Talk:Edward Snowden/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Undergraduate degree

Under the topic of education, a description is given of his high school GED and his on-line studying for a Master's, but no information is given of his undergraduate degree.

Can someone find and add this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.150.249.23 (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

If you google [edward snowden college] you will find various articles (seemingly very similar to each other) stating that he attended several colleges' undergraduate classs, but never got a degree. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Research tip

Apparently references to classified projects and even some descriptions sometimes appear in the public resumes of intelligence analysts. I even spotted job listings for XKeyscore and other programs.

http://niqnaq.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/strange-creatures-crawl-out-of-the-woodwork-of-the-web-and-wriggle-in-the-unaccustomed-light/

http://jobs.saic.com/job/Columbia-XKEYSCORE-Systems-Engineer-Job-MD-21044/2679775/

I'm bemused, and even a bit disturbed. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 02:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

That explains a few things. Does Snowden have a Linked In page? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

There are several unrelated Edward Snowdens and a joke/hoax LinkedIn page

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dir/?first=Edward&last=Snowden&search=Search

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 02:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You can even find out what people who work with these programs make and get a graph of salary over time. At the risk of running in to notforum yet again: if these programs are so secret, why has the government been telling everybody? And would there even be any point in draining Snowden's laptop? If I can query a public database, so can the Russians, Chinese, and even the little boy who lives down the lane.

http://www.indeed.com/salary?q1=Xkeyscore+System+Support&l1=Fort+Meade%2C+MD&q2=Blarney&l2=Fort+Meade%2C+MD&q3=Pinwale+System+Support&l3=Fort+Meade%2C+MD&q4=PRISM+System+Support&l4=Fort+Meade%2C+MD&q5=Fairview+System+Support&l5=Fort+Meade%2C+MD&q6=Stellar+Wind&l6=Fort+Meade%2C+MD&q7=Mainway&l7=Fort+Meade%2C+MD&q8=Trailblazer&l8=Fort+Meade%2C+MD&q9=Nucleon&l9=Fort+Meade%2C+MD&q10=Turbulence&l10=Fort+Meade%2C+MD&q11=Marina&l11=Fort+Meade%2C+MD&q12=Conveyance&l12=Fort+Meade%2C+MD&q13=Fallout&l13=Fort+Meade%2C+MD

Program	Salary (USD)
XKeyscore	$124,000
Blarney	$99,000
Pinwale	$119,000
PRISM	$57,000
Fairview	$69,000
Mainway	$36,000
Nucleon	$90,000
Marina	$61,000
Conveyance	$64,000
Fallout	$75,000
Turbulence	$58,000
Trailblazer	$58,000
Stellar Wind	$131,000

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 04:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: Trailblazer ,stellar wind, and Conveyance are false positives. Unrelated corporate programs. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

"Discovering Names Of Secret NSA Surveillance Programs Via LinkedIn." Techdirt brings this up, and Slashdot had a post: "Discovering NSA Code Names Via LinkedIn." WhisperToMe (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

US Government official says Snowden "did not get 'crown jewels'"

• Starr, Barbara. "Official: Snowden did not get 'crown jewels'." CNN. July 22, 2013.

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Fascinating article but it doesn't appear to be reliable. CNN acknowledges that they couldn't confirm the information and identified the source's potential motive for putting out disinformation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Snowden made all kinds of claims about what he could allegedly do in his job. Has anyone confirmed those claims? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The Roster of all NSA employees, and what they worked on he really could have obtained. Even I could obtain a fair portion. Apparently LinkedIn is a major blind spot with Intelligence Employees. (yes, it's against policy but "everybody does it") The names of various NSA projects can also be obtained by LinkedIn, and by public job listings. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Bugs start another thread, see how you go. Maybe call it 'Snowden made all kinds of claims'. Reference it like crazy. Well see how it stacks up Blade-of-the-South (talk) 09:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

That was in the early days of this adventure, in one of those Guardian interviews I think, where he alleged that he could spy on anyone at any time, in contradiction to the alleged limits of the Patriot Act and these various secret court hearings. Did anyone confirm that his claims are for real, or is it only his word? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Does it matter? It's included in the article as an assertion and not as fact. It'll only get proven by another whistleblower somewhere down the line. It's not like the NSA are going to come out and

admit that anyone has that kind of access, for that would be shooting themselves in the foot. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 10:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Binney and Drake seem to back him up routinely, and even expand it.

http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2013/06/18/lead-william-binney-thomas-drake-nsa-surveillance.cnn.html

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Then the recent government comment should also be presented as an "assertion", as it's every bit as valid as Snowden's assertions until proven otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Geez, Bugs I wont be as subtle. Please stop hijacking threads. If you have an issue create a sub title and explore it. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

This is all the same topic. (I had posted the same basic reference as the OP here, but it got lost somewhere). The argument is being made that because CNN can't confirm the veracity of the government statement, it should be viewed with skepticism. Likewise, since CNN nor anyone else can confirm the veracity of some of Snowden's statements, they should also be viewed with skepticism. In fact, using the logic of Oh Confucious, any statement the government makes is self-serving and disinformation - so any statement they have made that confirms part of what Snowden says, logically has to bring both parties' credibility into question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I think I know what the Crown Jewels are, roughly. “The names of the cooperating telecom companies are the crown jewels of the NSA... Generally you can say that multinationals with headquarters in the USA should not be trusted until they prove otherwise,”

http://rt.com/news/snowden-nsa-interview-surveillance-831/ --71.20.55.6 (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Research Tip 2 - Youtube and the like

Youtube is a particularly rich source of interviews with other whistleblowers. Thomas Drake has been the most active, post-Snowden, followed by Bill Binney, and a few more. By far the richest sources of information and explanation of Snowden's claims are to be found in interviews with Drake and Binney, as they address many of his claims specifically. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• To actually cite the video, though, you would have to make sure it's not uploaded as a copyvio and in fact is an RS. IMO generally it's harder to cite videos than text sources. If you do use a video you can use the minute marks to determine where the cited speech begins. If there is a transcript available, cite the transcript. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Russia update?

"Fugitive US intelligence leaker Edward Snowden has applied for temporary asylum in Russia, officials say."

"The Federal Migration Service confirmed he had completed the relevant paperwork at Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport, where he has been for the past three weeks."

— http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23328074

Sca (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

From the information in that article, it appears that fact should be in the article, that he has now formally applied for asylum in Russia, and that they might grant it or they might give him refugee status instead. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

"Edward Snowden today has filed for a temporary protection visa with Russia's ministry of immigration. #snowen #nsa #prism"

Unclear whether this is a separate deal from temporary asylum.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I think three sources is sufficient to update, with attribution. First mention of the asylum filing should go after the sentence On June 14, 2013, U.S. federal prosecutors charged Snowden with espionage and theft of government property, and before the "Contents" box, with some — but not too much — detail farther down. It would be good to quote lawyer Anatoly Kucherena telling Interfax that Snowden says he "will observe" Putin's gag order-condition for asylum.

I leave it to those more computer-savvy to do the work. Sca (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

This CNN editorial[1] should be required reading for anyone who thinks Russia and China are somehow better places for political dissenters to be than in the USA. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

How about for Wikipedia editors? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, specifically the ones on this page. Or would you rather not know? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that [2]is a subject to consider. Basically, it's about individuals who attended opposition matters before being denounced. All the cases are open to observe (like ) and show accused's guilt. The article doesn't mention of sentenced officials. It doesn't mention other opposition activists. Unfortunately, nobody gives about it. UberDrey (talk) 04:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a quote in that violates wiki regulations. Line "like an unwanted Christmas gift" have never been said by V. Putin, and there is none of such in the reference link:. The actual reference quote goes like this: "Mr. Snowden really did arrive to Moscow. It was a complete surprise for us. He arrived as a transit passenger. He does not need visa, nor other papers, and as a transit passenger he can buy a ticket and go wherever he wants... And he as a transit passenger persists in transit zone at the present time." I suggest the line to be changed for something I specified as the actual quote above, or to be removed.UberDrey (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Snowden has been given documents allowing him to leave the transit zone

Has just been reported on BBC. Count Iblis (talk) 11:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Story's changed. [3] --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Protests in Germany.

The rally held at Dagger Complex, near Griesheim.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/protest-rally-suspected-german-nsa-site-19723354

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 03:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

And this relates to improving the article how? TippyGoomba (talk) 03:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Describes social impact of revelations. Suggested for including in the 2013_mass_surveillance_scandal related article. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 03:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

A broader protest in 30-40 cities in Germany. (depending on which source you read). A fun detail in some of the articles, some of the protesters were, in fact wearing tin foil hats. Suggested verbiage "a series of protests in Germany"

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

References

Lindsey Graham Senate Bill

Allows sanctions against countries that harbor Snowden.

http://www.hngn.com/articles/8604/20130725/senate-bill-allow-sanctions-against-countries-offering-snowden-asylum.htm

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113sres198is/pdf/BILLS-113sres198is.pdf

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Moscow - Havana flight

Snowden watch: Today’s Moscow-Havana flight taking a very odd detour that avoids the U.S. 94.70.98.203 (talk) 09:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

That was last week, Snowden wasn't on that flight. Plane diverted to storms on the entire eastern seaboard. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 09:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

If I were Snowden I would go to Vladivostok and board a cargo ship to Guayaquil. Count Iblis (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

FBI & FSB

A spokesman for Putin, Dmitri Peskov, says Russian secret service FSB has begun negotiating with U.S. domestic secret police FBI over Snowden's fate. (In German.)

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/nsa-affaere-russischer-geheimdienst-verhandelt-mit-fbi-ueber-snowden-a-913342.html

Sca (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's an English source on the same thing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23468459

Sca (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

BBC article links to letter from Eric Holder to his Russian counterpart. The letter gives assurances that: Mr Snowden will not be eligible for the death penalty, will not be tortured, would have access to council (either appointed by the Court, or one of his own choosing, and under his pay), a right to a public jury trial -- with a conviction standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, and a right to appeal.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/tvnews/dateline%20nbc/obama.pdf

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Lon Snowden and Lawyer Bruce Fein speak to Today

Defends son's decisions. Describes contact with son as indirect (through intermediary) and limited. Grateful for assistance of Wikikeaks, and others. Fein also wrote a letter to Obama.

http://www.today.com/news/edward-snowdens-dad-story-far-done-6C10760642

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/tvnews/dateline%20nbc/obama.pdf

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Re-semi-protect?

Quite a rash of questionable edits....

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Edward_Snowden&diff=565935793&oldid=565898077

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

More recent sources on Snowden

• Gidda, Mirren. "Edward Snowden and the NSA files – timeline." The Guardian. Thursday 25 July 2013.
• Gabbat, Adam. "US will not seek death penalty for Edward Snowden, Holder tells Russia." The Guardian. Friday 26 July 2013.

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Reactions of the Whistleblower Community

A video entitled "Whistleblowers, Journalists, and the New War Within" by the Government Accountability Project has just been uploaded to their official YouTube channel. This was a meeting held July 25, 2013. Featuring the following, Tom Drake, Bill Binney, J Kirk Wiebe, Jesselyn Radack, Babak Pasdar, Julian Sanchez and Amie Stepanovich. Moderated by David Sirota and James Risen.

I would characterize their support of Snowden to be universal (Snowden reactions in the Introduction, and the 1 hr mark of first video, and peppered throughout). This video also provides insight into the experiences of whistleblowers generally. Tom Drake speaks especially vehemently on the "narcissist" allegation frequently leveled against himself, Snowden and others.

It also provides excellent insight into the constellation of broader issues( their views on Surveillance and the legality thereof, treatment of whistleblowers, journalism). It could be a source for many related articles: Bradley Manning, and also Thinthread, Stellar Wind, Trailblazer, possibly a source for biography articles on Wiebe and Pasdar (which don't yet exist).

https://www.youtube.com/user/GovAcctProjTV

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY-75_j0BNw&list=UUviOLLdWe7AlouLDFErQYag

A partially overlapping, but independently shot "highlights" video of this conference also exists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOoNKydC8iY

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 23:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Two upcoming hearings to watch

A Senate hearing featuring Gen Alexander and others.

A House hearing featuring critics of the NSA, including Greenwald, the ACLU and the Cato institute.

Both on July 31, both can be expected to contain new information about Snowden, the NSA and various aspects for the constellation of related articles.

Just a heads up for developments to watch for.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/26/nsa-surveillance-critics-testify-congress

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Greewald's twitter feed: The WH now scheduled a meeting between Obama & House Dems on Wed morning when NSA hearing was supposed to be. It's now being re-scheduled. I'm trying to find out more details. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

More details: the House meeting is cancelled for now, an attempt is being made to reschedule before recess.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/07/greenwald-nsa-surveillance-hearing-cancelled-169526.html

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Change of Venue for the Senate meeting, but it's still on.

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=0d93f03188977d0d41065d3fa041decd

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

New Story hinted at by Greenwald

As of the time of this post, nothing new on The Guardian but Greenwald spoke to Stephanopoulous. He isn't saying how precisely he plans to break the full story, and what supporting documents he plans to publish. His upcoming testimony before the House, on Wednesday, isn't to be missed, if he doesn't break the full story before then.

“The NSA has trillions of telephone calls and emails in their databases that they’ve collected over the last several years,” Greenwald told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos. “And what these programs are, are very simple screens, like the ones that supermarket clerks or shipping and receiving clerks use, where all an analyst has to do is enter an email address or an IP address, and it does two things. It searches that database and lets them listen to the calls or read the emails of everything that the NSA has stored, or look at the browsing histories or Google search terms that you’ve entered, and it also alerts them to any further activity that people connected to that email address or that IP address do in the future.”

He opines that Snowden is actually glad that no changes have occurred in his personal situation in Russia, because it shifts the focus where he wants it -- on the revelations themselves.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/07/glenn-greenwald-low-level-nsa-analysts-have-powerful-and-invasive-search-tool/

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

It might be this one: XKeyscore: NSA tool collects 'nearly everything a user does on the internet'. petrarchan47tc 22:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

XKeyscore - LARGE disclosure from the guardian

Article and many images.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data

Presentation from 2008:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jul/31/nsa-xkeyscore-program-full-presentation

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Someone needs to upload the slides. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't have permission as an IP user... Dragging my feet on getting a name. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if it's possible to register a Commons account (maybe under a different computer), but only use the Commons under that name and use an IP address when contributing on Wikipedia WhisperToMe (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Probably. But my computers all have the same public IP address. It's quite a large disclosure: A 32 page slideshow, and an additional 12 screenshots. It oought to be enough information to expand the article beyond the stub class. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 22:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the slideshow has already been uploaded. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 22:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Lon Snowden and Bruce Fein

These men have emerged as players in the saga. The elder Snowden has become an advocate for his son, and has given repeated interviews. Anderson Cooper 360, Today, Fox News, Washington Times, among others. The lawyer, Mr Fein is usually seated next to the elder Snowden.

One thing I noted is the transition between his first interview, in which he expresses faith in the justice system, and encouraged Edward to return to face justice, and the latest in which he expresses "absolutely no faith" in Eric Holder.

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 06:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• The Guardian noted it too in the article I cited regarding Lon Snowden believing that his son should stay in Russia. In that regard, it's not OR to say his public stance changed if you cite the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Edward Snowden's lawyer is working on a visa to allow Lon Snowden to visit Russia.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/01/edward-snowden-airport-reading

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Application

Here is a scan of Snowden’s application for the temporary asylum in the Russian Federation. --Psychiatrick (talk) 13:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Utterly useless as a source. Unpublished and completely unverifiable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Published (here) and completely verifiable. --Psychiatrick (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

If it was published there, why are you linking to an unverifiable (and possibly copyright-breaching) upload? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be some circular sourcing going on between RT and the Daily Mail. RTR TV aired video of the letter, the Mail got a graphologist to write some random nonsense on it (two weeks ago), [4] and now RT are reporting what the Mail published. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

MailOnline published Snowden’s application of low quality to support expert Linda Lauren’s conclusion—based on handwriting analysis of Snowden’s application—that Snowden was tired, 'drained' paranoid and low on confidence and options and had a 'lack of understanding of the big picture and his role in it.' I provided Snowden’s application of high quality.--Psychiatrick (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

He has, however left the airport. Handwriting analysis, to determine personality, if that's what you're after is a pseudoscience

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/01/edward-snowden-leaves-moscow-airport-live

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Payments of £100 million from NSA to GCHQ

One direct from Snowden's cache. The Guardian's Hopkins and Borger detail "off the books" payments from NSA to GCHQ. The article suggests that the UK may be spying on American citizens at the NSA's behest, in order to circumvent US law. Some snippets:

In one revealing document from 2010, GCHQ acknowledged that the US had "raised a number of issues with regards to meeting NSA's minimum expectations". It said GCHQ "still remains short of the full NSA ask".

Ministers have denied that GCHQ does the NSA's "dirty work", but in the documents GCHQ describes Britain's surveillance laws and regulatory regime as a "selling point" for the Americans.

Some GCHQ staff working on one sensitive programme expressed concern about "the morality and ethics of their operational work, particularly given the level of deception involved"

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/01/nsa-paid-gchq-spying-edward-snowden — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.55.6 (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Whistleblower community redux

Why was this renamed? [5] The previous discussion here Talk:Edward Snowden/Archive 2#"Whistleblower community" was IMO leaning against the name. No evidence for ever provided for "whistleblower community" being a way the people described identifed as or are identified as. The only argument in favour was based on the claim such a community could exist which is besides the point. The question was not whether such a community could exist nor whether the term could be used under some definitions, but whether the term is actually used for which no evidence was ever provided. Nor was there any ever suggest the people had to have met or had to live together to be considered a community (as that's just strange, many communities are made up of people who may not live that close together and have never met). In other words, the only argument in favour was flawed, I noticed this at the time but did not bother to reply because there was never any suggestion to rename the section back to whistleblower community until the actual rename. Since the I presume all of the people mentioned are still alive based on the recentness of it, there's also a BLP issue here. Nearly everyone listed is a whistleblower or widely described as such, so it's difficult to see the, objecting to being listed under such a title, but they may not necessarily agree with being part of this "whistleblower community" (for which we have no evidence so far they either self identify as or are widely described by RS as being part of) which the person who argued for in the original discussion themselves said implies "the condition of having certain attitudes and interests in common." The only real problem with the alternative is Julian Assange. I agree there's a problem in that he's arguably not really a whistleblower, or at least primarily notable for aiding whistleblowers more than whistleblowing himself, although perhaps more because of lack of opportunity then anything else. That said, plenty of sources do call him a whistleblower and he's categorised as such in our article and it seems unlikely he would oppose the term. The alternative would be considering whether the section is the best section for him or finding some intermediate title, or proving the people listed actually belong in such a section. I would add that my searches don't find much evidence the term is even used much in RS, instead primarily press releases, blogs, partisian sources, opinion columns etc. Compare say to "intelligence community". And yes this may be a fairly long discussion for a title. But last time I thought the issue had been resolved or at least would not be changed back without further discussion only to find it was, based on talk. Despite as stated above, my reading that the talk discussion was leaning against that title and there never being any actual suggestion to rename the title back even though one person had stated in the discussion (who was not me) that we seemed to be settling on something else. So I see no option but to try to be complete in my opposition lest we get a repeat. Nil Einne (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I renamed it because discussion had fizzled and no one had responded to my arguments. I don't think the term "whistleblower community" needs to be in common usage for it to be appropriate, but it is in fact in common usage. Here are some notable examples:

• National Whistleblower Center: [6]
• Brookings Institute: [7]
• Sen. Chuck Grassley: [8]
• Government Accountability Project (whistleblower.org): [9]
• Mother Jones: [10]

The fact that these examples aren't neutral news sources doesn't change the fact that the term comports with the dictionary definition of "community" and is in common usage. A Google search for "whistleblower community" (with quotes) reveals 8,690 hits.

As for your BLP argument, BLP is about harm to the subject. "Whistleblower" isn't a derogatory term, in fact quite the opposite, especially to these particular people. Moreover, per WP:BLPSOURCES, the question isn't whether the subjects would be offended by the material but whether the material is supported by reliable sources. The subjects of this subsection have all been described as "whistleblowers" or described as aligned with "whistleblowers" in numerous reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

And here are some reliable sources referring to or describing the whistleblower "community":

• New York Times: [11]
• New York Times: [12]
• Nextgov: [13]

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikileaks official statement Aug 1

http://wikileaks.org/Statement-on-Snowden-s-Successful.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.55.6 (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Article of interest

If true, this would appear to validate the Snowden's claims of suspicionless blanket domestic spying of web searches.

