Jump to content

Talk:Edward Snowden

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RocketLauncher2 (talk | contribs) at 11:18, 23 June 2013 (→Snowden pardon petition has reached 100K). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

In the news?

Should this be suggested at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates for being "in the news"? Surfer43 (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It already was in the news a while back. My bad. Surfer43 (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a merger proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: merged; salvage whatever is appropriate. Non admin closure, per WP:SNOW. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has been proposed that Edward Snowden in Hong Kong be merged here. Discuss.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That article is full of original research, so I prefer a redirect to a merge. --Conti|✉ 18:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which part do you say is original research? -A1candidate (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article consists of two parts: Everything to do with Snowden in Hong Kong, which is already fully covered in this article, and the background section, which is original research, as it gathers various sources unrelated to Snowden. The section itself is rather interesting, but it does not at all belong in an encyclopedia article.
Some of the non original research material from the article can be moved here, though a redirect would be just as fine. There's simply no need to fork the article. --Conti|✉ 18:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like whenever a big news story breaks, everyone rushes to create 17 different articles related to the original topic, and as it starts to fade, nobody wants to update it to a historical standpoint, oftentimes becoming poorly documented and loosing it's neutral point of view.

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and if it turns out that the future acts of Mr. Snowden in Hong Kong is enough of an event to have an entirely separate article, then would be the appropriate time to decide and not rush to judgement. Bulba2036 (talk) 04:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - There's absolutely nothing in that article that would survive a merge. It's all either WP:RECENTISM or WP:UNDUE or already included here. I would have proposed an AFD but I suppose a "marge" would accomplish the same goal, so I suppose I support a "merge." --Nstrauss (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be redirected here ASAP. Like others above, I see nothing worth salvaging, but in case someone disagrees they can always consult the page history. Additionally, also as noted above, page creator A1candidate should be cautioned against carelessly creating redundant and recentist pages like that. --89.0.227.105 (talk) 05:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@89.0.227.105 I dont really understand why you are attacking me for "carelessly creating redundant and recentist pages", I have always been editing in good faith and I dont think your accusations are fair. Like I've said in my previous post, this is a historical event for Sino-American relations and it deserves a standalone page. If there needs to be a merge then move it to that page, and not to Snowden's biography -A1candidate (talk) 08:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that it's grossly unfair to accuse A1C of acting "carelessly". Commentators have so far been speculating on whether this matter will have an impact on relations between the two countries. China has not stated its position on the matter, although it has allowed its press wall-to-wall coverage of the story. Ironic considering it would certainly be blacked out if the subject of the leaks was the CPC or the PRC government. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 08:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a merger proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

In response to A1candidate's request that the Snowden-in-HK article be merged into Sino-American relations, I'm strongly against it. WP:OR issues aside, the article simply doesn't contain enough notable materials for inclusion anywhere. This article deserves only 2-3 sentences on Snowden's presence in Hong Kong, and it already has more than that. And Sino-American relations shouldn't even mention it. Reports that this event will affect Sino-American relations in any way are pure speculation, so inclusion in that article would violate WP:CBALL. --Nstrauss (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be clear by now that this article needs to be split -A1candidate (talk) 09:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unverified statements in Career section

Edits should be made to "Career" to show Snowden-originated statements that are unverified and have no independent citations. Since there is a great deal of unverified content from Edward Snowden, care should be taken in attribution and where verification is lacking.

Under Career

"...but was discharged [from the Army] just months later on September 28 after breaking both of his legs in a training accident." No cite. No verification. Statement should be edited to verify this. At the very least it should say, "Snowden said..."

Content related to References 8 and 19 of the "Edward Snowden" wikipedia page should be changed to show the lack of a verified source.

"In 2007, the CIA stationed him with diplomatic cover in Geneva, Switzerland, where he was responsible for maintaining computer network security.[19]" Source: Edward Snowden, as reported to the Guardian, then later used as the source by NPR. No verified cite.

"Snowden left the agency in 2009 for a private contractor inside an NSA facility on a United States military base in Japan.[8]" The source is Edward Snowden, as reported by the Guardian, who then used the Guardian as their source. No verified cite.

If we can't get verified cites, then at the very least we ought to be honestly saying that the source of this "information" is only Edward Snowden. Using reporters that he has spoken to as verified sources is grossly irresponsible journalism.Leslynjd (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this has been bothering me too. Here is a source that has done some digging into his claims about his past: [1] Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reporters give credence to Snowden's words. The newspapers are, for Wikipedia, reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course they are. But if the source says "Snowden said he broke both his legs" then we shouldn't change that to say "Snowden broke both his legs." Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reporters are presumed to be reporting what Snowden said. That doesn't mean that what Snowden said has any veracity. That is, they might be reliable sources for what he said, but not for what he claims. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that while Leslynjd is making some legitimate contributions, his/her account appears to be an WP:SPA (see contribs) specifically intended to expose Snowden's credibility issues (see this edit). I don't see anything inherently wrong with this, but it's something to watch out for. --Nstrauss (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Surfer43"s comment on your talk page. My comment: Edits which are from confirmed sources and reflect facts which conflict with Snowden's story should not be summarily deleted.Leslynjd (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your comment about edits on Snowden: "Wikipedia isn't court. Credibility isn't a free pass to inclusion." Credibility is a free pass to inclusion if you're attempting to put out truthful and accurate information.Leslynjd (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I see you've reverted a deletion I made on Edward Snowden. This type of activity is known as "edit warring" as is considered poor etiquette. I encourage you to review WP:EDITWARRING and WP:TALKDONTREVERT, then undo your last revert and start a talk page discussion in order to reach for consensus on the issue. Thanks. --Nstrauss (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Kendall K-1 has reverted you. Please don't re-revert without consensus. --Nstrauss (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Thank you for the references. I was interrupted in my edit by the message of conflicting edits--then my computer burped--and I returned and finished the edit.

Snowden's credibility as a person is an issue affecting his perception by the public, his motives, and his prior and later statements, including whether he has more SECRET information. Therefore, I believe it is important to make his wiki (which many people refer to as fact) as balanced and truthful as possible, especially when he has made statements that are contradicted by credible sources. Snowden's attempt to "enlist" in the "Army Reserve Special Forces" but being discharged after "breaking both legs in a training accident" may have been his statement, but it is full of factual errors and STILL contains those errors--"Army Reserve Special Forces" and "breaking both legs in a training accident." These errors should not be allowed to stand. They mislead the reader. I believe you do not intend to do that, but without the corrections Snowden's entry is not balanced. We do the reader a great disservice by allowing them to think the statements are true.

Perhaps you know that there is a difference (and lapse of time) between attempting to "elist" in a military unit, and acceptance into the military and transport to basic training. This four-month lapse of time in Snowden's resume is reasonable for the Army to discover reasons to discharge him from his enlistment. In any case, Snowden never received "any training," and could not have (heroically) broken "both legs in a training accident."

IOW: It's a LIE from Snowden. It should not be allowed to stand as fact.

Pertinent to this topic, I note 1) that Snowden's wiki entry as "working for" his web club doing "anime" has been removed since I posted his friend's description of it as a club, not employment. In attempting to be kind to Snowden, I did not include his friend's humor at anyone thinking this activity was "employment." 2) Snowden has backtracked on his claim of an annual salary of US$200,000 at Booz Allen Hamilton, saying it was "prior" but not providing any details. In contrast, the original interview clearly implied that US$200,000 was his salary at the time he left Hawaii and Booz Allen Hamilton. 3)Snowden has never been confirmed as working under "diplomatic cover" in Switzerland, nor as being "a spy." He's an IT guy. That is far removed from the covert world.

These statements should also not be allowed to stand without external confirmation.

