Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:12, 1 March 2014

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Edward Snowden. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Edward Snowden at the Reference desk.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Espionage Mid‑importance Edward Snowden is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: North Carolina / Government Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. International relations Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Mass surveillance Mid‑importance Edward Snowden is within the scope of WikiProject Mass surveillance, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of mass surveillance and mass surveillance-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.Mass surveillanceWikipedia:WikiProject Mass surveillanceTemplate:WikiProject Mass surveillanceMass surveillance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on June 10, 2013. The result of the discussion was keep per Snowball clause.

The contents of the Edward Snowden in Hong Kong page were merged into Edward Snowden on June 16, 2013. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

A news item involving Edward Snowden was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 2 August 2013.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Michael Jaccarino (August 04 2013). "Snowden a friend or foe? Misplaced Pages fight takes both sides". Fox News. Retrieved August 4, 2013. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Ryan Gorman (August 04 2013). "Someone within the US Senate edited Edward Snowden's Misplaced Pages page to change his description from 'dissident' to 'traitor'". The Daily Mail. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

"...thinks it’s a parasite from the local water..." ("U.S. official(s)" wanting to kill Snowden)

Is this not getting WP:UNDUE, detailing some anonymous person's assassination fantasy? The State Department position on these threats is that they have “no place in our discussion of these issues.” Misplaced Pages evidently disagrees, as there is currently a huge place given over to going on about these threats. Kucherena and Snowden certainly want to make hay out of these threats, with Snowden elevating these people to "officials" (a term Webster applies to those who have "a position of authority") despite the official "totally inappropriate" from the State Dept spokesman, and Misplaced Pages is becoming tendentious if it is continually turning over its platform to extended self-serving statements. "Doing the right thing means having no regrets." This is encyclopedic?

I might add here that it's an assumption that all of the words attributed to Snowden in that Q&A were handpicked by Mr Snowden himself. Snowden once wrote a 1000 word essay that Glenn Greenwald knew was indeed entirely by Snowden and Greenwald thought it "Ted Kaczynski-ish" and would not go over well with the public. We've now got someone who writes like he could rival Greenwald in sophistication. I'm reminded of that purported Snowden statement of dubious authenticity issued last summer that was "written in fluent Assangese".--Brian Dell (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I could add "no one knows whether Snowden was actually the person physically typing in the responses" to the article and cite that to NBC News, but I should hope we could agree that the better approach is to minimize our use of material attributed to Snowden without confirmation it is in fact Snowden's words to when it's necessary/appropriate to note a point of fact is disputed. "Doing the right thing means having no regrets" etc is really just polemics and removing that does not leave the reader less informed about the facts or possible facts.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it's not undue, actually it is a subdued version of what is being reported in media, which is that some wanted to put "a bullet in his head". If media wasn't going into detail about the assassination ideas, we wouldn't have the right to here either. But Kucherina's statement required context, and as you can see I did not go into detail initially. However, the reader needs to understand what Kucherina is complaining about regarding "real threats". petrarchan47tc 21:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: I did end up trimming the section whilst leaving enough detials for context. petrarchan47tc 23:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand that someone wants to put "a bullet in his head." But given that there may be hundreds of millions of people around the world with an opinion on Snowden, it's hardly news that a few people were found with extreme opinions. So why did Buzzfeed report this? How about because Buzzfeed wanted to do a story advising readers that while "the New York Times has called for clemency.... In intelligence community circles, Snowden is considered a nothing short of a traitor in wartime" and these "chilling" fantasies are given as examples? Where's your evidence that the threat is "real"? It's not in Buzzfeed, which also reported that "There is no indication that the United States has sought to take vengeance on Snowden... And the intelligence operators who spoke to BuzzFeed on the condition of anonymity did not say they expected anyone to act on their desire for revenge." The official State Department spokesperson then went on the record to note that there is absolutely zero chance a hit would ever be approved, never mind threatened, by someone actually in charge. Kucherena jumps on the Buzzfeed story to say his client needs more Kremlin-supplied security, private security won't do. Well of course he does. He isn't going to miss an opportunity to play up how much his client is being persecuted by a wrathful U.S. government seeking to maintain its power. It also serves the notion that Snowden wouldn't be safe outside the embrace of Mother Russia and must accordingly remain there. Disseminating anti-American propaganda is his job. But that doesn't mean we have to nod along with him. He really should be ignored as an unreliable source, or at a minimum the doubts about his credibility given to the reader, but I recall you arguing at length for deletion of any reference to the TIME story calling him "misleading" and that suppression continues to reign as I decided to not edit war over it. I might add that freesnowden.is has not been established as a reliable source either. You cite to this website, but note that the domain is registered to Assange and hosted on Wikileaks servers. Its reliability is therefore no higher than that of Wikileaks.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

This reads more like a rant than a talk page discussion. This statement, "It also serves the notion that Snowden wouldn't be safe outside the embrace of Mother Russia", makes me question whether you are capable of maintaining a neutral POV. Probably best to save phrases such as "the embrace of Mother Russia" for personal opinion rather than talk page space. Gandydancer (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you have anything to say about the article has opposed to me? See the top of this page: "Please limit discussion to improvement of this article." Of course I don't have a "neutral" POV. To quote from policy: "Problems arise when editors see their own bias as neutral". I'm a national security conservative, which in turn means that I'm going to be consistently on the short side of consensus given the libertarian majority on Misplaced Pages unless my position is so strong that people ideologically opposed to my point of view feel compelled to concede it. For many of those inclined to dispute my editing, unless a weight equivalent to the Library of Congress is dumped on them they'll continue to insist I have failed to present enough evidence and argument for them to stop edit warring.---Brian Dell (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

@Gandydancer I'll make another observation here about this particular statement of mine you find so objectionable. In an Associated Press wire we find "He said Kucherena's statements about concerns for Snowden's safety do not hold water." Who is "he"? Andrei Soldatov, a Russian investigative journalist and security analyst who frequently contributes to Index on Censorship. Soldatov is then quoted "We are all perfectly aware that Snowden, who has just received asylum, does not face any danger in Russia... This is a just a pretext." Since @Petrarchan47 refuses to accept that Kucherena has been using the latest threats as a pretext, my questioning that is directly relevant to the editing dispute.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Please stop POV pushing and OR-ranting. I am not arguing that this is big news, the media is doing that. It was widely reported that Snowden is seeking extra security, and why. That is what this paragraph is about. As I have said, I only added the details from Buzzfeed so that his lawyer's statement made sense. This isn't a paragraph about an article. If there was no fallout from the article, it wouldn't have been mentioned here. If you wish to pull quotations from the Buzzfeed piece, that would be a separate section - but it would also be undue unless the bits highlighted were discussed elsewhere. That is how I see it, anyway. Others may feel to weigh in. petrarchan47tc 00:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

My pushing back against your POV pushing is of course perceived as POV pushing to you. There is ranting here all right, but it is you ranting about being "100% EXHAUSTED". I have to write huge reams of text here to support all of my editing because you refuse to concede anything at all to my editing judgment unless you are buried in a mountain of evidence forcing you to concede the wisdom of my edits. I am exhausted by the unremitting and continual intransigence of yourself and your allies here but given your inclination to appreciate where those who don't agree with you are coming from, would it have ever occurred to you that all sides are exhausted here? You recently went to a notice board about another article, inviting others to weigh in and the response you got over there was "Brian Dell seems to be making the better argument". I have been continually referring to sources and providing arguments for why some sources are more reliable than others and why certain edits should be undertaken to render the article more neutral. You have to do due diligence to do a good job at that, due diligence you dismiss as original research instead of bothering to engage with it on a point by point basis. It's your dismissal of the importance of taking care that led to errors like your false statement that "The highlighted text above has received no objection" and your misattributing what the State Department said to the White House, just to take two examples.

With respect to the technical argument you seem to be trying to make for reverting me, your preferred version doesn't include "put a bullet in his head" despite the fact that the primary source for Kucherena's remarks is Russian news agencies and there we see Kucherena say "It's gone as far as some officers, who earlier served in special forces, saying they are ready to kill Edward." Now which threat came from someone who served in the Special Forces? Why, that would be the "I would love to put a bullet in his head" guy. I could add here that this same guy speaks of "having to do it in uniform", a qualifier that doesn't exactly add support to the contention the guy is a "real" risk to disobey orders and go rogue.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes Brian, you are exhausting. You said it yourself: "I have to write huge reams of text here to support all of my editing". There is a name for that, please see WP:TE, and please stop it. Gandydancer (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Tendentious editing applies to article editing, not Talk page editing (except for formatting issues). There is also a name for what you are doing, which is repeatedly reverting another editor without discussing the edits at issue on the Talk page. It's called WP:Edit warring.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

That "Mother Russia" comment cements my impression that Bdell555 is not here to represent the topic neutrally. The attitude I'm seeing is classic WP:BATTLEFIELD, including edit summaries that sound like a line-in-the-sand challenge: "You want to hear from me less? Then stop fighting my editing at every turn. If you are going to insist on an edit war, I am oing to discuss until the warring stops." Let's have shorter discussions of sourcing and wording, please. Binksternet (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I now see that when you reverted my replacing a Reuters cite with a NYT cite, you didn't even look at the content that you were reverting, you just saw that I had mentioned the Guardian and FOX in my last two edit summaries (which was to a different part of the article) and on that basis alone you rolled back all three of my edits to the last version by Petrarchan47. So in other words I wasted my time defending that change on this Talk page because you might not have had any objection at all had you realized what you were doing! My mistake for assuming you had a good faith objection to the edit itself as opposed to the editor, I suppose. This is what I mean by "hearing from me less": this Talk page could have been shorter had you directed your attention to the article.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Bdell555, looking at the last 24 hours you've already broke 3RR. So much for edit warring.TMCk (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide the diffs that prove this? I address this sort of attitude towards 3RR on my Userpage. Please do take your complaint about me to a noticeboard so we can get more people involved here. Currently, the new entrants to this thread are unwilling or unable to take a look at the EDITS here as opposed to the EDITOR.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

