This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography B‑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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Espionage B‑class Mid‑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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: North Carolina / Government B‑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 B This article has been rated as B-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. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Mid-importance). Human rights B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. International relations B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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

http://www.bagnewsnotes.com/2013/07/more-photographed-more-dangerous/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Read this editorial for some perspective on the situation.[1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Snowden is getting close to falling off the CNN front page. If the claims in this article are factual,[2] 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)[reply]

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,^[1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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'" ^[2] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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: ^[3], ^[4]Leslynjd (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

@ 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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Senate edit noted in Norwegian online newspaper

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

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)[reply]

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

-

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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.wikipedia.org/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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

(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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

FWIW it appears the NY Times was right after all: [3]. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

The New York Times is "among the last major dailies still operated by descendants of its early proprietor" ([4]). Blade, is there a problem with this? Work out what exactly? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

• • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Remove "traitor" and insert "Amercian Hero"

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

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Apparently he did work directly for NSA, for a year before joining Booz Allen.[5] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

---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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

For fuck's sake, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]