Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 13:20, 1 January 2025

Schengen Cloud was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 28 December 2024 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Edward Snowden. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Edward Snowden article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months

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 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.

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

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  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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 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. United States: North Carolina / Government Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Mid-importance). 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. International relations High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Mass surveillance High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

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.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/why-so-silent-edward-snowden-has-gone-underground-since-russias-invasion

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 7 times. The weeks in which this happened: June 9 to 15, 2013 June 23 to 29, 2013 June 30 to July 6, 2013 July 7 to 13, 2013 July 28 to August 3, 2013 September 11 to 17, 2016 October 20 to 26, 2019

Wiki Education assignment: Communication and Culture

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

List of Epithets in Lede

Terms like "hero" and "coward" are unencyclopedic. Instead of listing all these epithets, we should just mention that his actions are controversial and have been praised and condemned. CozyandDozy (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Edward Snowden was a national hero albeit NoahMusic2009 (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

"Naturalized Russian

Why not just call him American and Russian rather than "American and naturalized Russian"? Do we call Ilhan Omar or Arnold Schwarzenegger "naturalized Americans"? CozyandDozy (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not defending / advocating any particular wording, but that wording does It does does convey / contain the information that the Russian status came later. North8000 (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Because calling him Russian implies ethnicity. "Russian" is an ambiguous term and can imply either ethnicity or nationality. "American" is very different in that there's no ethnicity attached to it. At the end of the day it's about reducing ambiguity. And in this case I'd argue even misinformation, because many people would assume he's an ethnic Russian with that wording. Binglederry (talk) 05:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Unconstitutional

The main point of the revelations were that the spying of the agencies was unconstitutional / illegal. This description needs to be within that first paragraph. 2A02:3033:406:FA0E:5C54:8201:5CF1:6EE1 (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The situation is more complex than that and there was no such categorical finding. North8000 (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Nationality and citizenship

There may be a dispute within the lede section over wording of subject's nationality and citizenship. Involved parties are encouraged to discuss the matter here on Talk rather than within edit summaries of reverts. Thank you. -- dsprc  08:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I would say the current version is fine, except that 3rd paragraph is too long and repetitive. Yes, he was granted Russian citizenship by President Vladimir Putin. This is probably all that needs to be said. My very best wishes (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Peculiar attribution?

Very small thing and thought best to have someone more familiar with the topic/implications review rather than put it on my own, but at the end of the “Whistle Blower” section a line threw me off about an “unclassified report” being posted on the American Federation of Scientist (AFS) website - so I looked it up, and we have the PDF from an official source (https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/hrpt891/CRPT-114hrpt891.pdf). I don’t see why it should be sourced from a think tank’s website if we have mainline distribution, especially so if it requires extra phrasing, as if the AFS leaked it or had special commentary, which so far as I know did not. Just an odd reach around of an attribution if you ask me. Thanks if someone can take a look/judge the validity of what I’m saying! Additivefreesb (talk) 06:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Verizon court order

I found a sentence in section Edward_Snowden#Revelations saying "The initial reports included details about NSA call database, Boundless Informant, and of a secret court order requiring Verizon to hand the NSA millions of Americans' phone records daily, the surveillance of French citizens' phone and Internet records, and those of "high-profile individuals from the world of business or politics."" This, in part, specifically means that Verizon was forced to hand over information about French citizens and high-profile individuals. However, each source being cited either talks about Verizon handing over Americans' info, or NSA getting French/high-profile info with no relation to Verizon. Additionally, the court order document (found here that forced Verizon to hand over information specifically states "The order does not require Verizon to produce telephony metadata for communicatiosn wholly originating and terminating in foreign countries." Would it be correct to make these two parts of the sentence different sentences, to make it clear which part Verizon was involved in? TheGEICOgecko (talk) 03:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the edit.TheGEICOgecko (talk) 05:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Use of an Intelligence Committee report

I have removed some statements that were recently added sourced to a 2016 US government House Committee report. Some statements sourced to the report remain. Details below:

• we should not use the report to remove Snowden's description as a whistleblower
• we should not use the report to accuse him of being a "suspected spy for Russia and the People's Republic of China".
• we should not use the report to say he "falsely claimed to have passed the GED". The USNews article used as a source discusses this.
• The shin splints/stress fracture issue is also discussed in the USnews article above titled "In Declassified Edward Snowden Report, Committee Walks Back Claims About 'Intentional Lying'".
• we should not use the report to say "sources disagree on" whether Snowden "was hand-picked by the CIA to support the president at the 2008 NATO summit in Romania".

Burrobert (talk) 12:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

legally snowden is not a whistle blower. you can describe him as a "self-styled" whistle blower but to claim otherwise in the lead paragraph prejudices the reader. his alleged whistle blower status is discussed later. ItsjustGatsby (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Why should we not state that he's an alleged spy? He's been indicted for espionage.

