right now we have separate articles for the NSA call database (which should be renamed MAINWAY), PRISM, and Boundless Informant. Per the blockbuster new WaPo story we'll need new articles for NUCLEON and MARINA. All of the leaks can and should be pulled together here at Edward Snowden as well as at National Security Agency and Mass_surveillance#United_States, and several of the new revelations can be pulled together at Stellar Wind. The G20 surveillance fits here and also at 2009 G-20 London Summit. I'm not aware of where the China/Hong Kong hacking leak would go aside from here.

Our coverage of these subjects shouldn't be limited to limited to the Snowden leaks, as we're getting new revelations by the day from other sources (such as the WaPo story). In my view the main articles covering the new stories should be those about programs/activities that they reveal. E.g. revelations about PRISM should go in the PRISM story. What ties all of these leaks together is Snowden, which is why this is the appropriate article to describe the leaks collectively. Snowden isn't famous for anything else so there's no need for a fork. --Nstrauss (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

"Prism" has come to mean more than it is. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean? --Nstrauss (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

In Wikipedia editing, we try to be precise/accurate; but the public attaches a whole area to one simple name or term: (1) gov't surveillance to the term 'PRISM' and (2) whistle-blower or 'leaker' on Prism to 'Edward Snowden'. You say 'Edward Snowden' like president Obama did, and everyone knows what he meant. You say 'Prism' (upper- or lower-case) and everyone knows you mean mega-spying on US citizens. The reason I mention this is that we may not have a new term for this area; hence, we can stick with these articles for now. Give it a few months. That's my current opinion, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Perhaps a more elaborate disambiguation message is appropriate at the top of PRISM (surveillance program)? --Nstrauss (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

"The Verax Incident"? -- 71.20.55.6 (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

New Interview w/ Guardian Jun 17

Snowden answers questions in a live session with Guardian viewers.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-nsa-files-whistleblower

I think information from this interview should be integrated. A notable quote "Being called a traitor by Dick Cheney is the highest honor you can give an American"

Beware, this is a WP:PRIMARY source and shouldn't be relied on. However I'm sure all the newspapers will have stories in tomorrow's papers on this, and most of those will be reliable sources. Plus, it's totally fascinating reading. --Nstrauss (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Pertinent information from this session has been re-posted to other articles in The Guardian. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

First, as Nstrauss hints, there has to be verification that this really was Snowden. As CBS News said tonight, "Someone claiming to be Snowden" held a live chat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

How is this any difference to every interview given by Snowden so far? It could always have been just someone claiming to be him, and The Guardian could have lied to us all along. If we trust the newspaper about their interviews, we trust them about their live chats. --Conti|✉ 23:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Bugs, that's not my position at all. Lots of interviews are conducted electronically without any independent verification of identity. In legal-speak today's Q&A is "self-identifying." What makes it less reliable is that its claims need to be investigated and weighed against contradictory evidence. That's the responsibility of the news organizations, such as the Guardian, the WaPo, and the NY Times. All of those outlets have already published their own pieces based on the Q&A and those sources are quite reliable. --Nstrauss (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

There's no doubt the Guardian know where to find him and how to authenticate his ID, so the chain of identification of the Guardian is unbroken, IMHO. We should quote from the most direct RS; use of "claim" in such a case is neither necessary nor desirable, because such use, like Dick Cheney, all seek to cast doubt or aspersions on the more important messages Snowden has to share with the world. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 00:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The more he keeps yapping, the worse it gets for him. He grandstands about not being able to get a fair trial in the US, while expressing surprise that the media have covered stuff about his girlfriend. Obviously, a very naïve character. Anyway, CBS raises a good point, as there's no reason to assume that the Guardian is serving anyone's interests but their own, and hence no reason to assume that they actually had Snowden in their chat room. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that's some serious editorial bias showing through. --Nstrauss (talk) 03:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Only if I let it get into the article, which I don't intend to. As an American, I'm personally offended by his "can't get a fair trial in America" comments. Regardless, as with any contentious subject, sourcing and a non-advocacy approach are vital. There's been an attempt to turn this guy into a hero, but it's not Wikipedia's job to do that, especially as he may yet prove to have feet of clay. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't know what that has to do with your distrust of the Guardian, but it's true that we all bring our own biases to table and all we can do is be aware of them and try to keep them out of our written product. --Nstrauss (talk) 04:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

My primary concern is that the media seem to be swallowing his story, hook line and sinker, and we have to be careful. We know he's been truthful about some stuff, but there's other stuff that is unverified. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Re-focus on substance

Of course I applaud all good-faith contributions to Wikipedia, but may I please direct your attention to this bit from Snowden's Q&A session today:

Question:

So far are things going the way you thought they would regarding a public debate? – tikkamasala

Answer:

Initially I was very encouraged. Unfortunately, the mainstream media now seems far more interested in what I said when I was 17 or what my girlfriend looks like rather than, say, the largest program of suspicionless surveillance in human history.

I happen to agree with Mr. Snowden. Can we try to devote at least as much attention to what he disclosed as, say, how much money he made at Booz Allen??? --Nstrauss (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Better to say what he has allegedly disclosed, because some of it is disputed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll follow what the reliable sources are saying, but I think you catch my drift. :) --Nstrauss (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The reliable sources are quoting him extensively, for sure. But beyond what the government has owned up to, is there any external verification of his claims? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

What information would you like "verified" by "external sources", other than the US Government? Classified or unclassified?Jonny Quick (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

What kind of "external verification" do you have in mind? --Nstrauss (talk) 04:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Some independent source confirming that he's not just making up stuff that he claims he was capable of doing, such as spying on any individual he felt like. If that's true, it's a far worse situation than merely gathering gazillions of phone call records. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern but that's not our job, it's the job of the news media. Our standards in this respect are governed by WP:V and WP:RS. Snowden's allegations have been reported on not only by the Guardian but also by others of reputable newsrooms around the world. That easily satisfies the WP:V standard, your (reasonable) concerns notwithstanding. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but we still have to be wary of seeming to be advocates. The allegations have been reported, but not all have been verified or admitted to. Anything he says that hasn't been verified must necessarily be preceeded by "Snowden said". Just like in newscasts covering run-of-the-mill crime stories they will say, "Police say..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. --Nstrauss (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Consistency of Acronyms

Some references are U.S. Some US, some N.S.A some NSA, some N.S.A's (which isn't ever proper, because the A is missing a dot). Can this be cleaned up? I am recusing myself from editing the text of the page on account of POV. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

MOS:STOPS says "Modern style is to use a full stop (period) after a shortening (although there are many exceptions) but no full stops with an acronym." But it also says to use either U.S. or US and doesn't say one is better than the other. I think NSA should be used rather than N.S.A., and have no opinion on U.S. vs US but I think we should be consistent. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The modern tendency is US and NSA. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, here's a "CNN" blogger using "NSA" and "U.S." so go figure.[14] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Personal credibility

It's not our job to judge Snowden's personal credibility. Any attempts to suggest he's a liar by citing contradictions in his reported statements should be immediately reverted by the first editor to detect the attempt, per WP:BLP. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Unless proper sourcing has pointed it out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Many many references to brief employement with Booz Allen are irrelevant

Hey the many many many references to his former temporary employer are not relevant to the story. It doens't need to be mentioned more than once. Of all the NSA whistleblowers, only Federal Employees have the Employer section filled out. No sense rushing over there and adding it to the contractors. Its irrelevant.

The main topic of this section is a controversial action/actions he adimits to taking. There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that these actions are in any way caused or aided or abetted by his employer. Thus the ridiculous emphasis on his employer could only come from enemies of his employer that have a conflict of interest and should not be editing this section. Starting today I'm taking many of them out. Looking at the history, these edits have been reversed in the past, but I dont' expect that to happen now. Come here and talk about it if you think its SO IMPORTANT. There is no point in dragging UNAFILIATED entities through guilt by association. I'm SURE there are several WP:XXXX prohibiting this on the basis of fairness and privacy. -- 132.3.61.81 (talk · contribs) 00:42, 18 June 2013‎ (UTC) + 132.3.61.82 (talk · contribs) 00:43, 18 June 2013‎ (UTC)

Your outrage might have had more punch if you had signed it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Bugs|Baseball has added nothing to the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.207.38 (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Disagree. In fact the opposite is the case; I think there should be MORE emphasis on Booz Allen as ultimately they are directly responsible for the entire situation. Anything less than that is obfuscation and cover-up.Jonny Quick (talk) 08:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to know how Booz Allen let Snowden acquire all those classified documents. But so far I haven't seen anything in the press about that. All the other stuff that's been removed recently, like the silly salary discrepancy and the way the stock price went down, I think is better left out. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a burning (or maybe smoldering) question that only a few commentators seem to have brought up so far. It's one thing to outsource the building of roads and other mundane stuff. It's another to outsource work of such critical national importance. When or if the dust settles, maybe the government will rethink this policy. But the company that hired him does need to be kept on the radar. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Please note the user posting this message and removing the mentions of Booz Allen is an employee of the company. — Pretzels ^Hii! 12:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Good catch. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest encourages editors to disclose COI, but since this user didn't, I'm glad you did it for him. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I just changed the title of the section from "Former Employers" to "Snowden's Employer", as it falls in a list of various entities' reaction to the whistleblowing. There seems to be an effort to create as much distance between Booz Hamilton and Snowden as possible, and so now I am inclined to go in the exact opposite direction. At the time of the information release, Booz Hamilton was Snowden's CURRENT employer, and the use of the word "former" creates the impression that he was not actively employed by Booz Hamilton at the time of the release. He was. And it was Booz Hamilton's abysmally incompetent security procedures that allowed the whole situation to happen, so all other things being equal, and with no better 3rd alternative, when it comes to a choice of either/or, I choose to place Booz Hamilton closer to Snowden and these events rather than farther away. Second, the previous title said "Former Employers" (plural), yet there was only Booz Hamilton listed, which seems to further obfuscate a completely clear situation for no particular reason. Even if other "former" employers are identified and included in the list, I would be inclined to split the sections into "Employer" (at the time of the release, Booz Hamilton), and "Former Employers" (the CIA, McDonalds, whoever). His employer at the time of the release is of primary importance; so important that it merits it's own "standalone" category.Jonny Quick (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't even know how to sign my name here don't expect me to know arcane intricacies of WP policies. The comment by JohhnyQuick that "Booz Allen is responsible " is the problem. That's only his opinion. So is he coming here to cast blame on that basis? There's no evidence to support that. It needs to be made clear my actions are my own, not made here on behalf of my company. I have an interest. My reputation. Finally, there's no evidence that Snowden hasn't been accumulating documents for 10 years. It's raw speculation that is grossly inappropriate. Whether he was a Booz Allen is not relevant to how he got the docs, he actually got the documents directly from the government he asserts. All the people here trying to blame his former employer --- who fired him -- please prove you have no axe to grind and don't work for competitor to Booz Allen. Finally the article should be about SNOWDEN. Right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.207.38 (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Additionally, head over to the articles about other NSA whistleblowers and see how they handled former employers. Treatments here should be along those examples. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.207.38 (talk) 03:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

It's about whatever the sources say it's about. And if possibly slipshod screening of employees is being talked about by the sources, then it's on the table. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

98.108.207.38, you admit that you're a Booz Allen employee and that you have an interest in maintaining Booz Allen's reputation. That alone is enough to establish conclusively that you have a conflict of interest (COI). You don't have to be paid to edit Wikipedia or ordered by your boss to edit Wikipedia to have a COI. All there needs to be is an external relationship between the article content and you that has the potential to interfere with your editing. In this case you've already conceded that your goal is to preserve your reputation, which can and does run contrary to the aim of Wikipedia to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia. As a COI editor, you're strongly discouraged from editing anything having to do with your employer, including this article. If you insist on continuing you should make sure to avoid making any edits directly in the article and instead propose your edits on this talk page. You're also encouraged to create a login and disclose your connection to Booz Allen on your user page. (For more info, see WP:COI.) --Nstrauss (talk) 04:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

If that's the policy then so be it. There is a difference between protecting my reputation from FALSE INFERENCES like those espoused by JohnnyQuick. At least address the issues I have raised here. Rather than attack me and my motives there is plenty of evidence just on this talk page people are coming Here to disparage a company without facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.207.38 (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

To my knowledge no one is adding improperly sourced inferences about your employer, but if anyone does I (for one) will be on the lookout to remove them. --Nstrauss (talk) 04:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

If you have substantive objection to the article as it is currently written, state them and they will be discussed. Here's an article about Booz Hamiliton's lax security which allowed "Anonymous" to hack into their network and steal over 90,000 military emails addresses with "non-salted passwords", dated July 11, 2011.http://www.geek.com/news/anonymous-hacks-booz-allen-hamilton-90000-military-emails-stolen-1401753/. Also, FYI IP Address 132.3.61.82 is part of a block of IP Addresses registered to something called the "754th Electronic Systems Group" which "Operates out of Maxwell Air Force Base-Gunter Annex, Alabama", which either lends credibility to the claim that 132.3.61.82 really does work for Booz Hamilton, or the address is spoofed. If that's possible. Is it?Jonny Quick (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

New sources about China-related activities

• Bradsher, Keith. "Snowden’s Leaks on China Could Affect Its Role in His Fate." The New York Times. June 14, 2013.
  • Says "Mr. Snowden told the newspaper that the computers were in the civilian sector. But Western experts have long said that the dividing line between the civilian sector and the government is very blurry in China. State-owned or state-controlled enterprises still control much of the economy, and virtually all are run by Communist Party cadres who tend to rotate back and forth between government and corporate jobs every few years as part of elaborate career development procedures."