A woman in Brooklyn received a visit from Authorities after researching pressure cookers. Combined with her son's news searches on the Boston bombers, and her husband's searches for backpacks.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/01/new-york-police-terrorism-pressure-cooker

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

This would seem to belong at XKeyscore. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I can picture an analyst entering "soft" selectors in the system in an effort to prevent the last attack: backpack, pressure cooker, Tsarnaev. Though it's hard to confirm its use. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

An updated version of the above article has that it the fbi actually got a tipoff from an employer of the father. Which would be semi-good news.--71.20.55.6 (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Not the FBI: Suffolk County police. The full police statement appears here. – Herzen (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Nobel peace prize nomination

There are literally tens of thousands of people who can nominate anyone for the peace prize. A nomination by one professor is hardly notable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Politico and a few other sites reported on it, but not much coverage exists so you might be right. petrarchan47tc 05:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

This issue was discussed here and the consensus was that the nomination is not sufficiently notable for inclusion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

That assessment makes sense in light of the scant coverage. petrarchan47tc 00:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Morales plane incident II

Was there anywhere mentioned who was resposible for closing the air space? This can only be done from high to very high level of administration or an higher ranking military. One person must have issued the closing and it would be nice to know that. --Stone (talk) 09:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, according to Austrian media, it was the US Ambassador to Austria who made the claim. I re-added the source and statement to the article yesterday, hopefully it's still there. petrarchan47tc 00:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

It's still there. From the source: When the plane landed in Vienna to refuel, US Ambassador to Austria William Eacho phoned officials from the Austrian Foreign Ministry, the Austrian daily newspaper Die Presse reported. Eacho “claimed with great certainty that Edward Snowden was onboard” and referenced a “diplomatic note requesting Snowden’s extradition.

It might make sense to expand on that a bit. Also, we haven't mentioned whether it was a legal act to force a President's plane down. Missing from the section is any context in that regard. petrarchan47tc 00:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Camera Shy

“The More Photographed I Am…the More Dangerous my Situation” -

http://www.bagnewsnotes.com/2013/07/more-photographed-more-dangerous/

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Transparency only goes one way? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it was stated somewhere that if he was photographed too much, if he tried to sneak out by disguising his appearance, it would be easier to identify him anyway. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

In the article above, one paragraph below the quote. The concern referenced is facial recognition software. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no logic to this quote at all. Snowden's face is clearly photographed for facial recognition software. Besides that, the government has access to his photographic creds for facial recognition purposes, which he would have had to show to get to his day job. To take this claim seriously is stunningly credulous. What the quote does do, however, is continue to dramatize his situation.Leslynjd (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It's Snowden's quote, and an explanation of it. Belief or not is not part of the equation. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Not a reliable source as far as I can tell. The site is described as a blog and there's no evidence of editorial review. Moreover the "explanation" reads more as informed speculation to me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. The quote itself is accurate though. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I had another thought, on that score, or rather XKeyscore: slide 32, the last one in the 2008 presentation mentions a "future" capability. Exif tags in smartphone images typically include geolocation data. It may be more than simple facial recognition, they'd know WHERE the photograph was taken. Probably more of a concern now, that he's free to move about, than it was when he was stuck in the Terminal. This is OR, of course. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 07:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Verifiability

"All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please remove unsourced contentious material about living people immediately." Wikipedia verifiability policy.

I find it disturbing that statements remain in this article as fact when they were only things that Edward Snowden said; and the content of his statements are also not correctly cited.

1. In "Childhodd, Family and Education," FeralOink pointed out on July 8 that a correct statement about Snowden's education is:

"In fact, the quote as cited should be: 'A spokesperson for the university [of Liverpool] said that in 2011 Snowden registered for an online master's degree program in computer security and that "he is not active in his studies and has not completed the programme."'

This is because, as FeralOink pointed out, "As for the Master's degree, I realize that a number of sources say the following:

"'In addition, Snowden did work towards a Master's Degree at the University of Liverpool, taking an online Computer Security class in 2011. Kate Mizen, head of public relations for the University of Liverpool, said he studied there, but "he is not active in his studies and has not completed the program."" He took one online computer security class in 2011 at the University of Liverpool, which he didn't necessarily complete (after being employed by the CIA et al. as an information technology expert for four, five (?) years prior). That hardly counts as doing work toward a Master's degree. It is misleading to state that he studied for a Master's degree, while omitting the fact that he never obtained a Bachelor's degree." [Emphasis added.]

2. In "Career," it is stated about Snowden's Army experience, "However, he was discharged four months later on September 28 after having broken both of his legs in a training accident.[25]" That cited source says nothing about Snowden breaking both legs in a training accident; that is only Snowden's claim to the Guardian. The cited source only confirms his enlistment, discharge, and the fact that he did not complete training and received no awards. The verifiable statement should be: "However, he was discharged four months later on September 28 without completing training or receiving any awards."

3. In "Career," it is stated that Snowden spent time in Japan working for Dell. "The Guardian reported that Snowden left the agency in 2009 for a private contractor inside an NSA facility on a US military base in Japan[10] later identified as Dell,[32] which had substantial classified contracts.[32] Snowden remained on the Dell payroll until early 2013.[32]" The problem with this statement is that it is all what Snowden reportedly said in a resume which hasn't even been seen by news sources.[32] In fact, Dell has refused to verify Snowden's employment there. "Edward Snowden, NSA Whistleblower, Says He Acted Out Of Conscience To Protect 'Basic Liberties'" The statement in Wikipedia should be changed to "According to sources who claim to have seen Snowden's resume, he worked for Dell in Japan from 2009 until early 2013. Dell has refused to verify Snowden's employment there." This is consistent with both sources.

I realize that the editors have moved on to later events, but that should not leave the earlier information about Snowden uncorrected. It is among the first information the reader encounters, and is relevant to Snowden's credibility. Credibility is a leaker's certificate of authenticity. The reader should receive balanced information, not information stated as fact that has not been verified, or is misstated or misleading. The reader may make up his/her own mind about Snowden's credibility.Leslynjd (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I largely agree that these are problems but I disagree with Leslynjd's proposed solutions to #2 and #3. If the problem is lack of attribution then the solution is to add attribution. The sources don't show any dispute over Snowden's assertions so it would be inappropriate to imply one. Thus, the appropriate fix for #2 is: "However, he has said he was discharged four months later on September 28 after having broken both of his legs in a training accident.[25]" The appropriate fix for #3 is: "Snowden left the agency in 2009 for a private contractor inside an NSA facility on a US military base in Japan[10] later identified by Snowden as Dell, which had substantial classified contracts. Snowden has said he remained on the Dell payroll until early 2013.[32]" --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a biography of a living person so every claim, potentially positive or negative, needs to be directly cited and it is the burden of anyone making such assertions to prove them. Thank you for the time you spent researching these inconsistencies Leslynjd. Unless there is substantial discussion disputing it, I will make the changes you suggest soon. Veriss (talk) 09:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

And what of my proposals? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem isn't lack of attribution, it is lack of proof of the assertions about a living person.

And BTW, since when did Snowden's girlfriend become a "performance artist?" LOLOL. Her claim is that she is a "pole-dancing superhero" who was a "beginner" at acrobatics. This appears backed up by credible evidence:, Leslynjd (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

At Wikipedia we don't require "proof" of anything, just verifiability via reliable sources. Per WP:RS, biased or non-neutral sources (such as Snowden's own claims) are citable as long as they're properly attributed. So, this really is about attribution.

As for the "performance artist" moniker, that language is used by the cited Guardian article, and as far I can tell no reliable source is saying that she's not a performance artist. Moreover according to our own article on the subject, pole dancing is a form of performance art. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Why not use her own description of herself, instead of an interpretation? She's the primary source. Since when is a secondary source interpretation better than the primary source? Are we slanting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikione29 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Since WP:PSTS was written. Secondary sources are nearly always preferred. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Anatoly Kucherena - the lawyer

Some details: working pro bono on Snowden's case, working to craft a legal process that avoids Putin's involvement altogether. He a high profile lawyer, well before Snowden.

http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/edward-snowden-s-lawyer-comes-with-high-profile-and-ties-to-kremlin-398140

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

As has been mentioned before, he's connected KGB/FSB. I think that's relevant. He's political, not a civil rights attorney; nor does he have the legal freedom to work in Snowden's interest. It's a conflict of interest.He works for the Russian government--it's misleading to describe him as Snowden's attorney. No matter how much he's smiling.Wikione29 (talk) 06:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Ties to the Kremlin are true, and might be relevant, however, you need to have a source explaining why precisely he's somehow not legally able to represent Mr Snowden. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 07:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

FBI Insider Threat, Prior BoozAllen Incidents, Honolulu centrality

It should be noted that the same pattern of situations between the FBI managed Lulzsec hack of boozAllen data and the FBI managed positioning of both FBI SAC Vida Bottom (tech counter-intelligence expert) at Honolulu with significant pre-positioning of concerns of insider threats related to access to SBU Sensitive-But-Unclassified data via open USB plugs and the movement of various CYBER and counter-intelligence specialists throughout the FBI including removal of Gordon Snow from CYBER the same date as lulzsec and olympic-games (stuxnet) were announced publicly and the positioning of Vida Bottom and Snowden for further insider-threat activities at Booz-Allen and the new NSA command facility at Honolulu. Direct relations, inter-associated parties, and significant pattern media and news propaganda surrounding the scheduled situations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.201.210 (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you please break that down into something people with earthly IQs might understand? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Locking the Page

Should we lock the page up because of vandals and stuff? Mister Hungry 05:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that at least making it protected for a while might be a good thing. Zuchinni one (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

It gets old to see the same vandal-wars. Hero! no! Traitor! no! Savior! no! Satan Incarnate! over and over again. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 06:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The page has been semi-protected for a week by an admin. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite wiki-style in a sandbox somewhere, like, as an experiment in vandal-avoidance? --John Bessa (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 August 2013

Please change "traitor" to "hero". 24.126.171.168 (talk) 10:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

-

Niotice* In Griesheim,....,unimportant.

Main matter is have the British as USA intelegence services taken Tax as Buisnes/Bank data out off the runing comercial proscess and used them for tactical statistitiks ,in exteritoral ground or out off ther homeland ,violent when in done in states without ther knowleage,more important how can do that without been meber off a intelegence service.Difficult, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.219.46.210 (talk) 10:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The "traitor" term has been removed already, but "hero" is a bit too far in the other direction. Tarc (talk) 12:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

"traitor" appears to have returned.... My bad. Cached values. Never mind; nothing to see here. Amazingchicken (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 August 2013

Please add the category "Refugees in Russia", because, "Under international law, a refugee is a person who, being outside his country of nationality or habitual residence; has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion; and is unable or unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country, or to return there, for fear of persecution.".

Snowden is per that definition a refugee.

Kebabipita (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Why is this here? (role of KGB/FSB)

In the article under the sub title 'Moscow', this appears. ' The Russian broadsheet daily Kommersant reported on the same day that Snowden was being awaited by a limousine known to belong to the Soviet KGB's successor agency,[74][75] the FSB,[76]'

This is better. ' The Russian broadsheet daily Kommersant reported on the same day that Snowden was being awaited by a limousine known to belong to the the FSB,[76]'

Mention of the KGB is irrelevant. The KGB was dismantled and ceased to exist from November 1991. 22 odd years ago. Anyone clicking on the FSB blue link will work it out whats what if they dont know. Is the KGB's mention supposed to add a sinister tone? What exactly? Blade-of-the-South (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Read this editorial for some perspective on the situation.[14] Also, I note that Snowden has virtually disappeared from coverage. That alone could have sinister overtones. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm baffled as to why one might think any mention of the KGB is appropriate, and the source cited by Bugs doesn't help. Wikipedia doesn't hide the ball. If there's something "sinister" that meets our inclusion standards (neutral, notable, supported by reliable sources, etc.) then it should be stated explicitly. If it doesn't meet our standards then it should be omitted. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe to help educate the naive users who think that the mindset of the KGB disappeared just because it was reorganized and given a new name - and as the article notes, Putin is a KGB guy himself. Unless you want this article to pretend that Russia supports human rights despite its behavior toward human rights activists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

What is the mindset of the KGB? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The same as it always was. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Please explain without the veiled references. Most of us aren't as versed in Russian history as you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The real point is this: Whether the KGB needs a direct reference is questionable. But we have to be careful not to have the article treat Russian authorities as just a bunch of good ol' boys who would never arrest someone for political reasons. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I grow ever more weary of BB's warnings. I wish he'd keep his POV to himself. Gandydancer (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I grow ever more weary of all the hero-worship here. I wish the hero-worshippers'd keep their POV to themselves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow bugs are you reading what you write. C'mon ! It’s so POV. This is an encyclopaedia. All this non neutral KGB justification flummery is just so not Wikipedia. Im going to change it based on concensus. 3 to 1.Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not justifying mentioning it. I'm just questioning the reasoning for removing it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Bugs someone else thinks you are, its been changed by them already.Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Far be it from Wikipedia to remind the viewing public of what's going on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Snowden is getting close to falling off the CNN front page. If the claims in this article are factual,[15] Snowden didn't compromise us as much as he might have thought he did. But we'll see. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It's an interesting article, but not an indication of fading from the headlines. CNN has been focusing more on Snowden as a person, rather than the information he revealed. If he does make it from the Airport for Moscow proper on Wednesday, as his lawyer indicates may happen, I feel CNN et al will have an article. I prefer to wait and see what happens with regards to his movements rather than speculating. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's an evolving story, and he'll be back in the headlines if something happens ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Snowden's lawyer happens to do public relations for the FSB (that would be the straight-forward interpretation of "[Anatoly Kucherena] also sits on the 'public council' of the Federal Security Service (FSB), which... [a]ccording to its website... works to "develop a relationship" between the security service and the public. Its fifteen members have to be approved by the head of the FSB," no?) Kucherena, by the way, is quoted here saying in Russian that there ought to be legislation that punishes the creators of software that allows access to banned websites. Another person invited to meet Snowden was Olga Kostina, who has also done PR for the FSB (take a look at The New Nobility: The Restoration of Russia's Security State and the Enduring Legacy of the KGB and you'll find "[Kostina] explained that the FSB had created an 'unofficial' press service to which journalists could turn more freely than to the agency’s official public communications center, and she was hired to organize this work... The following week Kostina invited [me, Andrei Soldatov] to join the 'pool' of journalists briefed by the FSB."--Brian Dell (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Brian Dell Whats your point please? In relation to this thread. I cant see it. The FSB blue link in the article has enough info, history and agency succession stuff to satisfy any spy agency tragics, surely. A Snowden article is not the place for it. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 09:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It's important to not pretend in this article that the Russian agencies are benign. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm taking issue with the claim in this thread that "any mention" of the KGB/FSB would not be "appropriate". Agence France-Presse has noted Kucherena's connections to Russian intelligence in a story about Snowden and it would accordingly be appropriate for Wikipedia to likewise do so.--Brian Dell (talk) 10:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Brian Dell Re '"any mention" of the KGB/FSB would not be "appropriate"'. Where was this claim made? Blade-of-the-South (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

"baffled as to why one might think any mention of the KGB is appropriate" must mean that EITHER the speaker thinks it isn't possible for such a mention to be "appropriate" OR the speaker allows that it is possible but does not believe himself capable of comprehending why. I think it is appropriate to assume that the speaker interjected in order to state something beyond simply announcing an inability to comprehend. The article talks about "Snowden's WikiLeaks handler" yet should remain silent about his "goonish Russian minders" (a bit of old school Soviet flavour that Moscow-based reporter Simon Shuster observed)? My issue with "If there's something 'sinister'... then it should be stated explicitly" is that it amounts to "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" because the man behind the curtain is by definition not explicit. Take this "report" as an example of Snowden source that should not be naively taken at face value: "Anatoly Kucherena... said no [U.S.] embassy staff had expressed concern over Snowden's conditions during his month-long confinement in the transit zone of Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport. ... Alexander Brod, head of the Moscow Human Rights Bureau, told Xinhua Kucherena's position on Snowden was 'noble.'" 1) Kucherena is a spin doctor for the FSB, 2) Alexander Brod has played advocate for the Kremlin, excusing electoral irregularities and dismissing Moscow's abuse of Georgians' human rights, saying "the first obligation of a human rights activist is to Russian citizens, not Americans or Georgians," 3) Xinhua is controlled by the Communist Party of China. The truth is that while Kucherena says the U.S. embassy is failing to provide assistance to its citizen abroad, he has admitted that the U.S. embassy has requested access to Snowden (access that has presumably been denied). When it comes to Snowden there are legions of "news stories" like this, which spin l'affaire Snowden as an example of the U.S. violating human rights, such that Wikipedians need to remind themselves of the fact that independent investigative reporters have had no contact with Snowden at all (Glenn Greenwald has an agenda that doesn't support pursuing the possibility that Snowden is not an noble-minded human rights activist and Snowden, for all his avowed enthusiasm for rendering things public, has never shown his face in any public area since he left the US).--Brian Dell (talk) 14:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hold on you Brian Dell first wrote this. I'm taking issue with the claim in this thread that "any mention" of the KGB/FSB would not be "appropriate".

Then I said this. Re '"any mention" of the KGB/FSB would not be "appropriate"'. Where was this claim made?

Then you replied with this as justification that Dr. Fleischman wrote "baffled as to why one might think any mention of the KGB is appropriate".

OK slow down. Can you see the problem? No? No one said any mention of the FSB would not be "appropriate". Its about dragging in an old spy agency from 22 odd years ago that would not be "appropriate". If you are a spy tragic go to another Wikipedia page. The KGB mention of this thread has already gone from the article Brian Dell. Case closed. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• • The mention appears appropriate mainly because "KGB" is a very well-known brand whereas "FSB" to most people outside Russia means pretty much nothing and to many in the UK, it probably means just the Federation of Small Businesses. Apropos the blue link, some making rash edits in the article are lazy enough to follow that link and discover that the FSB is not in any way and form part of the Interior Ministry.Axxxion (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles can get bulky and off topic. Bulking out an article with off topic padding because maybe the earlier 22 defunct brand was better known to some people (can you reference that please?) or maybe people wont click on the FSB link, is just silly. The KGB is already mentioned once, thats enough. The line I took issue with. Its gone already. Case closed Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Blade. The FSB and the KGB are not the same thing. If they were they'd have the same Wikipedia article. They don't. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

So Blade-of-the-South believes the Guardian is "just silly" because the Guardian has printed the following: "Kucherena is a member of the Public Council of the Federal Security Service, the successor to the KGB, which lends fuel to speculations that Snowden's stay is being handled by Russia's intelligence services." I suggest opening your "baffled" mind, Doctor, to the possibility that this is simply ensuring that readers are duly informed.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

So much naivete. If anyone thinks the KGB (rebranded as the FSB) are harmless bugle boys, you are sadly mistaken. Brian Dellis bravely raising some very valid points against withering criticism. If you believe the FSB is also a human rights organization, then you probably also leave your keys in your unlocked car overnight too in case the fire department might need to move it out of the way. Veriss (talk) 08:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The KGB ended its reign when the Soviet Union collapsed, at this time Snowden's lawyer, now in his 50s, was barely Snowden's age. The FSB page mentions that is the successor to the KGB in the first sentence. Anyone clicking on the link would see that. It has nothing to do with the record of the agency. It's just a recognition of the two decades between then and now. The same reason we don't mention the OSS any more. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 09:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I cant wait for this drivel to be archived. (sighs) In the meantime lets bulk the article right out with off topic POV padding. Did you know the NSA had a predecessor? The predecessor of the National Security Agency was the Armed Forces Security Agency (AFSA), created on May 20, 1949. Wow this must go in!!!! And some dirt on those dirty rats in the KGB too...Grrr ...this cuts to the core of what it means to be American. Your either for us or against us. Lets put the correct slant on this Snowden. Wink wink. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Methinks, tha NSA background is quite educating: pretty much like MI6, it stems from military intelligence-gathering which originallly was only activated during war time. The FSB background is radically different: it is all about divide-and-rule-and-thereby-control of society (often annihiliting a good deal thereof); and thus Russia's security services are solely aimed at protecting those (or just the one) in power and suppressing all and everyone around. The difference is not in degree and extent of surveillence -- it is about absolutely different purpose and mission hailing back to oprichnina.Axxxion (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Lol someones gunna close this thread soon, its so off track. BTW Axxxion when you wrote 'it is all about divide-and-rule-and-thereby-control of society....etc...' I thought you meant the USA re NSA / Patriot act / Attacks on the constitution / Obama etc. Seriously. Blade-of-the-South / (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree the discussion is pointless. But I cannot see any sense in "you meant the USA re NSA / Patriot act": how many millions of American citizens have been imprisoned and murdered by the NSA (or the CIA, for that matter) in Alaska (the closest analogue to Siberia)? How many thousands clapped in mental institutions for dissenting political views? How many have been ousted abroad because their political activity was harmful to the survival of the incumbent in the White House? The comparison is utterly ridiculous. But again, the main question to be asked lies elsewhere: what is the ultimate purpose of this "controlling" activity. I would agree with anyone who will say it is in fact pretty hard to tell vis-a-vis the US, but it is beyond any doubt that the US security services are not doing what they are doing just to prolong indefinitely the reign of one person allowing him to pilfer the national wealth and murder his personal foes with impunity. The US is ruled by the establishment, ie several thousand people (at the very least); Russia has traditionally been ruled by one person, or a clique of but a few (like now) and the role of oprichnina, which are recruited from lower strata of society, is exactly to control and suppress the people who in any normal society constitute the establishment (intellectuals, politically active people, parties, religious and public figures, etc).Axxxion (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Axxxion, look I understand your point, I used to be there. In my comment above I was being facetious a little, but only up to a point. Its true the USSR was hard core. Since that time there have been two curves on the, call it the Liberty index. Russia's is heading up, USA's down, very fast. Americans like Russians are mostly good, they want good. But democracies Achilles heel is the ease the Subversion of its governing bodies can be achieved by a determined powerful elite bent on control. The USA is a rich prize. Many people cant see this has happened and is happening even more right now in the USA. I dont know if decent people will fight back hard enough to change the course of the USA, but I hope they do. There are many encouraging signs it will happen, like the Amash amendment attempt. This is the reason why Snowden scares the elite. Knowledge is power. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow, talk about POV and "padding," Blade has just become an apologist for Russia (and by extension of the original point of this thread, the KGB/FSB). Are you sure you don't work for them? I agree with Bugs, FSB should be stated as successor agency of KGB, since most people recognize KGB, and there is no substantive difference between the two. What's in a name? A lot. Blade, your analogy to the OSS fails because the OSS is no longer well known; the situation is the reverse with FSB, as it is not well known as the clone of the KGB. Therefore it merits mention that it is the KGB successor. That simple phrase is not "padding." Also, it was wrong to have it removed, because anyone can see by this thread that there was no consensus.