Revert if you will, but that appears biased in order to show Snowden in his best light, not the light of day. In any case, it is allowing a lie to stand.Leslynjd (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Leslynjd (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the source you cite does not prove anything Snowden said re: his Army service was a lie. The quote from the Army spokesman is that Snowden "did not complete any training" — which is completely consistent with Snowden's statement that he was injured in training, because a severe injury in basic training — such as two broken legs — could have resulted in a medical discharge during basic, resulting in what the Army spokesman said — non-completion of training. If the Army spokesman had said that Snowden never entered training, then we would have a conflict of information, but that is not the case. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kendall K-1, why did you revert? On NStrauss's sayso? Wasn't it apparent that there was a clear conflict between what Snowden said, and what the facts were? NStrauss thinks that "credibility" of a statement is "something to watch out for"--as in "warning, don't let this credible source appear, because it contradicts an aspect of Snowden's story."Leslynjd (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any decision to revert on another user's edit should, IMO, refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability.Leslynjd (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must note that User:Leslynjd has apparently intentionally misrepresented sources in reference to this matter. In this edit, he includes a quote attributed to an Army spokesman that Snowden "did not receive any training..." — a completely false quotation of the source, who actually stated that Snowden "did not complete any training", which is completely consistent with Snowden's public statements. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@NorthBySouthBaranof, you are correct that in this comment section I misquoted by saying "did not 'receive' training." However, the original statement from the source was cut and pasted, so nothing was misrepresented in the wiki entry. Whether or not "did not complete any training" is "completely consistent" with two broken legs is open to interpretation, as a statement so limited may be. In the meantime, it has occurred to me that the "broken legs/no broken legs", since they cannot be confirmed with what we have, is a distraction (drama) from the article. Couldn't we just include the facts that we know, that he attempted to enlist, yada yada, and "did not complete any training" and leave it at that? I am concerned with representing only the verifiable, not the unverifiable. Isn't that what we're all concerned about?Leslynjd (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is verifiable and has been reported in reliable sources that Snowden says he was discharged after suffering a particular injury. In the absence of any reason to disbelieve this assertion, or any evidence which refutes it, it is perfectly proper for Wikipedia to write the above: that Snowden says he suffered a particular injury causing him to be discharged. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How verifiable? The Guardian didn't do fact checking. Did they interview anyone with knowledge, such as his family? No. One, two, fourteen legs or no legs, Snowden didn't complete any training, and he is not a reliable source on his own, which is the only source we have. Snowden has been shown to make a statement about his income that was clearly implied to relate to his present income, which was later shown to be false and he backtracked it. He made a statement about his "employment" which was really just membership in a club--so that employment was shown to be false. I note that that reference was removed--not corrected with the contradictory facts. That's not accuracy. That's bias. His credibility is relevant.Leslynjd (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leslynjd, our article doesn't say that Snowden was discharged because of broken legs, it says Snowden SAID he was discharged because of broken legs. That's what multiple reliable sources have reported, so that's what we report. That's the essence of WP:V. If you have a problem with what Glenn Greenwald and a legion of other reporters have reported then perhaps you should write them. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources from Hong Kong?

May be overlooked by those living outside Hong Kong, at least one media had exclusive, moreover that is in English.

EXCLUSIVE: Whistle-blower Edward Snowden talks to South China Morning Post — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.118.206.36 (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for finding it! Yes, the South China Morning Post has many articles about this. The "EXCLUSIVE: Whistle-blower Edward Snowden talks to South China Morning Post" by Lana Lam is dated Thursday, 13 June, 2013. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is the full list of SCMP stories on Snowden, and here is the Sina.com.hk page where they repost the Snowden-related stories from most local Hong Kong newspapers (with the exception of the Economic Journal, Apple Daily, and some others I'm probably not remembering). quant18 (talk) 06:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My suggestion is to add it to Edward Snowden in Hong Kong instead of merging it here. But of course, that requires consensus. -A1candidate (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohconfucius: Problem is that not even international English sources, like this one, has been included here. No reason why American politicians should be given so much more article space compared to Hong Kong politicians, per NPOV:Anglo-American_focus. -A1candidate (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Status of White House petition

It seems that one or more editors insist on inserting the evolving status of the WH petition without this being reliably sourced, but instead relying directly on a primary source. The problems is that the figure on the WH site will change on an hourly basis without any source to verify the evolution against in the future. When we click on the WH link, we can only see the actual tally at the moment we clicked on the link; we can never refer to it to say "at June 13, it gathered more than 70,000 signatures", or that "as of June 14, it exceeded 75,000 signatures". As WP is not the news, we should not be obsessed with an accurate 'to-the-minute' tally. Instead of posting hourly updates, therefore, we should rely on news articles to record the status. Then, any link will show the tally as recorded for posterity by a journal. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 15:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using primary sources is not prohibited completely. The site whitehouse.gov is a very reliable source. Now numbers changed more than twofold, and obsolete values are completely misleading.

Moreover, User:Ohconfucius four times deleted information without any discussion, and continue to do it. He deletes direct link to the petition, and information about the second petition. Is it vandalism? This user already has more than 4 blocking. --Fangorn-Y (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've stated my concerns as to the verifiability of the timestamping claimed in the article, which Fangorn either does not comprehend or has failed to address. It isn't WP's job to be totally up to second accurate, otherwise Fangorn can volunteer to change the article every minute to update the figures. ;-) Our job is to report on what reliable secondary sources say, and there's always a time lag; and if it's not reported it's generally assumed not to be notable information. The Avaaz source is additionally problematic: it shares the timestamping issue of the WH petition. Furthermore, I have not been able to find a 3rd party reliable source that has even mentioned the petition, let alone the number of people who have signed up. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 17:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe only newest value should be placed in the article, as proposed by User:A1candidate, and the words "more than" should be added? Because these values can't decrease, verifiability will be satisfied. To avoid too rapid change, edits may be done only after a SIGNIFICANT change. I thing the "milestones" may be 10K for the petition with 100K finish, and 100K for the petition with ~1M signatures. Fangorn-Y (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a few RS links to times and status of the petition.[2][3] — -dainomite   17:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I already has posted and I am posting this again: 100K is THE FINISH for first petition, rather than a milestone. Just after 100K the current value of the petition will decrease its initial significance. Fangorn-Y (talk) 19:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, it is completely wrong to include into the article the obsolete value 30000 and don't include the true value 77000. Fangorn-Y (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Has CNN or any other news source commented on this internet petition? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. But whitehouse.gov is a very reliable source itself. Fangorn-Y (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the same petitioning facility where there was a recent petition asking the government to build a "Death Star"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that one. I think this needs significant coverage in secondary sources before it is shown to be relevant enough to be included in the article, particularly since the petition website itself is quite dynamic and will make it difficult to verify. VQuakr (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is very easy to verify - go to the whitehouse.gov . Values may only increase, thus it's no problem to verify the statement "more than". If the 100K will be reached, The White House is OBLIGATED to give an official response - is it "significant"? Fangorn-Y (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say. We don't do forward-looking statements, which is why we determine if a subtopic such as this is significant by reviewing the secondary sources. Then again, the death star petition was notable enough to make it into that article. In any case, there appears to be multiple editors here that agree that discussion of the petition needs secondary sources. VQuakr (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this needs secondary sources. There are enough that I think the petition should be included: [4] [5] [6] But I would not want to include numbers other than those given in the secondary sources. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A sentence (at most) about the petition in general, properly sourced, could be reasonable. Giving updates on the numbers is not. It amounts to advocacy, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia articles. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would also be worthwhile to see if there are any other related petitions - such as one supporting continued data archiving of phone-to-phone records. There might even be one recommending extraditing him, then giving a fair trial and then hanging him. These petitions are really nothing more than unscientific opinion polls. They have no legal standing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about using a program to check the count like at http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&oldid=139992 where the article count updates to the current amount, even though the edit was in 2002? Just an idea. Surfer43 (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No advocacy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone other than Fangorn-Y think we should be using whitehouse.gov as a source when we've got plenty of other reliable secondary sources available? Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's overkill. It's undue weight. It's advocacy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously if we have updated information about it we should try to keep it as current as possible, because we know whitehouse.gov is a reliable source. There is no reason to keep the figures old. We could keep a date when it crossed the 100,000 threshold using a secondary source. Surfer43 (talk) 03:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, being a reliable source is not a ticket to inclusion in an article. There's no reason to report anything about totals, because this is not an advocacy page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, its notable because many sources have reported about it. Obviously we don't want to have false information about it. That's just advocacy. Surfer43 (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots. Including the status of the petition is undue weight and advocacy. It's not noteworthy. Any disgruntled anybody can make a petition; that doesn't mean it's worthy of inclusion. The White House Administration has the ability to make any statement about any issue any time they like with the entire world of mass media at their disposal, and all these petitions do is afford them the pretext to make yet another statement under the guise of doing so by "popular demand".Jonny Quick (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The importance of the petition depends on how much the media covers it. If it fizzles out (and therefore in likelihood receives no further media coverage), it is worthy of less to no coverage. If it reaches 100K and becomes official it will likely gain more media coverage, which means in this article it requires more coverage. While anybody can start a petition, for it to be responded to from the Obama administration it has to reach 100K signatures by July 9, 2013 (it was created on June 9, 2013) - Not everybody can get 100K signatures in 30 days. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forget about the status of the petition, even the existence of the petition isn't sufficiently noteworthy and is a great example of WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. Petitions for all kinds of crazy stuff abound and aren't mentioned in Wikipedia -- why should this one be any different? --Nstrauss (talk) 06:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usually the barometer of whether something can be included is whether media sources or other reliable sources cover it. While anyone can start a petition, not everyone can have that said petition covered in newspapers. If/when it breaches 100K the administration will respond to it, and the media will cover that response. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nstraus expresses my opinion better than I do, however I see WhisperToMe's point that the circumstances may warrant (but not "require") inclusion. I also think it's false to assume that the number of signatures indicates the importance of the issue to the public, as it occurs to me that the people most concerned about Snowden's revelations may also be the least interested in hearing what the White House has to say about it. The two are not necessarily hard-wired together.Jonny Quick (talk) 06:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I only said that if we are reporting it as current instead of "On June 17th" we should use up-to-date information. I'm fine with saying something like "On June 17th, the petition had 70,000 signatures"ref third party source /ref. Surfer43 (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly is notable, USA Today, NBC News, and the Washington Post all report it. Google "Pardon Edward Snowden white house". Surfer43 (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that news sources have reported on it doesn't make it worthy of inclusion in our article. Per WP:NOTNEWS, we are not a newspaper, we are an encyclopedia. We summarize the news and generally report only what we think would be worth noting in ten years' time. --Nstrauss (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is completely relevant to the article, which was created entirely for this event(whistleblowing). In ten years, we will still find that there was a petition to pardon him on whitehouse.gov that recieved tens of thousands of signatures relevant as in the "Response from press and public" section. If it doesn't reach 100,000 we can just remove it. Surfer43 (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is disputing the relevance of this. What's in dispute is the insistence of some to rely directly on the link to the petition. I've already said that the toll should be updated only when there are reliable sources mentioning it. Updating the figures with mention of status "On June 17" doesn't matter, because it's going to be changed again in five minutes anyway. And it's going to keep on getting changed several times a day until the White House closes the petition. Anyway, I still object to this rather anal obsession of watching the figure evolve and then posting updates here on a 3-hourly basis. Those who want to do that should keep a browser window open on that petition and stare at it all day, but please leave off WP. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nstrauss is disputing the relevance of this. This is an argument over nothing. Surfer43 (talk) 02:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I get. The actual status "on June 17" (or indeed on any other date) doesn't matter one bit. It only seems to matter for now. And the toll of the petition will be relevant to this article, but only in hindsight when the dust has settled, and not here and now in an undue manner. Even so, the White House can be expected to make a bland, non-committal statement when this has gone its distance like they made re the Brad Manning petition. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I dispute its relevance, but I do dispute its noteworthiness. In 10 years' time the petition may still be on whitehouse.gov, but how does that have any bearing on whether it should be mentioned here? There are all kinds of weird petitions on whitehouse.gov that will still be there in 10 years, but I'll bet very few, if any, will be mentioned in Wikipedia. Has anyone found any comparable petitions mentioned elsewhere on this website? --Nstrauss (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's impossible to predict undoubtedly what be or be not important 10 years later. The section is named "Press and public". For second part of that (Public), signatures of petitions are one of the main sources. Fangorn-Y (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your first sentence, it's our duty to try. Regrading your second, can you back that up with an example? --Nstrauss (talk) 08:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I actually created a link to We the People (petitioning system), where I included this is an example of a notable petition, which was removed in the bout of edit-warring that led to some blocks. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 08:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The latest article on the big White House petition that I know of is:

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there was one recently from the Daily Caller which I put in the article, saying 80,000 + signatures. Surfer43 (talk) 03:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, if there is the direct link to the issue mentioned in the article (such as the petition), it must be used instead a chain of links to other Wikipedia pages. Fangorn-Y (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now some editors (Nstrauss, Ohconfucius) delete both information about events and links to articles in media news, government sites, and other reliable sources (which are considered as reliable on many Wikipedia pages) simply because they claim these data & links as 'unnecessary', 'too recent', 'promotion' etc., while no consensus is reached. This deleted information was previously added by at least four other editors. Is it an edit war? Fangorn-Y (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By reinstating the point that they need a certain minimum number of signatures by a certain date, you're trying to make Wikipedia an agent of fulfilling that minimum number. That's an abuse of Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I removed the bits about how many signatures are needed, and the promotional links. This article should not be a platform for activism in any direction, pro or con. Binksternet (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Even if the actual intent isn't to promote the petition that's the reasonable impression this gives (as well as the effect). --Nstrauss (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And no Fangorn-Y, it's not an edit war. The stuff I deleted wasn't the subject of this discussion (before your most recent post). You don't get to freeze your edits in place for a whole paragraph just by prolong a talk page dispute. Please respond substantively to the reasons why I deleted that material instead of just shouting "edit war." --Nstrauss (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I already answered: The section is named "Press and public". For second part of that (Public), signatures of petitions are one of the main sources. Avaaz has the Wikipedia page, and is probably the biggest petiton site. Whitehouse.gov is the most official site. Fangorn-Y (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know you don't have consensus for the re-reversions you just made. So now you're edit-warring and engaging in disruptive behavior. STOP. WP:TALKDONTREVERT. You aren't making any friends. Instead of stonewalling why don't you respond to the multiple comments that you're engaging in advocacy/promotion/soapboxing? --Nstrauss (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, many of these deletions were made so roughly that some other information was corrupted. After Binksternet's deletion at 19:59, orphaned refs appeared. After another deletion by another editor, A1candidate's edit was reverted without any reason (it was not related to petitions). These edits deleted even information that other editors argued to be 'restricted'. Fangorn-Y (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to smooth out that roughness - as long as you don't add back anything to do with total numbers needed by a deadline, as that puts Wikipedia into an advocacy position, which is against the rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fangorn-Y: You are setting yourself up for another block. At one point, I regretted being so hard on you, a newbie, but I don't beat myself up any more – you seem not to have learnt from the 31 hour block you received. Consensus is clear, and we are agreed, excepting you, that this is a policy violation to link to the petition websites; the Avaaz petition is written about in ONLY ONE SOURCE – a blog, and one must question its notability, the number of signatures notwithstanding. Consider this your warning to cease and desist in your aggressive use of the undo button and your continuing advocacy. There are others here, myself included, who supports freedom for whistleblowers, but you should leave your personal feelings at the talk page, and stop the disruption to the article. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, the consensus is not clear - at least Surfer43 and A1candidate agree with my main proposals. Other editors differ widely by their proposals. Second, you 'forget' to say that YOU was recently blocked for the same action here: User_talk:Ohconfucius#Block, which was made immediatedly after a admin's warning: User_talk:Ohconfucius#ANEW. To faster undo my revision, you even reverted together the other revision by A1candidate, without any reason (it was not related to petitions). You has already been blocked 8 times by various admins.http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AOhconfucius And do you call about the edit war? Fangorn-Y (talk) 09:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surfer, is making the same arguments as you, it's clear they don't understand the policy-based arguments; A1 just wants his Snowden in Hong Kong article restored. I haven't edited those bits since my block, which was overenthusiastic and was reversed. You, OTOH, had to sit out your block and have continued to doing what got you blocked in the first place, quite against policy on verifiability. I'm not playing your game, and you'll get reverted by someone other than me. I bet a few more admins are watching this page now. Paraphrasing Dirty Harry: "was that three reverts or four ... so go ahead, Punk, make my day". -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 14:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only argument I have made is that the petition is relevant in the sense of "response from public" and that the information on the petition shouldn't be outdated if there is another verifiable source with newer information. I don't think "To require a response from the White House, the petition must reach 100,000 signatures within 30 days" is relevant, and therefore it is promotion. Surfer43 (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fangorn-Y, to put Ohconfucius's latest comment in concrete terms, you still haven't responded to the arguments made by multiple editors that linking to the promotion itself, as well as the language about the 100,000 goal, violates WP:PROMOTION, WP:ADVOCACY, and WP:UNDUE. And you haven't explained how the Avaaz sentence is properly sourced per WP:V and WP:RS. If you don't offer an explanation in short order why you think these passages comply with each of every one of these policies then your edits will be reverted per WP:NOTUNANIMITY and WP:STONEWALL. Content must comply with all Wikipedia policies, not just the ones you pick and choose. You have 24 hours, starting now. Further reversions after that will send you straight back to the noticeboards. --Nstrauss (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What answer must I give? I don't found in WP:PROMOTION, WP:ADVOCACY, and WP:UNDUE any word about harm of direct links to ongoing events. If these rules have such prohibitions please show where. Else these links obviously give the most precise and recent information about the events. The Avaaz is named in Wikipedia as "the globe's largest and most powerful online activist network". If is not a RS - what is? So what kind of violation do you ask about? Fangorn-Y (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Let me spell this out for you. Please answer the following questions:
  1. WP:PROMOTION: How does the encyclopedic value of your additions outweigh its promotional effect, particularly in light of the fact that there are reliable secondary sources that say the same thing?
    What my additions do you means "that there are reliable secondary sources that say the same thing"? Whether these "reliable secondary sources that say the same thing" were at the moment these additions were made?
We're talking about two of your additions that you most recently edit-warred over. First, the references to the petitions themselves. There are already secondary sources that mention the petitions. What's the encyclopedic value of including references to the petitions as well? And what's the encyclopedic value of the statement that the White House has promised to comment on any petition that reaches 100,000 signatures? Whatever minor encyclopedic value these items might have, how is it not outweighed by its promotional effect? --Nstrauss (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. WP:ADVOCACY: How is your purpose in pressing these additions (and edit-warring, rather than seeking consensus) not to promote these petitions?
    Again. What my additions do you means here? The additions that are deleted now?
The direct references to the petitions and the statement that the White House has promised to comment on any petition that reaches 100,000 signatures. --Nstrauss (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. WP:UNDUE: How is the weight you wish to give to these petitions proportional to their prominence and not overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens (i.e., WP:RECENTISM)?
    First, for the "Public reactions", the petitions are the most representative known source (more than a million votes). Second, every of the petitions was discussed in media.
WP:UNDUE has nothing to do with sourcing. And Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so just because the petitions are mentioned in the media (in this case, a blog no less) doesn't make it noteworthy enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. We summarize the news; we don't catalog it. --Nstrauss (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. WP:V: Where in the ref "supporting" the Avaaz statement does it say anything about Avaaz?
    Yes. 'while another that commands us to “Stand with Edward Snowden,” has close to 900,000 signatures'. And link to Avaaz.
Ok, I see now, thank you. But see below, this is an opinion blog, therefore not reliable. --Nstrauss (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. WP:RS: At some point you had an opinion blog post supporting the Avaaz statement. Was the blog content subject to editorial review (WP:UGC)? On what basis were you citing it without attribution? How was the blogger's opinion particularly noteworthy? --Nstrauss (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You again made a puzzle. What opinion blog post do you speak about? Fangorn-Y (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I mean the "Declassifying Edward Snowden" source that's currently referenced. It's a blog. It's opinion. (Notice this sentence: "In terms of the NSA’s PRISM, I really don’t know why everyone is so surprised.") --Nstrauss (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Declassifying Edward Snowden" is indeed a "self-published" blog, because even though it's on the page of the Washington Times the page says "This is the Communities section at WashingtonTimes.com. Individual contributors are responsible for their content, which is not edited by The Washington Times. The opinions of Communities writers do not necessarily reflect the views of, nor are they endorsed by, The Washington Times. Contact Us with questions or comments." - So therefore it's not an RS. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It makes for interesting reading, though. It cautions us to wait-and-see what this guy's real story is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good find, WhisperToMe. That seems as conclusive as it gets. Fangorn-Y, you'd better give a reasonable response right quick or that Avaaz sentence is going bye-bye. --Nstrauss (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that link is really a blog post - the words "Washington Times" in its title are misleading. You are right here. In fact, this link was added by another editor, but I restored it. Yes, it is not a RS. Fangorn-Y (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe somebody knows a RS about the Avaaz petition (which already exceeded 1,200,000 signatures) ? Fangorn-Y (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no small amount of irony in the spectacle of internet users going to a public website and complaining about a program that supposedly monitors internet users. As for the "petitions" themselves, they're of no use in Wikipedia until or if the President comments on them - which he won't, because there are ongoing investigations. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 16 June 2013

