Talk:Edward Snowden/Archive 8

Ewen MacAskill
has repeatedly removed material from the lead section saying that Snowden revealed documents to Guardian journalist Ewen MacAskill while in Hong Kong. This is easily verifiable. Here is an example of an already cited source (from Vanity Fair) that explains that MacAskill was one of the journalists (along with Greenwald and Poitras) who went to Hong Kong and reviewed the documents in Snowden's hotel room. Here is another one (from SCMP), uncited, that focuses specifically on MacAskill's involvement. Here is a third story (from the NY Times). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "teams of journalists at the Guardian and the Washington Post" suggests that it's pure speculation on your part that Ewen MacAskill saw significantly more documents than others at either the Guardian or WaPo such that MacAskill deserves special mention and not someone like Barton Gellman. Please explain why it is necessary to identify the NYT when Der Spiegel when those two got their documents second hand from the Guardian and Poitras respectively.  There's plenty of other media that also got Snowden documents.  In your Vanity Fair cite it says "While the others focused on documents, it was MacAskill’s job to observe Snowden".  If you're going to say the MacAskill was given documents because he was the one to courier them to Guardian offices, well Greenwald's boyfriend David Miranda played courier as well.  Why doesn't Miranda get a shout out in the lede?  While in Hong Kong Snowden told the SCMP "the United States government has committed a tremendous number of crimes" against China and handed over to the SCMP Chinese IP addresses the NSA was monitoring.  Why doesn't the SCMP get a mention if MacAskill gets a mention?  The fact of the matter is that it's simply not accurate to suggest to the reader that Snowden flew to Hong Kong and handed over his documents to journalists with the implication being he handed over all of them in Hong Kong, none before, none after, and none not handed over.  Sources like Reuters say Snowden got well over a million and Greenwald says he got 10 thousand.  I realize that this is might not fit the "did not take any documents to Russia" narrative and noting that Snowden sent documents to Barton Gellman electronically may detract from the physical dispossession thesis, as may acknowledging that Snowden sent documents to Poitras long before he flew to Hong Kong.  But we're not here to push such a narrative, we're here to report the story as completely and accurately as possible.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please state your point in exactly one sentence. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop edit warring and start engaging on this Talk page.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Is that your point? Or do you have a point about the inclusion of Ewen MacAskill in the lead section as well? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Read what I wrote. And what other editors like Trappedinburnley and FoCuSandLeArN wrote on the matter you are edit warring most ferociously over.  Are you going to address their good faith concerns or edit war?  I note that my edit summaries are single sentence and you seem just as inclined to ignore those.  Is it too exhausting for you to rebut?  Then I think it ought to be too exhausting for you to edit war.  Here's a quote for you: "This 'you are exhausting' talk is destructive, non constructive, and is contrary to the spirit of the project. Anyone who is too "exhausted" to address the good-faith concerns of their fellow editors ought to take a good long wikibreak, and consider focusing their efforts on less controversial subjects. That goes for all of you."  Do you recall who issued this finger wagging lecture on this same Talk page?--Brian Dell (talk) 06:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You're so all over the map that I don't even know if you have a point about MacAskill, let alone what it is. Please tell me if you oppose the inclusion of MacAskill in the lead section, and if so, why. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I oppose the inclusion of MacAskill to the exclusion of others like Gellman. And I told you why above.  As I see it, you can either address what I said or you can take the medicine your prescribed for others and "take a good long wikibreak".--Brian Dell (talk) 06:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Gellman wasn't in Hong Kong. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed he was not. So why are you pushing a narrative that suggests the document dissemination only occurred in Hong Kong?--Brian Dell (talk) 07:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not. The current language suggests that while in Hong Kong Snowden only shared the docs with Greenwald and Poitras. This is not true. It's verifiable that he shared the docs with Greenwald, Poitras, and MacAskill. I don't believe it's verifiable that he shared the docs with anyone else, including Gellman. As I understand it Gellman and others got ahold of some of the docs is a bit of mystery. It could have been direct, it could have been through Greenwald, Poitras, and/or MacAskill, or it could have been through someone else. We just don't know. If you know of sources to the contrary, please share them here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You continue to have no reply to my observation that that Vanity Fair story you point to says "[w]hile the others focused on documents, it was MacAskill’s job to observe Snowden"? Do some math with respect to "Gellman shot to prominence as one of three journalists worldwide to be entrusted with leaked documents" and you'll see that there's no room in that 3 for MacAskill.  "I don't believe it's verifiable that he shared the docs with anyone else, including Gellman."  For starters, I already noted in this thread that Snowden shared documents about NSA operations in China with the South China Morning Post while in Hong Kong.  Greenwald actually felt compelled to try and excuse Snowden's leak to the SCMP as "a need to ingratiate himself" with the Chinese.  You refuse to read what I write because it isn't "exactly one sentence" yet now you ask for a list of sources?  As for Gellman, in his interview with PBS Frontline he says "The next day, there comes to me and to Laura Poitras a lot more documents. I have never said how many I have, but a substantial number of additional documents came, completely unexpected.".  Is Gellman lying here?  I note that you have a habit deeming sources liars when they don't say what you want them to say (e.g. Castro's vehement denial that Cuba asked the Russians to not let Snowden board a flight to Cuba, or Putin's acknowledgement that Snowden met with Russian officials while in Hong Kong).--Brian Dell (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please take a deep breath, and then accept my sincere thanks for providing that information. Now I better understand the facts and your perspective. I still think MacAskill should be listed as he spent the 12 days working with the others in the Hong Kong hotel room, but I don't feel strongly about it. If no one else sides with me then fine, we can leave MacAskill out. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * May I invite you to take a deep breath and think about how disruptive it would be if instead of Wikipedians encountering information and then deciding to edit Wikipedia to add it, they routinely decided to edit Wikipedia according to their preferred theory about what's the case ("don't believe it's verifiable that he shared the docs with anyone else, including Gellman") and then, after encountering opposition from other editors (but proceeding to edit war anyway) announce that they would welcome "sources to the contrary" of their theory? Does that sort of editing behaviour become legitimized if the edit warrior then expresses "sincere thanks" when someone else does the research he decided not to do before editing?  "We just don't know" means Wikipedia is silent, it doesn't mean having Wikipedia push a theory until its proven wrong.  I'd like to know what's so special about the hotel room when it's entirely possible that more documents were leaked outside the room (including to Poitras and Greenwald before they got to Hong Kong) than inside.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "MacAskill went on to interview him for six days in Hong Kong, sometimes with Greenwald and Poitras, other times by himself ." Why on earth would his involvement be removed?   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   05:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have some examples of news about Snowden reported by MacAskill as opposed to Greenwald and Poitras? No credit for claims of fact made by MacAskill that get contradicted by the Wall Street Journal's investigative reporters (e.g. "He's stuck in his hotel every day; he never goes out. I think he's only been out about three times since May 20th").  Since, unlike Doc, you're generally an inclusionist (the likely reason you haven't stated that you support Doc's call for deleting material cited to the Sunday Times - and at least partially independently confirmed by investigative journalists at the BBC - on BLP violation grounds) I'll put it this way: why on earth should Gellman's involvement be removed?  This Vanity Fair story is typical in that it mentions (and pictures) Greenwald, Poitras, and Gellman.  No mention of MacAskill.  Why no mention of David Miranda, for that matter, who also facilitated Greenwald's reporting by couriering documents.  The line has to be drawn somewhere, of course, but any line that includes MacAskill but excludes Gellman is arbitrary.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't know what is being proposed for deletion involving Gellman. I can't imagine arguing that his involvement be removed either.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   04:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

, although it wasn't completely clear, we're talking about which reporters should be mentioned in the lead section. I hope everyone can agree we're not going to list every reporter who has touched the Snowden docs. The question is only about who makes the cut as "most important". I'm in favor of Greenwald, Poitras, and MacAskill, whereas it appears Brian is in favor of Greenwald, Poitras, and Gellman. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. I agree with you 100% in this case.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   02:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I trust the judgement of Petra and Doc Fleischman. Gandydancer (talk) 03:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I should add, though, that it would make sense to me if only Greenwald and Poitras were mentioned in the Lede. Yes, MacAskill played a huge role in this story but the general public likely hasn't heard his name, and it doesn't really add important information. I'm fine either way.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   05:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , do you have a preference between Greenwald and Poitras, and Greenwald, Poitras, and MacAskill? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it going to be a "Sunday Times" scale engagement on this too, Doc? When I expressed hope to the contrary elsewhere, instead of addressing that concern of mine you threatened to "seek administrative sanctions if [I] post any comments".  You truly need and want another comment from me?  My view isn't already apparent from both my editing and what I've stated in this thread?  I took "don't feel strongly about it" to mean you'd be moving on to some other issue.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hong Kong
Starting the discussion above about Ewen MacAskill caused me to realize that Snowden's time in Hong Kong could be fleshed out in greater detail. There is copious information about the details of his departure, but next to nothing about the events that occurred before the first Guardian story hit. E.g. nothing about who he met with, the Rubik's cube, the 12 days in the hotel room, the first Poitras video, etc. etc. If anyone wants to take a stab at adding this info (?), here are some sources to get started:, , , ,. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes this would be a good idea! Capitalismojo (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Dr F, is there a reason you aren't interested in adding this content? I am busy IRL and haven't had much to offer WP of late...   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   06:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am interested. I just thought you might be as well, and content creation seems to come easier to you than to me. I find it very painstaking. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * At the time, I happened to be researching this subject, so content creation was a breeze as I had all the information and sources available. But to start from scratch for the sole purpose of building the Pedia is certainly painstaking, unless one has the time and interest. I have neither. Best,   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   03:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The Lede doesn't mention that he went to Hong Kong. I stumbled at that point because the Lede creates the impression Snowden flew straight to Russia.  I thought not only did he fly to Hong Kong 1st, but he applied for and was denied amnesty in China.  That's pretty potent information, right there, and it's absence creates readability problem.  Unless my recollection of history is wrong?Jonny Quick (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * No, the lead as currently written says he flew to Hong Kong after leaving his job at an NSA facility in Hawaii. He didn't apply for asylum in China before arriving in Moscow. (And when he did it was among a host of other countries.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits by Gazprompt
, you have now reinserted the same material into the article 4 times in a 24 hour period despite reversions by 3 different editors. Please stop edit warring and justify your edits here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , make that 5 times. I've reverted you for the same reasons.  You need to adhere to WP:BRD and a little less WP:3RR. Also, I don't suppose Mr Wales cares very much for you "tit for tat problem" on his talk page, especially when he sees how disruptive you are being.   Cassianto Talk   08:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Award article
This article is incredibly long. How do other editors feel about having a 'List of honors and awards received by Edward Snowden'? There are enough that it could be it's own article IMO. --Cagepanes (talk) 05:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I support this. The awards section is too long. It should be spun off and summarized much more succinctly here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Any other thoughts, editors? --Cagepanes (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You can't just replace the forked content with a hatnote. You have to also describe it in summary style. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * NOTE Article was created by sock of indeffed user User:Kbabej. Spinoff article has been nominated for deletion per WP:G5.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  02:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

7.5 and 7.6 conference speaking engagements are repeated.
I do not dare changing a topic (as this is my first post on Wikipedia) but there's a repeated subsection in this article (7.5 and 7.6) are the same. Potuz (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Overuse of quotations
As a stylistic matter I think we're running afoul of WP:QUOTEFARM, as we're using too many quotations and as a result much of the prose is un-encyclopedic and hard to read and digest. We all need to make a greater effort to paraphrase the quotes we find in the reliable sources, retaining attribution and being sure to avoid taking away any of the meaning. IMO, quotes should only be used when paraphrasing would be inadequate. These include:


 * quotes whose language itself is notable and discussed by reliable sources
 * quotes that can't be paraphrased due to ambiguity
 * quotes containing notable subtleties or emotional overtones that are difficult to paraphrase

This issue was initially raised in March 2014 and continues to be a problem. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably because it requires work. Is this something for which you have the time?   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   07:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree it's time consuming. I've been fixing it piecemeal over time. Hopefully other editors can help. (I'm not pointing to you, as I know you've largely moved on.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Largely, but not altogether. It does make for easier work with a bit of help. Thanks for keeping an eye on things.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   23:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