To ignore the influence of the FSB re Snowden and what that means (or rather, doesn't mean) to most people except the Russians and their sphere of influence, is pretense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikione29 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The Germans have it right. (See FSB & FBI, below.) "The Russian secret service FSB...." See how easy that is? Wikione29 (talk) 07:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Blade your bias shows clearly in this discussion. Your line of thinking would be correct if the FSB was as well known as the FSB. Others have correctly pointed out that stating the FSB is the successor to KGB makes a material addition to the page. Could somebody please add this back in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwal0203 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Dissident

What's wrong with using the word "dissident" to describe Edward Snowden? Do we really need sourcing to support this when it seems he pretty clearly falls into the definition? And what's POV about it? It seems like a neutral term to me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it. At some point we might want to pick a term and stick with it. Hero, Villain, and the like are out of the question and are clearly just POV. But there's also a lesser war between terms other that are accurate: fugitive, leaker, and whistleblower. Nobody has gone for asylee yet, though that fits too. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 06:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, traitor definitely does not fit. Dissident is fine, as is whistle-blower, or even dissident whistle-blower. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RuiNing (talk • contribs) 09:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't think too hard. Instead, use what the neutral sources say. People have strong opinions, which need to be kept out of the article. Jehochman ^Talk 09:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Neutral sources have said all of the above. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't somebody be actually convicted of treason before they are described in an encyclopedia as a traitor? Dissident or whistleblower seem more neutral to me. Guinevere50 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

No one on this talk page is proposing calling Snowden a traitor without attribution. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Order of sections

Wouldn't it make more sense for the "Media disclosures" section to come before the "Flight from the U.S." section? The current ordering of these sections is non-chronological and rather confusing. Is there a particular reason for this ordering, or would it be okay for me to switch the order of the sections? --Philpill691 (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Please do whatever makes the most sense. petrarchan47tc 17:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Philpill691. Strict chronological order isn't necessary but between "Media disclosures" and "Flight from the U.S." it makes the most sense. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed that with all the updating on this article, the basic structural issues are being completely forgotten, so I'm glad someone is taking the reigns. petrarchan47tc 04:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Drudge Report

This page was just featured at [ http://drudgereport.com/ ] with the link text "User Inside Senate Edits Snowden WIKIPEDIA Description From 'Dissident' to 'Traitor'..." and a link to The Daily Mail at [ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2384188/Edward-Snowdens-Wikipedia-page-edited-dissident-traitor-US-Senate.html ]. Because of this we can expect extra editing activity from new users who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies. The article is semi-protected, which means that there may be edits to related unprotected articles, and is under pending change protection, so I would ask any experienced editors with reviewer rights who are reading this to keep an eye on it so that we don't get a backlog of edit requests. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 August 2013

Remove "traitor" and insert "Amercian Hero"

68.199.33.63 (talk) 00:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

 Not done The term hero is already in the article and "traitor" has been also used to describe him. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikileaks relationship w/ Snowden, and FSB

Business Insider / Michael Kelley Timeline source for FSB/Wikileaks relationships

This article gives a (probably hypothetical) timeline that states that Wikileaks.org and the FSB worked together to rescue Snowden from HK, and that Wikileaks.org has worked with the former Soviet sphere as its own intelligence agency, providing leaked information before it is publicly released. Further, it implies that Wikileak's Sarah Harrison is "riding Snowden's back" as it seems that she has kept close to him, and left the Moscow airport with him to his new asylum residence. Added to that, Snowden's lawyer (and current mouthpiece), Anatoly Kucherena, sits on am FSB (former KGB) board (source). Putin, of course, is former KGB and converted it to the FSB. Snowden's WP article states that he barely escaped both Chinese security and US CIA capture, which supports the idea that he got support from experienced-types.

I would prefer to believe that Wikileak's and Sarah Harrison's support for Snowden are genuine and not part of a Wikileaks strategy to leverage Snowden and the FSB to increase Wikileak's power in the World--though it would not shock me. There suggestions that Harrison and Julian Assange where emotionally close when she supported him during house arrest, and it makes sense that a similar relationship might have developed with Snowden in the tiny room of the airport's restricted-area micro hotel, and may continue in his asylum apartment. --John Bessa (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Is that a reliable source? I don't think so, but it might be. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've never seen Business Insider used as a source on wiki. I think it's about like the Examiner, one step up from a personal blog - but I could be wrong. The RS noticeboard could be consulted for this, it's a pretty smooth process. petrarchan47tc 00:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Covert sources? Get serious, everything here is hypothetical, esp since we didn't know that Sarah (wiki first name thing) was compressing w/ Edward in the mirco hotel, and that they left together, which suggests she got a visa too. What I want to know is, will they decompress together, as Ed adjusts to his Rus FB-like job. It was suggested that Jennifer Robinson would have been more qualified to support Ed (and she is certainly pretty enough), but I think Sarah's athletic style makes her resilient, and Ed, of course, is a former soldier, and seems to retain some of the "sign up" naivete, that is joining a force to set the wrong things right. I heard a good number of ex-soldiers describe this at a gay vets conference. I think the article is unduly cynical, that it is written from the egotistical model of "World history," or the history of European wars and colonialism. TimeLife series are written this way. I think we would all rather think otherwise, that Ed, Julian, Sarah, and Jennifer are brave, well-meaning people coping in the private little "endgame" of our two egomaniacs: Putin and Obama. (I personally think Putin was on his way out already, and Obama severely mis-stepped this time.) --John Bessa (talk) 02:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Please do not use the talk page as a forum for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article. Veriss (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

What I would really like to know is when Ed hooked up w/ Wikileaks, because he didn't leak to them, he laaked to The Guardian's Glenn Greenwald. Did he contact Julian, or did Julian "assign" Sarah to Ed given that the whole "leaky" world was in the know which suggests Sarah has some worldly skills, esp if they were not helped by the FSB to escape Chinese security and the CIA. Irrespective of the article, these are some interesting, and quite juicy, questions. --John Bessa (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The Google test doesn't seem to indicate that it is not widely present, and it seems like any FSM connection would be pretty big news. Russia today also doesn't mention anything. It seems to indicate that the provided sources might not be entirely reliable and the FSM connection could be somewhat fringe, so maybe not pageworthy. AVAAGAA↪ 02:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Word eating time. It's from AFP and is now on Fox News. AVAAGAA↪ 02:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I am critical of Kelley's article because it hinges on an "egotistical" model (maladaptive/personality disorders), when the personalities of our "wiki-leaky friends" are probably fully-developed, and thus not maladaptive suggesting that their actions are based on morality rather than "empire-building through information " (such as in empiricism does). (If there is an "egotist," however, it would probably be Julian; which brings back the question "is Julian trying to set up a left-oriented spy/intelligence agency?) What the article introduces for the first time (in Snowden's short history) is a timeline, and I think we should leverage this. Having said that, the real facts will eventually emerge, so there is a "wait and see" factor, which is the nature of spy stories. What we must do (to write a stellar wiki article--which this is not) is model the facts as we see them into a viable scenario, and then collaboratively fuse our individual models to eliminate each of their weak points/facts primarily by a) showing illogic in the context of the bigger picture or b) "attacking" their underlying sources: build the scenario/model from supportable fact. Suffice to say that everybody cannot do this as it requires collaborative/social and spatial organization thinking abilities that are different than the disruption 5 posts above.--John Bessa (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC).

I just want to add that the egotistical/moral dyad filter is not new to me. I thought it might be but editors on the Emma Goldman page pointed out that the technique has been long used on the WP to sort through the "cruft." --John Bessa (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I echo Veriss's comment above. Please keep your personal views on the subject to yourself. We've had enough WP:NOTFORUM issues here already. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Intro Cleanup?

Reading about continued edits to the intro paragraph, I wonder if it isn't a tidge malformed as it stands and that is what invites some mischief. He did not go to school to become, nor did he ever earn a salary as a "leaker." Even other current notorious individuals don't get this treatment: "Bradley Edward Manning (born December 17, 1987) is a United States Army soldier who was arrested in May 2010 in Iraq on suspicion of having passed classified..." or "Jack Allan Abramoff (/ˈeɪbrəmɒf/; born February 28, 1958) is a former American lobbyist, businessman, movie producer and writer.[1][2] He was at the heart of an extensive corruption investigation..." Something more like this might be good, (but I am not going to just change anything on this page without discussion and agreement):

Edward Joseph Snowden (born June 21, 1983)[1] is a computer consultant, formerly employed by the United States National Security Agency (NSA) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). In May 2013 he leaked to the media classified details of some U.S. and UK governments' clandestine mass surveillance programs, and fled the U.S.[6][7] On June 14, 2013, United States federal prosecutors charged Snowden with espionage and theft of government property.[8] On August 1, 2013 he was granted temporary asylum by the government of Russia where he has been since June 2013.

Shoobe01 (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Per WP:BEGIN, for topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence. Check out the footnoted example of Amalie Emmy Noether. Or any number of famous whistleblowers such as Daniel Ellsberg, William Binney, Mark Klein, ... you get the idea. There's no guideline that first sentence of a BLP must be 100% devoted to the subject's career. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if it is much of a big deal, but there seems to be an unnecessary period in the first sentence after the term "leaker" which grammatically disjoints the rest of the sentence. Requesting a user with elevated privileges to rectify that. Gamanoid (talk) 06:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my fault. Fixed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

While looking at periods, can we be consistent "U.S." vs "UK"; I don't have a preference either way just one or the other. LGA _talk^edits 07:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I hate the term "leaker." It sounds like he's incontinent. But it is widely used. "Fugitive" is ok, although I would argue he's better known for the leaks than for being a fugitive. I do think if we're going to call him a "fugitive" in the lede we need to expand on it in the article. The lede it supposed to summarize the rest of the article. In the current version, the lede is the only place where the term "fugitive" appears. Personally, I think we should go back to calling him something like "former analyst" since that was his career. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

"Fugitive" could just as easily refer to a rapist on the run - I think editors can come up with something more descriptive of Snowden's situation. What about "dissident and fugitive"? Or, simply revert back to "dissident" (especially in light of a certain IP/Congressperson's apparent distain for the term, wink wink). petrarchan47tc 17:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I had "leaker" (backed by a U.S., U.K., and Canadian source) as that is what most sources call him but Jehochman wants to use his cherry-picked source so... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

If nothing else, the Congress' IP change should be a red light that choosing the "label" Wiki uses requires über diligence with regard to neutrality and proper representation of RS from a good look at international sources. petrarchan47tc 20:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Really? Are you sure it's not some junior staffer or intern screwing around on their lunch break? Please apply Hanlon's razor. Jehochman ^Talk 22:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Seems a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to my comment - I didn't claim to know whether it was Congressperson or a staffer, but said it was an IP linked to Congress. petrarchan47tc 04:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Neil, you are being funny, and not in a good way. My "cherry picked" source is the New York Times, winner of 112 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization. Nicknamed The Gray Lady, The Times is long regarded within the industry as a national "newspaper of record". Jehochman ^Talk 22:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

With respect, the NYT is known for other things as well, please see this article for more. petrarchan47tc 04:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I changed "disclosed" to "leaked" per the many sources out there. Should they be included in the lede? --Malerooster (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

And the only source in the top ~15 Google News hits that described Snowden as a fugitive in the first couple sentences. We're supposed to go beyond one source, especially for an international story. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

This is largely semantics, but the intro and the wiki "in the news" headline both describe him as an intelligence analyst, which is not correct, even according to this article. He was employed as an IT consultant, specialising it would seem in security and/or surveillance at various times. Intelligence analysts are more in the business of interpreting raw information gathered by activites that may include the kind of stuff Snowden brought to light, and processing it into vetted assessed intelligence complete with recommendations and so forth. Rather different to what he seems to have been employed to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.201.71.3 (talk) 13:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Government bias and edition of the page

Request a lock on this page please? Somebody from Senate.gov has edited the page with misleading information, referring to Edward Snowden as a traitor rather then a dissident, misleading people who read the wikipedia page. Potential case for locking the page from gov IP ranges?

PROOF: http://imgur.com/a/s1YAD 99.252.209.195 (talk) 09:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC) swamiwammiloo

I have redacted that link, no idea if it safe or fishing. LGA _talk^edits 09:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Were you paid to type that? Imgur is not phishing. 99.252.209.195 (talk) 09:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC) swamiwammiloo

remove auto-link from it and will post on WP:AN. LGA _talk^edits 09:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

You seriously don't know what imgur is? Th4n3r (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Snowden was referred to as a traitor in the opening of the summary by the IP you refer to which goes against WP policy. The word is used later in the summary, and I have added cites to sustain this. Obviously, there is a legal problem with using the term given the absence of a conviction, but one of the cited users is the Speaker of Congress! I added Daniel Ellsberg and a report from Amnesty International for the public interest defense argument. I removed "hero" because the word count would become slanted one way. Philip Cross (talk) 10:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe not that relevant to the current matter but Wikileaks has just tweeted about this matter on their Twitter page. 99.252.209.195 (talk) 10:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC) swamiwammiloo

If I may bring up the point briefly, is this sort of edit something that the page itself would archive? Perhaps a line in the US Government's reaction section? or is it deemed to be too small/irrelevant?

If this is something we could add, I'd want to ensure it is added. this is a pretty sneaky and downright idiotic attempt at slander, from the senate no less! --Kizzycocoa (talk) 11:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

@ Kizzycocoa Sneaky would imply Congress is technologically literate and capable of covering their tracks. You'd think they'd use .Tor or wait until they weren't governing the country to make such slanderous edits. 99.252.209.195 (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC) swamiwammiloo

While I fully concur, I just feel this blatant act should be noted on the wiki page itself. :U --Kizzycocoa (talk) 12:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing whatsoever to indicate that this was anything but some random low-level government employee expressing an opinion. Making it out to be some sort of 'official statement' is ridiculous. Grow up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I am in no way suggesting this was any sort of official statement. I was asking if this sneaky rewording from an employee of the Senate of the United States was sufficient to be put into the page, while suggesting reactions from the USA may have been the most relevant section if it were added.

While it is obvious I'd like to see it become put into the page, I decided to ask on here to see if it was even worthy of being put into the article. Wikipedia has changed greatly in ways that, as a user, I did not notice.

On a side note, I'd appreciate it if you would not put words into my mouth, and tell me to "grow up". --Kizzycocoa (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Bad edits occur on wikis all the time; noting a particular one is of course going to be misleading, at best. Not the mention the fact that any sort of note about the edit will be useless, and remember, we are not a news site.Eemoso (talk) 22:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The U.S. government wants to edit Snowden's biography

Here are the facts:

• This edit from a particular IP address changed the wording from "Edward Joseph Snowden is an American dissident" to "Edward Joseph Snowden is an American traitor"
• Go to the IP's User_talk:156.33.241.5 page, and it says that "This IP address, 156.33.241.5, is registered to United States Senate and may be shared by multiple users of a government agency or facility."
• For further confirmation, go to Special:Contributions/156.33.241.5 and click on "GEOLOCATE" and the IP will be traced back to the United States Senate.

By labelling someone as a traitor, this IP is pushing a strong POV that clearly violates WP:BLP and was done without consensus from other Wikipedia users, but this is not entirely surprising given that the IP is from the government -A1candidate (talk) 10:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out in text, so you can't be accused of 'fishing' by somebody, A1candidate. I appreciate that some people here are willing to go the extra mile to be impartial and seek only the facts and truth of the matter. 99.252.209.195 (talk) 10:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC) swamiwammiloo

As I mentioned before, the signal to noise ratio (SNR) is especially high because the story is still in progress and because it's so highly-politicized. The way to phrase something this is "some believe he is a hero, others a traitor" and then argue which comes first (google number of references test? [GNRT]). That is what is meant by objectivity, modeling the facts into a believable perception, rather than expressing opinion (on the article page). In the first stages, objectivity has to mean unusual openness, which might get reduced somewhat as time goes on (but probably not as focus shifts to more current events). --John Bessa (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

It would be misleading to imply that everyone thinks that Snowden is either a traitor or a hero - many people may consider him to be something in between. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Not that it particularly matters but I think you mean the SNR is especially low. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Senate edit noted in Norwegian online newspaper

Just a heads up. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Senate edit noted by Fox News now as well

Snowden a friend or foe? Wikipedia fight takes both sides — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.85.10.144 (talk) 09:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Label

I see the first sentence now labels him a 'fugitive'. Since he has been granted asylum wouldn't that now make him a political refugee? I don't really care enough to get into a big drama fest about it. I don't know if it has been discussed at length. I didn't read any of the archives or talk history on it. On one side he is a hero and the other a traitor(?). Political refugee may be a better label to keep it NPOV for both sides. Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

While I agree that due to the changed status of Snowden, political refugee would be more appropriate now, we have to go with what the sources say. So, until they start using political refugee as a descriptor for Snowden, we shouldn't really be using it here. For now, we should be keeping it as whistleblower, as that is very much the most common descriptor of him. I don't know who put fugitive in there, but that definitely needs to be changed, as that was not a neutral edit. Silverseren^C 19:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

We could just label him as "a former employee..." in the lead sentence and let readers decide what they personally wish to consider him from further material. I don't know if we need a source that states he is a political refugee if the asylum mentions that status in other sources on types of asylum. I think he cares far less than we do at this point so it shouldn't be a huge drama fest about his label.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I've changed it back to "intelligence leaker" for now per sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

That should be fine until that IP from the US Senate changes it again. Right of asylum is our main article if we want to look over what sources call the subjects.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I've updated this to "former intelligence analyst" because that or "fugitive" is what the NY Times has labelled him. There is some opposition to fugitive, and his fugitive status is explained in paragraph three, so there is no need to belabor it. Somebody else made the point that he didn't go to school to become a fugitive; his' life's work has mainly been intelligence analysis. The fugitive thing is something very recent. I oppose using "dissident", "hero", "traitor", "whistleblower", and similar terms either positive or negative. Everybody can agree that he is a former intelligence analyst, among other things that are less likely to generate consensus. Jehochman ^Talk 22:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

What is the problem with dissident? The White House talking points are heavy on "Snowden is neither a whistleblower or a dissident". And sources are saying that apparently someone close to Congress does not want "dissident" used to describe Snowden in this article. With their POV being at about the same level as Wikileaks regarding Snowden, i want to make sure we rigorously challenge any move that would support it - in this case, the fact that we are no longer using the term. The definition of dissident "disagreeing especially with an established religious or political system, organization, or belief" perfectly describes the leaker, who famously stated (somehting along the lines of) 'I think it should be up to the American people whether they are being spied on, not left to a secretive agency with no accountability'. I can hardly think of a better or more profound example of a person disagreeing with a political system. The term is neither an honor nor is it denigrating - it is perfectly NPOV and descriptive. At least that's how I see it. petrarchan47tc 02:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I much prefer that we not use the term "dissident". Looking at the synonyms: dissentient, dissenting, heretical, heterodox, iconoclastic, maverick, nonconformist, nonorthodox, out-there, unconventional, unorthodox, one can see that it does not work very well. I am in agreement with his actions, as are most of the people in my social group, but we don't consider ourselves dissidents. I think that "a former employee..." is an excellent solution. Gandydancer (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

We may have a different take on these terms - I don't see the description you offered as wrong or offensive (save the "heretic" and heterodox (?)). The terms fit. It could be argued that to call someone unorthodox, a rebel essentially, in the current climate is a huge compliment. But we can't be using terms because they raise or lower the topic - our goal is only to neutrally describe. I do think it's descriptive. In the past we may have heard the term "dissident" used negatively, and subconsciously we may think of a rebel as a bad thing. Conform! we are constantly, subtly told. From the definition: "iconoclastic, maverick, nonconformist, nonorthodox, out-there, unconventional, unorthodox" - when you're describing a guy who, out of 20,000 NSA contractors, is the one - the only one - who came out and said No - I can't imagine a better example of a dissident petrarchan47tc 04:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Synonyms matter not. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

