Jump to content

Talk:Edward Snowden/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

What can we do to shorten this page?

It seems to me that this page is much too long. In particular, the "career" section suffers from its length, especially given how young Snowden is. Part of the length problem, both in the "career" section and in other sections is that the page is full of dueling accusations and counter-accusations. Does anyone have any ideas on what can be removed or restructured to make the page shorter?

One example of superfluous information is all the information regarding the number of documents Snowden took. I think Alexander's remarks--"I don't think anybody really knows what he actually took with him, because the way he did it, we don't have an accurate way of counting. What we do have an accurate way of counting is what he touched, what he may have downloaded, and that was more than a million documents."--make it clear that 1.7 million is the absolute ceiling, but there is no evidence that he actually took every document that he touched. When US officials claim that he took 1.7 million documents, they are referring to this ceiling and the fact that nobody knows how many documents he has. DancingHands56 (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

You contend that "all the information regarding the number of documents Snowden took" is superfluous. However, we devote in Edward Snowden fewer than 100 words relating to the number of stolen documents.

Lead:

  • thousands of classified documents

  • numerous NSA documents

Career:

  • 50,000 to 200,000 documents

  • tens of thousands of classified documents

Global surveillance disclosures:

  • 15,000 or more Australian intelligence files

  • British officials estimate at least 58,000 British intelligence files

  • roughly 160,000 intercepted e-mail and instant-message conversations, some of them hundreds of pages long, and 7,900 documents taken from more than 11,000 online accounts

  • What we do have an accurate way of counting is what he touched, what he may have downloaded, and that was more than a million documents.

  • in November 2013 that only one percent of the documents had been published

Please, would you explain why each of these, in context, is superfluous? It would help move the discussion forward. Thank you.

JohnValeron (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

In response to your claim that the Career section (and others) is overlong in part because it is "full of dueling accusations and counter-accusations," I have identified nine such examples in that section. Please indicate which of these you propose to delete.

Accusation – Anonymous officials alleged that Snowden was reprimanded by CIA superiors on suspicion of attempting to obtain classified information without authorization.

Counter-accusation – The CIA officially stated that no such report was filed.

Accusation – Intelligence officials have described his position there as a "system administrator"

Counter-accusation – Snowden has said he was an "infrastructure analyst."

Accusation – While in Hawaii, Snowden "may have persuaded between 20 and 25 fellow workers" to give him their logins and passwords

Accusation – NSA sent a memo to Congress: "contrary to Snowden's statements, he used an element of trickery to retrieve his trove of tens of thousands of classified documents."

Counter-accusation – This report was disputed, with Snowden saying, "I never stole any passwords, nor did I trick an army of co-workers."

Accusation – The résumé stated that Snowden attended computer-related classes at Johns Hopkins University.

Counter-accusation – A spokesperson for Johns Hopkins said that the university did not find records to show that Snowden attended the university.

Accusation – Snowden's resume estimated that he would receive a University of Liverpool computer security master's degree in 2013.

Counter-accusation – The university said that Snowden registered for an online master's degree program in computer security in 2011 but that "he is not active in his studies and has not completed the program."

Accusation – Snowden said that, using "internal channels of dissent", he had told multiple employees and two supervisors about his concerns that the NSA programs were unconstitutional.

Counter-accusation – An NSA spokesperson responded, saying they had "not found any evidence to support Mr. Snowden's contention that he brought these matters to anyone's attention."

Accusation – Snowden said, "The NSA has records—they have copies of emails right now to their Office of General Council to their oversight and compliance folks from me raising concerns about the NSA's interpretations of its legal authorities."

Counter-accusation – In May 2014, U.S. officials released a single email that Snowden had written in April 2013 inquiring about legal authorities but said that they had found no other evidence that Snowden had expressed his concerns to someone in an oversight position.

Accusation – In June 2014, the NSA said it had not been able to find any records of Snowden raising internal complaints about the agency's operations.

Counter-accusation – That same month, Snowden explained that he himself has not produced the communiqués in question because of the ongoing nature of the dispute, disclosing for the first time that "I am working with the NSA in regard to these records and we're going back and forth, so I don't want to reveal everything that will come out."

JohnValeron (talk) 23:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

We could shorten the page by getting rid of stuff like "Following [his] election, Snowden issued a statement saying he was 'humbled by and grateful for...this historic statement in defence of our shared values.'" That sort of thing is just fluff. As for Snowden's claims of fact, a lot of those claims are disputed, and we need to note that dispute.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Brian, I agree with both parts of your comment. The "fluff" you cite is indeed dispensable, and I support any such deletions. You're also right that since so many of Snowden's claims are arguable, we're obliged to present opposing points of view. What DancingHands56 deplores as "dueling accusations and counter-accusations" are unavoidable if we are to keep this biography from relapsing into hagiography. JohnValeron (talk) 01:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Taking that sentence out would really shorten the article immensely... "end of sarcasm".TMCk (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
There's plenty more "LIKE" that one.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
The Magnificent Clean-keeper, if you're finished playing the comedian, perhaps you can suggest how we might actually shorten this article. By way of comparison, note that Wikipedia's Chelsea Manning contains about 8,000 words, whereas Edward Snowden is more than twice that size. We obviously cannot significantly reduce this article's bulk by nibbling around the edges—or by cracking lame jokes. JohnValeron (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The article can be shortened when it is of less interest, (months later). Readers can scroll down or look in the subject areas of their interest. For now, I would like interesting details included. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing

Expect the MOVIE in a year or two. This article has great photos of Snowden. 

Headline-1: I, spy: Edward Snowden in exile

QUOTE: "He doesn’t drink, he’s reading Dostoevsky and, no, he doesn’t wear a disguise. A year after blowing the whistle on the NSA, America’s most wanted talks frankly about his life as a hero-pariah – and why the world remains ‘more dangerous than Orwell imagined’." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

DONE Charles Edwin Shipp, I have no idea what you mean by "New NEWS" (as opposed to "Old NEWS" perhaps?) but nearly 15 hours before you created this Talk section, Wikipedia's Edward Snowden was updated with material from The Guardian article to which you link, including the detail that Ed doesn't drink. As for Alan Rusbridger's photos, those are of course copyright by The Guardian and accordingly unavailable for Wikipedia's use. JohnValeron (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Snowden blaming NSA for Internet blackout in Syria

In his story for WIRED James Bamford writes that, according to Snowden, "a division of NSA hackers... attempted in 2012 to remotely install an exploit in one of the core routers at a major Internet service provider in Syria, which was in the midst of a prolonged civil war. This would have given the NSA access to email and other Internet traffic from much of the country. But something went wrong, and the router was bricked instead—rendered totally inoperable. The failure of this router caused Syria to suddenly lose all connection to the Internet..." This Snowden claim appears dubious.
First of all, "Throughout the current conflict, the Syrian government has occasionally shut down Internet services in specific regions right before launching attacks. On at least two other occasions, the outages were national in scope, The Washington Post reported." On 29 November 2012, at the start of the biggest blackout in 2012, Reuters reported that "... the army had started a 'cleansing operation' in the capital to confront rebel advances." Is it not a remarkable coincidence that the NSA only shut down the Syrian Internet at a time that coincided with the Assad regime launching an attack, a time that has historically been considered timely by the regime?
Secondly, Renesys said that "there was one brief whole-country outage of less than ten minutes on 25 November" that preceded the major 29 November shutdown that Renesys said might possibly be a “precursor event” or “practice run," meaning that it was a "practice run" for deliberate action by the Assad regime, not the NSA which wanted to keep the net up. Renesys also notes that some "blocks survived today’s Internet blackout in Syria, but 12 hours after the onset, they, too are off the air." This 12 hour spacing doesn't fit with Snowden's story of the NSA bringing down everything by virtue of a one-off mistake and then failing in its efforts to bring it back.
Thirdly, the CEO of Cloudfare said that "In order for a whole-country outage [caused by parties other than than the Syrian government], all four of these cables would have had to been cut simultaneously. That is unlikely to have happened.”
Fourthly, see the comment at foreignpolicyblogs about how they lost mobile phone coverage at the same time. Not a definitive source, but then the point here is that neither is Snowden.--Brian Dell (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Guardian involvement

This is an excellent, detailed, clearly organised article, BUT … my understanding (largely from the PBS US of Secrets), is that there was a Guardian journalist involved from the beginning (in Hong-Kong), and that Snowden had contacted Gdn in weeks previous, with Gdn initially thinking they were dealing with a crank, since the claims were so incredible. Possibly (my memory is hazy on this), Snowden had consciously chosen journalists from outside US, as a fail-safe against US journalists or their papers being 'leant on'. Pincrete (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The journalist you're thinking of is Glenn Greenwald, who features prominently in this article. He was first approached by Edward Snowden via email in December 2012, during Greenwald's August 2012 – October 2013 tenure as a columnist for Guardian US. In May 2013, Greenwald traveled on assignment for the Guardian to Hong Kong to meet Snowden. Another Guardian journo, Ewen MacAskill, accompanied Greenwald and filmmaker Laura Poitras on that trip. JohnValeron (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, apologies, it was probably MacAskill I was thinking of, who (from the PBS version) was there partly to 'check the goods' and who was responsible for sending back a pre-arranged message to the Gdn. If my memory is right about Snowden consciously, choosing journos from 2 countries, is that detail worth including? I only ask because part of the character of this whole story is how very 'cool' and deliberate Snowden was about everything he did. Just a suggestion, someone obviously reasearched (and organised) this article very thoroughly. Pincrete (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
By all accounts, Snowden did not choose MacAskill, whom the Guardian added to the Greenwald/Poitras team over Poitras's strong objections because she feared the extra man would scare off Snowden. If by "journos from 2 countries" you mean Greenwald & Poitras, that's a stretch because they're both Americans—albeit expats, with Greenwald residing in Brazil and Poitras in Germany. Offhand, I can't recall any report that Snowden chose them even in part because they live abroad, rather than due solely to the focus of their work. But if you can cite a reliable source (and please, not just from memory, which you concede is hazy), that detail would be worth including in the article. JohnValeron (talk) 01:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking more of their 'loyalties' to different nationality news organisations, only source is my memory of PBS (which I didn't expect you to take as RS). If I ever re-watch, I'll remember to watch out for EXACTLY what was said … I think (again not RS) that Ewen MacAskill, was involved in the initial 'vetting' of the 'tasters' Snowden provided, before the HK meeting - since he was the one with expertise. EXCELLENT ARTICLE. Pincrete (talk) 02:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

German Parliamentary Committee investigating the NSA spying scandal

His revelations made the parliament set up this committee, he was invited and wants to testify (just not from Moscow) but the government and opposition have been fighting for months whether and then how to let him testify, now even the Supreme Court has to decide whether he has to be granted security to give testimony in Berlin. I don't see how anyone could claim this is not notable. Galant Khan (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is your edit, in its entirety, to which I objected as "premature, fragmentary and inconclusive."

On May 8, the German Parliamentary Committee investigating the NSA spying scandal unanimously decided to let Snowden testify as a witness.

Now you tell us, on this Talk page, that Snowden "wants to testify (just not from Moscow) but the government and opposition have been fighting for months whether and then how to let him testify, now even the Supreme Court has to decide whether he has to be granted security to give testimony in Berlin."

Why don't you add that to the article, where it belongs? I don't oppose your telling the whole story, but a single sentence does not suffice for an encyclopedia entry. JohnValeron (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree. And part of the story, as I recall, is that there was a report of a former German intelligence officer saying that Germany couldn't guarantee Snowden's security if he came to Germany; in other words, the US government might kidnap him. That probably explains why he declined the invitation to testify. And it also makes this whole affair notable, since it shows that Snowden is not really safe anywhere outside Russia. – Herzen (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
He only declared later on that he would only testify in Berlin, it is a long back and forth. As the article section uses a timeline I added two parts, the unanimous invitation and the constitutional complaint when the government refused to let him testify in Berlin. Of course we can add more to clarify that he wants to testify but only in Berlin and the government refuses to guarantee him he will not be extradited. I have to check first if that is already in the sources provided or if we need more. Galant Khan (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Please check if you think the current version is ok. Maybe it would be good to have a source that specifies the condition he wants in order to testify in Berlin. Galant Khan (talk) 03:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
This business of Snowden testifying in Germany is badly disjointed. Under subsection 5.1 2013, we are told that Ströbele traveled to Moscow to meet with Snowden, whom he invited to testify before the German parliament. After the visit, Snowden indicated a willingness to testify, though not from Moscow as Germany requested.

Under subsection 5.2 2014, we are told first that the German Parliamentary Committee decided to let Snowden testify, then opposition parties filed constitutional complaints in order to force the government to let him come to Berlin. We are further told, "The accused had proposed a video conference from Moscow which Snowden had refused, he only wants to testify in Berlin."

This is completely confusing. Who is the accused? It can't be Snowden, since he wants to testify only in Berlin. Did the German Parliamentary Committee propose a video conference from Moscow?

We need to clarify who requested what and explain how 2013 relates to 2014. Is this all part of one continuous investigation, or two separate inquiries?

Until an editor who understands this (and has a better command of English) can bring sense to our narrative, the article would be better if it didn't mention this German testimony mess at all. JohnValeron (talk) 04:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
The accused are the German government as indicated in the article. (And in one of the two cases also the Parliamentary Committee in which government parties have the majority.) I don't see your problem and I don't see the point of your attempts to keep important information out of the article. Galant Khan (talk) 04:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
@Galant Khan: I think your additions are fine, although I'm not happy with the general state of the article. I find these Wiki articles that use chronology as an organizing principle very hard to read. The German parliamentary investigation not being discussed in a single place is unfortunate. In any case, the only constructive comment I have to make is that the article should mention concerns of German officials that if Snowden came to Germany, the US might demand his extradition, or even kidnap him. I'm not inclined to do that myself since it's been a long time since I read any news stories about Snowden. But I can offer this source. Here is the passage which I think the article can use:
And the former head of the Federal Intelligence Service (BND), Hans-Georg Wieck, advised the committee to interview Snowden in Moscow. "One can't invite him to Germany because we can't offer him safety here since German-American relations are too important," he told the Mitteldeutsche Zeitung.
I propose that the article gives that direct quote. The use of the word "safety" makes clear that it is not extradition that Herr Wieck is worried about. (Of course, it would be desirable to track down Wieck's remark in the original German, to confirm that this English translation accurately renders what he said.) – Herzen (talk) 06:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I googled and found the original source. Here is the relevant quote: "Man kann ihn nicht nach Deutschland einladen, weil man ihm hier kein sicheres Geleit anbieten kann; dazu sind die Beziehungen zwischen Deutschland und Amerika zu wichtig." PONS gives the English term for "Geleit" as safe conduct. I think there is no question that Wikipedia should use that term instead of "safety". "Freies Geleit (oder sicheres Geleit) bezeichnet eine Zusage an eine bestimmte Person, nicht belästigt, angegriffen oder verhaftet zu werden." – Herzen (talk) 10:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I completely agree about the readability and timeline and your sources are great, thank you! Galant Khan (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Hm, at a closer look, that was only the former head of Bundesnachrichtendienst, so it's just his private opinion, not official and notable for the article. Who can be granted safe conduct is decision of the government and the administration, not the secret service. Galant Khan (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand the significance of the quote. A head of the BND, whether current or former, will have very good knowledge of US-German relations. What Wieck was basically saying was that the US would not allow Germany to give safe conduct to Snowden. So which organ of the German state makes the decision is irrelevant. Nobody is better qualified to make this observation than a head of the BND. And it has to be a former head, because Germany's lack of sovereignty is a very sensitive issue. So I think that not only is this statement notable for the article, its inclusion is essential, because it explains why Snowden will never come to Germany to testify: he will not do so unless Germany gives him safe conduct, but Germany cannot give him safe conduct, because the US won't let it. The article doesn't need to spell that out; among other things, spelling it out can be considered to be OR. That is why I recommend giving a direct quotation. – Herzen (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I think the Prantl article I used as a source explains the situation well. It would however be nice to add something more recent. Galant Khan (talk) 04:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Hero

Edward Snowden,is the greatest human being to ever walk planet Earth ,,Thankyou Sir — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.18.158 (talk) 01:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a page to discuss the article, if you want to thank him you should contact him directly. Galant Khan (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Length of tenure at Booz Allen Hamilton

By the way, Luke Harding's book agrees with just four weeks at Booz: "After four weeks in his new job, Snowden tells his bosses at Booz he is feeling unwell." Snowden went on training at Fort Meade or two weeks or so before starting work in Hawaii.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you proposing to change the statement in Wikipedia's Edward Snowden that the last three months of his employment as an NSA contractor were with Booz Allen Hamilton? If so, I take it you are relying on two sources:
(1) Mark Hosenball's report for Reuters that "Snowden had been on the job for about four weeks when he traveled to Hong Kong."
(2) Luke Harding's book The Snowden Files, which says Snowden requested unpaid leave "after four weeks in his new job."
Contradicting these sources we have four others:
(1) NSA Director Keith Alexander's testimony before the House Intelligence Committee that Snowden worked for BAH for three months. This testimony is documented on video at C-SPAN and is reported by Andy Greenberg at Forbes.
(2) The Guardian report that BAH "confirmed he began working for the company in March."
(3) Booz Allen's press release acknowledging that Snowden "was an employee of our firm for less than 3 months" before being terminated on June 10, 2013.
(4) Snowden's own statement to the South China Morning Post on June 12, 2013: " I accepted that position about three months ago."
I submit that not only the preponderance of reliable sources, but the more authoritative among them, clearly supports retaining our article's statement that the last three months of Snowden's NSA employment were as a contractor with Booz Allen Hamilton. JohnValeron (talk) 05:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

conflict in Poitras' documentary with when moved out of Hawaii residence

On June 10, 2013, AP reported that "Edward Snowden and his girlfriend moved out of their home in a quiet neighborhood near Honolulu on May 1, leaving nothing behind [according to] Century 21 real estate agent Kerri Jo Heim.... " There is a photo of the home with a Century 21 sign out front dated June 9. In the Poitras' documentary, "After the NSA surveillance story breaks... Mills tells him that... trucks are all over the street outside their home." How could trucks be "all over the street outside their home" if they moved out more than a month earlier? If this is a "second" home of some sort why does the documentary "show Snowden breaking the news online to Mills from Hong Kong that he would not be back anytime soon after she told him agents had turned up at their home in Hawaii, suspicious about his absence from work" without explaining how agents located the "second" home to make inquiries?--Brian Dell (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Brian, welcome back to Snowdenland. Your comments always make me think. If I may, I'd like to restate the relevant timeline here:
Accordingly, there'd be nothing odd about either (a) agents turning up at Ed's new digs, "suspicious about his absence from work," between mid-May when he left on leave and June 9, when The Guardian identified him as the source of the NSA leaks; or (b) trucks outside Ed's new digs subsequent to June 9. (I assume these were news trucks, since the media has little trouble locating someone's street address, and Ed's by then would have been over a month old.) JohnValeron (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, but in May Mills reportedly made a reference to needing to tidy the house in preparation for a visit from Snowden's family and blogged on May 17 that "When I return to sunny Oahu I'll have my hands full of in-laws." "Return" suggests going back to the same house (did the "in-laws" know the new address to go to?). On June 12 CNN reported that "investigators... visited his house (June) 6th" without implying that that was a different house. That CNN report also says that "Mills' father told CNN his daughter is now on the West Coast visiting friends." Although he wouldn't tell the Daily Mail where she was, if she was already on the West Coast by June 12 she'd hardly be in a position to tell Snowden AFTER the story broke that the media was parked outside... in Hawaii (and that rent checks weren't going through). If the media was parked outside a SECOND home, surely there would a a reference somewhere to this second residence.-Brian Dell (talk) 02:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with your assertion that "Return" suggests going back to the same house, as if the entire rental housing stock on Oahu—Hawaii's most populous island and home to the state capital, Honolulu—consists of one single-family home leased by Century 21 to Snowden and his girlfriend. Ridiculous! And why is it farfetched to suppose that Ed gave his new address to his father and stepmother for their May 17 visit? And how does going back to the mainland preclude Lindsay from telling Ed that trucks appeared outside their Oahu home between June 9, when The Guardian named him as their leaker, and June 12, when she flew to the West Coast? For that matter, do we even know where Lindsay was when her conversation with Ed took place?
As for there being no reported reference to their second residence, it's possible that the trucks Lindsay saw were not media after all, but entirely innocuous vehicles magnified into sinister significance by her understandable paranoia in the day or two following her lover's instant elevation to World's Most Wanted Man. JohnValeron (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Reuters says "Snowden had been on the job [at Booz] for about four weeks when he traveled to Hong Kong..."--Brian Dell (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

"My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked," he told the (South China Morning) Post on June 12. "That is why I accepted that position about three months ago." (Emphasis added.) Another source, The Guardian, likewise relates: "Booz Allen Hamilton, the NSA contractor who Snowden worked for, has already confirmed he began working for the company in March." Please, under what scenario would Snowden accept a job in mid-March that would commence with a 4-week vacation untili mid-April so as to last only four weeks prior to his May 20 flight to Hong Kong? I recall no report that he was off work for an entire month during that period. To the contrary, he was by all accounts fully occupied filching co-workers' passwords and stealing classified documents. JohnValeron (talk) 05:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The real estate agent told me the italicized remarks below, which suggest that the media was not parked outside a second residence: Apparently, Mills was monitoring events at the house despite it not being occupied, since she correctly notes that "agents had turned up at their home in Hawaii, suspicious about his absence from work," and that "trucks are all over the street outside their home." She then informs Snowden of these facts while Poitras is filming in Hong Kong. Now I submit that this is unlikely. Are we to believe that Mills was out standing at the curb on June 5 just at the time the real estate agent happened to be there AND officers inquired about where he'd gone? Or hiding in a closet in a house without tenant possessions (where did she get the key if the move out was done to the landlord's satisfaction by May 1)? She then heads back to house four days later just in time to see all the "trucks"? And then between then and June 12 flies to the West Coast so her father can tell CNN she's living on the West Coast? How do we explain Snowden's contention that "She has no idea what I'm doing" in June and that he simply disappeared "while she was on vacation"? If her "vacation" started prior to May 1 why did she not ask Snowden why the house was empty on her return instead of telling him the rent cheques were not going through? Why would she think Snowden was paying rent when he's obviously moved out? And didn't she blog in March that she was aware they had to move out by May 1? Again, why would Snowden be paying any rent after that date? Neighbours reported suspicious activity in the garage with all the boxes piled up, and this was while he still lived there, such that it seems unlikely she could have no idea he was going to move out May 1. The more likely explanation is that this alleged exchange between Snowden and Mills in Poitras' film is not authentic and therefore Poitras' film is not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. Mills knew what had happened at the house by reading it in the media (while on the West Coast?) and then pretended to talk to Snowden as if she learnt of this first hand or, much more likely since Snowden should know full well she couldn't be living at the house (with his rent cheques continuing to be processed), Snowden or a scripter staged the alleged conversation with Mills and it was simply forgotten that the placing of Mills in their home with the rent continuing to be paid conflicts with the reported fact that the house was vacated on May 1 (and Mills' March blogpost about that move out date) no matter how nice and simple that story happens to sound.