, I stopped by to begin to work on the "quote farm" tonight and noticed a big ugly tag had been added. Continue chipping away at this, and I will too. But tags are only needed when no eyes are on the problem already, and if the problem is serious. It really isn't, in this case. If you think the tags will make life easier for us, maybe place small ones nearer the problem areas, not at the top of the article. In general editors really don't appreciate tagging as opposed to rolling up the sleeves, and i think that has been mentioned on this page several times in the past.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   04:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Tags are not just for emergencies, and they shouldn't be deleted just because two editors are aware of the issue. The whole point of tags is to recruit more editors to help, especially when the issue requires a lot of work to fix (as you have acknowledged). The quotefarm problem is spread throughout the article and is not just in one or two problem areas. I disagree with your comment about what editors appreciate and don't appreciate, as the community is certainly split on this general issue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Return the tag and see what the community says. You have received a lot of flack in the past for doing this, but perhaps the community is indeed split. It didn't seem that way to me.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   07:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Twitter
Several editors have been trying to add Snowden's Twitter account to the "External Links" section. While I think it's very cool that Snowden is tweeting these days, I don't think an external link is appropriate or supported by our guidelines. The purpose of the article is not to promote the subject or create platform for soapboxing. Accordingly, our guideline on external links specifically says (#10) that links to Twitter feeds and other social media sites are inappropriate. This rule is not limited to "non-official/fan communities," as asserted by. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Then, what is the purpose of twitter template? And why is it used in thousands of biographies? emijrp (talk) 08:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Ignorance maybe? Promotion in some cases? I don't know. Most of those links should be deleted. There may be cases where a link to the subject's Twitter feed is appropriate, perhaps such as when the subject is primarily known for their social media activities. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support linking to his twitter in EL --JumpLike23 (talk) 06:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support as well.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   07:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * While I see nothing wrong with it, it does seem that Doc is correct re the guideline. Since I so often find a problem with the fact that the "rules" here are so often thrown at editors attempting a reasonable edit but that same law abiding editor looks the other way if ignoring the "rule" furthers their own POV, I think we should go by the guidelines. (Oh my...does what I said make any sense at all?  Hope you all get the drift of what I mean...) Gandydancer (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I do. Snowden's Twitter account has become newsworthy since the minute he opened it. His tweets are now being quoted in media with some regularity. I think in this case, it doesn't make sense not to include it.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   17:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute that Snowden's Twitter feed is noteworthy, which is why I'm not suggesting it be removed from the article body. I am suggesting it be removed from the "External Links" section. Our guideline on the subject has nothing to do with notability/noteworthiness. It's largely intended to keep articles encyclopedic and, specifically, to ensure that articles don't become repositories of links. Including external links to social media accounts simply because they are mentioned in the news would be a case of the exception swallowing the rule. At bottom, there is really no compelling reason why Snowden's Twitter account should be included twice in the article (both in the body and in the External Links section). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It should be included twice because it has caused news of its own, and it stands as Snowden's "home page" as it were. At least that's how I see it.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   07:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I hadn't thought of that angle. I suppose a Twitter feed like Snowden's could be considered an official site in the absence of anything better, especially since he generally restricts his tweets to the broad subject matter he's known for. However since we generally only allow one official site per article, if Snowden creates an official website someday then we should remove his Twitter feed from the ELs at that time. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I do think in this case, for now, it should be considered his official site.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   16:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable. Gandydancer (talk) 03:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of paragraph
Guys, the article itself is NOT the place to discuss article changes! Can someone more familiar with the article inform me as to what the controversy is here, and whether this should be restored after a re-write?

Removed paragraph follows:

Later, presumably in Russia, Snowden was trying to tell his caretakers that he was being maltreated and was slowly deteriorating from malnutrition; he was not in any way ascetic but, perhaps, his high aptitude might be closer to stoic discipline needed for acquiring new language. Wikipedia, before this edit, misread the The Washington Post article that used the word ascetic. That newspaper article could not locate any facts as to who was *guarding* Snowden. It is more likely that Snowden was self-guarded from a defensive nature in the positive light, somewhat self-ostracizing toward others as a protective measure on their behalf, against excess and waste and also just as likely that he was guarded by a callous personnel "guard" who needlessly dehumanized Snowden. Snowden was rarely able to leave the house and had been reduced to minimal survival needs from persistent deliberate estrangement, a condition human beings can barely live on.

-- A ir ♠ C ombat  What'sup, dog? 21:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 one external links on Edward Snowden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131028121929/http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/27/21196030-report-us-spied-on-millions-of-phone-calls-in-spain-over-one-month?lite to http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/27/21196030-report-us-spied-on-millions-of-phone-calls-in-spain-over-one-month?lite
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140128224400/http://www.ndr.de/ratgeber/netzwelt/snowden277_page-1.html to http://www.ndr.de/ratgeber/netzwelt/snowden277_page-1.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130822210646/http://www.nieuws.nl/algemeen/20130702/Teeven-geen-asiel-voor-Snowden to http://www.nieuws.nl/algemeen/20130702/Teeven-geen-asiel-voor-Snowden
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131221133023/http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/19/21975158-nsa-program-stopped-no-terror-attacks-says-white-house-panel-member?lite to http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/19/21975158-nsa-program-stopped-no-terror-attacks-says-white-house-panel-member?lite
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150407044350/https://foreignpolicy.com/2013_global_thinkers/public/ to http://www.foreignpolicy.com/2013_global_thinkers/public/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2016
I submit that the following sentence should be deleted:

"The day after Snowden publicly took responsibility for the NSA surveillance revelations, Booz Allen terminated his employment 'for violations of the firm's code of ethics and firm policy.'"[61]

Although it is most likely true that the firm did do this, the sentence in question skews the perception of the reader. Of course, Booz Allen terminated him - for running off with all their information and exposing it, but the termination of Snowden is a meaningless, non-event. The only thing the insertion does is to allow inclusion that of the allegation by Booz Allen that Snowden was unethical. It is an unsupported and untested allegation which is meaningless but throws a bad light on the person in question. Booz Allen could have terminated Snowden for having sex with elephants, thereby producing the illusion that he is cruel to animals. Reckless allegations should not be included.

67.193.253.145 (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I removed a portion of the sentence. I believe this should satisfy your concern. While I don't believe the sentence was non-neutral I do think that the Booz Allen quote wasn't particularly noteworthy or helpful to the reader. Thanks for your input! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

fix
The film will be released in September. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.60.230 (talk) 04:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2016
I request the addition of the following template to the external links section:

130.254.150.123 (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ This doesn't comply with our guideline on external links because it doesn't provide encyclopedic value beyond what would be included in a complete biography of Edward Snowden. Snowden isn't primarily in the film industry and his minor involvement in a few obscure projects isn't particularly noteworthy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Edward Snowden collaborates with the French electronica musician Jean-Michel Jarre in a music video recording 2016
This is regarding a commercial project collaboration for a single track titled: 'Exit', from the album: 'Electronica 2: The Heart of Noise', published by Sony to be released 6th May 2016. It is worth noting (at least here in talk) that this commercial music and video recording has been uploaded by Jean-Michel Jarre channel on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNESMafb5ZI It has produced phenomenally rapid views of around 100,000 hits in just 2 days of the upload. It is remarkable, because the collaborations by Jarre on previous tracks with a variety of music industry artists took several months to reach and surpass 100,000 hits. Snowden speaks on the track about privacy issues, freedom of speech and rights. It would be up to the article authors as to whether it (and any other commercial ventures arising) should be added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.54.203 (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * For this information to be included in Wikipedia we would need coverage by at least one reliable, independent secondary source. If you know of such a source, please provide a link here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I should like to add that in the main article the track 'Exit' is mentioned in the section 'Popular culture', so - it's sufficiently covered. Business Insider is quoted as saying Snowden's contribution to the track isn't exactly music. His contribution is rhetorical speech (oratory) instead of singing or rapping. It's not made up of lyrics with rhyming, but it is significant in length being one and a half minutes long, and Jarre has repeated Snowden's phrase: "and if you won't stand up for it then I will", so it therefore does meet the criteria of being music in having repeated phrasing. There is a secondary source on wikipedia for this album: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronica_2:_The_Heart_of_Noise It states 'Exit' is a main track, having been released as a single in April 2016. I think that you could consider adding a playable sound sample of this track in the main article, a sample of Snowden's speech, selecting around 20 seconds of it from 1:57 to 3:20 "Technology can actually increase privacy..." to "...and if you won't stand up for it then I will.", and/or the YouTube video link. That would be more informative and interesting for readers to have the choice to hear what Snowden actually did. The links are all here in talk if you decide it's appropriate, and want to do it to expand or elaborate the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.54.203 (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Other editors may disagree with me, but in my view your suggestion would put undue emphasis on a relatively insignificant aspect of Snowden's biography. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with DrF. Gandydancer (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Does the Naomi Wolf quote need to be here.
This article is already extremely long, and the opinion of Naomi Wolf doesn't seem to be held by multiple third party entities. The citations are either of just herself, or of some article that happens to quote her. I don't feel that this particular viewpoint is widespread enough to be mentioned, as I don't think it adds any real value to the article anyway. Thanks, Gluons12 (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC).


 * Good catch. I agree.  Gandydancer (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Criminal status of Snowden
GeneralizationsAreBad, the US government legally considers Snowden a criminal and at-large, and my revision definitely did not violate the neutral point of view policy, as I did not state my personal opinion. TheBD2000 (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * (Referring to this revision) Understood. My concern was that it had BLP implications, as the very addition and use of the template (with "fugitive" and "at-large," no less) may be non-neutral in itself, even without any personal opinions added. GABgab 17:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Snowden should not be labeled as a criminal the way proposes. Just because the U.S. government calls him a criminal doesn't make this characterization neutral. The U.S. government isn't a reliable source, let alone the sole reliable source labeling Snowden. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , please do not edit war. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, Snowden is wanted by the FBI and has had criminal charges brought against him, the info box says that he has had criminal charges filed against him, and I am unable to edit the info box if the category is "person" and not "criminal". Not labeling Snowden as a criminal clearly shows bias in favor of him and that violates the NPOV policy. Please leave any anti-American opinions out of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBD2000 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In the United States, people are presumed to be innocent unless they have been convicted of a crime in a court of law. Mr. Snowden has so far not been convicted of anything, so we cannot call him a criminal per WP:BLP. Please note that repeated attempts to violate our BLP policy can lead to being blocked from editing Wikipedia.--agr (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * TheBD2000, Wikipedia makes decisions based on consensus and currently the consensus is against you. If you believe that the change should be obvious then you'll have to convince your fellow editors of that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, it's more than a matter of consensus. Our BLP policy overrides consensus when living people are concerned. We can't call someone a criminal if they have not been convicted of a crime.--agr (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Removal of text
I've removed the text that appeared at the beginning of the article ("I've been absent for a while, but now I remember why I used to love this site. Thank you, I'll try and check back more frequently. How frequently you update your site? fdekakbedkeaddae"). It appears to be vandalism. Howkafkaesque (talk) 19:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2016
47.72.87.35 (talk) 09:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. KGirlTrucker81huh? what I'm been doing 10:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Religion: Buddhism
The only reference for the claim that his religion is Buddhism is this NYT article, which states: "'Toward the end of 2003, Mr. Snowden wrote that he was joining the Army, listing Buddhism as his religion (“agnostic is strangely absent,” he noted parenthetically about the military recruitment form).'" So he even indicated that he chose Buddhism because he couldn't find agnostic. Please remove the claim that he actually sees Buddhism as his religion, unless there are other references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.49.96.5 (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2016
In the section headed "In Popular Culture," after the first paragraph please add

"In June 2013, indie topical singer-songwriter David Rovics uploaded a new song "Prism," to youtube, with the dedication "for Edward Snowden and the Secret Government." The song appeared as the first track in Rovics' online album "Into a Prism"

KamalaEmanuel (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)KamalaEmanuel


 * ❌ Please provide a reliable secondary source establishing the song's noteworthiness. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Intelligence Squared debate
I'm uncomfortable with the following paragraph:


 * In February 2014, Intelligence Squared held an "Oxford style" debate in New York City titled "Snowden Was Justified" addressing the opposing, widely held views that Snowden was a "whistleblower," and alternately, a "traitor." Ex-CIA director R. James Woolsey and former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy argued against the motion, while ACLU lawyer representing Snowden, Ben Wizner, and Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg argued in favor. Prior to arguments, the audience was split on the matter, with 29% of the audience agreeing with the premise, "Snowden Was Justified," and 29% opposing the same premise. After the debate, 54 percent found that Snowden was justified and only 35 percent were against. 