The implication conveyed by the use of the word "exposes" in the first paragraph, that Snowden was the first to reveal the scale of US government intelligence surveillance and thus "brought the issue into the public domain" is absolutely incorrect. The massive scale of National Security Agency eavesdropping has long been public knowledge. Wikipedia itself in its article on the NSA, quoting a three year old newspaper article, reports that the agency monitors 1.7 billion emails, telephone calls and other communications daily. I suggest that this point should also be strongly highlighted in the subsequent paragraphs on the reactions to Snowden's leaks. I would argue that Snowden's claim to have acted in the public interest by "disclosing" anything new about the scale of US intelligence surveillance is utterly baseless. 49.176.33.238 (talk) 09:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link to this article? Snowden did expose this, since PRISM was not known about. Furthermore, the scale of their data retrieval, from massive companies like Google and Microsoft was exposed. THat's what I think at least, but it looks like someone already removed the word from the first paragraph.Kude90 (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism

The same NY Times article is used in two different references, once in the info box as source for Buddhism, and later again as source for Buddhism in the personal views section. However, this source 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). He tried to define a still-evolving belief system. “I feel that religion, adopted purely, is ultimately representative of blindly making someone else’s beliefs your own.”

Whatever that means; maybe he picked Buddhism, because the form didn't offer religious or agnostic. The second source (AP) referenced in the info box is in essence a confirmation or actually a duplicate of the first source. That's an article about a living person, please remove unsubstantiated trivia. If you disagree at least join the two identical NYT references. –89.204.135.134 (talk) 14:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If what you say is true, then he would have picked "Other" and wrote down "Agnostic" as his religion. In any case, the military's recruitment form is considered to be an official document and if there aren't other reliable sources claiming the opposite then we can't speculate otherwise. -A1candidate (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as contributor from Germany I'm kind of paranoid with personal data where it includes race or religion, it can be lethal info. If he's 29 today he was 19 in 2003, and his still-evolving belief system might not more include to discuss this in public. Please join the two NYT references, one source should not be presented as two sources. –89.204.135.134 (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source doesn't say he's Buddhist, it says he listed Buddhism on his recruitment form. Given BLP and the fact that his religion doesn't have much to do with what he's known for, I would say take it out. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken it out since it is trivial and likely incorrect as it was listed in 2003, and his "still-evolving belief system" at the time may not be the same after 10 years. And I don't see how mentioning his religion is even relevant here to the main topic of his actions and involvement in the PRISM program. Did following a specific religion have any significant impact on his actions to justify mentioning? If not (the sources don't mention it), then there is no reason to mention his religious views in the article as including it would violate BLP and imply that Snowden is being evaluated based on his religious views when they may be nonexistent or irrelevant to his actions. - M0rphzone (talk) 00:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In one source he said he checked "Buddhist" because "atheist" was not listed. I did not get the impression that he was a practicing Buddhist. At any rate, I think MOrphzone had the right idea and just removed it. Gandydancer (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Public figures — Bruce Schneier

Bruce Schneier also published some articles in his blog; one essay was originally published in the NYT.[7] That yields… 

[[Bruce Schneier]]<ref>{{cite web|publisher=[[The New York Times]]
|url=http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/06/11/in-nsa-leak-case-a-whistle-blower-or-a-criminal/before-prosecuting-snowden-investigate-the-government
|title=Before Prosecuting, Investigate the Government|date=2013-06-11|accessdate=2013-06-16}}</ref>

…for the {{edit semi-protected}} request added below. –89.204.135.134 (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{edit semi-protected}}

Schneier is already in the article, under "Press and public." Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've disabled the edit request, thanks. Maybe I should read the complete article before asking others to fix individual sections, sorry. –89.204.135.134 (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Ho Chun-yan