Snowden was asked to move out by the owner of the house on Eleu St. in April and he was out by May 1st. The owner wanted a month to work on the house before putting it on the market. I don't know where Snowden went to live in May but his rent while at the Eleu St. house was always paid.

Snowden was out of the Eleu St. house as of May First. On June 5th I was at the house with a photographer taking photos for the MLS listing. While we were there a police officer and a plain clothed women came to the door asking if we knew the whereabouts of the former tenant. They said he was missing from work and had a medical condition. I knew nothing and told them such. The owner of the house had used a property management company and had no contact with Snowden. I gave them the name of the property management company, Kamehameha Property Management.

We had our first "open house" on June 9th. I believe this is the same day Snowden revealed his identity. When I got to the house around noon there were reporters there with their big news vans. More reporters arrived throughout the afternoon and the following days.

That's all I know. It does seem like some of the details in the Citizenfour documentary may have been mixed up with what I told the media on June 9th.

--Brian Dell (talk) 02:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

If the point of your foregoing original research is to caution editors that, as you put it, "Poitras' film is not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes," then we can be grateful it has not been cited as a direct source in our Edward Snowden article. Nor has her film been cited as a direct source in either the Laura Poitras or Citizenfour articles. It might be helpful if you were to copy and paste your cautionary comment onto those two Talk pages as well. JohnValeron (talk) 03:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
It's not original research if it's not being cited to support including something in Wikipedia that only comes from this and not other sources. I'll note that you appear to be correct that there were two houses, since this is dated April 15 and captioned "We got the keys to our new house yesterday". She then left to head back to Maryland about April 24 and returned to Hawaii about May 8. According to TPM, MIlls had blogged on March 29 that they were moving two blocks away. The "action", however, was at the other (old) house. According to Greenwald, "On Thursday, June 6, 2013, our fifth day in Hong Kong, I went to Edward Snowden's hotel room and he immediately said he had news that was 'a bit alarming.' An internet-connected security device at the home he shared with his longtime girlfriend in Hawaii had detected that two people from the NSA — a human-resources person and an NSA "police officer"— had come to their house searching for him." So some camera had been set up at the former house to record the visit that was noted by the real estate agent. That or Snowden was tipped off by some other form of surveillance of the place he'd moved out of more than a month before. Either way, he didn't get news of the visit from the media, because Snowden told Greenwald he knew about it while Snowden was still unknown. So "after she told him agents had turned up at their home in Hawaii" wasn't actually telling him anything he didn't already know, since he knew from his "internet-connected security device ". Something else that's interesting from Mills' blog, however, is that she blogged on Monday, May 13, that "E's family gets into town" on the "following" week, which was when Snowden is said to have left Hong Kong. If it wasn't really his "family", it was presumably people who escorted him to Hong Kong.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
By your latest account, Snowden & Mills got the keys to their new house on April 14. It's stated in our article that Snowden left Hawaii for Hong Kong on May 20. Therefore, he had 36 days in which to install a security device in his new house. Yet you insist, inexplicably, that he installed this device at his old house, which the couple had vacated by May 1. Here's the money quote from Greenwald's book: "An Internet-connected security device at the home he shared with his longtime girlfriend in Hawaii had detected that two people from the NSA—a human resources person and an NSA 'police officer'—had come to their house searching for him." Greenwald does not identify this as either Snowden's old house or his new one. Greenwald does not call it their "longtime home," he calls her Snowden's "longtime girlfriend." Please, what is your source for declaring the camera had been set up at the former house? Perhaps you are conflating Greenwald's account with that of the real estate agent whom you quoted above. The agent recounts being at Snowden's former residence on June 5 when "a police officer and a plain clothed women came to the door asking if we knew the whereabouts of the former tenant." Surely a visit by this pair of investigators to the old house does not preclude their visiting the new house as well, either before or after speaking to the agent, and being detected there by Snowden's monitoring device. JohnValeron (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
He wouldn't need a device at the new house because the gf is there. The two who went to the old house would not have asked the real estate agent where he'd gone if they knew where the second house was. It's unlikely Snowden volunteered his new address to Booz. All his stuff is at the new house, it it's anywhere that can be found. Does he want to make it easy for them to search the new place? As it is now, the only reason we know there is a second house is because Mills blogged about it. And then she took the blog down. The media interviewed neighbours and those interviews indicate that they are talking about the first house, so the media must have showed up at the first house. As the real estate agent indicated.--Brian Dell (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Lindsay Mills was not a shut-in. She was a healthy, active young woman who went out and about and would not have been on the premises 24/7. If Snowden installed a security device, he would've done so at their new home, where his longtime girlfriend and all their belongings resided. Moreover, the two investigators who went to the old house would naturally have asked the real estate agent for a lead on Snowden's whereabouts. That's how investigators work. They ask questions even when they already know the answers, because they are fishing for additional information. You are stubbornly making a mountain out of the mole on Snowden's neck. JohnValeron (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Brian. I noticed discrepancies, or more specifically, a gap in the timeline too. I spent several days trying to reassemble it back in July 2014. I had even requested that the article include a timeline while working on it in July 2013, see Where IS he?. There is indeed a gap from (early?) mid-May to 6 June 2013 regarding Snowden's whereabouts and that of his girlfriend. However, I could not find any acceptable, NPOV sources that could account for the approx. 20 day interval. The existence and motivation for the 2nd house is puzzling but a removed blog can't be cited by us. I believe that JohnValeron's recommended course of action is correct for the article. Unless there are new media or press releases from authorities, there is no justification for highlighting that time gap in the article, given our objectives here, i.e. we don't do research or investigative journalism of our own. I'm not trying to rebuke you, please know that, okay? --FeralOink (talk) 05:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald photograph removal

Mea culpa, I did it, and JohnValeron was (probably) correct to reverse it. My rationale was based on the vast glory accruing to Glenn Greenwald (GG). That isn't an appropriate motivation for a Wikipedia editor, I realize. How about this compromise? Let's have Laura Poitras's photo appear prior to GG's photo. Here's my two part rationale for that.

1. Snowden went to GG first, but GG couldn't be bothered. Excerpted from the article, emphasis mine,

Snowden first made contact with Glenn Greenwald, a journalist working at The Guardian, in late 2012.... Greenwald found the measures that the source asked him to take to secure their communications, such as encrypting email, too annoying to employ. Snowden then contacted documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras in January 2013.... Greenwald began working with Snowden in either February or April 2013, after Poitras asked Greenwald to meet her in New York City, at which point Snowden began providing documents to them.

2. Chronologically, the first productive contact was with Poitras. If she hadn't been willing to do what GG considered too annoying to do, everything that followed might not have been, or perhaps would have depended solely on Barton Gellman at WaPo.

What say y'all to that? --FeralOink (talk) 09:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to flip-flopping the Greenwald & Poitras photos—although your "rationale" for doing so is frivolous. Nor would I object to removing both photos. My sole objection in this instance is deleting one photo but not the other. Greenwald & Poitras are equally germane to the Snowden saga. JohnValeron (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Don't say my "rationale" is frivolous! That is ah... gratuitous. Let's flip-flop or remove both. The article is sooooo long but photos do break up the monolithic wall of text. --FeralOink (talk) 05:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Flip flop complete. --FeralOink (talk) 03:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

VOA reference removal

The recent reversion by Herzen as being propaganda seems quite unreasonable. The cited VOA item is not a US government statement but rather an opinion piece that discusses various officials using the terms defector, whistleblower, etc., as well as traitor. And the writer essentially concludes that Snowden probably isn't a traitor anyway. We use VOA as a source elsewhere in this piece anyway. I suggest it be reinstated, and maybe relocated to avoid cluttter in the lead. jxm (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

To focus this discussion, I replaced the article's only other citation to VOA with one to USA Today that clarifies the Olympic boycott suggestion. Accordingly, we can now deal with the disputed reference on its own merits and dispense with the argument that "We use VOA as a source elsewhere in this piece anyway."
I oppose reinstating the reference to the VOA article "Is NSA Leaker Edward Snowden a Traitor?" either in the lead or elsewhere because it is redundant and because Voice of America is, as its Wikipedia entry states, "the official external broadcast institution of the United States federal government," making it an inappropriate source anywhere in our Edward Snowden article. Why invite accusations of bias in our editing? If you have some worthwhile material to add to this already overlong article, I'm confident you can find at least one impeccably NPOV source. JohnValeron (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
@JohnValeron, Tnx fr yr edit. The article is certainly overlong, and I've no desire at all to lengthen it even more, so dropping refs simply because of redundancy seems fine to me. However, if we're concerned about citing government-funded propaganda, which was Herzen's reason for removal, then it seems to me that we should probably be carefully revisiting the ten or so refs to Russia Today and Voice of Russia as well, since the Russian govmnt is also an interested party, no? jxm (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Done All references to Russia Today and Voice of Russia have been removed. JohnValeron (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, if you are now aiming to be "fair and balanced" by removing RT references because a VoA reference was removed, all BBC references should be removed, too. The BBC produces "government-funded propaganda", just like RT and Voice of Russia do, and the UK government is most definitely an interested party, given that it is one of the Five Eyes and is spending millions of pounds for policemen to observe the Ecuadoran embassy so that Julian Assange will get arrested if he leaves it. – Herzen (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Herzen, I have no clue in what sense the UK's expenditure on policemen observing the Ecuadoran embassy makes Her Majesty Government "an interested party" in the case of Edward Snowden, but of course you're right that its membership in the Five Eyes does so. Accordingly, if you wish to replace any or all of our 13 references to the BBC with equally supportive citations to other WP:RS, that is your editorial prerogative. JohnValeron (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, but that's not worth the effort. I was just pointing out that we should avoid double standards. If we are going to avoid citing RT and Voice of Russia because they produce "government-funded propaganda" and Russia is "an interested party", we should avoid citing the BBC, too.
If you don't think that the UK's behavior towards Julian Assange is indicative of its interest in Edward Snowden, then perhaps you should recall that Glenn Greenwald's partner was detained for nine hours at Heathrow under the Terrorism Act, and that UK authorities smashed hard drives belonging to the Guardian which contained materials supplied by Snowden. – Herzen (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Assange has been holed up in Ecuador's London embassy since June 2012—a full year before the world first heard of Edward Snowden. Although WikiLeaks paid for Snowden's Hong Kong lodging and his airfare to Moscow—where Assange recommended that Snowden go for safe harbor—WikiLeaks played no part in publishing Snowden's disclosures. Assange's relationship to Snowden is and always has been tangential. The UK government is keeping tabs on Assange not because of anything he did regarding Snowden, but because Julian is wanted for questioning by legal authorities in Sweden. Your allusions to David Miranda's lawful detention and to The Guardian′s hard drives are as irrelevant to Assange as Snowden is to Julian's self-induced predicament. JohnValeron (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Incidentally, to reinforce the lack of connection between Assange and Snowden, the latter's name appears nowhere in Wikipedia's Julian Assange article. JohnValeron (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that we need to worry too much about BBC refs as propaganda, unless they're specifically BBC World Service and before April this year, when the Foreign Office support was dropped. However, I wonder is it worth restoring the links to VOA, RT, etc. in the form of a footnote or See Also item? That way, the information value of the link is retained somewhere, without these items actually being cited as reliable sources. It seems a pity to drop links to this contextual material altogether. jxm (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

jxm, I wonder if you actually bothered to look at each of my recent edits—and its corresponding edit summary—where I removed citations to Voice of America, Voice of Russia and Russia Today. I assure you, no meaningful information was sacrificed. I did not take a hatchet to this article; I applied a scalpel. Before you revert my edits or otherwise restore any of these discarded references, please discuss here at Talk each specific instance that you dispute. Thank you. JohnValeron (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Given the high tensions that have existed between the US and Russia since the change in government in Kiev in February, I think it's a good idea to avoid Russian sources for sensitive topics like Snowden if possible. This is not because these sources are less reliable than Western sources, but because there's a lot of hysteria nowadays about "Russian propaganda". So in that respect your getting rid of those references was probably a good move. – Herzen (talk) 00:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
@JohnValeron, Sorry if what I wrote was misleading; there was no intended suggestion of reverting any of those edits. The latest updates are all fine in my opinion; I don't have any disputes. I just thought that refs like these might be gathered together and tabulated separately somewhere, as a way of indicating Here's what the govmnt news outlets were saying at the time, but not as designated sources for citation. jxm (talk) 02:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

If Voice of America is not allowed, then we certainly should NOT have RT either. Russia Today makes it very clear that is state-funded media. Herzen claimed that VOA was "forbidden" in the USA until recently. No, it wasn't! VOA was broadcast on short wave radio, so Americans could listen to it while away from home. When I noticed the article's removal, I was about to pitch a fit, but then saw that RT ref's had been removed too. I have no issues with BBC articles, per jxm's clarification. Moscow Times is fine as well. --FeralOink (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The idea that VoA was allowed in America because Americans could listen to it on short wave radio is FRINGE. VoA was clearly forbidden to broadcast to Americans. See Smith–Mundt Act:
information produced by VOA for audiences outside the United States shall not be disseminated within the United States
Herzen (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
It is NOT fringe! I listened to Voice of America on short wave radio when I was a little girl. My parents would play VoA for us so we could hear English language radio when we were away, as well as back at home in New Mexico, whenever there was no TV reception. Fringe! Not! It wasn't that long ago, in the 1980's. --FeralOink (talk) 02:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The fringe comment was probably hitting below the belt, but the point still stands that US law used to consider VoA to produce propaganda meant for foreigners, so that VoA should not disseminate its information within the US. I think the quote I gave from the Smith-Mundt Act is pretty clear.
To stay on-topic as opposed to acting like this is a forum: do you honestly believe that VoA is in any sense a more reliable source than RT? (I'm leaving the BBC out of this, since it's ingrained in the anglophone psyche that the BBC is a serious news, as opposed to propaganda, organization. But I will mention that Moscow Times is a russophobic rag.) – Herzen (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thank you for acknowledging, regarding FRINGE. I have such positive associations of VoA on the radio. The WikiP article on the Smith–Mundt Act is really peculiar. It seems to be alleging that State Dept. was a seething hotbed of communists that couldn't be trusted with broadcasting within the U.S. nor overseas! I should probably try to rewrite it but I'm a statistician, not geopolitical history expert or even dilettante ;O) --FeralOink (talk) 04:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I do think VoA is more neutral than RT is, especially now. See What guarantees that content from the BBG is balanced and accurate?

BBG broadcasters are legally mandated to present accurate and objective news and information. The mission statements of our broadcasters reinforce the commitment to high-quality journalism and serving as a model of free press. All of the BBG broadcasters– Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty... are considered vital, objective news sources and are frequently cited by major media, including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Miami Herald, and CNN...

I agree that Moscow Times is neither Russian state media nor neutral reporting. I've checked the masthead and drilled down a little, and I sense a distinctly Russophobic agenda too. RT has some really flaky news items lately, e.g. Prescott Bush was a pro-Nazi advocate for IBM (not exactly a recent conspiracy theory). ITAR-TASS is a lot better than RT! In fact, ITAR-TASS is as close to a factual, well-sourced, NPOV Russian news source as any I can think of. I think we can call a truce at this point, yes?--FeralOink (talk) 04:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I have no quarrel with you. I could question the objectivity of the BBC, but this is not a forum. I am pleased that you appreciate the difference in quality between TASS and RT. I'm even more pleased that you used the term "Russophobic". The article on Russophobia has recently been renamed to "Anti-Russian sentiment", but I think your use of the term shows that "Russophobia" is indeed a part of mainstream English, so that the renaming of the Russophobia article was in itself a manifestation of Russophobia. – Herzen (talk) 04:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
@FeralOink: You have established that the Smith-Mundt article has problems. I may try to look into that at some point. I must admit that VoA, and shortwave radio in general, make me think of sixties spy movies. The only reason I have commented in this Talk section is that there is a tendency at English Wikipedia to think that Russian sources are less reliable than Western sources, whereas that's not actually the case. – Herzen (talk) 04:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Your source about forbidden VOA broadcasts is this, http://mountainrunner.us/2008/07/rethinking_smithmundt_a_look_b.html whatever THAT is, or was. At the moment, it is 404 not found. Prior to that? Not NPOV and probably FRINGE. --FeralOink (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I can't find my giving a link to mountainrunner.us on this Talk page. My source for forbidden VoA broadcasts is the US Code. – Herzen (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
You linked to Smith–Mundt Act. I went to that article, found your quoted passage,
"information produced by VOA for audiences outside the United States shall not be disseminated within the United States"
which cites http://mountainrunner.us/2008/07/rethinking_smithmundt_a_look_b.html as a source. That website is cited 4 times in the Smith-Mundt article. All links are 404 not found. In fact, most of the article is rather incorrect, based on Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG.gov) Facts About Smith-Mundt Modernization, see (emphasis mine):

Can the BBG now focus its broadcasting on the United States? No. There has been no change to the BBG’s enabling statute, the U.S. International Broadcasting Act of 1994, which authorizes the agency to create programs for foreign audiences. The BBG is not authorized to begin broadcasting or to create programming for audiences in the United States. We do not seek to change that. The BBG continues to focus on overseas audiences... It is true that some, but not all, of our broadcasters’ content has been and will continue to be accessible on the Internet, via shortwave radio (depending on signal quality and availability) or on TV outlets where the international footprint for our programs is accessible in this country...

--FeralOink (talk) 04:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Update: Keeping Edward Snowden free of references to government sources is a losing battle. The latest Infobox revision cites Iran's semi-official Fars News Agency, which also reported "Snowden Documents Proving 'US-Alien-Hitler' Link Stun Russia." JohnValeron (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It was an unfortunate post by FARS but if one reads carefully, the content isn't as absurd as the title. Here's what I mean. That article linked to this one,"PRISM Mining UFO Data, Targets False Flag ET Invasion as Pretext to Space Wars" (Jan 2014):

...Edward Snowden’s June 9, 2013, interview with the U.K. Guardian newspaper reveals how the self-described NSA surveillance program whistleblower harbors unconscious concerns about PRISM being used to mine online UFO and ET contact-related data as part of an ongoing attempt by the U.S. government to implement tyrannical space wars initiatives. According to an Examiner report, the Guardian describes PRISM as...

Note how FARS qualifies statements with, "self-described whistleblower" and "according to an Examiner report". As long as the extraterrestrial or other eyebrow-raising reporting isn't stated as fact, I know that I'm reading hearsay, even "look at what those nutty Americans and British are up to now". RT and sometimes HuffPo are rarely so careful. Ultimately, it is incumbent upon us, as editors, to be careful in what we cite, even for ostensibly NPOV sources. Herzen and I have had what I consider a rapprochement regarding VoA, so I will exit, satisfied, at this point. --FeralOink (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It is a hairy subject, but blanket on "state funded" news sources is imho not helpful nor really appropriate. Moreover when we look at state funded news outlets, we need to look at the exact structure of the funding and how that plays out in practice. In that context for instance VoA and BBC differ significantly, the BBC is federally funded but set up as a somewhat independent institution and is (or at least was) known for being rather critical of its own government (contrary to VoA or RT). Some state funded news outlets are set up as independent institution, which do not report to executive government and often have a culture of critical independence (for instance partially the BBC in the UK or public TV & radio(ARD/ZDF and others) in Germany, other state funded news outlets are simply a subdivision of the executive government and have as such zero independence. And you have oddballs like Al Jazeera, which is owned by Qatar/house Thani. In this Qatar uses Al Jazeera (Arabic) increasingly as a propaganda tool and influences its program and editorials decisions, while it oddly enough leaves Al Jazeera English, which has become well known for its excellent reporting, alone so far. So simplistic schemes as state funded being bad or government propaganda and privately owned being good and no propaganda don't really work. Ask yourself whether you'd consider the BBC or a Murdoch outlet as reliable (for instance in criticizing conservative governments like Cameron in the UK).