This "you are exhausting" talk is destructive, non constructive, and is contrary to the spirit of the project. Anyone who is too "exhausted" to address the good-faith concerns of their fellow editors ought to take a good long wikibreak, and consider focusing their efforts on less controversial subjects. That goes for all of you. Yes, including you, Petrarchan. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Mr. F, if you consider these contributions to be concerns worth your time, I implore you to respond to them and to help me. (And thank you for the advice, though I already have a doctor ;) petrarchan47tc 20:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:VOLUNTEER --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Let me be more specific, I implore you to point out what exactly good faith concerns you see? I can't sift through it, and it is tiring. You have apparently sifted through theses concerns, and maybe could show me what I'm missing with regard to article improvement. Thanks, petrarchan47tc 20:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Fleischman, we can do without your advice. Why go around trying to stir up trouble? Gandydancer (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Stay civil, assume good faith, and lay off the personal attacks. I haven't done any "sifting" and no one has presented any evidence of bad faith by anyone. If you two can't take my very simple suggestion to refrain from the "I am completely exhausted by you" and the "I can't sift through so-and-so's comments because they are tiring" comments, then you truly do need to take a break. Is that such an unreasonable suggestion? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Evidently Petrarchan47 wants to double-down on this, preferring to heighten the supposed U.S. government threat to kill Snowden even more in the article instead of addressing the many objections given above. This "threat" as Petrachan47 wishes to present it is an unfounded conspiracy theory. Buzzfeed clearly cited the threats in order to give examples of how angry some people in the intelligence community are at being betrayed, as opposed to revealing a previously unreported assassination plot brewing inside the government. That Snowden and Kucherena have misrepresented the Buzzfeed story by treating it as the latter in no way compels Misplaced Pages to do likewise. This does not mean ignoring the Buzzfeed story but it does mean not drawing on it selectively to mislead readers. Petrarchan47's effort here is of a piece, editing Misplaced Pages to insert the opinions of Sibel Edmonds. In fact Edmonds is a conspiracy theorist, a signer of the "9/11 Truth Statement" who went on the show of conspiracy theorist monger extraordinaire Alex Jones to declare that "The evidence points to a massive government cover-up." Jones asked her "if 9/11 was an inside job" and "Do you think the evidence is leaning towards that?" to which she replies "... I would say yes." Of course when editing Misplaced Pages Petrachan47 describes Edmonds solely a a "whistleblower" as opposed to "9/11 Truther." The time Misplaced Pages devotes to Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories must be subject to the appropriate WP:WEIGHT.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Please stop, bdell555. You must know by now that your POV is fine, but cannot be used to spin articles and it has no place on an article talk page. If Sibel is called a truther rather the a respected whistleblower, you'd have a point. And this isn't an invitation to go smear her wiki bio as you did Russ Tice originally. I am sick of cleaning up after you, and am not going to read your original research conspiracy crap on this talk page. You can't seem to keep it simple short and sweet because your points simply aren't supported by RS. petrarchan47tc 18:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to quote from Misplaced Pages:Edit_warring since you continue to misrepresent that policy: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion." You continue to evade the call to discuss because the discussion is not "short and sweet" enough for your tastes. Where in the policy is party A advised to tell the party B that party A is "not going to read" B? The issue here is both complex and detailed. If you don't have the time to engage it, you don't have to as long as you also cease edit warring. If my points are not supported by RS and sound analysis of their reliability then point out where and why. With respect to just who is pushing "conspiracy" theories here, I've asked to the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to weigh in on that.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You wanted help from the noticeboard, you've got it. Now please, kindly Misplaced Pages:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass before you get even more wound up and wind up needing a time-out. --HectorMoffet (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you have anything substantive to say about the Misplaced Pages edits being disputed here, Hector? Please DO seek my getting banned as doing so might involve more editors and perhaps one of them will decide to get into the weeds here and address what is supposed to be the issue here, which is the editing of this article.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages cannot in good conscience tell the reader how to kill Snowden with a bullet or a poison. Any text toward that goal is a gross violation of WP:BLP. Certainly we can talk about the existence of death threats but there is no call to quote them, or describe them. Binksternet (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Note that I kicked off this particular thread by saying that the level of detail Petrarchan wanted in the poisoning fantasy was excessive. So why is this response of yours directed at me instead of to Petrarchan's comment, above, that "what is being reported in media... is that some wanted to put "a bullet in his head". If media wasn't going into detail about the assassination ideas, we wouldn't have the right to here either"? You are now edit warring with me to restore a cite to Mike Masnick without any comment on your part in the Talk page thread "Mike Masnick/Techdirt", below, where including cites to Masnick is objected to. You are also edit warring with me to remove the elements from the Buzzfeed story that give specific reasons for the anger of the anonymous employees without your having ever replied to me on this Talk page to explain why you think that material should be excluded. You are also edit warring with me to so as to have Misplaced Pages not quote the State Department spokeswoman saying the threats were "totally inappropriate" and had “no place in our discussion of these issues." Why? What is your objection here?--Brian Dell (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

If you find I agree with you on some point, then let it be. Regarding Harf saying the death threats were "totally inappropriate", my first version today had an unnamed Harf saying the death threats were unacceptable. My second version today stitched two versions together; it has a named Harf saying the death threats were "totally inappropriate". Nothing wrong with that. Binksternet (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Why are you trying to "stitch two versions together" here? There is not a "my" version and a "Petrarchan" version since neither of us own this article. There is solely content here. This means that each element of the content needs its own justification without reference to some sort of "package" linked to a particular editor. If you insist on reverting, break it down into each element you believe needs reversion, each with its own justification.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The two versions were yours and mine. I saw redundancies between them, and I saw material that gave undue weight to the BuzzFeed article by quoting it. That's why I said I "stitched" the two versions together. Don't make this personal; it's about content. Binksternet (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

So you chose all of those words yourself and it is just an amazing coincidence that they match what Petrarchan chose! No "team play" here you say, "it's about content." Glad to hear that. How is it, though, that if the Buzzfeed article would be receiving undue attention here by offering some quotes from it (that would more accurately present what the article was about than excluding the brief quotes), you want to expand the quotes of REACTION to the story you think should get less play? If the BuzzFeed article is receiving undue weight here, in other words, why are you increasing the size of this paragraph, which is all about the Buzzfeed article and wouldn't exist but for its publication?--Brian Dell (talk) 02:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I see that your latest claim is that it is a "misrepresentation" for Misplaced Pages to refer to Kucherena making an issue out of threats in August 2013 subsequent to his making an issue out of them in January 2014. There is no "misrepresentation" here as the chronology is clearly given, or did you miss the "previous August" part? The current order reflects an entirely sensible thematic organization: Kucherena making an issue out of threats. If you want to open the paragraph with August 2013, it wouldn't be something I would edit war over, but it seems you are not inclined to change the chronology in order to correct what you imagine to be a "misrepresentation" anyway, rather, you just want Soldatov's view deleted. Why should it be deleted with the Associated Press thought his view notable? If there is any "misrepresentation" here, it is in your demand to not draw on more material from the Buzzfeed article that would indicate that what Kucherena makes of the Buzzfeed story is not the only possible reading.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I really liked your opinion on the topic at hand. I however thought it was unnecessary that when you pointed out the fact that millions of people want to put a bullet in Snowdens head. I found this to be unnecessary because seeing as there are so many people involved on this topic, all of which have an opinion on the actions of Snowden I found it unnecessary to point out the people who felt negative on the topic. While yes what they are feeling is justified because of the things released by Snowden, I just thought it could have been said better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikole 919 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Pls review Bdell555's edits

Mike Masnick / Techdirt

The article cites Techdirt on multiple occasions. Note that Techdirt has been discussed on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard in the past and the view was that what we have here is a blog. A review of recent headlines would also suggest a blog, e.g. "Microsoft And IBM: If Patent Office Can Do A Quick Review Of Our Crappy Patents, You'll All Die In A Car Crash", "Congressional Moral Panic Over The Fact That Prostitutes Now Use Twitter", "UK Continues Its War On Innovation And The Public, At The Urging Of The Major Labels". I don't believe "United Kingdom Continues Its War On The Public" is the sort of title you'd find in an authoritative, less tendentious source. It is, however, what one would expect in a blogpost.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The full response from the RS noticeboard was that it could be used. Well TechDirt is a blog, although it's a blog that has received "Best of the Web" awards from Business Week and Forbes according to their web site. If Sanger has gone out of his way to pick on TechDirt, and if that fact is newsworthy (and I'm not saying that it is), then I think it's appropriate to include what TechDirt has to say.

Please list the exact 'claims sourced to TechDirt that you find problematic. petrarchan47tc 06:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that blog sources are not automatically not acceptable sources. That is a misunderstanding. I'd like to see where it is used as well. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that "The Fact That The US Intelligence Community So Readily Admits To Fantasies Of Killing Ed Snowden Shows Why They Can't Be Trusted" in particular should be removed from this article. Is this blogpost title an indisputable fact or someone's opinion? Note that there is no original reporting in this blogpost, just opinion on other reports, and in this particular area the author has no particular expertise. I would also note here that Masnick's political POV on this issue and related ones like copyright is especially extreme.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Which claims made to this source bother you? petrarchan47tc 23:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I have already made clear the objections to the paragraph in which this citation is made in the earlier thread about U.S. officials allegedly wanting to kill Snowden. Misplaced Pages is not the "Voice of Russia".--Brian Dell (talk) 03:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

That sort of behavior sucks. It should not take over a week to reply and expect editors who do more than work on just this article, to say nothing of have a private life, to even remember what is going on here. Gandydancer (talk) 03:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Mike Masnick is not a blogger, he's the CEO of Techdirt. The fact that he is notable in Misplaced Pages's terms makes him rise up into the radar of the Snowden biography. He writes expertly on tech topics such as information leaks, making him a reliable source for us. Binksternet (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Masnick himself says "Techdirt blog." Just yesterday he started off a blogpost with "Ignorant NY Times Reporter..." and in the post he declares that a New York Times article was "bizarre and totally misleading," "downright ignorant," and had a title that was "hilariously wrong." Masnick wraps up his critique with "That the NY Times would publish such a piece highlights, yet again, how the famed newspaper so frequently appears to have little actual knowledge of the subjects it covers, often being a useful propaganda engine for certain special interests who can 'place' a bogus story in a way that can have an impact on policies." So according to you, the New York Times is just a "propaganda engine" that has "little actual knowledge of the subjects it covers" and publishes "bogus" stories? Because Masnick said so and Masnick is a "reliable source", right?--Brian Dell (talk) 01:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a straw man argument that nobody should address.

Following Misplaced Pages's guidelines, Masnick qualifies as a WP:NEWSBLOG—his writings are like classic newspaper editorials or opinion pieces—so we can quote him per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, if his views are seen as relevant. The best argument for keeping him out of the biography is WP:UNDUE, but I think his analysis of the BuzzFeed source is quite relevant. David Sirota of PandoDaily wrote about Masnick's op-ed piece, so we know it did not fall unheard like the proverbial tree in the forest. Binksternet (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

"Ignorant NY Times Reporter..." would be the title of a "classic newspaper editorial"? It's not a straw man because you put a period after " a reliable source for us". You didn't follow with conditions identifying when you deemed him unreliable. If you think "we can quote him per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV" then why weren't you edit warring with me to do that instead of what you were doing, which was include Masnick without such attribution? The "Techdirt blog" is, in fact, a self-published source. "is analysis of the BuzzFeed source is quite relevant" yet it would be undue in your books for Misplaced Pages to draw directly from the Buzzfeed story? We can't just go straight to the story, we have to direct readers through Masnick? You reckon we need reaction from Masnick, Kucherena, and, of course, Snowden on the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments (these Amendments being obviously on-topic?), but can't have any quoting of the story that kicked off all of this indignant reaction in the first place?--Brian Dell (talk) 02:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

If we are reporting facts, we can easily bypass Masnick and use the sources he supplies in his links. However, if we are reporting on his opinion, I think he is a good source, as long as ATTRIBUTEPOV is followed. Binksternet (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm lost. What opinion are we reporting from Masnik? To what does the "indignant reaction" refer? I'd like to see the exact statements in question copied to the talk page (third time asking this). petrarchan47tc 04:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

What Masnick opinion? His (indignant) opinion that "The Fact That The US Intelligence Community So Readily Admits To Fantasies Of Killing Ed Snowden Shows Why They Can't Be Trusted." If you are going to add this to the article then, at a minimum, ATTRIBUTEPOV should be followed. Binksternet has indicated he agrees with this (he even proposed this) yet you continue to edit war to reintroduce this. If your contention is that Misplaced Pages has never used this citation to support anything, then removing it wouldn't cause any harm, right?--Brian Dell (talk) 08:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

So, you're saying that Masnick's opinion is in the article? "The Fact That The US Intelligence Community So Readily Admits To Fantasies Of Killing Ed Snowden Shows Why They Can't Be Trusted" has been added to this bio? It should be properly attributed at the very least, but it shouldn't be included at all. Why would Masnick's opinion of the USG hold any weight whatsoever? Could you show me where it is located in the article? petrarchan47tc 08:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

"it shouldn't be included at all" yet you were the one who first added it more than a month ago and have been edit warring with me to retain it. You knew very well where it is located, since you just removed it.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, you can't possibly have anything to complain about as nothing was sourced to the article in question. I've now removed the article in question. If my straightforward request had been answered immediately, we could have figured this out a month ago. We judge the usability of sources based on the text being attributed to them. This whole section was a big waste of time. petrarchan47tc 08:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It was obvious from the very beginning to anyone who was not being deliberately obtuse that I was objecting to citing Masnick at all without at least inline attribution and it was equally obvious which blogpost in particular I objected to most, given the fact of an edit war between us wherein you reintroduced a citation to that blogpost at least half of dozen times. A waste of time indeed, but a waste of time because your edit warring over this necessitated an effort on my part to open this Talk page thread.--Brian Dell (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The next time you complain about a source, bring the exact text' to the discussion. The reason I asked for this is because I was planning to see if a less problematic source could be used to support whatever claim was being made. It turns out the source wasn't needed at all, as the single Buzzfeed article was sufficient. We could have figured this out 21 days ago if you had responded directly to my question. I am beginning to wonder if hostility can make sensible discussions impossible. petrarchan47tc 10:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