My goodness this is a silly argument. I think most people agree that Snowden is an intelligence analyst, he is a former intelligence contractor, he is a dissident, he is a fugitive, and he is a leaker. What this or that RS calls him is really beside the point. What matters is that whatever term we use to describe him is neutral and appropriately descriptive. That determination has very little to do with the reliability of sources, --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Correct me if I am in error, but at Wiki, we choose everything based on reliable sources. If the predominant title in media is X, while Y and Z are mentioned only half as much, we go with X. He's a lot of things, of course. But, what is the best description? petrarchan47tc 08:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

You're wrong (no offense). RS's are used to support verifiability, and reliable secondary sources are used to support notability. But other things, such as neutrality, aren't necessarily based on reliability. In other words RS's don't resolve every dispute. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

We aren't talking about general NPOV here, we're talking about the label used to describe Snowden. In my past experiences on Wiki, we do indeed analyze RS to answer such a question. The answer can be found by looking at the most-used terms in media and using whatever rises to the top - the resulting label will most likely be neutral. Otherwise, it's left to anonymous nobody Wikipedians, which shouldn't make anyone comfortable. petrarchan47tc 09:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The label used the describe Snowden should be the one that's most fitting. Unfortunately a little editorial discretion will be required. Yes, that sometimes seems like an oxymoron. But unless you can point to WP policy telling us to consider RS's, I'm going to tune out the whole "my RS calls Snowden an X," "my RS is better than your RS," etc. nonsense. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 10:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The most NPOV would be to not label him in the first sentence. Former occupation may be the best in that case. Years from know it could be author, senator, or break dancer. We shouldn't add any label until the dust settles.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

That would not comport with WP:BEGIN and would be unhelpful to readers. We might as well leave the whole article blank until the guy dies. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 10:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPSTYLE - "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects..." What the subject is known for (i.e., their "label") has to come from reliable sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

An editor added the label "dissident" to the lead and I reverted it. Until we have broad RS to call him a dissident we do not add it to the article, especially to the lead. S/he again added it with the comment You have a COI. Please justify how your edit complies with NPOV first. You are welcome to join the talk page. What's this all about? Gandydancer (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your comment. It is indeed not appropriate to coin him as a "dissident". Yet the final introductory paragraph merely expands on the controversy surrounding his personality. Words like "hero", "whistleblower", "dissident" and "traitor" are all relative but represent the diverging views. Furthermore, he was called a "dissident" by an influential MP of the country that gave him a temporary asylum. Plutonius1965 (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that first you should explain why you suggested that Gandydancer had "a COI"? That seems an odd comment to make. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

His page says he is "on paid editing", doesn't it? Plutonius1965 (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you read that again. There's no COI here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

So if one is paid for editing a page in the interests of a third party - there is no COI. Is that what you want to say? Plutonius1965 (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Would there be any objection if I would revert Plutonius? I believe that we need a much more substantial amount of RS than just one Russian diplomat's observation to include "dissident" in the lead. If and when it becomes a common term used to describe Snowden, it can be added. Plutonius, please read my page more carefully; I can't imagine why you are confused by it. Gandydancer (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection. More RS are needed, as you say. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry on the "paid editing". Was confused indeed. Yet on the "dissident" I am afraid I would personally object since RBC Daily is a reliable and respected Russian business daily. See https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/RBC_Information_Systems. However, if the majority insists, this could be dropped. Let's see what others say. Plutonius1965 (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that RBC is not a RS. What I am saying is that our lead should speak in broad terms--the information provided should represent a broad POV. To include one Russian source for a label is not the way to go, and certainly so since most of us do not speak Russian and have no way to put the term in context with his statements. Gandydancer (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Here I have found some more English sources: http://www.interfax.com/newsinf.asp?pg=4&id=426051 (Interfax); http://my.firedoglake.com/seaton/2013/06/13/edward-snowdon-chinas-american-dissident/ (a blog but I agree this may not be an appropriate source for Wikipedia); http://www.sandiegosun.com/index.php/sid/215483114/scat/45d771c7290844e9 (The Moscow Times); http://www.outlookseries.com/A0988/Security/3840_Edward_nowden_Dissident_Hong_Kong.htm (in Hong Kong but may not be a good source either)Plutonius1965 (talk) 07:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

@NeilN: WP:BLPSTYLE is fully consistent with my position on this issue. "Document" isn't the same thing as "write," i.e. no matter what term we use we're still "documenting" the verifiable facts as described by the RS's. A more apropos policy is WP:PARAPHRASE, which says that we should summarize source material in our own words. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

(I see there are some continuing complaints about the use of the word "dissident," though none of those complaints have been registered in the appropriate discussion (Talk:Edward Snowden#Dissident). Please participate in that discussion before people conclude there's consensus to use that term. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC))

Traitor or Whistleblower?

1) Snowden's leaks have been a subject of great controversy. Some have referred to Snowden as a hero, whistleblower or even a dissident , while others have described him as a traitor. (Current)

2) Snowden's leaks have been a subject of great controversy. While the U.S. government considers Snowden to be a fugitive, with senior officials labelling him as a "traitor", many human rights organizations including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have described him as a "whistleblower" who acted in the interest of the public. (Proposed)

-A1candidate (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that in Hong Kong and in Russia some people consider him as a "dissident". See the discussion abovePlutonius1965 (talk) 12:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, other editors do not seem to object to the term. I will drop my objections. Gandydancer (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Strongly object for a bunch of reasons. Here are a few:

1. There's no question that Snowden is a "fugitive," which is a factual and neutral term. Thus no need for attribution and a false dichotomy with "whistleblower." Yes, a person can be both a fugitive and a whistleblower at the same time.
2. Many more people than just senior officials have called Snowden a traitor.
3. Many more people that just human rights organizations have called Snowden a whistleblower.
4. It's much more notable that some people are calling him a hero (which is a pure value statement and much stronger) than that some people are calling him a whistleblower (which is largely factual).
5. If it ain't broke don't fix it. What's wrong with the current sentence?

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Snowden's vulnerability: Important quotes from Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (BLP)

Cut directly from this page:

• Harm: "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment"
• Guilt: "a person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law"
• Well-supported:

1. "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs"
2. "there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say"

Given Snowden's obvious vulnerability, I want to cite these rules for his protection partly because, given his militant openness--he is one of us. They are posted as afterthoughts to my writing from above.

WP's problem is such that NO teacher, professor, or other instructor will allow WP material in students' writing. (I find this odd because academic culture is as oligarchic as the WP is can comes from the same Socratic/Platonic/Aristotelian sources.) The usual criticism given is WP's vulnerability to fraud through its openness, but the real reason is that the material is second-rate because there is a tendency by well-established editors to "rationalize" information (often leveraging WP rules) to dilute information's basic, human nature producing fiction (synthesis) through conflict (antithesis) mechanically, predictably, and usually by leveraging WP's rules. It can easily be shown that this type of editor "gets off" by hurting well-meaning contributors (with high "N" numbers), and that these editors are clueless as to how to make a beneficial article (also with high "N" numbers), which BLP requires .

Please consider that this "whistleblowing" of mine is to protect whistleblower Snowden from this type. --John Bessa (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see how anything you have said can have any bearing on article content. Please confine future postings to matters of direct relevance to article content - this is not a forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't be such a grump. If all editors would follow the BLP guidelines the article would be better, so in that sense this discussion is relevant. The problem is that the people most in need of this advice are the least likely to heed it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Job offer

do we think it would be notable to include some information about the recent job offer? http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/05/technology/social/snowden-vkontakte/ Δρ∈rs∈ghiη (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Not really. It's just some companies trying to get into the news. Let's wait until we hear from Snowden himself about this. --Conti|✉ 19:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree on waiting until/unless Snowden accepts. But looking at the bio of Pavel Durov, I rather suspect that his offer is consistent with his sincere beliefs, and not just a stunt. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

If he gets / accepts a job its notable in relation to all thats happened. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

"Reactions" section

The "Reactions" section seems to be structured oddly and include a lot of unnecessary information for what is, after all, a biography. Given there is an article about the 2013 mass surveillance disclosures, shouldn't the "Reactions by X" stuff be pushed out there? Do we really need a whole subsection, for instance, to note a single comment by Ban Ki-Moon? Or one or two comments from South American leaders? (Interestingly, the focus of the South America reaction section appears to be comments by an official in the U.S. government - even though there actually was a very vocal reaction among South American leaders, especially after Evo Morales' plane was diverted for refueling to Austria).

My suggestion would be to trim the reaction section down into summary style, and move the detailed content over to the mass disclosures article. I'm willing to take a stab at it at some point, if there are no strong objections to experimenting with that approach. Nathan ^T 19:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I would be in favor except for the fact that 2013 mass surveillance disclosures is a total mess. At least here the material stands a chance of being read and understood. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

---i agree but just because that article is a mess does not mean its not the proper place for the information Δρ∈rs∈ghiη (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Related articles

The Snowden situation is stabilizing and the article is starting to look good. But the related articles could use attention too. The Related articles are, in the long term, more important than what happens to Snowden itself.

• 2013 mass surveillance disclosures It needs real cleanup and expansion
• PRISM
• XKeyscore
• Boundless Informant
• Tempora

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 22:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Morales plane incident

• I have serious doubts that this lengthy paragraph meets the relevancy standards. This is in fact about Morales, not Snowden.Axxxion (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

There are two things that make the Incident relevant to Snowden. 1) The plane was diverted because of false suspicions that Snowden was aboard the plane. 2) Anger generated by this in Latin America ranks high among the reasons for Snowden being granted asylum in three Latin American countries shortly thereafter. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 01:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

This isn't to say that the paragraph couldn't have some of the fat trimmed off. But the incident itself is still important to Snowden. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Tangential IMO. Just because there's a connection doesn't mean there's a notable connection. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

When a head of state's plane is "diverted" over suspicion of harboring a fugitive, it is VERY notable for said fugitive. It's not as if it were a mere commercial jet, or even a private charter. This is a plane belonging to the state of Bolivia, actively engaged in transporting the Head of State on official business. The incident itself is extremely notable. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 08:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It's much simpler: It just means for Snowden that: "You can't leave the country" (They obviously knew that Snowden wasn't flying...)94.70.98.203 (talk) 09:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

We can work on who knew what when later. One of the iterations had that the US ambassador had "very firm" information that Snowden was aboard. Whether "they" believe this information to be true is speculation. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems like a red herring to me. They thought he was on the plane; they were wrong; he's still in Moscow. There's lots of spycraft and political intrigue going on right now, and not all of it is worthy of mention. We're an encyclopedia, not a news aggregator. Please consider WP:10YT. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

That incident will stand the test of time, it is akin to the aftermath of the Achille_Lauro_hijacking in terms of long term notability. Worthy of a few sentences. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Certainly relevant to Snowden, and is so extremely unprecedented, easily merits mention. --HectorMoffet (talk) 11:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with 71. I think that you have cut this section back way too much. Gandydancer (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

At the time, it was spoken of as a "major international event". The incident has everything to do with Snowden and the efforts of the US government to retrieve him. petrarchan47tc 09:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not all that difficult to revive one paragraph from the revision history, if there is a consensus to do so. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Restore one paragraph. It is very relevant to the Snowden case, and instrumental in the decisions to be granted asylee status in Latin America --71.20.55.6 (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Strongly agree with restore arguments; The incident is entirely related (at least publicly, one could speculate that Morales' contributions at the conference of gas-exporting countries could be related to US interests, but such motivations would be speculative and secret, unless someone were to leak documents revealing something other than the public statements... ) to Snowden and the suspicions of his presence. Without his involvement there would be no incident, hence notable and entirely relevant to Snowden. ~ Joga Luce(t)(c) 19:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with restore. Perhaps a subheading is again appropriate. petrarchan47tc 17:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It appears that most editors believe that this incident requires better coverage. I have added some of the previous copy. I would prefer that it have a separate heading, but I added it under the existing one. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The incident really needs a subsection title. It was a major event. Here is Wikileaks' lawyer on the matter: "MICHAEL RATNER: You know, first it’s the bully in the schoolyard, the big imperial country deciding whatever it wants, when it wants, and using the big stick when it wants. But it’s also illegal. Obviously it was illegal to force a presidential plane with immunity and the president to go down, to land. And secondly, it’s illegal to interfere with someone’s right to get asylum. That’s 100 percent. If Snowden had been on that plane, they couldn’t interfere with his right to apply for asylum."source. petrarchan47tc 19:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm open to portions of the Morales incident being restored as long as it focuses exclusively on the Snowden aspects, per WP:RELART. As currently written this section has too much content about, for example, U.S.-Bolivia relations that have very little to do with Snowden's quest for asylum. On the other hand the Ratner quote provided by Petrarchan47 above is much more relevant and deserves inclusion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Another source to add needed context: (from the Guardian) ..."there must be a real concern, particularly after Nato allies collaborated in forcing down the Bolivian president's jet, that the US will intercept any plane believed to be carrying Snowden to asylum, either because he is tantamount to a terrorist (Vice-President Biden has described Julian Assange as a "hi-tech terrorist") or simply because they want to put him on trial as a spy." petrarchan47tc 22:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Remember that that's an opinion piece and requires attribution to Geoffrey Robertson. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm attempting to gather a variety of sources to help eventually shed light on the implications of this incident. Essentially, this context should be offered to the reader: this was an unlawful act by the US; Snowden is legally protected in his asylum seeking attempts; the Morales incident followed by mere days Obama's claim that he would not "be scrambling jets" to retrieve Snowden, et cetera. petrarchan47tc 22:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I think there might be enough on that incident and its aftermath that you could make a main article, from which you could transclude sections into the Snowden and Morales bios. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I imagine there will be multiple spin-off articles from this one, I'm amazed we haven't need to split anything off already (or have we?). I concur the Morales incident warrants its own piece. The entire search-for-asylum story will probably need to be split off one day, and the reactions as well... petrarchan47tc 00:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

There are at least three articles with a section dedicated to it, this one, Bolivia–United States relations and Evo Morales, in the latter case it's entitled July 2013 flight diversion. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Partially restore. I don't feel well with DrFleischman's closure of my topic with the reason of forum. Anyway, Snowden is the primary reason of this incident so it deserves little bit more facts to be present in the article. I don't think we need to detail the diplomatic crisis as it belongs to somewhere else. The locations of Snowden and Morales' plane which prove EU members' denial of allowing the plane to enter their airspace to be unreasonable and should be made clear in the article. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 09:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Permanantly lock the article

Seeing the sensitive nature of this article I would request admins to permanently lock this article. I would ask them for either a semi-lock or an admin lock so only admins can edit it. Also off topic, I don't think he can be called a dissident since he does not challenge any institution or policy. He isn't against US government nor did he actually break any law. It is the US government who actually broke the law. It is clearly written in constitution that privacy must be protected at all costs except in case of a really serious law. I think it is the government who is themselves the dissident. KahnJohn27 (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - There's been no serious edit warring amongst confirmed editors and the article is already semi-protected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - for now, semi protection is adequate. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - Although it is a BLP article it isn't like a movie star one that can have their career affected. Public opinion may sway by how we treat the article but politics, diplomacy, and law should decide more than public opinion. If Public opinion does sway greatly it may very well be because many may judge him by our article. This is a good reason to keep it NPOV but no reason to lock it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the US Senate has itself taken an initiative to represent him as a traitor. I've heard that an IP address from the senate house edited Snowden as a "traitor". It's all the more reason to permanently lock this article. I only heard of government conspiracies but I've seen it for the first time. Public opinion or political opinion does not make him a traitor. A person can be judged only on basis of his actions. Also Wikipedia never describes someone as traitor even if the person really betrayed his/her country. KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

One bad edit does not mean we "permanently lock" a BLP. If that was the case, most of our BLP's with any kind of recognition would be permanently locked. Some Wikipedians might think this was a good thing but they haven't changed policy yet. And while Wikipedia does not describe a subject as a traitor in its own voice, it certainly does note if multiple reliable sources state that public opinion regards the subject as a traitor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Others may wish to read the lead of Louis Riel which summarizes a similar person. The legacy section shows where he still had effects until 2004.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Noting someone is known as a traitor is a different thing and classifying him as a traitor is different thing. You can take example of Guy Fawkes. Many Britons will call him a terrorist and a traitor but Wikipedia does not call him so. Not only that not even Oxford which is a reputed British institution doesn't call him a traitor. In their dictionary Guy Fawkes is a "revolutionary who tried to blow up the English Parliament" even though most Britons think he is a traitor. Also I request for permanent lock again as a precaution as there is high chance someone might try to vandalize the article again. KahnJohn27 (talk) 01:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected for the next six months. What more do you want? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know that. Earlier it was protected till August 10. Please don't fume. I only wanted to make sure the article didn't get vandalized. I just thought permanent lock will be a better solution. Still you're right that few incidents of vandalism don't mean it should be locked forever. KahnJohn27 (talk) 05:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Morales plane incident

WP:NOTFORUM --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I remember this section specified Morales' plane took off from Vnukovo Airport, rather than Sheremetyevo Airport where Snowden stayed. This information is now absent from the section. Is that our previous source proved to be false or simply no definite answer to which airport Morales's plane parked in Russia? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC) I don't think it matters which airport. The issue was that Mr. Snowden was reported to be on that plane. A drive to another airport was probably not considered difficult so they just acted on the information that he was on a plane from any airport.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Not considered difficult? Hmm. I saw it mentioned in several news articles that Evo Morales' plane was at a different airport, because it was actually relevant to whether the concern that Snowden was on the plane was legitimate. It would actually have been extraordinarily difficult for Snowden to leave the international transit area of Sheremetyevo for any reason, considering the security presence and the degree of scrutiny. It would have required the involvement and permission of the Russian government.Nathan T 14:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC) I don't buy it either. Not only it was impossible for Snowden to leave Sheremetyevo because by that time Russia hadn't yet granted him asylum due to his refusal to stop leaking information, there must be record of which airport the plane has landed. It shouldn't be entirely impossible for any country's intelligence to ask or investigate Russia which airport in Moscow Morales' plane has visited recently. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC) There was consensus in a previous discussion that this article should only include aspects of the Morales incident that are directly relevant to Snowden. In another discussion there was consensus that the Morales incident deserves its a stand-alone article, which means that the coverage here should be abbreviated per WP:CFORK and WP:SUMMARY. Which airport Morales left from is only barely relevant to Snowden and is a minor detail not sufficiently noteworthy of inclusion here. It would be more appropriate in a standalone article, or perhaps at Evo Morales. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC) I ask this because I believe the airport where Morales' plane parked in Russia directly related to Snowden as this suggests (not necessarily proves) that the countries who rejected Morales' plane did not investigate for any evidence of Snowden's presence by themselves. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC) How could they investigate something in a foreign country's airports? What simply happened is that they acted cautiously on false information. They probably cared more about reaction to having Mr. Snowden on their soil than the feelings of anyone that was actually on the plane. I think this was blown way out of proportion. No one lost an eye and a few people had a flight delayed because of a perceived threat of possibly bigger diplomatic issues.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Actually, the AP quoted Bolivian Defense Minister as saying: "This is a hostile act by the United States State Department which has used various European governments" and that "Venezuela's foreign minister Elias Jaua has condemned the decision by France and Portugal to block the plane from its airspace. He claimed that changing a flight's route without checking on how much fuel was left in the plane, put Morales' life at risk".1 2 Glenn Greenwald commented today, "I think one of the things that the United States has done is really kind of showed the world what its character is in—over the last two months, through its really extreme and radical behavior. I mean, I can tell you here in Latin America what was really event-shifting was when they caused the plane Evo Morales to be downed in Austria by blocking airspace rights over their European allies." petrarchan47tc 04:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Possible source from Justia: ""The Promise of May, the Betrayal of June, and the Larger Lesson of Manning and Snowden

From:

• Margulies, Joseph. "The Promise of May, the Betrayal of June, and the Larger Lesson of Manning and Snowden." (Archive) Verdict. Justia. July 17, 2013.

WhisperToMe (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Greenwald testifies before the Brazilian senate

Some Key Notes

• Greenwald has 15,000-20,000 documents. "very complete and very long"

• Greenwald tweet: "At a hearing today of the Brazilian Senate on NSA, Senators borrowed Snowden masks from young activists & began wearing them to show support"

• Not yet fully analyzed

• Guardian working with organizations in Brazil and around the world to publish more documents.

• Greenwald believes the main interest in Brazil is commercial and industrial. Energy and oil.

• Reasserts that the US has the ability to collect the CONTENT of emails and calls in many countries. Not simply metadata.

http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/snowden-leaked-more-than-15000-secret-us-documents-greenwald-20130807-2re0w.html

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/364847114959863808

http://www12.senado.gov.br/noticias/materias/2013/08/06/greenwald-diz-que-espionagem-da-vantagens-comerciais-e-industriais-aos-estados-unidos

http://www.panoramabrasil.com.br/internacional/ha-mais-documentos-sobre-espionagem-feita-pelos-eua,-diz-greenwald-id112474.html

(Also Puting this message in the 2013 mass surveillance disclosures talk page)

--Paulmd199 (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Wrong info in the map

Why Portugal still in red???