Having said all that of course of course we should avoid any news outlet being directly attached to conflict party, which rules VoA (other than representing an opinion of the US government). It also suggest to avoid of possible RT (as it employed Assange) and at least be a bit wary about BBC articles (Assange being in a (smaller) conflict with UK government as well, however the bbc being more independent than the other two outlets). In any case there is ample reporting on Assange, so there should be little need to resort to VoA (or RT).--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh gosh, what have I triggered?? All this discussion of citing - or possibly not citing - state-supported foreign broadcasting sources seems to suggest that we need some general policy statements on the topic. It appears futile to constantly argue about who happened to be paying for or subsidising a particular media outlet at a given point in time, as the primary indication of its RS status. jxm (talk) 06:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Neither the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy nor Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources guideline mentions government. However, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard archives contain 180 pages where government is discussed. Some of that is helpful—for example, one editor's distinction between government ownership and editorial control. "The British government owns and funds the BBC World Service 100%," he wrote in 2008, "but it doesn't exercise control."
Absent any specific policy or guideline as to the reliability of sources owned or controlled by government, I believe we must turn instead to WP:PROMOTION, where we find a clear statement of policy: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda," we are told. "Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind."
The keyword here is of course propaganda. Would we be justified in rejecting a reference solely because its source has a reputation as a propaganda vehicle? I think not. As the saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Our responsibility entails evaluating each reference individually. Is the source, in that particular case, propagandizing? Sometimes the answer will be obvious. More likely it'll be a judgment call, involving editorial discretion and ideally consensus reached through debate.
I wish jxm were right—that we could invoke "some general policy statements" and skip the harder work of deciding this issue case by thorny case. Alas, that does not seem feasible. JohnValeron (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
It is precisely that "judgement call" that triggers these discussions.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


Do you have

Comment violates Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject."
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

pity for a defector? Do you identify with dishonored persons, Putin's despicable puppies. Abhorrent.If you lack dignity turn to European history, your predecessors, not commie Russia. And yes they are commies not because they believe in equality and justice, on contrary, they are commies because they spoil everything. Ask people who lived under communism how spoiled their whole lives were. You wanna try this? You think you missed out something. Suffering, crying? Gulag. --Aleksd (talk) 06:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Leaked To Reporters In First Paragraph Of Blurb

I think the first paragraph should read:

"Edward Joseph "Ed" Snowden (born June 21, 1983) is an American computer professional who leaked classified information from the National Security Agency (NSA) to reporters, starting in June 2013."

Otherwise, when you read the paragraph you begin thinking "who did he leak it to? Terrorists? Wikileaks? Some enemy state?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.146.106 (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, things that start in "from" should end in "to". I went with mainstream media, just to avoid the question of what the reporters did with it. Plenty would bury it. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Captions fix

Captions!

I just paid amara.org to create some captions for this. Anyone want to help me change the periods, and commas so that it plays fine and fix the typos? When That;s done, i want to get the captions translated Victor Grigas (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Transcription error

The is a small, but important, error in the transcription of an interview Mr. Snowden gave to ARD in January 2014. The transcription and, consequently, Wikipedia's article read "They don't allow me to defend myself in an open court to the public and convince a jury that what I did was to my benefit." However, it should read "They don't allow me to defend myself in an open court to the public and convince a jury that what I did was to their benefit.". It is difficult to verify this transcription error because that was an exclusive interview. The video is, therefore, available only in Germany and is subject to geoblocking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.172.216.222 (talk) 08:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Done Corrected per English-language video as cited in article. Thank you for pointing this out. JohnValeron (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

7.6.1 Tech Neglects to Cite Relevant Piece of Article

The article cited for this section: "In August 2014, Massachusetts-based big data firm Recorded Future announced it had found a direct connection between Snowden's leaks and dramatic changes in how operatives of al-Qaeda and associated groups interacted online. Just months after the leaks, said Recorded Future, the terrorists completely overhauled their 7-year-old encryption methods, which included "homebrewed" algorithms, adopting instead more sophisticated open-source software and newly available downloads that enabled encryption on cellphones, Android products, and Macs, to help disguise their communications.480" specifically was amended to point out that In-Q-Tel is an investor in the firm that conducted this study. In-Q-Tel is owned by the US Central Intelligence Agency. Seeing as the article cited specifically was amended to point this out, implying the publisher saw it as relevant, this should also be noted in the text in this section. 104.192.216.150 (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Done Corrected to note investment in Recorded Future by CIA partner In-Q-Tel. Thank you for pointing this out. JohnValeron (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I object to Edward Snowden being described as a computer professional.

I object so Edward Snowden being described as a computer professional. Professionals don't break the law, or commit treason, unless their profession is obviously one which intends on breaking the law, such as Thieving Professional, or Kidnapping Professional. To lump a lawbreaker into a group of normal law-abiding individuals is to demean them all. Would you describe as a Medical Professional one who goes around putting patients to death on their whim? Edward Snowden should at best be described as one who worked in the computer field. LouieInSeattle (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

False. Professionals can break the law/commit treason. Had you actually look at the definition for "professional", you would find that the word "professional" means a person who is competent or skilled at an activity or profession; Snowden would likely have been an expert at computers, so he would qualify as a "professional". Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 23:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Sure they do - see Lance Armstrong, a professional bike rider. Or Jayson Blair, a former professional journalist. --NeilN talk to me 23:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Unlawful?

The debate is still out as to if he did something unlawful. What the government was doing, isn't that considered to be unlawful as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Vado (talk • contribs) 00:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The debate might be out there, but if you trouble to read the article you will find it's not part of it. Thank you anyway for your single contribution so far to Wikipedia. c1cada (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

CIA's Ex-No. 2 Says ISIS ‘Learned From Snowden’

This page doesn't exist according to google. The FISA court had to be restrained after we learned ( via Federal Courts) that they had wandered from the law. Right now on TV an idiot from NC is arguing " aw what's the problem". If Snowden hadn't blown the whistle on this criminals(FISA court) we would be well on the way to a dictator - maybe he only slowed it down.
Question- NSA uses a list of words ( bomb, Al*****,etc) to search all messages for - so they say. This same idiot says they only collect time, duration, and location of calls. Then what good is the word list. It appears he is lying or doesn't know what he is talking about. By the way after they search the content, what do they do with the content. Maybe they erase it, but logically they collected the content at least for a moment. 73.149.116.253 (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
IP 73.149.116.253, the link in ArchReader's comment seems to have been improperly formatted. Please try this: CIA's Ex-No. 2 Says ISIS 'Learned From Snowden'. Kent Krupa (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Size of lead

Sparked by Dr. Fleischman's 23:57, 4 June 2015‎ edit summary: "lead too long - too much detail," there is now renewed interest in reducing the size of our intro. Before making additional changes, I recommend that we await editorial consensus on my recent edits, which cut the lead from 555 words to 349 words—a 37% reduction. Kent Krupa (talk) 04:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Your removal of one paragraph - a paragraph which is the result of much debate and consensus (see earliest talk page archives) - is not the way to reduce words, if indeed the community agrees that should be a goal. I doubt DrFleischman would support this either. Ideally one would reduce by more tightly summarizing all of the content. Perception of Snowden and the resulting effects of his actions was fodder for probably 90% of the reporting. It must be mentioned in the Lede per WP:LEDE given that it is extensively covered in the article. petrarchan47คุก 04:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Petrarchan47, thanks for your comment. Of course your contributions to this article have been nonpareil. However, please let Dr. Fleischman speak for himself. He has not yet had a chance to review my edits. I appreciate your patience. Kent Krupa (talk) 04:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Agree with petrarchan47. We don't chop for chopping's sake. The impact of his actions and how they were perceived is a major part of his notability. --NeilN talk to me 04:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
[edit conflict] I'm in no way stopping him from responding, however the community consists of multiple editors. The LEDE does not violate WP:LEADLENGTH, so I am unsure what justification there is for the recent hack job/edit war. petrarchan47คุก 05:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Or why the deletion can't be proposed here and gain consensus first before being done. --NeilN talk to me 05:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Paragraphs 1 + 2 now seem about right. Paragraphs 3 and 4 should be reduced to about 1 or 2 sentences, with the details being transferred to the body of the article (though they're probably all already there, but that just needs checking). The sentence(s) left in the lead should read something like:

  • 'A former analyst at the CIA [citation] and trainer at the DIA [citation] and subsequent contractor at NSA [citation], after arranging to leak the information, he fled to Hong Kong,[citation] and then to Moscow, Russia,[citation] in Month, Year, from where he has been seeking political asylum in the EU [citation], after United States federal prosecutors filed a criminal complaint against him in June 2013, charging him with theft of government property, and two counts of violating the Espionage Act through unauthorized communication of national defense information and "willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person."[22][263] Each of the three charges carries a maximum possible prison term of ten years.[23]

Tlhslobus (talk) 06:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I may make those changes myself, perhaps tomorrow (to give time to hear objections, if any), though I may get lazy or lose interest and not bother, so if anybody wants to go ahead and make those changes themselves, please go ahead and do so. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Tlhslobus, I object. This is a highly contentious issue that deserves full discussion. Please wait more than 24 hours to give other editors a chance to weigh in. Also, you propose that "after arranging to leak the information, he fled to Hong Kong." That is false. First, he did not finalize arrangements to leak until after he left Hawaii. Second, it's misleading to say he "fled" to Hong Kong, since on May 20 he was not a fugitive and was not being pursued. It's also misleading to state, as you propose, that from Moscow "he has been seeking political asylum in the EU." That's true as far as it goes, but since arriving in Moscow he has sought asylum in countries worldwide, not just EU. Kent Krupa (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I firmly object to drastic lead changes without full approval from interested editors. Period. Gandydancer (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Tlhslobus, please read WP:LEDE if you haven't seen it yet. I'm thinking your comment, "Paragraphs 3 and 4 should be reduced to about 1 or 2 sentences", is not based on any guideline I'm aware of. With many editors each having a personal view, we have to rely on the guidelines whenever possible. petrarchan47คุก 19:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I am offended that my {{lead too long}} tag has been used as an excuse to re-write the lead in a grossly non-neutral way. I agree with Petrarchan and Kent Krupa and strongly object to the changes of the last 24 hours, particularly the new second paragraph describing what Snowden has been called and the consequences of the disclosures. This is not productive and is contrary to hard-fought consensus that was built over the last 2 years. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, I am somewhat confused by your post. The two editors you named are at odds at the beginning of this section and the content of the second paragraph has long existed in the lead. --NeilN talk to me 19:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Kent Krupa to the extent that he seeks the removal of the non-neutral content that Tlhslobus added. Unless I'm mistaken, this content wasn't previously in the lead. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
You prefer the lead in this version over the current one? --NeilN talk to me 20:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes. And now that I look more closely at the history, I can see that after I added the tag and before Tlhslobus got involved, Kent cut quite a bit of content from the lead. Some of these cuts were excessive in my view, particularly the hero/whistleblower sentence. I might have a few more quibbles--e.g. Greenwald and Poitras should probably stay in the lead as they were central to Snowden's story--but overall I don't have the strong reaction to Kent's changes that I have to Tlhslobus's. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of my tag was merely to point out that there were (and still are) too many unnecessary details in what were the third and fourth paragraphs. There is no need for us to include in the lead the specific dates Snowden did this, Snowden did that when it was all in June 2013. The fact that Snowden made his identity public 4 days after the first press stories, who cares now. The fact that he feels very secure in Russia, who cares. The fact that he faces 30 years in prison, probably overkill. Even the stuff about being stuck in the Moscow airport is excessive. The big picture is that he's stuck in Russia without a passport on a 3 year residency period and has sought asylum elsewhere. It's also sufficiently notable that he's made a number of online appearances with the West since June 2013. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Any support to change the lead back to this version and then discussing potential changes here first before making them? --NeilN talk to me 20:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Kent Krupa, as I wrote, I didn't consider your edits radical. Please reconsider your recusal, as while I disagree with aspects of your changes I think your input is valuable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, NeilN. Kent Krupa, I think this was just a misunderstanding of the guidelines, which is not a big deal, not a reason to recuse yourself, it's just a learning process. petrarchan47คุก 03:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed text to trim the lead

In recognition of consensus to shorten the lead, this section is meant to accommodate proposed text to accomplish that purpose, and comments thereon by editors.

Done. Edit reduced lead by 17%—from 555 to 462 words.

I'll prime the pump with a markup of the lead's final three sentences:
Snowden lives in an undisclosed location in Russia and reportedly feels very secure in Moscow.[29] He is nevertheless seeking asylum in the European Union,.[30] although member state Germany—which rejected his application in July 2013—announced in November 2014 that Snowden had not renewed his request and was not being considered for German asylum.[31] Speaking from Moscow by video link to a Swiss audience on March 5, 2015, Snowden publicly appealed for Switzerland to grant him asylum, saying he wants to return to live in Geneva, where he once worked undercover for the CIA. However, by law, an applicant must be on Swiss territory to lodge an asylum request.[32]

I invite discussion. Kent Krupa (talk) 05:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Not one soul has objected to the removal of the above and I went ahead and removed it. (Though still open to discussion, I'm fairly satisfied with the lead as it now stands.) Gandydancer (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. Edit reduced lead to 448 words—81% of original total.

In accordance with consensus, first sentence in the lead's second paragraph was revised as shown in the following markup. Please note that "U.S. National Security Agency (NSA)" already appears in the immediately preceding sentence and does not require repetition in full.
A former system administrator for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and a counterintelligence trainer at the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), he later worked for Dell assigned as a contractor to U.S. National Security Agency facilities in the United States and inside an NSAoutpost in Japan.

I invite discussion. Kent Krupa (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Pending

I propose that sentences 5, 6 and 7 in the lead's second paragraph be revised as shown in the following markup:

A subject of controversy, Snowden has been variously called a hero,[8][9][10] a whistleblower,[11][12][13][14] a dissident,[15] a patriot,[16][17][18] and a traitor.[19][20][21][22] Hhis disclosures have fueled debates over mass surveillance, government secrecy, and the balance between national security and information privacy. Two court rulings since the initial leaks have split on the constitutionality of the NSA's bulk collection of telephone metadata.[23]

I invite discussion. Kent Krupa (talk) 01:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I would not support anything about this revision. The "variously called" bit is the distillation of a vast amount of information contained in the body, and represents the topic of most of the news coverage for the first 6-9 months that we knew of him. The sentence came about through intense debate and consensus, and was then written and inserted by an admin; no one has touched it since. The court rulings are also pivotal to this story, and being only one sentence, its removal wouldn't help much anyway. The court cases are also well covered in the body, so per WP:LEDE, should be mentioned in the intro. Perhaps one good way forward would be to really read through the entire article. The intro should reflect what we are offering the reader. You'll have a much better idea for what are minor details, and what parts of the intro are good summaries of article content. petrarchan47คุก 04:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Agree completely with Petrarchan47. This is too much. Jusdafax 04:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I can't imagine why anyone would think that the two court rulings are not important enough for the lead. As for the "has been called..." sentence, this goes right to the heart of the matter and is perhaps the best way to say so in as short a manner as possible for brevity, as is needed in a lead. Gandydancer (talk) 09:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Petra, Jusdafax, and Gandy. How Snowden is viewed (hero/traitor/etc.) is an enduring subject of press coverage and debate. The court decisions aren't quite as notable but probably still belong. They need to be updated to reflect that Judge Pauley's ruling in ACLU v. Clapper was reversed by the Second Circuit, so Snowden is currently "winning" 2-0. (As the number of cases grows, it may become difficult to succinctly summarize them in the lead, at which point I might support removing them. But we're not there yet.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Support Deleting Entire Paragraph 3 and Paragraph 4 As per MOS:INTRO "Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, since greater detail is saved for the body of the article." I question whether we need details of Snowden's travel itinerary covering a 60-day period two years ago. This is more appropriate in the body. LavaBaron (talk) 09:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I would move Paragraphs 3 and 4 to the article body and replace them in the lede with this summary: "On May 20, 2013, Snowden flew to Hong Kong, where he revealed numerous classified NSA documents to journalists Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras. After publication of some of the documents, Snowden made his identity public on June 9 and was subsequently charged with violating the U.S. Espionage Act and theft of government property. On June 23, Snowden flew to Moscow's [[Sheremetyevo International Airport[]] where he was stranded in the airport transit zone for 39 days until Russian authorities granted him one-year asylum, followed, year later, by a three-year residency permit. Snowden lives in an undisclosed location in Russia and is seeking asylum in the European Union." (citations omitted) --agr (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I reiterate my opposition to including travel itineraries in the lede. I would, however, be fine in keeping the last sentence of your proposed alternative as a new third paragraph. LavaBaron (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The only travel destination in the first sentence that I proposed is Hong Kong and it's significance is that he left US jurisdiction to meet with the reporters and transmit the documents, so it's not over-specific detail. The second sentence has no travel info whatsoever and tells readers he was charged with a crime, a fact that certainly belongs in the lede.--agr (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with agr and support his proposed version. I oppose the wholesale removal of Snowden's travels, as they are essential to telling even a short version of what happened. I support agr's proposed version. Perhaps there could be a few more minor tweaks/cuts beyond that but I think it's definitely an improvement. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I would support the substitution proposed by agr but only with the following modifications to his second sentence:
"After publication of some of the documents, Snowden made his identity public. on June 9 and He was subsequently charged with violating the U.S. Espionage Act and theft of government property, and on June 22 the U.S. Department of State revoked his passport."
The timing of his passport revocation is an indispensable element of the Snowden saga, and belongs in the lead. Kent Krupa (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Sentence 1) As a reader, "some" really bothers me. A question immediately starts to grind away in the back of my mind" "how many?" If we can give an idea of the percentage, roughly, of docs that were published before Snowden came out, that would be good. Sentence 2) We might actually add a couple of words to tell readers that per the US, Snowden was allowed to travel, but only if it was back to the US to face charges. Without this, we are telling readers that this was an attempt to revoke all travel, and insinuating that the US wanted him to stay wherever he was. petrarchan47คุก 22:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Good points, but I'm not too concerned about either one. They seem a bit too technical to be incorporated in the lead. What I don't like is the reference to "publication of some of the documents." Yes, the Verizon court order was published during that short period, and perhaps a few others, but the significant thing wasn't he publication of documents, it was the publication of news stories about programs such as PRISM. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
"Some" is awkward and so very encyclopedic. Even "several of the hundreds yet to be released" - something to give an idea of scale. The word "some" just doesn't work and leaves me with questions rather than answers. The "Snowden was only allowed to travel back to the US to face charges" was big, big news and seems an important detail, and doesn't take much space, but is not a sticking point for me. petrarchan47คุก 23:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Petrarchan47, The Snowden Digital Surveillance Archive, launched on March 4, 2015, is a free, searchable online repository designed and built at the University of Toronto in partnership with the nonprofit NGO Canadian Journalists for Free Expression. A search shows four articles appeared from June 6–June 8, 2013 containing files leaked by Snowden. The Guardian and The Washington Post posted two stories apiece.

Obviously, what created the worldwide furor was not the number of leaked files published in those first days, but their explosive content. Kent Krupa (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Can you elude to that? "Several" would cover the number well, but that they were some of the most newsworthy, etc. would be nice to add for context. petrarchan47คุก 23:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I like "several." I would say "After the press revealed details about several secret mass surveillance programs, ..." (It's weird that somehow the word "surveillance" has been dropped from the lead section.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Dr. Fleischman, that is simply false. As Wikipedia explains, PRISM "is operated under the supervision of the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court, or FISC)." The first leaked document published was a FISC order to Verizon within the aegis of PRISM. The other leaked files posted from June 6–June 8, 2013 were NSA PowerPoint slides solely pertaining to PRISM. The press did not, as you would have it, reveal details "about several secret mass surveillance programs." It was a single such program: PRISM. Kent Krupa (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Very strange that surveillance has been edited out of the Lede, as Dr F notes. He may have simply misspoken, meaning instead "After the press revealed the contents of several (top?) secret documents (about the mass surveillance)..." Is this getting closer? petrarchan47คุก 02:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, it might indeed be very strange that surveillance has been edited out of the lead—if it were true. The second paragraph contains these two sentences (emphasis added): "Snowden's leaked documents revealed numerous global surveillance programs, many of them run by the NSA and the Five Eyes with the cooperation of telecommunication companies and European governments. … His disclosures have fueled debates over mass surveillance, government secrecy, and the balance between national security and information privacy." Is there a quota dictating how many times we must mention surveillance in the lead? Kent Krupa (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Phew. Glad someone's paying attention :) I made some cuts to the fourth paragraph. Feel free to revert me, I won't mind. petrarchan47คุก 02:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Kent, I think we're not understanding each other. Are you saying PRISM was the only program that was revealed before Snowden revealed his identity? That's not correct. The telephone metadata program was also revealed before that. My point though is the one Petrarchan articulated better, that the significant events before Snowden disclosed his identity were the news stories about the programs, not the published documents themselves. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, I apologize. The FISC order to Verizon was unrelated to PRISM. So we can accurately state that the leaks published prior to Snowden disclosing his identity involved two programs: (1) the NSA’s collection of domestic email and telephone metadata from Verizon; and (2) PRISM. I hope we can agree, though, that these two programs do not constitute "several." Kent Krupa (talk) 05:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Agree. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for clarification as to lead length and NPOV

At 20:21 on 5 June 2015, Dr. Fleischman restored a Lead Too Long tag and added a POV-lead template to this article. Considering the lead's radioactive nature, I request that Dr. Fleischman specify all instances that ought to be trimmed or deleted to reduce length, and identify all violations of neutrality within this article's introduction. Once he has done so, we can await editorial consensus supporting or opposing each point, and then best decide how to proceed. If no consensus materializes, I propose removing both templates. As it stands, this prominent caveat in Wikipedia's voice represents the unsupported opinion of a single editor, and is therefore misleading. Kent Krupa (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Update: Forty-three minutes after I posted my request for clarification, Petrarchan47 removed the two tags in question. So apparently my request is now moot. Kent Krupa (talk) 19:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Unless there is justification for and consensus on the need for tagging, they should remain absent. There is open discussion on this talk page, where no arguments for the tags have yet been provided. petrarchan47คุก 20:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I provided some details about what I think should be cut from the lead, and why, right here, before this discussion thread was started. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Guess I spoke too soon about my request being moot. Eight hours to the minute after Petrarchan47 removed the Lead Too Long tag, Dr. Fleischman restored it. This is what I admire about Wikipedia. Teamwork. Kent Krupa (talk) 03:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Anyhow, I'd like to reformulate my request. Dr. Fleischman points to this comment as to what should be cut from the lead. Mostly his rationale consists of Who cares?

The fact that Snowden made his identity public 4 days after the first press stories…
Who cares?
The fact that he feels very secure in Russia…
Who cares?
The fact that he faces 30 years in prison…
Probably overkill.
Oh, and as for including the specific dates Snowden did this, Snowden did that…
There is no need. It was all in June 2013.