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Can we just restore Edward Snowden in Hong Kong and add it there? -A1candidate (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

That could be a possibility. I'll post more sources and perhaps other editors will weigh in. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Lai, Ying-kit. "Snowden's Hong Kong hacking allegations will be probed, says security minister." South China Morning Post. Wednesday, 19 June, 2013. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Why is this entry so full of errors?

somebody needs to check their references and use ones that are a little more credible than a lazy US Journalists haphhazard copy of the Guardian.

1) This guy didn't live in ellicott city Maryland. 2) this guy didn't Grow Up (spend the majority of his formative schooling) in NC. He went through middle school and high school.

Ellicott city is in Howard County which would make it highly unlikely that he went to Anne Arundel Community College. he dropped out of HS in Arundel.....

I can't believe more wiki editors aren't all over these errors... are they deliberate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.193.81.15 (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Find sources and post them here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and be an editor. We need your help. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I had thought the page was semi'd. Apparently it's not, so the IP is free to try to correct those problems himself. With proper sourcing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

This did have a major error. It used to say he was born in Elizabeth City, when he actually was born in Wilmington. Surfer43 (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

That's not much of an error, actually, since the specific coastal town he was born in doesn't really have anything to do with why he has become a public figure. It's good to get it right, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It is pretty interisting though, multiple errors about where he lived/grew up. Surfer43 (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The so-called "reliable sources" often make mistakes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

No, the sources were correct. The article was wrong from the fourth revision. I only noticed it when reading one of the sources and because I am familiar with where he was born(Wilmington NC). Surfer43 (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Surfer, do you have a source for his place of birth? I just took it out of the article because it's not sourced. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

It had been sourced, and there is a Hong Kong source that also states it. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Correct Surfer43 (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

New leak revealed by Guardian 20 Jun

Procedures for intelligence gathering, and minimization of impact to US Persons. Two documents, 18 Pages total. Interestingly the article doesn't actually mention Snowden by name. Again recusing myself from editing the text of the Snowden article itself.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/20/fisa-court-nsa-without-warrant

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 01:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

More sources

• Carr, David. "The Other Snowden Drama: Impugning the Messenger." The New York Times. June 24, 2013.
• Agencies in Washington, Agence France-Presse and Associated Press. "US charges Snowden with espionage, stealing government property." South China Morning Post. Saturday 22 June 2013.
• Whiteman, Hilary. "Scenarios for Snowden: Escape, arrest, asylum." CNN. Friday June 1, 2013.
• Kaufman, Alexander C. "Jake Tapper Predicted In 2012 That The Obama Administration's Policies Would Lead To Classified Information Leaking Abroad." International Business Times. June 22, 2013.
• Lam, Lana, Charlotte So and Agence France-Presse. "Offer to fly Edward Snowden to Iceland denied by company's owner." (print title: "Confusion over offer to fly Snowden to Iceland") South China Morning Post. Saturday 22 June 2013. -- This is on confusion regarding the Wikileaks jet
• Obeidallah, Dean. "Bigger threat: Edward Snowden or NSA?" (Opinion) CNN. Saturday June 15, 2013.
• Liptak, Kevin. "Senator: Firm that vetted Snowden under criminal investigation." CNN. June 20, 2013.
• Lau, Nai-Keung (member of the Basic Law Committee of the NPC Standing Committee, and a member of the Commission on Strategic Development). "Snowden should be questioned on extent of US privacy intrusions." (Opinion) South China Morning Post. Friday June 21, 2013. - Subtitle says "Lau Nai-keung says China has the right to lawfully detain and debrief him" and Lau said "Who is Edward Snowden, and what is he up to? So far, the whole act is so strangely perfect, and the Western media so extraordinarily helpful, that it seems like a movie plot that's too good to be true in the real world. So much so that even some liberals in the West, such as Naomi Wolf, have openly cast doubt on the saga and warned people not to take it literally."

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

As soon as the leaks came to light, and before the leaker's identity was known, I was hearing speculation that this had been orchestrated by the Obama administration for reasons unknown. His relatively low-key response to this thing might be telling, if it weren't for the fact that he has a relatively low-key response to almost everything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Edward Snowden seems to be being vindicated as more 'whistle blowers' speak. The headline today on the Drudge Report is: SECRET NSA POWERS WIDER THAN THOUGHT.[15] This would have remained 'under the radar' had it not been for the bold move of Snowden. This is the stuff that makes great movies. Even President Barack Hussein Obama mentioned the name of Edward Snowden. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Vindicated in what sense? That he did, in fact, commit espionage, and wasn't just making this stuff up? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Please don't use Drudge Report headlines to support your arguments. Please. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

CBS News just reported that charges have been filed against Snowden for espionage and theft of government property. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Followup, on CNN:[16] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

About the Drudge Report: . . . I don't have an argument; I just noted what every other news source also reported. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

We quote some papers that are supposed to be respectable but instead they prop up an agenda; I look for leads that are truthful and wait for it to be reported in the respectable sources that don't report until it is unavoidable to do so—as with citizen surveillance. Also, I don't edit the Article directly but make comments here on TALK, for now. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe my use of the word "argument" was misplaced. My point is that I wouldn't trust the editorial judgment of Matt Drudge for half a second, and hopefully neither would anyone else here. --Nstrauss (talk) 06:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

New leak 21 Jun - Guardian - Tempora

Details of the GCHQ's spying of the internet, and sharing the data with the NSA.

"GCHQ taps fibre-optic cables for secret access to world's communication"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-secret-world-communications-nsa

Notable quote from article. "It's not just a US problem. The UK has a huge dog in this fight," Snowden told the Guardian. "They [GCHQ] are worse than the US."

Recusing myself from editing the main article, yet again. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Naomi Wolf accusations

The accusations by Naomi Wolf were mentioned once in the Lau Nai-Keung article, but are there any full newspaper articles about these accusations?

Since it is WP:BLP, a "self-published" attack of one person by another isn't going to make the cut. A newspaper has to talk about it. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

With the government having pressed charges today, her theory doesn't look too good. And you're right, it doesn't belong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Unverified statements in Career section

Edits should be made to "Career" to show Snowden-originated statements that are unverified and have no independent citations. Since there is a great deal of unverified content from Edward Snowden, care should be taken in attribution and where verification is lacking.

Under Career

"...but was discharged [from the Army] just months later on September 28 after breaking both of his legs in a training accident." No cite. No verification. Statement should be edited to verify this. At the very least it should say, "Snowden said..."

Content related to References 8 and 19 of the "Edward Snowden" wikipedia page should be changed to show the lack of a verified source.

"In 2007, the CIA stationed him with diplomatic cover in Geneva, Switzerland, where he was responsible for maintaining computer network security.[19]" Source: Edward Snowden, as reported to the Guardian, then later used as the source by NPR. No verified cite.

"Snowden left the agency in 2009 for a private contractor inside an NSA facility on a United States military base in Japan.[8]" The source is Edward Snowden, as reported by the Guardian, who then used the Guardian as their source. No verified cite.

If we can't get verified cites, then at the very least we ought to be honestly saying that the source of this "information" is only Edward Snowden. Using reporters that he has spoken to as verified sources is grossly irresponsible journalism.Leslynjd (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, this has been bothering me too. Here is a source that has done some digging into his claims about his past: [17] Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The reporters give credence to Snowden's words. The newspapers are, for Wikipedia, reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course they are. But if the source says "Snowden said he broke both his legs" then we shouldn't change that to say "Snowden broke both his legs." Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The reporters are presumed to be reporting what Snowden said. That doesn't mean that what Snowden said has any veracity. That is, they might be reliable sources for what he said, but not for what he claims. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that while Leslynjd is making some legitimate contributions, his/her account appears to be an WP:SPA (see contribs) specifically intended to expose Snowden's credibility issues (see this edit). I don't see anything inherently wrong with this, but it's something to watch out for. --Nstrauss (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Surfer43"s comment on your talk page. My comment: Edits which are from confirmed sources and reflect facts which conflict with Snowden's story should not be summarily deleted.Leslynjd (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

This is your comment about edits on Snowden: "Wikipedia isn't court. Credibility isn't a free pass to inclusion." Credibility is a free pass to inclusion if you're attempting to put out truthful and accurate information.Leslynjd (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I see you've reverted a deletion I made on Edward Snowden. This type of activity is known as "edit warring" as is considered poor etiquette. I encourage you to review WP:EDITWARRING and WP:TALKDONTREVERT, then undo your last revert and start a talk page discussion in order to reach for consensus on the issue. Thanks. --Nstrauss (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Kendall K-1 has reverted you. Please don't re-revert without consensus. --Nstrauss (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Thank you for the references. I was interrupted in my edit by the message of conflicting edits--then my computer burped--and I returned and finished the edit.

Snowden's credibility as a person is an issue affecting his perception by the public, his motives, and his prior and later statements, including whether he has more SECRET information. Therefore, I believe it is important to make his wiki (which many people refer to as fact) as balanced and truthful as possible, especially when he has made statements that are contradicted by credible sources. Snowden's attempt to "enlist" in the "Army Reserve Special Forces" but being discharged after "breaking both legs in a training accident" may have been his statement, but it is full of factual errors and STILL contains those errors--"Army Reserve Special Forces" and "breaking both legs in a training accident." These errors should not be allowed to stand. They mislead the reader. I believe you do not intend to do that, but without the corrections Snowden's entry is not balanced. We do the reader a great disservice by allowing them to think the statements are true.

Perhaps you know that there is a difference (and lapse of time) between attempting to "elist" in a military unit, and acceptance into the military and transport to basic training. This four-month lapse of time in Snowden's resume is reasonable for the Army to discover reasons to discharge him from his enlistment. In any case, Snowden never received "any training," and could not have (heroically) broken "both legs in a training accident."

IOW: It's a LIE from Snowden. It should not be allowed to stand as fact.

Pertinent to this topic, I note 1) that Snowden's wiki entry as "working for" his web club doing "anime" has been removed since I posted his friend's description of it as a club, not employment. In attempting to be kind to Snowden, I did not include his friend's humor at anyone thinking this activity was "employment." 2) Snowden has backtracked on his claim of an annual salary of US$200,000 at Booz Allen Hamilton, saying it was "prior" but not providing any details. In contrast, the original interview clearly implied that US$200,000 was his salary at the time he left Hawaii and Booz Allen Hamilton. 3)Snowden has never been confirmed as working under "diplomatic cover" in Switzerland, nor as being "a spy." He's an IT guy. That is far removed from the covert world.

These statements should also not be allowed to stand without external confirmation.

Revert if you will, but that appears biased in order to show Snowden in his best light, not the light of day. In any case, it is allowing a lie to stand.Leslynjd (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Leslynjd (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the source you cite does not prove anything Snowden said re: his Army service was a lie. The quote from the Army spokesman is that Snowden "did not complete any training" — which is completely consistent with Snowden's statement that he was injured in training, because a severe injury in basic training — such as two broken legs — could have resulted in a medical discharge during basic, resulting in what the Army spokesman said — non-completion of training. If the Army spokesman had said that Snowden never entered training, then we would have a conflict of information, but that is not the case. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Kendall K-1, why did you revert? On NStrauss's sayso? Wasn't it apparent that there was a clear conflict between what Snowden said, and what the facts were? NStrauss thinks that "credibility" of a statement is "something to watch out for"--as in "warning, don't let this credible source appear, because it contradicts an aspect of Snowden's story."Leslynjd (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Any decision to revert on another user's edit should, IMO, refer to http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability.Leslynjd (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I must note that User:Leslynjd has apparently intentionally misrepresented sources in reference to this matter. In this edit, he includes a quote attributed to an Army spokesman that Snowden "did not receive any training..." — a completely false quotation of the source, who actually stated that Snowden "did not complete any training", which is completely consistent with Snowden's public statements. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof, you are correct that in this comment section I misquoted by saying "did not 'receive' training." However, the original statement from the source was cut and pasted, so nothing was misrepresented in the wiki entry. Whether or not "did not complete any training" is "completely consistent" with two broken legs is open to interpretation, as a statement so limited may be. In the meantime, it has occurred to me that the "broken legs/no broken legs", since they cannot be confirmed with what we have, is a distraction (drama) from the article. Couldn't we just include the facts that we know, that he attempted to enlist, yada yada, and "did not complete any training" and leave it at that? I am concerned with representing only the verifiable, not the unverifiable. Isn't that what we're all concerned about?Leslynjd (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

It is verifiable and has been reported in reliable sources that Snowden says he was discharged after suffering a particular injury. In the absence of any reason to disbelieve this assertion, or any evidence which refutes it, it is perfectly proper for Wikipedia to write the above: that Snowden says he suffered a particular injury causing him to be discharged. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