So "it turns out" the cite you added, and then edit warred for more than a month to add back after I removed it, "wasn't needed at all." Why didn't you consider whether including this was as pointless as you now say back when you first introduced it in order to support "whatever claim was being made" by you? Or at any of those many points where you reverted me in order to reintroduce it? We're supposed to believe that you could repeatedly find this in order to add it back after another editor removed it, but you couldn't find it for the purposes of discussing it here? I additionally spelled out to you here three weeks ago that the "The Fact That The US Intelligence Community So Readily Admits To Fantasies Of Killing Ed Snowden Shows Why They Can't Be Trusted" blogpost in particular should be removed from this article and you still refused to concede that, waiting until after Binksternet gave his opinion, and then suggesting that instead of Binksternet's opinion changing your view, you rather were suddenly able to discover the citation in the article and what it was being used to support after weeks of being unable to do so! I'll add that this back and forth more rightly belongs on your user Talk page but I cannot respond there because you refuse to accept any comments there, with the result that other editors have their time wasted over here.--Brian Dell (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Rehashing old argument. Let's move on. Binksternet (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you going to "move on" from edit warring to reintroduce "officials" in the plural, Binksternet? Because "officials" only appears in Masnick. According to Buzzfeed there was only one "official," which Webster defines as "a person who has a position of authority." The rest of the people Buzzfeed contacted are described as "analyst," "contractor," "intelligence workers," etc.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Looking beyond Masnick, Snowden has been faced with death comments made by other officials, for instance James Woolsey, Michael Hayden and Mike Rogers. So it is obvious that Snowden is already concerned about "officials" plural. Binksternet (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

You say "butting up" another instance of Kucherena making an issue out of threats to the instance in this paragraph "leads to false association," citing the timing difference between August and January, but it's not "false association" to "butt" Woolsey, Hayden, and Rogers into this paragraph? All of these men made their comments in January 2014? In fact, I don't object to the relevance (since we can organize by concept as opposed to strict chronology), I'm just objecting to the hypocrisy. Here, it is not a matter of thematic organization but having what is claimed in the text supported by what is in the citation, and on that point the sentence you've been warring to include reads "An interview with Pentagon officials and NSA analysts, published on the condition of anonymity by BuzzFeed in mid-January..." and that's just plain false. Buzzfeed contact one (1) "Pentagon official," that's it.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I've clarified in the article just who Buzzfeed interviewed, so this should be a dead issue. Again, when one has a grievance about a source, the text attributed to it is the most important thing - so any talk page entries like this in the future should also include the text in question. It is no one's responsibility to find this text besides the one complaining. petrarchan47tc 23:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

UK demands smashing the Snowden/Guardian drive

Headline: Smashing of Guardian hard drives over Snowden story 'sinister', says Amnesty

• http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/aug/21/smashing-snowden-hard-drives-sinister
  • Quote: "Rights campaigners say pressure on Guardian to destroy drives containing material from whistleblower poses threat to freedom."

Can this go in the article? — Probably, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Can someone put this in?

Headline: CHILLING VIDEO SHOWS JOURNALISTS DESTROYING SNOWDEN HARD DRIVES UNDER WATCH OF INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS

• http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/01/chilling-video-shows-journalists-destroy-snowden-hard-drives-under-watch-of-intelligence-officials/

This article has video and pictures of the computer components. FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Feedback from an NSA employee

There's a related discussion at Talk:Global_surveillance_disclosures_(2013–present)#Feedback_from_an_NSA_employee that may be of interest to editors here.

-A1candidate (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I've copied the beginning answer here (with more to come), as the information is pertinent to this article: petrarchan47tc 22:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The editors of the US Guardian, the New York Times, as well as Barton Gellman from the Washington Post - all of whom received a large portion of the Snowden docs - spoke at the Columbia School of Journalism on January 30. You can view the panel discussion here. What I gathered, and can share from memory FWIW, was that all of the editors who received docs agreed with Snowden's demand that nothing released would hurt the US, but that it be solely in the public interest. The Guardian editor went into detail about this process: literally combing though, line by line, any pending report with the sole purpose of determining whether it would do harm, and whether it would benefit the public. Barton Gellman stresses that all of the news organizations have worked directly with government officials with every revelation to help make these determinations. He said as always, when reporting on matters of national interest, government officials are consulted before a story goes to print. He said the Post may not always choose to suppress a story based on the gov't recommendations, but they often do. Do listen to these people in their own words tell the story of this release.

• Is the media acting as a filter? Yes, absolutely. Snowden is involved with none of this process.
• Do the media have everything from Snowden? Snowden has nothing, he has given all of his copied documents to the press.
• How do they decide what to report? This is well-covered in the video. (It's a very interesting story.)

Per Glenn Greenwald

"Snowden "had only sought to alert people that information they thought was private was being exploited by US intelligence agencies...Snowden has enough information to cause more damage to the US government in a minute alone than anyone else has ever had in the history of the United States...But that's not his goal".

From a review of the Columbia panel:

"Noting varying degrees of government pressure on both sides of the Atlantic, Guardian US editor Janine Gibson and New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson stressed that respecting the right of news organizations to report on sensitive materials was in the government's interest as well, since otherwise the material would simply find its way out in a completely haphazard way without regard for any journalistic responsibility, which was also the outcome Edward Snowden hoped to avoid."

Whether the media has everything is disputed, as the media has not acknowledged holding 1.7 million documents collectively. See Jesselyn Radack challenging the 1.7 million number as "coming from the government."--Brian Dell (talk) 05:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

New bio from the Guardian

I don't have time to go through it, but there's plenty to look at here: How Edward Snowden went from loyal NSA contractor to whistleblower Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the Sam Adams Award section, the link links to Samuel Adams the founding father... instead of Samuel A. Adams the CIA whistle blower for Vietnam. http://en.wikipedia.org/Samuel_A._Adams 24.185.103.162 (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

fixed --Kmhkmh (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Alternative Christmas Message

Re. this edit, at least a summary of the message is needed, with or w/o quotes. The edit summary reads: "an award is not a platform for extensive quoting of subject's POV statements", but the message (not an award BTW) is about giving an individual a platform for their POV, isn't it?TMCk (talk) 02:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

"the address focussed on the importance of privacy and the need for an end to government surveillance" looks sufficient to me. The article is already quite lengthy.--Brian Dell (talk)

Well, space/length is not an issue here and I think a little bit more than what is given now is warranted. But talking about length, the part about who "filmed, edited and produced" it is of no importance/value and can go. Let's wait and see if this is getting some further input and go from there.TMCk (talk) 04:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Space/length is an issue with respect to neutrality/balance issues, which is why I shortened that paragraph. It is perfectly appropriate to have a section on the subject's political views. However, it is inappropriate to that the subject's political views repeated ad nauseum every time the subject expresses them at an event. The fact that the subject shared his views while accepting some recognition doesn't give us license to throw neutrality to the wind. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see section below asking for community consensus on ALL of the recent deletions. I cannot attend to this article right now and need help. petrarchan47tc 22:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Consideration for University of Glasgow rectorship

I removed the paragraph about Snowden being considered for the University of Glasgow rectorship, since it doesn't seem particularly notable that he's being considered for it (as opposed to actually receiving it). This change was reverted by Petrarchan47 with the summary: "sorry, dr. F, you'll need consensus to remove this (and the ret, but we will start here)." This is not a proper basis for a reversion, or put another way, this was an insufficient edit summary. If you want to revert something you should explain why; otherwise the reversion is just a vote (and we don't vote). Right now we seem to have a consensus of 1. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I should have said "see you at talk", because that what I meant, as you can see by the time stamp in the section below. I saw an indication recently that you consider me impossible to work with, and I hope you aren't bringing some personal issues here to this artifice.

You can see the edit history of the article to see that multiple editors felt the Glasgow nomination was highly noteworthy and took part in updating the article. Your "it's no big deal" may be US centricity as work. It was seen as a big deal in Europe, from what I understand. petrarchan47tc 05:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with DrFleischman. It isn't particularly notable. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Unless there is a clear consensus to keep, and there isn't, trivial material (like this) is excluded from a BLP. That more than one editor wants to keep is not an argument to keep when none of these editors have provided an argument to keep besides wanting it kept. If the New York Times carried this info, there'd be an argument to consider, but this doesn't even rise to that level.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Seeking consensus for recent content removal

Recent changes saw the deletion of Snowden's Glasgow nomination, the Nobel nom (which makes number four), and much more. Please review the changes by comparing the versions prior to Dr. F, and just after. I've replaced the Glasgow section, as it was the work of three or four people, so has consensus. The Nobel is the same story, but I wanted to allow others to weigh in. I am still in disagreement about Dr F's removal this summer of the section about Snowden's White House petition (which has now over 150,000 signatures and remains ignored). Dr F singlehandedly decided that needn't be mentioned here - and I see a similar pattern repeating. Other wiki pages have White House petitions, unquestionably. Is this an anti-Snowden decision? This editing doesn't make sense otherwise.

I would like to get a group consensus about whether we should ignore the Nobel noms, the White House petition, and the Glasgow nom. petrarchan47tc 05:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Would you see this stuff in a Britannica article? No. Not encyclopaedic.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

You wouldn't see about 90% of WP's content in the Britannica. Hoewver is most cases this has little or nothing to do with being not encyclopedic, but primarily with the Britannica's lack of resources compared to WP and slightly different project guidelines.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I think there is no simple yes or no to that. Though I don't necessarily support the removal, the poster one further up is correct in asking for reports on them in notable/reliable media. Another thing is that nominations and considerations are a bit of grey area. There are certainly cases where nominations are considered noteworthy per se (like Academy Awards nominations), but nobel prize nomination are a bit iffy imho. There are often "odd" nominations, that are not always mentioned in the biographies of the concerned persons (at least my personal impression). Btw. the coverage by notable/reputable/reliable media doesn't have to be English, in particular since there is a lot of non English media coverage in "affected" countries. An important petition with media coverage currently missing is for instance one in Brazil (, , ,, ), which is one of the largest out there (over 1 million (Brasilian) signatures by now).--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Each of those additions should be dealt with individually. Kmh makes good points. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I welcome the community's feedback on these deletions. Four points:

1. I don't think it's fair to say there's consensus on the Glasgow matter just because multiple editors have contributed to that paragraph. The notability issue doesn't appear to have been raised.
2. As for the Nobel Prize nomination, this has come up three times on the talk page (here, here, here) and each time consensus was that it wasn't sufficiently notable. In fact Petrarchan even agreed with this assessment, writing, "That assessment makes sense in light of the scant coverage."
3. I don't think coverage by independent reliable sources should be (or is) the sole determinant of notability for article content (as opposed to article existence). This seems especially true for subjects such as this one that are extremely closely watched by the media. There's such intense interest in Snowden right now that every little thing related to him is extensively reported on. That doesn't mean it all deserves mention here. (We're not a newspaper.)
4. If anyone would like to restore the White House petition stuff the issue should be raised in a new (separate) thread. I'll note that this issue has come up several times on the talk page already (here, here, here, here). My deletion of this material wasn't unilateral, as I had support from other editors, but I haven't looked at this issue recently to assess whether there was consensus one way or the other. (Of course, consensus can change.)