Given this carefree approach, I think it's better to pose a larger question: Do any editors besides Dr. Fleischman think the lead is too long?

Forget about what in particular ought to be cut. Let's find out first whether there's a consensus on the fundamental issue of cutting the lead at all.

I suspect there is not. Kent Krupa (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

What do you think? Do you agree with my suggestions? Why or why not? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Dr. Fleischman, I think it's all talk. Editors lack the will to cut this lead in any meaningful way. Kent Krupa (talk) 05:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean. I have the will to cut the lead if we can achieve consensus to do so. This is an opportunity for you to weigh in. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Dr. Fleischman, OK, then let me rephrase. Editors lack the will to achieve consensus to cut this lead in any meaningful way. It's not going to happen. Kent Krupa (talk) 05:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
So far there's a consensus of 2. You are welcome to join in. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I think almost all the fourth paragraph could be cut. --NeilN talk to me 05:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
While I don't think that the lead is too long compared to other similar articles, I agree that it would be improved with a few cuts, mostly or perhaps all in the fourth para. I've worked on several similar articles and it's quite the norm to need to go through the article and cut back on some of the more particular facts, for instance the "who cares" stuff that Dr.F speaks of, as time goes on. Would it help to present a proposal for a 4th para replacement that we could all take a look at? Gandydancer (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Gandydancer, thanks for your constructive response. Yes, I think it would help greatly if you would propose a revised fourth paragraph. Kent Krupa (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Kent, but that's not going to happen! :) Both Petra and Dr.F have a much better grasp of this article than I do and could do a much better job on a proposal. Also, it might well be that the lead could need some additions as well. I have been keeping the West Africa Ebola article under my wing since the epidemic began and have spent endless hours to keep it up to date, needing to go through the entire article every few weeks with a large amount of editing and I know its a big job and best left to someone that is very familiar with the topic. For Ebola, I know it up and down and back and forth and every which way there is and consider myself an expert, but here, not so much. :D Gandydancer (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I see no urgency in the Lede-cutting operation, but those who do are free to present a proposal. petrarchan47คุก 03:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Petrarchan47, you are right. It is not urgent. However, it is embarrassing. The first thing visitors see is a page-width banner proclaiming our inability to get the first four paragraphs right. What are readers to infer about the rest of the article? Edward Snowden is a mature BLP, created two years ago. It has undergone 7,685 revisions by a combined 1,295 editors. You yourself made 1,330 edits—17.31% of the total. In particular, the lead has remained essentially unchanged for months. For us now to be suddenly debating its length—and its content hard won by consensus—is an admission of negligence if not incompetence. It deserves to be expeditiously addressed. Kent Krupa (talk) 04:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
DrFleischman, seeing that we have agreed on a process to trim the Lede (via proposal submissions), I wonder if you would be willing to remove the tag; its purpose to alert fellow editors has been served, and Kent makes good points. petrarchan47คุก 04:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd actually prefer to keep the tag until the issue is resolved. If editors come along having been alerted by the tag, that would be a good thing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Lede is not too long

The Lede simply is not too long as per WP:LEADLENGTH; it isn't too long considering the article content and complexity of the story to follow. It isn't arranged very well, and doesn't read well, the facts are plunked together somewhat randomly and it isn't fun to read. However, it cannot be said that it is too long or that it suffers from a problematic amount of superficial info. I know this article and the Snowden story fairly well, and can't really find an obviously excessive tidbit. petrarchan47คุก 23:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, when we began this round of edits, the lead length was 555 words. It is now 427 words, meaning we've reduced it by 23%. I wonder if that satisfies Dr. Fleischman. He seems not to have objected when you removed the Lead Too Long template, but if he's expressly acknowledged this is now an acceptable length, I missed it. Kent Krupa (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
My concerns were never based on WP:LEADLENGTH, they were really about excessive detail not sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion in the lede (MOS:INTRO and to a lesser extent, WP:BALASPS). By removing the clutter we also have the opportunity to add missing details that are more noteworthy (probably a subject for a separate discussion). We are definitely on the right track, in my view. I think we still have too much detail about Snowden's movements and the Russian residency permit. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Dr. Fleischman, wonderful. You inserted a Lead Too Long template and insisted it remain, over the protests of several editors, even though your concerns "were never based on WP:LEADLENGTH." Thanks for nothing. Kent Krupa (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Wow, that's really bitter and unforgiving. I meant the tag in good faith to reduce unnecessary detail from the lead, and the tag did result in the reduction of unnecessary detail from the lead. I measure it as a huge success. Criticize me for using a tag that invokes a different guideline, but "thanks for nothing?" That's going way too far. In good faith, you might want to consider chilling out a bit. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
IMO Kent reacted as anyone would to being deceived, but in this case I think he speaks for the wider group of editors, who evaluated the Lede in good faith, looking at the length, when in all honesty you simply had an issue with a few details. Those details should have been discussed one by one on the talk. There was no need for a tag, and even after you were told that it upset people, you choose to remained uncooperative and allowed us to continue trying to cut the Lede's length. Although the work has been good for the article, the ends don't justify the means in this case. Rather than all this drama, there should have been a section posted here entitled "Too many details in the Russia travel portion of Lede". Using the wrong tag and leaving it uncorrected on such a high profile page is obstructive, non-collegial and not appreciated. petrarchan47คุก 19:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
None of that was intended, and I think I was pretty upfront from the start--both in the edit summary when I added the tag, and in my very first comment on the subject, less than 24 hours later. My choice of tag was in no way meant to deceive; I simply chose that template that came closest to describing my good faith concerns, concerns that ended up being shared by the consensus. I'm sorry that the tag didn't fit my concerns perfectly, and that as a result some people are bothered by that. In hindsight I could have added a {{POV-lead}} tag instead, and that would have been technically more accurate even though, in my view, it would have been unnecessarily inflammatory and less likely to lead to a positive result. Let's renew our commitment to AGF, keeping things positive, and improving the lead and the rest of the article. If anyone wishes to discuss my tagging conduct further, let's do it on my user talk. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
You misrepresented yourself then, by letting the conversation focus on length. We were actually word-counting and you said nothing. You claimed that "surveillance" wasn't mentioned in the Lede, when it is mentioned twice, proving you have not actually read the Lede very carefully, and if that's the case, I'm confused by your sudden interest in this article. This is so unbecoming. Following me around is not a good idea, not with the history we have, as WP:HOUNDING is not hard to prove. If you want editors to have good faith, your actions need to lead the way. petrarchan47คุก 23:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
At first glance, here again, Petrarchan47 is making tremendous sense. I see enough to be troubled. Jusdafax 23:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
O...K... Boo! It's the government coming to get you again, Petra! It's hard to take you seriously with those sorts of comments. Again, let's try to keep things positive. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Paragraph break between first and second ' graph in the lede

I have merged the former first two sentences of the second paragraph into bottom of the first paragraph, to give the lede better flow. No content is changed. I don't anticipate this change to be controversial or even debated, as this change now starts the second paragraph in a much stronger way. Still, as a courtesy, I invite comment especially if someone disagrees. Jusdafax 05:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Your work is always welcome - and you read my mind, thanks. petrarchan47คุก 07:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Substantial reordering, no content changes

Thank you, Petrarchan 47, for your encouragement. On further review, I have reordered the lede to eliminate a disjointed feel it had. I think the chronological flow is improved, and the concluding paragraph now propels the reader into the article proper. This reordering is substantial, but an improvement, and I again invite comment. Jusdafax 09:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Nice job by all. I have linked a couple of things that may seem to be over-linking to some but make sense for older people with little to no knowledge of modern communications (like me). Even still, feel free to remove links if overdone. Gandydancer (talk) 13:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
It looks great - I agree with Gandy. petrarchan47คุก 04:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. But now suddenly it's five paragraphs long with material about Putin in there. I don't like the new additions, at first glance. I think we may have to delete and discuss, but seek other thoughts first. One thing I know, we are a paragraph longer than suggested length. Jusdafax 05:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, the Putin addition is likely not going to go without a fight. petrarchan47คุก 05:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Update needed

This section done by a right wing think tank needs an update:

In March 2015, The Times reported that Snowden's intelligence leaks have devastated Britain's ability to fight terrorism and organised crime according to the first public analysis of their impact. The report, by the Henry Jackson Society think-tank, will be published April 2015.[97]

The report is here: [1] I'll do it if nobody else does, but others could likely do a better job of it... Gandydancer (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, that's no good. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

What needs to be updated is the picture created by this article of someone who just leaked to the media domestic surveillance practices. As noted by the June 4 VICE story, the US government clearly believes that the majority of the files he took were military related. And now this weekend we've got the Sunday Times report that the British government believes their foreign operatives have been compromised or could be comprised by Moscow and Beijing having access to Snowden's material, access British officials believe these countries now have.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Then add it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I've updated the reference to the Henry Jackson Society report to include a link to the report (or rather a link to an HJS web page discussing the report that includes a link). The Sunday Times piece is linked twice in the article presently. c1cada (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Collection of information

We seem to have a rather large hole in our coverage, namely, how and when Snowden collected all of the info that he eventually passed to Greenwald, Poitras, and others. Of course we don't know all the details, but I know there's been some coverage on this subject--the number of documents, how he collected them, how he gained access, when he started, etc. etc. At this point I'm nowhere near as familiar with the subject matter as Petrarchan47 is; perhaps she can work on this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, DrF, this isn't an aspect of the story with which I have much familiarity (or interest). petrarchan47คุก 19:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Russia contact in lead section - undue?

The sentence about Snowden having contact with Russian diplomats in Hong Kong is non-neutral and a BLP violation. Putin is not a reliable source, and its awkward inclusion in the lead section implies some sort of broader connection with Russia without reliable sourcing. From the beginning there have been rumors, spread mostly by defense hawks, that Snowden is a Russian spy. But including that is pure unsourced conjecture and is plainly contrary to our policies. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to remove it. petrarchan47คุก 04:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Now that you have removed this bit, and have made no mention of further POV violations, and since the Lede is not too long per WP:LEADLENGTH, I am removing the tags. Obviously if I am mistaken, revert me and let us know specifically what prompted the tag. petrarchan47คุก 19:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

It is an undisputed fact that Putin said his officials met with Snowden in Hong Kong. You advanced your reliability argument in the past and there was no consensus in favour of your view, DrF--Brian Dell (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

No one is disputing the fact. We're saying it's not important enough for the lead. --NeilN talk to me 04:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
That's not Doc's argument. According to Doc, "Putin is not a reliable source." If you want to contend "not important," it's "I'm saying..." not "we're saying..." Doc has been too obsessed with trying to attack the claim that Snowden met with Russian officials before flying to Russia and getting "stranded" there to consider the claim trivial.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm saying both. And I've never been obsessed with anything except a desire to improve the article, and I don't appreciate those sorts of accusations. The Putin sentence stuck out like a sore thumb in the lead, both in neutrality and verifiability. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
So your position is, "Snowden never met with the Russians before he flew to Russia, but if he did, it's a trivial fact"? You weren't tacking on the latter part when you were alleging, falsely, that this material was "unsourced." The fact is that this is clearly sourced and was reported by Kommersant before Putin confirmed it (subsequently we could also read in the Wall St Journal that Snowden had been observed on CCTV cameras entering the Hong Kong tower where the Russian consulate is located). You proposed a change to a long lasting consensus for inclusion when you kicked off this thread, and I don't see support for exclusion on the particular grounds you present. In the mean time, the extended discussion that took place on this matter months ago remains.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there was ever any discussion about whether including the Putin statement in the lead was undue, just about the reliability of the statement. And I don't think there was consensus. Regardless, WP:consensus can change, and now you've reverted twice against the current consensus. That's disruption, and if you keep it up I'll seek administrative assistance. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

There was consensus, against you (losing the argument you up and declared you were walking away saying "too many nutcases patrolling this page. Have fun", a remark that says a lot about your level of respect for editors who don't agree with you), and further proof of this is how many months went by with no one objecting to inclusion until you came along this month to throw over that long standing consensus. That's disruption, all right, and I encourage you to invite an admin to look at what's going on here and especially at what your "nutcases" claim says about your attitude towards a consensus you don't like.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
unrelated

As for "rumours... spread by defense hawks" you've got a lot of chutzpah, Doc, using this month's Vice story to add the "talking points" spin in this article about Defence material that runs entirely opposite to the direction a fair minded person would say that Vice story went, which is to BACK UP (at least with respect to the US govt position) the line that Snowden took hundreds of thousands of DoD documents. I note that we read "...Moscow gained access to more than one million classified files" in the Sunday Times. For Moscow to gain access to more than a million Snowden would have had to taken more than a million, no? But you still want Wikipedia going out of its way to try and discredit as a "talking point" the notion Snowden took anything like that many? Before telling me the Sunday Times story is unreliable, I note that "a senior government source has told the BBC" the same general thing.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your point, but it doesn't sound very AGF-y to me. I have no agenda here except to improve the article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
You misrepresented the source by cherry picking "talking point" as the tag you had Wikipedia apply to the number of military documents when in fact the source further confirmed that hundreds of thousands of DoD documents is the position of the US government. If you "have no agenda" you wouldn't be trying to spin as a dubious public relations effort a number that the vast majority of RS report as accepted fact.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

"Without a passport, he was unable to travel further"

This is not true. If it were, why was he able to leave Hong Kong more than 20 hours after the passport was revoked? I'll add that James C. Hathaway says he wasn't "stranded" either: "Being in the transit zone is as 'being in Russia' as standing on the Kremlin steps." --Brian Dell (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Pure original research. This statement was reliably sourced and there is no known contradiction among reliable sources. We've been through this before. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Experts like Hathaway say it's false and the only reason Hathaway's view isn't included in this article is because editors like you don't want the narrative challenged. We have, indeed, been through this before and you're apparently just as unwilling to acknowledge the fact that that "stranded in Russia because of the actions of the US State Department" narrative doesn't add up as you were before. I am, of course, fine with the narrative appearing anywhere in the article so long as it is attributed to Snowden or a Snowden advocate.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Neither Hathaway nor that source says contradicts the reliably sourced statement that "without a passport, Snowden was unable to travel further." Hathaway was merely speculating about why Russia might have agreed to let him stay. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I think Hathaway, as an expert on the issue, is in a better position to state whether he is speculating or speaking definitively than you are. In any case, it is simply false that he is just speculating as to legal justifications for Russia's actions because he said, and said definitively, that there is, in fact, NO legal reason to treat the airport as off limits to the Kremlim's border controls, the "stranded" narrative is accordingly just for public relations. Hathaway's statements are inconsistent with the "stranded" contention. I'm nonetheless fine with including the contention if Hathaway's remarks are included as well. Either that, or attribute the whole U.S. to blame for "stranding" Snowden in Russia theory to its most famous proponent, Snowden (the article does not quote the CS Monitor piece noting that Snowden "has a track record of mutually incompatible public statements" so what exactly is the objection to attributing to Snowden, or alternatively not going down the "blame the US" road at all?)--Brian Dell (talk) 05:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
The unreliability of Snowden's statements is exactly why he should not be quoted in the lead section. Contentious statements by involved parties should very rarely be included in lead sections, as it is extremely difficult to cover them in a way that is both neutral and concise. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
@Dr. Fleischman, surely there is a better source than this? This has been a widely pontificated upon issue, and being a highly desired US fugitive is obviously an infinitely more significant obstacle to international travel than a cancelled passport.[2] [3] [4] [5] I admit that I've not had chance to delve into the talk archives yet, but I can't imagine there is something in there that would explain this.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what was wrong with the source (and the many others that say the same thing), but this issue is currently moot as I removed the issue from the lead section on noteworthiness grounds. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
You most certainly did not "remove the issue," Doc. You removed the attribution to Snowden, thereby making an issue out of it where there wasn't before (no one disputes that Snowden claims it's the US' fault he's in Russia, at issue here is using Wikipedia's voice to claim that he was stranded, ie is in Russia by virtue of forces other than his own will and/or Russia's). May I ask where you found the consensus to make this edit in this thread? Respecting consensus being something you are continually reminding others about? If you want to shorten the lede, why not just state the simple fact that he went to Russia and remained there, without any excuses or explanation for why he went there or remained there? If you can't refrain from keeping it that simple, I believe it ought to also be noted that, according to Putin (and other evidence), he met with Russian officials before he flew to Russia, as that could also explain why he went to Russia and remained there (no need to meet with any Russian officials in advance if you truly intend to just transit, as you can just remain airside and not go through Russian passport control before you board your next flight).--Brian Dell (talk) 04:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm confused. There has been an ongoing dispute for years among us regarding the circumstances of exactly how Snowden ended up in Russia. My deletion does not resolve the issue one way or the other; it merely reflects the fact that the lead reads like a battleground, we collectively seem unable to resolve this dispute, and it's not sufficiently notable for inclusion in the lead section anyway. What is wrong with my edit? Is there something else you would like to have deleted? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

" front-door access" ?

Could somebody help me understand what this expression means? I assume it's a US expression. Could somebody re-write to make it more international? thanks! --mgaved (talk) 14:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good point. The single use in the article refers to an early source in the debate where it's used, I think, simply to suggest open-access i.e. NSA get the keys without having to go through the back door, "trapdoors" whatever. Since then it seems to have morphed into a more specialized usage involving keys split into parts so that no single user can access the data, "front doors with big locks". See for example this from kitguru.net. Editors here might like to clarify. c1cada (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
It's a technical expression, but I'm not sure how to better explain it in the prose, a note maybe? Like @c1cada suggests, front-door means the companies involved knowingly provided access for the NSA, as appose to them breaking-in via another entry point (backdoor) or "hacking" an entrance of their own.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's right, but note also that source I gave (and there are others), where the term seems to have taken on the "with locks" connotation. I suggest the best editing solution is to let the existing occurrence of "front-door access" pass without explanation, or possibly replace by "direct access", and then at some suitable point in the article highight the latest demands for "front-door" access with locks. I'll add a 2013 Guardian citation to the existing text, but I'll leave it to the editors here to decide whether and how to reference these latest demands. c1cada (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I have replaced "front-door" by "direct", noticing that the Greenwald1 Guardian citation I added refers to that. c1cada (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits by Brian Dell

I do not understand the basis for the following recent edits. Bdell555, perhaps you can explain them without the personalization and accusations of bad faith. Please interlineate your responses.