How verifiable? The Guardian didn't do fact checking. Did they interview anyone with knowledge, such as his family? No. One, two, fourteen legs or no legs, Snowden didn't complete any training, and he is not a reliable source on his own, which is the only source we have. Snowden has been shown to make a statement about his income that was clearly implied to relate to his present income, which was later shown to be false and he backtracked it. He made a statement about his "employment" which was really just membership in a club--so that employment was shown to be false. I note that that reference was removed--not corrected with the contradictory facts. That's not accuracy. That's bias. His credibility is relevant.Leslynjd (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Leslynjd, our article doesn't say that Snowden was discharged because of broken legs, it says Snowden SAID he was discharged because of broken legs. That's what multiple reliable sources have reported, so that's what we report. That's the essence of WP:V. If you have a problem with what Glenn Greenwald and a legion of other reporters have reported then perhaps you should write them. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Nstrauss, I agree with you that Leslynjd is misrepresenting your views and has made disparaging comments about your editing, and his behavior is starting to cross the line into disruptive editing. I will keep my eye out for behavior that is not WP:CIVIL, but please let me know if you have any further issues with their misrepresentations or disruptions. Cheers. Azx2 17:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Importance ratings

Can anyone explain why this rates "Low Importance" in the Espionage Category? It seems important enough to warrant Senate hearings. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a critique of its writing quality. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

If there is a poor writing quality, then the "article rating" would be impacted. "Importance" is separate from article quality. I can move it up to "mid" WhisperToMe (talk) 03:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I think so far he has proven to be at least as significant as Ellsberg (Pentagon Papers), maybe not as important as Felt "Deep Throat" (Watergate). But the story seems to be creeping up toward the Watergate level of significance. This story has the potential to cause a perjury charge against DNI Clapper related to his testimony to Sen. Wyden. There is an ancillary issue: how to separate Snowden from the events he triggered? Do these need to be in a separate article? --71.20.55.6 (talk) 06:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. I think this is more important than Wikileaks. Does Wiki keep track of the number of visits to the web page article?Jonny Quick (talk) 08:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Is it fair to categorize Snowden's acts as "espionage"? He's already been classified as a "whistleblower", and I think he can only be one or the other, and not both.Jonny Quick (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Given the broad interpretation of this term "whistleblower", it can indeed be both. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Remember we aren't categorising people in talk pages tags. The purpose of wiki project tags is to indicate said wikiproject may be interested in the article subject. In this specific case, Snowden was employed by the CIA and a NSA contractor both agencies heavily involved in espionage and he himself had apparent knowledge of various programs likely to be considered espionage the details of some having been leaked by him, and has now also been charged with espionage, so yes he's likely to be of interest to the wikiproject. This has nothing to do with wikipedia classfying his actions as espionage or not. Nil Einne (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I have bumped the importance rating in the Espionage category to "mid" having seen no objections in the discussion. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Buddhism

The same NY Times article is used in two different references, once in the info box as source for Buddhism, and later again as source for Buddhism in the personal views section. However, this source states:

Toward the end of 2003, Mr. Snowden wrote that he was joining the Army, listing Buddhism as his religion (“agnostic is strangely absent,” he noted parenthetically about the military recruitment form). He tried to define a still-evolving belief system. “I feel that religion, adopted purely, is ultimately representative of blindly making someone else’s beliefs your own.”

Whatever that means; maybe he picked Buddhism, because the form didn't offer religious or agnostic. The second source (AP) referenced in the info box is in essence a confirmation or actually a duplicate of the first source. That's an article about a living person, please remove unsubstantiated trivia. If you disagree at least join the two identical NYT references. –89.204.135.134 (talk) 14:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

If what you say is true, then he would have picked "Other" and wrote down "Agnostic" as his religion. In any case, the military's recruitment form is considered to be an official document and if there aren't other reliable sources claiming the opposite then we can't speculate otherwise. -A1candidate (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, as contributor from Germany I'm kind of paranoid with personal data where it includes race or religion, it can be lethal info. If he's 29 today he was 19 in 2003, and his still-evolving belief system might not more include to discuss this in public. Please join the two NYT references, one source should not be presented as two sources. –89.204.135.134 (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The source doesn't say he's Buddhist, it says he listed Buddhism on his recruitment form. Given BLP and the fact that his religion doesn't have much to do with what he's known for, I would say take it out. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I've taken it out since it is trivial and likely incorrect as it was listed in 2003, and his "still-evolving belief system" at the time may not be the same after 10 years. And I don't see how mentioning his religion is even relevant here to the main topic of his actions and involvement in the PRISM program. Did following a specific religion have any significant impact on his actions to justify mentioning? If not (the sources don't mention it), then there is no reason to mention his religious views in the article as including it would violate BLP and imply that Snowden is being evaluated based on his religious views when they may be nonexistent or irrelevant to his actions. - M0rphzone (talk) 00:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

In one source he said he checked "Buddhist" because "atheist" was not listed. I did not get the impression that he was a practicing Buddhist. At any rate, I think MOrphzone had the right idea and just removed it. Gandydancer (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Any report that says that atheist or agnostic is not listed on USA Army recruitment forms is of questionable value as they are, and have for many years been, present as "atheist, agnostic, or no religion" which appears on dog tags as "NRE". Waerloeg (talk) 07:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

$200K salary

We've got this info in two places. Can we pick one please? Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure. It's 122,000, not 200,000. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowden issued a clarification in The Guardian saying that 200K was his "salary high" while it was 122K at Booz; he said he took a pay cut to work for Booz WhisperToMe (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the discrepancy, I was talking about the fact that it was mentioned in two different places in the article. I took one out. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• It was still redundant as of June 23. I took out the salary number after "comfortable life" because he reported different numbers at different times, and saying that was also redundant. I think it's clearer (and more accurate) to say he left a "comfortable life" making $200,000, and then report his later statement that he made the higher amount in a previous position.Leslynjd (talk) 06:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Tags questioned

The US, under the Reactions section, is tagged: This article or section may be slanted towards recent events. Please try to keep recent events in historical perspective. (June 2013). What is this tag for? IMO it makes WP look stoopid and typical of the sort of material that observers use to make fun of Wikipedia.

The following section, Public figures, is also tagged, in this case for neutrality. Why it it tagged? Gandydancer (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The latter could be justified. The former is silly, as it's obviously a current event, so that tag should be removed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Apparently there is no ongoing discussion on the neutrality tag - I removed it as well. Gandydancer (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Editors will have to watch for accurate/appropriate additions. How do we stand now on "neutrality"? — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I oppose the removal of these tags and will be bringing them back until they're resolved. The recentism tag is there because the entire section has way too much detail about reactions by everyone under the sun, regardless of how noteworthy the opinions or the opiners are. The section could be cut in half and still be too long. And the details about the White House petition are pure silliness as they'll be moot in a few weeks if they're not already. (Oh look, they're already out of date.) Please keep WP:10YT in mind. As for the POV tag, the "Press and Public" subsection is totally out of whack as it has almost uniformly positive reactions to the leaks (and negative against the surveillance) even though in reality the reactions were MUCH more mixed. Both of these issues were discussed in previous threads and left unresolved. As a matter of Wikipedia etiquette such tags should never be removed without reviewing the relevant talk page discussion and/or consulting the folks who added them in the first place. In this case the tags were removed while open discussions were pending, while this discussion had hardly been started, and without consulting those who added the tags. Not cool. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment: One thing I did was I got Binney's nuanced opinion to make sure that there was some balance. Keep in mind that according to WP:UNDUE the "weight" of opinions should be determined by their prevalence and not be automatically 50-50. If most commentators oppose PRISM and are in favor of Snowden the articles should be written accordingly. That doesn't mean we don't represent the opposing side at all, though. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree but in this case at least half of the opinions are anti-Snowden/pro-NSA. In fact, in my experience about 3/4 of them are anti-Snowden/pro-NSA, so these sections should be split accordingly rather than 90-10 the other way. --Nstrauss (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Have you checked analyses in other countries? It may be possible that in the US many are pro-NSA, but this may not be the case in other countries. Some anti-NSA commentaries are being posted on The Guardian (the stuff from Valerie Plame and her husband were posted there) and I've seen some commentaries in Hong Kong papers as well.

If there's a split between U.S. opinions and other countries (I don't know if there is) then that split should be noted. U.S. opinion deserves a special place as the leaks are about U.S. policy. --Nstrauss (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Another trick is to crate a sub-page where all of the commentaries are tallied (make sure it's a worldwide collection, and even if commentaries are in foreign languages you can get them too) and weight can be apportioned that way. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think achieving true balance in opinions can ever be reduced to such a quantitative study, and while the study is ongoing the WP:BALANCE violations continue. There will always be arguments about the notability of the opinions as well as breadth of the search. Perhaps a better approach would be to just start adding anti-Snowden/pro-NSA opinions and removing less notable pro-Snowden/anti-NSA opinions until those with the POV concerns (e.g. me) are satisfied. Or, if someone feels that we already have the appropriate balance then they should say so (and why). So far my claims of imbalance have been met with tacit agreement. --Nstrauss (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

El gobierno del Ecuador ha recibido solicitud de asilo de parte de Edward Snowden

El gobierno del Ecuador ha recibido solicitud de asilo de parte de Edward Snowden Count Iblis (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Does it say anywhere in our policies that Twitter is a reliable source? -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 17:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The Guardian mentions it here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2013/jun/23/edward-snowden-leaves-hong-kong-moscow-live - It is from a government official. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• Twitter is used; obviously, it depends on who says what; secondary sources added would be good. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is a lead: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources [then do 'find' on "Twitter".] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for a rating of High importance in the Espionage category

I would like to propose bumping the importance rating to "high" in the Espionage category, on account of the fallout of events surrounding the leak.

• Significant implications for geopolitics. Involvement of six at least different countries so far at very high levels. US, UK, China, Russia, Iceland, and Ecuador.
• Significant impact on domestic politics, including senate hearings, proposal of new legislation, and lawsuits.
• Exposure of NSA's procedures, and policies.
• Exposure of the FISA court and procedures.
• Exposure of significant GCHQ operations.
• Implementation of significant changes in NSA routines.

I invite discussion on the topic, before unilaterally changing that rating. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• I strongly agree. Gandydancer (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• Kinda smacks of wp:Recentism. Category:High-importance Espionage articles includes such articles as Operation Paperclip (recruitment of Nazi scientists) and Robert Hanssen & Whittaker Chambers (actual double agents). Just my two cents. Ignatzmice•talk 21:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly disagree. That the US has charged Snowden with espionage does not mean Wikipedia should count the classification as fact. On the other side, we have a compelling argument from Greenwald: Few people - likely including Snowden himself - would contest that his actions constitute some sort of breach of the law...In what conceivable sense are Snowden's actions "espionage"? He could have - but chose not - sold the information he had to a foreign intelligence service for vast sums of money, or covertly passed it to one of America's enemies, or worked at the direction of a foreign government. That is espionage. He did none of those things. Guardian. We must stop taking "official" word as uncontested fact at Wiki. petrarchan47tc 23:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

That I strongly agree with the move does certainly not suggest that I believe Snowdon's acts to constitute espionage. Quite the opposite. The fact that I feel it is highly important underlines the gravity of our government's decision to charge Snowdon with espionage. IMO this decision should send a chill down the spine of every American. Gandydancer (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I think we need to backtrack a second (this is not directed at you, Gandy) - does this belong in the Espionage category at all? If so, is the only justification that the us government has classified it as such? From FDL,Espionage and leaks are wholly different things in the American tradition. Spying strengthens foreign powers. Leaking, an everyday occurrence in Washington, is part of the process that enables citizens to judge the policy of their government. A more proper category would be "Americans charged with Espionage" so that Wikipedia is not inappropriately categorizing Snowden, but rather allowing the US government to do so on its own. If Wikipedia is going to put Snowden under the Espionage category, it should also add Dick Cheney. petrarchan47tc 02:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

See my comment in the other discussion above. You appear to be confusing the wikiproject categorisation with some sort of categorisation of the person. It it NOT. We do not categorise people in talk pages (beyond discussions on appropriate categorisations in articles). The wikiproject tags serve a completely different purpose, and it seems to be justified here not only because he was charged with espionage but because he clearly has had a heavy involvement in the area working directly and indirectly for agencies involved with apparent knowledge of some of their related actions some of which he revealed. And his revealations, for which he is primarily notable for, whatever you want to call them, have already had a big effect in the area and are likely to have more. So yes, the article on him is quite likely to be of interest to the wikiproject. Nil Einne (talk) 05:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose to editor interference. Let those who are used to classifying do their job. As a content editor, I think its tantamount to WP:COI to vote to bump up the importance of any article they are working on. Anyway, it's too recent to come to a judgement on its importance. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 23:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• As with the comment immediately above, it's too early to tell the importance level of this story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• This is a decision best made by those involved in the wikiproject or at least those with some experience with wikiprojects, not by those uninvolved some of whom to be blunt, don't appear to understand the purpose of wikiproject tags and others of who I expect don't really understand the purpose of importance ratings. As others have said, only time will tell anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 05:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be to leave it alone. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Concur - The consensus is to leave it alone - That is, the importance rating should not be bumpted up to "high" in the Espionage category CavalierLion (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