This line under "Response from China" is out of scope for this article. As detailed in the source, the politican is talking about the US surveillance activities and not Snowden himself, hence this would belong in the PRISM article. Hong Kong politician Albert Ho Chun-yan also spoke saying: "It's unlawful, unjustified and unscrupulous … We demand the whole truth be disclosed by the US administration, an unconditional apology from [President Barack] Obama and an assurance this interference will stop." — Pretzels Hii! 17:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm sympathetic to this argument, right now there doesn't seem to be a single place to put reactions to the leaks other than right here. The problem being that the leaks have to do with multiple projects, not just PRISM. I almost think we need a "Snowden leaks of June 2013" article, but I'm not sure we can separate Snowden from the leaks. Any suggestions? Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Kendall-K1, but I think 2 articles are needed:

There may not be consensus for this right now; but Im sure that as long as Snowden stays in HK, the necessity to create both articles will only grow stonger with time. -A1candidate (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly believe that the China section is appropriate for the article. I also agree that this article will eventually need to be split (perhaps several splits before this is all over...). Gandydancer (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

China cartoon

Echoing the opinion expressed by Pretzels above, what does this cartoon have to do with Snowden whatsoever? Not to mention that this is a non-free, copyrighted image. Timmyshin (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was merged from Edward Snowden in Hong Kong, but we need consensus to move it back. See Talk:Edward_Snowden#Merger_proposal -A1candidate (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The merger was a bad decision, and this is the predictable result. I think most, if not all of the merged article should be removed. Why does China get a special section "Response from China". Will there be individualized sections for all the other countries that might have some kind of "response"? Further, don't think the Chinese "response" was particularly noteworthy. If there is going to be only one section for a particular countries' response, why China and not another country more impacted by the story and the surveillance?Jonny Quick (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
China deserves special mention because one of the biggest revelations from Snowden's leak, i.e. NSA attacks on infrastructure, were directed against China, and because Snowden is now in China. -Darouet (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll mention this here, as it seems to be of interested to you (Darouet). There are at least a dozen pre-Snowden articles about US allegations of China hacking US computers, so if you are going to tell that aspect of the story, I'd suggest you start with that as a background and context. I don't think the story is about anything "new" or "surprising" but rather one of retaliation. I keep open the possibility that the timing of Snowden's whistleblowing was intentionally orchestrated by the US Government.Jonny Quick (talk) 06:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I liked the cartoon a lot. I believe that the reactions of the Chinese people are very important in an article about Snowdon--his future depends on their decisions. Gandydancer (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like it too but I don't think we can claim fair use. Maybe put it in the EL section? Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, in truth I LOVED the cartoon but I was surprised that it was legit for use. There is no better way to connect with foreign cultures than through the universal language of art. How could it be legit at another article? Gandydancer (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor who added the cartoon, I just want to clarify that its not about the content about the cartoon, but the cartoon itself and therefore should be okay for fair use (identification purposes) -A1candidate (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. The NFCC criteria on the file is nowhere near adequate. -- Veggies (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Further, why is a copyrighted image on this page when the article is not about the cartoon, the cartoonist, or the cartoon publisher? If an inline citation points the user to the appropriate page, there is no reason to include the cartoon on Wikipedia itself. Remember that reaction from China far surpasses the importance of a cartoon. It's a serious political issue and should be addressed as such. There is no reasonable need for the cartoon on the page. -- Veggies (talk) 04:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "Recentism" and "Geographic Imbalance" tags

I removed the "Recentism" tag as inappropriate because the recent events are the only reason for the article about Snowden to exist. There is no "historical perspective" to maintain, as Snowden was historically irrelevant prior to recent events. I removed the "Geographic Imbalance" tag as maintaining a geographical balance on Hong Kong in an article about Edward Snowden seems fundamentally wrong to me, as a non sequitur. These two tags, in addition to a 3rd which I kept, seemed to convey an unnecessarily strong sense of "under construction" and "we don't know what we are doing" to me, and so I removed them in the interests of increasing the article's readability.Jonny Quick (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I put back the recentism tag because even though it was created because of recent events, it still needs a past tense perspective instead of a current one. We are almost there and are close to removing the tag. I don't know what the other tag was about.Surfer43 (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "Geographic Imbalance" tag was brought in from the merger of the "Eric Snowden in Hong Kong" article. Thanks for setting me straight on the edit status of deleting template tags.Jonny Quick (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think anything was brought over from the other article – there was consensus that not much was worth salvaging. Even up to today's papers, sources continue to say that China has not responded directly to the Snowden issue. However, there's little reason to continue soapboxing on the convenient coatrack that was handed to China to back up their gripes of having been the victim of hackers. It's easy to imagine that there is much mutual hacking and eavesdropping going on that not much of the denials of both are credible. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 07:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surfer43, are there specific sections that you're concerned about regarding WP:RECENTISM? If so, could you please remove the recentism|article tag and replace it with recentism|section? That would help direct our collective efforts while not having such an immediate impact on readers. --Nstrauss (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have two editors who disagree with the majority view, and so far they have prevailed in the article. So I guess I wouldn't call that a consensus. I suppose Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard would be the next step. Kendall-K1 (talk) 10:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not like tags in general as I feel they are/should be seldom needed. I don't like this one. On the other hand, why should anyone be upset that a few editors like to update the totals frequently? I'd sure never be bothered to do it, but why should we care if some editors like that sort of thing? Gandydancer (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the tags are needed anymore. Surfer43 (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only WP:RECENTISM concerns raised here are with respect to the Edward_Snowden#Press_and_public sub-subsection. Surfer43 says he doesn't want a recentism tag anymore. I believe all that's left is User:Epicgenius, the user who added the original recentism tag. Let's give him a little more time, then move the tag to "Press and public" (which, IMO, does still suffer from recentism). (And by the way, if there are ongoing disputes about recentism then the tag should remain until the dispute is resolved, regardless of whether it requires WP:DR). --Nstrauss (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having a "recentism" tag immediately after a "current event" tag makes Wikipedia look kind of stupid. It can't not be recentism, at this point in time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I noticed Epicgenius, so let's give him 24 hours to comment before we demote the tag to the subsection about domestic reaction. --Nstrauss (talk) 04:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

China photos

Considering that this version was considered to be acceptable: [8] I am surprised that what I considered to be an improvement was reverted. [[9]] I did split a para but it was in a good and appropriate place. I do not care to see a string of photos at the head of any section. For example news stories always show the photos either throughout a story or at the end. Gandydancer (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article will look different on different screens depending on various things such as monitor and font size. On my screen, my version looks better to me. But as I said in the change log, if you disagree, please go ahead and revert back to your version. I don't feel strongly about this. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really do hate it but others seem to prefer your version so I will leave it alone. Gandydancer (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't hate it! I moved the cartoon up and the photos down. How does it look now? Seriously, if you still hate it, I'll put it back the way you had it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect! Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Live Q&A at The Guardian

There's a live Q&A going on right now at The Guardian that can be used for the article. In one answer he clarifies the issue about his pay:

I was debriefed by Glenn and his peers over a number of days, and not all of those conversations were recorded. The statement I made about earnings was that $200,000 was my "career high" salary. I had to take pay cuts in the course of pursuing specific work. Booz was not the most I've been paid.

I'm sure more useful information that can be used for the article will follow. --Conti|✉ 15:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, if you can find a single reliable source that raises doubts about the Snowden's identity in the Q&A then your theory might start carrying water. --Nstrauss (talk) 03:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do regard CBS News as reliable: "From a secret location in Hong Kong, someone claiming to be Edward Snowden defended the leak of classified U.S. intelligence programs. The chat took place on the website of "The Guardian," which published Snowden's leaks."[10] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That may not be editing news reporting, as it only appears in a byline on the CBS website. Regardless, the article it's linked to attributes the statements to Snowden without any qualification. --Nstrauss (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those disclaimer-like words were actually read over the airwaves by Scott Pelley, the news anchor. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball Bugs cares about accuracy and credibility of the source. Hurrah.Leslynjd (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need a new article