  • [6] (edit summary: "you are cherry picking here, Doc. The majority of the material is Dept of Defense files. That should be acknowledged here if you are going to say what the material was about") -- The material you deleted as been in the lead for some time. I didn't add it; I merely moved it. Now the lead doesn't say that Snowden revealed surveillance programs, which is obviously what he's best known for. If you want something in there about the DoD, then we can probably work something in there. But deleting the whole sentence doesn't seem productive. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Before you moved it, that material referred to what he handed over to Greenwald, then working for the Guardian. You moved it so that it refers to the files he took as a whole. Which raises the question of why you didn't also move "The vast majority of the documents… had nothing to do with exposing government oversight of domestic activities. The vast majority of those were related to our military capabilities, operations, tactics, techniques and procedures" or a summary of that contention. Given that "His disclosures have fueled debates over mass surveillance, government secrecy, and the balance between national security and information privacy" is already in the lede, I also think your moving of the material to headline level - to the exclusion of considering what's widely reported to be the subject of the majority of the documents he took - is accordingly unbalanced.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I understand your concern here. What information can we add to the sentence you removed ("The information revealed numerous global surveillance programs, many run by the NSA and the Five Eyes with the cooperation of telecommunication companies and European governments.") that would balance it in your view, while still reflecting that Snowden is best known for revealing various mass surveillance programs? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
What in the lede reflects the fact that it is widely reported that the majority of the documents are military related? As long as that is absent, since we've already got "mass surveillance" in the lede, further piling up on the one side to the continued exclusion of the other is unbalanced. It is not all or nothing in terms of most assessments of Snowden. Many moderate Snowden supporters still have reservations. This lede currently gives minimal explanation to the reader for why those reservations exist. To further highlight the reasons why he has the support he does is to slant the article. You've apparently rejected including the "vast majority" quote and things like a reference to Snowden's meeting with Russian officials before he left for Russia so I would think the only compromise here is to keep the Snowden boosterism restrained as opposed to having a longer lede. I mean I could propose we include a quote or two from the recent Sunday Times story, but are you seriously open to that?--Brian Dell (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I think there may be a misunderstanding here about how WP:NPV works as applied to lead sections. The goal isn't to pick enough "anti-Snowden" facts to balance the "pro-Snowden" facts and reflect the concerns of the pro-Snowden and anti-Snowden crowds equally. The idea is to present the most noteworthy facts about Snowden using neutral language. If the noteworthy facts happen to paint Snowden in a particular light, positive or negative, sobeit. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Then stop deleting the noteworthy facts that you happen to believe paint Snowden in a negative light. You can't have it both ways here. You didn't answer my question about which of the quotes I pointed to you might be willing to include. Until then, hyping the "telecommunication" surveillance angle to the exclusion of the other million documents is not neutral.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • [7] (edit summary: "doing your best to try and whitewash the chronology via selective omission, I see. This is the true chronology, Doc.") -- Some of your additions have nothing to do with anything I did, and others re-added material that isn't sufficiently noteworthy of the lead. Snowden's specific contractor roles and the precising timing of the State Department's revocation of his passport are simply not essential facts for a 4-paragraph biography of the man. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
You deleted the material about Snowden meeting with Russians in Hong Kong and you entirely deleted everything in the intro about the passport revocation, including the fact it was revoked before he left Hong Kong. Yet you kept "stranded for 39 days." Since the passport revocation, and more specifically its timing (before he was en route to Latin America), is supposed to be the main reason he was stranded in Russia, if the revocation is not of note then presumptively the stranding isn't either, such that you could just say he flew to Moscow and has been there ever since. You also kept the June 14 charge date which could hardly be more irrelevant since the charges were sealed at the time (i.e. a tree fell in the forest but no one heard it). It was the unsealing of the charges on Friday, June 21 that set the dominoes - and Snowden - in motion. The timing of the passport revocation became a very long and drawn out issue on this Talk page until Petrarchan inadvertently settled it by pointing out that CBS story where the Secretary of State made his statement about just when his Department acted. If it can be such a major issue amongst Wikipedians, it presumably could be a major question for readers for well. The phrasing here settles the matter. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate the argument that "within two hours" seems an odd detail to mention if one doesn't know the background.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Your edit did two things: (1) it restored details about Snowden's previous job history and (2) it restored details about the passport revocation. You still haven't explained why (1) is sufficiently noteworthy for the lead--do you mind if we remove this? As for (2), would you be satisfied with cutting the passport stuff and removing the word "stranded," i.e. "where he remained for 39 days?" I would support that while we seek broader community feedback in a separate discussion about whether we can say Snowden was "stranded" in Moscow. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking about this yesterday. How about "...Russia, ostensibly with onward travel plans, however he reportedly remained in the airport's international transit zone for 39 days." In terms of the passport bit, think it is important to make clear he left once the US officially tried have him detained. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
You've got the green light from me, at least, to so edit if you wish.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Three issues. First, words such as "reportedly" and "obstensibly" are expressions of doubt that should be avoided. Second, I don't understand how your proposed edit makes clear that Snowden left after the US officially tried to have him detained. Third, I assume you're talking about Hong Kong? I don't quite understand the significance of the timing - is it the suggestion that the reason Snowden flew to Moscow was to flee from U.S. law enforcement? If so we shouldn't include that unless we have a reliable source saying that explicitly. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I think ostensibly is fine as there is doubt that he realistically had anywhere else to go. My suggestion probably could be improved upon and wasn't intended to deal with the passport question. The main issue I see with the passport sentence is that the two hour claim isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article and source isn't used either. The Hong Kong S2 has a decent amount on the events at the time he left (a couple of sources from it [8] [9]) I don't have opinion on the exact wording.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd be surprised if there were a consensus to remove any mention of the fact he worked for the CIA, etc. It's a very brief summary of a significant part of the article and is more substantive information than airy and contentious conclusions about Snowden's legacy. I've already said I'm fine with just stating that Snowden went to Russia and remained there. It's when the lede is being used to declare definitively why Snowden went to Russia while excluding the facts that don't support the proffered why that I object to. There IS doubt, in other words, and expressions of doubt should not be avoided when there is doubt. Professor Hathaway has noted that the "stranding" was manufactured. The fact Snowden could leave Hong Kong with a revoked passport doesn't support the argument that a revoked passport stranded him in Russia. You've been trying too hard to suppress the reports that Snowden met with Russians before flying to Russia, Doc, to be in a position to credibly contend that you are agnostic about why Snowden flew to Russia. You've consistently lobbied for readings that suggest Snowden ended up in Russia against his (and/or Russia's) will.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Personal jabs aside, I've taken a stab at resolving the Moscow/passport stuff, which, based on the discussion above, might have consensus. If anyone disagrees with it, I urge you to tweak rather than revert. As for Snowden's past career, I still feel it breaks up the flow of the lead and is not sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion, but I'll let that one go as I don't think it's that big of a deal. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Why are you edit warring to include June 14 without any argument for what's notable about June 14? It's the June 21 unsealing of the charges that is notable. The BBC story "Why did US fugitive Edward Snowden leave Hong Kong?" specifically references the unsealing: "By this time, the US had made public the charges against Mr Snowden. He was feeling the heat." The unsealing was a significant event that was supposed to strand Snowden in Hong Kong until he was extradited (but was not done earlier because the charges had not been leaked prior to June 21 and State wanted to use behind the scenes diplomacy to bring the Chinese on board instead of forcing China's hand with a public charge and passport revocation). It also stands to reason the more time that passed after the passport was revoked, the more people who would ask why China let him exit on an invalid passport, so China wanted him out ASAP (or the Russians knew the Chinese would eventually be compelled to push him out and accordingly suggested he go to Hong Kong before he got to Hong Kong).--Brian Dell (talk) 05:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • [10] (edit summary: "I thot you thot the lede was too long, DrF? If you can find the length to tack on a one-sided political statement, the space could be found to reported undisputed facts like Snowden's meeting with Russians in HK") -- You removed reliably sourced content explaining that three courts have ruled on the legality of the telephone metadata program, not two. As written, the lead is misleading because Judge Pauley's decision was reversed by the Second Circuit. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
And you removed reliably sourced content that noted that Putin said his people met Snowden before he left Hong Kong for Russia. Many readers would find it a remarkable coincidence that he happened to then get "stranded" in Putin's country a few days later, when all he was supposedly trying to do was get from Hong Kong to Latin America (why didn't he go straight to Latin America from Hawaii? would the fact Russia isn't anywhere inbetween Hawaii and Latin America have anything to do with a detour to Hong Kong?). The telephone metadata program concerns an extremely small and accordingly unrepresentative fraction of the material Snowden absconded with, never mind Snowden's general biography. It remains a fact that courts ruled differently even if they are on different levels and I'll add here that this isn't a US-only story; British courts have had things to say as well. The bigger issue here is you turning aside an even-handed conclusion to the lede in favour of a selective, politically-toned conclusion. You're welcome to revise if you can resist the temptation to tilt the POV here, and I'd call focusing on one branch of government cherry picking when the other two branches (the executive and the legislature) have a rather different view of the subject (including the UK government).--Brian Dell (talk) 02:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I saw your edit deleting the lede final on the constitutionality of collecting telephone data and I support deleting that. It seemed to me to beg the question somewhat (as to whether Snowden was justified in his actions). c1cada (talk) 03:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
In hindsight I agree with both of you that the court rulings should be removed from the lead entirely. I think the material that included the Second Circuit decision was neutral in language and tone, but it could have been read to suggest vindication for Snowden that wasn't explicitly sourced. To that extent, I agree that the telephone metadata program was only a small part of what Snowden leaked and the court rulings do not reflect what some people are saying is the more significant political vindication expressed through the passage of the USA Freedom Act. The legality of the programs Snowden revealed (determined by the U.S. federal judiciary) is certainly noteworthy, but concisely explaining its significance in the lead section is impossible without some very special and reliable sources, which I'm not sure exist at this time. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that was my feeling. However material about the constitutionality of the various programs he revealed are surely part of the article in some appropriate place discussing whether Snowden's actions was justified, or indeed any section just describing those programs. Following from Burnley's and others' remarks about "costs", it doesn't necessarily follow that the illegality of these programs justifies Snowden's actions and it was the begging of this question (or so I felt) that I objected to when the material was in the lede. But I have no problem with it appearing elsewhere. c1cada (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: When is it appropriate to remove Lead Too Long template from Edward Snowden bio?

RfC withdrawn as now moot.—S Marshall T/C 14:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The length and content of the lead to Edward Snowden have been historically contentious. On 4 June 2015, Dr. Fleischman inserted a Lead Too Long template, stating in his edit summary: "lead too long - too much detail." That triggered a round of revisions and reversions, as discussed here, that in turn forged consensus (a) that the lead ought to be shortened and (b) agreeing upon a process of submitting each proposed edit to the talk page for acceptance or rejection.

Petrarchan47, who has contributed more to this bio than anyone else (1,330 edits—17.31% of the total) then commented: "DrFleischman, seeing that we have agreed on a process to trim the Lede (via proposal submissions), I wonder if you would be willing to remove the tag; its purpose to alert fellow editors has been served, and Kent makes good points."

My points to which she referred include: "…it is embarrassing. The first thing visitors see is a page-width banner proclaiming our inability to get the first four paragraphs right. What are readers to infer about the rest of the article? Edward Snowden is a mature BLP, created two years ago, that ranks within the top 600 articles in traffic on en.wikipedia.org. It has undergone 7,685 revisions by a combined 1,295 editors. … In particular, the lead has remained essentially unchanged for months. For us now to be suddenly debating its length—and its content hard won by consensus—is an admission of negligence if not incompetence. It deserves to be expeditiously addressed."

However, Dr. Fleischman responded: "I'd actually prefer to keep the tag until the issue is resolved. If editors come along having been alerted by the tag, that would be a good thing."

I respectfully invite others to weigh in on this disagreement, which is not a dispute but would benefit from input by the wider editorial community than just the handful of us involved in maintaining Snowden's BLP. Kent Krupa (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Now - Assuming the choices are: remove immediately and remove after DrF is satisfied, I would chose to remove the tag now for reasons I've already stated. petrarchan47คุก 18:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Now - per Petrachan47. The tag disfigures an extremely high profile article over a minor procedural beef which is in the process of resolution. This appears to me to be disruptive. Jusdafax 20:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Upon consensus to remove - per WP:DETAG. No disruption intended. Tagging serves various valuable purposes. I am pro-tagging as it alerts interested editors to the issue and potentially brings them to the discussion. All articles are works in progress so I don't see tags as embarrassing. That said, I will obey the consensus, so if there is consensus to remove the tag then I will support that consensus and remove the tag. As an aside, this RfC is completely unnecessary, as a consensus could have been determined without it through regular discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove Tag Without Prejudicing the Possibility of Further Discussion on Truncating the Lede Upon consensus to remove - as per WP:DETAG noted by Dr. Fleischman. As an aside, it really is quite long and needlessly detailed. LavaBaron (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment We are trying to establish consensus now, so "upon consensus" seems to be little more than a placeholder iVote. It would be helpful to have clarification from Kent Krupa as to what the iVote options are meant to be. petrarchan47คุก 01:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Petrarchan47, I confess I am at a loss. This is my first RfC, and I did not realize I was expected to provide iVote options. The RfC process description explains, "The outcome is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing if they are consistent with Wikipedia policies. Counting 'votes' is not an appropriate method of determining outcome, though a closer should not ignore numbers entirely." (The scare quotes around "votes" are disconcerting. What does that mean?) As for consensus, the policy clearly states it is not "the result of a vote." So I honestly don't see the purpose of asking editors to vote on a given option, rather than commenting as they see fit. However, I do share your frustration at the "Upon consensus to remove" advice. After all, that is a given. Why an editor feels obliged to offer such vacuous counsel is beyond me. Kent Krupa (talk) 04:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The RfC essentially asks, in more words, if the tag should ever be removed. Obviously no one feels the tag should never be removed. That is why my opinion was to remove the tag following consensus which, while perhaps an unsatisfactory response, is as satisfactory as the possibilities with which we've been presented. If the RfC were reworded to perhaps present us with 2 or 3 succinct options (e.g. [a] remove the tag now, [b] keep the tag up pending further discussion on the lede, [c] remove the tag without prejudicing further discussion on the lede) we might be able to offer more actionable replies. For now, I've changed my !vote to option "C." LavaBaron (talk) 09:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment IMO it was a little early to open this discussion to an AfC as it seems to me that our discussion was going along quite well. If Dr.F should feel a little defensive, I can't blame him as I would too. To me he seems to be more wanting to strongly explain his position rather than stubbornly refusing to accept reasonable arguments despite hell or high water, as is usually the case when an AfC is opened. Gandydancer (talk) 10:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • When the lede has been trimmed and other proposals to trim it have failed to achieve consensus. Trimming the lede is badly needed and shouldn't take that long. There is no point in arguing about the tag in the meantime.--agr (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment With active participation ongoing to fix the exact issue described by the tag, and with no opposition to that activity whatsoever, there is no reason for the tag. There is a healthy group of editors already engaged, and the argument that more editors will be alerted is not justification for the tag to remain. If there was friction stalling the trimming process, the tag wouldn't seem as unnecessary. It is ugly and bothering good faith editors. It seems as if the article is being held hostage. The tag does not have consensus to remain, yet it's message does. We don't allow a single editor to exert their will over a group here, and in this case, if it were me, I would happily concede to the group in order to allow things to move forward with less grief for others, and for the good of the encyclopedia. I disagree that this RfC is impeding the trimming process. petrarchan47คุก 18:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
On a personal note, I've never seen AfCs do much good anyway. People that are not familiar with the topic come and make decisions without a good grasp of the subject, IMO. That said, at this point I will begin to get very irritated with the tag as I believe that it is beginning to show a lack of good will since we now have a group of very capable editors who are willing and able to hammer out a good lead. Gandydancer (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
[edit conflict ("great minds...")]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hacked Lede

The Lede is now tiny; it in no way covers the content of the article. Most people only read the Lede, so it's best to give them actual information, and we are required by WP:LEDE to let readers know what the article contains. I'm not sure of the reason it's been hacked away, but for example, compare its present length with this relatively obscure article's Lede: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_cancer_treatments

Can someone tell me why it was desirable to cut so much detail/words from the Snowden article? petrarchan47คุก 07:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't get the impression the lede is too short, nor can I see the force of your comparison with the alternative cancer treatments. A better benchmark would be Julius and Ethel Rosenberg (where I happened to edit yesterday). If most people only read the lede (source?), they surely at least glance at its index. What more do you think needs referencing in the lede?
A year ago the lede was indeed longer, but it included a paragraph such as this;

A subject of controversy, Snowden has been variously called a hero, a whistleblower, a dissident, a traitor, and a patriot. Snowden's "sole motive" for leaking the documents was, in his words, "to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them." The disclosures have fueled debates over mass surveillance, government secrecy, and the balance between national security and information privacy. Two court rulings since the initial leaks have split on the constitutionality of the NSA's bulk collection of telephone metadata; in December 2013, a federal judge found the program to be likely unconstitutional and "almost Orwellian" whereas another federal judge in a different case reached an opposite conclusion, ruling that the NSA's collection of phone data is legal. In early 2014, some media outlets and politicians called for leniency in the form of clemency, amnesty or pardon, while others called for him to be imprisoned. Ex-CIA director James Woolsey said that Snowden should be hanged if convicted of treason. BuzzFeed reported that anonymous U.S. "spies" wanted him murdered.

I would say there are in the first place POV issues with that longer paragraph (it surely seeks to set Snowden in as favourable a light as possible), and in the second place it was unnecessarily detailed. For example the information about James Wolsey is not significantly expanded in the article text:

Ex-CIA director James Woolsey said in December 2013 that if Snowden was convicted of treason, he should be hanged. One of Snowden's legal advisers, Jesselyn Radack, said that Snowden "has concerns for his safety" based on this and joking remarks between Hayden and House Intelligence Committee chairman Mike Rogers about putting Snowden on a "kill list."

and a better plan might have been rather to indicate in the lede that Snowden was concerned for his safety.
If it's really true that your average joe doesn't get beyond the lede, then I suggest they are better served with a succinct, and above all neutral, overview. c1cada (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I large ly agree with both viewpoints; the current lede doesn't properly summarize this article and is therefore too short. However it seems that the older versions whilst longer were not much good. While I do think the quality of what survived has improved I can still see major issues: It doesn't adequately reflect the scale of the leak (David Miranda had at least 58,000 UK classified files when stopped at Heathrow). It doesn't properly reflect timeline in terms of his employment (He was talking/leaking to Poitras while at Dell and sought the job at Booz specifically to get access to more material). Then of course we have the canceled passport issue. It has been used by the Snowden camp and Russian authorities to explain why he ended up in Russia (an argument that doesn't stand much scrutiny IMO), so I can see the significance, but the source used???.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Very good points by TrappedinBurnley.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
It occurs to me that better examples for the lede are provided by Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning. Assange's is considerably shorter than Snowden's, Manning's a little longer. That's right about the scale of the leaks I think, "many" not quite cutting it. But I'm retiring from comment here, until such time anyway as my primary interest in privacy issues is piqued again. Good article I think. No real issues with it. c1cada (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Cada, I would agree these are better comparisons. The fact that Manning's Lede is more detailed than Snowden's should be noted. I still am unclear why the Lede has been hacked away. I have heard one complaint of a POV section, but this change should be dealt with on the talk page before making such a major change to the Lede. Further, we need to summarize the contents of the article. I'm not sure, but am afraid that trimming the Lede has been used as an excuse to remove content that editors felt was undesirable. A NPOV issue is rather different from a size issue. A more direct approach to attain consensus for content removal would be preferred. Since the Lede is meant to summarize the body, would it make sense to scrape through the article and leave highlights of its content here, and from there rewrite the Lede? petrarchan47คุก 18:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I honestly don't think there's any real issue with the lede. Myself, I favour a minimalist approach. But if you feel stuff needs restoring go ahead. Burnley above says he wants to tinker with it as well. As I say, I shan't be contributing: strictly a guest contributor here. I think you're all doing a great job. Refreshing to see editors not at each others' throats . Good luck. c1cada (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I'll admit it, I'm the main instigator of the recent shortening of the lead, but not so much because I want a shorter lead but rather, as I've already explained twice, because I want a neutral lead that focuses on the more noteworthy aspects of Snowden's biography and excludes the less notable clutter (per WP:LEAD). At this point, I agree that the lead is too short as it's missing several key details:
  • It doesn't say anything about Snowden revealing any mass surveillance programs, which in my view is totally inexcusable. (This content was deleted, but not by me.)
  • It probably ought to elaborate (concisely) on the scope of the disclosures and the scope of the programs Snowden revealed.
  • It might say something about the USA Freedom Act, which I believe has been broadly attributed to Snowden in many reliable mainstream sources.
  • It might say something about the movement to pardon him, which itself has received a lot of press.
--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Such a helpful reply. I have re-added the inexcusable deletion in your first point, requesting that the talk page is used to gain consensus before attempting to remove it again.
Someone familiar with the story would be able to summarize the disclosures. I wonder if A1candidate is able to help. It's been a while since I've read up on this, and would be quite a project for me.
Snowden made the news recently for his support of the USA Freedom Act, I could see a mention of that. The movement to pardon him did receive a lot of coverage, and though we don't hear about it now, it would seem fitting to mention it as well. petrarchan47คุก 19:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Revelation of surveillance programs in lead section

Brian Dell deleted the following sentence from the first paragraph of the lead: "The information revealed numerous global surveillance programs, many run by the NSA and the Five Eyes with the cooperation of telecommunication companies and European governments." This language has been in the lead essentially unedited since March 30, 2014, and I would like to see it re-added, as without it our lead doesn't say that Snowden revealed any surveillance programs, which I hope everyone agrees is what Snowden is best known for. In talk page discussion, Brian contends that this proposed language is non-neutral as it's "Snowden boosterism" ([11]) that "hyp[es] the 'telecommunication' surveillance angle to the exclusion of the other million documents." ([12]) I do not agree. I think the language is neutral but I'm open to tweaks in the language we use, just not outright deletion. Would others care to weigh in? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep. I hadn't noticed the omission (I confess to not studying the article). To address Brian's concerns, which in this case seem to me somewhat unrealistic regarding the plain facts of the matter (that the matter came to prominence over the business of recording Verizone customers' phone records), you might like to tweak the language a little ("leaks best known for revealing that ..." sort thing ... but the validity of that predicates there were indeed other leaks on other matters - were there? I'm not sure there were). c1cada (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Why did you start this new section, Doc, if not to quote me out of context? For starters, I object to your cutting out the "until then" condition I attached to my last statement. There's no reason why you could not have continued the discussion where it was, and I don't think it is necessary to repeat my objections which were more extensive than the couple of snipped quotes you give here. I will highlight again a key consideration, however, which is that the issue is not including this so much as excluding everything that you've been trying to exclude. You've been trying to get the fact Snowden met with Russians in Hong Kong deleted on the grounds that it is a bogus report and zero editors have agreed with you that the reports are spurious. See also the material TrappedinBurnley points to in the preceding thread as being improperly excluded. The cherry picking going on here is slanting the tone of the lede. c1cada, "the matter came to prominence" in June 2013 but that was two years ago and the story is no longer just Verizon. The fact is that many observers object much less to the leaking of the Verizon documents than to the compromising of other material which the US/UK government say is unrelated to any domestic surveillance versus privacy controversy. The media has lately given relatively minimal attention to the phone records issue. Is anyone denying that Snowden is a controversial figure? Either the reason for the controversy ought to be given in the lede OR the lede ought not try to pass the subject off as an uncontroversial whistle-blower.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Numerous misrepresentations of my position here. Brian's arguments are scattered and illogical. They presuppose that the language at issue is too pro-Snowden. On that point, Brian's only substantive argument is that Snowden's leak included "other material which the US/UK government say is unrelated to any domestic surveillance versus privacy controversy." The problem with that is that it is only supported by unsubstantiated statements by the government (specifically, by Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs). As far as I know it's never been accepted by reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I made specific points like referring you to TrappedinBurnley's remarks and you are declining to address them. If the BBC or Reuters do not attribute then neither need we, and they do NOT attribute the 1.7 million files claim. As it is, I ATTRIBUTED ANYWAY in the addition that filled out the real controversy about Snowden and you still threw a fit. If you are going to deep dive into the origins of the 1.7 million number, then it's time to do the same with the whole stranded for 39 days at the airport claim (hint: there's nothing at the bottom of that beyond Kucherena and Snowden himself, and unlike Dempsey, there stories don't add up. It is also misleading to spin this as one man's opinion re Dempsey since it is an official position and described as such by those RS that do attribute).--Brian Dell (talk) 05:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
It's very hard to respond to the variety of issues you've raised here, which are really beyond the scope of this discussion (which is about the specific sentence about the disclosure of surveillance programs). If there's other material you want added, deleted, or changed, please observe BRD and/or start a new discussion. FWIW I removed the 39 days, and I started a new discussion on the 1.7 million. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Attributed statements in the lead section

Brian Dell wants the following sentence added to the lead section: "According to the Pentagon, Snowden downloaded 1.7 million files including information that sources in the U.S. and British governments say endangered their military and intelligence personnel." The problem with this language is that it's unsubstantiated and contentious and therefore violates our policies on neutrality and biographies of living people. As as I know this material has not been adopted by any reliable source in its own voice. In addition, there have been an awful lot of unsubstantiated statements made about Snowden by a variety of interested parties (most notably Snowden himself and the U.S. government), and even if we were to balance this material somehow, as soon as we do so the lead section becomes a he-said-it-said battleground and not very useful at all. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