What NSA is REALLY up to

WP:NOTFORUM

it's summer time and wash d.c. employs are getting an excuse slip to go touring to various countries "looking for snow" while shoing in someone they like better into office: plus an entourage more i'd guess. another wash d.c. baked security fiasco / spending god. i'll 1/2 beleive it if I see it. and I want them to repay the vacation time. and if china and russia have "the data" from snowden howcome i can't? right give it to everybody but who paid for it? i'll 1/2 beleive it when i see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.222.174 (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC) This talk page is intended solely for discussions related to changes of article content. It is not a forum for general discussion. Off-topic posts may be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC) In the OP's own convoluted way, it does raise basically the same point I was hearing on the radio today, and which a previous section also suggests: With all this information gathering, why isn't the NSA doing a better job than they appear to be doing? Like, for example, how did Snowden himself get into the position he was in? And why weren't they able to be proactive about the Boston bombings? There's a basic problem countering the basic assumptions being argued by the government, namely that no amount of data can necessarily counteract human error, incompetence, or malfeasance. Perhaps there's some commentary from a reasonable source, which would attempt to address this issue. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC) It's more useful to prevent known terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan from recruiting new people over the internet. If a terrorist is caught, you can easily track everyone down who has ever communcated with that person (say, after 2005) and investigate all of them. It's less useful for preventing home grown terror attacks involving people who are not communicating with known terrorists. Count Iblis (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hero worship

WP:NOTFORUM

Ah, Got to love Wikipedia and their completely "unbiased" take on things. It's never been more clear then this article when they label complete and udder positive reaction to this criminal and list absolutely no criticisms of him. Could you be any more transparent? No wonder this site is such a joke. This entire article reads like a blind hero worship to the man. -- 100.0.77.184 (talk · contribs) 17:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC) Let's review the Wikipedia:Undue portion of NPOV - It asks that no "undue" weight be ascribed to a particular viewpoint. So, that means it's not going to be "50% positive / 50% negative" WhisperToMe (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC) The OP is now blocked, as a fairly obvious troll. Moving to bottom of page to keep chronology. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC) Was he or she trying to be a funny cow, with "udders"? Semi-protection is good. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC) The IP is now an udder rune. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Why was Snowden's claim that he worked for an anime press removed from "Career" when an interview with a friend said that it was a "club"? This is a conflict with Snowden's statement, and his apparent attempt to give himself credibility. If it was relevant for someone to put it in there in the first place, it is relevant to show the truth.Leslynjd (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC) You have to get off this credibility thing. Content does not become noteworthy just because it bears on the subject's credibility. --Nstrauss (talk) 06:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Information related to Snowden's logistics, planning and motivation.

An article relating to the logistics of his Hong Kong visit. Notes that Albert Ho's firm was representing his interests. Notes that he stayed in a private home for much of the trip. Notes use of anti-surveillence countermeasures. Notes that he took the job at Booz specifically to gather information to leak. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/25/world/asia/snowden-departure-from-hong-kong.html?pagewanted=all

Again recusing myself from editing the text of the article on account of POV.--71.20.55.6 (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Article related to additional logistics. Notes Snowden's travel made possible despite revoked US passport by an Ecuadorian-issued "refugee travel document."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23038996

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 02:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

His online lifee

Here's a profile on a site he apparently was a web editor for: http://web.archive.org/web/20020427212047/http://ryuhanapress.com/ed.html Is this relevant under his career history? RocketLauncher2 (talk) 10:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a merger proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: merged; salvage whatever is appropriate. Non admin closure, per WP:SNOW. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 02:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

---

It has been proposed that Edward Snowden in Hong Kong be merged here. Discuss.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

That article is full of original research, so I prefer a redirect to a merge. --Conti|✉ 18:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Which part do you say is original research? -A1candidate (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The article consists of two parts: Everything to do with Snowden in Hong Kong, which is already fully covered in this article, and the background section, which is original research, as it gathers various sources unrelated to Snowden. The section itself is rather interesting, but it does not at all belong in an encyclopedia article.

Some of the non original research material from the article can be moved here, though a redirect would be just as fine. There's simply no need to fork the article. --Conti|✉ 18:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support merge - preferable to keep things in the same place until things settle enough to determine if and how the article should be broken into subtopics. VQuakr (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• Merge. The information about Snowden in Hong Kong is not at all at a different topic from Snowden's life and career. It is merely a single section of Snowden's life taken out and made into an article, one which should be put right back into the Snowden bio. The background info is not needed. Binksternet (talk) 18:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• Merge. No reason at all for a separate article. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 19:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• merge - — -dainomite   20:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• Merge. The policies are WP:SUBARTICLE, WP:SPLIT and WP:CFORK. Size is clearly not a reason for a split. The only reason for content split would be if there were a need for a more in depth coverage than could be included in this article due to WP:Summary style or maybe WP:UNDUE. I do not see a need for that regarding just his presence in Hong Kong and the state of extradition laws in Hong Kong. Now if you want to make an article about WP:FRINGE theories that have suitable noteriety I would support a split article. You could create a Extradition law in Hong Kong article and mention Snowden but with less detail about Snowden and more about extradition. We have articles on Extradition law in the United States and a Extradition law in Australia. New articles in this series would be an improvement to Wikipedia. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Its more about China-US relations, and less about Snowden. If there needs to be a merge then Sino-American relations is more appropriate place to merge to -A1candidate (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• Merge. This has certainly taken on a life of its own. Merge and trim significantly. Two articles is excessive. Taroaldo ✉ 20:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• Merge - per Richard-of-Earth. Jusdafax 21:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• Merge. No reason whatsoever to have a separate article on Snowden in Hong Kong. Coretheapple (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• Redirect/Merge. Other article is mostly original research, as Conti noted, so either move seems acceptable. This move clearly seems to be what WP:SNOW was meant for and should be done by whoever knows how. 69.127.235.74 (talk) 02:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• Redirect/Merge and caution the page creator about doing due diligence before starting new articles. Federales (talk) 02:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support. As the one who placed the merger tag on the article, I find the article a bit too recentist and not encyclopaedic. There seems to be synthesis of content and strands brought together from elsewhere.
  1. most of the content about Hong Kong law has been copied from another WP article – it could have been simply referred to in the text and linked to.
  2. Perhaps there is potentially scope to create an article 'extradition treaty between HK and USA', but that will surely come about when the US does decide to apply for extradition. At present, the discussion about the provisions and how they can be used is not mature; there is too much speculation.
  3. The impact of Snowden being in Hong Kong could easily be incorporated in the biography if it isn't there already.
  4. The fact that Snowden has been in Hong Kong before is entirely irrelevant to that article as it is to the bio.
  5. China has not commented on the Snowden affair. The 'War of Words' section is a coatrack based on the ongoing mutual accusations of cyber-snooping that have been going on for weeks before Snowden set the bomb off. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 02:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• Merge - per Coretheapple. Perhaps this article should be renamed because it was created solely for this event. Surfer43 (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• Merge what is this? some tale? ...merge all this on his article asap. --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 03:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• Merge - I believe that this article is a good example of Recentism, and that articles like these tend to de-legitimize Wikipedia's historic point of view.

It seems like whenever a big news story breaks, everyone rushes to create 17 different articles related to the original topic, and as it starts to fade, nobody wants to update it to a historical standpoint, oftentimes becoming poorly documented and loosing it's neutral point of view.

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and if it turns out that the future acts of Mr. Snowden in Hong Kong is enough of an event to have an entirely separate article, then would be the appropriate time to decide and not rush to judgement. Bulba2036 (talk) 04:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - There's absolutely nothing in that article that would survive a merge. It's all either WP:RECENTISM or WP:UNDUE or already included here. I would have proposed an AFD but I suppose a "marge" would accomplish the same goal, so I suppose I support a "merge." --Nstrauss (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• It should be redirected here ASAP. Like others above, I see nothing worth salvaging, but in case someone disagrees they can always consult the page history. Additionally, also as noted above, page creator A1candidate should be cautioned against carelessly creating redundant and recentist pages like that. --89.0.227.105 (talk) 05:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

@89.0.227.105 I dont really understand why you are attacking me for "carelessly creating redundant and recentist pages", I have always been editing in good faith and I dont think your accusations are fair. Like I've said in my previous post, this is a historical event for Sino-American relations and it deserves a standalone page. If there needs to be a merge then move it to that page, and not to Snowden's biography -A1candidate (talk) 08:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that it's grossly unfair to accuse A1C of acting "carelessly". Commentators have so far been speculating on whether this matter will have an impact on relations between the two countries. China has not stated its position on the matter, although it has allowed its press wall-to-wall coverage of the story. Ironic considering it would certainly be blacked out if the subject of the leaks was the CPC or the PRC government. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 08:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a merger proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

In response to A1candidate's request that the Snowden-in-HK article be merged into Sino-American relations, I'm strongly against it. WP:OR issues aside, the article simply doesn't contain enough notable materials for inclusion anywhere. This article deserves only 2-3 sentences on Snowden's presence in Hong Kong, and it already has more than that. And Sino-American relations shouldn't even mention it. Reports that this event will affect Sino-American relations in any way are pure speculation, so inclusion in that article would violate WP:CBALL. --Nstrauss (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• The event's impact on relations between the two countries is merely being speculated on at this point. There is nothing concrete, unlike between Norway and the PRC in the case of 2010 Nobel Peace Prize. Having examined the 'Sino-American relations' article, I would say that putting more than one sentence there would be a violation of WP:UNDUE. At this point, I would even question the inclusion of that one sentence. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 02:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
• It is too early to do anything. What's the rush? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be clear by now that this article needs to be split -A1candidate (talk) 09:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

A challenge (in the future) in splitting this article will be deciding how (and if) it should be split; length is not the best criteria, rather subject matter. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Nationality vs. citizenship

• In the infobox, Snowden's nationality and citizenship were listed until his citizenship was removed by User:Dezastru who cited this in his edit summary "(redundant info: nationality = American implies citizenship = US)". I believe the information was not redundant seeing how nationality and citizenship are two different forms of self-, and public, identification. You can be of the French nationality, but have citizenship in Germany, for example, not to mention the possibility of dual-citizenship. I didn't wish to edit the article as not to disturb any major edits on an article on such a controversial subject that we are constantly receiving new information about, or in case I was mistaken, as I am relatively new to Wikipedia and may be missing a policy or rule related to the topic on hand. Is the information redundant or should/can it be used in the article? -JoeyHarmon (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Your point is well taken. In those cases in which there is a discrepancy between nationality and citizenship it makes perfect sense to include both pieces of information. However, in cases in which there is no discrepancy, such as in Snowden's case, inclusion of both is redundant and adds to clutter. The purpose of an infobox should be to provide the reader with quick access to key pieces of information; the less clutter in the infobox, the better. Dezastru (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright. That makes sense. Thanks for responding so quickly! -JoeyHarmon (talk) 04:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowden's passport has been revoked to make it more difficult to him to travel. He hasn't had his American citizenship removed and doesn't have any other citizenship. Jim Michael (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

How come leaks of such volumes and qualities of intelligence data are possible to be leaked from the US intelligence organizations ?

No source
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article and the article about Wikileaks has no parts where the main questions are asked, "How come leaks of such volumes and qualities of intelligence data are possible to be leaked from the US intelligence organizations ?". It is one of the classical main counter espionage issues and the US intelligence services seems to not protect their data? It is so astonishing fact that the question is, if the US intelligence is not a helpful source and the congress majority likes it revealed? Because how come it is possible? Else we would have seen heads rolling in the US intelligence organizations? Somebody should find out? That somebody is you! If you find reliable sources on this subject then feel free to add them to the article or to suggest them here. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC) The issue of reliable sources on something not happens is a rather difficult mission to document especially about secret intelligence business. The reason I put up the questions in the talk section is rather as a moderating thought of what we write in general about topics like these, to provoke some afterthought before to all, writing here. There are obviously parts of the general presentation in media that isn't matching other statements. If information losses were in a rate described massive rolling of responsible managers heads would be the natural governmental response to a much larger extent than the chase of people like Snowden and Julian Assange, to such extent that it is an important question who is who, who support who and/or how bad is it really with the US intelligence agencies professionalism? People like Snowden and Julian Assange, and to a very large part their topics are so massively supported by the chase of them would wide turning them to kind of media superheroes that isn't the objective US government declared their intensions are. Assange is sitting in the Ecuadorian embassy in London like a throne and a balcony to speak to the world from. It is like with the organization of intelligence data to prevent too wide leaks are schoolbook examples in politics and intelligence business. We can't expect the US government to be complete professional fools, and if not there must be a hidden agenda of who is who, what is what, who supports who? But who what and who is very hard to document for an article in Wikipedia. But is its a good afterthought that should be made before describing any of these issues as it is clear who, what and who? It all can turn out to be something completely different scenario than any expected before. I think it is a good reminder for this topic and should be noted in the talks section, like now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.247.9.228 (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC) See WP:NOTFORUM. This is not an appropriate place for such speculation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

What the NSA is not saying

WP:NOTFORUM

The information that Snowden is being accused of releasing about covert gathering of phone, email and IM conversations is not new. It was circulated among people in the computer industry about 22 years ago (I know, I heard it from an associate who was programming for Motorola). It seems not many people bother to look into those facts especially reporters keen on the immediate story seeing investigating old knowledge is harder to find, takes work and is not so fun. In Other Words: the chasing of Snowden is really a witchhunt by the NSA. How can they justify it considering that with a little work the past knowledge can be found? Incidentally I provided this info to CNN, CBC and a few others... no one has bothered to respond, in fact CBC censored it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.225.52.80 (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Insurance files

I would like to state my misgivings as to the importance of the line about 'insurance'. Another matter is that it is sourced to Greenwald's blog. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 06:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Too flimsy for inclusion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Chinese versions of HK government releases

For the "No delay in Snowden case: SJ" (June 25, 2013) article from the Hong Kong Information Services Department here are the Chinese versions for people who want to edit material in the Chinese Wikipedia:

• Traditional: http://www.news.gov.hk/tc/categories/law_order/html/2013/06/20130625_175835.shtml - http://www.webcitation.org/6HetpBNWi - 港促美交代入侵電腦報道
• Simplified: http://sc.news.gov.hk/TuniS/www.news.gov.hk/tc/categories/law_order/html/2013/06/20130625_175835.shtml - http://www.webcitation.org/6HetseOwI - 港促美交代入侵电脑报道

Even though the language of this Wikipedia is English many editors go from one to another and it may be helpful to point out sources for them. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Further Statement From Baltasar Garzón

http://wikileaks.org/Further-Statement-From-Baltasar.html

"Wednesday June 26, 15:00 BST Madrid, 25 June 2013

PRESS RELEASE FOR MEDIA AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES

This serves to state that the Law firm ILOCAD has decided not to represent Mr. Snowden, whose whereabouts are unknown. We continue to represent Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks as senior legal counsel in the defence of the fundamental right to freedom of information and expression. In this vein, we are satisfied with the recently approved draft resolution by the Committee Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly. It states that those who disclose criminal acts in the public interest should be protected from retaliation and persecution from those who commit them.

