This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. United States: North Carolina C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina. Espionage C‑class Low‑importance Edward Snowden is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

There is a section in here stating that he religiously downloaded lots of internet porn while he worked. No citation or relavence. 192.249.47.163 (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

OK, this has been corrected.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But in the CNN interview Ellsberg states:

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

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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Given "the Obama administration's baying-bloodhound chase of suspected leakers" [2] I can't say I blame him. So much for "most transparent administration in history." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Here is the money quote, sourced to the Guardian: At a Senate intelligence committee hearing, (Director of National Intelligence James) Clapper was asked by Democratic senator Ron Wyden: "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" Clapper replied: "No sir. Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly." [3] The actions of Snowden clearly call the truthfulness of that response into question. In fact, Clapper has now admitted on national news "I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful manner by saying no." [4] Least untruthful is a fancy way of saying "I didn't lie, much." Snowden blew the whistle on these false claims by a top intelligence official. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How did Snowden manage to travel to Hong Kong? There are typically travel restrictions on people with the types of clearances that Snowden possessed and the job role he had. It's deeply ironic that the USG did not appear to notice he was gone until the release of the PRISM data. He could just as easily been in mainland China, North Korea, etc.

It seems like it's a huge failure of US counter-intelligence, the TSA, no-fly list, etc. Basically, it's a failure of every system put in place since 9-11 to protect US citizens. I hope to see some reporters cover this issue in detail. Jsheehy (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Jsheehy: Here's an exerpt from this article by the Guardian. "He then advised his NSA supervisor that he needed to be away from work for "a couple of weeks" in order to receive treatment for epilepsy, a condition he learned he suffers from after a series of seizures last year. As he packed his bags, he told his girlfriend that he had to be away for a few weeks, though he said he was vague about the reason. "That is not an uncommon occurrence for someone who has spent the last decade working in the intelligence world." On May 20, he boarded a flight to Hong Kong, where he has remained ever since." — -dainomite   05:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I read the same article. It says nothing to address my question. Specifically, it says nothing of how he traveled there. Normally, someone would need special approval to travel to a place like Hong Kong. I doubt he convinced them that he was traveling to Hong Kong for treatment of his epilepsy. Why was he not flagged when he bought a ticket, presumably a one-way ticket to Hong Kong? Why did the no-fly list not raise an alert? There are many more questions. Jsheehy (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's silly, I would assume he travelled there by plane, or boat. I would be money he didn't tell his bosses where he was going and simply bought a plane/boat ticket. Why would he be flagged for buying a ticket to Hong Kong? Why would he have been on the no-fly list? Why would he need special approval to go? — -dainomite   06:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Jsheehy: Seems highly unlikely he'd buy a one-way ticket. Apart from even people like me knowing that that's an obvious red flag, it makes it harder to get into countries and is also (in my limited experience) more expensive than a return. Terrycojones (talk) 06:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I don't know how common the later (more expensive) actually is in a case like this. At least whenever I've looked, primarily for cases between NZ or Australia to Asia (generally Malaysia and places nearby) and also some flights within Asia), the oneway has either been cheaper or the same price. It may be far more than half price, but not more expensive than the price of a return ticket. I guess it may occasionally happen at the boundaries where there's an ultra cheap strict condition ticket for the return but no such ticket exists for the one way, perhaps because they are all sold out. (In the Oceania and Asian market, I think even the policy of one ways costing much more than half a return may be dying given the growth of international low cost carriers and their general point to point fare structure, where there's generally no such thing as a return ticket instead you just book two one ways.)

In fact back in 2001 it was suggested by a travel agent, I was coming to NZ to study but intended to come to NZ for a holiday/sorting out my plans first and then go back to Malaysia and later back to NZ. For various reasons it was easier to sort out my visa in NZ while here on my holiday then it was in Malaysia and price wise it also seemed better to buy a return ticket from NZ to MY than MY to NZ. All this combined meant I couldn't get a one way ticket in Malaysia because NZ wouldn't have been happy about it even thought it was slightly cheaper than a return ticket but needed a one way ticket at some stage. So after coming to NZ and sorting out my visa I booked a return ticket from NZ to MY and had the remaining return leg for NZ to MY of my original ticket cancelled for a tiny refund. IIRC even without the refund it would likely have been cheaper than keeping my return ticket and booking a one way in Malaysia travelling to NZ.)

Anyway back to the point, from what I've read, it sounds like this is much more common for flights within the US, to the extent that some airlines even have direct bans of it ('Throw-away ticketing' or booking a return ticket but only using one-way) and reserve the right to charge you the full price for a one way ticket. From what I've read, I'm not sure it holds for flights from the US to international destinations.

I presume a big problem is this sort of policy is very hard to police, for starters unless you're doing it all the time, it's hard for them to know if you did this intentional or were genuinely unable to make the return leg and if you lie and they challenge you on it, there's a big risk to them if they are mistaken. And even if they do want to challenge you their options may be limited particularly if you don't subscribe to the airline's reward point system, they could ban you from their airline or try to pursue you for the extra charges you allegedly owe them but this raises the cost. (I'm obviously only thinking of a case where you book a return ticket going from A to B and later back to A from B but you travel the A to B leg. Booking the same ticket but trying to travel from B to A is something much easier for them to police, they just cancel your whole ticket once you don't show up for the first leg A to B. Although I have read the legality of that in Europe has been questioned.)

But I do agree with the main point, I don't see any good reason to think he bought a one way ticket, I don't know whether it would have done much for the US but it's very likely it would have bought a lot of scrutiny in HK, if the airline even let him travel at all (or buy the ticket). At the very least he would likely have had to show enough funds to buy a ticket back to the US and they may have also wanted evidence he intended to return. All in all, not a good idea if you're NSA contractor running away and not intending to return to the US. I'm presuming of course that he is or was only there on a tourist visa. (Speaking generally, those who intend to overstay their visa, seek asylum etc and are a bit smart about it nearly always book return tickets.)

As for the US intelligence agencies not knowing, for all the controversy the US is no North Korea. As controversial as the no fly list may be, I'm not aware that agents or similar are ever placed on it simply because they are supposed to get permission to travel overseas, even for higher level agents. (Or that people are otherwise barred at the border from traveling overseas simply because they lack permission except perhaps for criminals.) Other than the obvious controversy about placing agents on such a list, even from a security standpoint, it's not necessarily a good idea. What if someone is supposed to travel overseas for important reasons (under their real names) and the listing isn't correctly removed. They would either prevented from traveling. Or at the very least a bunch of low level border agents, airline staff and LEOs become aware of this person? (Yes there may be there are so many false positives that it may not seem like much but it still gives unnecessary scrutiny and besides the process of clearing the person to travel may make the case seem less ordinary.)

I presume if he had returned and the NSA or his employer had gotten wind of it, he may have been in for some serious questioning and it's possible a red flag was raised somewhere which would have eventually been noticed by someone in the system (presuming it was not, we don't know for sure that the agencies in the US weren't aware of him strangely going to HK).

Nil Einne (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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