If the material were not substantiated it would not be reported by Reuters, the BBC, etc etc--Brian Dell (talk) 04:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
[edit conflict] : My heart with Brian, my head with the Doc ... the material should be in the article text (indeed that is the thrust of the edits I have made myself noting the Sunday Times stories), but not, presently at any rate, in the lede on WP:UNDUE grounds until such time as we hear confirmation from the White House on the Downing Street claims (a deafening silence so far, so much for the special relationship). However I really must recuse myself further from the discussion here, because I'm simply not well informed enough on the Snowden leaks. I would say Brian is quite wrong to imagine, as I suspect he does, that the NSA snooping is "old" news: it's still very much an issue amongst privacy campaigners. n.b Doc (and supporting Brian before his last addition), the issue is weight is it not? Brian's statement is reliably sourced and so meets Wikipedia's WP:VERIFY requirements c1cada (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I never suggested that the content was not verifiable. It is verifiable that the Pentagon said these things. What I'm saying is that no reliable source has adopted the Pentagon statements in its own voice (i.e. without attribution). Thus, these are unsubstantiated allegations. They cannot be presented as true (as is done here). This implicates WP:NPV and WP:BLP. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
That's flatly untrue with respect to the 1.7 million number, and it is also untrue that attributed statements "cannot be presented". They are being presented as coming from exactly where they are coming from: the Pentagon, etc, and your contention otherwise is entirely unfounded. Nobody bought your "no reliable source" argument with respect to your deletion of reports Snowden met with Russians in Hong Kong, but I see you are trotting out that again in an attempt to get this material suppressed. The community knows what WP:NPV is, Doc, such that the community thought the lede was fine until you came along this month to start edit warring over it to slant it the way you want to slant it. If you actually respected WP:NPV, you wouldn't be insisting on deleting the assessment of the US and UK governments simply because it doesn't endorse Snowden.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Since you've brought up the 1.7 million issue in multiple places, I've started a new discussion on the subject below. FWIW, I'd have no issue with including the number in our lead section if it were reliably reported without attribution and without contradiction. The problem is that it hasn't been. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with quoting the British Foreign Secretary's on the record statement about the damage Snowden has done instead. I don't believe I've ever contended "privacy campaigners" don't continue to make an issue out of NSA snooping. What I object to is misrepresenting the issue as a privacy versus surveillance issue. It's the enabling of the intelligence regimes and/or propaganda operations of authoritarian regimes like Russia that's the issue for Snowden's skeptics. Both takes on what is the issue should accordingly be presented. Or neither. What's "contentious" is Doc's and Petrarchan's one-sided portrayal of the subject as the leaker of domestic surveillance programs. It is a straw man to say that Snowden's detractors are pro-governments spying on their people. The lede accordingly should not set that up as the controversy. If Doc don't want his one-sided spin "balanced" then he need not spin in the first place by deleting all the substantiated material about Snowden that may be considered unflattering to the subject. The fact of the matter is that the US and UK governments think the Snowden has seriously damaged their interests. That is notable and should not be suppressed. If something less direct is appropriate, one should include the material TrappedinBurnley called for. Either that, or pare back the contentious material all around.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Hardly "suppressed". I was working late at night when that last Times story came through and immediately edited at the article. No one queried it or attempted to delete it (previously I had edited on the Henry Jackson think-tank story, and that likewise went unremarked). But as David Davis remarked, these things have to be taken with a pinch of salt. If whatever the Americans have that corresponds to our exalted Foreign Secretary comes out and supports him, then that's a different matter. Don't believe that has happened Brian, and that's why I am cautious about giving the story prominence in the lead. Still, your objections have point and should be accommodated, but not, in my view, accorded the weight and significance you attach to them. c1cada (talk) 05:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I think everyone understands that I'm talking about suppressed in the lede. The lede was in fact stable for many many months until Doc came along this month and started his selective deletion. That hasn't stopped him from claiming that consensus has suddenly changed and now backs his editing, of course. As for the US Secretary of State, which is the equivalent to the "exalted Foreign Secretary", the US Secretary of State has called the subject of this article a coward and a traitor. So coward and traitor should go in because that's your standard is it? I think your standard here is exceedingly arbitrary. I'll add that Kerry then went on to basically say the same thing his British counterpart said more recently, contrary to your claim that this hasn't happened yet. If you look at the citations for the edit at issue here, there are two citations and the Bloomberg News story has nothing to do with the Times story. Please explain why you think something cited to this Bloomberg News report should be deleted in the lede, if that's what you think. And if you don't think that, please say so, because Doc is of the opinion that he has the consensus for deletion and he's not the sort who's going to wait to make sure before reverting another editor (nobody has agreed with him that there is a BLP violation here, but that hasn't stopped him from edit warring citing that grounds). Readers are entitled to know the government's view on Snowden, instead of just being presented the misleading characterization that only a fringe POV wouldn't see him as a whistle blower. The only negative at all here in the lede is "traitor", and it's presented as if only some fringe extremist who supports government surveillance would ever come up with such a label. Like I've said before, the reason why I have added this material is because there is a refusal to compromise with respect to spinning the subject as a whistleblower and dial that back. The last paragraph is enough of a miscontrual and straw man of the real debate here as it is.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
So that's what Kerry does when he's not falling off bicycles ... he should chew less gum . Just winding you up there over our exalted Foreign Secretary, Brian.
Kerry made his remarks a year ago and not in the context of selling out our man in Damascus, but in the context of the NSA leaks. Since you ask I do think "coward" and "traitor" should go in, sourced to Kerry, but not in the lede, and in point of fact it essentially is, linked to the "traitor" remark in the "Reaction" section (citation 321 as I write).
I've said that I agree with you that the scale of Snowden's theft of classified documents should be better indicated in the lede: the present "many" is close to WP:WEASEL I think. The Bloomberg News report is a possible supporting source that could be included in the lede I think, but not in the context of betraying our boys in Basra (Sierra Leone wherever) as you are so intent, and which in point of fact it doesn't support. It's just speculation about (American) military personnel. As the blessed David Davis likewise pointed out about the Downing Street claims, we are simply given assertions and not facts.
If the White House ever do genuinely support Downing Street on UK Gov's recent claims, ping me and I'll come back and support you regarding the lede. Until then I side with Doc. Sorry. c1cada (talk) 10:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
It is a FACT that "According to the Pentagon, Snowden downloaded 1.7 million files including information that sources in the U.S. and British governments say endangered their military and intelligence personnel". I believe you are misrepresenting the Bloomberg News story. It's lead paragraph is "The Pentagon concluded that Edward Snowden committed the biggest theft of U.S. secrets in history, downloading about 1.7 million intelligence files, including information that could put personnel in jeopardy, according to lawmakers." You can quibble about the wording, but a fair minded observer would say the point is consistent with the edit. "The classified Pentagon report marked the first official assessment to emerge of how much data Snowden took and the risk to military and intelligence personnel," says Bloomberg. "military and intelligence personnel" is thus WORD FOR WORD out of the Bloomberg wire. If you truly simply just want the Bloomberg News story treated accurately and in context, how about quoting "the bulk of the material he downloaded pertained to Defense Department operations" and attributing it, then? How about "American officials are concerned that the material Snowden is suspected of downloading, while it hasn’t been made public yet, could be used to help identify U.S. intelligence agents..."? What do you mean by "our man in Damascus" or "our boys in Basra" if not "U.S. intelligence agents"? The story quotes FBI Director James Comey saying, “When you are talking about revealing the ways in which we track terrorists or the identities and locations of agents, I struggle to understand how you can apply hero whistle-blowing label to that kind of information." Yet you are of the view that US officials do not support the view of their British counterparts? Based on what? And why, exactly, do they have to have the exact same identical viewpoint before the view of either can be mentioned? Is that a Wikipedia rule or just yours? I'm going to invite you here to take this seriously, by which I mean setting aside the remarks about who is "exalted" and who is "blessed" and remarks about Kerry falling off bicycles to address the substance of what constitutes a misrepresentation of the source and what doesn't.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
"Is that a Wikipedia rule or just yours?" It's a Wikipedia rule, namely BLP and NPV. We don't parrot unsubstantiated, highly controversial accusations about living people, certainly not without fulling airing out of the debate on the subject (which would never fit in the lead). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
If it's a Wikipedia rule then show me where the US government has to say the same thing as the UK government in the same way before Wikipedia can report on either. Because that's what C1cada said is the decider for him. He never said he sees this as a BLP issue. No one, in fact, says this is a BLP issue except you. That hasn't stopped you from claiming you are exempt from edit warring restrictions because you see a BLP issue. As for "parrot"ing "unsubstantiated" "accusations" I suggest you head to the next section, start with the Toronto Star, and then start working your way back up and tell me that using any of those sources would be a violation of Wikipedia's rules. As for "airing out of the debate" I invited you to not go there by not trying to pass off Snowden as just a leaker of domestic surveillance programs in the lede, but you've refused. You've insisted on highlighting the matter for which he is most popular to the exclusion of any mention of the matter on which he is least popular, namely, compromising the security of hundreds of thousands of documents which have nothing to do with domestic surveillance. You then have the chutzpah to cite NPV!--Brian Dell (talk) 06:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Quite different. I am merely adhering to what the reliable sources say in their own voice. I am not trying to get unsubstantiated statements by Snowden or his supporters into the lead section. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
You are deleting reliably sourced material because you want to frame the issue like Snowden and his supporters want it framed. I in fact was fine with your whole pushing of the stranded narrative if you were even-handed, but you most certainly were not, as your erasing of the reports that Snowden met with Russians in Hong Kong was but one example. The Snowden crowd say they are privacy advocates. Who says they are anti-privacy? It's a grand straw man of the other side and a distortion of the controversy. The other side notes that the vast majority of the material he compromised does not concern domestic surveillance, yet you've been dogmatic in demanding that that view be suppressed.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with all that C1cada says above - the information is worthy of inclusion in the body. Only if the Lede was sprawling, and the coverage in the body substantial, could it be added to the Lede without undue weight. petrarchan47คุก 22:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Passport revocation

By the way, Doc, where is the consensus for deleting the fact Snowden's passport was revoked? The consensus, literally for YEARS, was to include that information in the lede. Now you say it's changed. Well just where is the evidence for that? Or is getting consensus before editing just something you lecture others about?--Brian Dell (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I see that instead of answering my questions, Doc, you hide them. I'm going to ask you stop manipulating my comments. If you want to hat or hide comments, you can hat or hide your own. My question about where you are finding your consensus is highly relevant because it's the argument you keep citing for deleting my edits without pausing for discussion. The questions I have asked are most certainly not beyond the scope of this discussion, they are apparently just beyond the scope of what you are prepared to discuss. I'm going to ask you again why you are refusing to address TrappedinBurnley's remarks.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I never claimed there was a consensus for the removal of the passport revocation info from the lead. I removed it as a bold edit, no prior consensus required. I could be mistaken, but as far as I can tell no one has actually objected to the removal. On June 14 Trappedinburnley wrote, "being a highly desired US fugitive is obviously an infinitely more significant obstacle to international travel than a cancelled passport.". --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
You've repeatedly lectured me about editing without prior consensus. Is prior consensus needed or not? I dare say I've given you good reason to believe that I object to its removal while some element of the stranded narrative remains. TrappedinBurnley was objecting to your INCLUSION of the stranded claim (taking issue with your black and white take on the sourcing) as opposed to specifically calling for the exclusion of anything if you were to provide the full context of his statement. I believe TrappedinBurnley and I both agree that if you would cease and desist with the stranded contention in its entirety there's no need to discuss Snowden's passport status. What I've in fact repeatedly asked you to do re Trapped is address what Trapped (and I) want INCLUDED.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
You've been around the horn long enough to understand our editing policy, and specifically how consensus, bold edits, edit warring, and the BRD cycle work. If not, here's a basic primer. You can make an edit without consensus if there is no objection. Once there is an objection, you may not make the edit without consensus, otherwise that's edit warring. There are exceptions to this rule, most notably that you're allowed a single revert as part of the BRD cycle, and deletions done to enforce our policy on biographies of living people are largely exempt from the edit warring policy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Erm, can we consider this particular element settled? I'm currently more or less comfortable with the wording that has developed since my quoted comment. Specifically the lines "On June 21, 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice unsealed charges against Snowden of two counts of violating the Espionage Act and theft of government property.[6] On June 23, he flew to the Sheremetyevo International Airport in Moscow, Russia, where he reportedly remained for over a month." I do however have issue with most of the other sentences.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, and I agree, this discussion is a waste of time and electrons. If you want to take issue with other content then by all means do so, either by participating in an existing discussion that addresses it or by starting a new discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Files released by Snowden include names of British agents

This information is already in the article; it is new information that is significant and notabl, and lede sections summarize the material in the article. Therefore it should be in the lede. I note that references are generally omitted from the lede and the sources for this addition are already in the article. I also agree that a lede should not be changes on a whim; however, the information that came out this weekend regarding the withdrawal of agents by the British government is a significant new development that should be included. Currently the revision to my addition have been

  • the lede has been stable - this may be persuasive if I was adding information that had already been discussed or rewording without substantive change. However, neither is true - this is a new development, it is being factually reported without in a neutral manner, it has been sourced to reputable newspapers, the information is in the article and should therefore be part of the lede which summarizes the article.
  • not properly sourced - that British agents have been withdrawn due to files released by Snowden being decrypted has been reported by many significant published reliable sources who have significant editorial review have been included in the article - here are some more The Sunday Times (the largest selling quality press in the UK; Newsweek; the guardian (questioning the timing of the report but restating the original report of agents being moved as having come from the Home Office and other British security officials) . The general recommendation is not to include references in the lede so I didn't include these.

Therefore - this new development should be included in the lede. --Trödel 18:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

To my understanding lede requires references, but okay. However, the source is very weak, the story got retracted in parts, and if we go there to extend the lede with this opinion piece - based on an anon account, we eventually end up with opposing views based on reliable sources. See for instance arguments which debunk the claims made in The Sunday Times article. (here or here or here German) I have no problem with the current paragraph but i think that the lede should not be extended based on an opinion piece. prokaryotes (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Agreed that until the story gets researched by other news agencies - the back and forth should stay out of the lede. RE using references in the lede, I agree with this "There is no rule forbidding references in the lead, but it is nice when they can be left out. Keeping references out of the lead makes it easier to read, and keeps it free of clutter and easier to edit. The explanatory and more detailed text with the references is already found in the article. Since references are used to document specific content, but the lead is a short summation in a generalized and unspecific format, the use of references in the lead is a duplication of effort." See References in the lead --Trödel 19:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the info. prokaryotes (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Regarding refs in the Lede, the idea is that everything in the Lede must also be included in the body, which is where the refs would be found. petrarchan47คุก 22:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Prokaryoyes that the story is too weak to merit inclusion in the lede. If there were some confirmation from US sources, then that would certainly have sufficient weight to appear as part of the lede. Otherwise no. Always this credibility problem with the securocracy. I don't think the article presently needs attach more weight to the claims beyond recording them matter of factly. c1cada (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed I think everyone is in agreement that my edit was premature and this info shouldn't be in the lede unless substantiated somehow which seems unlikely right now. --Trödel 01:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd also hold off on this info for a few days. Re refs in the lead, the WP guideline article would be better than the page that has been offered, which gives one editor's view of the WP guideline. The quideline article states:
The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead.
Using this info, one would expect to find a lot of citations in the lead. Gandydancer (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
The next paragraph of the section you cite says:
"Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Citations
Again clarifying that we should avoid them if we can so that they lede does not have a lot of citations. --Trödel 16:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any reliable source that makes the British spies claim without attribution to Downing Street, so of course we cannot either, and given that this is a BLP, we shouldn't be adding attributed, extremely controversial and unsubstantiated claims to the lead section. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm new to this article so apologies if I'm re-covering old ground with this. While this report is too vague to be earth-shattering I find the claim that spies had to be withdrawn to be believable. To me, the central question with Snowden is whether the benefit to society from his revelations (which others apparently found sensational) outweighs the cost of his methods. Given that from the moment he fled the US with his cache of secrets, all of the effected governments would have had to logically assume he was a defector, it is reasonable to think that the cost was significant. This aspect obviously isn't currently mentioned in the lede and seems to be only lightly covered in the rest of the article. This is just fair warning that I intend to do something about it. Also, I support @Dr. Fleischman's changes to the lede today, they certainly are a much needed improvement. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I suppose it depends on what you do, but this sounds like original research and a BLP violation. We simply cannot have something in the lead suggesting that Snowden's actions led to the outing of British spies without reliable sources saying exactly that without attribution. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Not a regular here, but I though editors might like to know that the Wikimedia Foundation has its own sticky finger in the pie here at Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA - contributions welcomes. I'm sympathetic to what Trappedinburnley says, good analysis, but Dr. Fleischman right to caution regarding original research. c1cada (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the OR claims, and the reminder that this is a BLP is appreciated. petrarchan47คุก 03:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
No need to worry about the policies, I will be carefully researching and sourcing any contributions. I doubt any specific claims, especially those that cannot be attributed would be suitable for the lead. However I think there is enough in the article already to add the following statement or similar to the end of the current lede: "Debate has also centered on the ethics of leaking such a large number of classified files, his motives, and the potential costs to the United States and affected allies." I'll leave it here for discussion while I get back to the reading. Currently looking into the DoD task-force set-up to investigate the leak, sounds pricey! [13] --Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not immediately opposed to something along those lines. Of course it depends on the precise wording. This really goes well beyond the scope of this discussion, which was specifically about British spies, so if you wish to discuss this after conducting your research I suggest you open a new thread. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
This seems a reasonable addition. It was probably the most-debated aspect of the story, at least in the US (which should be specified). petrarchan47คุก 20:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Recent addition against consensus by Trödel. I am bit confused by the recent addition by the user, despite his acknowledgment of the issues. Maybe the user can identify on which grounds he readded the disputed info, and against the consensus. prokaryotes (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any consensus to remove the times source completely and find the assertion "The Sunday Times article was partially retracted and was called "discredited" by reliable sources" to be a considerable overstatement. So far as I'm aware the retraction was actually a fairly insignificant correction, and while I've seen a lot of heat, I'm not aware of anything that actually discredits the core claims. However it is just unnamed sources and doesn't need to be covered in the level of detail that @Trödel used.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Salary at Booz Allen Hamilton

Recently looked this up and apparently his salary there was $122K for "Infrastructure Analyst", per the attestation, not a development role as such. Also looked up the GSA rates Booz Allen Hamilton (p. 25) is likely to have been charging the NSA for his services and it appears to be around $140/hr or for an annualized take assuming 4 weeks vacation and their actual overhead and likely benefit pkg for a single individual his age of ((11*160*140) - (122 + 20)) ~= 104K/y. Per Snowden's attestation in Citizenfour he was essentially a virtual employee of the NSA so the contractor essentially added nothing to his labor so the 20 is double the current market price for the health care + overhead. His W2 salary was a highlighted google result so not supplying the source for it. "Infrastructure Analyst" doesn't occur in the GSA rates but based on the current text of this article, should be either line 76 "Sr. INFOSEC Engineer" or plain Analyst level somewhere between 4 and 8 and the matter of fact should be in the public record. Lycurgus (talk) 13:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

This is interesting but it's original research. There's also the question of why Snowden's salary is sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
It's already referenced, albeit in an inaccurate and vague way (an unsupported supposed career high, off center from the events of interest). Lycurgus (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
If we're going to include content about his salary, it should be based on reliable secondary sources, not on primary sources such as what you've provided. There are secondary sources out there, e.g. [14], [15], [16]. Frankly I don't see the point. I'm in favor of removal. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Well all that you say is obviously the result of the reactionary/conservative mind. In fact this is a highly relevant and salient detail which is already in the article. So let others weigh in on it, in particular whoever placed what's there now. ty for your knee-jerk input. Also it's not OR, it's a back matter discussion for an improvement in this article, with sources which are not primary, which in this case would be something Snowden had written or said. Lycurgus (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
You need to find a secondary source. petrarchan47คุก 04:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you place the current text? Are you also in favor of wiping this information? Lycurgus (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't place the current text, not that it matters. You need a secondary source that makes the conclusions you'd like to add. petrarchan47คุก 18:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, these are not "conclusions" I've arrived at (ie. the basic facts, not my breakdown of them) but rather plain facts in the public record, in contrast to the surmise currently (or last I checked) on the obverse. Please stop with the pettyfogging about various site policies, I'm trying to raise a serious issue here and not in any way suggesting any violation of the letter or intent of such policies. Lycurgus (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
So what is the text you'd like amended, or what do you want to say, and what is the secondary source you would use for support? petrarchan47คุก 22:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, so we are talking about this sentence:

Although he has stated that his "career high" annual salary was $200,000,[60] Snowden said he took a pay cut to work at Booz Allen,[61] where he sought employment in order to gather data on NSA surveillance around the world so he could leak it.[62]

or rather the less interesting first two subparts. If you are asking me to propose a specific redact, probably can do but will have to come back to do so later. Lycurgus (talk) 01:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

1.7 million documents

A number of reliable sources have reported that, at least according to the federal government, Snowden had taken 1.7 million documents. Most of these sources have attributed the number to statements by the government and have not adopted it in their own voices (e.g. NY Times, Business Insider), but at least one has adopted the number in its own voice (Reuters), and one is rather ambiguous (BBC, "Mr Snowden is believed to have downloaded 1.7 million secret documents..."). The problem with the number is that it has more recently been criticized and contradicted by other reliable sources:

  • Vice: The 1.7 million number came from DoD talking points that were put out after members of Congress pressured the DoD to feed them with information that could be used to discredit Snowden.
  • Newsweek: The number has been lowered by the federal government to 1.5 million. Moreover, the lowering shows that "more than a year after Snowden walked off with a massive trove of top secret documents, the U.S. intelligence community still doesn’t know what he has."
  • Washington Post: James Clapper said, “some things we thought he got, he apparently didn’t.”
  • The Guardian: Keith B. Alexander doesn't "think anybody really knows what he actually took with him, because the way he did it, we don’t have an accurate way of counting."
  • Glenn Greenwald: "In fact, that number is and always has been a pure fabrication, as even Keith Alexander admits."
  • Foreign Policy: "The question of how much information took from the NSA has been difficult to answer. ... Estimates in the press, quoting anonymous officials, have ranged from 50,000 documents to nearly two million."