Baltasar Garzón

Director of ILOCAD S.L. Law Firm

[spanish below]

A LOS MEDIOS DE COMUNICACIÓN Y DEMÁS INTERESADOS.

Informo que el Despacho de abogados ILOCAD ha decidido no asumir la defensa de los intereses del Sr. Snowden, cuyo paradero se desconoce. Por otro lado, continuaremos con la representación del Sr. Assange y de WL en la defensa del derecho fundamental a la libertad de información y de expresión. En esta línea, manifestamos nuestra satisfacción por la reciente aprobación del proyecto de resolución por parte de la Comisión de Asuntos Jurídicos y Derechos Humanos de la Asamblea Parlamentaria del Consejo de Europa, que considera que aquellos que denuncian hechos delictivos en beneficio del interés general deben ser protegidos de las represalias de aquellos que los cometen.

Baltasar Garzón

Director del Despacho ILOCAD S.L."

Count Iblis (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Live Q&A at The Guardian

There's a live Q&A going on right now at The Guardian that can be used for the article. In one answer he clarifies the issue about his pay:

I was debriefed by Glenn and his peers over a number of days, and not all of those conversations were recorded. The statement I made about earnings was that $200,000 was my "career high" salary. I had to take pay cuts in the course of pursuing specific work. Booz was not the most I've been paid.

I'm sure more useful information that can be used for the article will follow. --Conti|✉ 15:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• I added that detail to the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • As noted below, where's the evidence that this was really Snowden? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    • The Guardian says it's Snowden. It incorporated these details into articles, such as this one which talks about the clarification in his salary. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
      • They say it is, but we don't know that, so the article needs to be careful to point out that "they say Snowden said" rather than "Snowden said". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Bugs, if you can find a single reliable source that raises doubts about the Snowden's identity in the Q&A then your theory might start carrying water. --Nstrauss (talk) 03:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I do regard CBS News as reliable: "From a secret location in Hong Kong, someone claiming to be Edward Snowden defended the leak of classified U.S. intelligence programs. The chat took place on the website of "The Guardian," which published Snowden's leaks."[18] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

That may not be editing news reporting, as it only appears in a byline on the CBS website. Regardless, the article it's linked to attributes the statements to Snowden without any qualification. --Nstrauss (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Those disclaimer-like words were actually read over the airwaves by Scott Pelley, the news anchor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs cares about accuracy and credibility of the source. Hurrah.Leslynjd (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs and Leslynjd are starting to cross the line into disruptive editing and should not be permitted to derail the appropriate development of this article. Azx2 17:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

You're off target with that comment. And I hasten to add that a quick look at your own user page would derail almost anything. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Birth place

I just noticed that we are giving Snowden's birthplace with no source citation. I believe this is a violation of WP:BLP and should be removed immediately: "Contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced ... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." So I removed it, but was immediately reverted with no comment. This may have been a mistake due to edit conflict. But I really think this should be taken out unless and until we have a source. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

As mundane as birthdates and birthplaces might seem to be, I think it's standard practice to remove such info unless there's a solid source for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

One of the South China Morning Post articles announced that he had just turned 30. So I could use it as a source WhisperToMe (talk) 04:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

A source by Jennifer Ngo said "Snowden, who celebrates his 30th birthday today, must travel to Iceland from Hong Kong before applying." (article date was June 21) but another source also confirmed his birthday and someone put that one in. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The Guardian gives the birthplace, also reported in other sources. --Cyclopia^talk 13:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The Guardian story does not give the birth place as far as I can tell. Quote please? Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

You are right. I referred to: "Snowden was born on 21 June 1983, raised in Wilmington, North Carolina, and later moved to Ellicott City, Maryland.". Given that they mention them moving elsewhere, I assumed the meaning of the text is that he was born in Wilmington as well. But true, it doesn't tell it completely explicitly, and as such there's some ambiguity. And in fact, here it gives Elizabeth City as an explicit birthplace. However I don't know if that section can be considered a RS. --Cyclopia^talk 14:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

If in doubt, leave it out. It's not really relevant anyway. His specific birthplace has no bearing on the reason he's become a public figure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

So: His birth place is contentious; we have no source for his birth place; and BLP requires unsourced contentious material be removed immediately, without discussion. So why is it still in? Why are we even discussing this? Anyone mind if I remove it? Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead. --Cyclopia^talk 15:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I just didn't want to be seen as edit warring. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how the unsourced inclusion of his birthplace is "contentious" and therefore violates WP:NPV. However without sources it should be removed per WP:V, or at least tagged with {{cn}}. That said these RS's say he was born in NC: here, here. --Nstrauss (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Logic may tell you otherwise, but I can tell you from experience here that birthplace can, in fact, be a very contentious BLP issue. So if it's not known with absolute reliability, it's better to leave it out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Univision has posted the "salvocondocto" document containing his place of birth as "Elizabeth City, USA". This document, if authentic, also resolves the dispute between the BBC, quoting Assange as saying Snowden has one, and the Ecuadoran gov't, which said he does not. This document was issued in London on June 22nd. It would have permitted Snowden to leave HK sans passport.

http://noticias.univision.com/america-latina/ecuador/article/2013-06-26/salvoconducto-edward-snowden?ftloc=channel1423:wcmWidgetUimStage&ftpos=channel1423:wcmWidgetUimStage:1#axzz2XMpybqA6

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 04:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowden pardon petition has reached 100K

http://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden/Dp03vGYD

The Snowden pardon petition has reached 100K. This is not Wikipedia cite-able. But keep your eyes peeled for any newspapers that talk about it - if the US papers say nothing, check the British papers, check the Hong Kong papers, check everybody WhisperToMe (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

It's meaningless until or if Obama responds to it. Given that they've called for his arrest on espionage charges and have started extradition negotiations with Hong Kong, I wouldn't count on anything other than "Thanks for your interest". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

According to the petition setup, the White House is supposed to respond if it reaches 100K within one month of the petition being filed. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The White House doesn't have to respond to it. Like any online petition, it's not notable because it's a feel-good thing that never gets more than 15 minutes of attention. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

They're exempted if there's still an ongoing investigation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Really? That's interesting. Where does it state that? That would be an interesting development. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

They're not literally exempt, I guess, but the article We the People (petitioning system) states that the White House "typically" will not comment on an ongoing investigation. On the flip side, I'd by surprised if there's any law requiring the President to comment, regardless of vote totals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The International Business Times released an article:

• Kaufman, Alexander C. "White House Petition To Pardon Edward Snowden Passes 100,000." International Business Times. June 22, 2013.

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

It's about "We, the people" and not much about the Obama response. Note that Obama popularity (polling) has dropped greatly among the young 18-30 demographic—the impact of surveillance revelations was started by Snowden. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to figure why they would be so upset about the government (which is accountable to the people) gathering metadata about phone calls and such, while blithely continuing to spread their internet footprint to places like Facebook (which is accountable to no one). As regards Obama's popularity in that fickle age group, he was in worse shape a year ago. But if this slippage continues, he might not win again in 2016. Oh, wait... ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

They actually mentioned this fact on the CBS radio news today. Nothing was said about when (or if) the President would respond. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

He won't. He already said "ongoing investigation, etc." Petition reached 122,222 to no effect. I wanted to include the Whitehouse website with the count — but it is WP black-listed: petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden/Dp03vGYD — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Transit Hotel

What I thought was a relatively noncontroversial edit that he was staying in a Transit Hotel was [19]. A Transit hotel is central to the understanding of how Snowden is able to stay in Moscow without presenting a visa.Americasroof (talk) 10:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Well, people sleep at the airport all the time. We already mention that he is in transit, and that Russia is not his final destination, and I think to mention any more is WP:Recentism, and WP:TRIVIA. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 16:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

We need a source that reports that he is staying in a "Transit Hotel." The citation used earlier did not say where he is staying and so someone deleted the sentence. This CNN article says "remains in the 'transit area' of Sheremetyevo International Airport -- the zone between arrival gates and Russia's passport control checkpoints." It does not say that he is in a "Transit Hotel." At the bottom of this Washington Post article is "A late rumor: Interfax reported that Snowden was in Terminal E at the airport, where he had a room in a hotel within the transit zone." If we add that to Wikipedia we'd have to report as that the Washington Post reported it as a rumor that "Interfax reported that Snowden was in Terminal E at the airport, where he had a room in a hotel within the transit zone." That does not seem like it needs to be included in the WP article. If someone finds a reliable source that says that he is in the "Transit hotel" then we can use that here. At least we can report on seat 17A, which remained unoccupied.^[20] --Marc Kupper|talk 17:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Russian President Vladimir Putin says Edward Snowden is not on Russian soil but rather in transit at the Russian airport. Reporting are The New York Times and others including [21] Politico where Putin likens the subject to sheering a pig, "there’s lots of squealing and little fleece." Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Assuming Putin is telling the truth (and don't bet the family jewels on it), he's certainly within the geographic boundaries of Russia, but presumably the "in transit" area is treated as foreign soil, as with an embassy. Curiously enough, if no one will take him, that "in transit" area could become his de facto prison, as the Ecuadorian embassy currently is for Assange. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Journalists have questioned receptionists at the the alleged hotel and they said they've never seen him. I might add that there isn't a single source out there that has cited a witness who saw Snowden disembark in Moscow. The evidence that he's in the transit area despite the fact there are many journalists there who haven't seen him comes down to just Putin's claim that Snowden's there.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Putin also referred to Snowden as a "human rights activist", implicitly praising him. Meanwhile, Putin locked up some small rock band just for making fun of him. So Putin's cup is not necessarily overflowing with credibility. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like you folks are on the issue (especially whether or not he is actually at the airport or ever was). There's only one Transit hotel at the airport (V-Express) which is in Terminal E where Aeroflot flies out of. If you do searches for Snowden and V Express you will see lots of references. Americasroof (talk) 11:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The article currently says almost nothing about Russia, just that Assange said Snowden left HK via Russia, and Putin's response. I think it should at least briefly mention that he spent several days in the Sheremetyevo transit lounge. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

As long as such a statement is prefixed with "reportedly", since it's not clear where he actually is or was in Russia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

CNN seems to be working hard to find him in the transit area. They seem certain that he's not in the hotel.^[22] It's not easy to prove a negative and so I think all we can say is that it's believed he went from HK to Moscow and that he's is staying somewhere in Sheremetyevo International Airport out of public view. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Bumbling manhunt