More info seems to come out every day. I'm convinced that the bigger story here eventually will be the leaks(s) and not Snowden. Trouble is we don't have a catchy title for a new article. We need something along the lines of Teapot Dome scandal or Pentagon Papers. Something that doesn't end in "-gate". I expected by now the press would have provided a name but I don't see it yet. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not our job to create subjects for articles, it's the job of the newspapers and other reliable sources. Right now we have separate articles for the NSA call database (which should be renamed MAINWAY), PRISM, and Boundless Informant. Per the blockbuster new WaPo story we'll need new articles for NUCLEON and MARINA. All of the leaks can and should be pulled together here at Edward Snowden as well as at National Security Agency and Mass_surveillance#United_States, and several of the new revelations can be pulled together at Stellar Wind. The G20 surveillance fits here and also at 2009 G-20 London Summit. I'm not aware of where the China/Hong Kong hacking leak would go aside from here.
Our coverage of these subjects shouldn't be limited to limited to the Snowden leaks, as we're getting new revelations by the day from other sources (such as the WaPo story). In my view the main articles covering the new stories should be those about programs/activities that they reveal. E.g. revelations about PRISM should go in the PRISM story. What ties all of these leaks together is Snowden, which is why this is the appropriate article to describe the leaks collectively. Snowden isn't famous for anything else so there's no need for a fork. --Nstrauss (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Prism" has come to mean more than it is. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? --Nstrauss (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In Wikipedia editing, we try to be precise/accurate; but the public attaches a whole area to one simple name or term: (1) gov't surveillance to the term 'PRISM' and (2) whistle-blower or 'leaker' on Prism to 'Edward Snowden'. You say 'Edward Snowden' like president Obama did, and everyone knows what he meant. You say 'Prism' (upper- or lower-case) and everyone knows you mean mega-spying on US citizens. The reason I mention this is that we may not have a new term for this area; hence, we can stick with these articles for now. Give it a few months. That's my current opinion, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. Perhaps a more elaborate disambiguation message is appropriate at the top of PRISM (surveillance program)? --Nstrauss (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The Verax Incident"? -- 71.20.55.6 (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of Snowden

It's pretty ridiculous that there's always an issue adding an image to some current event.

What was so wrong with the image from The Guardian? Does fair use rationale not exist anymore? Everytime I tried uploading it it got deleted. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to weigh in here: Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_June_14#File:The_Guardian_front_page_10_June_2013.jpg Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Interview w/ Guardian Jun 17

Snowden answers questions in a live session with Guardian viewers.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-nsa-files-whistleblower

I think information from this interview should be integrated. A notable quote "Being called a traitor by Dick Cheney is the highest honor you can give an American"

Beware, this is a WP:PRIMARY source and shouldn't be relied on. However I'm sure all the newspapers will have stories in tomorrow's papers on this, and most of those will be reliable sources. Plus, it's totally fascinating reading. --Nstrauss (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pertinent information from this session has been re-posted to other articles in The Guardian. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, as Nstrauss hints, there has to be verification that this really was Snowden. As CBS News said tonight, "Someone claiming to be Snowden" held a live chat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is this any difference to every interview given by Snowden so far? It could always have been just someone claiming to be him, and The Guardian could have lied to us all along. If we trust the newspaper about their interviews, we trust them about their live chats. --Conti|✉ 23:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs, that's not my position at all. Lots of interviews are conducted electronically without any independent verification of identity. In legal-speak today's Q&A is "self-identifying." What makes it less reliable is that its claims need to be investigated and weighed against contradictory evidence. That's the responsibility of the news organizations, such as the Guardian, the WaPo, and the NY Times. All of those outlets have already published their own pieces based on the Q&A and those sources are quite reliable. --Nstrauss (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no doubt the Guardian know where to find him and how to authenticate his ID, so the chain of identification of the Guardian is unbroken, IMHO. We should quote from the most direct RS; use of "claim" in such a case is neither necessary nor desirable, because such use, like Dick Cheney, all seek to cast doubt or aspersions on the more important messages Snowden has to share with the world. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 00:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The more he keeps yapping, the worse it gets for him. He grandstands about not being able to get a fair trial in the US, while expressing surprise that the media have covered stuff about his girlfriend. Obviously, a very naïve character. Anyway, CBS raises a good point, as there's no reason to assume that the Guardian is serving anyone's interests but their own, and hence no reason to assume that they actually had Snowden in their chat room. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's some serious editorial bias showing through. --Nstrauss (talk) 03:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only if I let it get into the article, which I don't intend to. As an American, I'm personally offended by his "can't get a fair trial in America" comments. Regardless, as with any contentious subject, sourcing and a non-advocacy approach are vital. There's been an attempt to turn this guy into a hero, but it's not Wikipedia's job to do that, especially as he may yet prove to have feet of clay. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I don't know what that has to do with your distrust of the Guardian, but it's true that we all bring our own biases to table and all we can do is be aware of them and try to keep them out of our written product. --Nstrauss (talk) 04:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My primary concern is that the media seem to be swallowing his story, hook line and sinker, and we have to be careful. We know he's been truthful about some stuff, but there's other stuff that is unverified. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

$200K salary

We've got this info in two places. Can we pick one please? Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. It's 122,000, not 200,000. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snowden issued a clarification in The Guardian saying that 200K was his "salary high" while it was 122K at Booz; he said he took a pay cut to work for Booz WhisperToMe (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't talking about the discrepancy, I was talking about the fact that it was mentioned in two different places in the article. I took one out. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re-focus on substance

Of course I applaud all good-faith contributions to Wikipedia, but may I please direct your attention to this bit from Snowden's Q&A session today:

Question:

So far are things going the way you thought they would regarding a public debate? – tikkamasala

Answer:

Initially I was very encouraged. Unfortunately, the mainstream media now seems far more interested in what I said when I was 17 or what my girlfriend looks like rather than, say, the largest program of suspicionless surveillance in human history.

I happen to agree with Mr. Snowden. Can we try to devote at least as much attention to what he disclosed as, say, how much money he made at Booz Allen??? --Nstrauss (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Better to say what he has allegedly disclosed, because some of it is disputed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll follow what the reliable sources are saying, but I think you catch my drift. :) --Nstrauss (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reliable sources are quoting him extensively, for sure. But beyond what the government has owned up to, is there any external verification of his claims? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What information would you like "verified" by "external sources", other than the US Government? Classified or unclassified?Jonny Quick (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of "external verification" do you have in mind? --Nstrauss (talk) 04:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some independent source confirming that he's not just making up stuff that he claims he was capable of doing, such as spying on any individual he felt like. If that's true, it's a far worse situation than merely gathering gazillions of phone call records. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your concern but that's not our job, it's the job of the news media. Our standards in this respect are governed by WP:V and WP:RS. Snowden's allegations have been reported on not only by the Guardian but also by others of reputable newsrooms around the world. That easily satisfies the WP:V standard, your (reasonable) concerns notwithstanding. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but we still have to be wary of seeming to be advocates. The allegations have been reported, but not all have been verified or admitted to. Anything he says that hasn't been verified must necessarily be preceeded by "Snowden said". Just like in newscasts covering run-of-the-mill crime stories they will say, "Police say..." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. --Nstrauss (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many many references to brief employement with Booz Allen are irrelevant

Hey the many many many references to his former temporary employer are not relevant to the story. It doens't need to be mentioned more than once. Of all the NSA whistleblowers, only Federal Employees have the Employer section filled out. No sense rushing over there and adding it to the contractors. Its irrelevant.