In light of these reliable sources, I don't think the 1.7 million number can be mentioned except with attribution in a historical context (per WP:RS), or at a minimum, noting the conflict among sources (per WP:NPV). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but "massive trove" is in Newsweek speak, so why not cite it? Surely I don't have to provide text: " ... described by news media as a massive cache ... " sort thing. The present "many" is too feeble and misleads a casual reader. Brian is right to highlight it, I think. c1cada (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I have no problem with anyone highlighting the issue, and it's certainly worth discussing. I'd tentatively support "huge number," but "massive trove" is too strong, considering that it's awfully strong language that has to my knowledge only been used by two sources (Newsweek and The Hill). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
"Very large" (rather than "huge") with the foreignpolicy.com citation you quote? Reasonable fix I think. c1cada (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm comfortable with "very large number." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I've come in here from the NPOV Noticeboard and I can only add to this that I would put Newsweek ahead of Vice on the actual numbers if they are used, given that Vice can be sensationalistic with it's facts and is more likely to inject speculation as fact. That doesn't mean to say that the 1.7 million number is necessarily wrong at present - I'm just saying that in terms of overall reliability and certainly neutrality I lean towards Newsweek. I do admit that Newsweek could also be speculating, but unlike Vice they aren't known for aggressive journalism. Curse of Fenric (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not following. The Vice and Newsweek sources are consistent. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Not according to what you wrote above they aren't. You made that clear in your review. Curse of Fenric (talk) 04:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
You might have to read the sources. Both sources undermine the reliability of the 1.7 million documents claim, albeit in different ways. The Newsweek source says the 1.7 million number is wrong and cites other sources as well as experts. The Vice source doesn't challenge the 1.7 million number directly but reveals that it was the product of political pressure. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
You're continuing to misrepresent the main takeaway of the VICE story, Doc, which is that the US government thinks Snowden has done tremendous damage. This is the very point you are trying so hard to suppress. Where, exactly, is the text in the VICE story that indicates "product of political pressure"? Pressure from whom on whom? Who, exactly, is driving the conspiracy that generated a bogus report, like WMDs in Iraq, from a US government entity? Dick Cheney again? I'll add that Newsweek is notoriously politically slanted and VICE is not remotely as even-handed as Reuters.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Pressure from members of Congress on the Pentagon. Neither the sources nor I said the 1.7 million number was part of a conspiracy. Just wrong. When the Pentagon admits that the number is wrong, and you're still defending it, then perhaps it's time to give up the fight, don't you think? And now we're determining political slant based on what some reader comments in Politico say? Seriously? So you're saying that Newsweek source isn't reliable? (Have you considered WP:BIASED?) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
"Pressure from members of Congress on the Pentagon" That's a conspiracy theory, and the VICE story indicates that the causality runs the other way: it's the 1.7 million that created the political pressure to get explanations for why "so many DoD files unrelated to NSA activities" were compromised. In other words, the report of the number of DoD files came first. Take another read of "appeared surprised and concerned at the extent of the Department of Defense information that was potentially compromised by Edward Snowden." How is that lawmakers are "surprised" if they are getting exactly what they wanted? Where, exactly, does VICE say 1.7 million is "just wrong"? As for Newsweek's reliability, the issue here is YOU claiming Reuters is unreliable, and citing the Newsweek story as proof. The Newsweek story doesn't function that way, as it's more of an opinion piece than Reuters. But if you really want to insist on your contradiction claim, sure, Business Insider calls Newsweek "left wing" and I don't think BI would have a headline like that about Reuters. I go back to what I noted below that Newsweek describing the number as an "estimate" isn't a contradiction so much as a supplement. You haven't been adding "estimate" to qualify the text at issue here. There's one thing here that you need to get straight: I am defending Reuters as a source here, not something else. I've nonetheless added attribution that Reuters does not add as a concession.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
"When retired NSA director Keith Alexander was asked in a May 2014 interview to quantify the number of documents Snowden stole, Alexander answered, "I don't think anybody really knows what he actually took with him, because the way he did it, we don't have an accurate way of counting. What we do have an accurate way of counting is what he touched, what he may have downloaded, and that was more than a million documents."*
With that in mind, we should simply summarize what's in the article. It might be difficult to summarize the nuance in this section, but it's also impossible to cite any particular number given the sources we have. petrarchan47คุก 23:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

This section is a red herring, as the edit at issue here is "According to the Pentagon, Snowden downloaded 1.7 million files..." And that's exactly what the first cited source, Bloomberg News, says, yet Doc kicks off this section to completely ignore the cited source. That doesn't stop him from deleting Bloomberg News anyway, of course. I could have just as well cited the Washington Post: "a classified Pentagon report concluded that Snowden downloaded 1.7 million intelligence files..." Reuters was simply added as a bonus. All this to say that I invite Doc to defend his deletion of the edit at hand. All Doc has given us here is the contention that Reuters, which was also cited in my edit, is contradicted and that's not the case. Newsweek, in what's an opinion piece more than some sort of hard news story that intends to go head to head with Reuters and contradict it, says 1.7 million should be seen as an "estimate". Well, fine, 1.5 million plus or minus 0.2 million. I fail to see what major difference that makes to the general point, making this quite distinguishable from the "stranded" claim that attempts to explain Snowden's presence in Russia by attributing it to a US decision. It's hardly like Wikipedia would be misleading anyone by taking Reuters at face value, never mind Bloomberg News. Doc is continually wagging the finger at anyone who dare add attribution or even "reportedly" to the stranded claim, yet Reuters reports something and one cannot even be questioning and add attribution to what Reuters doesn't attribute, one has to be firmly decided that the Reuters report is false such that attribution wouldn't save it. The only source Doc points to that actually substantively contradicts Reuters is Greenwald, and Greenwald's not on Reuters' level when it comes to reliability. Not by a long shot. He's called pretty much everything about Snowden that doesn't flatter Snowden "fabricated" and when Greenwald has subsequently been shown to have prematurely jumped to judgement, he hasn't been the sort to issue a correction. I'll add that The Times uses 1.7 million without attribution. As does Business Insider. Voice of America says "At the NSA, he downloaded 1.7 million secret documents" with no attribution. "Edward Snowden stole 1.7 million classified documents and fled to Russia" says the Daily Beast, no attribution. "Snowden downloaded more than 1.7 million secret files" says the Moscow Times. No attribution. "Snowden, a former American security contractor who is now in Russia, downloaded 1.7 million classified documents two years ago and leaked details to the press," says the Toronto Star. I find the Toronto Star interesting because the Star finds the number notable in a single sentence introduction of Snowden. But we're not supposed to follow the lead of all these sources? We're going to substitute the editorial judgement of partisans like Greenwald for all of this?--Brian Dell (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

There are too many things wrong with your comment, including a revealing, fundamental misunderstanding of how WP:NPV works, so I'll just leave it at this: The Washington Post, in an article titled "Edward Snowden took less than previously thought, says James Clapper," says James Clapper recanted the 1.7 million. Yes, the Director of National Intelligence recanted the 1.7 million number. We now know in hindsight the number was wrong, end of story. It can be used only in a historical context to explain how the government once said something that was inaccurate. At this point, please just let me know if you're going to push this so we can take it to the noticeboards. I mean really. This is ridiculous. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
What's ridiculous is how you can just dismiss all those sources that I listed as unreliable with just a wave of your hand. Yes, take it to the noticeboards. You can start with the RS and BLP noticeboards. Ask them if those Bloomberg News and Reuters stories are RS. If WIkipedia policies endorse your deletion of material cited to Reuters and Bloomberg News as cavalierly as you have then Wikipedia has changed and not just a little bit. And I'm fine with "1.5 million or more." If your good faith objection is simply that 1.7 million is obsolete and has been superseded in the majority of sources by 1.5, I think we can easily resolve this, but I think you are in fact being exceedingly disingenuous on this point, Doc. That WaPo story says "The intelligence community sharply disagrees with [Snowden's] self-assessment." I think you know full well that that's what I think is missing here as opposed to 1.7 versus 1.5 or, in fact, any particular number at all. As I've said before, I'm also fine with excluding this completely if the controversy isn't framed as citizens' privacy versus their domestic governments and that means not retaining both the second and last sentences of the lede to the exclusion of the actual primary line of criticism for most critics.--Brian Dell (talk)
Doc, I hope that you don't take this to any noticeboards - it just gives everyone a whole bunch of new work and it should not be needed in this case, IMO. Brian Dell has not been able to find any support for his position and that should settle the matter. WP does not expect editors to spend hours on end struggling with the opinion of just one editor who has not been able to gain consensus. When this happens the editor needs to step aside and let consensus work. Gandydancer (talk) 10:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting the consensus, Gaddydancer. The consensus was working fine for many months until just a few weeks ago Doc decided to start manipulating the lede. If the consensus is as you claim it is, why didn't you take it upon yourself to make these changes yourself? You've been around here a long time, such that you also know that other editors like JohnValeron do not agree with with you, Doc, and Petrarchan. The fact you three are persistent does not, in and of itself, constitute a consensus. The "consensus" is also not some amorphous thing that just attaches to editors. There are specifics at issue here, and people like JohnValeron and I are not going to agree on every last specific. Do you agree that the Pentagon assessment was due to "Pressure from members of Congress on the Pentagon"? There are number of issues here that should be addressed specifically.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

New lead section proposed by Trappedinburnley

I have a lot of sympathy for Brian's view that Snowden is not a straight-forward whistleblower, however I don't have time to get involved such a large quantity of discussion over every little thing. I feel the following opening would be an improvement and address several issues I have, some currently being discussed in multiple sections:

Edward Joseph "Ed" Snowden (born June 21, 1983) is an American computer professional, former CIA employee, and government contractor who leaked classified information obtained from the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) in 2013. The leak is thought to be one of the most significant in U.S. political history.
While working for Dell at a NSA facility in Hawaii, Snowden began communicating with documentary maker Laura Poitras, subsequently obtaining a position with Booz Allen Hamilton.[1] With access to a very large number of classified documents, on May 20, Snowden flew to Hong Kong and in early June met with Poitras and the journalists Glenn Greenwald and Ewen MacAskill.[2] The quantity of documents Snowden obtained or leaked is uncertain, but is thought be less than 1.5 million, and include information from U.S. allies involved in the Five Eyes network. Publications by several media outlets would later reveal numerous global surveillance programs, many run by the NSA with the cooperation of telecommunication companies, Internet service providers, and European governments.

--Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

That's a lot to digest. The lead section is the product of heated discussion and consensus-building among a large number of editors that has been ongoing since June 2013. I appreciate you bringing this up on the talk page, but it's difficult to respond in bulk like this. Perhaps you can itemize the specific changes you want to see and give a reason for each one? As for your concern that Snowden is not a straightforward whistleblower, I agree 100% with that, which is why the lead neither says nor suggests that he's one. The closest we get is to say that he's been called a whistleblower--just as he's been called a traitor and all the rest. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
It is a relatively straight-forward refactoring of the existing text, that I feel better reflects the sources used and the article. Obviously I've added my suggestion for a resolution to the 1.7m docs question. A comparison with the current lead should reveal most of my concerns. [17] And to be clear this is my idea for only the first paragraphs not the entire lead. This isn't perfect, just better, doe's anyone have a specific issue with it?--Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying about the first paragraphs versus the entire lead, I was worried! :-) Several issues:
  • The bumping of the surveillance programs to the second paragraph doesn't reflect the fact that Snowden is best known for revealing surveillance programs.
  • I don't think it's noteworthy (and possibly not verifiable) that Snowden took the job at Booz Allen after he started regularly communicating with Poitras.
  • What's important isn't what he had access to, it's what he took, which was a very large number.
  • I tentatively agree that MacAskill deserves mention. For some reason his role hasn't been as high profile as Greewald and Poitras's.
  • Overemphasis on the number of documents taken/leaked. The uncertainty of the number of documents is unnecessary and redundant. We already say "a large number."
  • "Thought to be less than 1.5 million" is non-neutral and weasely.
  • Some of the programs involve cooperation by Australia, Canada, and New Zealand (3 of the Five Eyes).
--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • He's best known for a significant leak from the NSA, which as you would expect involved surveillance, it didn't move so far.
  • Covered by the source, he's said it himself and makes it clear this wasn't a spur-of-the-moment thing.
  • I used "access to" because I don't think the transport method used is clear.
  • Agree, again covered by source
  • "less than 1.5 million" covers all options below, is succinct, and makes no judgment as to how much less. You argued it was the most up-to-date upper limit. Although a number in the hundred-thousands seems likely to me, further qualification is so uncertain as to be currently unachievable. The rest of the article is for explaining the uncertainty.
  • The current use of Five Eyes is non-neutral and weasely, and again I only moved it. I'm sure we can work the counties and/or sig-int agencies in, but they aren't currently mentioned.
I'm going to wait for more input before I try again--Trappedinburnley (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
The only problem for me is your final point about Five Eyes. It can't be weasely if based in fact and contains no editorializing.
From the Five Eyes Lede: Documents leaked by Snowden in 2013 revealed that the FVEY have been spying on one another's citizens and sharing the collected information with each other in order to circumvent restrictive domestic regulations on surveillance of citizens.[7][8][9][10] petrarchan47คุก 04:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
"global surveillance programs, many run by the NSA and the Five Eyes", is unnecessarily mysterious, and IMO is likely to create a negative impression to someone unaware of what the Five Eyes is. Content in that article such as you note (which has plenty of sensationalism but little substance) is unlikely to help. I feel some explanation is needed in this case. Then of course there is the grammar issue, as the NSA is one of the Eyes. Do you have any issue with my use in the proposed prose?--Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I should have been more clear. I linked you to this entry from Five Eyes to bring attention to the references used. My preference - and that of WP in general - is to use the wording and tone from the best sources on the topic. I'm not terribly convinced that your take on how the reader may view our mention of Five Eyes is accurate, but I have no problem with defining Five Eyes in the Lede; it might help to name the countries involved, at the very least. The last thing we want is to make anything mysterious. petrarchan47คุก 18:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC) Perhaps this AP source could be helpful. I don't believe your text include information from U.S. allies involved in the Five Eyes network clarifies the issue. petrarchan47คุก 18:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

TrappedinBurnley, you need to be bold and start editing. Neither Petrarchan nor DrF would stop to get a green light from you before editing. Petrarchan once declared that I'd violated BLP concerning another "whistleblower" and took the matter to the BLP noticeboard. We did so and she was told that "Brian Dell seems to be making the better argument". This was then ignored, despite the fact it was her idea to try and resolve the matter by going to a noticeboard. I have long experience with these two editors, and I believe the evidence has been in for a long time now that neither of these two engage on a Talk page on a good faith basis. At least not on this one.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any views on my proposal?
I have long experience with these two editors, and I believe the evidence has been in for a long time now that neither of these two engage on a Talk page on a good faith basis. At least not on this one. Brian Dell, this is not Twitter or an internet forum - we discuss article improvements here not our opinions of other editors. Please strike your opinions of your fellow editors. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Well then, Gandy, I suggest you set the example by striking your opinion here and replacing it with a specific statement that addresses the subject of this thread, namely, Trappedinburley's suggested revisions.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Brian, encouraging follow editors to edit against consensus (as opposed to without consensus, something quite different) is pretty blatantly disruptive. Please stop immediately before this goes to ANI. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Then follow through on your threat Doc and take it to ANI instead of just wielding your threat as part of an apparent intimidation game. How much influence has TrappedinBurley had on this article with his softball tactics? Now compare that with your hardball, three reverts in 13 minutes followed by a threat (issued on both article and editor Talk pages) reaction to an edit introduced by Trödel and supported by myself (that said, I'll grant that you're practically a pushover compared to Petrarchan's six (yes, 6!) reverts within two and half hours (as you'll see from this article's April 2014 history), Petrarchan behaviour that neither you nor any other editor brought to an admin's attention). Even if, with no small indulgence, we read Petrarchan's remarks as necessarily meaning Petrarchan would be opposed to whatever TrappedinBurnley should actually do here in terms of editing before we've seen that actual edit, it's two versus two (given that I'm in support of seeing exactly what TrappedinBurnley would do) and that most certainly does not constitute a consensus against allowing TrappedinBurnley to proceed.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
2014? I wander in and find what amounts to gossip about something unrelated from over a year ago? When you are mentioning another editor, BDell, you should ping them (if you can't refrain from it altogether). Your battleground behaviour and conspiracy theorizing in this thread are most disturbing. I don't appreciate being included in this drama. My only sin was to suggest Five Eyes be defined by summarizing the body. Your response here makes no sense unless this page is being used to carry out some ancient resentment. Stick to the content creation process and take care of your emotions offline, please. petrarchan47คุก 04:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you just "wander[ed] in" here, Petrarchan. You've been following this page for a long time and have participated in this very thread. There was no reason to think you wouldn't see my comment, and indeed you've responded to it within an hour of my making it. I responded to Doc's insinuation that I'm enabling bad behaviour on the part of TrappedinBurnley and that administrators need to get involved to put a stop to such aiding and abetting by pointing to the facts that indicate that if there has been "battleground behaviour" going on around here (and there has), such behaviour has been exhibited by more than one editor. I do thank you for clarifying your position on the content, however, by stating that the "only" thing you are taking issue with re Trapped is the definition of the Five Eyes.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I haven't been paying close attention here, but it's true you couldn't have known that,and would assume from my prior participation that I am. Why would you find my position on the content unclear? There is nothing mystifying about my statement in this thread, which began "The only problem for me is your final point about Five Eyes". Battleground behaviour is misrepresenting your fellow editors, creating drama by bringing up something from 2014 and insinuating there is some cabal here preventing good faith editing. Please stop talking about other editors, stop with the conspiracy theorizing about us, and concentrate on content if you aren't keen to have Admin intervention. petrarchan47คุก 05:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
DrF was of the view that he had consensus, and not just consensus on a narrow grounds, but on a broad enough grounds to claim that I was encouraging Trapped to behave disruptively by encouraging him to edit on ANY of the matters he raised in this thread. Doc didn't make allowance for the possibility Trapped might actually end up contributing something. Neither did Doc attempt any revision or addition of Trödel's or my edits. It was just delete the whole thing in full. Repeatedly. When you now indicate that nuance is required in addressing the various issues by stating that your point was in fact quite narrow, that's an important statement that needs to be highlighted given the behaviour going on around here. As for talking about other editors, if you are going to start accusing me of "misrepresentation," you could do me the courtesy of getting specific. Not that I wouldn't be more interested in you addressing the content of the article at hand, or failing that, following through on your threat to call for admin intervention. I think I've made it clear by my calling attention to the history that we could have done with some admin intervention a long time ago.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Sunday Times story

After going over much of the available material, I think it's in our readers best interests to leave The Sunday Times source up if it can be balanced with sources that support and object to it. I have tried to do that in my most recent edit. Those support the removal of the content generally cite BLP as the basis for their argument; however, normal Wikipedia policies do still apply: the Times did report what British officials said, as did the BBC. Several other news outlets questioned its validity, but it doesn't change that the Times did report it. If the Times's report is true, that might have lasting implications on the national security of numerous nations, thus satisfying Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Lasting effects. If it is not, well c'est la vie, but still, the Times did report it, and we can't verify it independently. What we can do is present a balanced look for all of our readers, giving equal weight to both sides, and let them decide for themselves the validity of the report, thus, we maintain neutrality and verifiability. Wikipedia's editors do not get to decide what reliable sources do and do not cover, and neither should we. We only report what they say in a disinterested manner and let our readers decide for themselves. --ceradon (talk • edits) 03:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This discussion is about the reliability of this Sunday Times source and whether it can be cited either directly or indirectly. I pass no judgment on the Sunday Times generally. The following reputable journalists say that this particular Sunday Times story is unreliable:

  • The Intercept: "The Sunday Times’ Snowden Story is Journalism at its Worst — and Filled with Falsehoods" "The whole article does literally nothing other than quote anonymous British officials." etc. etc.
  • The Guardian: portions of the source were later "quietly deleted"
  • Al Jazeera: "However, standing behind that headline was not a shred of evidence, not one provable fact."
  • IBT: "These are astonishing claims by any measure and to make them, the Murdoch-owned paper surely had lots of hard evidence to back them up? Well, it appears not."
  • CNN interview: "So essentially you’re reporting what the government is saying, but as far as the evidence to substantiate it, you’re not really able to comment or explain that, right?" "No."
  • Washington Post: "Sunday Times reporter on Snowden story: We don’t have a clue!" "Though CNN’s Howell doesn’t appear to be out to discredit [lead author] Harper’s work, he accomplishes that end just by asking obvious questions about the story."
  • CNN interview: Glenn Greenwald: "This is the kind of reporting that has single-handedly destroyed the credibility of journalism around the world." "That journalist is a liar who's doing nothing but writing down what his government friends tell him to and then giving them anonymity to protect it."
  • Ryan Gallagher's blog: "And that brings me to my final point on this. Harper claimed in his CNN interview that his story was 'effectively the official position of the British government.' If that's the case, then why will no one in the government come out and say so publicly?"
  • The Guardian: "The issue is not going away and the Sunday Times story may reflect a cack-handed attempt by some within the British security apparatus to try to take control of the narrative."
  • Wired (Bruce Schneier): "It’s a terrible article, filled with factual inaccuracies and unsubstantiated claims about both Snowden’s actions and the damage caused by his disclosure, and others have thoroughly refuted the story."