No.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
According to the below source, HK let him go because the arrest order was faulty. Specifically: wrong middle name, and no passport number. http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/213162181.html --71.20.55.6 (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC) That gave them an excuse. They had no intention of turning him over, no matter what. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC) That's speculation and POV. There's a reason I'm staying away from the text of the article itself. I'm willing to debate the issue on my talk page, but not here. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Feel free to debate it on your talk page. As for me, I intend to box this section up as being irrelevant. Alan Dershowitz predicted this would happen due to the politics of the espionage charge. The technical errors allowed them to avoid confronting the political side of it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC) If the documents were correct instead of shoddy, you might have a case. But giving the wrong name and no number, and failing to respond to requests for clarification, makes it difficult to comply with the request in any event. And then there is the issue of timeliness. He confessed on the 9th, charges weren't filed until the 14th, his passport not revoked until days later. A large part of the onus goes to the Americans for that. I feel it is relevant for those wishing to understand why he remains free. It's more than international politics, but of lapses in the basic groundwork. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Well, whose opinion should I believe - yours, or a famous, high-profile attorney's? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC) WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC) MR. CARNEY: Well, first of all, let me say that the request that was made complied with all of the requirements of the U.S.-Hong Kong Surrender Agreement. At no point in all of our discussions through Friday did the authorities in Hong Kong raise any issues regarding the sufficiency of the U.S.’s provisional arrest request. In light of this, we find their decision to be particularly troubling. Since June 10, when we learned that Mr. Snowden was in Hong Kong, U.S. authorities have been in continual contact with their Hong Kong counterparts at the working and senior levels. Attorney General Eric Holder placed a phone call on June 19th with his counterpart, the Hong Kong Secretary for Justice, stressing the importance of the matter and urging Hong Kong to honor our request for Snowden’s arrest. There have been repeated engagements by the U.S. Department of State and U.S. Consulate General in Hong Kong. There have been repeated engagements by the FBI with their law enforcement counterparts. And finally, there have been continual communications by the DOJ Criminal Divisions Office of International Affairs with counterparts at Hong Kong’s Department of Justice International Law Division and Mutual Legal Assistance Unit. On June 17th, Hong Kong authorities acknowledged receipt of our request. Despite repeated inquiries, Hong Kong authorities did not respond with any request for additional documents or information, stating only that the matter was under review and refusing to elaborate. On June 21, Hong Kong authorities requested additional information concerning the U.S. charges and evidence. The U.S. had been in communication with Hong Kong about these inquiries, and we were in the process of responding to the request when we learned that Hong Kong authorities had allowed the fugitive to leave Hong Kong. June 24, 2013 Daily Briefing White House.gov Also, the Hong Kong statement about passport irregularities is already mentioned in a note in the article. and WP:NOTFORUM Dezastru (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• A legal scholar has opined (op-ed: "reasonable doubt") in SCMP of 30 June that the "mistakes" were highly improbable, and that the Govt's rather poor and whimsical use of a technicality to avoid a diplomatic catastrophe damages Hong Kong's standing as a jurisdiction for rule of law. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 06:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

POSSIBILITY OF "DEBRIEFING" IN TRANSIT LOUNGE BY RUSSIAN AGENTS

Speculation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Since Snowden possesses massive insight into, and documentation pertaining to, NSA tactics, techniques and strategies, the article should, at very least, refer to the possibility that his lengthy stop-over in the Moscow Transit Area might be due to 'friendly detention' by Russian Agents offering him unperturbed onward passage in exchange for specific data, in spite of Russia's official public stance to the contrary... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.149.45.39 (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC) This article is based on published reliable sources. We do not base content on speculation from contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC) WP:RS Putin has specifically stated they are not questioning him. "Russian security forces have not been 'working with' Snowden"[23] As AndyTheGrump noted, we'd need a reliable source that Putin is wrong/mistaken. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources about Ecuador/Russia/US/China standoff

• Tisdall, Simon. "Why U.S. is being humiliated by the hunt for Snowden." CNN. Wednesday June 26, 2013.
• "China and US wage war of words over Snowden's flight from Hong Kong." Reuters at South China Morning Post. Tuesday, 25 June, 2013.
• Agencies. "Ecuador says decision on Snowden asylum could take months." South China Morning Post. Wednesday 26 June 2013.
• "US accuses Hong Kong of feigning confusion on Snowden name." Reuters at South China Morning Post. Thursday, 27 June, 2013.
• Deva, Surya. "Rule of law ill served by Hong Kong's decision to let Snowden leave." (Insight & Opinion) (print title: "Reasonable doubt") South China Morning Post. Thursday 27 June 2013.
• SCMP Editorial. "Time for US to move beyond Snowden." (Insight & Editorial) (print title: "Time to move beyond Snowden") South China Morning Post. Thursday, 27 June, 2013. - Argued that US leaders should stop focusing on Snowden and continue improving ties with China
• "In Moscow limbo zone, will Snowden join ranks of airport denizens?" Associated Press at South China Morning Post. Thursday 27 June 2013. - Compares Snowden's situation to that of Mehran Karimi Nasseri, Feng Zhenghu, and Zahra Kamalfar and 16 asylum seekers from Somalia. It also mentioned Hiroshi Nohara who stayed in a Mexican airport.
• SCMP Editorial. "The US is the one with some explaining to do." (Insight & Opinion/Leader) (print title: "US the one with explaining to do") South China Morning Post. Wednesday 26 June 2013.
• "Snowden could face long wait in asylum bid." Agence France-Presse at South China Morning Post. Thursday, 27 June, 2013. Additional reporting by Associated Press, Staff Reporters.
• Compton, Nick. "An American at Tsinghua University, the cold war campus." South China Morning Post. Thursday, 27 June, 2013.
  • Compton is an American graduate student at Tsinghua. He said the Snowden revelation made students and staff suspicious of Americans and eager to rat out spies and he compares it to Cold War tensions

Most of the new Snowden stuff right now seems to be from the SCMP. Also...

• Elder, Miriam. "Edward Snowden 'not likely to gain asylum in Ecuador for months'." The Guardian. Wednesday 26 June 2013.

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

More fun stuff:

• http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1270635/us-request-snowden-arrest-was-sloppy
• http://www.scmp.com/news/world/article/1270475/ecuador-waives-us-trade-rights-after-threats-made-over-snowden-case
• http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1270331/chief-executive-denies-us-accusation-feigning-confusion-over-snowdens
• http://www.scmp.com/news/world/article/1270392/no-sign-edward-snowden-thursdays-moscow-havana-flight
• Ackerman, Spencer. "Obama: US will not engage in 'wheeling and dealing' over Edward Snowden." CNN. Thursday 27 June 2013.

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Ecuadoran Safe travel document

The evolution of the story is interesting. First the BBC reports that an Ecuadoran Safepass was issued to Snowden. Then Ecuador denies it. Univision then posts said document. The latest iteration is that the document is real, but invalid because it was unauthorized.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/ecuador-says-letter-of-safe-conduct-for-snowden-is-real-but-invalid/article12855281/

A side drama now becomes: the Ecuadoran consul himself took an unauthorized action. Ecuador has a lousy human rights record, but the London consul just happens to be a former human rights activist.

http://noticias.univision.com/america-latina/ecuador/article/2013-06-26/salvoconducto-edward-snowden?ftloc=channel1423:wcmWidgetUimStage&ftpos=channel1423:wcmWidgetUimStage:1#axzz2XMpybqA6

Information on Fidel Narvaez Narvaez, the Ecuadoran London Consul, who apparently took the action unilaterally.

http://www.theprisma.co.uk/2010/09/28/fidel-narvaez-from-activism-to-the-consulate-of-ecuador-in-the-united-kingdom/

Now that the document is officially authentic, it can be used as a source for Snowden's birth place. Which is "Elizabeth City, USA".

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Excerpts of asylum letter read orally by Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino

As translated by the BBC's translator.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-23033803

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Investigation of the vetting firm

Being requested by a U.S. Senator.[24] The company is called USIS. Whether that investigation belongs here or somewhere else, I couldn't say. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It hasn't been confirmed yet whether or not the investigation is related to the vetting of Snowden specifically, or for unrelated lapses. 71.20.55.6 (talk · contribs) 01:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Another one:

• "Did checks failure let whistle-blower slip through the net?" (print title: "Did checks failure let whistle-blower slip through the net?") McClatchy-Tribune at South China Morning Post. Saturday, 22 June, 2013.

WhisperToMe (talk) 09:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The probe of USIS started in late 2011. It was already well underway long before the Snowden Leak.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-28/probe-of-contractor-vetting-snowden-sees-falsified-data.html --71.20.55.6 (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

"Political views" vs "Career"

Believe the last graph in "Career," "Snowden explained his actions saying: "I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things [surveillance on its citizens]… I do not want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded. [43]" should be moved to Political Views, where it is more appropriate. Also, this helps explain, his political views, about which almost nothing is said. His political views clarify his motive.Leslynjd (talk) 06:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It would be more interesting to find out his motivation in becoming publicly known. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Some of this is said in interviews. Wishing to spare his colleagues the trouble of being under investigation themselves is among them. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It still belongs under "Political Views" than "Career." It is not a factual or historical point of his career. It is a statement about his political views, about which most nothing is said in that graph.Leslynjd (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Do we know what his "political views" are, beyond the obvious? Like for example, what is his viewpoint on abortion rights, gay marriage, or milk support prices? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems not to like Social Security. --01:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Good one. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Not actually a joke

< TheTrueHOOHA> 	Somehow, our society managed to make it hundreds of years without social security just fine
< TheTrueHOOHA> 	[expletive laden phrase]
< TheTrueHOOHA> 	Magically the world changed after the new deal, and old people became made of glass

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/exclusive-in-2009-ed-snowden-said-leakers-should-be-shot-then-he-became-one/2/ --71.20.55.6 (talk) 02:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM

If these alleged quotes are trying to make him look like an idiot, then it's working. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC) Judgement of that nature is reserved for editorials and forum posts. Beyond the scope of wikipedia. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 03:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC) Judgment of what nature? That he looks hypocritical and stupid? Well, talk radio has been all over it. So it's not just me. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Aftermath of leak

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/25/terrorists-try-changes-after-snowden-leaks-official-says/

What is wrong with pointing out the direct and predictable consequences of his revelations? Hcobb (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Nothing, necessarily, but blogs are generally not considered reliable sources. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

If the "blog" is written by an employee of a news organization and the blog is under its editorial supervision then it counts as an RS like any newspaper article would. See Wikipedia:V#Newspaper_and_magazine_blogs - At Talk:Edward_Snowden#Status of White House petition I found that a "blog article" at the Washington Times was not under editorial supervision (it seemed to be user-submitted) so that one did not count as an RS. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Even if it qualifies as a source, it's too general, too vague to have any value here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

1. The outcomes of the leak belong in the PRISM (surveillance program) article. This article is about Snowden's life. The repercussions of the leak might be interesting, but they're not relevant to Snowden's biography.

2. It is libelous, completely POV and a BLP violation to call it "aid and comfort for terrorist groups" in a clear reference to the Constitutional definition of treason, a crime for which Snowden has not been charged, much less convicted. Moreover, the phrase in question is nowhere used in the source, which makes it prohibited original research to boot. Pick your poison, that phrase has no place in this article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily in the long run, but it's too soon. We don't yet know what effects, if any, his activities have had on our national security (beyond making us look stupid). For that matter, we don't know for sure that he isn't actually working in concert with the CIA, to try to pass along hoax information, as a few have speculated. So we have to be careful about labels. Also, he has not been charged with treason. That's a very rarely-used charge, as the Constitution puts a pretty narrow spin on its definition. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The groups who have gone dark are not involved in planning terror attacks on the US, the groups who are were already "dark". The US has a very broad and also politically motivated list of "terrorist groups" and "countries supporting terrorism", see e.g. here: "In 1982, Reagan removed Iraq from the list of countries "supporting terrorism"". Count Iblis (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with using that source as long as statements remain appropriately attributed (e.g. "Some intelligence officials have said..."). I saw reporting to the same effect in the Washington Post today as well. However I agree with NorthBySouthBaranof that the "Aid and comfort for terrorist groups" language was completely over the top and would have no place in the article, at least at this time. --Nstrauss (talk) 04:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The main problem I see about pointing out the "predictable" effects is that it is a prediction and not a record of events as they actually unfolded. It is beyond the scope of an Encyclopedic article to do so. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You're right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

From WP:CBALL: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. ... Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view." Don't we fall into this category? --Nstrauss (talk) 07:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

One problem, at this point, is determining whom to believe: the government or critics of citizen surveillance. Also, it isn't properly documented what Snowden did/didn't reveal. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The first problem can be overcome with the appropriate WP:BALANCE (as WP:CBALL suggests). The second problem isn't really a problem. We don't have to identify the specific information that was leaked to cite opinions from experts about about the leaks. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Political beliefs circa 2009

Take them for what they are worth. IRC chatlogs on #arsificial, no official chatlogs exist, these were resurrected from the logs of other users.

Notes in 2009 Snowden as "TheTrueHOOHA" had blasted prior leaks. Notes a Libertarian stance.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/exclusive-in-2009-ed-snowden-said-leakers-should-be-shot-then-he-became-one/

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that that page's claims about Snowden are true. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

That's why I noted the FWIW. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Good point. IW = 0. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Except that the New York Times is now reporting on this, with an extensive explanation of why it's reliable enough to be reported. It seems to me we can include this material as long as it's appropriately qualified. --Nstrauss (talk) 07:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm hearing it on talk radio, too, including from those who support him in principle, and are now wondering what the real story is on this guy. If that really was him, he trashed wikileaks as part of his tirade. So why would they be helping him now? Something doesn't make sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it's weird. Part of me says it's more plausible that someone isn't being honest -- either in 2009 or 2013 -- than that Snowden had a bona fide change of heart. No matter, that's pure speculation. The information satisfies WP:V. The next and much tougher question is, is it sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion, and if so, how do we work it in? --Nstrauss (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It would belong in a section on his "world view" or whatever it's being called, and since it's being reported by the Times, that would seem to be significant. Especially as he's been caught in a lie, if he's claiming now that he couldn't trust the Times to publish such a story - because in 2009, he was angry at the Times for just the opposite reason. (This all assumes the bizarrely-named user "TrueHooha" really was him, given what that name implies.) So, again, if it's true, then he's becoming a bundle of contradictions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

No contradiction at all: "The IRC logs don't explain the chasm between the Snowden who disdained leakers and the Snowden who became a leaker himself in 2013. And it's hardly a perfect parallel; Snowden was upset about leaks over US covert operations in Iran, which is different from the domestic spying and offensive cyberwar programs he felt compelled to make public". Count Iblis (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

When did he switch from scorning to admiring wikileaks? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Some time in the four years between 2009 and 2013. --19:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

He said leakers should be emasculated. Presumably he's changed his mind now that he's a leaker himself. I'm still not convinced that someone calling himself "Hooha" is actually Snowden. What proof does the Times present? Or are we just supposed to take their word for it, as if they were the NSA or something? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowden uploaded pictures of himself via IRC in that time under that account. They are on the Ars articles. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Do they explain why he would dub himself a "pussy", in effect? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Not on any of the published logs. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 01:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

New leak 27 Jun - OIG Draft report - Stellar wind

"NSA inspector general report on email and internet data collection under Stellar Wind – full document"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/27/nsa-inspector-general-report-document-data-collection

51 pages, Dated 24 Mar 2009. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 23:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The Washington Post's version is 57 pages

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/world/national-security-agency-inspector-general-draft-report/277/

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 03:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

There are some differences between the versions in wording and formatting. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 03:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

How is Wozniak not noteworthy?

https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Edward_Snowden&diff=next&oldid=561849876

How is the co-founder of Apple computers and hacker not notable? RocketLauncher2 (talk) 10:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

He's very notable and should accordingly have a Wikipedia article. But he is not notable in an article about Edward Snowden if his only connection is expressing an opinion as a private citizen like thousands of others have.--Brian Dell (talk) 11:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

There's more to it. Let's look at this Guardian source.