The information that Portugal did not allow Evo Molares plane to fly over its territory is totally wrong. Portugal's foreign minister Paulo Portas said expressively, that he did not even wanted to know who is in the plane, before allowing to fly over. This must be corrected in the map urgently. Proof here Cruks (talk) 23:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I removed the whole section. This is a BLP article. That material should go in airspace, foreign policy, or other diplomatic articles. There were probably similar incidents all over but they are just knee jerk reactions to hype. This one may be notable but doesn't warrant inclusion in a BLP article where the subject had zero direct involvement.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It might work in the sections dedicated to this event at both Bolivia–United States relations and Evo Morales. petrarchan47tc 08:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, I assumed you removed the image of the map. Instead, you removed all mention. Please see the two sections called "Morales Plane incident" in the talk sections above to discuss further. petrarchan47tc 08:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't read the whole section about its inclusion. I disagree with the consensus but won't whine about it. On the Portugal issue in the OP can anyone read the language in the source or should we find another that backs up the OP?--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I can read the language.Cruks (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Why Portugal is still in red here on the page, instead the map was modified by the creator? Who can check this?Cruks (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Jc86035 (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for cite in lead

What's with the red-linked accounts asking for a cite for "traitor"? The material is well-sourced in the body and per WP:LEADCITE there's no need to repeat the cites in the lead. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

If something is "controversial" according to LEADCITE you do cite it in the lead. You don't have to if it's not controversial WhisperToMe (talk) 03:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

LEADCITE is too pedantic on that issue. The LEDE is (or ought to be) but a summary of the body of the article, and if it's already sourced in the body, that should do well enough. Some would disagree and challenge something as being controversial, but it's usually more an issue of whether such or such info is important enough to be summarised. We will always be overcautious until that rule is removed. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 05:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing controversial about the statement that some people have described Snowden as a traitor. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in Introduction

"Based on information Snowden leaked to The Guardian[4] in May 2013" This is incorrect. Snowden leaked the information to Glenn Greenwald. Greenwald considered whether to publish it in the Guardian, or independently, and decided to do it in the Guardian, but Snowden did not leak it to the Guardian.86.32.228.29 (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Greenwald isn't, as far as we know, a freelance journalist, but actually works for the Guardian. My reading therefore, is that there is no error. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 13:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The initial contacts were with Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald. Very cloak and dagger (minus the daggers) "He would be outside a restaurant with a Rubick's Cube, She would ask about the food. He would say that it was bad." Poitras apparently has documents of her own. She lives in Germany, which explains the releases by Der Spiegel and others. http://oglobo.globo.com/mundo/filmando-edward-snowden-9028252?topico=espionagem (in Portuguese)--Paulmd199 (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Ohc. Moreover numerous reliable sources have said the leaks were to the Guardian, including the cited source, which is really all that matters. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for full disclosure: editing based on OTRS tickets

The NDAA_2012 was a very controversial, and perhaps unconstitutional, bill signed into law on New Year's eve 2011. It made legal the indefinite detention of US citizens without charges or trial "until the end of hostilities" and is loosely worded such that innocents like Chris Hedges, having merely interviewed members of AQ, was found to be eligible for detention under this law. Getting to the point: the US government, through Wikipedia's OTRS ticket system (where outsiders can request changes to articles, or suggestions for content, etc.) tried to influence the article. I discovered that there is no requirement for this to be disclosed to the other editors at the page, nor to the readers of this website. Here is part of the sordid tale, for those with ample time. (A bit more is here.)

The Admin who handled the request that 10 talking points be provided to the talk page for discussion and hopefully, inclusion, did not immediately disclose from whom the request came. Later, the Admin did make the disclosure, but it became buried in archives and later editors were unaware. Further, the Admin connected the government person or people with an editor they found to be trustworthy and left the article. I found that editor removing mention of a couple senators who voted for the bill, with a bogus edit summary. I'm seeing a bit of similar weirdness here.

Therefore, I am asking for full disclosure here - are there any Admins or editors helping any parties with a COI, through the OTRS ticket system or similar programs, that we would want/need to know about? Thank you in advance, petrarchan47tc 21:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

It appears you're making a veiled accusation of misconduct that has little or nothing to do with Edward Snowden. This isn't the appropriate page place for that. And no, I haven't engaged anything like what you're talking about. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This has to do with content doctoring though. I seem to remember a bad edit traced back to an IP at congress. We may wish to check and see if we have a good disclosure policy at OTRS. I know of at least two controversial OTRS requests that could have been disclosed better. They may have been within policy and may not.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

We're all here to engage in some sort of "content doctoring"; it's also known as "editing." Anyway, per WP:OTRS, a list of OTRS users can be found here. "If you have any doubts that an editor who is referencing an OTRS ticket in an edit may not be an OTRS respondent, please feel free to contact one of the OTRS administrators listed below via e-mail to clarify." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing veiled whatsoever, I apologize for using your edit as the sole example, but it is not the reason I made this request. I wouldn't mind if you would explain the edit, but this section is a request for disclosure, and I hope that is clear to all.

I should hope I don't need to email anyone, but that all editors and Admins working on this page will be happy to disclose any work being done on behalf of the US government (who I would expect has been directed to the OTRS system after the recent IP fiasco).petrarchan47tc 00:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

We missed Category:Kitchen Sink

This article and associated talk page is severely overcategorized.

Main article:

1. 1983 births
2. American whistleblowers
3. Fugitives wanted by the United States
4. Leakers
5. Living people
6. National Security Agency
7. National Security Agency people
8. People from Ellicott City, Maryland
9. People from Wilmington, North Carolina
10. People from Hawaii
11. People of the Central Intelligence Agency
12. People with epilepsy
13. Privacy activists
14. Privacy in the United States
15. Refugees in Russia
16. United States Army reservists
17. Booz Allen Hamilton people

Talk Page:

1. Low-importance United States articles
2. B-Class North Carolina articles
3. Unknown-importance North Carolina articles
4. WikiProject North Carolina articles
5. B-Class United States Government articles
6. Mid-importance United States Government articles
7. WikiProject United States Government articles
8. WikiProject United States articles
9. B-Class Human rights articles
10. Mid-importance Human rights articles
11. WikiProject Human rights articles
12. B-Class International relations articles
13. Top-importance International relations articles
14. WikiProject International relations articles
15. Wikipedia In the news articles
16. Wikipedia pages referenced by the press

Some of these are clearly needed, but do we really need to say he is "from" every place he ever lived or worked? Three human rights categories? He looks like a privacy advocate to me, not a human rights advocate. Or do we simply say that everybody is a human rights advocate? Is the epilepsy really relevant? More so than his myopia?

While we are gloming on to every trivial detail and assigning every category that comes anywhere close to fitting, why stop there? Why not say he is from Japan, from Geneva, Switzerland, a hacker, a Special Forces recruit and a Ron Paul supporter? Why not categorize him as an Electronic Frontier Foundation and Tor Project supporter?

Categories should reflect what an individual is noted for. American whistleblower? Yes. Fugitive wanted by the United States? Certainly. "Person with epilepsy? Irrelevant. And this is NOT a "United States Government article" and Snowden is NOT an "United States Army reservist". I say trim the categories. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

If you think 16 categories is a lot for a talk page you might find the amount of categories on Talk:World War II (as an example) to be down right frightening. — -dainomite   05:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but they all look pretty relevant. It's just that WWII is a huge subject with many aspects. Wikipedia:Overcategorization says

"One of the central goals of the categorization system is to categorize articles by their defining characteristics. Categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided".

How is "People with epilepsy" or "People from Ellicott City, Maryland" a defining characteristic of Edward Snowden? When you say the name Snowden, do you expect to hear "Oh, that's the fellow with epilepsy that moved to Ellicott City, Maryland when he was 17 years old, right?" --Guy Macon (talk) 06:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Uh... I was talking about talk page categories... I made my initial response because I found it funny how you said the talk page was overcategorized when there are no rules, guidelines or policies about having too many categories on a talk page (Wikipedia:Overcategorization is for categories on article pages, not talk pages). I'm not sure why you're bringing up the article categories in your reply to me since at no point did I mention them. But, to respond to that part of your reply... no I don't think the article should have more than one "People from..." category, etc. — -dainomite   06:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

My apologies. You are correct, and I did miss the point there. (Note to self: next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia...) --Guy Macon (talk) 13:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

On "from" categories, see if reliable sources make a point in mentioning it. If articles say "Snowden, an Elicott City native" then add the category for Elicott City. If there are other sources that say he's a native of somewhere else, do that too. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

American former intelligence analyst or former US intelligence analyst

Since this is a disagreement over this I brought it to talk.

Per MOSBIO, nationality and then what the person is known for is pretty standard fare. I know that diplomats, politicians, and others can sometimes be worded differently.

I also would consider where "former" is placed. Usually for sports figures, we say an American former football player rather than a former American football player.

Also, no need to link to American since that is understood pretty much, or you can just pipe it to American so it is precise and concise and nifty to boot :). Other thoughts? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

In the United States it is rather rude to comment on people's nationality. I know that in some countries, such as Russia, passports include (or included) "nationality" such as Tajik, Jewish, Russian. Snowden's position was US intelligence analyst. He worked for the United States government. Since he no longer works there, he is a former US intelligence analyst. US describes his employer, not his nationality. Moreover, the word "American" is ambiguous. It could mean anybody from North America, South America or a Native American. We should avoid this term. Jehochman ^Talk 15:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Your arguments are completely unconvincing. I just checked the first ten biographies on my watchlist and eight of them state the nationality in the first sentence, including five Americans. This is neither rude or confusing and it's obvious Wikipedia has standardized on this term. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Jehochman is confusing nationality with ethnicity. "American" is a nationality, at least in this context. There's nothing wrong with describing a U.S. citizen as American. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I would agree. I am really surprised that somebody of his level of experience and trust doesn't understand this. His argument above goes completely against MOSBIO? Most, 95% or more well written "American" bios, include nationality and then occupation. As pointed out above, sometimes this doesn't "flow" well or what have you. This MIGHT be one of those cases, but I would like to hear from others and appreciate the people who have already commented. --Malerooster (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

"A former U.S. (or spell out United States) intelligence analyst" is less awkward usage. The country for which he worked as an intelligence analyst needs to be stated, but the fact that he's American doesn't definitively establish that he worked for the U.S. government. Since it would be strange looking to say "An American former U.S. intelligence analyst", I think "A former United States intelligence analyst" or (even better) "A former intelligence analyst for the United States government" is preferable. Nathan ^T 17:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

But as pointed out above, that doesn't include nationality, which conforms to MOSBIO. If there is a good reason to go against MOSBIO, then make the case here. --Malerooster (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I reverted this again. Jehochman, would you please be willing to leave this until a clear consensus forms? I know that this isn't based on votes, but right now it looks like 3-2 for including nationality in the first sentence? --Malerooster (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey Malerooster, if you don't mind - the normal process is to make a change, get reverted, and then discuss. Since consensus is necessary to make a disputed change, not to remove it, it should stay at its initial state until you have agreement to make the adjustment you desire. By the way, I checked a number of other pages (cf Thomas Andrews Drake) and it isn't an absolutely consistent practice to note the national origin of public figures, particularly if their notability is deeply intertwined with their nationality (as Snowden's is). Nathan ^T 17:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

@Nathan, have you read WP:MOSBIO? Have you looked at 1,000s of American bios? Just because you find one that doesn't conform to MOSBIO, that's ok. I pointed out that SOME don't. The "default" would be to include nationality, so you are wrong on that point. Also, per BRD, which version came first :) Seriously guys. --Malerooster (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Does An American former intelligence analyst for the government of the United States. cover all topics well enough? AVAAGAA↪ 17:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Works here. I piped to Americans, hope you don't mind. --Malerooster (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not horrible, but it's not exactly elegantly worded either. I think anyone reading the article would not be under the illusion that he is anything other than an American. Maybe it's my systemic bias creeping in, but calling out his nationality in the first few words of the article seems unnecessary - especially since at the top right of the page, the box says "Nationality: American." Nathan ^T 17:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Seems unnecessary? Is MOSBIO unnecessary? --Malerooster (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes. It's a guideline, and the guideline in this case suggests "context." Nationality is one element of it, but even the guideline is not attempting to make your suggested phrasing mandatory. It gives the example of Cleopatra, where it says "Cleopatra [...] was a queen of ancient Egypt" - note how it doesn't say "Cleopatra [...]] was an Egyptian and queen of ancient Egypt." Nathan ^T 17:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, for Queens and presidents, and some others, its ok to word differently, didn't I say that? But for most, 95%, the guideline would be name, dob, nationality, occupation. Snowden's nationality might even change in the future, but for now, he is an American, and a former analyst. --Malerooster (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. The key question: Is the assumption that the monarch of a kingdom is from that kingdom as strong as the assumption that an employee of the NSA is American? AVAAGAA↪ 17:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Is that a rhetorical question  :) I would answer certainly not, that's is why I would go with the "standard" format. I think the lede is even worse now. --Malerooster (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I still for the life on me can't see what harm it would be to include "American" into the current lede. That would settle all of this. It was in there for a few days without objection. --Malerooster (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, actually - it may not be common knowledge, but for sensitive positions the NSA and CIA hire only U.S. citizens. Nathan ^T 18:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It may have been less rhetorical than I intended, now that I realize how many monarchs are not from their kingdoms. I think Nathan is saying that it feels repetitive, which it certainly does. Americans and the United States are closely related concepts, but I think in this case they are different enough to warrant separate mentions. AVAAGAA↪ 17:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It does seem like overkill, but as the story fades from the public eye people will know less about him. It also fits with the style of other biographies. I do agree that it sounds awkward, though; there's probably a better wording. AVAAGAA↪ 17:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

There are a lot of "formers" in the opening paragraph now. Kind of awkward. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

On top of that "former intelligence analyst for the United States government" is ambiguous because it seems to imply that he was a government employee. While he did work for the CIA at one point his more notable and recent work was as a private contractor. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

He was a former analyst for the government itself, and then for the government through a contractor. It seems clear enough for the intro, since the details are all explained in the body of the article. Nathan ^T 19:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Some people only read the first sentence. And the first sentence frames the rest of the article. It shouldn't be misleading. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, true as that may be, all information can't be included in the intro. It's unnecessary to go into more detail on his career there; the fact that he was an intelligence analyst is the salient point for an intro, regardless of who his employer was at the exact time of the leak. Nathan ^T 19:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

That is why we have WP:OPENPARA to help guide us and settle disputes like this. The lead sentence does not follow that now. --Malerooster (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Which is, again, a guideline and not a law. Feel free to propose reasoned arguments for your preferred language. Citing an alphabet soup of redirects is not an argument. Nathan ^T 20:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

"American" is too broad. Mexicans consider themselves Americans (and rightly so). Then there are Central Americans and South Americans...and I would assume that Canadians consider themselves North Americans. "US" would be much better. Gandydancer (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The demonym of the United States is American. No other nationality refers to themselves as American. There may be other reasons to keep American out of the sentence but confusion is not one of them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

(Gandy smacks herself upside her head) Yes, a quick check tells my you are right. Then "an American..." it should be!  :-) Gandydancer (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

One "reasoned argument" is that there should be some consistency throughout WP, which is why we should generally comply with WP guidelines unless there is a compelling reason not to. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, there isn't that much consistency. In my not-really-random not-at-all-scientific sample, the articles that gave nationality immediately and those that didn't were pretty evenly split. I think the guideline might make sense in some circumstances and not in others; that is probably why its a guideline and not a policy. In this case, if there isn't a better argument than WP:MOSSAYSSO, its probably okay to leave it as is. Nathan ^T 21:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

95%, not half, of well written bios use American, period. The "default" is to the guideline, and rightfully so. If there isn't a really good reason to go against WP:OPENPARA, then nationality should be mentioned. --Malerooster (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

To reinforce Malerooster's reply, you have the presumption turned on its head. Please give us a compelling reason why we should break with WP guidelines. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I will re add nationality to the lede per the above discussion unless consensus forms to NOT include it, which is not evident now. --Malerooster (talk) 11:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Our articles should be well-written, neutral and reliably sourced, which trumps all other rules about style. Putting "American" into the first sentence of the article is unnecessary in this case and makes the sentence more awkward. Once we explain that he worked for the US government, it's unnecessary to say that he's an American, because that fact is already the presumption. We'd mention his nationality in the first sentence only if he weren't American. Barack Obama is an American politician who currently the 44th President of the United States. (NO) Jamie Dimon is an American business executive who is the current chairman, president and CEO of JPMorgan Chase. (YES) See the difference? One is implicit; the other is not. Jehochman ^Talk 13:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

@Jehochman, that's the whole point, he is NOT the president and there are lots of folks who work for the government for are NOT American. He IS an American former analyst, period. This lack of understanding of WP:OPENPARA is also deeply disturbing. Would you at least admit that your interpretation of our guideline in your first post was wrong? --Malerooster (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

From what I can tell, that post was a simple misunderstanding. Panamericanism aside, he was commenting on the social implications of describing ethnicity instead of nationality, which are both pretty similar. He was probably agreeing with WP:OPENPARA about ethnicity (at point 3). AVAAGAA↪ 18:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I actually agree with this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

If nationality is not mentioned but a country is, the first assumption that the reader will make is that the subject is from that country. Didn't really think about it that way, but it's true. AVAAGAA↪ 14:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The lede has been changed to read "Edward Joseph Snowden (born June 21, 1983) is a former computer infrastructure specialist who worked for the CIA and the NSA and leaked details of several top-secret United States and British government mass surveillance programs to the press..." This obviates some of the above discussion. I agree that the previous "intelligence analyst" is not a good description of him, as the linked article does not well describe what he did at NSA. However the new title "computer infrastructure specialist" is not widely understood, it's apparently a term of art, and it's mentioned in the next sentence. I'd propose the following lede: "Edward Joseph Snowden (born June 21, 1983) is an American computer expert who worked for the CIA and the NSA and leaked details of several top-secret United States and British government mass surveillance programs to the press..." This deals with the nationality issue and eliminates "former" as he is still a computer expert, by all accounts, and the lede should begin with who he is, not who he was. The ""infrastructure analyst"" title would still be introduced in the next paragraph and explained later.--agr (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I obviously like it, because it goes name, nationality, occupation, why notable, just as our guideline directs and how 90% plus of our well written bios are crafted. --Malerooster (talk) 03:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty good, but the word "expert" is loaded and imprecise. Can we say either computer specialist or network administrator? I like getting rid of the word "former". With this construction "American" is not awkward.

Edward Joseph Snowden (born June 21, 1983) is an American computer specialist who worked for the CIA and the NSA and leaked details of several top-secret United States and British government mass surveillance programs to the press...

Does that work? Jehochman ^Talk 13:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I like it. I would avoid network administrator. It's too specific and does not capture his apparent role. --agr (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Decent, but it still doesn't address the fact that it misleads the reader into thinking Snowden was a government employee, when in fact his most relevant work was for Booz Allen. I also think if we go this route we should use "computer security specialist" as that is more descriptive and relevant. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Apparently he did work directly for NSA, for a year before joining Booz Allen.[16] The next sentence explains that he was a contractor when he did the leaking. And it's not clear that his job primarily involved computer security, as opposed to network administration. (It's kind of like the difference between drilling for oil and managing the pipelines that connect to producing wells.) I'd rather not be too specific about his specialization in the lede and let the body of the article explain what is known about his training and role.--agr (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Russian Senator Ruslan Gattarov setting up a fund for Snowden

• the domain names will be helpsnowden.ru and helpsnowden.net (not live yet as of this posting)
• Volunteers from several IT companies are actively developing the site
• A member of Russia's civic chamber has already donated 30,000 rubles (about 900 USD)

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/07/russian-senator-edward-snowden-personal-data

--Paulmd199 (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Roman Dobrokhotov also commented, telling Snowden that he could end up in a prison cell if he criticizes the Russian government WhisperToMe (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Russian poll

The article is a little thin on reactions among the public in Russia. Now that it looks like Snowden will be there a while, maybe add this? Most Russians Positive About Snowden - Survey Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 August 2013

Under the Career sub title, it states that Snowden "did not complete the training". This is misleading, leaving one to believe he may have trained in the special forces. As the same citation used by the author states he "did not complete ANY training." I feel it is a significant error and not what the citation said. 108.4.69.240 (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like a significant error to me, but I went ahead and made the change. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

of London's The Guardian ?