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to add my thoughts but I am finding it hard to keep up with things... It will take me awhile. Gandydancer (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Nobel nomination is notable, and certainly should not be removed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It would probably make sense to respond to some of the arguments made in the prior three discussions on this subject. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The general consensus at this discussion appears to have been that a nomination is NOT notable.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The general discussion you've linked is rather inconclusive/without consent. It does discuss valid concerns, but it doesn't really reach a conclusion, which is actually quite obvious from the last 2 lines.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The last 2 lines consist of a call for a vote and the only vote submitted says "exclude" this. The bottom line is that the need to include is not nearly as "certain" as Piotr says it is.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with the bottom line, which however is a rather different thing than the supposed consensus for non-noability you alluded to above.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

A more detailed feedback by me on the disputed content pieces.

• Nobel prize nomination: The problems regardiding verfication and notability raised in the linked discussions seem mostly valid to me and confirm my earlier impression of rather odd and not necessarily noteworthy nominations (often unconfirmed as well). So unless the nomination claims does not become an extremely promiment cnstantly covered subject in the international media, there is no need to mention it in the article.
• Glasgow rectorship: No need to mention that either until it becomes more concrete or gets more coverage (essentially the a similar argument to the nobel prize nominations.
• Petitions: Certainly not any petitions with regard to Snowden is notable enough to be mentioned. In the past discussions arguments against were mostly based on recentism and notability. Here however those arguments are not really valid anymore with regards to some petitions from the current perspective. That is a petition should certainly not added the day it started due WP:Recentism and/or if it fails to garner sufficient media attraction. However if in the months following its start it has collected a large amount of signatures and has received sigificant press coverage, then recentism and notability arguments against don't really apply anymore. Furthermore when accessing media coverage, one needs to look at the international press and consider big non-English media outlets as well (it past this point seemed to have been ignored somewhat), as we are an international language encyclopedia in English and not merely an encyclopedia for English speaking countries (or even only one country). Based on that the English Snowden-Prism petition (, ), the brazilian petition (, ,,,, ,,,), the Whitehouse petition, , , , , , ,) and ACLU petition (, ,, ,,) should be covered as they garnered a large number of signatures so far (the first 2 over a million, the 3rd over 100,000 and the 2 aclu ones combined almost 100,000) and did receive international press coverage. It might be also worth to mention that Snowden has triggered many petitions on his behalf in general (I'm aware of at least 4 public petitions in German speaking countries and another one English, in addition to that there petitions by celebrities and academics as well). The best approach might be a separate section on the petitions in the article that shortly summarizes the situation.

--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I would be open to a paragraph about petitions (plural), including the White House one, provided that the petitions mentioned are about Snowden himself (pardoning, for example) and aren't simply about surveillance reform. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• I haven't been watching this article, but Kmhkmh's comment on petitions makes sense. The most troubling deletion I see is with the explanation "Alternative Christmas Message: an award is not a platform for extensive quoting of subject's POV statements". Clearly this is wrong: the subject may have a point of view, but for us to quote the point of view of an article subject is fully neutral and encyclopedic. Like him or hate him, I always support letting the subject have his say, and this was a major quote from a major interview. Wnt (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

So you might like Monsanto or hate Monsanto, but you "always support letting have say"? You wouldn't object if the Monsanto article included paragraph after paragraph written by Monsanto public relations? Article subjects have a blank cheque? Do you find this sort of thing in Britannica? In fact we do not include material that is unduly self-(ie subject-)serving. The Hitler article never includes a quote that is more than two lines and when a quote is included it reveals something about the subject "e.g. "...the international Jewish financiers..." as opposed to being included because someone thinks it is a great speech more people should hear. Reagan's The Boys of Pointe du Hoc speech was one of his greatest speeches and the Reagan article doesn't quote it because it is POV to include material that appears to be included simply because some editors would like to applaud. To be clear here: the subject has his say about himself, just like Monsanto does, but Misplaced Pages is not Snowden's soapbox for views on the U.S. intelligence services and neither is it Monsanto's soapbox for views on genetically modified food. If Monsanto's views are given, the points of fact on which there have been notable challenges is also noted.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes I support letting Monsanto have its say. That doesn't mean supporting paid editing, but if there's some controversy over a strain of GMO corn I absolutely want to have a direct quote (taken from a reliable source, that is) from their PR person that gives their side of the story. This is even more important in articles covered by BLP. And yes, we should have some direct Hitler quotes in the article about him, because there's no practical difference for me between a quote that I think is a great thing I want everyone to admire and a quote that I think is a terrible thing that I want everyone to condemn. Either way, I want to hear what the subject has to say! (I've actually encountered a somewhat similar situation to what you suggest, in which Wikiquote was the answer, but I didn't think the length of this one quote required such an extreme) Wnt (talk) 02:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Your reference to "a strain of GMO corn" as opposed to something more general like the GMO controversy or, to go even broader, the environment suggests to me that you can appreciate how it would be more appropriate to include a quote if it addressed something that involved the subject more particularly. "I was ticketed for onward travel via Havana — a planeload of reporters documented the seat I was supposed to be in — but the State Department decided they wanted me in Moscow, and cancelled my passport." is the sort of quote I think everyone agrees should be included. It goes to a controversy that involves Snowden, and gives Snowden's version of a story that involves Snowden. The issue is therefore not whether the article quotes Edward Snowden. The question is how much we quote Snowden and how those quotes are being used and that in turn goes to neutrality. You say there's "no practical difference" for you between one sort of quote and another. Well obviously a bio cannot include every word a bio subject said. So we have to use our critical faculties to assess why one quote is included instead of another. I believe this particular material is polemical. How can you repeatedly hand the microphone over to the article subject and not have an article biased in favour of the subject? If this is included, if you don't also include stuff like "Edward Snowden’s hypocrisy on Russia", you will eventually end up with a biased article. My question above was whether "paragraph after paragraph written by Monsanto public relations" was fine, not whether a single quote was fine. I suspect that if I added a quote of Snowden praising Russia's human rights stance to the article editors would suddenly lose their blindness as to the implications of adding a Snowden quote.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I've never heard Snowden praise Russia's human rights stance, but I'd be intrigued to read it. I would not object to putting it into an article so long as some source picks it out as a quote worth quoting. (I do recognize that there can be real problems when editors cherry-pick primary source documents for quotes, though sometimes even that should still should be done) I don't understand your distinction with Monsanto - I was assuming that a quote about one strain of corn would be less worthy of conclusion than an overall statement they make about GMOs in general, so I'm surprised to see you shading the boundary in the opposite direction. Wnt (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

"Snowden praised Venezuela, as well as Russia, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Ecuador for "being the first to stand against human rights violations carried out by the powerful rather than the powerless", the Guardian, July 12. A question to ask re quotes is whether they could plausibly go in another article. Could a statement by Monsanto on corporate social responsibility (CSR) go into the article on CSR? Yes? Then the argument for including it in Monsanto's article is weaker. Could a statement by Monsanto regarding one of its product lines go into another article? That's less likely and is accordingly more appropriate to include in Monsanto's article. The object here is to stay on topic, and when one is drifting off topic it is useful to ask whether one is going off topic for POV reasons. Could Snowden's statement on the Constitution go into the article on the Constitution? Then it's less appropriate to include in this article especially if the statement would have been rejected from the Constitution article as excessively POV and unsubstantiated such that the only way to get it into Misplaced Pages is to try and put it in the Snowden article.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, as far as going off topic is concerned, I'm starting to lose you. I don't get why a Monsanto quote would be less appropriate in its own article than some other, but it's so far away from Snowden it's not worth getting into. Where the Snowden quote is concerned, I'm OK with that, provided just a bit context is given that he was reacting to these countries' decisions to grant him asylum, rather than speaking in general of their overall policies. ("Following their decision to grant asylum, ..." would be enough) Wnt (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

This issue is already being addressed in another thread above. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Nobel nominations (list not exclusive):

• A Swedish sociology professor has nominated Edward Snowden for the Nobel
• Norwegian parliamentarians Snorre Valen and Baard Vegar Solhjell nominated Snowden for the award
• Brazilian senator nominates NSA leaker Edward Snowden for Nobel Peace Prize

Are we opposing all of these? petrarchan47tc 02:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's the consensus. Each of the sources you point to is for a separate event. None were heavily covered by the independent media. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The "independent media" are what you see in the above list of three sources. There is also CNN, The Guardian UK, NPR, TIME World, Washington Post, USA Today, Reuters, CNET, Yahoo! News, Al-Jazeera, two stories at ABC News, and a contrarian op-ed in Forbes. To me, it looks like the media are quite interested in this issue, that it is "heavily covered". Binksternet (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I stand corrected! Shame on me for not checking beforehand. So we have heavy coverage but consensus nevertheless appears to be against inclusion. What to do? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Interview from ARD Censored in USA ?

It's a french info (from here), I don't know if it's right ... --:-) 5 février 2014 à 15:13 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smily (talk • contribs) 14:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't ad the retranscription in the article : so I post it here Retranscription disponible en anglais (FreeSnowden.is) ...We'll see it's realy censured. --:-) 5 février 2014 à 15:19 (CET)

FWIW, the text in english is here. jxm (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Will add soon (too tired). petrarchan47tc 21:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually Snowden's intetview with the German television broadcaster ARD (in English) is already linked for days in the external link section. Archive.org has a copy. As far as the "censorship" is concerned, it isn't censored in the US, the archive.org should be accessible to everyone. However if you attempt to access it via the ARD website, it might perform ip-country check and only allow access if your IP resides in Germany (or Europe). It is however true that the US press largely ignored the interview so far (see , ), nevertheless there are articles on it English speaking press outside the US and scarce mentioning within the US press as well(see , , ,, --Kmhkmh (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It is likely that some news media declined to carry it simply because they don't see the necessity of rebroadcasting every unverified statement Snowden happens to make. As it stands now, U.S. government ordered censorship of Snowden says is an unsubstantiated fringe theory.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious? Obviously there is no censorship of the interview in the US as such. But equally obviously the first in depth interview with such a famous/controversial person is a big news story, which for whatever reason got largely ignored by the US media (which can be seen as such doing a lousy job from a journalistic perspective).--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Ignoring someone is not equivalent to censoring him. I would also refer you to the bio, which notes that "Snowden met with Barton Gellman of The Washington Post... for an exclusive interview spanning 14 hours, his first since being granted temporary asylum" such that this ARD interview was not, in fact, the first. The fact you apparently were not aware of that interview with Gellman suggests that that interview was not carried on channels around the world either.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

We are talking about different things here. First of all I didn't suggest any censorship ( Smily did), but rather the opposite. As far the interview is concerned to my knowledge (and the claim of some sources) the ARD interview is actually the first in depth interview that was broadcasted, that is where you see Snowden talking himself verbatim. As far as I know Gellmann went to Moscow a month earlier for another in depth interview which however wasn't broadcasted but just compiled into a Washington Post article (a rather different thing). Now we might differ in our assessment on how newsworthy a broadcasted interview (versus a compiled newspaper one) is, but when various sources state that much of US media largely ignores a newsworthy broadcast here, then that seems a fair assessment to me.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the issue here. This was an interview, one of many this person has done. It wasn't censored in the US. The NYTimes posted video of the interview immediately. It is still on their site as far as I know. The fact that other media enterprises didn't give it as much play as some would like doesn't make for notability or for "censorship". Capitalismojo (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

To answer your question, there is no dispute or issue between Brian and me as far as the censorship is concerned (there is none). I do however disagree with him on the "noteworthiness" of the interview from journalistic perspective. But our different assessments of that aspect are of no direct consequence for article's content, so there is no need to pursue that here any further.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is the NYT link to the video, or at least the part they thought was newsworthy. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

This was Edward Snowden's first ever TV interview. It is 30 minutes of an 8 hour documentary to be released in the beginning of Spring. I think those who see this as 'no big deal' are proving that this wasn't covered by media and that there is a great lack of awareness about the event. Misplaced Pages could use a section on the interview - perhaps underneath the "Alternative Christmas Message". I could see justification for adding a mention that some RS voiced suspicions about a blackout:

• Jonathan Turley here
• Jesselyn Radack here
• Chris Hedges here&here
• Ben Swann here

(It's also mentioned at College news, though I don't know if this one is needed or useable.) petrarchan47tc 00:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I dispute petrarchan47tc's "justification for adding a mention that some RS voiced suspicions about a blackout." These sources are anything but reliable, and as flimsy as balsawood.

