Template talk:NSA surveillance

Map
The map is old and somewhat limited. It is also meaningless without a key. I suggest a different image is picked. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 19:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC).


 * I am removing the map. If anyone wants to Revert and Discuss, feel free. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 21:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC).


 * But the key is available under the caption link – see Boundless Informant. --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 19:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The key I refer to is the one linking the colours to the numbers. I opposed deleting the image for having no key (see the en:WP talk page for the image) but  I cannot support having it in this sidebar.  It conveys nothing, it is a map of the world with some green and some red on it.  Even with an explanation it represents a snapshot of statistics for one of many NSA programs, and an outdated snapshot at that.  It is in no way symbolic of the NSA.  I am not arguing that it is not an important document, but that it is not a recognisable or informative symbol for a sidebar.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC).


 * Boundless Informant data collection - DNI.jpgBoundless Informant data collection - DNI.svg I noted that the one thing which wrong, is that is outdated. But IMO this map is pretty appropriate for this. you created this template with a map, I vectorised. Do you agree with me? --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 10:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm restoring this per WP:SILENCE. --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 08:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You have not addressed my concerns:


 * It conveys nothing, it is a map of the world with some green and some red on it.
 * Even with an explanation it represents a snapshot of statistics for one of many NSA programs, and an outdated snapshot at that.
 * It is in no way symbolic of the NSA.
 * It is a waste of real-estate in the articles using the sidebar.

I would argue that it is also verging on, if not actually, NPOV, or at least WP:UNDUE if sufficient explanation were provided.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC).

Why is Edward Snowden listed as a "whistleblower"? He is not.
Whistleblower status is a legal definition, with a defined system of protection, and he never fit such status. Leaking classified documents does not immediately qualify someone under any Whistleblower protection. 𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * It seems "whistleblower means someone covered by the Whistleblower Protection Act" is a recurring refrain from some editors, but it is not supported by usage -- Ralph Nader after all coined the term before any Whistleblower Protections existed. Snowden has explicitly stated he chose to act in the way he did because the case of Russ Tice demonstrated that no effective Whistleblower Protections for NSA employees exist.
 * It looks like the above editor has been banned or otherwise deleted, but as Snowden is described as a whistleblower in his article I am going to add him back to this template. If anyone else objects, go make your case on the Snowden talk page. Walkersam (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Map & Caption
why is this caption still being used, in some cases on articles which directly mention, in multiple places, that the key cannot be taken as a literal interpretation of the frequency/ratio of data collection? see Boundless Informant Transgenderoriole (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)