Is the use of the phrase "of London's The Guardian" in the lead that sourced to anything ? - the WP article says that until the 1959 it was known as The Manchester Guardian. Would it be better to say the British Guardian newspaper ? LGA _talk^edits 06:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I've always heard it referred to as a British newspaper. petrarchan47tc 07:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you should drop all location info from The Guardian because they recently announced they are a global player beyond UK or Great Britain. They have dropped the .co.uk domain and now use .com: http://www.journalism.co.uk/news/guardian-to-change-domain-to-theguardian-com/s2/a553070/ http://www.theguardian.com/help/insideguardian/2013/may/24/theguardian-global-domain "Our audience is no longer primarily in the UK. Every month, our online content is accessed from almost every country around the world. In fact, UK users now represent just a third of our total audience." 149.254.183.172 (talk) 09:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll make the change and see if it sticks. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I put "British newspaper" in to replace "journal" -- what would be a better designation? "Media company?" The New York Times and Washington Post are bigger than their newspapers, but we still refer to them as newspapers.Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Asylum in Russia

The Russian asylum section seems to be heavily used for WH talking points, even to the extent that reactions diverging from the US POV are being reverted. Is this in keeping with guidelines? petrarchan47tc 00:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I found some CNN opinion sources about it:

• Treisman, Daniel. "Snowden is an unwanted guest in Putin's Russia." (Archive) (opinion) August 2, 2013.
• Boyce, Christopher John "Chris". "Ex-spy 'Falcon': U.S. likes Snowden in Russia." (Archive) (opinion) August 5, 2013.

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

It is happening again. Yesterday a violation of 3RR took place removing these comments, which were the only ones outside of the US government's statements contained in the section. Today again they are being removed by the same editor, with the edit summary "private irrelevant opinions: the sections narrates facts, not reaction nd opinions - there is a section for that"

Lon Snowden, Edward's father, said that he believed Putin would not return his son to the US, and would not "cave" to threats of meeting cancellations.[163] Glenn Greenwald and international law professor Richard Falk pointed out that there is no extradition treaty between the US and Russia; Falk noted that Russia was obligated by law to offer asylum.[164][165]

The section about Russian temporary asylum, in an article about Edward Snowden, is in no way a host only to official statements, how absurd. It is about Snowden's time in Russia. And it will probably be a long section, with the initial reactions of notable people (US POTUS, Putin, Lon Snowden, and others) in its own subsection shortly. This removal of content is disruptive and grossly POV, and has no basis in Wikipedia guidelines for writing (rather than spinning) articles. I am replacing this content and would ask, pending some guideline I'm violating unknowingly, that it remain. petrarchan47tc 02:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Since the section had changed a bit, and a more relevant statement from Lon was available, I've updated the section accordingly, leaving Greenwald comments out, since the point was made in the paragraph above. But the idea that Russia was legally obligated is a fact that should be offered to the reader, and I hope this doesn't continue to be removed for silly reasons. petrarchan47tc 02:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Greenwald writes for the US Guardian

According to a tweet from Greenwald, he writes for the US Guardian. There was some controversy here about how to describe the Guardian, and whether it was a London-based publication, or UK. Does this tweet clear that up? Also, please take a look at how I have worded it in the Intro, it could probably use improvement. Thanks, petrarchan47tc 20:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Great, we have trouble "classifying" the subject as American(see above), now a newspaper?!? I guess words(nationality) do matter :). Good luck with this, --Malerooster (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined not to try to classify the Guardian into various national variants, but just leave it at The Guardian. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree with K1. New media is getting global and it makes no sense to continue talking national variants. Also, I would refrain from using Twitter as contents are generally user-published, meaning this is a self-published primary source and that fails WP:RS. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 05:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

A way to tell is to check the Twitter page and see if there are disclaimers. If the Twitter page of a prominent journalist says "This is the Twitter page of so and so and does not reflect the views of his/her employer" then you know to treat it as a primary source. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The organisation Greenwald writes for is officially known as Guardian US and is based in New York.86.32.228.29 (talk) 09:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think we should need to check through every citation that contains a twitter link to see whether it's a primarily source. It's clearly the intention of Twitter to make itself a self-publishing platform for the masses, so it's fit for us to treat any content as self-published by default. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 04:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Is the Guardian, regardless of its story's'journalist's place of origin/domicile (other papers and news organizations have their Washington desk, their Moscow desk, etc.), a newspaper, a media company? The Guardian's Wiki entry calls it a British daily newspaper and credits it for breaking the Snowden revelations.Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Things get blurred in the new media landscape. I'm anchored in traditional press, and I'm inclined to continue regarding it as a newspaper. Even in the NM way of functioning, it still meets many of the criteria of a newspaper. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 04:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Pronounciation

Could someone include how his last name is pronounced? Thanks! 75.151.57.113 (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm marking this as answered, because you need to be more specific than that. Ideally, I'd like to know the actual wikitext that you would like added to the article. However, if one of the regular editors here sees this request and wants to try and figure out how to put the pronunciation templates together, they are welcome to make the edit themselves. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

"Snow" + "Den" should cover it. :) Veriss (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Remember, subject of article is a topic of controversy, try to remain neutral

Be careful of using inflamatory language, and use a more neutral voice (do not say media "fueled" debate, but "highlighted" debate. Also, do not portray all US officials as being on one side, when debate about Snowden is split. Remember, Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. --Starfyredragon (talk) 04:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with some of your assertions. The media has fueled the debate for their own agendas. None of us should be that naive to believe otherwise. Veriss (talk) 08:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter is not a US official. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Any information on the anime company Snowden worked for?

Anyone find any info on the anime company he worked for? I've been searching. I don't know if it's that relevant, but would be interested in what he worked on, if that could be established.Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

We discussed this before. Turns out it was less a real company than a kind of club. You might be able to find something in the talk page archives. Great user name BTW. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Obama on Snowden CNN articles

• "Live Blog: President Obama takes questions." (Archive) CNN. August 9, 2013.
• Carter, Chelsea J. and Jessica Yellin. "Obama: Snowden can 'make his case' in court; no Olympics boycott." (Archive) CNN. August 9, 2013.
• Schow, Ashe. "Obama: ‘I don’t think Mr. Snowden was a patriot’." (Archive) Washington Examiner. August 9, 2013.

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Spelling Error

Under "Reactions",specifically in the Congress section I believe, there is a spelling error: U.S. Senator John McCain said in a __ editioj. Should be edition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.138.109 (talk • contribs) 14:29, August 11, 2013‎

 Done petrarchan47tc 19:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Snowden and taxation

• Erb, Kelly Phillips. "Snowden Finds New Home, Fields Job Offers - But Will He Pay His Taxes?" Forbes. August 7, 2013.

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Snowden's helpers

Long NYT Magazine piece about the involvement of Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald in Snowden leaks:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/magazine/laura-poitras-snowden.html?hp&_r=0

Sca (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Article info: How Laura Poitras Helped Snowden Spill His Secrets By PETER MAASS Published: August 13, 2013 WhisperToMe (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Use of the NYT as a trusted source

Editors who are not in the US may have missed this news. Pease see How the Obama Administration is Making the US Media its Mouthpiece - Guardian. Obviously the NYT can be used, but keep in mind that they have a known pro-White House POV, which for this topic makes them a source we must use carefully. petrarchan47tc 03:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Right because there is never critical or opposing commentary in the NYT. Oh wait... link

96.31.177.52 (talk) 04:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't discount my point. I am speaking of subtleties, and not in all-or-nothing, black-and-white terms. I am seeing editors fawning over the NYT as a source and I have to wonder if they are aware the NYT is well known to speak for the White House sometimes, more than other media. They are also known for good, hard-hitting reporting, as the linked article details. My point was to be aware, and that we could do well to lean towards more independent sources with regard to this topic since there is a huge push from the us government to spin this story as much as possible. Knowing they have a certain history is very important when working on this article. petrarchan47tc 04:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Well-known pro-White House POV? Care to substantiate that point, or are you really saying something about your own POV? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I added the source above hoping people would read it. As for my own personal observations, I was alerted to this bias during the BP oil spill. A month after the thing was capped, the White House announced that 3/4 of the spilled oil was gone from the Gulf, that the event was essentially a done deal. This flew in the face of furious scientists, who said (and officials admitted 2 weeks later) this was a lie. The only media to echo the WH talking points verbatim, rather than to question how all that oil could disappear, or to simply remain silent, were the NYT and TIME. Once alerted to this bias, it becomes quite evident. I actually did assume this bias was well known. My bad. Please read the Guardian piece and just be aware, that is all I am asking. petrarchan47tc 08:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

FWIW it appears the NY Times was right after all: [17]. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The NYT claims they were right. I don't blame them. The Guardian says otherwise. petrarchan47tc 09:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

No, the Guardian piece came out months before the scientists revised their report. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 10:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I may be bias but I trust Canadian sources over US or UK ones for English. We do have tabloid crap up here but it is more obvious. The Edmonton Journal I consider a good source but the Edmonton Sun, which normally has sports on the front page and only one page for a business section, I don't trust as an RS. CBC is a crown corp but I find it less tabloidish than CTV. I don't think any cater to government as the people up here like to see the suits get slammed around. This sells more commercial space to sponsors. They probably do use more caution with corporate stories because of this though. PBS NewsHour may be the best US RS and I don't know if UK or down under have similar.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

There's another piece to this as well, which is that the article Petrarchan47 cites isn't "news" at all, it's an opinion piece. About intelligence leaks to the New York Times. And as far as I know nothing related to Snowden has been leaked to the New York Times, so it's not even particularly relevant. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

This thread was in response to some fawning over the NYT (on this talk page) as a speckless source. The 'opinion piece' is a factual account by none other than Glenn Greenwald. I'm not going for a court case here and am frankly surprised by all the grief. You're certainly free to continue to believe what you will. petrarchan47tc 17:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The best source these days IMHO is RT, the far less credible sources again IMHO are US Main Stream Media (MSM). My favorite worst is Time Magazine, as Gore Vidal puts it, 'its an opinion piece'. Bias in US MSM is frequently subtle, always pervasive, often blatant and commonly not noticed by the lemmings. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Your most trusted source is a Russian organization founded by close friends of Vladimir Putin? You can't be serious. Nathan ^T 14:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

NYT's as RS? Certainly must be questioned. Ex: News articles prior to Morsi ouster had most quotes from anti-Morsi protesters gathered to support miltary to overthrow what they saw had been become an illegitimate government. Post-Morsi overthrow most quotes coming from Morsi supporters looking for reinstatement of Morsi. Where is the balance? Obvious the NYT's likes the side where the action is, irrelevant of presenting a clear, larger picture of the entire situation. NYT's - like the tabloids it is beginning to resemble - is going where the emotion is. And when that happens you can throw reliable sources out the window.IUPUIGraduate (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Obvious. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree, I once saw which group owned the NYT's. Check it out, then it makes sense. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 09:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The NYT is controlled by the Ochs-Sulzberger family. Which group are you referring to? Nathan ^T 14:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Work it out. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The New York Times is "among the last major dailies still operated by descendants of its early proprietor" ([18]). Blade, is there a problem with this? Work out what exactly? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

We can evaluate this based on Greenwald's piece linked above, and more examples: DrFleischman points to a NYT article (above) which purportedly justifies the US government and the NYT's rosy report about the fate of the oil from the BP spill. The second NYT article is simply NOAA's Jane Lubchenco saying they were right all along, and pointing to a peer reviewed report. However, two years later there is found to be more of BP's oil in the Gulf of Mexico than the 2010 peer-reviewed report and NYT piece claimed. The report didn't take into account the dispersed oil floating through the gulf and sinking to the floor. Lubchenco tried to suppress the findings about the plume, and even tried to discredit USF scientists responsible for the findings. She played dumb on the plumes, I have to assume, in order to make the report that nearly all the oil was gone seem plausible. From HuffPo: "Despite more than three weeks of accumulating scientific evidence that gargantuan plumes of oil lurk beneath the surface of the Gulf of Mexico....Lubchenco....refused to contradict BP CEO Tony Hayward’s statement....that “the oil is on the surface” and “there aren’t any plumes." Since then, more proof of the giant plume emerged when a huge die-off was observed in its wake. As we know now, the government was taking their talking points about the amount of oil from BP, who lied outright. Politico reported on Lubchenco when she resigned from NOAA "Her agency was accused of accepting for too long the oil company's low estimates for the amount of oil leaking. It also was criticized for a report saying that by August of that year most of the spilled oil was gone, or at least not visible. The agency said much of it had dispersed naturally, had burned or was removed. A few weeks later, a study by independent scientists reported an invisible, 22-mile underwater plume of oil ingredients. And NOAA acknowledged the deepwater oil was not degrading as fast as they initially thought."

So, the NYT played the role of mouthpiece for BP via the US government by never giving you any of the news I just shared, but only the talking points from the US government/BP. Again, because of the nature of the US government's extreme POV in relation to Edward Snowden, it seems prudent to be extra discerning when using the NYT as a source. petrarchan47tc 04:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It's the NOAA-BP-NY Times cabal! Run for your lives!

Oh wait... the Times was the newspaper that first broke the story of the oil plumes. Wrote reporter Justin Gillis, the reporter you blast for parroting the government report: "The discovery is fresh evidence that the leak from the broken undersea well could be substantially worse than estimates that the government and BP have given."

And wait... here's another piece from Gillis entitled, of all things, "Calculations of Gulf Spill Volume Are Questioned": "Ian R. MacDonald, an oceanographer at Florida State University who is an expert in the analysis of oil slicks, said he had made his own rough calculations using satellite imagery. They suggested that the leak could 'easily be four or five times' the government estimate, he said." And the article goes on to really slam NOAA (too long to quote).

Still calling the Times the mouthpiece of BP and the government? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think we're getting ahead of ourselves with metaphysical angst, fuelled, it seems, by conspiracy theories. Hows about we just face the fact that nobody or no news organisation is completely unbiased, and just move on? -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 07:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Sounds reasonable. There is much more awareness of Main Stream Media (MSM) bias and manipulation. The old days when someone powerful wrote something in a big paper and it was believed almost totally are gone. Snowden is one of those who is shattering even deeper levels of trust. At nation administration levels. Thats why he making such an impact. Dont forget that. Its extremely naive to think big MSM org's like the NYT's are not controlling the flow of important info to suit certain powerful groups. The NYTs and others must be treated as opinion pieces in some respects. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'm "extremely naive," but I will oppose efforts to treat the news reporting of the New York Times and other established newspapers as "opinion pieces." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Now now dont go black and white on me Blade-of-the-South (talk) 02:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Richard Falk: "The most influential media in the United States has lived up to its pro-government bias in the Snowden Affair"source. Now, DrFleishman, as you have asked me about my own bias, I am returning the query, based on this edit where rules were literally made up out of thin air to support removing the mention of the wildly successful White House Petition to which the POTUS has not responded, a most uneasy situation for the WH to be sure... petrarchan47tc 21:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking of me, but it doesn't sound related to the New York Times' reporting on Snowden, so this probably isn't the best place for it. If you want to have a discussion about the Snowden petition then start a new discussion thread (after reading the previous discussion about it, which was extensive). If you want to have a discussion about me personally, my user talk is probably the best place. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

It has been well known for decades that the NY Times is the official mouthpiece of the American national security state, America's equivalent of Pravda during Russia's Soviet period. A recent example of the Times' abandoning any attempt at objective journalism and instead simply serving as a stenographer of the White House can be seen in this passage from a story about Obama cancelling his meeting with Putin:

The daylong meeting between the two leaders had been anticipated for months. It was to have taken place in Moscow in September around the time that Mr. Obama travels to St. Petersburg, Russia, for a meeting of the Group of 20 economic summit meeting. Officials said Mr. Obama will still travel to Russia for the economic discussions with other world leaders.

But Washington had signaled for weeks that the White House was growing annoyed by Mr. Putin’s intransigence, especially on the fate of Mr. Snowden, who had been holed up for a month in a Moscow airport. Russia’s decision to extend temporary asylum to Mr. Snowden last week added to the frustration, officials said.

How is Putin "intransigent"? Snowden has violated no Russian laws, and there is no extradition treaty between Russia and the US. Therefore, there is no legal basis for Russia handing Snowden over to the USG. What the Times calls "intransigence" is really the Russian government's respect for the rule of law.

Another issue is that, unlike other high profile newspaper Web sites, the NY Times now requires you to pay to read their stories. That is another reason to consider the Times to be a deprecated source. – Herzen (talk) 03:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Why? Any variety of users can pay to read the source. That doesn't make it unreliable.Leslynjd (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Please source "well known for decades." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Its quite like the Murdochian press in that respect. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 04:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Question: Why should we boycott The New York Times? Answer: Because The Times has, over the course of decades, deliberately distorted the news to advance its leftist political agenda – a pro-abortion, pro-big government, anti-family, anti-defense, isolationist ethic. Boycott The New York Times is a project of Accuracy In Media, the nation’s oldest media-watchdog group. http://boycottnyt.com/our-purpose/ Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald tweets from his authorized account today: "About Snowden's choice of journalists, he often mentioned how NYT sat on NSA story for a year at Bush WH's behest". He links to this (NYT) article where Snowden explains why he choose Glenn and Laura over US media: "After 9/11, many of the most important news outlets in America abdicated their role as a check to power — the journalistic responsibility to challenge the excesses of government — for fear of being seen as unpatriotic and punished in the market during a period of heightened nationalism. From a business perspective, this was the obvious strategy, but what benefited the institutions ended up costing the public dearly. The major outlets are still only beginning to recover from this cold period." petrarchan47tc 21:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Greenwald sat on Snowden's story because it was, basically, too technical for him to understand (TL:DR) and called Snowden's repeated attempts to contact him "harassment." [19]

If we're going to boycott the NYT, then we ought to boycott the Guardian and Glenn Greenwald. The Guardian is "a platform for liberal and left-wing opinion" [20] (irony), and Greenwald loves the headlines, not checking sources to see if the facts they claim are correct. [21]. And see his original Snowden article, [22], in which claims made by Snowden are presented as fact but later shown to be inaccurate (his income, his education, his former employment). (BTW, I'm going to correct the cite in footnote 1 of this wiki article to show the date of the Guardian article as June 9, 2013, not June 10, 2013.)Leslynjd (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Errr...actually, I'm not making that correction, because even though the Greenwald (and Laura Poitras) article is listed as footnote #1, I don't see footnote #1 in the wiki article. Maybe it's myopia. Leslynjd (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Errr...actually, I'm not making that correction, because even though the Greenwald (and Laura Poitras) article is listed as footnote #1, I can't find footnote #1 in the wiki article anymore. LOL Leslynjd (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Snowden may have started downloading prior to Booz.

While still employed with Dell. Started no later than April 2012.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/08/15/usa-security-snowden-dell-idINDEE97E0CE20130815 --Paulmd199 (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Lavabit --- The email service Snowden is alleged to have uses has shut itself down rather than comply with court orders.

Revival may be possible if a favorable court decision is reached. What’s going to happen now? We’ve already started preparing the paperwork needed to continue to fight for the Constitution in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. A favorable decision would allow me resurrect Lavabit as an American company.

http://boingboing.net/2013/08/08/lavabit-email-service-snowden.html

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/08/210249676/email-service-allegedly-used-by-edward-snowden-is-shut-down

--Paulmd199 (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

To broaden the perspective: Silent Circle is also winding down their Silent Mail service.

https://silentcircle.wordpress.com/2013/08/09/to-our-customers/

--Paulmd199 (talk) 03:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Silent Circle should be added for context. Also, why is this in the "Executive Branch" section of Reactions? I'm not sure where it should go, but under the temporary asylum section might be a better fit; that section will end up somewhat of a story. This is essentially the latest in the Snowden timeline, as it were. Reactions could be a subsection, and unfolding events (pivotal, notable, etc) can go underneath.... petrarchan47tc 05:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• I also don't quite know where to put it, but I put it there to be consistent with the Guardian block. As noted by some observers, the shutdown implies the heavy hand of the state. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 06:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I see how that makes sense now, and agree though not perfect, it might be the best fit for the time being. petrarchan47tc 22:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I might group it with such economic considerations like the $35bn worth of US cloud services lost. Increased reliance on private search engines, encryption, that sort of thing. Germany is threatening something even harsher. http://www.spiegel.De/international/business/german-minister-on-eu-company-ban-for-privacy-violation-a-914824.html --Paulmd199 (talk) 06:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Source for Silent Circle in relation to Snowden/Lavabit - Snowden fallout claims second email service petrarchan47tc 20:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The Executive Branch didn't shut down Lavabit or Silent Circle--they did that on their own. So any mention of these two under EB shouldn't be there. If it belongs in this article at all, it should be Public.