Foremost among them is guest blogger Jay Syrmopoulos (see link in bulleted list above next to Ben Swann), who charges that "the government/corporate symbiosis" sought to bury the interview. "It seems clear that the virtual blackout of this insightful interview," Mr. Syrmopoulos writes, "is yet another deliberate attempt to obfuscate the truth from the view of the American public."

Another guest blogger, Charlton Stanley (see link above next to Jonathan Turley), declares that the interview "appears to have been blocked intentionally by US government authorities." His only support for this apparition is the aforementioned guest blog by Jay Syrmopoulos, who is therein identified as "a journalist and political analyst living in Winona, Minnesota. He received his Bachelors in Political Science from Winona State University and is currently pursuing a Masters in Global Affairs from the University of Denver." All of which uniquely equips him, it would seem, to divine what he calls the "extremely dark implications" of this attempt by the government/corporate symbiosis to bury the Snowden interview.

The link next to Jesselyn Radack's name leads merely to a tweet promoting Charlton Stanley's blog, as does one of the links next to Chris Hedges's name—both of which, incidentally, lead to tweets from a self-billed "non-official fan Twitter account" that is not endorsed by journalist Chris Hedges.

So before we make mention in this article of "some RS voiced suspicions about a blackout," we ought to ourselves be suspicious towards these purported "reliable" sources, all of which trace back to one grad student in Denver. JohnValeron (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Would you care to comment on my other point? I was hoping someone interested in the article would help add the section on this very much NOT blacked out interview. petrarchan47tc 23:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The article already contains three detailed descriptions of the German TV interview, nicely incorporated into the narrative flow.

• Snowden, in a January 2014 interview, said that the "breaking point" which lead to his leaks was "seeing the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, directly lie under oath to Congress." He furthered, "There's no saving an intelligence community that believes it can lie to the public and the legislators who need to be able to trust it and regulate its actions. Seeing that really meant for me there was no going back. Beyond that, it was the creeping realization that no one else was going to do this. The public had a right to know about these programs."
• Snowden did not board that onward flight, however, saying in a January 2014 interview that he was "stopped en route" despite an intention to be "only transiting through Russia". According to Snowden, "I was ticketed for onward travel via Havana—a planeload of reporters documented the seat I was supposed to be in—but the State Department decided they wanted me in Moscow, and cancelled my passport." He decided to remain in Russia because whilst he was "considering possibilities for asylum in Latin America, the United States forced down the Bolivian President's plane." He said that he would travel from Russia if there was no interference from the US government.
• He was asked about the threats, and whether he lost sleep over them, in his first television interview which aired on Germany's NDR January 26, 2014. "I'm still alive and don't lose sleep for what I did because it was the right thing to do," he responded.

Why should there be a separate standalone section devoted to just this one interview? JohnValeron (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you seen the interview? These aren't summaries by any stretch of the imagination. You've cited three places where an excerpt was used to shed light on existing details in the article. Those details, after a careful read, are exposed using many different sources over the past 10 months. These are very different and not exclusive matters. To argue that Edward Snowden's first and only TV interview should not have its own section because: a) "What's the big deal?" and b) "You've already mentioned it" seems nonsensical. How the mentions can be called "detailed descriptions of the interview" is entirely beyond me. petrarchan47tc 10:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@Petrarchan47:

I think we're losing sight here, so please take a step back and look at the bigger picture.

The discussion started with a notice of the tv interview and question whether it is censored in the US. Now the question of the censorship has been answered (there is none) and link to the interview has been incorporated into the article (iirc actually even before this thread started) - so far so good.

But now please keep in mind that this article is supposed to be an encyclopedic biography of Snowden - not more not less. And as such there is no need for a special section on the interview (which biography of person has a section devoted to a particular interview?). Of course material from the interview may be incorporated into the article where appropriate and of course should the external links section contain a link to the interview, but there is no need for a special article section just devoted to this particular interview or any other.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It's true the section began as a question about possible censorship of the interview, which does deserve its own section here as it was newsworthy in its own right, though this wasn't seen in the US. Notable people such as Jonathan Turley and Snowden's lawyer indicated by Tweets that they had suspicion of a blackout (or supported the theory put forth in the linked article) - so to respond directly to the section heading, yes, we do have RS to support that some have questioned it. But to add this requires the interview be discussed - not simply cited for bits of content. You ask what article mentions an interview - this is the reason I am so stunned anyone would argue about this inclusion - this very article has a section about Snowden's Christmas Message, albeit not an interview, it was a three minute address and has had its own section without a problem. I suppose an RfC about whether a section for his first TV interview is acceptable wouldn't be a horrid idea. It would be helpful to hear from the larger community. petrarchan47tc 12:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

A quick look at the Daniel_Ellsburg page shows coverage of an interview he did with Democracy Now! although it was handled in a paragraph rather than a separate section. So yes, biographies can include individual interviews if they're noteworthy. It could be covered in a paragraph at the end of "Temporary asylum" - unless there are strong objections. petrarchan47tc 13:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Having a section on Snowden's views of the NSA and the leak, in which among other sources the interview is used as well is different matter. I have no objections against that. Or to put it this way the Ellsberg article shows that not having a section devoted to one interview is the way to go.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

A couple of points:

• The censorship at least in the strict sense seems to be obvious nonsense. As pointed out above already, the interview is freely available on an American site (archive.org) and find it mentioned or linked in various US media as well (though not so much in the mainstream media). At best one could claim a peculiar lack of interest of US mainstream media to give coverage to the interview.
• The sources you've cited above are not suitable for WP and imho not even for any serious discussion. "Thinking out loud" on twitter even when done by prominent people isn't something that shouldn't be taking all that seriously and it certainly isn't proper a source any claim in WP.
• Find me any biographic article in WP (or an external encyclöopedic publication) that has such an interview section and note not even German WP article on Snowden has such a section. Or let's consider an actual of really famous interview and how that is incorporated into a biographic article. Take Nixon and the Frost interview. That is an interview that has been made into a movie and due to its prominence even has its own article. Now take a look Nixon biography (being a featured article!) and see how it incorporates the interview. Btw. personally I don't consider a separate section on the interview as "horrid", I just see it as bad biographical writing for an encyclopedic article.
• Getting feedback from the community/other editor is a good idea.

--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my clumsy use of the word horrid was not in any way a reference to your comments. I was saying that community input would be a good idea. petrarchan47tc

Kmhkmh makes compelling points here. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Kmhkmh said : First of all I didn't suggest any censorship (Smily did) (...).--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

-> Not me in fact, but this. It's youtube, google in fact, witch is accuse to erase systematically the vidéo, the 32min vidéo, and the US media to be extremely quite. So it's a question, and the question is open, precisely 2 questions :

• why not on youtube? (test yourself, I did)
• Why not in the newspaper? (10 line here and that for all the United State of America, and what, aljaseera america and the European blog of NY times, ...)

I don't know anything, I've just made a test : what happen if I talk about that. Nothing erased, just many, many, many discussions ... and it's no more a subject for any journalist, just like if nobody care about Snowden. Can it be possible? The question steel open I think ... not only for the USA .. --Smily (talk) 11:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)it

No, it's really not "steel" an open question. It has not been censored. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Please don't make fun of people for whom English isn't a first language.

The question about whether there has been suppression of the German interview isn't one that rests with us to determine, and even if we did, our work wouldn't be admissible to the a pedia so why bother? What we can do is see what RS has discussed it. Two reliable sources have tweeted their support for the idea. The fact that in the US, the interview was only mentioned in one article has to say something, but again, this would require a write up in RS to add. It makes sense to add the Tweets linked to above (though not Hedges) in a mention of the interview if editors decide to add one, as we always like to add all sides to an issue once due weight and RS concerns are met. petrarchan47tc 19:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe the consensus is that there was no censorship, or "suppression" as you call it. That some sources speculated on this point does not, in itself, give any substance to this speculation.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Whose consensus are you speaking of? We are tasked with finding RS about a claim, not finding fellow editors to come and share their personal opinions - which aren't permissible in the article, and are therefore quite worthless to us. petrarchan47tc 23:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Brian Dell's conclusion: "That some sources speculated on this point does not, in itself, give any substance to this speculation." Moreover, as I pointed out above, even the alleged sources in this case did not engage directly in speculation. Rather, Jonathan Turley, Jesselyn Radack and Ben Swann merely tweeted links to speculation by others—ALL of it tracing back to one grad student in Denver. (The cited link to Chris Hedges is actually to a non-official fan Twitter account that is not endorsed by journalist Chris Hedges.) Such oblique "sources" are unworthy of inclusion in a Misplaced Pages entry. JohnValeron (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It really doesn't make a difference what level of education the author has completed. Why waste time with an argument like that one, except to try and discredit a source? My iPhone was created by a high school drop out, and one of the US' most secret organizations was exposed by a man who also didn't finish high school, let alone college. The fact that RS tweeted and showed support for the ideas contained within the piece is worthy of inclusion, if this interview is discussed. WP likes to show all sides of an issue if there are reliable sources to cite. No one is suggesting we say anything beyond what you've stated, that Radack and Turley tweeted the link (perhaps adding what they said in their tweets). petrarchan47tc 23:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

If you insist on citing tweets as reliable news sources, here's the sort of thing that might actually stand up to scrutiny.

• GlobalPost here

But the Jonathan Turley, Jesselyn Radack and Ben Swann biased promotional tweets you're advocating are simply silly—totally without substance. JohnValeron (talk) 02:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't follow. Where did I insist on adding anything? You may want to brush up on the guidelines before schooling fellow editors. Twitter is considered a self-published source, like a personal blog, and RS for the author's own views (unless the true owner of the account is in question). I have never categorized these tweets as "news sources" nor their content as news. They are opinions by reliable sources related to the subject at hand. On the other hand, I have not seen any evidence brought that would support the opposite view: that indeed the event was covered by American media and nothing funky is afoot. Do you have any sources besides the NYT blog that covers Snowden's one and only TV interview? If so, please list them. petrarchan47tc 07:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I remind you that the promotional tweets by Turley, Radack (Snowden's legal representative) and Swann link solely to unsubstantiated speculation that ALL traces back to one grad student in Denver. Do you have any "sources" that are not circular and self-referential? JohnValeron (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Signature

This isn't a neutrality question, more of an "I'm puzzled" question. Why do we have Snowden's signature in the infobox? It seems weird to me. I didn't even know there was a signature field. It seems like it might be appropriate for public officials, but not for private citizens? It strikes me as a bit invasive. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It strikes me that this falls into the category of trivia that should be removed per Help:Infobox#What should an infobox contain?. I'm no infobox expert, however. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It also strikes me that the subject is known as a leading advocate for digital privacy and we're publishing his personal mark in the most public of ways. Not that his signature is legally private, but there's a certain weird dissonance. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I have seen signatures most often in the infoboxes of presidents and political figures. I would suggest removing it from this article. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I removed it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Snowden info on Boundless Informant, dead man's switch, and two-man

From Gellman, Barton. "Edward Snowden, after months of NSA revelations, says his mission’s accomplished." Washington Post. December 23, 2013.