The main topic of this section is a controversial action/actions he adimits to taking. There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that these actions are in any way caused or aided or abetted by his employer. Thus the ridiculous emphasis on his employer could only come from enemies of his employer that have a conflict of interest and should not be editing this section. Starting today I'm taking many of them out. Looking at the history, these edits have been reversed in the past, but I dont' expect that to happen now. Come here and talk about it if you think its SO IMPORTANT. There is no point in dragging UNAFILIATED entities through guilt by association. I'm SURE there are several WP:XXXX prohibiting this on the basis of fairness and privacy. -- 132.3.61.81 (talk · contribs) 00:42, 18 June 2013‎ (UTC) + 132.3.61.82 (talk · contribs) 00:43, 18 June 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Your outrage might have had more punch if you had signed it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs|Baseball has added nothing to the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.207.38 (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. In fact the opposite is the case; I think there should be MORE emphasis on Booz Allen as ultimately they are directly responsible for the entire situation. Anything less than that is obfuscation and cover-up.Jonny Quick (talk) 08:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to know how Booz Allen let Snowden acquire all those classified documents. But so far I haven't seen anything in the press about that. All the other stuff that's been removed recently, like the silly salary discrepancy and the way the stock price went down, I think is better left out. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a burning (or maybe smoldering) question that only a few commentators seem to have brought up so far. It's one thing to outsource the building of roads and other mundane stuff. It's another to outsource work of such critical national importance. When or if the dust settles, maybe the government will rethink this policy. But the company that hired him does need to be kept on the radar. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest encourages editors to disclose COI, but since this user didn't, I'm glad you did it for him. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just changed the title of the section from "Former Employers" to "Snowden's Employer", as it falls in a list of various entities' reaction to the whistleblowing. There seems to be an effort to create as much distance between Booz Hamilton and Snowden as possible, and so now I am inclined to go in the exact opposite direction. At the time of the information release, Booz Hamilton was Snowden's CURRENT employer, and the use of the word "former" creates the impression that he was not actively employed by Booz Hamilton at the time of the release. He was. And it was Booz Hamilton's abysmally incompetent security procedures that allowed the whole situation to happen, so all other things being equal, and with no better 3rd alternative, when it comes to a choice of either/or, I choose to place Booz Hamilton closer to Snowden and these events rather than farther away. Second, the previous title said "Former Employers" (plural), yet there was only Booz Hamilton listed, which seems to further obfuscate a completely clear situation for no particular reason. Even if other "former" employers are identified and included in the list, I would be inclined to split the sections into "Employer" (at the time of the release, Booz Hamilton), and "Former Employers" (the CIA, McDonalds, whoever). His employer at the time of the release is of primary importance; so important that it merits it's own "standalone" category.Jonny Quick (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know how to sign my name here don't expect me to know arcane intricacies of WP policies. The comment by JohhnyQuick that "Booz Allen is responsible " is the problem. That's only his opinion. So is he coming here to cast blame on that basis? There's no evidence to support that. It needs to be made clear my actions are my own, not made here on behalf of my company. I have an interest. My reputation. Finally, there's no evidence that Snowden hasn't been accumulating documents for 10 years. It's raw speculation that is grossly inappropriate. Whether he was a Booz Allen is not relevant to how he got the docs, he actually got the documents directly from the government he asserts. All the people here trying to blame his former employer --- who fired him -- please prove you have no axe to grind and don't work for competitor to Booz Allen. Finally the article should be about SNOWDEN. Right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.207.38 (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Additionally, head over to the articles about other NSA whistleblowers and see how they handled former employers. Treatments here should be along those examples. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.207.38 (talk) 03:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's about whatever the sources say it's about. And if possibly slipshod screening of employees is being talked about by the sources, then it's on the table. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
98.108.207.38, you admit that you're a Booz Allen employee and that you have an interest in maintaining Booz Allen's reputation. That alone is enough to establish conclusively that you have a conflict of interest (COI). You don't have to be paid to edit Wikipedia or ordered by your boss to edit Wikipedia to have a COI. All there needs to be is an external relationship between the article content and you that has the potential to interfere with your editing. In this case you've already conceded that your goal is to preserve your reputation, which can and does run contrary to the aim of Wikipedia to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia. As a COI editor, you're strongly discouraged from editing anything having to do with your employer, including this article. If you insist on continuing you should make sure to avoid making any edits directly in the article and instead propose your edits on this talk page. You're also encouraged to create a login and disclose your connection to Booz Allen on your user page. (For more info, see WP:COI.) --Nstrauss (talk) 04:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the policy then so be it. There is a difference between protecting my reputation from FALSE INFERENCES like those espoused by JohnnyQuick. At least address the issues I have raised here. Rather than attack me and my motives there is plenty of evidence just on this talk page people are coming Here to disparage a company without facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.207.38 (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge no one is adding improperly sourced inferences about your employer, but if anyone does I (for one) will be on the lookout to remove them. --Nstrauss (talk) 04:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you have substantive objection to the article as it is currently written, state them and they will be discussed. Here's an article about Booz Hamiliton's lax security which allowed "Anonymous" to hack into their network and steal over 90,000 military emails addresses with "non-salted passwords", dated July 11, 2011.http://www.geek.com/news/anonymous-hacks-booz-allen-hamilton-90000-military-emails-stolen-1401753/. Also, FYI IP Address 132.3.61.82 is part of a block of IP Addresses registered to something called the "754th Electronic Systems Group" which "Operates out of Maxwell Air Force Base-Gunter Annex, Alabama", which either lends credibility to the claim that 132.3.61.82 really does work for Booz Hamilton, or the address is spoofed. If that's possible. Is it?Jonny Quick (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Importance Ratings

Can anyone explain why this rates "Low Importance" in the Espionage Category? It seems important enough to warrant Senate hearings. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a critique of its writing quality. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a poor writing quality, then the "article rating" would be impacted. "Importance" is separate from article quality. I can move it up to "mid" WhisperToMe (talk) 03:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think so far he has proven to be at least as significant as Ellsberg (Pentagon Papers), maybe not as important as Felt "Deep Throat" (Watergate). But the story seems to be creeping up toward the Watergate level of significance. This story has the potential to cause a perjury charge against DNI Clapper related to his testimony to Sen. Wyden. There is an ancillary issue: how to separate Snowden from the events he triggered? Do these need to be in a separate article? --71.20.55.6 (talk) 06:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. I think this is more important than Wikileaks. Does Wiki keep track of the number of visits to the web page article?Jonny Quick (talk) 08:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it fair to categorize Snowden's acts as "espionage"? He's already been classified as a "whistleblower", and I think he can only be one or the other, and not both.Jonny Quick (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the broad interpretation of this term "whistleblower", it can indeed be both. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have bumped the importance rating in the Espionage category to "mid" having seen no objections in the discussion. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency of Acronyms

Some references are U.S. Some US, some N.S.A some NSA, some N.S.A's (which isn't ever proper, because the A is missing a dot). Can this be cleaned up? I am recusing myself from editing the text of the page on account of POV. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:STOPS says "Modern style is to use a full stop (period) after a shortening (although there are many exceptions) but no full stops with an acronym." But it also says to use either U.S. or US and doesn't say one is better than the other. I think NSA should be used rather than N.S.A., and have no opinion on U.S. vs US but I think we should be consistent. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The modern tendency is US and NSA. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, here's a "CNN" blogger using "NSA" and "U.S." so go figure.[11] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

why is this entry so full of errors?

somebody needs to check their references and use ones that are a little more credible than a lazy US Journalists haphhazard copy of the Guardian.

1) This guy didn't live in ellicott city Maryland. 2) this guy didn't Grow Up (spend the majority of his formative schooling) in NC. He went through middle school and high school.

Ellicott city is in Howard County which would make it highly unlikely that he went to Anne Arundel Community College. he dropped out of HS in Arundel.....

I can't believe more wiki editors aren't all over these errors... are they deliberate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.193.81.15 (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources and post them here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and be an editor. We need your help. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had thought the page was semi'd. Apparently it's not, so the IP is free to try to correct those problems himself. With proper sourcing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This did have a major error. It used to say he was born in Elizabeth City, when he actually was born in Wilmington. Surfer43 (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not much of an error, actually, since the specific coastal town he was born in doesn't really have anything to do with why he has become a public figure. It's good to get it right, though. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is pretty interisting though, multiple errors about where he lived/grew up. Surfer43 (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The so-called "reliable sources" often make mistakes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the sources were correct. The article was wrong from the fourth revision. I only noticed it when reading one of the sources and because I am familiar with where he was born(Wilmington NC). Surfer43 (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Surfer, do you have a source for his place of birth? I just took it out of the article because it's not sourced. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It had been sourced, and there is a Hong Kong source that also states it. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Correct Surfer43 (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal credibility

It's not our job to judge Snowden's personal credibility. Any attempts to suggest he's a liar by citing contradictions in his reported statements should be immediately reverted by the first editor to detect the attempt, per WP:BLP. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless proper sourcing has pointed it out. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bradsher, Keith. "Snowden’s Leaks on China Could Affect Its Role in His Fate." The New York Times. June 14, 2013.
    • Says "Mr. Snowden told the newspaper that the computers were in the civilian sector. But Western experts have long said that the dividing line between the civilian sector and the government is very blurry in China. State-owned or state-controlled enterprises still control much of the economy, and virtually all are run by Communist Party cadres who tend to rotate back and forth between government and corporate jobs every few years as part of elaborate career development procedures."