This strikes me as rather vacuous and pro-Snowden POV-ish, especially because Intelligence Squared is an NPR outfit. As far as I can tell the debate wasn't covered by any non-NPR news source, so it doesn't strike me as noteworthy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Maintenance templates: ,
At least while the length and texture of this article are being debated, it would seem appropriate -- given the public's overwhelming interest in the Snowden case -- to remove the unsightly tags and boxes above the main article. As it stands, this article is one of the most compendious and compelling I've read on WIKIPEDIA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.149.89 (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The tags were rather pointless and were not helping readers or editors. I removed them. Jonathunder (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The tags were hardly pointless. The article has pervasive problems with length and too many quotations and needs fixing. There is consensus in prior discussions that these are problems. The tags alert editors to these problems, which are sloooowly getting fixed. The unsightliness of the tags can be mitigated with the multiple issues template. I'm restoring them, with the multiple issues template. Perhaps other contributors will weigh in. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see a lot of lengthy quotes. What am I missing?--agr (talk) 23:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Most of the article is full of unnecessary quotes that can and should be converted to be in Wikipedia's voice. quotefarm isn't just about lengthy quotes. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I do see a bunch of short phrases that could have quotes remove, e.g. "a top-secret facility". Is there anything more substantial you find a problem? Given how controversial the subject is, I think quoting participants is preferable to paraphrasing them.--agr (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The following sections and subsections have way too many quotes:, , , . , , . , , , , , , , and . If you pick 5 random quotes from these sections, the majority of them will either be: (a) attributed quotes of reliable sources (e.g. "The Guardian reported, "..."), (b) redundant or undue and can be dropped; (c) easy to summarize in Wikipedia's own voice. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's stick with the first one, Edward Snowden. I see a few short phrases, like "system administrator" that don't need to be quoted, but I find most of the longer quotes helpful in understanding a highly contentious story. Can you give an example of a longer quote and how you would replace it?--agr (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, here's an example of the first unnecessary quote I spotted: "According to a Reuters story by Mark Hosenball, while in Hawaii, Snowden 'may have persuaded between 20 and 25 fellow workers' to give him their logins and passwords 'by telling them they were needed for him to do his job as a computer systems administrator.'" There is zero need to quote Reuters, or for that matter to attribute to it. This can be reworded to something like: "Sources told Reuters some of Snowden's co-workers gave him their login credentials after he persuaded them that he needed the credentials to do his job." More concise, easier to read, and more encyclopedic. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with that one, but most of the longer quotes in this section seem appropriate, because nuance is important in this story. For example NBC News reported that the NSA sent a memo to Congress and "[w]hile the memo's account is sketchy, it suggests that, contrary to Snowden's statements, he used an element of trickery to retrieve his trove of tens of thousands of classified documents." I would be reluctant to try to capture the tentative nature of that quote in a paraphrase in Wikipedia's voice. And longer quotes by principals I think are important to keep. I'm not a big fan of the term encyclopedic. I think writing style can vary to meet the needs of the subject, and in this case telling a very contentious story in the words of others reduces the risk of Wikipedia injecting its judgment in subtile ways into a story where the truth is hotly disputed. As a reader, I like that.--agr (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that controversial or otherwise difficult-to-paraphrase language should be retained, but quotes shouldn't be retained just because the subject matter is controversial. In the case of the NBC News quote, I think we can trim the sentence to: "The NSA sent a memo to Congress that NBC described as suggesting that Snowden used 'an element of trickery' to obtain the documents." I think the sketchiness of the account is excessive detail, but if you disagree the sentence could read: "The NSA sent a memo to Congress that included what NBC described as a 'sketchy account' that nevertheless suggested that Snowden used 'an element of trickery' to obtain the documents." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And btw I'm not suggesting that we remove all of these quotations. Just reduce them. Our article should try draw readers' attention to the points made over the language, except in the cases when the language itself is notable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed the over-quotation tag here – I think the phrase too many or too-lengthy quotations is confusing, since the problem seems to be specifically a number of short quotations (which also contributes to the problem of the article being too long for comfortable reading). If another message about the style of writing is really desired, maybe a general cleanup tag, with the specific reason named, would be more useful. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Washington Post editorial opposing clemency
With all due respect for the great job Doc is doing with this article, I have replaced the Washington Post info for discussion. It may need improvement in how it is written and where it is placed, but it is (to me anyway) absolutely stunning information that should be somewhere in the article. Gandydancer (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * According to the Guardian, WaPo has "stunned many" so I think this is presumptively important enough for inclusion. More important than a mention of "Weezer frontman Rivers Cuomo" and vocals "from his debut album", at any rate.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine, but it belongs a section about the clemency campaign, otherwise it sticks out like a sore thumb. It does not read neutrally right now. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've made the language more neutral, but we still have two NPV problems. First, this belongs in a different section, and its current inclusion in a section about the disclosures seems pointy. Second, it isn't balanced with the other noteworthy viewpoints on the clemency campaign (both pro and anti). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * How is "in 2016 The Washington Post published an editorial opposing a campaign advocating for a presidential pardon of Snowden" unbalancing? You don't have added fluff/speechifying to that like the "... asked President Obama to 'use his executive powers to treat [Snowden] humanely and in a manner that would be a shining example about the value of whistleblowers and of free speech itself'" line that follows mention of the Guardian's editorial.  We also get several sentences worth of what the NYT thinks.  The "We the People" petition - which are a dime a dozen - calling for a pardon gets a whole paragraph and then we've also got Jimmy Carter and Oliver Stone's opinion on the pardon issue.  Stone's pardon call, by the way, isn't grouped with any other pardon call raising the question of why that isn't out of place but a reference to WaPo is.  I think we need more than one Wikipedian's opinion to tag something of disputed neutrality and the consensus, if any, concerning having a neutrality tag appears to go the other way.  At least three editors have opposed you on this WaPo editorial matter generally.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It lacks balance because there have been a variety of viewpoints on the recent clemency campaign, and the Washington Post editorial board shouldn't be included without the other notable viewpoints both pro and anti. The New York Times, Carter, and Stone opinions weren't in response to that campaign. That said, I would support the creation of a consolidated section covering all of the noteworthy clemency campaigns and viewpoints, including the Washington Post editorial board and the House intelligence committee. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There are more, and more fulsome, pro-pardon viewpoints given in the article than anti. I'm surprised that you would claim that "other notable viewpoints" are not given.  I'd ask for your proof that Stone's opinion was not in response to the pardon campaign but, really, that's irrelevant.  If it is relevant, then the WaPo view is exactly where it should be (where the Washington Post's reporting is discussed) as opposed to grouped with the NYT and the Guardian.  As for the House intel committee, you'd suppressed all reference to it in the article.  Why is it your job to suppress what other media have widely reported on?--Brian Dell (talk) 02:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I don't follow. Please do not remove tags when a dispute is pending. The purpose of the tag is to alert readers and editors to the existence of the dispute. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I suggest putting some effort into following Talk page discussions and in the mean time please respect consensus as opposed to acting as if you WP:OWN the article and are accordingly in a position to dictate how it's going to be to the rest of us.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What consensus? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Do I have to spell it out for you which editors have indicated that they support including the WaPo text at issue without a neutrality tag? If they wanted a tag they would have included it when they added the material or expressed a neutrality concern when they commented on it.  You don't feel any obligation to try and determine whether there is a consensus supporting your edit warring?  What exactly do you want to see here Doc to remove the tag?  Whatever that something is, why don't you just do that instead of edit warring to keep the tag in?  People like me who don't like edit warring try to find alternatives to just reverting other editors again and again and again.  What's the end game here Doc?--Brian Dell (talk) 03:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone agree with Brian that the sentence about the WaPo editorial is neutral in its current language and position? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * iI'm not the guy trying to add a tag, Doc. That would be you.  The obligation is on you, not me, to defend your contention that the sentence about the WaPo editorial is NOT neutral.  The available evidence about the state of the consensus suggests that a tag is NOT necessary.  I suggest you respect that.--Brian Dell (talk)
 * I believe you're the only editor who has opposed the tag. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I believe you should take your own advice to others and WP:LISTEN. More than once you've edit warred with another editor and then when you made claims about what the state of the consensus was concerning that bit of content, refused to acknowledge that editor's existence, as it it were not perfectly obvious that that editor should be counted amongst those who do not agree with you even if they don't spell that out for you exactly and explicitly.  What other people think can be inferred.  It's just a matter of of putting in the effort to draw those inferences.  What do you suppose the at least two editors in the "REMOVAL OF DISTRACTING TAGS ON SNOWDEN ARTICLE" section above think about this particular tag?  I think we can very safely hazard a guess.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Fleischman has a long history of reasonable edits to this article. You do not, IMO.  Please quit "hazarding guesses" and we'll all be better off.  Gandydancer (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you recall who once wagged a finger to say "we discuss article improvements here not our opinions of other editors. Please strike your opinions of your fellow editors. Thanks." Could that have been you?  As for "hazarding guesses" at what others think, you seem pretty confident that you know what Doc thinks.  After all, I recall you using this Talk page to opine "If Dr.F should feel a little defensive... To me he seems to be more wanting to strongly explain his position rather than stubbornly refusing to accept reasonable argument..."  Your moral support for Doc isn't, however, doing anything to back him on the content issue at hand here because while we could, and I would otherwise recommend we, "hazard a guess" that you do support him, you've just lectured us to say that that should not be done!  So why not spare us any guessing here by telling us just what you think about this particular tag?  If you don't have anything to say about whether this inline neutrality tag should stay or go and instead just wish to just use this page, and this section, to accuse me of being a bad (unreasonable?) editor, I suggest you take your allegations to appropriate admin noticeboard.  I would welcome admin intervention here, because that's what it took last time to put a stop to Fleischman 's edit warring to suppress the Sunday Times report.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you are bullying anyone who disagrees with you and I ask you to please stop. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This from the guy who has done more to revert the work of other editors regarding this article than anyone else. I think you can read "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Edward Snowden article" just as well as Gandydancer can and so I'm gong to give you the same advice: if you don't have a comment to make about the article and instead want to accuse me of being a malicious editor or a "bully", take it to the admin noticeboard.  If asking you to follow community developed guidelines concerning content and behaviour constitutes "bullying", I suggest you take a Wiki break.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * How about we all try to find common ground and avoid badgering one another? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * How about we all try to find common ground and avoid badgering one another? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can go ahead and add other information, if he is so inclined, but a POV tag is totally inappropriate here. "In 2016 The Washington Post published an editorial opposing a campaign advocating for a presidential pardon of Snowden" is a neutral statement. Flyte35 (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As discussed above, the issue isn't the language used. The issue is the location of the statement and the balance. The section this sentence was put in was about the disclosures, not about reactions or clemency campaigns, and there have been a variety of viewpoints on clemency, both pro and con. All of these viewpoints should be compiled and put in a separate section. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, so people can go ahead and compile those viewpoints, but there's no reason for the tag on that sentence. Flyte35 (talk) 19:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe unbalanced inline is more apropos? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This is silly. If you think more information is needed, go ahead and add additional information, but there's nothing inappropriate about the sentence and no reason to tag it. Flyte35 (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I moved that reference to a more relevant section of the article here as well as adding a more thorough description of the arguments made. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 02:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Article on girlfriend Lindsay Mills
I just drafted something. If anyone cares to contribute there are other sources of information which are easy to find.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  12:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Lindsay Mills
 * Don't we have a notability/BLP issue? There was discussion a while back on this page in which I believe the consensus was that Mills' name shouldn't even be included in the Snowden article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I added a notability tag there, however I don't think it meets the requirements for speedy deletion. Her appearance at the Academy Awards for Citizenfour and briefly in the film may justify a mention in this article with a redirect from her name. Further discussion should probably take place at Talk:Lindsay Mills .--agr (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * At Blue Rasberry's suggestion I have nominated the Lindsay Mills article for deletion so we can have a formal resolution of the matter. Further discussion should be at Articles for deletion/Lindsay Mills].--agr (talk) 13:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I might add, she was played prominently in the movie Snowden, and she is now living with him in Russia. I would think it worth a mention. Benjamin (talk) 05:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm just curious why there isn't a single mention of her existence in Snowden's article, not even in the sidebar. 192.0.158.233 (talk) 01:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2016
cout << "Hello World"; 50.200.212.144 (talk) 06:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.