"When Morgan suggested the government would not be able to keep such a close eye on citizens without the work of innovators like him, Wozniak acknowledged: "I actually feel a little guilty about that – but not totally. We created the computers to free the people up, give them instant communication anywhere in the world; any thought you had, you could share freely. That it was going to overcome a lot of the government restrictions."

In other words, Wozniak is responsible for developing internet technology, and he sees that as part of a chain that ended in PRISM, so while there are thousands of private citizens who express opinions, his opinions are of importance.

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Especially as a demonstration of his naivete. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Wozniak did not have anything to do with developing internet technology. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the Bdell555. A quote by Woz doesn't magically make his opinion more noteworthy. He's no more relevant than any other tech entrepreneur from the 1970s-80s. To say that he was "responsible for developing internet technology" is a stretch to the point of dishonesty, and even if he was an Internet guy (he wasn't) that still wouldn't make his views on Snowden worthy of inclusion. There are 100s of techies whose quotes would make the article before Woz's. --Nstrauss (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

So, have these techies published their quotes in reliable sources? May I see which ones commented? Are there any who are more important than Wozniak? Wozniak would be speaking alone unless there is evidence of other techies having their quotes published. Then I can sift through the techie quotes and pick out which ones are best for the article. If Wozniak turns out to be the only one published, he's all we have. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Even if, that doesn't mean his comment should be included, as he has no direct connection to the situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

We already have Schneier, who's more notable than Woz on this subject. If you can find a quote from someone as good as or better than Schneier, then by all means, propose it. --Nstrauss (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Sir Tim Berners-Lee seems to have a few words about the spying, though not Snowden himself.

http://rt.com/news/inventor-web-government-hypocrisy-305/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2348682/Founder-web-Tim-Berners-Lee-accuses-West-hypocrisy-internet-spying.html

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for finding that! I used it in the PRISM article. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Chinese and Russian access

This source is quite clear: Intelligence agencies in China and Russia gained access to highly classified U.S. intelligence and military information contained on electronic media held by renegade former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden, according to U.S. officials. I haven't used this particular source (which happens to be censored in China, ask a friend in China to access that story without using a VPN if you don't believe me) as it may be prudent to wait for yet more sourcing, yet apparently another editor is so offended by the claim that even considerably more equivocal language in unacceptable. In an apparent effort to make the claim more dubious by insisting that the sources are anonymous, the editor separates out those sources that aren't anonymous in order to apply the label to the remainder, and then when I add this Politico story which quotes a named "former top Department of Homeland Security official" that source is simply deleted. An ABC News story quoting a named "former senior FBI counter-intelligence officer" is additionally ignored. I would invite this editor to explain himself here instead of edit warring.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

They are quoting anonymous officials in the US. Who probably don't actually know, or are "leaking" to spin the story. It's not as clear as it seems at first. Right now it's just innuendo. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Clearly. Dezastru (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a BLP, so there is a higher standard for inclusion of statements about the article's subject. Wikipedia policy states WP:BLPGOSSIP: Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources.

The standard practice of the most respected print journalists, when quoting sources on potentially controversial topics, is to publish the names of the sources in attribution of the quotations. When sources are not named, it is generally because the sources are speaking on anonymity, whether the news piece explicitly indicates that or not. (It's possible that sources may have spoken on the record but the reporter or editor decided themselves to just leave out the names. Even if this is the case, the sources are still unnamed -- which is what "anonymous" means.) And it shouldn't be surprising that currently serving intelligence officials would choose to speak to the press on condition of anonymity.

None of the sources provided thus far for the statement that intelligence officials said Chinese or Russian agents probably copied Snowden's data has been named. Further, the articles make clear that there is a fair amount of uncertainty as to whether the data was copied. None of the articles says an intelligence agent said Chinese or Russian agents are known to have copied the data.

Wapo, Nakashima:

It’s unclear whether officials in Hong Kong or in Russia, where Snowden fled over the weekend, obtained any of the classified material....
A former senior U.S. official said that the material that has leaked publicly would be of limited use to China or Russia but that if Snowden also stole files that outline U.S. cyber-penetration efforts, the damage of any disclosure would be multiplied. The official, like others in this article, spoke on the condition of anonymity because the official wasn’t authorized to discuss the matters on the record.
U.S. officials said their assumption is that China and Russia have copied the materials that Snowden took from classified U.S. networks but that they had no way to confirm those countries had done so.

NYT, Perlez:

Two Western intelligence experts, who worked for major government spy agencies, said they believed that the Chinese government had managed to drain the contents of the four laptops that Mr. Snowden said he brought to Hong Kong, and that he said were with him during his stay at a Hong Kong hotel.
If that were the case, they said, China would no longer need or want to have Mr. Snowden remain in Hong Kong.

CNN, Starr:

As the U.S. intelligence community tries to determine what damage Snowden may have caused national security, one assumption is underpinning the US analysis: The belief that China copied and read whatever documents he had in Hong Kong.
"That's a safe assumption. That's where people are starting on this," said one administration official with knowledge of the "damage assessment" review. "Given his stay in Hong Kong and the number of days he was there, the assumption has to be everything he had was compromised."
The official didn't dismiss the notion that Russia may have done the same thing.
But it's not clear what material from the leaks of classified information about National Security Agency telephone and e-mail surveillance programs Snowden may have taken from Hong Kong to Moscow, or what he may have been forced to leave behind.

ABC, Ross, June 26:

Such assurances haven't calmed fears from current and former U.S. officials who have told ABC News it would not be difficult for foreign intelligence agents to copy information from the laptops with which Snowden is reportedly traveling, with or without Snowden's permission, or for them to talk directly to Snowden, if need be under the guise of immigration officers.

links to

ABC, Meek, June 24:

Some of the U.S. officials blindsided by Snowden's quick split from Hong Kong told ABC News that the Hong Kong government was playing a double-game by generating pointless red tape, which has raised fears that Chinese intelligence operatives had more time and opportunity to copy Snowden's four laptop hard drives – a feat that wouldn't be too difficult for the Russian intelligence service to do as well.
"I wouldn't be surprised if one of those groups hadn't done so already," one senior U.S. intelligence official told ABC News Monday.
"It's fairly easy to do with right equipment," the official explained. "They get you when you leave it in your hotel room or even at the airport when they get you in an interrogation room at immigration.
Whether Snowden has handed over any of his pilfered NSA files to foreign intelligence services is not known, though last week he denied any direct contact with the Chinese government.

As for the Politico and AFP articles, they don't even mention data having been copied.

LATimes, Williams:

"It strains credibility to believe that there has been no contact between Russian authorities and Snowden when he was in the transit area,” said Andrew Kuchins, director of the Russia and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “There’s this guy walking around with as many as four computers and thumb drives full of classified information and the Russian intelligence services haven’t gotten ahold of it? Whatever was on those devices has been copied.”

This is the only article that names the source, but the source in this case isn't a US intelligence official, so what this source said shouldn't be directly lumped with what US officials said.

but the source in this case isn't a US intelligence official, so what this source said shouldn't be directly lumped with what US officials said; Begging the question, I see: after drawing an arbitrary separation amongst the expert sources, you use that to argue for a necessary separation. None of the articles says an intelligence agent said Chinese or Russian agents are known to have copied the data. So? None of my edits claimed such. At issue here is your insertion of "speculation" and "speaking on condition of anonymity" when the editors of the NYT, ABC News, etc did not believe such qualifiers warranted. "The standard practice of the most respected print journalists" is in fact to not report on mere "spin" and "innuendo", meaning that either respectable print journalists are not found at the New York Times OR what intelligence officials are reported to believe is not quite so "clearly" rubbish as you insist. In any case, it's still simply false to write "UNNAMED current and former US intelligence officials speculated that Chinese or Russian intelligence agents had accessed Snowden's classified material" when David Major and Frank Cilluffo are both very clearly named and talking about access to what Snowden has. Is John R. Schindler, "professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College and a former intelligence analyst and counterintelligence officer with the National Security Agency" anonymous when he writes: "the residence where Snowden spent his last week in Hong Kong was a safehouse belonging to local security, which is known to be close to Beijing. ... No one familiar with Russia’s formidable “special services,” as they call them locally, has any doubts that the FSB, the domestic successor to the KGB, will take full advantage of such a goldmine of information appearing on their doorstep"? How is it that you are more familiar with the FSB than this person such that you are in a position to authoritatively say he is wrong and more doubt is warranted?--Brian Dell (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Officials are speculating, but aren't exactly in a position to know. It's not a question views and opinion, but of what is actually verifiable. Contact with security services of any stripe just has not been confirmed. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all, this is a straw man as the article has never claimed "confirmation," secondly, no one here has yet challenged the following: “The Chinese already have everything Snowden had,” said one official who said there were intelligence reports indicating Chinese Ministry of State Security (MSS) agents have been in contact with Snowden during his month-long stay in Hong Kong.

Agreed, officials are speculating and none of it seemed like authorative speculation. I don't see a reason to include any of this in the article. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The sources don't say "speculating" and I submit that it is improper to add such language when the editors of the various sources cited did not see fit to use such language, see Wikipedia:Verifiability: "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." If the speakers are not "authoritative" then why did the New York Times and the others cite them as opposed to supermarket checkout worker or a Wikipedia editor? May I ask what your day job is such that you consider yourself to be in a better to position to know?--Brian Dell (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Leave it out. The Free Beacon is the only source that isn't qualifying the copying claim, and even they attribute it to an anonymous source. I wouldn't consider them a terribly reliable source. They engage in "combat journalism" and their motto is "Do unto them." Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The most anyone could say at this point is that the Chinese and/or the Russians "could have" copied his data, which is an obvious and factually useless observation, and doesn't belong in the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

In terms of this WP article - it seems we'd need to copy the wording from news articles verbatim or nearly so. Anything else likely would weasel in an WP editor's own beliefs/opinion on that subject. For example "U.S. officials said their assumption is that China and Russia have copied the materials that Snowden took from classified U.S. networks but that they had no way to confirm those countries had done so."^[25]. If I was working for the U.S. government I would also make worse case assumptions and speculation about what "may" happen. That same Washington Post article also has:

Hrafnsson said such assertions are unfounded. In his call with reporters, Assange insisted that neither the Chinese nor the Russians had debriefed Snowden during his stops in their territories.

Asked about the security of the trove of material thought to be on Snowden’s laptop and the possibility that it could fall into the wrong hands, Assange said: “Mr. Snowden’s material has been secured by the relevant journalist organizations prior to travel.” Asked if he could elaborate, he said, “I’m afraid I cannot.”

In that case the person speaking appears to have an inside track on what Snowden has done vs. the worse case planning that others are doing. The question and Assange's reply would also need to be included verbatim as the reply is disingenuous.

However, I'm not sure how much value there is to wholesale quoting, particularly, as we'd need to have quotes from many parties. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

"...we'd need to copy the wording from news articles verbatim... we'd need to have quotes from many parties" In fact it need not be more difficult that writing Wikipedia generally is. This is only as difficult as people want to make it difficult.--Brian Dell (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

More from Der Spiegel - 30 Jun

The NSA monitors half a billion connections in Germany.

It said the document showed that the NSA monitored phone calls, text messages, emails and internet chat contributions and has saved the metadata - that is, the connections, not the content - at its headquarters.

On an average day, the NSA monitored about 20 million German phone connections and 10 million internet data sets, rising to 60 million phone connections on busy days, the report said.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/business/a/-/tech/17810174/u-s-taps-half-billion-german-phone-internet-links-in-month-report/

http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzpolitik/nsa-ueberwacht-500-millionen-verbindungen-in-deutschland-a-908517.html

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Full cites:

• Poitras, Laura, Marcel Rosenbach and Holger Stark. "Geheimdokumente: NSA überwacht 500 Millionen Verbindungen in Deutschland." Der Spiegel. Sunday 30.06.2013
• "U.S. taps half-billion German phone, internet links in month: report." Reuters. June 30, 2013.