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just restore Edward Snowden in Hong Kong and add it there? -A1candidate (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That could be a possibility. I'll post more sources and perhaps other editors will weigh in. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Birth place

I just noticed that we are giving Snowden's birthplace with no source citation. I believe this is a violation of WP:BLP and should be removed immediately: "Contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced ... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." So I removed it, but was immediately reverted with no comment. This may have been a mistake due to edit conflict. But I really think this should be taken out unless and until we have a source. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As mundane as birthdates and birthplaces might seem to be, I think it's standard practice to remove such info unless there's a solid source for it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of the South China Morning Post articles announced that he had just turned 30. So I could use it as a source WhisperToMe (talk) 04:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A source by Jennifer Ngo said "Snowden, who celebrates his 30th birthday today, must travel to Iceland from Hong Kong before applying." (article date was June 21) but another source also confirmed his birthday and someone put that one in. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian gives the birthplace, also reported in other sources. --Cyclopiatalk 13:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian story does not give the birth place as far as I can tell. Quote please? Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. I referred to: "Snowden was born on 21 June 1983, raised in Wilmington, North Carolina, and later moved to Ellicott City, Maryland.". Given that they mention them moving elsewhere, I assumed the meaning of the text is that he was born in Wilmington as well. But true, it doesn't tell it completely explicitly, and as such there's some ambiguity. And in fact, here it gives Elizabeth City as an explicit birthplace. However I don't know if that section can be considered a RS. --Cyclopiatalk 14:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If in doubt, leave it out. It's not really relevant anyway. His specific birthplace has no bearing on the reason he's become a public figure. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So: His birth place is contentious; we have no source for his birth place; and BLP requires unsourced contentious material be removed immediately, without discussion. So why is it still in? Why are we even discussing this? Anyone mind if I remove it? Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. --Cyclopiatalk 15:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I just didn't want to be seen as edit warring. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the unsourced inclusion of his birthplace is "contentious" and therefore violates WP:NPV. However without sources it should be removed per WP:V, or at least tagged with {{cn}}. That said these RS's say he was born in NC: here, here. --Nstrauss (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Logic may tell you otherwise, but I can tell you from experience here that birthplace can, in fact, be a very contentious BLP issue. So if it's not known with absolute reliability, it's better to leave it out. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New leak revealed by Guardian 20 Jun

Procedures for intelligence gathering, and minimization of impact to US Persons. Two documents, 18 Pages total. Interestingly the article doesn't actually mention Snowden by name. Again recusing myself from editing the text of the Snowden article itself.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/20/fisa-court-nsa-without-warrant

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 01:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation of the vetting firm

Being requested by a U.S. Senator.[12] The company is called USIS. Whether that investigation belongs here or somewhere else, I couldn't say. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been confirmed yet whether or not the investigation is related to the vetting of Snowden specifically, or for unrelated lapses. 71.20.55.6 (talk · contribs) 01:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another one:

WhisperToMe (talk) 09:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More sources

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as the leaks came to light, and before the leaker's identity was known, I was hearing speculation that this had been orchestrated by the Obama administration for reasons unknown. His relatively low-key response to this thing might be telling, if it weren't for the fact that he has a relatively low-key response to almost everything. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Snowden seems to be being vindicated as more 'whistle blowers' speak. The headline today on the Drudge Report is: SECRET NSA POWERS WIDER THAN THOUGHT.[13] This would have remained 'under the radar' had it not been for the bold move of Snowden. This is the stuff that makes great movies. Even President Barack Hussein Obama mentioned the name of Edward Snowden. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vindicated in what sense? That he did, in fact, commit espionage, and wasn't just making this stuff up? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use Drudge Report headlines to support your arguments. Please. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CBS News just reported that charges have been filed against Snowden for espionage and theft of government property. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Followup, on CNN:[14] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About the Drudge Report: . . . I don't have an argument; I just noted what every other news source also reported. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We quote some papers that are supposed to be respectable but instead they prop up an agenda; I look for leads that are truthful and wait for it to be reported in the respectable sources that don't report until it is unavoidable to do so—as with citizen surveillance. Also, I don't edit the Article directly but make comments here on TALK, for now. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe my use of the word "argument" was misplaced. My point is that I wouldn't trust the editorial judgment of Matt Drudge for half a second, and hopefully neither would anyone else here. --Nstrauss (talk) 06:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New leak 21 Jun - Guardian - Tempora

Details of the GCHQ's spying of the internet, and sharing the data with the NSA.

"GCHQ taps fibre-optic cables for secret access to world's communication"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-secret-world-communications-nsa

Notable quote from article. "It's not just a US problem. The UK has a huge dog in this fight," Snowden told the Guardian. "They [GCHQ] are worse than the US."

Recusing myself from editing the main article, yet again. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Wolf accusations

The accusations by Naomi Wolf were mentioned once in the Lau Nai-Keung article, but are there any full newspaper articles about these accusations?

Since it is WP:BLP, a "self-published" attack of one person by another isn't going to make the cut. A newspaper has to talk about it. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With the government having pressed charges today, her theory doesn't look too good. And you're right, it doesn't belong. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources about Snowden's revelations about China hacking, and more opinions

On China hacking

Opinions

Polls:

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Snowden in Hong Kong

By now, it should be clear that Edward Snowden in Hong Kong needs to be restored, not merged. Snowden's revelations about US-China hacking should be added to that page, rather than dumping everything to this biography -A1candidate (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it will only become bigger, and is of both current and historical interest to Wikipedia readers (and editors.) Do you mean a separate section, or a separate article? If you do a search on 'Hong Kong' it already appears 47 times in the article, (including ref.) — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What are you going to do with that proposed article, once he's no longer in Hong Kong? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like the Hong Kong portion of the story will provide enough material for a separate article (regardless of how soon he leaves), especially considering the inevitable and continued growth of this main one. petrarchan47tc 22:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could be. It depends whether they turn him over this week or six months to a year from now. Typically, when a topic gets large enough, a spinoff article is created, with just a short summary in the original article. It depends on size. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it an interesting item by itself? Regardless of size of this article, does it make sense? This article becoming large is not a problem to me. Readers can just scroll down in a long article, no problem — imho, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Edward Snowden in Hong Kong" sounds like a movie title. A better title would be something like "Edward Snowden extradition". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps "extradition plans" or "attempted extradition" as it hasn't happened yet. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Something along those lines, sure. Just not "Snowden in Hong Kong". That sounds like a sequel to A Countess from Hong Kong. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Official HK government response

The Hong Kong government allowed Snowden to leave and did not arrest him because the U.S. extradition request "did not fully comply with the legal requirements under Hong Kong law".(Reuters Shouldn't this be mentioned somewhere? -A1candidate (talk) 08:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New source:

Lam, Lana. "SNOWDEN LEAVES HONG KONG ON COMMERCIAL FLIGHT TO MOSCOW." South China Morning Post. Sunday 23 June 2013.

Since it mentions his flight details I alerted the Russian and English Wikipedias and the Commons about this, in case someone wants to photograph Snowden's airplane. The article says it is Aeroflot #213 and it will land at Sheremetyevo at 5:15PM Moscow time. AFAIK it will be an Airbus A330-300 as Aeroflot uses that type on its Hong Kong routes. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowden pardon petition has reached 100K

http://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden/Dp03vGYD

The Snowden pardon petition has reached 100K. This is not Wikipedia cite-able. But keep your eyes peeled for any newspapers that talk about it - if the US papers say nothing, check the British papers, check the Hong Kong papers, check everybody WhisperToMe (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's meaningless until or if Obama responds to it. Given that they've called for his arrest on espionage charges and have started extradition negotiations with Hong Kong, I wouldn't count on anything other than "Thanks for your interest". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to the petition setup, the White House is supposed to respond if it reaches 100K within one month of the petition being filed. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The White House doesn't have to respond to it. Like any online petition, it's not notable because it's a feel-good thing that never gets more than 15 minutes of attention. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They're exempted if there's still an ongoing investigation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? That's interesting. Where does it state that? That would be an interesting development. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They're not literally exempt, I guess, but the article We the People (petitioning system) states that the White House "typically" will not comment on an ongoing investigation. On the flip side, I'd by surprised if there's any law requiring the President to comment, regardless of vote totals. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The International Business Times released an article:

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's about "We, the people" and not much about the Obama response. Note that Obama popularity (polling) has dropped greatly among the young 18-30 demographic—the impact of surveillance revelations was started by Snowden. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to figure why they would be so upset about the government (which is accountable to the people) gathering metadata about phone calls and such, while blithely continuing to spread their internet footprint to places like Facebook (which is accountable to no one). As regards Obama's popularity in that fickle age group, he was in worse shape a year ago. But if this slippage continues, he might not win again in 2016. Oh, wait... ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edward_Snowden&oldid=561189473"