Recent BLP issues
Please note, there are discussions at WP:BLPN about whether we should be quoting the recent Senate Intelligence Report calling Snowden a liar, and repeating unsubstantiated claims that Snowden gave intelligence info to the Russians and was "bought and paid for." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

There is also an ongoing discussion at WP:RSN about whether we should repeat claims that Snowden is a "Russian agent." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * For starters, there is no issue at WP:RSN "about whether we should repeat [RT's] claims that Snowden [was called] a 'Russian agent' [by another source]" so I suggest you not kick this off by misrepresenting just what is at issue. For seconders, you could help inform readers here about just what's the biggest issue by acknowledging here that you are trying to discredit Mary Louise Kelly's reporting for NPR, apparently in the hopes of rendering her report on Snowden unusable in this article.  Thirdly, do tell us in what edit of mine, exactly, is the House report "quoted" in order to "call Snowden a liar"?--Brian Dell (talk) 05:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd like to note for newcomers to this page that material that is being suppressed from this article includes:
 * - comments by legal expert James C. Hathaway (on whether Snowden was really "stranded" in a Moscow airport transit zone), cited by AFP (or The Atlantic)
 * - comments by Russian intelligence services expert Mark Galeotti (on Snowden's relationship with Russian intelligence), cited by NPR
 * - comments by Frants Klintsevich, deputy chair of a Russian senate committee which oversees Russian security and intelligencel services (on the same), also cited by NPR
 * But we've got room for Snowden to accuse Clapper of being a liar not once, but twice (using the same language), and really three times if you include Snowden's demand to know why Clapper had not been reprimanded for his "famous lie." How many times would Wikipedia have to note that Snowden called a living person a liar before we might have a BLP issue about the person being accused?--Brian Dell (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * According to the NPR transcript, Mark Galeotti is an 'authority on Russia spy agencies', and Frants Klintsevich is 'deputy chairman of the powerful defense and security committee' in Russia. I don't see how these two are reliable sources here. Their statements are essentially gossip about Snowden, which is counter to the Biographies of living persons policy. The NPR piece is even framed as being about gossip – to quote from the intro, 'What the day brings is rumors. People here love to gossip about Snowden'. Any allegations that Snowden shared intelligence with Russia and was 'bought and paid for' need much more authoritative sourcing per WP:BLP: 'If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out'; as well as Verifiability: 'Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources'.
 * As for Snowden's statements about James Clapper, they were public statements that he himself made and are directly related to the issue of mass surveillance for which Snowden is known; accordingly, they are not necessary out of place in an article about Snowden. The accusation that Clapper lied to Congress is also corroborated by the New York Times, and The Washington Post cites several members of Congress who make the same accusation. That's not to say that the way in which the accusation is noted in this article couldn't be rewritten in a more cautious style. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 02:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So NPR is just a "gossip" rag in your books? I find it quite remarkable that what NPR actually refers to when it speaks of "rumors" is not the sources NPR quotes but the very sort thing that this article treats as undisputed fact, namely, "he is recognized when he goes to computer stores."  We've got multiple sources here quoting Galeotti, by the way.  As for Snowden calling Clapper a liar, even if there's no dispute that that's exactly what Clapper is, why is Snowden's allegation being featured more than once?  Is the article so short repetition is needed to fill it out?--Brian Dell (talk) 06:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I never described NPR as a 'gossip rag'. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 08:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Did it, or did it not, repeat what you consider gossip about Snowden? Does NPR frequently use as its sources gossipers or was this a one-off in your view?--Brian Dell (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Did it, or did it not, repeat what you consider gossip about Snowden? Does NPR frequently use as its sources gossipers or was this a one-off in your view?--Brian Dell (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

remove tags please
this article is perfect size and quotations are appropriate. thanks. 212.200.65.114 (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This issue has already been discussed multiple times. Please review prior discussions as well as WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:SIZE. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2016
174.24.52.236 (talk) 05:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Friends and neighbors described Snowden as quiet and nice, generally congenial
ROFLMAO. This is appropriate in an 'encyclopaedia'????? Oh, dear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 09:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Snowden and UFOs
Why is there no sub topic about Edward's discussions on UFOs and aliens? There are many articles out there such as: http://yournewswire.com/edward-snowden-reveals-aliens-live-inside-earth-video/

even if they are not vetted a topic of this subject should be in wikipedia because it's sufficiently popular/desired a topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.161.221.124 (talk) 10:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ Please provide links to reputable, reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

reference terminal F/Chasing Snowden movie
It is extremely surprising that the movie terminal F/Chasing Snowden is not mentioned. It is raw material of Snowden in Hong-kong and his escape and asile in Russia. The film's IMDB page is here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4477936/ The film is also free on youtube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd6qN167wKo

I can insert a couple of sentence and reference of the admin give me this privilege. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcsoisfranc (talk • contribs) 03:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Marc. As Snowden is a very high-profile figure with lots of pop culture references and his article is already extremely long, we should only provide references to films of this nature if they've received coverage by reliable independent sources, such as independent reviews in reputable publications. If you can provide such a source for this film, then by all means add it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 one external links on Edward Snowden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-with-whistleblower-edward-snowden-on-global-spying-a-910006.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130822210647/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=134957&sid=39870263&con_type=1&d_str=20130626&isSearch=1&sear_year=2013 to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=134957&sid=39870263&con_type=1&d_str=20130626&isSearch=1&sear_year=2013
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://rbth.asia/world/2013/09/06/snowden_asked_russian_diplomats_in_hong_kong_for_help_-_putin_48711.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.channel4.com/programmes/alternative-christmas-message/4od
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/video-watch-whistleblower-edward-snowden-2958139
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/edward-snowden-warns-over-global-threat-to-privacy-during-channel-4s-alternative-christmas-message-9024541.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.timescolonist.com/nsa-leaker-edward-snowden-to-address-britain-in-christmas-program-1.770151
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2013/dec/25/edward-snowden-christmas-message-video
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA5Odb0fg5I
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/lavabit-silent-circle-shut-down-e-mail-what-alternatives-are-left/2013/08/09/639230ec-00ee-11e3-96a8-d3b921c0924a_story.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/dec/31/email-broken-dark-mail-alliance-fix-silent-sircle-snowden
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://mashable.com/2013/10/30/silent-circle-lavabit-darkmail-email/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/11/the-daunting-challenge-of-secure-e-mail.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWVGDBeR42I
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://investvine.com/ready-at-last-hong-kong-director-presents-snowden-movie/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnbc.com/id/101021408

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2017
Edward Snowden's injuries were commonly considered as broken legs but, were actually simple stress fractures. This was confirmed by members of his platoon during basic training at Ft. Benning, GA. This was a common injury for soldiers during basic training that were not used to continuous impacts from ruck marching or other activities that would increase bone density such as athletics of some type. Edward Snowden took convalescent leave for 30 days during basic training to heal from his injuries. Upon return he chose not to continue training because injuries were still bothering him. Edward Snowden was offered a chance to complete basic training but chose to take a medical discharge on his own accord. He was not "kicked out" of the Army as depicted in the Movie "Snowden" because of these injuries. Many soldiers suffer similar injuries & are able to complete basic training while being rehabilitated or taking time off to heal from their injuries. He left the military by his own choice. FISH5742 (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌ I believe this issue was hashed out in the talk page archives. In any case, what you say might be true, but you will need to provide reliable sources that verify your contentions. If you do so, please provide the sources here (including links) and edit the edit semi-protected template above by toggling the "answered" parameter to "no." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2017
"In 2009, Snowden began work as a contractee for Dell,[20]" Is not found in the cited article. I also doubt he was a contractee but a contractor. Jboro2000 (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Template:NICG added.  JTP (talk • contribs) 15:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fixed, tag removed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

FACEBOOK
Does anyone put any stock in this Facebook post, or is it photo-shopped? 68.175.106.4 (talk) 06:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There's nothing remarkable about that document. It's a copy of the Russian travel permit he received in 2013. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Edward Snowden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/01/us/job-title-key-to-inner-access-held-by-snowden.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130712143252/http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130625/hong-kong-did-not-assist-snowdens-departure to http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130625/hong-kong-did-not-assist-snowdens-departure
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6O7guwSjr?url=http://www.emol.com/noticias/internacional/2013/07/01/606824/evo-morales-se-abre-a-ceder-asilo-a-edward-snowden-si-lo-solicita.html to http://www.emol.com/noticias/internacional/2013/07/01/606824/evo-morales-se-abre-a-ceder-asilo-a-edward-snowden-si-lo-solicita.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-russia-snowden-20130802%2C0%2C988941.story
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130807155801/http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/08/01/edward-snowden-receives-asylum-in-russia-poll-shows-americans-sympathetic-to-nsa-whistle-blower to http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/08/01/edward-snowden-receives-asylum-in-russia-poll-shows-americans-sympathetic-to-nsa-whistle-blower
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/26/world/europe/snowden-christmas-message-privacy.html?_r=1&
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/us/snowdens-e-mail-provider-discusses-pressure-from-fbi-to-disclose-data.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.metacritic.com/movie/citizenfour/critic-reviews

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Edward Snowden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130822210644/http://www.wvec.com/news/Report-Snowden-has-document-to-enter-Russia-216738651.html to http://www.wvec.com/news/Report-Snowden-has-document-to-enter-Russia-216738651.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140330110125/http://moussemagazine.it/articolo.mm?id=1020 to http://www.moussemagazine.it/articolo.mm?id=1020
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/26/world/europe/snowden-christmas-message-privacy.html?_r=1&
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/us/snowdens-e-mail-provider-discusses-pressure-from-fbi-to-disclose-data.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140912153658/http://oti.newamerica.net/sites/newamerica.net/files/policydocs/Surveillance_Costs_Short%20Version.pdf to http://oti.newamerica.net/sites/newamerica.net/files/policydocs/Surveillance_Costs_Short%20Version.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

This should be category People granted political asylum in the Soviet Union
Since 1991 does no such nation exist anylonger. People granted political asylum in Russia would be more proper. Boeing720 (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Not a whistleblower ?
Many sources label Snowden as a "whistleblower". Like a TV-documentary about his escape from Hong Kong, I think it was of French origin somehow. Anyways, "whistleblower" is used frequently. He never worked for any foreign nation, nor for money. And some of his disclosures appear to be fairly sound, also from a perspective of the American people. OK he was not a journalist, but an employee. I can see some difficulties, but the word "whistleblower" could possibly be included in the lead, in a less absolute manner. Something in line with "he is also by some regarded as a "whistleblower" ( + sources ) ? Boeing720 (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's already there, in the fourth paragraph: A subject of controversy, Snowden has been variously called a hero, a whistleblower, a dissident, a traitor and a patriot. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Edward Snowden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402090312/http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/courtinfo/directoryLNameByLetter.asp?ProductLetter=S to http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/courtinfo/directoryLNameByLetter.asp?ProductLetter=S
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/report-snowden-would-help-brazil-if-given-asylum/2013/12/17/6ca6b7f8-66f0-11e3-997b-9213b17dac97_story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Europe
In section Europe (one statement) please add Snowden's reply:

There are other interesting points in this interview. –2.247.247.18 (talk) 09:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ With some ref cleanup. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * &#x2009;Thanks. –89.15.238.161 (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Overuse of quotations
The multiple issues template at the top of this article alerts editors to two areas to improve or discuss. The older of these, added two years ago, asserts there are "too many or too-lengthy quotations for an encyclopedic entry."

I found two entries in Talk Archives, both by Dr. Fleischman, discussing this issue. The first, posted 5 March 2014, advised: "We all need to make a greater effort to paraphrase [bold in original] the quotes we find in the reliable sources, retaining attribution and being sure to avoid taking away any of the meaning." The second, posted 7 October 2015, is essentially a verbatim reposting of the first.

As of 7 October 2015, when DrFleischman added the Quotefarm tag, the article contained 411 quotations. As of today, it contains 403 quotations. This suggests that, rather than being an oversight, the October 2015 Over-quotation tag remains because not enough work has been done to warrant removing it.