Snowden comments on the closing of these email providers and the larger picture: source. On a related note, this article is pretty short on actual commentary by Snowden... I think I've seen only quotation attributed to him, while the page is heavy on "reactions" from others, especially the US government. I wonder if this might cause a POV problem that should be remedied, or if this is in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. petrarchan47tc 20:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

He doesn't say much in general. We mostly get reassurances via Kucherena or Greenwald that he is in good health and/or spirits. In related news: major German ISPs are making encrypted email standard. (when everybody encrypts, it isn't suspicious any more). http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/german-web-firms-to-launch-encrypted-email-as-standard-following-nsa-snooping-furor/2013/08/09/f33010d6-0100-11e3-8294-0ee5075b840d_story.html In other news: Elvis has left the building. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/09/edward-snowden-not-in-moscow --Paulmd199 (talk) 05:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Further sourcing: interview with Lavabit owner; this tweet from Greenwald says: "On the self-shutdown of Snowden's email service Lavabit to avoid US survillance - with reaction from Snowden:" (and links to this Guardian piece). petrarchan47tc 21:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

This is all Greenwald opinion. Since when has Greenwald become an actor in the Executive Branch?Wikione29 (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Connection to Snowden

I'm no longer participating on this article but I thought I'd mention that it currently has a whole paragraph on Lavabit with no explanation of its connection to Snowden. This needs fixing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Nobel nomination

The Nobel nomination stuff should be removed. Any professor of sociology can nominate anyone, Svallfors has no special standing with the Nobel Committee. All it takes is writing a letter. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Removed. Tarc (talk) 00:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

endorse. This was removed previously, and should stay off the page. Nomination criteria are just too non-discriminating to be worth anything. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 02:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Snowden's Nobel Nomination has received significant media coverage, and is thus more notable than a normal nomination, and as such, should be mentioned on the page. --Starfyredragon (talk) 03:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

In fact, to drive the above point home, if you google "Nobel Peace Prize nominee" the first result, and four out of the first five all reference snowden, the only one that doesn't is information on the process. When Snowden's being nominated for the Nobel Peace prize is more noteworthy than the fact that there IS a nobel peace prize nomination, it deserves to be a notable part of the information on him.

--Starfyredragon (talk) 03:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Any yahoo can be nominated, this isn't notable in the slightest. So for the others here, if y'all want this junk to remain out of the article, someone besides me will have to step up here and revert this simpering fan nonsense. Tarc (talk) 03:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Another vote that the Nobel nomination stuff should be kept from prominence in the article. The nominations themselves aren't terribly meaningful. Killdevil (talk) 04:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't this talk page have one of those FAQ thingies at the top since this has been covered repeatedly? --Malerooster (talk) 04:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that would probably be a good idea. Killdevil (talk) 04:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

As per request, I moved the information down to the NGO section, but someone keeps reverting which removes what was presented as an acceptable solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starfyredragon (talk • contribs) 04:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

You can't paint an orange red and call it an apple; a "nomination" is not an "award". This does not belong anywhere in this article. Tarc (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

That's because it's not notable. One nomination by an obscure professor. Come back when there's a serious movement which doesn't have fleeting coverage. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

If Snowden wins however, the information will be in the first sentence of the lead. Jusdafax 01:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It may be one of those bad examples set by Hollywood hype, adverts that trumpet Academy Award nominations to sell cinema tickets. And WP editors also fall into the claptrap and repeat it in the articles. But then the nomination process isn't anything near as open. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 01:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Updating the info re: nomination. Nominators now include a Norwegian MP (Snorre Valen, and a Danish political party (Enhedslisten -- they poll at around 7%). This would be at least 3 nominations, the last one is the most significant of the lot. And now back to the debate. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2013/08/14/Danish-political-party-nominates-Snowden-for-Nobel-peace-prize/UPI-89141376489458/ --Paulmd199 (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

So what? I could get a bunch at the pub to recommend him for nomination just by buying a round of beers. When (if) he actually gets some award by some reputable organization, then that is a fact to be considered for relevance.Wikione29 (talk) 00:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikione29 (talk • contribs)

Awards and petitions

I removed the awards section as being in duplication of two lines already in the NGO section, and the "petitions" as they are self-referenced, but the keep coming back. I object to the re-appearance of these but I'm not going to war over this. I thought we already resolved the Avaaz petition issue a while back, but it is argued (in edit summary, so not really argued, IMHO) that my removal "was based on wrong assumptions". It was also said that the "NGO section was missing important details. Award section is essential", yet the Awards section states not one word more than what is already in the NGO section. I'd like to know what was wrong with my assumptions, and whether the assembled editors now believe consensus has changed sufficiently for the petitions section to stay, or whether they shoud be removed as linkspam. Second question is whether we should eject the Awards from the NGO section into its own section? -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 15:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I missed the Awards section party? WTF?!?! Was he wearing a strapless mint green...never mind. The entire concept is ludicrous. What NOTABLE awards has this guy been nominated for other then the faux Noble award nomination? Veriss (talk) 08:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Why the snark? petrarchan47tc 22:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Snowden hasn't been nominated for the Nobel peace prize. He has just been recommended for nomination by a Swedish professor. KahnJohn27 (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes he has. At least 3 times. See above in the Nobel category. --Paulmd199 (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

So what? I could get a bunch at the pub to recommend him for nomination just by buying a round of beers. When (if) he actually gets some award by some reputable organization, then that is a fact to be considered for relevance.Wikione29 (talk) 00:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Snowden statement to HuffPo concerning certain media stories

Cliff Notes

• Neither the elder Snowden, Fein nor his wife (Mattie) officially represent the younger Snowden, nor have any special knowledge regarding future plans.
• Certain claims printed in the media by Fein and co are not true (the letter itself does not specify)
• Asks the media not to exploit the elder Snowden for the sake of tabloid news.
• Being represented by an international team of lawyers, by which he means the ACLU is coordinating his defense.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/15/edward-snowden-media-misled_n_3764560.html?1376612797 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmd199 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

What's odd here is that Edward Snowden says his father and Bruce Fein "do not possess any special knowledge regarding my situation" yet Lon Snowden just had a two hour online chat with his son in Bruce Fein's office. If Lon Snowden talked to Edward for two hours he's obviously got more knowledge than, say, I do. Reading between the lines the HuffPo statement thus appears an instruction from Edward Snowden to deem Lon Snowden and his legal team an unreliable source. I'd note that the other known contact points with Snowden: Kucherena, Poitras, and Greenwald, are all difficult to work with respect to investigative reporting given that all three of them are experienced with handling hostile media inquiries.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It must have been an awkward and painful conversation. Having to assume that encrypted chats would be intercepted, and a maximum effort would be made to break them, or break into the machines themselves. The younger Snowden's machine is likely a hard nut to crack, but the one in the Lawyer's office, not so much. Also: public statements are public, it could be written to spare Lon yet another visit from the FBI. --Paulmd199 (talk) 07:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Large disclosure on Washington Post

Four separate reports detailing thousands of privacy violations per year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-broke-privacy-rules-thousands-of-times-per-year-audit-finds/2013/08/15/3310e554-05ca-11e3-a07f-49ddc7417125_story.html

--Paulmd199 (talk) 02:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

NY Times Dezastru (talk) 05:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Having read the article and all the reports, there is something that strikes me. There are no technical barriers to domestic surveillance built into the tools. One accidental query was phone numbers on the 202 areacode instead of numbers in country code 20. It is entirely up to the analyst. Overbroad search terms is another big one. --Paulmd199 (talk) 06:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

LA Times: New Snowden leaks reveal problems at NSA -- this has yet to be added to the page. petrarchan47tc 21:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's remember that what we have here is a biography about Snowden, not an article about the NSA and the leaks. While the leaks and the flight are obviously central to his significance and notability, it may be best to start spinning some of this material off to a an article centered on the leaks themselves. Tarc (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

This article, 2013 mass surveillance disclosures, might be a good place to start. Jehochman ^Talk 23:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

"Edward Snowden leaks", or something similar, would be a good page to start soon. If the "2013 disclosures" are indeed all due to Snowden leaks, then I would say the article title is misleading. I haven't read the article, maybe there are other 2013 leaks it covers, the title certainly insinuates as much. For now, it seems to make sense to include leaks here in the time-line, but maybe refrain from full coverage. petrarchan47tc 04:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I take that back, better to note these leaks under "media disclosures" than in the time-line. petrarchan47tc 06:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

They are not all Snowden, though they mainly are. there is a small section of non-snowden disclosures. --Paulmd199 (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Edward Snowden is on the Human Rights Watch list

Snowden Case Should Fully Consider Public Interest in Disclosures, see (http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/06/18/us-protect-national-security-whistleblowers) (111.248.246.248 (talk) 08:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC))

The Insurance files

May have just been posted on wikileaks' facebook page. In encrypted form AES256.

400GB between three files.

http://www.seattlepi.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Wikileaks-Just-Released-A-Massive-Insurance-4740948.php

If these are Snowden's, and it seems likely, he was a very busy boy. AES does not alter the filesize significantly. The other possibility here is they are the rest of Manning's stash, (only one part has ever been published, the remaining two thirds have not been). Wikileaks has been making dark hints about releasing those depending on the outcome of the trial. (the sentencing phase is nearing completion now) --Paulmd199 (talk) 06:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

So far Snowden has leaked Powerpoint slides and text documents. 400GB of that seems absurdly unrealistic. --Conti|✉ 07:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Greenwald described his take as 15000-20000 documents. "Some very large and very detailed, others very small" the other thing Greenwald has said is that he has the pre approved for journalism pile, and not the really damaging stuff. Which is the insurance. If this is authentic, it's not just slides, but actual intel and collection and so forth. I don't know for sure. And it could indeed be other part of Manning's stash, Manning, as you recall was known to have downloaded hundreds of thousands of documents. Some are now searchable as Wikileak's library of diplomacy. The Iraq war files have not been. --Paulmd199 (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

A third possibility: A still-unknown leaker. I have some further thoughts on who, but don't want to share them. --Paulmd199 (talk) 07:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 August 2013

Please remove footnote #1. It no longer is connected to anything that I can find. This has already been discussed in the Talk page without objection. Wikione29 (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC) Wikione29 (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what this request is referring to. Note 1 concerns the HK Justice Minister's decision. It has an appropriate link in the text (5th paragraph in the HK section), and the various links within the note appear to be valid. jxm (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Pator/Traitriot Nonsense

The use of the preceding clause "Some have called him" is a clever way to sneak in a lot of ill-defined politically motivated rhetoric. In particular, the terms "traitor" and "patriot" are essentially meaningless and ought be taken out in the interest of neutrality. --Jeanvonjauss (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. The article is neutrally showing there is a very wide range of opinions about the subject and his actions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Nearly all revolutionaries (Cromwell, Jefferson, Danton) have been labelled both a patriot and a traitor. How come this terminology is not included in their articles? In addition, I challenge you to provide a satisfactory definition of the terms traitor and patriot. They are both highly subjective, emotional, undescriptive words with no place in an educational encyclopedia claiming neutrality. --Jeanvonjauss (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not calling Snowden a traitor or patriot. It is stating notable people have done so. Big difference. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I just glanced at Cromwell: "Cromwell is one of the most controversial figures in the history of the British Isles, considered a regicidal dictator by historians such as David Hume, a military dictator by Winston Churchill, but a hero of liberty by Thomas Carlyle and Samuel Rawson Gardiner". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

What I am saying is that by preceding these labels with "Some have called him" is a way to use these labels while still being able to claim neutrality, which is a slippery slope IMO. Applying the same principle, would you add to Usamah bin Laden's article "Some have called him a terrorist"? I take your point on Cromwell. --Jeanvonjauss (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

We have: "His viewpoints and methods of achieving them had led to him being designated as a terrorist by scholars..." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess the main reason why I take issue with these labels being thrown out is that no care is taken to see how much they actually reflect public opinion. WP:NPOV says to "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views." Well, let's see how accurate this article is as a barometer of public opinion:

• Hero - This would be a term in Snowden's favour.
• Whistleblower - favour
• Dissident - favour
• Traitor - opposed to Snowden
• Patriot - favour

That's 80% in favour. Does public opinion reflect that? As far as I can tell from polling, public opinion is nowhere near that decisive in their support for Snowden. Here is just one of the polls. --Jeanvonjauss (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Careful. That's a purely American poll. Snowden is an international figure so European, Russian, etc. views have to be taken into account. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Which is precisely why I'm against including these words in the first place. I don't know what the global public opinion is on Snowden, but until it can be measured accurately I'm against using these words, and to use these words without a sense of where global public opinion is would seem to violate WP:NPOV. Just my two pence. --Jeanvonjauss (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we use "global public opinion" in articles. If you look at a different areas, Roger Federer, Muhammad Ali, Meryl Streep, Neville Chamberlain and The Beatles don't use global public opinion, but rather the viewpoints of individuals or teams of people. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV implies that some objective measure of viewpoint prevalence must be used ("Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views"). I can think of some prominent scholars that deny the Holocaust, however this is a clearly absurd viewpoint and goes against both the majority consensus among scholars and the public opinion in the West. --Jeanvonjauss (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

"Dissident" might be WP:FRINGE but the other terms appear often enough in non-fringe sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Jeanvonjauss (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

A dissident, formally, is a person who disagrees with the established religious or political system, organization, or belief. It seems fair to say that Mr Snowden doesn't agree with certain established policies. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dissident --Paulmd199 (talk) 21:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It appears that dissident may be well-defined, then, hmm. But what of the other four? Surely they have no strong, widely used common definition. --Jeanvonjauss (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why you're focused on definitions. All the article is saying is people use those terms to describe Snowden. And of course Webster's has pretty clear definitions for all the terms. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I am especially focused on definition because the connotations of each term decides whether the paragraph as a whole gives due weight to each side, and as per my previous posts, it does not, with 4/5 (3/5 at best) terms being pro-Snowden. --Jeanvonjauss (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Whistleblower has a formal definition too, "a person who provides information about another's wrongdoing," the political disagreement with the term whistleblower is more about the definition of wrongdoing. --Paulmd199 (talk) 01:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Patriot - "one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests" - The problem: it's subject to debate

Traitor has a generic definition, but within the United States, it also has a specific constitutional one "...shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." a debate over how to define en enemy, absent a formal declaration of war, and also over whether Snowden's disclosures would qualify as aid.

Hero has one neutral definition that fits: "the central figure in an event, period, or movement," but several others that are up for debate: "a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities", "one who shows great courage", and "an object of extreme admiration and devotion" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hero. --Paulmd199 (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

He is not a traitor. The only definition that will count in the long term, is this from the article, as its the final legal position in US law. Snowden speaking. 'The 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution of my country, Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and numerous statutes and treaties forbid such systems of massive, pervasive surveillance. While the US Constitution marks these programs as illegal, my government argues that secret court rulings, which the world is not permitted to see, somehow legitimize an illegal affair'. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 02:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013 USA poll. The university's respected polling institute said 55 per cent of the 1468 registered voters it contacted by telephone this week considered Snowdown to be a whistle-blower. Thirty-four per cent viewed him as a traitor, while 11 per cent either didn't known or gave no response. http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/snowden-a-whistleblower-not-traitor-poll/story-e6frfkui-1226689915273 Blade-of-the-South (talk) 02:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay but international polling data doesn't appear to exist at this stage. I would like to at least include Europe in the broader picture because the program in question appeared almost to target them. In any case, with this international polling data lacking, and with the above analysis on the subjectivity of the terms "Traitor", "Hero", "Whistleblower" and "Patriot" it would seem that the "sapientissimum iudicatum" would be to omit these highly politically charged words entirely. --Jeanvonjauss (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree, include world data, it will show he is a whistle blower and patriot, by the majority IMHO. BTW Snowden has the 'The 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution on his side. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 02:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Well my point was there is no world data, as far as I know, but I don't necessarily disagree that if world data was available the support for Snowden would be stronger. But how strong? 75%? 80%? Let's have a revised look at these words, using the analysis Paulmd199 provided:

• Hero - Favour, it assumes some nobility or courage (up for debate)
• Whistleblower - Neutral, what he exposed was indeed wrongdoing (not up for debate)
• Dissident - Neutral, it satisfies the definition of "dissident" without taking sides
• Traitor - Opposition, it assumes Snowden is an enemy
• Patriot - Favour, it assumes that Snowden supports his country and its interests (up for debate, once more)

Let's see, 40% of the terms in are in favour of Mr. Snowden, 20% are against him, and 40% are neutral. If anyone can produce any type of data showing that global opinion matches this, then it should be kept as is. Otherwise, "hero, patriot and traitor" should be removed. --Jeanvonjauss (talk) 03:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

We go with reliable sources, and what they are saying. I can appreciate having strong views on the matter, many do, but we can't base edits on personal views. If you want to look through the archives, you'll see the labels for Snowden have been discussed quite a bit, particularly after someone from the US Senate building made it clear how important this issue is to the USG. Ultimately, we choose to go with the most neutral presentation, which was to refrain from labeling him, and to point to notable sources for a well-rounded view. These terms weren't added based on whether they reflected positively on the subject, or otherwise, but rather they are chosen by adhering to the principles of WP:RS. petrarchan47tc 03:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The "global opinion" survey thing is a red herring. Especially since many sources have called Snowden a traitor or conversely, a hero. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

This issue has been thoroughly discussed, I don't think it's wise to allow this to become a controversy again. I am also wary of allowing single purpose accounts to take up editors's time rehashing consensed material. petrarchan47tc 04:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

75% of all Internet Traffic

Mind boggling. http://rt.com/usa/nsa-programs-internet-surveillance-759/ Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm digesting this for the 2013 MSD article. Clears up Upstream, BLARNEY, etc. Will also tie in to mark klein, Room 641A. Blarney will need its own page. I think i will do that first.

Don't miss the bit about collecting all emails and text messages in the salt lake area for the 6 months surrounding the 2002 Olympic games.

Primary is much more detailed. http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2-305663/ (will let you evade the wsj paywall for a while)

In other news, the NSA still doesn't know exactly which files Snowden got. The short version: He took so much that the overwhelmed the investigation, NSA doesn't have great auditing , and Snowden had a very high level of access, and a skillset that allowed him to at least partially cover his tracks. http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/20/20108770-us-doesnt-know-what-snowden-took-sources-say?lite --Paulmd199 (talk) 03:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

In yet other news, the UK government forced the Guardian to destroy their computer in an attempt to stop the leaks. And Greenwald's partner was held for 9 hours of questioning under anti terrorism laws. Democracy Now is calling it "The UK crackdown on journalism." petrarchan47tc 03:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I have read those, a reference to the 2nd is in the 2013 MSD article. I consider the second important, not because of Greenwald and Miranda, but because over 230,000 people have been similarly detained under Schedule 7. An elephant in the room. --Paulmd199 (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Interesting court decision-- all about Upstream, like the wsj article. Upstream, which can reach 75% of all US internet traffic, is only about 9% of the total NSA take. the Document expands very much on the body of work. And It mneans, if have a section of the 2013 MSD to rewrite. References, and expands on the change in minimization procedures mentioned in Guardian article.

https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/fisc_opinion_-_unconstitutional_surveillance_0.pdf --Paulmd199 (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

This today on RT re above post. 'Snowden tricked NSA - and they don't know how he did it' http://rt.com/news/snowden-nsa-safeguards-logs-943/Blade-of-the-South (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Snowden NSA leaks

I have no experience with larger structural issues on wiki, such as creating articles, naming them, etc., so I wanted to reach out for feedback and help. I see a real issue here with Snowden's leaks being dealt with at an article called "2013 mass surveillance disclosures", which deals with a lot of other things as well. The NSA/Snowden disclosures aren't known to the general public (or even folks on Wiki) as "2013 MSD", they are known as 'Snowden leaks, or 'NSA disclosures', or perhaps 'Snowden NSA disclosures/leaks'.

The 2013 MSD article does not have any redirects, so if you were to look up Snowden leaks, in any of its forms, you would never end up at the Wiki page that has been semi-dedicated to covering this information.