• Snowden said that he tried to raise the Boundless Informant issue with superiors and coworkers. Added info to Boundless_Informant#History
• Snowden, on the two man rule: "“I actually recommended they move to two-man control for administrative access back in 2009,” he said, first to his supervisor in Japan and then to the directorate’s chief of operations in the Pacific. “Sure, a whistleblower could use these things, but so could a spy.”" Vanee Vines, an NSA spokesperson, stated that there were no records of these conversations.
• When asked about a dead man's switch he stated: "That sounds more like a suicide switch. It wouldn’t make sense." And Gellman stated that "confidants" argued that: "If Snowden were fool enough to rig a “dead man’s switch,” he would be inviting anyone who wants the documents to kill him."

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Snowden source: "Snowden Used Low-Cost Tool to Best N.S.A."

• Sanger, David E. and Eric Schmitt. "Snowden Used Low-Cost Tool to Best N.S.A." (Print title: "Cheap Software Helped Snowden Plunder Secrets") The New York Times. February 9, 2014. p. A1, New York edition

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

References

The references section is screwing up, can somebody who knows about these matters look at it? PatGallacher (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

What's the problem you're seeing? It looks ok to me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Snowden quote re Glasgow rectorship

Statements made by Snowden after receiving the Glasgow rector position are being removed for reasons that have no basis in policy. petrarchan47tc 21:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

My edit summary was: " rm non-notable, non-neutral self-serving statement by subject of article made in response to award of rectorship". I'm not sure how you get WP:IDONTLIKEIT out of that. Elaborating on my summary, the most relevant policies are WP:NPV and WP:SOAPBOX. Regarding neutrality, the specific portions the policy that I believe are implicated are WP:UNDUE, WP:BALASPS, and WP:IMPARTIAL. I also believe WP:QUOTEFARM is relevant. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Doc is entirely correct here. The removals are, in fact, well justified by WP:WEIGHT, WP:SOAP, other policies Doc cites, and more generally the fluffy, self-aggrandizing nature of the remarks removed. This is an encyclopaedia, not a soap box. Why isn't the New York Times or something analogous calling attention to the remarks if they are noteworthy?--Brian Dell (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Because it's only about 5 hours ago we got the result, let's see how the papers report it tomorrow. PatGallacher (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Also it's highly US-centric to regard what papers like the New York Times have to say about an event in Britain as important. There has already been a significant amount of coverage of Snowden's election from media sources and other bodies in Britain. PatGallacher (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Although US-based, AP carries international stories, has noted the vote, and not found it appropriate to include the extended Snowden quote you would like included. By the way, Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. This material is tendentious and unencyclopaedic. What additional notable information about Snowden does it provide to the reader?--Brian Dell (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Perhaps it would be better to paraphrase and merge the quote to keep it brief and concise. Having said that, I don't think there's anything wrong with adding the subject's reaction to a notable appointment and I'm strongly against its removal. -A1candidate (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

What is so notable about it that we need an acceptance speech? Has Snowden been elected Misplaced Pages's valedictorian such that we are all supposed to stand to attention here? The burden of proof is on the party wishing to add the material. Please reply to the question I asked above, namely, what additional notable information about Snowden does it provide to the reader? We are here to inform readers, not extend a platform for POV speeches.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Brian here. Our coverage of an award given to the article subject isn't a platform to quote the subject's political views ad nauseum. Compare to, say, James Clapper. He has received many awards, but you don't see us block quoting his acceptance speeches. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Bdell555, A1candidate, and Petrarchan47: How about we stop reverting for now, stay civil, and follow PatGallacher's advice? This edit war is really unnecessary and only interferes with the consensus-building process. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I have stopped reverting. Has that solved the content problem? Allowing yourself to be bullied here Doc just encourages more bullying. The bullies must be resisted until they provide an argument on this Talk page justifying their behaviour ("I'm strongly against its removal" is an opinion, not an argument) and references to Misplaced Pages policy. Opinion is still close to evenly divided, which means the version of the article prior to this contentious new material being added should be retained as per WP:NOCONSENSUS (that policy adds that one should be especially inclined towards exclusion when the article is a BLP). Petrarchan47 has accused you of removing this material without any policy reason, but in fact the only editors who have cited any policy here is you and I. Pat said "let's see how the papers report it tomorrow," tomorrow came and went, and there was no more notable reporting on this, never mind extended quoting of Snowden's acceptance speech. Snowden has since given a new speech on another matter. Are we going to extensively quote that as well? I think all parties here have to admit that adding a paragraph from every speech Snowden gives would eventually be too much. A line must eventually be drawn, no? When the line is drawn, what would be the argument for drawing the line? Would it not look a lot like the argument advanced by Doc here? What is the point of an encyclopaedia? To provide facts to readers or to quote speeches? I have asked how including this informs readers and have yet to receive an answer. One could argue that it informs the reader that he or she should "...contest the violation of the fundamental right of free people to be left unmolested..." but the obvious problem here is that 1) Snowden's claims are not being fact checked here and 2) who seriously disagrees with the claim that people should not be "molested" and 3) how does this add to the reader's knowledge of Snowden? Is there even any proof that this speech was not written by someone else and simply delivered by Snowden?--Brian Dell (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You have to determine whether the media are accepting the material as valid, or presenting it to their readers as questionable. In this case, they are portraying the rectorship as valid: The Guardian, US News, BBC, Telegraph. If major media are interested in this aspect then so are the readers of Misplaced Pages. Binksternet (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Who is saying this rectorship is not "valid"? The issue here is the "unmolested" speechifying, a word that, just to take an example, appears only in the The Guardian, the World Socialist Web Site, and local Scottish papers as far as I can tell. On top of this is the fact that Misplaced Pages is fundamentally different from newspapers in that newspapers devote whole stories to the news of the day. If this appeared in a media article that had as its topic "Who is Edward Snowden?" the argument for inclusion would be far greater. Is the bar for including text from a speech by Obama in Barack Obama so low that all that is needed is a media source for the quote and whether the media considers Obama's Presidency "valid"? I think not. So why the inclusion here? If readers want to be preached to by the subject they can exercise their desire for that elsewhere. The presumption here is that readers instead are looking for information about the article subject. I'll add that the "Recognition" section of this bio already rivals Nelson Mandela's in length, someone's whose recognition is extensive enough to have warranted its own spin out article, and not once even in that spinout article dedicated to recognition of Mandela is Mandela's reaction given. This suggests that other members of the Misplaced Pages community do not consider the need to include a response obvious.--Brian Dell (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm just seeing a wordy version of "I don't like it" in the preceding argument. I hold that coverage by multiple media outlets will have more bearing on what we put in the biography than a single editor's distaste for the material. Binksternet (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm seeing a refusal to engage here on this Talk page. Doc referred to WP:NPV, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:UNDUE, WP:BALASPS, WP:IMPARTIAL, and WP:QUOTEFARM. Here, you pretend he doesn't exist. I have asked you to articulate a rationale for inclusion that does not lead to absurd results like including a paragraph from every speech by an article subject that gets the coverage of the level this "unmolested" language got, and you've refused to do so. I've noted that rest of the Misplaced Pages community has not seen fit to routinely add acceptance speeches to biographies, particularly tendentious speeches of this sort. One last time, how does including this provide new facts about Snowden? Or is informing readers about article subjects not what we are here for? Note, again, that it took just hours for this material to have been rendered obsolete as far as the papers are concerned as they are now reporting on a new Snowden speech.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Brian in this case. This is an excellent example of WP:IDHT. We must be able to engage in our fellow editors' arguments if we are to edit productively on contentious subjects. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The speechifying by Snowden shows his thoughts. The thoughts are aimed at the 20,000 Glasgow students. The reader is thereby informed about Snowden's vision for them. We are not talking about the usual "I would like to thank God, my parents, etc." kind of throwaway acceptance speech. Binksternet (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing in the quoted passage about the Glasgow students. This is simply Snowden sharing some of his views on mass surveillance. That is perfectly acceptable except that it's highly redundant (and thus non-neutral) and belongs in a section on his views. The speech could be quoted a million times by the news media and it still wouldn't belong here; notability does not equal neutrality. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

This speech extract as no connection to Glasgow.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

This article is about Edward Snowden. It is absolutely appropriate to mention and describe his views in detail, and we do not judge such content based on notability, but on its encyclopedic value. =A1candidate (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The only connection this material has to Edward Snowden is that he said them. If that's all it takes for inclusion why don't we try to include Snowden's views on boxers versus briefs as well? Because 1) Snowden's views here have nothing to do with the topic of this article, Edward Snowden and 2) what Doc just said above.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I have trouble seeing how you hope to involve yourself in this topic if you think Snowden's views have nothing to with his biography on Misplaced Pages. Binksternet (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I have trouble seeing how you missed the "here" following "Snowden's views" and how you missed point (2) which would have referred you to Doc's observations that Snowden's views can be appropriate for inclusion in other places and circumstances. What we have HERE is basically a Commencement speech.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

A1, of course Snowden's views are appropriate for his article. The question is, is it neutral to scatter them all throughout the article, over and over again, with block quotes, particularly when multiple quotes are in essence saying the same thing? We should have one consolidated section on Snowden's political views in which we choose the most notable views, punctuated by the sharpest quotes. Beyond that, quotes should be limited to those specifically about the subject matter (e.g. the Glasgow rectorship). Anything more than that is soapboxing, intended or not. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

No comment in a week. Does anyone object to a consolidation of these types of political statements into the appropriate sections ("Political views" and/or "motivations")? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Links

p>> UK court upholds Snowden-linked detention(Lihaas (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)).

Does employment of an editor by a Five Eyes government create a COI?

If anyone from the US government (or an affiliated one via the Five Eyes alliance) is contributing to this article, the conflict of interest would be great. It is required that those with a conflict of interest stick to the talk page. By the same token, anyone who might be affiliated with Snowden's legal team, or an activist group supporting him, would have a COI. I've worked on another page where the US government did have a COI and took an active, though covert, role in shaping content. I addressed this earlier here. At the time, I kept my request for full disclosure to those who may be filling OTRS requests - that narrow focus may have been a mistake.

COI leads to a POV so strong it makes neutral and peaceful editing impossible. In the spirit of neutrality and a (restoration of) peaceful editing experience, I ask that editors dedicating a lot of time to this article reveal whether they have a COI with the subject, who is considered to be the US' number one enemy (according to Thomas Drake), and considering the charges against him, the COI with a government employee at this page is clear. petrarchan47tc 21:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

This seems unnecessary, as the community already has a COI guideline (sadly, not a policy), but for once I wholeheartedly agree with Petrarchan. COI editing should always be disclosed, especially paid COI editing. Regarding my own editing, I encourage fellow editors to review my statement on the subject on my user page --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to have to slightly revise my comment above. It's not completely clear to me that employment by a Five Eyes government would automatically create a conflict of interest. WP:COI#Political says in part: "government employees should not edit ... articles about ... controversial political topics with the intent to slant or spin an article in a manner that is politically advantageous to their employer." At the same time, This COIN thread showed consensus that a U.S. Department of Homeland Security employee did not have a COI when editing September 11 attacks. There appears to be some dissonance there. I suppose it might be argued that September 11 attacks and Edward Snowden aren't inherently political subjects like those involving elections, for example. My view on such gray areas:

• If you suspect that you might have a COI, it is better to disclose than not to disclose; and follow WP:COIADVICE.
• If you suspect that someone else might have a conflict of interest, marshall as much evidence as you can find, and if you deem it to be sufficient to convince the community, raise the issue either on the editor's talk page or at WP:COIN. If you don't deem it sufficient, it's best not to the raise the issue at all, as doing so is considered (see here, here second bullet) a borderline personal attack. And of course, too many personal attacks may lead to blocks.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It strikes me that 'employment by a government' is far too broad a definition to assert a COI. Governments employ people for all sorts of purposes, and only a very small proportion would have anything whatsoever to do with this particular issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I am a former employee of Finance Canada, Canada's analogue to the U.S. Department of the Treasury. However I am not a current Canadian government employee, as a search for Brian Dell, my legal name, in the http://sage-geds.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/ federal employee directory will reveal. I am not and never have been an employee of or contractor for any other government. I'll add that we've already had a "Pls review Bdell555's edits" thread on this Talk page. May we move on from yet another Talk page section devoted to discussing editors to discussing changes to the article?--Brian Dell (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