I would like to help, but first request that editors express a consensus that 400 quotations, in a 20,000-word article, do indeed constitute over-quotation. If so, I seek clarification that quotations directly attributed to Snowden himself are not off-limits to the paraphrasing that DrFleischman recommends to solve this problem. KalHolmann (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * You're correct, not enough work has been done to warrant removing the tag. Your help would be much appreciated. The issue isn't about counting the number of quotations; there's no optimum ratio between quotation count and word count. The issue is about readability and encyclopedic style. Quotations in which the specific words used are noteworthy should be preserved as quotations. Quotations that are more readily paraphrased should be removed and paraphrased without losing the relevant meaning. This is necessarily a tedious, quotation-by-quotation process. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Dr. Fleischman, thanks for your reply. Please, as to my second question: are quotations directly attributed to Snowden himself off-limits to paraphrasing? KalHolmann (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not at all. No one is immune to over-quotation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Dr. Fleischman, I have paraphrased, trimmed or eliminated a substantial number of quotations. Of 403 quotations when I began, 259 remain. A side effect of reducing the number of quotations by 36% is a 6% contraction in the article's overall size, which now stands at 18,764 words. Please consider removing your 2-year-old over-quotation parameter from the multiple issues template at the top of this article. Thank you for your latitude. KalHolmann (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll review sometime in the next 24 hours. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Edward Snowden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://top.rbc.ru/politics/26/06/201%E2%85%9C63467.shtml
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.mensa.de/fileadmin/user_upload/press/Charta-IQ-Preis-v5.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150416020454/http://www.idfa.nl/industry/tags/project.aspx?id=DA0E5628-3C33-4419-B909-4649FA05E0AF to http://www.idfa.nl/industry/tags/project.aspx?id=da0e5628-3c33-4419-b909-4649fa05e0af
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140105060359/http://dcist.com/2014/01/more_snowden_bus_ads_coming_to_dc.php to http://dcist.com/2014/01/more_snowden_bus_ads_coming_to_dc.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150408184248/http://gothamist.com/2015/04/07/edward_snowden_hologram.php to http://gothamist.com/2015/04/07/edward_snowden_hologram.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Edward Snowden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131201065806/http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-06-09/world/39856622_1_intelligence-powers-single-point to https://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-06-09/world/39856622_1_intelligence-powers-single-point
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130907160506/http://rbth.asia/world/2013/09/06/snowden_asked_russian_diplomats_in_hong_kong_for_help_-_putin_48711.html to http://rbth.asia/world/2013/09/06/snowden_asked_russian_diplomats_in_hong_kong_for_help_-_putin_48711.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160505113952/http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-03/10/edward-snowden-sxsw to https://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-03/10/edward-snowden-sxsw

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Edward Snowden in popular culture October 28, 2017

 * Draft declined by reviewer Bradv because "the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia." Bradv commented, "This content fork needs to be discussed at Talk:Edward Snowden. AFC is not the place for this."
 * Frankly, I am at a loss. This draft was discussed at Talk:Edward_Snowden, where Dr. Fleischman agreed that I could submit it for review. I'm afraid Bradv misunderstood the purpose of submitting this draft, but I see no way to appeal his decision. KalHolmann (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If there is consensus to split the article, it can be done without going through the AfC process (which is for new articles, not splitting existing ones). If you're not sure if there is consensus, be bold and see if anyone complains. Brad  v  23:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Bradv, thanks for your reply. Please, can you direct me to the Wikipedia page explaining how to accomplish what you suggest? KalHolmann (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There is consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. The page is now live at Edward Snowden in popular culture. I have not done any cleanup of Edward Snowden or added the appropriate links. Brad  v  00:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Edward Snowden awards October 27, 2017
✅ Per reviewer feedback to draft Edward Snowden in popular culture October 28, 2017, I moved draft to Edward Snowden awards, and added {Main article} tags in both primary and subarticle. KalHolmann (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The "Snowden Effect" October 29, 2017
✅ Per reviewer feedback to draft Edward Snowden in popular culture October 28, 2017, I moved draft to Snowden effect, and added {Main article} tags in both primary and subarticle. KalHolmann (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Edward Snowden Asylum in Russia October 30, 2017
✅ Per reviewer feedback to draft Edward Snowden in popular culture October 28, 2017, I moved draft to Edward Snowden Asylum in Russia, and added {Main article} tags in both primary and subarticle. KalHolmann (talk) 02:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Still very long
On 12 May 2016, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga added a {very long} tag to Edward Snowden. Nearly 1½ years later, that tag has become a permanent fixture. As recently as 14 October 2017, Dr. Fleischman retained {very long} after removing a {multiple issues} tag that also contained {over-quotation}.

I'd like to help reduce the article's size but cannot locate a corresponding thread in the Talk Page archives where editors specifically discussed {very long} apart from {over-quotation}. In order to move us closer to ultimately removing this tag, I want to understand the thinking that went into placing it there in the first place. Naturally I'd also appreciate input from currently active editors who share my interest in improving this BLP by reducing its length. Thank you. KalHolmann (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for driving this forward. I don't remember if there was a discussion on this topic. I've never dealt much with article length issues, but whether the article is overlong is usually based on WP:SIZERULE, which says that readable prose more than 100 kB should almost always be split. This article is 300 kB. I agree it is quite unwieldy. If we're going to split it, the next question is what to either shrink or spin off into a separate article. The section "Global surveillance disclosures" was spun off long ago into Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present), but since then the section here has grown quite large and is arguably due for a massive trimming in line with WP:SS. Similarly, the "Reaction" section has hatnotes to Reactions to global surveillance disclosures and Commentary on Edward Snowden's disclosure. If those fully encapsulate the content in that section then the section could be shrunk way down as well. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Dr. Fleischman, your reply is quite helpful. Besides trimming the material you identify, two lengthy sections jump out at me as candidates for spinning off into separate articles: Section 6.5 "Recognition" (including 9 subsections) and Section 7 "In popular culture" (likewise including 9 subsections). Reducing this article by two-thirds, from 300 kB to 100 kB, will require aggressive editing. I hope other editors are receptive. Historically, this BLP has been a battleground, but perhaps the passage of time makes it possible to bring this article in compliance with WP:SIZE. KalHolmann (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I hope so too. You are correct that the article has been a battleground, although that was some time ago. The folks who were most responsible for that by and large stopped editing here over a year ago. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

In response to my feedback request yesterday, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, who originally added the {very long} tag, today replied: "Compared to versions that I've tagged, the present one seems quite good. You may remove the tag." This is encouraging, and a tribute to all the editors who worked so hard too make Edward Snowden a first-rate BLP. Nevertheless, starting tomorrow, I'll begin carefully reducing its size in accordance with the above suggestions by Dr. Fleischman and myself. KalHolmann (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, in your comment above time/date-stamped 19:09, 24 October 2017, you wrote: WP:SIZERULE "says that readable prose more than 100 kB should almost always be split. This article is 300 kB." However, WP:SIZERULE notes: "These rules of thumb apply only to readable prose (found by counting the words, perhaps with the help of Shubinator's DYK tool or Prosesize) and not to wiki markup size (as found on history lists or other means)." I find that applying the Page Size tool installed per User:Dr pda/prosesize returns a readable prose size of 112 kB. This indicates that we need to reduce Edward Snowden not by two-thirds (300 kB to 100 kB) but by less than half to reach 60 kB, a size justified by our BLP's scope. Please correct me if I misunderstand the guidelines or have misapplied the tool. As I strive to trim this BLP, it's important to establish an agreeable goal. KalHolmann (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, you are so right. I was looking at total size, not readable prose. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

In addition to WP:SPLITTING Section 6.5 "Recognition" and Section 7 "In popular culture" (both mentioned above) into separate articles, I propose also splitting 6.7 The "Snowden Effect" (with its two subsections) into a separate article. I have added {split section} tags to each of those three sections to alert editors accordingly. KalHolmann (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

As another candidate for WP:SPLITTING into a separate subarticle, I propose Section 5 "Asylum in Russia" (with its four subsections). I have added a {split section} tag to alert editors accordingly. KalHolmann (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * , you need to retain the spun-off content here while the spinoff articles are in draft space. Either restore the content, or promote your drafts to article space. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Dr. Fleischman, I restored the content as you requested. KalHolmann (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Why are the spinoffs still in draft space, I might ask? Wikipedia is a work in progress, so there's no need to keep your articles as drafts until they're perfect. Be bold! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Dr. Fleischman, I prefer to wait out the Review process. I realize that may take over a month, but since you and I are the only editors on record as saying this BLP is too long, formal approval would be reassuring. The waiting period also allows other editors to weigh in before our drastic reduction is finalized. Since the {very long} tag has been in place for 1½ years, another month should not matter. KalHolmann (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, fair enough. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, I finished moving the content from the main article to four subarticles (enumerated below). Applying the Page Size tool now returns a readable prose size of 60 kB, which represents a 50% reduction. I believe this size is justified by our BLP's scope. At your convenience, please consider removing the {very long} tag that has been in place since May 2016. KalHolmann (talk) 03:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅. Absent objection, I have taken the liberty of removing the longstanding {very long|date=May 2016} tag. If any editor believes this article is still too long, please be specific by adding a {Very long|section} tag above each section whose length is excessive. Thank you. KalHolmann (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Is Snowden a Hero? SnowdenHK 香港聲援斯諾登遊行 Hong Kong Rally to Support Snowden SML.20130615.7D.42298.jpg

Incorrect information in this wiki
Under the Background section, specifically the fist line of Career, it says "Feeling a duty to fight in the Iraq War to help free oppressed people,[22] Snowden enlisted in the United States Army Reserve on May 7, 2004, as a Special Forces candidate through its 18X enlistment option.[34] He did not complete the training.[7] After breaking both legs in a training accident,[35] he was discharged on September 28, 2004.[36]"

This CANNOT be correct their is NO special forces in the United States Army Reserves, only Active Duty and a limited number in the Army National Guard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Forces_(United_States_Army)#Organizational_structure

This is a link to the US Army Special Forces from wikipedia as you will see their is NO Reserves, only Active Duty and National Guard (designated as NG). In fact not only is their no special forces in the United States Army Reserve, their is no combat arms period. I know this because I served in the United States Army Reserves myself.

107.13.123.223 (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your service. We now rely on a report by The Guardian that states: "His records indicate he enlisted in the army reserve as a special forces recruit (18X) on 7 May 2004…." Please provide a citation to WP:RS showing that the U.S. Army Reserve in May 2004 did not offer an 18X enlistment option as a Special Forces candidate. KalHolmann (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think the requestor should be written off so quickly but I think they've misunderstood the content. It doesn't say Snowden was really in the Special Forces, it says he was a Special Forces candidate. Other sources bear out that he enlisted in the Special Forces through the 18X program while he was in the Army Reserves. If our text is confusing there may be a way to make it clearer. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Dr. Fleischman, I hope you're not alluding to me as having "written off" the requestor. I did no such thing. Rather, User:LittlePuppers did that in prematurely changing the {edit semi-protected} template's answered parameter to "yes" before discussion could ensue. KalHolmann (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I did mean you, and sorry. Thanks for clarifying. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies to both of you, I may have misunderstood how to use that. You answered saying that a source was needed, so looking through requested edits it appeared to have been answered without any further ongoing discussion.  I was under the assumption that after it was answered (where a discussion was not ongoing, such as in this case) it should be marked as such until someone responded. Is that incorrect, should I wait until significant time has passed without discussion? I'd appreciate some clarification. LittlePuppers (talk) 04:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Your marking was fine. The template is a request for an edit, not a request for discussion and marking the request as answered in no way closes off discussion. Indeed, if the request is not uncontroversial and requires discussion then the request should be answered as such. --Neil N  talk to me 04:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did reply that a source was needed. However, you are wrong in suggesting that my request "appeared to have been answered." No one provided a single WP:RS. Dr. Fleischman made a very slight change to the wording but added no citation. There were no other edits pertaining to the supposedly "Incorrect information in this wiki." KalHolmann (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Neil N  talk to me 04:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * No change needs to be made to mark the request as answered. I think we can move on. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd feel better about this if the editor who initially changed the {edit semi-protected} template's answered parameter to "yes" had been more descriptive in his edit summary. "Responded to edit request" does not suffice when that editor did not, in fact, respond to the edit request. The only response was mine, asking for WP:RS. I do not believe that "answered" the edit request, which I neither executed nor declined. KalHolmann (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not say that your request had been answered. I said that the edit request, by 107.13.123.223, had been answered.  "Responded to edit request" is the default edit summary EPH gives.  If I had know that my edit would be this controversial, I would have done it manually with a custom edit summary.  Either way, it's done now and there's nothing I can do to change it. LittlePuppers (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2018
In October 2015 Michel Forst, UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of Human Rights Defenders, sends an official allegation letter to the US government questioning the judicial treatment of Edward Snowden. 80.12.58.243 (talk) 21:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Saucy[talk – contribs] 03:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2018
After the sentence "Russian newspaper Kommersant reported that Cuba had a change of heart after receiving pressure from U.S. officials,[200] leaving him stuck in the transit zone because at the last minute Havana told officials in Moscow not to allow him on the flight." insert the following sentence and related source:

In 2018, Ben Rhodes, who led negotiations to normalize relations between the United States and Cuba, explained the Obama administration warned Cuban officials that allowing Snowden to land in Cuba would remove the political space needed for President Obama to pursue normalization.[1]

Srm576 (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Ben Rhodes is a perfectly fine source for things he says about himself, but not as a source on things about others, per WP:SELFSOURCE.  Spintendo   21:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

What if the new sentence is rewritten as:

In 2018, Ben Rhodes recounted a conversation he had with Alejandro Castro in their capacities as lead negotiators for normalizing relations between the United States and Cuba. Rhodes relayed a message to Castro on behalf of President Obama that allowing Snowden to land in Cuba would remove the political space needed for Obama to pursue normalization.[1]


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The proposed sentence is hard to follow. It states that Rhodes is recounting a conversation he had with A. Castro, but the next sentence describes Rhodes delivering an ultimatum, not having a conversation. This is supposed to be information that Rhodes is saying in his own voice about these proceedings, which is needed when using himself as the source. However, this appears to have Rhodes delivering a message, so what he's saying here are not his own thoughts, feelings or ideas but rather, those of others.  Spintendo   16:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Snowden is a Fugitive first and a "computer professional" second.
Guys, keep the positive spin out of it. Whether or not you agree with what he's done, he's not identified as "Snowden the computer professional" anywhere until it's first established that he's a fugitive from justice. I think we can all agree that if jeffrey Dahmer was once a programmer that his wikipedia page would not start with "Jeffrey Dahmer was a computer professional..." Hmmm???? Tgm1024 (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:LEDE we use what he is primarily known for first. He is primarily known for the event that took place in Hong Kong, which was prior to him being a fugitive. Edits otherwise violate policy on WP:BLP, see WP:NOTCOURT. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Our Jeffrey Dahmer starts by describing what Dahmer did and only later in the intro is his interaction with the criminal justice system described, and this article does the same. I have added "fugitive from justice" to the last paragraph of the intro for balance.--agr (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I think some here are letting what they wish he was referred to as become confused with the facts of what he is. Let's address this one at a time.