Given these disclosures are shaking the world, Wikipedia should have a dedicated article for them. We have articles for the individual spying programs that were revealed, but no article to deal with Snowden NSA leaks in general: all the stories behind the disclosures, the aftermath, the changes taking place (often referred to as "The Snowden Effect") in governments, etc. This is a big subject, and these details are going to have to be housed at this BLP article until a proper one is created, I'm afraid. petrarchan47tc 02:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You could create some redirects. Synchronization is very very difficult. And the more pages it is spread across, the harder it is to do. --Paulmd199 (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: if you find Edward Snowden, the first thing you see is "further information: 2013 mass surveillance disclosures." The way I see things, the true scope is far broader than Edward Snowden vs the NSA. It is bulk surveillance, worldwide, on a staggering scale; no one, anywhere is truly exempt, it is almost a flat guarantee that anyone, anywhere who uses electronic means to communicate is apt to have those communications intercepted by a third party. I have just finished reading the court finding with regards to the Upstream collection. A system that can reach 75% of all internet communications is a dwarf, accounting for 9% of the NSA's total internet collection; the other 91% is PRISM. And that isn't even all of the NSA, since neither are the bulk telephony data mentioned in leak #1. On top of that, the NSA isn't the only player, even in the US, there is the FBI and CIA. And then there are the British, the Russians, the Chinese, and a whole host of nations. And then there are corporations. Even if everything Edward Snowden has were publicly known right now, it would still be the tiniest tip of a truly staggering iceberg. The problem is proof; one document at a time. --Paulmd199 (talk) 03:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a valid reason for the broader scope article, and an equally valid reason to create one dealing specifically with Snowden NSA leaks and fallout. This is too much to burden either this BLP or the mass surveillance article with. But for now we should probably house this information here (and we are way behind). petrarchan47tc 21:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't object, I just don't have the capacity to maintain and synchronize. The new page would be a good place to house the somewhat redundant Snowden table currently in the 2013 MSD article. --Paulmd199 (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Right. Maybe others will step in who have the ability to help. Did you see this? Snowden: UK Govt now leaking documents about itself. petrarchan47tc 22:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, noted already on talk page of the 2013 MSD article. It's hard to get at what really happened until the Independent provides some sort of information on their true source and the motives of the same. The existence of the facility itself does not seem to be disputed, just the source of the information. --Paulmd199 (talk) 04:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Re 'did you see this? Paulmd199 Very interesting, that is a false flag event created by the UK. Aim? To discredit the Guardian and Snowden and the whistle blower concept by creating a view that Snowden et all risk lives / security. You know there is a lot at stake here, Power and control, the Moral high ground, but public opinion especially. I for one agree there is a valid reason for the broader scope article. Why? The world will never be the same again now we have proof they spy on, well probably everything. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 03:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

There are multiple possibilities. Assuming good faith of the Independent, assuming that they are not, in fact a Government shill or dupe in this case, and assuming that Snowden's cache remains uncompromized. Assume that Snowden is not their source, but is otherwise truthful, let's further assume that their source really has access to a cache of some 50,000 GCHQ documents. This would mean a second Snowden. Working for the British. Even if Snowden himself doesn't see it, bulk collection on whole populations, for whatever alleged purpose really is a civil rights concern. Governments typically presume that foreigners have no rights, but it is not actually true, on a fundamental level. The motivations of the Independent's source are critical, this third party really could be another whistleblower, in a dangerous position, who had hoped to deflect attention away from his/her activities. This is speculation, of course, a scenario that awaits on further details from the Independent to prove or disprove. Two things that lead toward this being the case: Greenwald estimated Snowden's cache at only 15000-20000, mostly NSA, and the NSA, even at this late date is still stymied in determining what Snowden really does have. --Paulmd199 (talk) 04:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

PS: Meet "CyberSweep" Made by Glimmerglass. The corpwatch article isn't even showing the scariest slides: Reconstructs Facebook friends and networks just by doing intercepts (slide 11). Then we have Webmail, chat, NetMeeting, and phone calls (content, not metadata) (slide 12)

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=15862

http://www.wikileaks.org/spyfiles/docs/glimmerglass/55_glimmerglass-cybersweep.html

--Paulmd199 (talk) 05:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Transparacy website

Official place for interested persons to see declassified NSA docs. Off to a good start. the 2011 minimization procedures, fisa court cases, etc.

I see this as a bright spot. The only downside, for me: all the documents are hosted at http://www.dni.gov/ , which I cannot directly access with my real IP address. It is quite frustrating that i have to use TOR, not to hide, but just so I can see what the rest of the public sees.

http://icontherecord.tumblr.com/

--Paulmd199 (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Can we please stick to discussing the article and how to improve it. WP:NOTFORUM and all that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I would say that improving Wikipedia structure on this is improving this article. Let's work on both! [Not me, but others.] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

For example, at the bottom of this article is a section called "Notes" with one lonely note that is getting old. Is it out of place soon, or should there be other notes of interest? — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree this thread is on the article as its such a broad and deep topic. No Gov agent interference allowed, conscious or unconscious. I would bet big money they are here but neutrality and references will sort things out. Lol. Too late the genies out boys and it will never go back in. Live with it. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Interrogation of David Miranda under Terrorism Act

I may have missed it, but I don't see any mention of GCHQ's dentention, under the UK's Terrorism Act, of Greenwald's partner, David Miranda, as he was transiting Heathrow en route home to Brazil from Germany, where he had been visiting Poitras. He was reportedly detained for 9 hours and extensively interrogated about Greenwald and Poitras' reporting on Snowden's disclosures concerning the NSA. This information is relevant to the article's description of the government responses to Snowden's disclosures, but which section would be most appropriate for it? There seems to be a movement to add current developments to the Temporary Asylum in Russia section, apparently as a way of describing developments chronologically. Is that really the best section, given that the title of the section kind of suggests the events described within should involve Russia? Dezastru (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Kommersant Article (Snowden at Russian embassy, etc )

Comrade Fidel has a few words about Cuba's involvement, and Snowden in particular. It is in Spanish for now, Typically translated in a day or two into English and other languages.

http://www.cuba.cu/gobierno/reflexiones/2013/esp/f270813e.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/28/fidel-castro-edward-snowden-cuba-us

--Paulmd199 (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

USA caught spying on UN

This goes from bad to worse. Im wondering if there will be an article on the tremendous damage done to US credibility. Maybe a consequences / fallout section here. Not reactions but consequences re review of NSA / policy changes / decreased world trust i.e in Germany / legal ramifications actions etc / http://rt.com/news/nsa-us-un-germany-snowden-964/ Blade-of-the-South (talk) 08:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

This is borderline off topic but the NSA's intelligence efforts in this regard led to the discovery of a particular place the Chinese were spying on the UN. Who would expose Chinese spying if the NSA were shut down? Private individuals like you or me? Shutting down the NSA would not stop the surveillance, it would just mean the Chinese, Russians, etc have the field when it comes to spying.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC concerning the Lavabit email service

There is a request for comments (RfC) that may be of interest. The RfC is at

Talk:Lavabit#RfC: Should information about Lavabit complying with previous search warrants be included?

At issue is whether we should delete or keep the following text in the Lavabit article:

Before the Snowden incident, Lavabit had complied with previous search warrants. For example, on June 10, 2013, a search warrant was executed against Lavabit user Joey006@lavabit.com for alleged possession of child pornography.

Your input on this question would be very much welcome. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

New information

Logistics of Snowden's information acquisition strategy.

• Use credentials of NSA officials.

Fun quote from article: “Every day, they are learning how brilliant [Snowden] was,” said a former U.S. official with knowledge of the case. “This is why you don’t hire brilliant people for jobs like this. You hire smart people. Brilliant people get you in trouble.”

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/29/20234171-snowden-impersonated-nsa-officials-sources-say

Specifics on background check omissins.

USIS did not:

• Interview anyone besides his mother and sister (in original wsj article, since disappeared behind the paywall)
• Investigate a trip to India he failed to report
• Seek additional information related to a previous breech

http://www.financialexpress.com/news/counterintelligence-review-throws-light-on-snowdens-visit-to-india-before-2011/1161847

--Paulmd199 (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Carter comments

The article indicates that President Carter "Applauded Snowden" The references give don't seem to say that at all. What I do see from Carter are comments like: ""He's obviously violated the laws of America, for which he's responsible," Carter said at that time, "but I think the invasion of human rights and American privacy has gone too far." and "I think that the secrecy that has been surrounding this invasion of privacy has been excessive, so I think that the bringing of it to the public notice has probably been, in the long term, beneficial," Carter said."

And also, reference 23, discusses Clapper, and says nothing about Carter, nor does it quote Carter. Please edit so that it follows the fact and has proper references.

Probably it should say something like: such as former president Jimmy Carter, have said that Snowden obviously violated the law for which he is responsible. But -- bringing the information to the public notice may be beneficial in the long term."

As Carter has not, and does not applud Snowden, saying that he does is not accurate. Suggesting that Snowden is responsible for breaking the law is not really applause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.39.145 (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Jacob Appelbaum accepts German Whistleblower award on behalf of Snowden.

Reads a speech written by Snowden.

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cW8lRCqYI6U
• Transparency International Deutchland - official YouTube channel

Relevance

• Goes in the Awards on general principles. The prize is €3000
• Reflects on Snowden's worldview and politics.

Additional articles:

• http://www.dw.de/snowden-did-it-for-all-of-us/a-17057251
• http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/europe/Edward-Snowden-awarded-with-German-whistleblower-prize/articleshow/22187970.cms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmd199 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

Some content continues to be removed, or changed, against consensus and facts. Please help watch for this - the Morales incident is being removed against consensus (see talk archives), and for whatever reason, the word "temporary" is being removed from Russian asylum status, although that is the official status. Other details have been repeatedly removed from Temporary asylum section as well. Restored for now... petrarchan47tc 05:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Significant Hole

There is no indication of the date or arrangements when snowden moved to hawaii, nor his participation in the FBI Insider-Threat counter-intelligence programs since immediately after his first contact with the original journalist and criminal gang greenwald. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.140.34 (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Could you provide a source for this information? It is data I was not aware of, if true. --Paulmd199 (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Before deleting large sections gain TK consensus

Before deleting large sections (which are referenced, and hence someone's hard work) please use the talk page and avoid unilateral decisions based on What is and What is not relevant. --Inayity (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

We've been down this road before. Repeatedly We have an editor who likes to avoid certain inconvenient bits of history despite consensus. For the record: The Morales Plane incident has everything to do with Snowden. Snowden's father has become an advocate for his son's actions. Putin and Morales, and other world leaders are deeply involved. Their actions are relevent.--Paulmd199 (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

If he keeps doing it its vandalism Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we can request for topic ban. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 03:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 September 2013

Last sentence of the first paragraph under the Career section(1.3), Snowden's last name is misspelled. It currently reads "Showden stated that this was the result of breaking both of his legs in a training accident.[54}" Htorres1902 (talk) 04:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 05:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Edward Snowden said he worked for CIA and NSA

The references cited for Edward Snowden state that he said he worked for CIA and NSA. Contributor has shortened the first paragraph by deleting "he said" without a credible citation. Please foot note a credible source or I plan to insert "he said"Patroit22 (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

News articles typically describe him as either Former CIA, former NSA, former contractor... etc.. You may be reading too much into the background check story in which USIS didn't verify such.

And as requested: "At the time of the alleged incident, Snowden said he was working undercover for the CIA in Geneva maintaining computer network security. The CIA has declined to comment on Snowden’s case, but the Swiss foreign ministry confirmed that he publicly held the position of “an attaché” with the permanent U.S. mission to the United Nations in Geneva from March 2007 to February 2009. A spokesperson for the U.S. State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment for this report." (emphasis mine)

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/06/switzerland-questions-u-s-over-cia-drunk-driving-gambit/

--Paulmd199 (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Noted. but the lead sentence of the Snowden Wikipedia entry implies that his leaks were from U,S. employment. In fact his leaks were during his tenure with two NSA contractors. ____ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patroit22 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Sorry my signature did not recordPatroit22 (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

"Edward Joseph Snowden (born June 21, 1983) is an American computer specialist who worked for the CIA and the NSA and leaked details of several top-secret United States and British government mass surveillance programs to the press." This sentence is true. Not entirely clear what the beef is here. If it's just a matter of sourcing, we can just add my above article, which is definitive on CIA. And doesn't, to my eyes, imply that he leaked while working for the CIA. Especially given the second sentence:

"Based on information Snowden leaked to The Guardian[4] in May 2013 while employed at NSA contractor Booz Allen Hamilton, the British newspaper published a series of exposés that revealed programs such as the interception of U.S. and European telephone metadata and the PRISM, XKeyscore, and Tempora Internet surveillance programs. " This sentence is also true. Media sources are a little bit unclear on the timeline: We know he was retaining information while at Dell, but: did Snowden contact Greenwald (or any other) while still employed at Dell? We'd need to have a better idea of when Dell ended and Booz began. First contact with Greenwald seems to be sometime in January '13. Public leaks began in June. --Paulmd199 (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes It is a matter of sourcing. Use care in sourcing so there is no violation of the Intelligence Identies Protection Act if Snowden were an undercover CIA employee.Patroit22 (talk) 13:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Putin on Snowden

Cliff notes:

• "Strange guy"
• "I don't get what he's thinking"
• "Basically he doomed himself to a pretty difficult life. What will he do next, I don't even imagine. But it's clear now that we won't give him away, he should feel safe here."
• Re the alleged embassy stay: "I was told that Mr Snowden was flying to us two hours before the plane landed"
• Russia has not obtained any information. "We have national interest and we don't want to undermine...U.S.-Russian ties,"
• If shoe was on the other foot: "If it really were secret information and if such a person would inflict any damage on us, then, undoubtedly, I would seek to put him in front of the Russian law in all its severity"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/04/us-usa-security-snowden-russia-idUSBRE9830QD20130904?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmd199 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how the comment about when Snowden's flight landed implies anything about a stay at the consulate. Putin also says "Mr. Snowden first appeared in Hong Kong and met with our diplomatic representatives." That doesn't confirm residing at the consulate but it does confirm at least one meeting between Snowden and Russian diplomats in Hong Kong.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Brazilian lawmakers wish to speak to Snowden

• In person interview
• No date set
• Plan pending approval from Russia

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/09/11/brazilian-politicians-want-to-interview-snowden-about-nsa-spying-on-their/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmd199 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

What has snowden been up to all this time?

RT published excerpts of interview with his lawyer (they promise the full interview will be published Monday)

Cliff notes. (from associated video)

• Will not disclose residence location citing security concerns.
• Is free to travel and does so, takes walks.
• Has a security team. Believes he has not been recognized.
• Interests include art history
• Job offers/future plans
  • Business Executives/CEOs do offer.
  • Human rights work within Russia.
  • May settle in Russia.
• Father will visit soon.

http://rt.com/news/nsa-snowden-life-russia-954/

--Paulmd199 (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

How Snowden Got the Files

What is the feeling here on including how Snowden came about the NSA files? There have been a couple of news sources exploring some of his methods, but this article does not seem to cover them in any appreciable length:

- How Snowden did it - NBC News - 2013-08-26

- Snowden impersonated NSA officials, sources say - NBC News - 2013-08-29

- Sysadmin security fail: NSA finds Snowden hijacked officials’ logins - ArsTechnica - 2013-08-29

~GhostMX (talk) 06:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

iPhone fingerprint scanner - privacy/security issues

Impact of iPhone 5S fingerprint reader and the US-VISIT fingerprint gathering program and the possible resultant privacy/security issues due to Mass surveillance of bodies like the NSA; Mass surveillance being a major concern of Mr Snowden, prompting Mr Snowden to leak documents to the public.

8=> Snip <=8 Removed off topic soapboxing per WP:NOTSOAPBOX

122.150.200.116 (talk) 11:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Veriss (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for topic ban of Axxxion

I think we should put an end to Axxxion's slow revert war over the Russian asylum and Morale plane incident. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 23:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Wrong place. This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Edward Snowden article. I suggest WP:ANI. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Axxxion is making disruptive edits to THIS particular article, I need comment from other active editors of this article before present it to ANI. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 09:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

These edits are at least the 4th time the same vandalism has occurred. Here and here are two places this same editing problem was previously addressed. Why is this editor still on Wiki, let alone allowed to edit this article or related ones? Thank you to whoever takes the time to put an end to this :) petrarchan47tc 21:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

After the 5th mass removal by Axxxion, I agree it's time to report him to ANI. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request banning Axxxion from editing Edward Snowden. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Do it Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• You're not going to get a topic ban for a couple of edits, and that's all there is to it. Now, I agree that Axxxion should drop by here, but in the meantime I'll break a lance for them: these edits improve the article. They cut redundant information tangentially related to the subject; trimming the Morales section is perfectly fine and this edit summary, "trimmed the section: now that there is article on the subject, no need for so much verbiage on tangentially relevant incident", is perfectly appropriate. Perhaps editors should look more closely at the merits of the edits and less at the name of the editor making them. And over a week ago, Darrell Greenwood could have found a better way to solve a problem than just revert the lot: they could have summarized a lengthy section whose relevance to Edward Snowden is minor, minor. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with Drmies. That last revert reintroduced text that is duplicated in Evo Morales grounding incident. There is no need to have such a long piece here. Other sections could do with trimming too. -84user (talk) 05:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Re-add airport to Morales plane incident (see Talk Archive)

See Talk:Edward_Snowden/Archive_3#Morales_plane_incident_2: "There was consensus in a previous discussion that this article should only include aspects of the Morales incident that are directly relevant to Snowden."

The fact that Morales' plane did _not_ take of Sheremetyevo airport is relevant, as Mr. Snowden _was_ at Sheremetyevo at the given time. Please add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.134.79.1 (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Protection

I've just full protected for one week per this request at RFPP. Note that semi-protection will have to be re-enabled when full protection expires. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Believe the protection had better stay indefinitely as we are certain not to hear any tangible news pertaining to the biography of this person for some time to come. Any new revelations that may emanate from the trove he stole ought to go to another article, i.e. 2013 mass surveillance disclosures, or some others, more specific.Axxxion (talk) 12:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

No, a year's protection at most. After a year, the news of Snowden will come roaring back.ElectroPro (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure the article needed to be more than semi-protected, so a week of full protection is long enough and perhaps too long. It doesn't matter if new information about Snowden comes along or not. Editors should be able to make changes to the existing article to improve it or make corrections with as few administrative restrictions as possible. Since some recent changes have proven contentious, it might be best to talk over extensive changes here on the talk page before making them to the article. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 04:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly with Jeff Ogden. petrarchan47tc 05:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

the only change the article might well need is further trimming: this is a biography of a person who is 30 and whose career is only notable due to his massive theft of government property, which is entirely inconsequential in real terms. For all sensible people had always assumed that they are constantly listened in (otherwise most of us would never communicate at all - what's the point?) and the trove he stole is of no value to the russian thugs either because everyone knows they got hold of it: secret information in your hands have value only as long as no one knows that it is in your hands. The chap is a moron and has to all intents and purposes buried himself alive: being in the clutches of the KGB as he now is is the worst punishment, he will NEVER go free.Axxxion (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

In my understanding of Wikipedia,s guidelines, an editor with a strong POV on an article's subject should not take part in actively editing the page. Further, talk pages are not meant for personal commentary by Wikipedia editors - unless your opinion is printed in RS, it very literally does not matter in this context. Our only reason for being here is to try to get RS onto the page, and it cannot matter whether the subject appears to be hero or a villain. The only thing that matters are the guidelines, and following them as dispassionately as possible. petrarchan47tc 18:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Petrarchan, instead of meaningless pontificating, you would be much better off, morally, to apologize to me for your wanton ebonics-worded insults (User talk:Axxxion#Ya wanna quit vandalizing), flagrant breach of Wikipedia:Assume good faith, in fact. Yes, I do have a strong opinion, which is that this Resource must be Encyclopedia (See Wikipedia:Five pillars) and that this article should remain a biography of a living person. What I said above is relevant because this should inform and determine the size and the content of this article. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons prescribes extra caution and extra neutrality. This person's act provoked a media hoopla, but as usual, it is just that -- a lot of hot air, because journalists are paid for words and the public loves "espionage" (often thinking of Vesper Martini). Yes, to many what was published in the media was a revelation (Jesus Christ, the eavesdropping agency does eavesdrop!) but only because the majority of people even in the US did not even know that the NSA existed (as they could not care less)and most likely such people are still in the majority. But does this mean we must paste here all the journalistic claptrap? This person's biography can be fully laid out in 3 paragraphs. And as I said, he has disappeared from public view, likely for a long time. Now, his dad is currently in Moscow and as before spouting sentimental nonsense ([23]): Thank God, the article is blocked, or there would be new verbose paragraphs in it now expounding his fulsome praises to the Russian gov and personally to comrade Putin. This sort of BS ought to be out of here if only on the basis of WP:RECENT.Axxxion (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• What is important here, on Wikipedia, is what can be used to help build articles, what is reliably sourced and relevant. In no Wikipedia talk page is it acceptable to call the subject a "moron", nor are the views of an anonymous editor of any consequence if they are not backed by WP:RS. There is no reason to continue to make false claims (for instance, that Snowden is actually no big deal and will have no further mentions in media, or... no more "hot air" shall be forthcoming). We deal in facts, everything else is little more than a waste of our time. Further, by using this talk page as you are, you run the risk of exposing your POV which will eventually make editing this topic difficult for you, as it quite obviously in violation of WP:NPOV. petrarchan47tc 19:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

"In no Wikipedia talk page is it acceptable to call the subject a "moron"" -- any Guideline on that? It is just your opinion, like mine. But, interestingly, you keep avoiding addressing your obvious breach of the rules (see above).Axxxion (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please read the very top of this page thoroughly. Also, I am not inclined to address an issue you already brought to administration at the recent noticeboard discussion for which no action was deemed necessary. If you feel it deserves a second look, bring it to the proper authority, not to this talk page. petrarchan47tc 20:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is such policy. Have you completely forgotten WP:NPA? KonveyorBelt 18:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Would u mind reading it in fact? : "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. ... Derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor." (my bold type).Axxxion (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's a substantial new source that deserves mention in the article. Too bad that cooler heads couldn't prevail and this article couldn't remain on semi-protection. I believe full protection is unwarranted. If there is further edit warring or other disruptive behavior, I believe it should be dealt with on an editor-by-editor basis. I strongly disagree with Axxxion and ElectroPro's suggestion to keep full protection for the long term. Not only is it undercut by the appearance of new sources, but honestly, it appears disingenuous, as it comes after I believe Axxxion basically got his/her way on major developing edit wars. On top of that, the idea that there's no need for substantial improvement is absurd. Is anyone seriously suggesting the article is ready for GA nomination? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your interpretation: there was no "major edit war", but persistent and totally unwarranted attempts to revert reasonable edits (essentially prescribed by the Rules as a matter of technicality): See experienced contributors' opinions on this in the section Talk:Edward Snowden#Request for topic ban of Axxxion here.Axxxion (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

If there was no major developing edit war then why do you think the article is currently in full protection? And now that you've managed to keep out the "persistent and totally unwarranted" reversions you want the article locked down indefinitely, eh? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)