On that point of returning to the article content, Petrarchan notes that "anyone who might be affiliated with Snowden's legal team, or an activist group supporting him, would have a COI." Could the COI of these people impact the neutrality of the article if they are continually and extensively being used as article sources? Or did you not say that this specific COI leads to a POV so strong it makes neutrality impossible?--Brian Dell (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no requirement whatsoever that sources be neutral. Furthermore Misplaced Pages COI policy relates to editing Misplaced Pages - it has nothing to do with sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm of the view that the relevancy of the partisanship level of a source depends on the circumstances and is a matter of degree. Reuters investigative reporter Mark Hosenball wrote a story that fellow journalist Glenn Greenwald attacked as dubious reporting. The fact that Hosenball is generally perceived as less partisan than Greenwald is potentially a legitimate point of discussion in what Misplaced Pages should make of Hosenball's story on Snowden acquiring passwords from co-workers. That said I think a source's partisanship is generally of limited relevance. At the same time I think a Wikipedian's affiliations are also of limited relevance because I have a consistent worldview: it is the reporting, not the reporter, that is of prime concern and likewise it is the editing, not the editor, that is of prime concern. It's the higher level inconsistency in declaring that if you work for the government of New Zealand you should be barred from editing a Misplaced Pages article about Edward Snowden because you cannot be trusted to present information neutrally and this same editor choosing to cite in this article a highly partisan blogger who does minimal original investigative reporting like Mike Masnick that strikes me as a rather selective view of who can be trusted to not try to push reader opinion and who can't. In other words, I am already aware of what you say here but am noting what becomes apparent when one approaches this philosophically.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's keep this thread focused specifically on COI please. Of course we have ongoing neutrality disputes but lack of neutrality alone isn't sufficient to establish a COI. That goes for both sides. Now, let's move on. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy that applies across the board, Doc. The example given in the Poisoning the well article is "Adam tells Bob, 'Chris is a fascist so don't listen to him'." If you replace "Chris" with Misplaced Pages editor and "fascist" with "civil servant in an English speaking country" the fallacy doesn't suddenly become a non-fallacy. If people insist on focussing on who is writing Misplaced Pages instead of what is being written, I of course cannot stop them. I can, however, point out the hypocrisy of then turning around and demanding that no attention be paid to who wrote the material they want to bring into Misplaced Pages by means of citation. This doesn't mean the entity tapping the keyboard is always irrelevant (the fallacy doesn't preclude the fact that there may be an incentive to omit information, for example) but it does mean that I think we should indeed move on. From this witch hunt.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Differing versions of "What? How dare you?!" "And what about you?!" are exactly what I expected, but I do hope that folks here will disclose whether they are employed by either side of this very controversial subject who is being charged by the US government with great crimes. Members of the government have openly spoken about wanting to kill him, have him hanged, and have joked about putting him on Obama's kill list. That is not meant to insinuate that any other members/employees of the government hold such attitudes, but is meant to highlight the seriousness of my query. Such a massive POV can often make editing with a NPOV challenging, if not impossible. An ability to edit with NPOV is a requirement, so editors who display hatred for an article's subject, or for whistleblowers in general, should have no support from the community to continue to disrupt this page with POV contributions, in my opinion.

This is a heated debate with grave implications, and being a BLP, a very delicate matter for editors. While I now agree that an editor's employment with the USG wouldn't automatically constitute a COI, I do think it valid to request full disclosure of this connection. It would mean edits have greater scrutiny, no more and no less - but that shouldn't hinder one's ability to edit. Personally, I always expect my edits will be heavily scrutinized at some point or another, so I edit according to the guidelines and with this in mind. Frankly, we should encourage more scrutiny of edits to WP no matter what POV we think the editor holds - especially at a page as controversial as this. To call this a witch hunt is a bit much. I will disclose: I am not employed by *anyone*, and have no affiliation whatsoever with the subject or any groups that advocate for him. petrarchan47tc 00:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

"Members of the government have openly spoken about wanting to kill him, have him hanged..." is a gross misrepresentation of the US government's position. Buzzfeed reported that there is a lot of anger in the intelligence community who feel that Snowden has betrayed them and made it more difficult to do their jobs and gave as examples the fantasies of a few that Snowden be dealt with with extreme prejudice. There is zero evidence that the US government would ever authorize any of these employees to try to bring one of these fantasies to reality. If you do not mean "to insinuate that any other members/employees of the government hold such attitudes" then why are you hyping to the heavens the musing of a few rogues whose views do not reflect the government's views?--Brian Dell (talk) 08:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, it is time to drop this cowardly and disruptive witch hunt once and for all. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

"Cowardly" is a curious choice of wording aimed at someone who actually puts their motives out in front for all to see. In this thread, Petrarchan47 is simply trying to keep the article from being disrupted by those with a conflict of interest. Since no such person will declare themselves conflicted here, this thread is ultimately not useful. Thus we agree that this thread should be closed, but insulting Petra calling it a witch hunt is not productive. Binksternet (talk) 07:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Binksternet. DrFleishman has crossed a bright line here, in my view. I'd say without a prompt redaction and apology to Petrarchan47, remedial actions should be considered. Jusdafax 07:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

"disclosures" vs "leaks"

Petrarchan47 has once again me, this time changing "leaks" (which we've had for a long time) to "disclosures." I would like to see a little more consensus-building and little less edit warring (i.e. re-reverting without consensus) from her. In this case, I'd like her to explain her position in light of this:

The term "global surveillance disclosures" is not one found in RS to refer to Edward Snowden's disclosures, so the to change the wording in the Lede doesn't seem to be supported by guidelines. It now reads "NSA leaks", as media refers to them. petrarchan47tc 02:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Google pulls up:

*1,860,000 hits for "2013 + global surveillance disclosures"

*129,000,000 hits for "NSA leaks"

*130,000,000 hits for "Snowden leaks"

I'll also point out that "leak" is a neutral and more descriptive term for which we even have an article (news leak). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Why target Petrarchan47? Of course the word "disclosures" was added by A1candidate with this edit bearing the edit summary "'disclosure' seems to be a more appropriate term for this".

I see the difference between the two words as one of purpose: a leak is designed to put information out in the world without it being traced to the real source. A disclosure is information given by the source directly. Binksternet (talk) 05:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I target Petrarchan because she re-reverted me. Yet again. A1 did not.

I see no basis for your distinction between the terms beyond your own take, and apparently neither does most of the Internet. Nor does news leak, which says nothing of this (and also lists Snowden's disclosures as "leaks"). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I much prefer "disclosures" to leaks in this case. However, the article now reads "disclosure", which I'd like to see changed to "disclosures". Gandydancer (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The US President called them "disclosures."--Brian Dell (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I like "disclosures" because the word smacks of tradecraft, which Misplaced Pages defines as the techniques used in modern espionage and generally, the activity of intelligence. "Leaks," on the other hand, is more of a journalistic term. Given that Snowden stands charged with violating the Espionage Act of 1917 and not with committing journalism, the more sinister "disclosures" is a better fit. Please also note that Misplaced Pages has a standalone article Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present) that is closely related to Snowden. JohnValeron (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

JohnValeron, I don't think your perception of "disclosures" as being "sinister" (a perception I don't agree with, as I consider it rather sterile) is a valid argument for using "disclosures"; in fact, quite the opposite. We have a duty to write neutrally and to avoid words that introduce bias. You seem to be suggesting that we use "disclosures" for the very reason that it endorses a particular POV. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• According the UCLU's Bed Wizner, a legal representative for Snowden, The number of documents that Snowden has disclosed is zero. Snowden provided a great deal of material to journalists. He entrusted it to journalists, at The Guardian, at The Washington Post. It's since expanded to the New York Times and other newspapers. His instructions to those reporters were that they, in consultation with their own editors, using their own judgment of what was in the public interest... (etc). I've made some editorial changes that may alleviate the need for us to use any labels for now. petrarchan47tc 22:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Two responses. First, why do we care what language a "Snowden representative" (or Obama, for that matter) uses? Aren't we supposed to consider the reliable independent sources? Second, if we are going to adhere to Wizner, doesn't that argue against "disclose" since according to Wizner Snowden "disclosed" nothing? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes to lead section by Gonna

I was trying to reorganize the lead so that it follows the article's structure. Why not keep my edits? You can reorganize the lead without my assistance. IX|(C"<) 18:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Simply because it introduced too many errors to justify the change. petrarchan47tc 10:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Petrarchan may well be right, but I think Gonna deserves more of a justification for the reversion than "too many errors" and "changes weren't bad, but not enough of an improvement to justify new errors"'. Please remember that we're supposed to be working collaboratively. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I edited the lead because of how the article is organized. I did some minor copyedits to the lead as well. IX|(C"<) 00:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Statements in lede about permanent asylum

Seriously, this is getting old. Here is the edit summary, which makes no sense to me: if you insist on deleting " hopes to" remain in Russia, "...wants to travel to Germany or France, according to..." should also be removed because "wants Germany" is directly contradicted by "hopes to remain in Russia" Body of bio has it right I've replaced the content: According to a German politician Snowden met in October 2013, Snowden is seeking permanent asylum in a "democratic" country such as Germany or France. Snowden's legal adviser, Jesselyn Radack, said in January 2014 that Snowden would eventually like to return to the US "if the conditions were right", but that he knows he is safe in Russia for the present.

This has been a stable article for many months, and I am highly suspicious of the activity continuing here that seems all about perception control and causing disturbance. Interestingly, the latest revelation is the the intelligence agencies have a very advanced program to infiltrate online activity. If it quacks like a duck, how should Misplaced Pages respond? petrarchan47tc 10:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

And I agree. It would be foolish not to admit to the possibility that perception management is happening here in this high profile "battlefield" article, one of the top if not the top areas such programs would focus on. Jusdafax 17:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, please stop with the disruptive personal attacks and focus on the merits of your position, namely, why you replaced the content as you did. You're not suggesting you're reverting everything by those you believe to be infiltrators, are you? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

If it quacks like a duck, Misplaced Pages should permanently lock out all editors except Petrarchan47, whose sole proprietorship would be beyond reproach. We certainly can't have any covert government infiltrators mucking about with this high profile battlefield article. JohnValeron (talk) 03:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Why is " will be renewed for another year..." continually being deleted? It should not be deleted because if he "hopes" to continue to live in Russia, then he is not seeking to live in Germany in France. You keep edit warring over this to remove the fact that according to Snowden's legal advisors, he "hopes" to continue to live in Russia, not Germany or France. Why? If Misplaced Pages is going to report something and that report is contradicted by another report, either both reports should be given OR neither should be reported. You can choose which of these two options you prefer but you cannot give just one report and remove the elements from the second report that contradict the first report and call that an accurate and neutral presentation. "Body of bio has it right" means the body of the article is currently presenting this correctly as both reports are given. This is not so important that it needs repetition in the lede. If we knew exactly what Snowden wants, it could potentially be added to the lede, but when we have conflicting reports, both reports should be given and that is adding a lot of text to the lede just to say nothing definitive. If it is in the lede, then the fact he "hopes" to continue to live in Russia should also be reported.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Snowden does not "hope" to stay in Russia. Radack is clear that Snowden understands that a realistic assessment of the safety situation must conclude that he is safest in Russia right now, and that he is interested in his own continued safety (not a surprise). That realistic assessment does not stop Snowden from hoping to shift his residence to France or Germany, a democratic country. Last summer he was even aiming for Ecuador to join Julian Assange. There is nothing about Russia that attracts Snowden—he was on his way through the place, not intending to stay. Binksternet (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Citation for Live Q&A