There are many, many more reliable sources slamming the Sunday Times story. It isn't reliable, and citing it directly or indirectly is a BLP violation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Do any of these state that Russia and or China have not gained access to the files? I made a previous comment about this that went unanswered. [18] --Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Does it matter? We need a reliable source to support any controversial claim. In any case, the answer is yes. We have the Glenn Greenwald Intercept source, plus we have this article by Bruce Schneier, who says Russia and China probably have the documents but they didn't get them from Snowden. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Claiming that Russia and China have the documents but didn't get them from Snowden, and then citing Schneier, is a classic case of a source reliability problem. How many other media sources have cited Schneier's bombshell that Russia and China have all the material? You evidently consider Schneier more reliable than the TImes, so why aren't other RS going with the better source? How does that count of RS repeating Schneier stack up against the number of sources that have put their editorial credibility on the line by relaying what the Times said? I see a Reuters wire for "Russia, China crack Snowden files: report" but I don't see any Reuters wire for "Russia, China crack Snowden files: report... but independently of Snowden". Was the Schneier claim repeated by The Telegraph? In which professional intelligence service or government agency are Schneier's sources for his information? Or does Schneier run his own billion dollar agency that would put him in a position to know? Did the BBC independently contact its insider sources and get the same story, like in the case of the Times? Your laundry list of "journalists" attacking the reliability of the Sunday Times piece consists of a series of opinion holders, or references to such opinion holders, saying "I don't like it" with respect to the Times story as opposed to any actual news report reporting something that contradicted the Times story or even rendered it implausible. I could just as easily point to this in the Wall St Journal which takes the opposite view. The Sunday Times can say "We reported what various reliable and well-informed sources from within the government told us" and "We fully stand by our story, as did the BBC which also had it confirmed by government sources in its reporting yesterday" but you are free to smear them as inventing a bogus story without concern for the contentiousness and implication of unethical behaviour such a charge implies by declaring that the BLP call for prudence regarding such allegations doesn't apply to a media outlet? BLP was never intended to bias RS policy by treating individuals like Greenwald or Snowden more reliable than an established media outlet in this way. Greenwald is the only one to actually claim that the Sunday Times is false and he's cried wolf too many times to be credible himself. Greenwald has accused Kommersant of "fabricating" stories and both Greenwald and Snowden accused Reuters of running a false story, but in neither case was any evidence for their allegations provided and in the Kommersant case evidence followed from more than one other source that backed up Kommersant's story. In any case, "On 14 June 2015, UK's Sunday Times reported..." is an established fact. Trödel also called attention to the critics of the Times, but you deleted everything. If you're going to delete material even when it is attributed and contrary views are identified then everything on the Times level of reliability or lower should be deleted as well if WP:NPOV were to be respected. That means the many unverified claims made by Snowden and assorted Snowden partisans. If you are going to tilt the table by crying BLP, you'd better find some more editor support that the edit at issue here indeeds constitutes a BLP violation.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
We're talking about whether the Sunday Times source is reliable, not whether the Sunday Times source is more or less reliable than the Wired source written by Schneier. If you want to talk about the reliability of other sources please do so in a separate discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
You're positing Schneier as undermining the credibility of the Times. I didn't call attention to him. You did with your argument. And your double standard when it comes to RS is, in fact, entirely the issue because the argument will just go around in circles until what, exactly, constitutes RS is settled. Your deletion of all of Trödel's edit, which invited you to provide nuance and give the critics of the Sunday Times a full hearing, is one thing. Deleting that AND keeping all the dubious claims by Snowden and his supporters is quite another thing, and in fact is the bigger thing, because while readers can remain ignorant of the Sunday Times and remain informed about the subject, pushing a subject-friendly POV of the subject at the same time critical material is deleted in bulk misrepresents the subject. You want all references to this frontpage story run by one of Britain's largest circulation newspapers deleted but can't point to any evidence at all that a publication that Wikipedia generally considers RS has somehow, on this story, lost that status by virtue of directly contrary evidence or even indirect evidence that renders the story implausible (Greenwald's opinion that the story is fabricated is not evidence (if Greenwald and friends are even claiming that as opposed to saying it is coming from the government and should be considered accordingly), yet you are going to apply the same standard to the rest of this biography? Greenwald also accused Reuters of the Times' crimes yet the Reuters story by Mark Hosenball has appeared in this article for a very long time. How did that outrage persist for so long? How about Greenwald's own claims, which appear repeatedly in this article? Is this Canadian press story indicating the view of the Canadian government a BLP violation or not? If not, what's the difference compared to the Sunday Times (or the Sunday Times combined with other source opinion on the Sunday Times story; neither Trödel nor myself added the Sunday Times material as standalone)?--Brian Dell (talk) 07:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
We're not discussing some sort of article-wide standard for reliability of sources. We have already have an encyclopedia-wide standard for that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
When, then, are you going to accept the need for consistent application of an encyclopedia-wide standard? Doesn't consistent application across Wikipedia also imply consistency within an article? I think it's clear that you have at least some awareness of your hypocrisy, because the same editor, you, who deleted Snowden's claim of "zero percent" is the same editor who claimed that Schneier's piece, which happens to fully and directly contradict Snowden (Snowden doesn't say 0% because there was no negligence, never mind deliberate action, on his part, he says "received any documents" period, without any "because of me" limitation), simultaneously undermined the credibility of the Sunday Times, whom Schneier at best only indirectly contradicts. Consistent application of RS standards is very much related to another key Wikipedia policy, namely, maintaining the neutral point of view.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Based on the writer's interview, nothing from the Sunday Times, or that can trace its origins to the Sunday Times, should be used in Wikipedia. R. Baley (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you advise the Wikipedia editors who described the The Sunday Times as "the largest-selling British national "quality" Sunday newspaper" that "nothing from the Sunday Times... should be used in Wikipedia," then, because they must be wrong about the "quality" part. At a minimum, you should be reverting "The Sunday Times has acquired a reputation for the strength of its investigative reporting – much of it by its award-winning Insight team – and also for its wide-ranging foreign coverage," no? The Reliable Source noticeboard has been around long enough that I think there would be more complaints if this source was as consistently unreliable as "nothing" implies.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree that this particular "Sunday Times" article is not reliable and, therefore, should not be used to substantiate the claims that Snowden's leaks are responsible for the Russians and the Chinese having access to information that compromised national security and put lives in danger. Furthermore, the BBC source used here as an independent confirmation of the "Sunday Times" story neither confirms nor denies the reliability of this "Sunday Times" story. According to British spies 'moved after Snowden files read' - BBC News under the section of this article titled "Analysis: By Gordon Corera - BBC security correspondent": [quote] However, no one in government today is confirming that they are sure that the Russians and Chinese have got full access - that remains in the realm of "no comment. [unquote] Christian Roess (talk) 03:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Has a front page Sunday Times story ever been exposed as bogus in the past, Christian? Or is this the first time? There's some sleight of hand here in your comment. First, you contend that the Times article doesn't support the contention that Snowden's leaks are responsible for compromising national security. You then say that the issue here is whether "the Russians and Chinese have got full access". Which is it? If the former, a fair reading of Corera is that he SUPPORTS the contention that government insiders believe Snowden is responsible for having to move agents one way or another. If the latter, the edit at issue does not claim "the Russians and Chinese have got full access" then simply cite the Times. The edit at issue says the "Times reported..." Which it most certainly did. And "UK intelligence agents have been moved because Russia and China have access to classified information which reveals how they operate, a senior government source has told the BBC" supports the contention that the Times reliably reported the unofficial view of the government. If your point here is that the Sunday Times is not a RS for the official, on-the-record view of the British government because the BBC says that that view remains "no comment", there is no contradiction between the BBC and the Times because the Times never claimed to report the on-the-record view.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Re BBC and Schneier, i guess this could be mentioned, but it is unrelated to TST. I too think that the TST article should not be treated as a RS, since the article discussed here is disputed by RS. prokaryotes (talk) 08:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah I see what you mean Brian Dell. You make a valid point and indeed my remarks are easily misconstrued as a "sleight of hand" that deceptively misdirects one's focus away from the central issue here. So then let me re-state my position as unambiguously as possibe. And here it is: this particular "Sunday Times" article (byTom Harper- the lead author, along w/ Richard Kerbaj & Tim Shipman ) has been thoroughly discredited (see the list above) as a reliable source. Period. And therefore, it cannot (or should not) be used as a reference in any Edward Snowden wikipedia page that would claim to adhere to established BLP criteria. That's all I'm trying to say. I hope that's a little clearer. Christian Roess (talk) 12:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
What's clear to me is that you've waved away whatever argument you may have had and left behind pure opinion. How about answering some of my questions above?--Brian Dell (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I think it seems reasonable to use the ST and the BBC to source that a British government source said what was reported he said. Nobody I have seen disputes that a government sources actually did say that. What that government actually did or didn't do with their spies based on their risk assessment of who might have access to the data that Snowden had taken is unknowable both to us and those who are claimed somehow to rebut the story - but I don't think we can dispute that they wished it to be known that they had. That the statement was reported in two reliable sources and commented on in all the above mentioned suggests it is a fact worth mentioning too.--ℕ ℱ 21:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I think you're missing the broader point, which isn't whether an anonymous British official said that in some sort of historical context, but whether what this anonymous official alleged can be presented as the truth in the lead section without any rebuttal whatsoever, as in the edit Brian Dell and I were fighting over. This is about BLP, and BLP dictates that we don't parrot unsubstantiated, highly controversial allegations of wrongdoing made by living people... especially when those allegations are made by parties with a track record of dishonesty and when the allegations have been completely slammed by responsible journalists. Put another way, your logic completely eviscerates WP:BLP. Any allegation could be made about anyone, and if it was picked up by the media it could be included on WP, regardless of how inflammatory and unsubstantiated it was. That's exactly what BLP is designed to prevent. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Now for some ambiguity (and some speculation) on my part: I believe the question is left open (and the possibility remains) that some future wikipedia editor(s) of this page could (via consensus, or general agreement) establish (in some future time) that this particular "Sunday Times" (ST) piece was (and is) reliable. Again, that's just speculation on my part; furthermore, for that to happen, for this article to gain credibility and reliability, the responsibility rests on the shoulders of "The Sunday Times"; in other words, the Philosophic burden of proof (not the "legal" burden of proof) is on "The Sunday Times" to substantiate their claims. Why? Well, I already stated one reason above in my response to Brian Dell: because the ST has already been consistently rebutted over and over again on this particular story. And so both their integrity and their credibility as a news gathering organization is on the line. That's obvious. But is there another reason that ST's integrity and reliability (in this story) is on the line? Yes. But to establish this, let's state what should be obvious but is not so obvious. Something that is not obvious in the sense that it is an "open secret", something that remains hidden in plain sight. And here it is: State and private power always seek protection from critical scrutiny. And one way "power" is able to accomplish this protection from critical scrutiny is by constructing a doctinal system responsive to the demands of the establishment. And part of the open secret is this: that any journalist or media outlet is free to "sample" from this doctrinal system at any time; that is, if they wish to tow "the party line." And this "doctrinal system" is always made available to them. That's just basic practice, and so it's no "secret" at all (in fact, this is basic Chomsky & Herman, Walter Lippman & the "engineering of consent."). And that's what the ST piece is accused of doing: uncritically sampling from the establishment's doctrinal system. In this particular case, the ST is caught, again and again, quoting "unnamed government sources." Caught? Kind of a funny word to use, because they were caught doing what many establishment media organizations do, and have always done. And that's why basic journalistic integrity (one that subscribes to a fair and independent media --"freedom of the press"--) demands that ST was called out on this particular story. That's why this particular story is not reliable in a sourced BLP page on wikipedia, even if ST operates within acceptable "standard" media practice (SOP---everybody does it). And until RS is established again with this particular story, it should not be used in a BLP wikipedia article on Edward Snowden. Christian Roess (talk) 12:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Although I'm sure that the Times wish they'd done a better job here, I would remind people that newspaper articles are generally not most preferred RS content WP:NEWSORG. Those that are familiar with this part of the RS policy should already know that correcting errors is considered something that makes a source more reliable not less. We should mainly be using them for quotes that can be attributed to specific people, which we do have here from Sir David Omand. However we're talking about spy stuff here, anonymity is commonly used when governments wish to make statements about classified information. It is highly unlikely that we're ever going to get solid evidence (The Russians or Chinese are hardly going to admit it and if we know because we spied on them, detailed public acknowledgment would likely burn that asset as well). I feel that the Times source with the BBC (which does contain independent confirmation albeit with more anonymity) is suitable to say: "British government officials briefing anonymously, stated ...". Rebuttal based on political convenience and the difficulties with verification would also be acceptable. It certainly shouldn't be in the lead yet though, not that is where anyone was trying to put it.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Trappedinburnley. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Where, exactly, is the Sunday Times story "rebutted"? I see a whole lot of opinion complaining that the story is based on officials' claims, but I see no "rebuttal". Wikipedia can, and should, state it exactly what is the case here, which is that the story is based on officials' claims. Conspiracy theorists who think the claims are a deliberate government campaign to disinform the Times and the BBC can then dismiss the story right there, without their imposing their evidence-free view on other readers.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there consensus?

Let's review here: C1cada, Trödel, and myself all added citations of the Sunday Times to this article. The fact that Prokaryotes changed "The Times" to "The Sunday Times" in the article suggests Prokaryotes also supports a citation of some sort. So that's three editors right there and more probably four. Then you have TrappedinBurnley and FoCuSandLeArN just above, plus Nomoskedasticity further up ("...reasonable to use the ST and the BBC... That the statement was reported in two reliable sources and commented on in all the above mentioned suggests it is a fact worth mentioning"). That's six if not seven. Add to this Eagleash' comment here "Seems fine to me too. Backed up by three sources that are commonly considered reliable" and Spumuq "These are numerous solid sources, how is it a BLP violation?" To keeping counting, that's eight if not nine (if you want to strike Spumuq's view on the basis of weak or irrelevant supporting argument, Christian Roess' Chomsky-citing tirade about the "establishment" in this thread should be similarly struck). When Doc's got at least eight editors on the other side (supporting a citation of the Sunday Times in at least the body of the article), I can understand why he might be reluctant to respond to my question "where, exactly, is the Sunday Times story 'rebutted'" (Nomoskedasticity in fact specifically stated that the "rebuttal" Doc claims is not apparent) but that doesn't change the fact that Doc needs to engage instead of edit warring over this. The only source that actually "rebuts" is Greenwald, and I note that on that count Greenwald dishes out the same treatment to the New York Times. Greenwald, in fact, goes beyond in the case of the NYT, by making a general claim of unreliability that applies beyond just one story. I'm quite confident that the Wikipedia community, given sufficiently broad consultation, will decline to support Doc's contention that citing the Sunday Times, the BBC, and the NY Times with respect to consequences of Snowden's actions constitutes a BLP violation. The edit at issue here uses the Sunday Times with attribution and fully discloses the fact the sources are anonymous (Saxby Chambliss, who was a US Senator until earlier this year, is on record saying "not unlike the Snowden incident ... we’re going to lose American lives as a result of this breach. And the reason we are is because the Chinese now have possession of all of our folks who have gone through background checks...", since when is a non-anonymous source like Chambliss more reliable than multiple, independently contacted officials just because Chambliss isn't anonymous? I should think a journalist like Eric P. Schmitt of the NYT is in a better position to judge the reliability of a source than a Wikipedian second guessing the reporting and editorial practices of the NY Times; - or the Sunday Times). The language in this edit was suggested by TrappedinBurnley, above.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. If you think there's a consensus in your favor you're free to request a close. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I have requested admin involvement. Here to be exact and there because what's needed is consideration of the view of all eight plus editors I identified above, not just some cherry picked subset.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I will make two more observations here. First, I see you that you again refuse to consistently apply your sourcing standard, Doc, since you accept the NY Times even though its sourcing is just as anonymous as the Sunday Times (and furthermore doesn't have the BBC independently getting the same story from its sources) and just as "rebutted" by Greenwald. Since when is it a BLP violation to suggest someone enabled the Russians but it's just fine to suggest someone enabled ISIS? At least Greenwald has the courage of his convictions. The most obvious explanation for your apparent concession re the claims of anonymous officials about a living person when it's the Times on this side of the pond that's reporting them is that you recognize at some level that you've already bitten off more than you can chew with your BLP violation allegation. Secondly, as far as I'm concerned even that "cherry picked subset" shows you are offside consensus. Three different editors - and all of the editors who were not previously involved in this article and its disputes - at the BLP noticeboard indicated that they did not see your BLP concern sufficiently established and/or a rebuttal of the Sunday Times. Even so, I could go over there and point out that the consensus does not, in fact, stop there and then request a close based on all of the offered opinions. That thread is, however, already archived. For the record, I do not think admin closure is what's needed here, since the issue here is, in fact, an editor behaviour issue, specifically an editor refusing to either recognize the consensus for what it is or respond to editors like Trappedinburnley and FoCuSandLeArN. Have those two done something to offend you such that they deserve the silent treatment?--Brian Dell (talk) 02:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I have requested a close. I'm pretty certain there is no consensus. We don't vote here, but if we did the vote would be 4-4:
  • Those favoring inclusion of Sunday Times source: Brian Dell, Nonsenseferret, Trappedinburnley, FoCuSandLeArN
  • Those favoring removal of Sunday Times source: Dr. Fleischman, R. Baley, Christian Roess, prokaryotes
Of course you have to look at the arguments themselves, that's how consensus works here. As both Brian and I are involved in this dispute, neither of us are in a good position to do this. Hence the request for close. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
A reference to the Sunday Times was first introduced to this article by C1cada. It takes a lot a chutzpah to then turn around and claim that C1cada does not "favor inclusion of Sunday TImes source." It takes even more, however, to revert Trödel with the edit summary " rev 2 edits by Trodel per WP:BLP - read the sources": the fact that you can revert another editor and then refuse to acknowledge that that editor disagrees with you is revealing of your respect for the editing community. Particularly revealing is that you reverted Trödel "per WP:BLP" and continue to revert claiming BLP despite having found one, and only one, editor to support your view, and with an argument that called for smoking out the machinations of "state and private power" and the "doctrinal system" when assessing the reliability of a source, concepts which if truly relevant would have surely gotten at least a mention in the community-developed reliable source and BLP policy pages. Trappedinburnley replied to Christian Roess' "argument", was seconded by FoCuSandLeArN, and Roess was a no show in terms of a counter to Trappedinburnle. As you continue to be as well. I note that even after you responded to my pointing to C1cada and Trödel by refusing to acknowledge their existence, you're still in the minority, by your own count!--Brian Dell (talk) 04:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Not constructive. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
What's not constructive is your edit warring instead of rebutting my observation about the consensus (and how you misrepresented it). If you can't rebut, then it's time to stop edit warring.--Brian Dell (talk)
I see you're really on a roll in terms of defying Wikipedia norms: you've gone and made a substantive change to your comment after it's been replied to. As for Prokaryotes, when the Sunday Times was cited, Prokaryotes effectively endorsed the cite by adding 'Sunday' to the source cited. Lest there be no mistake, he did so twice. Prokaryotes furthermore gave the greenlight to citing the BBC, which also cites an anonymous official to make the same claim.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Prokaryotes wrote: "I too think that the TST article should not be treated as a RS." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
If you are as concerned about seeing Prokaryotes' vision for the article realized as you profess to be, you'd acknowledge @Prokaryotes:' editing of this article which indicates a desire to see the Times here cited as the "Sunday Times". If you want to ignore that like you've ignored C1cada and Trödel and selectively quote part of Prokaryotes' Talk page comment, you'd act on that snippet by pleading "not RS" in your edit warring summaries instead of "not BLP". I'll add here that if your good faith concern here is with the messenger as opposed to the message, why aren't you changing the messenger from Sunday Times to the BBC per Prokaryotes instead of deleting the message? --Brian Dell (talk) 06:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
My concern is with defending our BLP policy. Some folks agree with me, some don't. Please let an uninvolved editor determine consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The NY Times committed the same BLP violation by relying on anonymous officials and it got just as "rebutted" (by the only party who rebutted either: Greenwald) yet you let it pass. Why is that, if it's true that you are just defending BLP policy instead of trying to delete a message you don't want readers to hear? Why aren't you defending BLP policy on this Talk page by responding to editors like Trappedinburnley and FoCuSandLeArN who do not believe citing the Sunday Times constitutes a BLP violation? "Some folks agree" is simply false. One "folk" agrees. Out of the, what, dozen that have provided opinions. Uninvolved editors already responded to your BLP claim on the BLP noticeboard and they unanimously found your BLP violation claim wanting (Petrarchan is not uninvolved given her level of involvement in this page over the years, and even then she has never indicated that she sees the BLP violation you claim exists). Please stop edit warring and respect the opinion expressed by those uninvolved editors.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The New York Times doesn't have a BLP policy. We do. I have no obligation to respond to Trappedinburnley and FoCuSandLeArN despite your harping that I do so. My "failure" to respond is not an act of disrespect, quite the opposite. I am glad they shared their views, which are worthy of consideration by the community. Can we please leave it at that? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
You can spin it however you like but actions speak louder than words here and ignoring someone's good faith concerns to edit war in defiance of those concerns does not constitute respecting that someone. You have an obligation to acknowledge the existence of other editors like Trödel and to respond on the Talk page to editors who do not agree with your editing. It's called respecting the editing community instead of trying to bully your way through with the exact same reversion with the exact same edit summary. I note that you've asked admins to lock down this page to your preferred version preventing not just myself but all others from editing this page and when I suggested the two of us could be blocked so that only we are prevented from editing this page, thus allowing others to continue to edit, you would have none of that. I also note that you have have declined to try and make your case on the RS noticeboard because you believe so doing would be "unlikely to yield a consensus anytime soon." So what are you going to do instead, continue to edit war? Your argument can't be very good if you don't believe you can find a consensus supporting your view. Is this why you refuse to engage with Trappedinburnley and FoCuSandLeArN? Because you have no confidence in your argument? Then admit it so the disruption can come to an end. I'll repeat my question: why does citing the NY Times get a pass when it had even less independent verification than the Sunday Times, if it's true that you are just defending BLP policy instead of trying to delete a message you don't want readers to hear?--Brian Dell (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edward_Snowden/Archive_7&oldid=1136282571"