It's a good idea to post all pertinent info so if the article is taken down, it can still be found elsewhere. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources about Snowden's revelations about China hacking, and more opinions

On China hacking

• Urquhart, Conal. "Edward Snowden extradition attempts 'could take years'." The Guardian. Saturday 22 June 2013.
• Whiteman, Hilary. "Scenarios for Snowden: Escape, arrest, asylum." CNN. June 20, 2013.
• Helm, Toby, Daniel Boffey, and Nick Hopkins. "Snowden spy row grows as US is accused of hacking China." The Guardian. Saturday June 22, 2013.
• Lam, Lana. "EXCLUSIVE: US hacks Chinese mobile phone companies, steals SMS data: Edward Snowden." South China Morning Post. Sunday 23 June 2013.
• Lam, Lana (Additional reporting by Jennifer Ngo and the Guardian). "EXCLUSIVE: US hacked Pacnet, Asia Pacific fibre-optic network operator, in 2009." South China Morning Post. Sunday 23 June 2013.
• Lam, Lana. "EXCLUSIVE: NSA targeted China's Tsinghua University in extensive hacking attacks, says Snowden." South China Morning Post. Sunday 23 June 2013.
• Agencies in Hong Kong, Reuters and Associated Press. "Hong Kong govt silent on Snowden’s fate as lawmakers call for China to decide." South China Morning Post. Saturday 22 June 2013.
  • Leung Kwok-hung said that HKers should go to streets to protest "to protect Snowden" and that the PRC government should ask HK to protect Snowden from extradition before the case goes to court
  • Cyd Ho said that before the Snowden case goes to court the PRC government “should now make its stance clear to the Hong Kong SAR (Special Administrative Region) government”

Opinions

• Vines, Stephen. "With Snowden case, Hong Kong must keep faith in its values and freedoms." (print title: "City must keep faith with its own values and freedoms") South China Morning Post. Saturday 22 June 2013.

Polls:

• "Do you think Beijing and Hong Kong would hand over Snowden after the US filed criminal charges?" South China Morning Post. Saturday, 22 June, 2013.

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Edward Snowden in Hong Kong

By now, it should be clear that Edward Snowden in Hong Kong needs to be restored, not merged. Snowden's revelations about US-China hacking should be added to that page, rather than dumping everything to this biography -A1candidate (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it will only become bigger, and is of both current and historical interest to Wikipedia readers (and editors.) Do you mean a separate section, or a separate article? If you do a search on 'Hong Kong' it already appears 47 times in the article, (including ref.) — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

What are you going to do with that proposed article, once he's no longer in Hong Kong? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems like the Hong Kong portion of the story will provide enough material for a separate article (regardless of how soon he leaves), especially considering the inevitable and continued growth of this main one. petrarchan47tc 22:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Could be. It depends whether they turn him over this week or six months to a year from now. Typically, when a topic gets large enough, a spinoff article is created, with just a short summary in the original article. It depends on size. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Is it an interesting item by itself? Regardless of size of this article, does it make sense? This article becoming large is not a problem to me. Readers can just scroll down in a long article, no problem — imho, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

"Edward Snowden in Hong Kong" sounds like a movie title. A better title would be something like "Edward Snowden extradition". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Or perhaps "extradition plans" or "attempted extradition" as it hasn't happened yet. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Something along those lines, sure. Just not "Snowden in Hong Kong". That sounds like a sequel to A Countess from Hong Kong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

oh, it's recentism again! Now that Snowden's left HK, the justification for such an article has left with him. For all the faith he claim to have had in the HK judicial system, he high-tailed it just as the Americans made their move... go figure. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 13:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Now he's supposedly in Russia, a well-known bastion of freedom and transparency in government. Maybe the proposed article should instead be called "Ed's Excellent Adventure". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Now he wants to go to Ecuador with the help of Assange. Notice no more mention of Iceland, even tho a businessman had a plane waiting to take him there. Maybe it's too cold? IAC, do not need a separate article on Hong Kong. However, agree his travels are beginning to sound like "Ed's Excellent Adventures." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leslynjd (talk • contribs) 06:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

In addition to Edward Snowden in Hong Kong, we definitely need new articles for Edward Snowden in Russia, Edward Snowden in Cuba, Edward Snowden in Ecuador, Edward Snowden in Iceland, and Edward Snowden in Hong Kong (vacationing with girlfriend).... Whoops, did I just break the no sarcasm rule? --Nstrauss (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I have a quick question about the removal of the Mary Ma material (see this edit).

• Source: Ma, Mary (June 20, 2013). "Ip in security minister's shoes". The Standard (Hong Kong).
• The source states: "Yesterday, state media Global Times carried a third commentary, explicitly urging the SAR to take into consideration public opinion that is supportive of Snowden." and "However, surrounding the Snowden case is something never before seen in local politics. Not only are the pan- democrat and pro-establishment camps singing off the same song sheet, the pan- democrats and mainland propagandists are humming a similar tune."

The content itself seems to support what has been said. Is it poorly sourced because it's coming from an editorial? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Right, that's one of the issues. The second is that the source doesn't directly state the stuff about the rare confluence so there's some WP:SYNTH going on. The third is that much of it isn't notable. I mean, does it really matter how many editorials the Global Times wrote on the subject? The China & Hong Kong section needed to be cut down considerably (and still needs more cutting). Something's gotta go. --Nstrauss (talk) 06:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

My reading of WP:SYNTH states that it's only something a Wikipedia editor can violate, i.e. if an editor takes two sources and makes a conclusion not explicitly made in either source it violates WP:SYNTH, and that if a source makes an explicit conclusion itself and the editor uses that conclusion it doesn't violate WP:SYNTH. Having said that the need to state more about the issue is a good point. In any case I found a SCMP source that also stated that it lead to both sides coming together. Since the title of the article is about two sides coming together, the SCMP source should talk about it in depth. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Cmt - There is also the possible subject Snowden affair.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting! Good to see you again, Sir Garden. I always appreciate your wisdom. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The 5-min Hong Kong movie verax is a 'thriller' w/great music! [26] at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWVGDBeR42I. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Enjoy!

• Cnt Snowden's voice is heard to end the 5-min thriller: “This is something that’s not our place to decide. The public needs to decide whether these programs and policies are right or wrong. And I’m willing to go on the record to defend the authenticity of them and say, ‘I didn’t change these, I didn’t modify the story.’ This is the truth: this is what’s happening. You should decide whether we need to be doing this.” PS, I've started a TALK page on verax: Talk:Verax#VERAX_the_movie. This is Snowden's statement to US citizens. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Official HK government response

The Hong Kong government allowed Snowden to leave and did not arrest him because the U.S. extradition request "did not fully comply with the legal requirements under Hong Kong law".(Reuters Shouldn't this be mentioned somewhere? -A1candidate (talk) 08:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

New source:

Lam, Lana. "SNOWDEN LEAVES HONG KONG ON COMMERCIAL FLIGHT TO MOSCOW." South China Morning Post. Sunday 23 June 2013.

Since it mentions his flight details I alerted the Russian and English Wikipedias and the Commons about this, in case someone wants to photograph Snowden's airplane. The article says it is Aeroflot #213 and it will land at Sheremetyevo at 5:15PM Moscow time. AFAIK it will be an Airbus A330-300 as Aeroflot uses that type on its Hong Kong routes. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Edward Snowden's flight is being tracked here: http://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/su213 - Thanks to User:Sealle for finding this! WhisperToMe (talk) 11:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• At 12:56 PM British Time the Guardian said that Snowden's plane will land in about 90 minutes http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2013/jun/23/edward-snowden-leaves-hong-kong-moscow-live WhisperToMe (talk) 12:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• The Guardian said at 1:25 BST that the plane should land in Moscow in about 45 minutes. He will be in the transit section of the airport terminal as he does not have a Russian visa. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• Cleared to land on runway 07L. Count Iblis (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• Snowden's airplane VP-BDD has landed (source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2013/jun/23/edward-snowden-leaves-hong-kong-moscow-live ) WhisperToMe (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • You've failed to mention which seat he's in, and whether he opted for peanuts or pretzels. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
    • <ROTFL> -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 15:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Pooh! I should have gotten that info :( WhisperToMe (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2013/jun/23/edward-snowden-leaves-hong-kong-moscow-live - He is in Terminal E at the airport. An Aeroflot source said he took a small overnight room WhisperToMe (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Seriously, though... Why on God's green earth would Russia want this guy? Unless they intend to "use" him in some way. The first thing that came to mind was that they might trade him for Tsarnaev. But since Putin has taken somewhat of a beating recently, maybe it's a good propaganda opportunity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Russia is merely a 'safe' place for transit – The money seems to be on Venezuela now. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 16:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) 1) Who says they "want" him? Letting him come in (and maybe go out) doesn't have to mean a lot. 2) Maybe just to thumb their noses at the US. 3) What about this? Ignatzmice•talk 16:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
      • I reckon his initial inclination was correct, and that it was a mistake to leave HK. Mistake to associate himself or seek refuge within two odious regimes. But then we're speculatin' -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 16:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
        • After the US asked for extradition and his arrest, he was asked to leave, not because HK would extradite him, but HK would end up having to deny the extradition request, causing friction between the US and HK. So, it would be better for him to leave to a country that the US already has bad relations with. Count Iblis (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
          • • Before this flight was known, Alan Dershowitz opined that it was stupid of the US to include espionage in the complaint, as HK might consider that to be a "political" charge (which apparently they did). Had it been simply "theft of government property", it might have worked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
          • I'd like to believe that wasn't the case, fingers crossed behind my back, but we may never know. For the moment, that is only speculation. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 17:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
            • It really all depends on where he goes next. Why he's in Russia is currently unclear. Wikileaks made some sanctimonious comment about him looking for a democray to go to. They should have added, "...but he couldn't find one, so he went to Russia instead." Keep in mind it was Russia that initially alerted us to Tsarnaev, which we cleverly ignored, but which also indicates Russia is not exactly transparent about their own spying. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
              • I think somewhere there was an analysis of the types of countries Snowden could connect to when going to Iceland (this was before he declared Ecuador was his choice) - Russia is the only one with no extradition treaty WhisperToMe (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
                • As some commentators have said today, we have been zinging Putin lately, so this gives him the chance to zing back. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• If Snowden takes the flight to Cuba, it will be Aeroflot Flight 150, an Airbus A330-200, leaving Moscow at 14:05 local time.
  • The Aeroflot record says: SU150/CU6150 Moscow - Sheremetyevo (SVO-D) Havana - Jose Marti Intl (HAV-3) 14:05 (UTC+04:00) 24.06
  • It would be tracked at http://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/su150
• WhisperToMe (talk) 06:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
• The two seats reserved by him, 17A and 17C were empty, so he'll probably go tomorrow. Count Iblis (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • He should go there. Cuba needs all the help it can get, in growing and harvesting sugar cane, and repairing antique cars. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
• He was adviced not to board the flight he had booked. It was not safe for him because quite a few US citizens had booked that flight at the last moment. These could have been CIA members. Because the route brings the flight very close to the US mainland, all that it would take for Snowden to get on US soil was for one CIA agent to pretend to be a terrorist, claiming that there is a bomb on board. The other CIA agents would then quickly subdue the agent playing the role of the terrorist. The plane would then have to land at a US airport, allowing the US authorities to arrest Snowden. Count Iblis (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • If someone's advising him that he would be better of in Cuba than in the USA, maybe he needs some new advisors. There's a growing level of published commentary saying that he's really handled this whole thing poorly, that he didn't think it through, i.e. that he had no real plan. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Those sources might be useful. Do you know where I may find them? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Additional sources:

• Moy, Patsy and Agence France-Presse. "Hong Kong government hits back at US criticism over Snowden arrest demand." (print title: "Government hits back over US criticism") South China Morning Post. Tuesday 25 June 2013.
• Agencies (Agence France-Presse, Reuters) and Keith Zhai. "Beijing made decision on Edward Snowden leaving Hong Kong, say analysts." (print version: "Beijing made final decision, say analysts") South China Morning Post. Tuesday, 25 June, 2013.
• "China outsmarted US in Snowden affair, experts say." Agence France-Presse at South China Morning Post. Monday 24 June 2013.
• Bradsher, Keith. "Hasty Exit Started With Pizza Inside a Hong Kong Hideout." The New York Times. June 25, 2013.
• Tran, Eldes. "How Snowden has been good for Hong Kong." South China Morning Post. Tuesday June 25, 2013.
• Murphy, Martin. "Snowden revelations won't change scale of US spying." (Print title: "Still watching") South China Morning Post. Wednesday June 26, 2013.

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• OT but he should seek better advice if he thinks he only needs to worry about US citizens. CIA agents would not need to fly as US citizens. Nor would they even need to be on the flight, a phone call claiming a bomb was on board would do just as well, as would a whole host of other methods if the US wanted to force the plane to land. If agents were on the plane, the chance they would do something as dumb, risky and likely to cause controversy as a set-up hijacking is slim to none when a fake medical emergency and a bunch of other less risky things would do just as well. Then again, if he really is receiving such bad advice, perhaps we shouldn't be surprised as people involved in wikileaks appear to be advising him. Nil Einne (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Soto voce whisper: so true. Good insight! Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)