 * NPOV has no bearing in declaring him a fugitive. I didn't put in "Snowden is traitor".  Nor did I put in "Snowden is a creep".  I'm sorry that you believe that calling him a "fugitive" is a NPOV issue, but that's what he currently *is*.  He is absolutely not currently a "computer professional" as his primary identifier.  Being a computer professional is not what made him a wikipedia entry.  There are millions of computer professionals who are not listed.


 * NOTCOURT also has bearing, but only in support of the point I'm making. The order of what's happened is of no consequence...the current status of what he is is what of consequence.


 * Keep in mind people, the sentence has this as the predicate: "Edward snowden is". Well what is he?  He is certainly not a wikipedia entry for being a computer professional.  There are millions of computer professionals.  And there were many things he was before being a fugitive (teenager, human, whatever), and none of those apply either. Tgm1024 (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Edward Snowden is a computer professional who worked for the government, disseminated documents, and then went to Russia, becoming a fugitive. This is the best way to structure the intro. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Snowden article is bound by WP:BLP. Dahmer article is not. This should be obvious. Stop POV pushing. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I love how people just throw in WP: (insert your choice) as if it makes a case by itself. YOU are pushing a POV by keeping a known definition out.  Answer in the section below if you like.  In what way is "fugitive" a subjective "POV" term? Tgm1024 (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

"Fugitive" is ORTHOGONAL to "hero" or "traitor", etc.
Well, at the end of the intro there's this sentence:


 * A subject of controversy, Snowden has been variously called a hero, a whistleblower, a fugitive from justice, a dissident, a traitor, and a patriot.

The problem with this is that all of those are subjective opinions except for fugitive. THAT is established as a fact. I'll re-write that sentence accordingly.

IF you object, then please note that you only do this out of some kind of NPOV violating support for Snowden. He is what he is. He can be both a fugitive AND a hero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgm1024 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

It's as if some here are actively trying to diminish the notion that the US Government wants him back. "Fugitive" is no mere opinion.Tgm1024 (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * In a situation were a person has fled one country and been granted asylum in another, calling that person first and foremost a fugitive from justice is expressing an opinion. Would you start the article on Jamal Khashoggi by calling him a fugitive from justice? I note the sentence you questioned was removed from the intro.--agr (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, and what you've said is complete nonsense. A fugitive is a fugitive.  Look at all definitions.  Even the wikipedia page seems to have gotten it right.  And my original change to the page was to use the words "American fugitive" in the intro, not "fugitive from justice".  The "from justice" was added by me as a change because of someone adding in "from US charges" or some such earlier.  The intro should read:  Edward Snowden is an American fugitive, ..." (with all the other things afterward).


 * Show me one definition which shows fugitive as a mere matter of subjective opinion. Just because you want him to be a hero, doesn't mean you get to morph the facts to suit your belief system.Tgm1024 (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree completely and Wiki should at least have semantic integrity. He is indisputably a "fugitive" under existing U.S. law. All the other descriptions are debatable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starhistory22 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I take problem with that being the opening words for a page. Could be mentioned in the paragraph, but doesn't need to be the opening words. The first words are what sticks to a person the most. It seems very biased to say essentially "xyz is bad" and then mention everything else afterwards. I've yet to see any BLP that uses such strong language to open it. Imagine if George Bush's page said "... is an American War Criminal, Politician, and Businessmen". GeekInParadise (talk) 01:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

This likely the result of WP:POV pushing on both sides. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

No. The term "fugitive" is without coloring: A fugitive isn't bad or good, it's merely someone evading the law. There have been fugitives from Nazi Germany, and from South Africa. A "whistleblower" however, IS POV: You cannot be a "whistleblower" without first establishing that what the person did was good. That is what people are attempting to assert here by removing a simple and verifiable fact. Snowden is a currently an American fugitive, and this is what he is primarily. Everything else is for an subjective argument. It's a NPOV mistake to try to color this with the term "whistleblower". If you wish to create a page called Snowden is a Good Guy, then go for it; I wish you well.Tgm1024 (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I would disagree that calling someone a whistle-blower requires establishing that what they did was good. Many of the most comprehensive definitions of the term (e.g. ) define it such that a whistle-blower need only be someone who discloses information that they reasonably allege constitutes wrongdoing. Whether or not there was wrongdoing at the NSA is an opinion, but that Snowden alleges there was wrongdoing is a fact. - Sdkb (talk) 08:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Snowden is a Dissident
Snowden is a Dissident and has to be categorized as a Dissident.--217.92.58.201 (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No. Too broad. A Dissident is someone who opposes official policy. (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dissident), (https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=dissident), (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/dissident)  He's moved beyond that broader definition to someone actively sought.Tgm1024 (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Snowden is an Opponent of the offical policy of US and he is listed as an American Dissident in the Article List of political dissidents. And he was called a Dissident by English-speaking and german-speaking Media.--217.92.58.201 (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Again, too broad. Please read my prior comment immediately above yours.  He's moved beyond that broader definition to someone actively sought.Tgm1024 (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * In opposite to the Mythomaniac and Conspiracy Theorist Litvinenko who was clearly a Defector Snowden is a Dissident.--88.65.176.103 (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Concerns
The fourth paragraph of the section Edward_Snowden begins "Snowden has said that he had told multiple employees and two supervisors about his concerns". It's not clear what "his concerns" refers to. The preceding paragraph mentions no concerns, it's about Snowden's résumé. I guess that some content has been deleted, making this (rather important, IMHO) part of the article unclear. Maproom (talk) 08:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit Request 2019-09-18
Last sentence of the fourth paragraph (bottom of the introduction) seems to have a typo — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheForgottenKing (talk • contribs) 01:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Whistle blower term for Snowden and Manning doesn't apply even if they exposed wrong doing
They aren't official whistleblowers, they didn't go through he process of whistle blowing, they leaked information. Yes the information revealed wrong doing and even crimes which is great, but that doesn't change they had the opportunity to do it right and didn't. As for example the Trump whistleblower who has gone through the official process, that person is a whistleblower. Manning and Snowden are not. 96.31.177.52 (talk) 02:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Joe Rogan podcast
A user keeps adding information about Snowden discussing aliens on the Joe Rogan podcast. I don't see how this information is important enough to include in an encyclopedic biography. Wikipedia does not include all media appearances made by an individual, especially as that list would be far too long for a subject like this article. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Joe Rogan Experience
The following information was deleted from the page, first on the grounds that it was a primary source. I added the CNN reference. Then on the grounds that the CNN source didn't say the discussion was free-ranging, though it mentioned aliens, chemtrails, and government surveillance. I added the Men's Health article, which points out Snowden chose the free-ranging three-hour interview option for book promotion. Now, it has been deleted again by who is therefore at 3RR for reverting qualitatively different text 3 times. Please explain the reasons for this obstruction Mr. fromdilbert. I believe you were saying you didn't think it was a teleconference? The Men's Health article says this: "[...] Edward Snowden beamed his way from an undisclosed location (likely in Russia) to the Joe Rogan podcast."


 * Contribution removed


 * On October 23, 2019 Joe Rogan gave Edward Snowden a chance to speak freely on subjects ranging from telephones and intelligence gathering to aliens and chemtrails. Within three days, the video had been viewed over 7 million times.


 * 🌿  SashiRolls t ·  c 17:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ref-fix, passerby!


 * Proposed revision


 * On October 23, 2019 Edward Snowden chose to promote his new book Permanent Record on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast because of the greater freedom to develop arguments that its long format permits. In the episode, Snowden and Rogan discuss subjects ranging from telephones and intelligence gathering to aliens and chemtrails. Both Newsweek and CNN focused on a short segment on aliens in their coverage.  Within three days, the video had been viewed over 7 million times.

Any suggestions for improvement before I restore the info to mainspace, anyoneundefined ? Does anyoneundefined object to its restoration? If so, please suggest improvements. 🌿  SashiRolls t ·  c 09:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I object, as I already stated above: "I don't see how this information is important enough to include in an encyclopedic biography. Wikipedia does not include all media appearances made by an individual, especially as that list would be far too long for a subject like this article." Your proposed addition is not WP:DUE. It is the same as all the rest of the promotional media appearances he made for his published book. Additionally, "because of the greater freedom to develop arguments that its long format permits" is original research. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Of course you do. :p No, it is not OR, it is explicitly mentioned by Snowden at the very beginning of the interview.  It is also mentioned in the Men's Health article.  As for WP:DUE, the interview has been mentioned (so far) by CNN, Newsweek, NY Mag, Cnet, Fox News, Daily Dot, Men's Health, imdb, USA Today, MSN, and The Hill. 🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 19:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. What enduring relevance is there to mention a single media appearance? – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, why exactly do you want to prevent a 3-hour interview with the subject, widely reported in the press, from being included in this entry? Here is the exact time (1:49) where Snowden talks about the long format as the reason he came to Joe Rogan instead of having to answer in "fifteen seconds or less".  Also, I believe this is already in the top-five of Joe Rogan's shows, behind only Bernie Sanders, Elon Musk, Neil Degrasse Tyson, & Alex Jones.  The podcast will have broken 8 million views before midnight in the US, btw. What is most interesting about it is of course the fact that the mainstream media focused on a brief debunking of the aliens conspiracy theory (30:55-31:33) for their clickbait headlines whereas responsible journalists did not.  (see further podcast notes)  That story has not yet been written, though.🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 19:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Individuals make numerous media appearances when promoting a new book. What relevance is there to mention this one? – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The fact that it is mentioned by over a dozen RS. The fact that it is 3 hours long and very thorough (it basically allows people to hear a great deal of biographical information about the entry's subject.)  The fact that it garnered 8 million views in 4 days.  The fact that it speaks to the problem of the MSM's fondness for clickbait sound bites. 🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 20:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is meant to reflect the reliable sources, which focus on a brief exchange about aliens. It is not our job right great wrongs. The high number of views may make it appropriate to mention the interview on the podcast's page, but not here. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * This is obviously going nowhere. I'll leave you to your obstructionism.  Note that you have given no defensible policy-based reason to ignore the dozens of reliable sources already mentioning the interview.  In the days that come, we'll see what is published. 🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 20:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

speculation about Russia
There is no mention in this article about the possibility that this was a Russian operation with Snowden a Russian spy. I don't know if there are credible sources but it would need to be looked at. A computer guy with holes in his CV ends up with loads of US government information in Moscow. Total coincidence? 176.11.125.192 (talk)

Don’t forget his family has military background in the United States he is not just anybody Fasanmiracle (talk) 09:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Snowden introduction
Hello,

I think Edward Snowden should be introduce this way ‘ Edward Joseph Snowden (born June 21, 1983) is an American citizen. He’s known as the whistleblower who copied and leaked...’ instead of ‘ Edward Joseph Snowden (born June 21, 1983) is an American whistleblower who copied and leaked...’. I dint think the terms ‘whistleblowers’ can define a person as in who you are. On the other band, he is an American citizen/patriot. Seb67 503 (talk) 07:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * "patriot" is what disqualifies you from making this edit. You don't get any more POV than that.𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Is he Russian now?
He's lived there for 5 years. Did he get his citizenship yet? New3400 (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

On 23 January 2020 Snowden gave an interview to Rafael Correa for the TV program "conversando con correa" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNsmAgeANTE

Which of these THREE are NPOV:
Option one:
 * Edward Snowden is an American[...]

or option two:
 * Edward Snowden is an American whistleblower[...]

𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The label "whistleblower" is supported by dozens of reliable sources, so we will continue to use it. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with Binksternet. You also have a whole section above pushing on this issue with no support. Please stop it. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The term "whistleblower" seems to be supported by a large number of sources (including conservative media outlets like Breitbart, although links to their site are blacklisted here). Most of the sources that say he is not a whistleblower seem to be discussing statements by government officials (based on a quick review). I don't see how government statements or legal statutes are particularly relevant if the term is used by reliable sources. If there are good reasons to remove whistleblower from the lead, then I would support an alternative description such as "an American former military contractor" or something, as having just "an American" does not seem like a preferable option. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Between those two choices, "is an American" is far too general. An American what? What do secondary sources call him? There's your answer. We could do something like "is an American activist described by mainstream media sources as a whistleblower" to avoid stating the obvious in Wikipedia's voice, but that's clumsy and awkward and unnecessary. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

It was just meant to be the beginning of the sentence Anachronist (I had used an ellipsis on each). So to be clear:

Option one:
 * Edward Joseph Snowden (born June 21, 1983) is an American who copied and leaked highly classified information from the National Security Agency (NSA) in 2013 when he was a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) employee and subcontractor.

or option two:
 * Edward Joseph Snowden (born June 21, 1983) is an American whistleblower who copied and leaked highly classified information from the National Security Agency (NSA) in 2013 when he was a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) employee and subcontractor.

The problem with the wikipedia's view of sources is that themselves have difficulty with maintaining neutral positions. A source is only as good as the training of the people using it. This is why you cannot have an encyclopedia run by the general public, but instead need a team of people with a financial stake at pruning the information carefully.

KEEP IN MIND, that even the NYT supports referring to him as a fugitive, and yet that was quickly removed out of here because of how it "sounded", even though it was accurate.

In the New York Times: (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/17/us/politics/edward-snowden-memoir-lawsuit.html)
 * "But the case against him has not proceeded because Mr. Snowden has since been living as a fugitive in Russia, and the Russian government granted him asylum."

And in that piece, the only place that "whistle-blower" is used is to say that some think that, and that Snowden says that, while others view him as a traitor.

That would seem to support an option 3:


 * Edward Joseph Snowden (born June 21, 1983) is an American fugitive who copied and leaked highly classified information from the National Security Agency (NSA) in 2013 when he was a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) employee and subcontractor.

𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, in my opinion that isn't bad. What Wikipedia should call him, though, depends on how the majority of sources characterize him (those that characterize him at all). There are multiple sources calling him a whistleblower. We have one (NYT, perhaps others?) calling him a fugitive. What's the weighting? ~Anachronist (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that New York Times article would be support for calling him a "former intelligence contractor" but not for "fugitive". We shouldn't be cherrypicking nouns when the subheading and first sentence of an article directly call him a "former intelligence contractor" while "fugitive" is only used later to describe his status while living in Russia. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That sounds best to me too. I note also that the term "whistleblower" appears nowhere in the body of the article, and therefore shouldn't be in the lead section, which should serve as an overview of the body. ✅, lead changed accordingly. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Cut it out, folks. Your attempts to change away from "whistleblower" are not supported by consensus. Binksternet (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Crazy what is going on here. Need to do an RfC if snowden will be called a whistelblower here. Having trouble believing the classification isn't included. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems like "whistleblower" has been discussed numerous times in the archives, and the discussions go about the same as here. Given the majority of editors who have commented here seem to support including the term, those who object to using it may want to open an RfC to bring in additional voices. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The Two Broken Legs Claim
I just read a few pages of Edward Jay Epstein's book on Snowden, and came across the 'two broken legs' claim in reference to Snowden's discharge from the US Army's MOS 18X program. Snowden claims, in his book 'Permanent Record', that he suffered tibial fractures, stress fractures. Not the bone broken clear through. Apparently, no cast required. As a descriptive term, "two broken legs" seems like an over-reach. What he claims to have had were something in the neighborhood of a sprain, if it were of a neighboring joint. Does anyone see a more descriptive, less dramatic phrase? Rainbow-five (talk) 04:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I understood that Snowden claimed to have stress fractured leg bones. Synonyms are "simple fracture" and "hairline fracture".  Calling this sort of bone fracture "broken" is overstatement.  "Fractured" is more accurate.  eg. "Snowden had fractured tibias." --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In June 2013, The Guardian reported that Snowden, after enlisting in the U.S. Army in 2003, "broke both his legs in a training accident." This is the source we rely on for stating as much in our article space. If Snowden, in his 2019 autobiography Permanent Record, denies that his legs were broken, please quote the relevant passage in full so that editors may evaluate it. Should we achieve consensus to replace or supplement The Guardian reference with a new one citing his book, it would improve our BLP. Meanwhile, any attempt by Wikipedia editors to pose as orthopedic specialists diagnosing a patient whose medical records they've never seen—much less having contemporaneously examined him in person—is pure WP:SYNTH and, as such, worthless. NedFausa (talk) 06:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Various secondary sources, eg mention the broken legs claim as disputed in favour of the term “shin splints”. This is not SYNTH or orthopaedic medicine, but simple English. While a shin splint may technically involve broken bone, specifically stress fractures, shin splints are not properly referred to as “broken legs”.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The entry at biography.com to which you link relates: "…an unclassified report published on September 15, 2016 by the House Intelligence Committee refuted his claim, stating: 'He claimed to have left Army basic training because of broken legs when in fact he washed out because of shin splints.'" However, Barton Gellman, senior fellow at The Century Foundation and one of the journalists who (for The Washington Post) broke the Snowden story in 2013, condemned the House report a day after it was published as "aggressively dishonest" and singled out the committee's statement about shin splints as "verifiably false." According to Gellman, Snowden's Army paperwork shows the diagnosis that led to his discharge was "bilateral tibial stress fractures." U.S. News & World Report subsequently reported that, in response to Gellman's criticism, the House Intelligence Committee had "walked back" its accusation that Snowden lied about breaking his legs.
 * You say this is a matter of simple English, and I agree. Wikipedia defines stress fracture as a fatigue-induced fracture of the bone. In turn, Wikipedia defines bone fracture as a partial or complete break in the continuity of the bone. If someone types "broken bone" in Wikipedia's search box, the user is redirected to Bone fracture. In simple English, a broken bone is synonymous with a bone fracture. Please provide a better source to support your contention that Snowden did not break his legs. NedFausa (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that he "broke his legs", but there was the claim. I surmise from very limited sources (including information that no x-rays were taken), that he had "shin splits" at least, which means microfractures of his tibias.  Yes,  "microfractures of the tibia" can be correctly called "broken bone" in simple English, but I do not agree that this equates to "broken legs".  This is not an expert opinion.  I note there was a claim of "broken legs", sort of sourced to the subject, but no direct quote.  In the movie version, where he jumps from the bunk and crumbles to the floor, that could be characterised as a "broken" person, as a person who is not mechanically working right.  This is my reading of the limited information.  Someone asked for input, and this is mine.  The 'two broken legs' claim reads as a slight exaggeration.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * From Snowden's "Permanent Record", the edition published by Macmillan UK, 2019, ISBN 978-1-5290-3566-7 (TPB), pp 88-92, beginning with the phrase near the bottom of page 88, "At the hospital I was X-Rayed and told I had bilateral tibial fractures ...". This narrative continues through to page 92, which ends the chapter. In simple English, "broke both legs" (a phrase Snowden does not use in this book) gives everybody I converse with an image of a guy with leg casts on a gurney, or in a wheel chair with leg extensions for support. A guy on crutches? Shin splints sounds about right. I have no axe to grind with The Guardian, my grandfather wrote for them (they were still The Manchester Guardian in 1920) so I theoretically have skin in that part of the game but journalists make errors, mischaracterizations, and employ phrases (deadlines, remember?) that may lack the full precision that appears over time. Another point: Snowden claims, earlier in the same book, that after the injury he hobbled back to the barracks with the rest of the company. With "two broken legs", ain't nobody hobblin'. Rainbow-five (talk) 05:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the detailed reference, which I have cited in the article to change broken legs to bilateral tibial fractures. NedFausa (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, NedFausa. I believe we share the the goal of accuracy. Rainbow-five (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Use of the term "Whistleblower" is misleading
Manning meets the dictionary definition for "whistleblower," e.g. "one who reveals something covert or who informs against another" (Merriam-Webster) However use of the term here may lead readers to understand that Snowden qualified for or received protections under the Whistleblower Protection Act, 5 USFC 2302(b)(8)-(9). This is not correct, as Snowden was charged with 2 counts of criminal activity as stated elsewhere in this article. Suggested alternative wording is "Edward Snowden is an American who disclosed classified information without authorization." Walt539 (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I have fought for words to similar effect, and frankly it's completely unnerving how many POV folks there are here in wikipedialand that want to establish him as some kind of obvious hero. Much of wikipedia attempts to establish things I'd label as "attempted fait accompli".  He is /not/ a whistleblower, and the fact that he /says/ he is is irrelevant.  Christ, this is getting so aggravating.  Go and make the change and I'll back you up, but people seem to forget that the man did not read everything he disclosed.  𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * You are turning your back on the WP:Reliable sources which are thoroughly in agreement with the label "whistleblower". Take a look at The Guardian, The New Yorker magazine, HuffPost, USA Today, Voice of America News, CNBC, The Nation, Wired magazine and Reuters, for just a small sample of sources. You cannot set a definition in defiance of WP:SECONDARY sources and expect it to stay here. Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I was not setting a definition in defiance of anything, I was removing a controversial adjective.  Removal of that does not set any definition.  I fully doubt that you even read any of those quoted sources.  For instance(indent moved left):

1. In that reuters article, the ONLY place "whistle blower" is mentioned is in his own quote about himself, outside of the title. The title is referring to his own belief system, NOT REUTERS.

2. In that Wired article, "Whistle-Blower" was how he referred to himself, NOT HOW WIRED REFERRED TO HIM. Read the article!.

3. The Nation IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE. It is a liberal opinion-only site. Take into account this HIGHLY POV lead article (among many): "Republicans Have Made It Clear They Will Let Trump Become a Dictator. Will We?"

4. The Guardian. ANOTHER HIGHLY POV SITE AS STATED BY THEMSELVES!. Proof, take a look at The Guardian Media Groups own quote: "The trust was created in 1936 to "secure the financial and editorial independence of The Guardian in perpetuity and to safeguard the journalistic freedom and liberal values of The Guardian free from commercial or political interference"

You had better do better than that if you're going to attempt this kind of NPOV-violating stuff again.𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like POV pushing here. The WP:RS says "The worlds most famous whistle-blower" (The Guardian) is good enough for wikipedia. We dont do WP:OR by looking at dictionaries. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you cannot throw around wp links like WP:RS as if that self evidently makes your point. Here is a quote from WP:RS:
 * Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).
 * Show me where in that article is it more than one sided. WP:RS clearly does not allow this guardian article. You seem like you're POV pushing.  In fact, so many of you are, and it's becoming ridiculous.  You intent on using words that imply heroism.  One guy above even insisted on using Patriot.  Right or Wrong, you cannot imply whistle-blower without reading everything you're divulging...and he simply did not.  BUT I DON'T EVEN NEED TO PROVE THAT.  The burden of prove is upon YOU, and instead you reply with WP:RS as if I've never read through it and will just take the link itself as evidence.  I'm guessing people throw the wp links around because they believe that no one will call them on it.𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm waiting for an answer to my cogent explanations that I placed both here and on my talk page.𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Your explanations weren't cogent, but mostly focused on your own personal characterization of sources that Wikipedia deems acceptable. If you have a problem with Nation or Guardian, for example, take it up on WP:RSN. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Riiiight. Did or did not the guardian specificallhttps://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inboxy established their mission/charter to be liberal? Did you see their quote?  And you're so confused by your own POV of Snowden somehow being a hero you can't see that my simply REMOVING the heroic accolade of "whistle blower" is a step TOWARD NPOV not away from it.  POV agendas like yours are what make Wikipedia a joke.  I'm not advocating we call Snowden an A-hole, I'm trying to stay NPOV, however YOU want to imply he's a hero.  I'm done here, you all are a joke.  You have no argument I haven't cogently refuted.𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't made any argument. All I did was point out that you have failed to get any consensus from the Wikipedia community about the reliability of sources you personally dislike. Take it to WP:RSN and come back when you're done.
 * I'll add that the reason you haven't refuted anything, least of all "cogently", is because your underlying premise is false, therefore your arguments don't follow. You're basically saying that if a publication is "liberal" then it must be unreliable. That's false. Reliable sources do have biases. For example, the Washington Times leans right, the Washington Post leans left, but both are reliable sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, apparently you didn't read through WP:RS. It was thrown at me by jtbobwaysf as if just throwing a wiki link will quiet folks up.  Well SOME of us actually know what these pages say.  BOTH SIDES HAVE TO BE REPRESENTED!  And using "whistle-blower" is hardly a representation of both sides.𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, if you have an argument to make about undue weight, then make it. If you don't believe the sources are reliable, then go hash it out on WP:RSN and come back here when you're done. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

And backing up, we have yet another perfect example of how wikipedia will forever remain a joke. The population will put in POV bullshit like "whistle-blower". Let's take a look at how a couple *real* encyclopedias phrase things, hmmm???