The titel in the citation for the Live Q&A has an error but I can't edit the article. Can anyone fix it? I also archived the link. The new citation would be:

here

freesnowden.is

Please refrain from using freesnowden.is as a source, even for quotes attributed to Snowden. This is an unreliable source as it's blatant advocacy ("Free Snowden: In Support of Edward Snowden"). On top of that, even if it were reliable, using a source with that name "freesnowden" creates an appearance on non-neutrality in our article. Stick with independent news reporting and independent peer-reviewed scholarship. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I strongly concur with this advice but just as strongly wish whoever posted it had signed the comment. Is this merely a suggestion from a rank-&-file editor … or a Commandment From On High by a senior Misplaced Pages chargé? JohnValeron (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, missed a tilde, signed. (You could tell it was me from the edit history.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

One should not "launder" freesnowden.is by just replacing what is cited to this site with a cite to a site that cites this site. If all the New Yorker is doing to just taking what is written on freesnowden.is at face value, then we should be going through the intermediary, The New Yorker direct to the origin, freesnowden.is, so that readers can draw their own conclusions about the reliability of the source instead of obscuring by an indirect reference.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Is the New Yorker citing freesnowden.is? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I see that http://www.freesnowden.is/asksnowden.html is the only related URL being used as a reference in the article, and it is used three times with attribution. The URL points to a transcript of a press conference of sorts held online with Snowden. Since this article is not based on primary sources, such WP:Primary source comments as can be found at the URL are allowed: "A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Quoting the primary source with attribution satisfies the requirement. Binksternet (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that the quotes are used at all is not the issue so much as failing to attribute the quotes (to a website controlled by Assange). Changing freesnowden.is in the citation to New Yorker while keeping the quotes just makes the attribution more obscure.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that we should attribute the website in the article text, rather than Snowden? Or are you just concerned with how we reference the quotes? Binksternet (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Recents edits

I really don't think those recent edits are much of an improvement to the article. Would suggest seeking consensus first before making them. -A1candidate (talk) 01:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Just being bold. The changes were largely based on WP:LEAD. If you don't like the changes, care to explain why? And please be sure to identify the specific edit(s) you're referring to. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The changes can be viewed here

There is no consensus to remove all of this, and it would be needed for these changes to stick. They included the deletion of:

• External links and Further reading

Well-cited information from the Lede:

• "By November 2013, The Guardian had published one percent of the documents, with "the worst yet to come".

• "According to German politician Hans-Christian Stroebele, Snowden is seeking permanent asylum in a "democratic" country such as Germany or France. Snowden's legal adviser, Jesselyn Radack, said in January 2014 that Snowden would eventually like to return to the US "if the conditions were right", but that he knows he is safe in Russia for the present."

• "(He), serves as Rector of the University of Glasgow, and serves on the Freedom of the Press Foundation board of directors."

And this change to the Russia saga:

WAS

"After disclosing his identity, he flew from Hong Kong and landed at Moscow's Sheremetyevo International Airport on June 23, reportedly for a one-night layover en route to Ecuador. US officials revoked his passport upon his arrival in Russia, where he remained stranded in the airport transit zone until August 1, when the Russian government granted him a one-year temporary asylum, renewable annually.

NOW

"After disclosing his identity, he flew from Hong Kong to Moscow en route to Ecuador, upon which time US officials revoked his passport. As of February 2014 he was living in an undisclosed location in Russia under a one-year temporary asylum and is seeking permanent asylum elsewhere."

Comments: The US government and some of the editors here would like us to believe Snowden has been in cahoots with Russia all along. A couple of editors have expressed this openly. I am wary of changes which seem all about perception control, especially in relation to the government's case against Snowden which rests on whether he exposed wrongdoing (ie, "whistleblower" status and zero jail time) or whether he intended to, and did, harm the US. It is no secret that government officials have been floating the meme that Snowden is a Russian spy, though the latest report from the FBI investigation says there is no evidence of that. It very much hurts their story if it is know that Snowden had no intention of living in Russia but was on his way elsewhere, and was stuck due to the actions of the US government, and their timing of his passport revocation. It hurts their story if he voiced a desire to live in a democratic country, whilst the US government paints the story that he desires the opposite.

If editors are here to share truth with the public, the aforementioned, well cited information should cause no hairs to raise. Yet I share space here with people who yell at me for sharing this, and who delete it over and over and over and over.

This is, let's face it, the man who caused the hugest stain on the reputation of the sitting president of the most powerful country in the world, as well as on its government. If his article is being hit over and over in the very area on which his case rests, then we can assume there is purposeful perception-control taking place. This is such an important case, and is ongoing. Plus, this is a BLP. It is mind-boggling to see fewer than a handful of independent editors weighing in here, at least in any sensible, neutral, RS-based way.

I have been trying to keep the page updated and well-edited, but have been nearly driven off Misplaced Pages by some actions that have taken place since the time we, as a community, started talking about supporting The Day We Fight Back. That history is in my talk page archives. I am having a tough time with what appears to be game-playing here and at closely related articles. As a human being, I can't handle the stress. This is the second time in the past few months that I need to ask for help from the community to keep watching over this page and talk page. When it's peaceful, little help is needed. But the onslaught that has happened in the past couple months no one should need to experience. This is the difference between people who edit because they love Misplaced Pages and the truth, and those who are here for other purposes. Those people are indeed playing a game, and from what I have observed, they don't care if another person is hurt in the process. It's also good to have support (so, thank you Bink, Gandy, Justa, et al) when one thinks they may be coming up against powerful forces, or those associated with them, and their related hostility. petrarchan47tc 23:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

This is disruptive, apart from the over-the-top AGF, NPA, and OWN issues embedded in your comment above. Most of my changes were non-controversial and you have not objected to them. But rather than reverting just what you disagree with, you have reverted everything I did in the lede. This is not known as consensus building. Please revert what you do not object to in the next 24 hours, or I will escalate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

And now for the substantive issues you raise:

• Regarding the "well cited info" I deleted, I don't dispute that it was well-cited, nor did I suggest as much in my edit summaries. Note that just because something is true doesn't mean it should be included. As I already explained in my edit summaries and my comment above, these deletions were based on WP:LEAD, which says that the lead section should be concise. You really have to explain why the stuff I deleted was more notable than the rest of the well-cited info that was excluded.
• Regarding the Moscow stuff, and I don't see how the lead suggested hid anything from the reader. Snowden was en route from Hong Kong to Ecuador with a stopover in Moscow when the feds revoked his passport. Isn't that what I had? What specifically was missing that painted an incomplete picture?
• Regarding the permanent asylum stuff, these aren't sufficiently notable because they're statements by the subject's lawyers (how often do you see those in lead sections?) speculating about the subject's future actions. This is not appropriate content, especially for the lead. It might be appropriate for the body as a reflection of Snowden's current desires, but that isn't sufficiently notable for inclusion in the lead. Obama wants immigration reform, Boehner wants to hold on to the speakership, but you don't see those sorts of things in their lead sections.
• Neutrality issues: Your arguments about including content because it "hurts the government's story" is out-of-bounds and shows a profound misunderstanding of WP:NPV. Our goal isn't to "hurt" anyone's POV, except possibly fringe theories; rather, we are here to present all notable sides of any given controversy. Really, what I'm reading from your comments here is that you're writing the article to counter what you personally perceive as the government's secret agenda. No offense, but that's a horribly unencyclopedic way to write an article (not to mention that it's in gross violation of WP's policies and guidelines).

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The "timing of his passport revocation" has already been thoroughly discussed on this Talk page. Charges were unsealed by Justice late on Friday, June 21. This caused State to move to revoke his passport (June 22 by now), although State had already been making it clear to Hong Kong for a long time they didn't want Snowden released. Snowden flew to Moscow on June 23. These times are all easily verifiable. With respect to an onward flight to Cuba on June 24, I have noted earlier that according to the NYT on Sunday, June 23: "Russian news services reported that Mr. Snowden would take a Monday afternoon flight to Cuba, prompting a late rush for tickets from the horde of journalists gathered at the airport. But others dismissed it as a ruse to put the news media and others off Mr. Snowden’s trail." So the NYT was already doubting that Snowden would board an onward flight the very same day he arrived in Moscow, noting that the flight to Cuba story may well be a "ruse" planted by "Russian news services." You agreed in an earlier thread, Petrarchan, to "attribute this to Russian media as the NYT did." As for those who "...love Misplaced Pages and the truth, and those who ..." may I suggest just getting some sort of amulet to protect yourself "as a human being" from the "powerful forces" you presume to be at work and restricting your complaints here to content issues. This means your "thank you" shout-outs to your pals are also off topic on this page.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• I have not edited this article, but have it watchlisted. Petrarchan47 is correct, in my view, when he notes that the article's longstanding stability is being disrupted by parties who appear to have an agenda. I suggest other eyes may be required to get a fair consensus here. I also support investigating further the motives of those parties given the high target value the article's subject has. My hat is off to Petrarchan for standing up to the bullying tactics this page now clearly documents. Jusdafax 07:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, JusDaFax. Your insight and support is very much appreciated. petrarchan47tc 18:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Burn me at the stake! Am I lighter than a duck? (And have you heard of WP:AGF and WP:NPA?) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Retelling of the passport story

If after my complaining about this very thing brings about a major change to the Lede hours later, it's hard to argue that games are not being played here, whether it's about content control, perception of Snowden guilt/US government innocence, OR about keeping editors here scurrying around endlessly until they leave out of frustration. I've re-added the RS based passport story to the Lede. BDell's proposed changes need to be discussed here first. petrarchan47tc 17:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I saw a good summary of the Hong Kong passport controversy in Wired magazine: "The Leaker, the Passport & Pizza Dinner: How & Why Hong Kong Let Snowden Go", June 24, 2013. Dashiell Bennett says that China looked the other way and allowed Snowden to leave because they did not want the headache. I find the explanation very plausible. Binksternet (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

As do I. But that would absolve the U.S. government of blame for "stranding" Snowden in Russia because it suggests that if the U.S. government wanted Snowden stranded anywhere, they wanted him stranded in Hong Kong, not Moscow. It also suggests that if a government wants to let Snowden move on, they can do so if they really want to regardless of the actions of the U.S. State Department. More than a month ago I linked to a WaPo story here on this Talk page and asked "Does anyone really disagree that the Chinese made a political decision to let, or tell, Snowden go?" Petrarchan's response to my paragraph was: "TL:DR". This was in the thread titled "Passport" that is now archived. Petrarchan opened that thread by presenting her research on what sources said about the passport. So this has already been gone over, or could have been had Petrarchan continued to participate.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

We are in agreement that China quietly made a political decision to let Snowden fly out of Hong Kong, however, I don't see the sources saying the U.S. would like to have him stranded anywhere, let alone Hong Kong. Rather, the U.S. is portrayed as wanting very badly to get Snowden back into the U.S.

Yes, the Wired story suggests that Snowden is able to continue his travels despite the U.S. State Department's strong wish otherwise. The Wired story says all Snowden needs is a passport from another country, or even just an entry visa, for instance to Ecuador where he said he was headed anyway. Of course this other country would have to bear the brunt of U.S. anger. Binksternet (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

This could continue forever. Here are links to past discussions where BDell555 has made his case with regard to Russia. I highly advise people review these (given the fact that NPOV is a requirement for editors here).

• *
• *
• *
• *

Let's decide on the talk page first if aspects of this story are to be changed again in the article - we have been edit-warring over this for literally months, Dell. I am not concerned with how the story is told as long as it's not OR/SYNTH written by a confessed whistleblower-hater, and is clearly written up in RS. Is this not common sense? petrarchan47tc 19:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

1. Germany wants Snowden to give evidence in Moscow, not Berlin. Reuters.

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Espionage articles
• Mid-importance Espionage articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• B-Class North Carolina articles
• Unknown-importance North Carolina articles
• WikiProject North Carolina articles
• B-Class United States Government articles
• Mid-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class Human rights articles
• Mid-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• B-Class International relations articles
• Top-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• B-Class Mass surveillance articles
• Mid-importance Mass surveillance articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press