Encyclopedia Britannica: (No mention of "whistle-blower") https://www.britannica.com/biography/Edward-Snowden

The Columbia Encyclopedia: (No mention of "whistle-blower"). Note the careful use of "activist". This is via the encyclopedia.com broad search across encyclopedias. https://www.encyclopedia.com/reference/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/snowden-edward-joseph

And yet HERE in wikipedialand we end up with a bunch of people insisting on promoting their own view of the world with accolades. Ask yourself, what harm is there in becoming NPOV and removing the hero-dripping word of "whistle-blower", hmmm? Oh, but of course! You have "sources".

Wikipedia is hopeless, and you all should be ashamed of yourselves.𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * You're making assumptions about people you know nothing about.
 * I have no problem with "activist". Those "real" encyclopedias don't cite their sources, they are written by staff. Wikipedia works to different standards, and the results are expected to be different. You haven't made a single "cogent" argument yet, instead you assert that the sources are "liberal" and therefore invalid. I have a hard time believing you have a neutral POV here. Me, I have no POV about Snowden one way or another, I don't consider him a hero or a whistleblower or any other term, I don't really care what we call him. I care more about what reliable sources call him. If you disagree, then we have a venue for discussing the reliability of sources, and I have already pointed you there. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY sources. Secondary sources are preferred over tertiary sources such as other encyclopedias. Binksternet (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You may have misread wp:secondary. Wikipedia is itself a tertiary source.  Other encyclopedias are themselves tertiary sources as well.  They both are built upon secondary sources.
 * 𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 03:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The key line at WP:SECONDARY is the one that says Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources.. Tertiary sources are not the preferred source for building articles, but they can be useful to establish proper weight if secondary sources are in contradiction. Binksternet (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Wikipedia is as tertiary as Britannica.  Don't believe me?  Read further in that page:
 * Wikipedia is to be a tertiary source.[h] Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources.
 * And further down, another reference regarding wikipedia as a tertiary source:
 * Wikipedia articles may not be used as tertiary sources in other Wikipedia articles, but are sometimes used as primary sources in articles about Wikipedia itself
 * Just as with the WP:RS mention above, you've misunderstood a key component in an attempt to win an argument by simply dropping a wikilink. It's becoming apparent that I'm the only one of us that read through wp:secondary and wp:rs. You've either misread wp:secondary, or are attempting a red herring (secondary vs. tertiary doesn't apply because both wikipedia and britannica are tertiary).  Especially since I'm not attempting to use britannica as a source.  I'm comparing wikipedia POV to Britannica's carefully neutral prose to drive the point home to you guys blinded by your own wiki dogma.
 * 𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * You DO understand that right? I'm not positing Britannica as a source for this article.  I'm showing you how an encyclopedia should behave.https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox
 * 𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I listed a bunch of good secondary sources describing and labeling Snowden as a whistleblower. You tried to impeach the sources on unfounded procedural nonsense, splitting hairs and wikilawyering. What else do you want to try? Because despite your efforts I don't see any convincing reason to turn our backs on these fine sources, which are just a sample of many more similar ones. Binksternet (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is WP:RGW. In this case you will need a large number of sources that dispute that Assange is a whistleblower, not that they simply fail to refer to him as such. Then we can cover the whistleblower title as controversial. In no likelihood will we remove it entirely, given the huge number of existing whistleblower sources. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Binkersternet, Did you or did you not think that I was attempting to use Britannica as a source? Had you actually decided to read anything of what I wrote, you'd see it was a comparison to this wikipedia nonsense.𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

(<indent moved) Since Binkersternet will avoid admitting that he brought up wp:secondary for no reason, and since he will also not admit the the wp:rs section that he pretended to read states making sure both sides are read, let's simplify this. New section below.𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * He brought up WP:SECONDARY because you are the one who brought up other encyclopedias as if that were somehow relevant to this discussion. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And in what way is wp:secondary relevent (including his inapplicable references to tertiary) UNLESS he thought I was using real encyclopedias as sources? Hmmmm? And it's wikipedia that dares call it's an encyclopedia. So comparing it to real ones is hardly out of the question, and you know it.𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that using the term whistleblower is misleading. Whistleblower implies that he disclosed information that would qualify him as such under the (WPA) Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 (5 USC 2302(b)(8)-(9); S.20, Public Law 101-12). Regardless of whether one approves or disapproves of his actions on philosophical ground is irrelevant. Objectively what Edward Snowden is, is a leaker of classified information and a fugitive from justice. These are facts and using the term whistleblower is a possible violation of WP:NPOV. Calling him a whistleblower takes a definite POV that he exposed wrongdoing. Sloppy usage of language is a problem and should be avoided. If the Times of Sherwood Forest (an otherwise reliable source) reports that Robin Hoob was a Freedom Fighter, it does not change the fact that he was a robber (albeit, of the rich to benefit the poor). If leaker is too charged, just say me made unauthorized disclosures. Just because several sources misuse a word, does not make it justified. That is purely factual, with no bias either way. Abelian (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is based on published sources, and it follows those sources in terms of style and weight. A great many sources call Snowden a whistleblower, for example the Voice of America News. Almost nobody calls him a leaker. The huge disparity give little hope for your preferred term. Binksternet (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of the law is WP:OR. This talk page is not place for discussion of Robin Hood (I guess that is what you meant) and WP:NOTFORUM applies to your convoluted WP:OSE reasoning. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Snowden article needs updating
What's new with Ed Snowden ca 2019? Is he still living in Russia with Lindsay Mills?Richard8081 (talk) 05:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Done, a while ago. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Better sequence in Global surveillance disclosures section
The article should state explain what happened and what was released and published before diving into the "size and scope". As it is, after a pretty straightforward buildup in the article in terms of his life, but before even clarifying what he released and how, it dives into analysis, statistics, global impact etc.

I suggest this sequence (leaving in place the current numbering to help clarify what is changing).

2.3	Release of NSA documents 2.4	Publication 2.5	Revelations 2.1	Size and scope of disclosures 2.2	Potential impact on U.S. national security 2.6	Motivations ★NealMcB★ (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Global surveillance disclosures

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2020
There is debate surrounding the effects of a potential pardon for Mr. Snowden. Daj12414 (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 19:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Missing parenthesis
In the last paragraph of the section "Whistleblower Status", there should be additional closing parenthesis after the text "(Case No. 1:13 CR 265 (0MH)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.160.99 (talk) 03:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thundermaker (talk) 09:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Issue with "political views"
The section about Snowden's political views is more reminiscent of a celebrity's old Tweets being found than it is of a serious article. Are there not more recent articles about his political beliefs? I mean he obviously doesn't believe he should be "shot in the balls" like he apparently did in 2009. LeBron4 (talk) 02:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * If articles about his more-current political leanings can be found, I would say split the section into pre-leak and post-leak political views. But yes it does seem like casual conversations he had under a pseudonym before he was well known are being given undue weight.  Thundermaker (talk) 09:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Minor edit: IQ typo
In the section "Childhood, family, and education", the article currently states: "Snowden scored consistently above 145 on two separate IQ tests." The statement is based on this source: https://www.wired.com/2014/08/edward-snowden/

Here is the relevant part of the cited article: "His father told me, 'We always considered Ed the smartest one in the family.' It didn’t surprise him when his son scored above 145 on two separate IQ tests." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.183.152.223 (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Can you clarify what you think should be changed? Thundermaker (talk) 09:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Italics
Section 4.1 Analysis of Criminal Complaint  When I view this paragraph it appears in its entirety to be italicized. I don’t think that this fits with the style manual and maybe unintentional use of emphasis I read through the style manual and it doesn’t seem to fit any of the examples there and is possibly in error. If that is the case I think it should be reverted back to plain text. TSpot-SF (talk) 08:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ Ablaze (talk) 10:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Epilepsy
The article only mentions epilepsy twice, and both are when he lied about treatment in 2013. Perhaps it should also be mentioned somewhere that he also had epilepsy and sought real treatment. LieAfterLie (talk) 00:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

"Snowden has been variously called a traitor" (sources)
I was just reading up a bit on Snowdens history, and while don't really have any interest in disputing the claim that i put in quote for the headline: None of the three links are currently functional, as they all redirect me to a 404 or a general "page not found" message on their respective outlets. If anyone has an interest in changing this, feel fre to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.183.194.67 (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Name
Since he has applied for Russian citizenship, shouldn't this article be moved to Эдвард Сноуден? 2603:6080:F305:4000:3210:B3FF:FE07:ED2F (talk) 19:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 19:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Press releases
Are these press release files (photos, essentially) WP:DUE? I havent seen wikipedia host press releases in other articles. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * They are taking up a lot of valuable real estate. Do they contain any important information that is not in the text? is there a way of linking to them in the "See also" section instead? Burrobert (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the same thing. Wikipedia is not a host to this kind of stuff. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amulli.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 February 2021 and 14 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): S.benjamin28.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Any news for Μr. Edward Snowden?
Any news for Μr. Edward Snowden? We have no any news not even the slightest information about what Mr. Edward Snowden is doing during this war between Russia and Ukraine. He keep an exploding deafening silence. On the other hands I understand it since he live in Russia and if will say anything negative about the war will go to prison or they will extradite him to USA or they will exchange him with Russians from USA. But he don't speak at all. Not even for other subjects. If somebody has recent news, of last month till today, about him please write some comments.


 * He has a Twitter account. I follow him through a Nitter bookmark. Danuthaiduc (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

2020 Federal Court ruling - statements by intelligence organisations
Given that the 2020 supreme court rouling stated that, upon reviewing all the evidence they had been presented, the claims by the US government and intelligency agencies were not only false but that they knew the claims they were making were false at the time, would it not be appropriate to flag this up elsewhere and earlier in the article? For example, there are claims reproduced uncritically and as-fact elsewhere in the article which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit have categorically stated were false.

Per the Reuters source that already exists, "U.S. officials insisted that the four - Basaaly Saeed Moalin, Ahmed Nasir Taalil Mohamud, Mohamed Mohamud, and Issa Doreh - were convicted in 2013 thanks to the NSA’s telephone record spying, but the Ninth Circuit ruled Wednesday that those claims were “inconsistent with the contents of the classified record." i.e. this was false and the government was lying.

Just seems that should influence the uncritical way the claims are therefore treated elsewhere in order to ensure that this article is not biased in favour of the US government's perspective. KronosAlight (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I also found it biased towards the government. I tried editing it to make it more neutral, as these article should be. Still a bit biased and would be useful if u could add that to the page. 117.203.25.166 (talk) 06:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Film
It is a lengthy article and I may have missed it but there seems to be no reference or link to the film about his deeds and life.— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 21:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * you are correct. I guess maybe you could add them? I,ve never heard of these films 117.203.25.166 (talk) 06:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

You both missed it. We have this, even linking to the films' articles:

and this:

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Prism-slide-8.jpg

Calling him American-Russian
I think this is misleading, and a mistake. The average reader, when they read such a thing, will assume he is ethnically Russian. 2603:7081:7C0F:B43:CD0A:8A53:C17F:962D (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I like how the lede now reads: "an American and naturalized Russian". That's an elegant solution.  Kudos. 24.246.14.216 (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

To further clarify, when American is paired with a prefix or suffix of another country, it is assumed to be their ethnicity. African American, Polish American, Italian American, etc. It has nothing to do with their citizenship in another country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Binglederry (talk • contribs) 00:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. I have changed it back to American as it was WP:UNDUE weight in the WP:LEDE. He is widely known as American and his new recently acquired citizenship is not sufficient to use this much weight in the lede. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * excellent, it reads much better now Binglederry (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the correct formulation is to call him American and later in the lead say Putin granted him Russian citizenship.  nableezy  - 22:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above 4 editors. North8000</b> (talk) 00:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

being traded Russian citizenship for his spying is one of the most notable things about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.143.192.197 (talk) 03:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The correct order should be Russian-American as he renounced his American citizenship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.203.12.86 (talk) 07:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * IP editor, per Reuters et al, and the U.S. State Department, he has NOT renounced his American citizenship. Even if he wanted to, it requires him visiting the American consulate to do so, and that's not going to happen. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 07:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)