He did not pass his GED. He lied. The primary source confirms this. ItsjustGatsby (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the credibility of that report is far from established. Moreover, basic common sense tells us that if somebody reveals embarrassing information about a government, that government's own subsequent report on itself is extremely unlikely to serve as an impartial source. jp×g🗯️ 01:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe you're using the "needs non primary sources" correctly. The intent is to not engage in original research on Misplaced Pages. The use of the report is not a primary source. it's a report. a synthesis by other researchers. if we were using primary source, I would have cited his military discharge papers or GED. I think the note should be removed. ItsjustGatsby (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Even if it were not wp:OR to derive "Suspected spy for Russia and the People's Republic of China" from indicted for espionage, the common meaning of "spy" does not follow from what he was indicted for. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I updated the reference. it now states only that he has been indicted for espionage. ItsjustGatsby (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• The description “whistle-blower” is long-standing content based on reliable sources which describe him in that way. It is unreasonable to remove that description based on a report by a US intelligence committee, which obviously has a vested interest in denying Snowden is a whistle-blower.

• The wiki bio says Snowden has been charged “with three felonies: theft of government property and two counts of violating the Espionage Act of 1917”. Afaict, there is no mention of spying for Russia or China.

• Regarding the stress fracture/shin split issue, the source you removed, which discusses claims made in the intelligence committee report, says “hree-time Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Barton Gellman, … rebutted executive summary claims in a blog post, writing that Snowden's military discharge paperwork listed a diagnosis of "bilateral tibial stress fractures" and that he reviewed a copy of Snowden's GED test report, printing what he said was Snowden's test score and diploma number”. Nothing from the intelligence committee report should be written in wikivoice.

• Regarding the treatment of the intelligence committee report as a primary source, there are some footnotes on the page Misplaced Pages:No_original_research#Primary which may be relevant. E.g. “Duke University Libraries offers this definition: "A primary source is a first-hand account of an event. Primary sources may include newspaper articles, letters, diaries, interviews, laws, reports of government commissions, and many other types of documents." There is a noticeboard where you can ask for advice on this issue. Burrobert (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

1. Just because everyone is using the term incorrectly, doesn't mean it's okay to continue to do so. You're accepting a bias by blindly accepting that term. he claims to be a whistle blower. he did not meet the legal requirement of whistle blower.
2. I have updated the sentence to indicate his indictment. nothing else.
3. Barton Gellman is a friend of Snowden's and is not a reliable source. Without documentary evidence of the claim we are merely repeating his assertions. Is that what wikipedia does?
4. So, we can't use newspaper articles as citations?
5. where is the notice board?
6. thank you for the help with the article.

ItsjustGatsby (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• We generally defer to reliable sources, even if we disagree with their descriptions.
• Don't know anything about Barton Gellman. I wouldn't necessarily discount his version of events because a US government intelligence report says otherwise. The USnews article mentioned above discusses the lack of evidence provided in the report for both the GED claim and the shin splint claim. I think Gellman was correct to say "I think all this debate about shin splints and GED is a silly diversion (trifling, I wrote)".
• Some newspaper articles such as investigative reports, editorials and blogs can be considered primary sources. Primary sources can be used in Misplaced Pages but care needs to be taken with their use as described on the page linked above.
• The two noticeboards which may be relevant are Reliable sources noticeboard and the biography of living persons noticeboard. Burrobert (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  How is the House report not a reliable source? The reader should be able to make that determination, shouldn't they? Are we discounting the report because we don't like the conclusion?  ItsjustGatsby (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  I feel like the reason for this has already been explained in some depth -- I would recommend reading our policies about primary and secondary sources. It's a primary source because it comes from one of the entities participating in the dispute. If I write a newspaper article about the wildfires in Elbonia, that's a secondary source, and if I write a newspaper article about how the law office next door to the newspaper always fills up the dumpster with gross stuff because they use really thin bags when they take out their trash, that's a primary source. jp×g🗯️ 01:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  I have started a new topic on the reliable sources noticeboard. thanks for the link. ItsjustGatsby (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

With #1, have to agree that it's iffy to let Misplaced Pages be the one to litigate whether or not someone meets the definition for the term "whistleblower", even if "everyone is using it incorrectly". If the majority of reliable sources consistently describe him as a "whistleblower", then not sure it'd make sense to let one source override all the others. Especially if that source is referring to a specific legal sense.

But no other major issues/comments with the others. MediumRob (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This section relates to a lot of work/wide range of changes that you two folks have recently made plus reasoning for or against them. If you are hoping for some third party input, right now it's such a complex bundle that few would tackle learning it. Next, Wiki's primary vs. secondary source definitions are nuanced with several parts and references. Also it expressly permits primary sources within certain restrictions. Any interpretation is going to be context-specific to the article content involved. So I don't think that any general debates on classification, usage and suitability of the sources detached from the context of the article is going to be productive. May I suggest, whether it be for you two to sort this out or to garner third party input, that this be organized by what the (proposed) article text is and whether or not the provided source is suitable / sufficient to support it? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I suggested the Reliable sources noticeboard as a venue to ask for opinions on whether the report should be considered a primary source for Snowden's bio. That was because you did not agree that it was a primary source. Burrobert (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

That was indented under my post. I never gave any opinion on what you just wrote. North8000 (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The change removing the "however" before the statement refuting the claim by Greenwald on Snowden's job at CIA is incorrect. the statement is supposed to be linked to the previous because it is meant to refute his claims.

Greenwald doesn't have access to any special trove of data. He's repeating statements made by Snowden, who has an interest in being presented in a certain light. The House Report, by contrast does have access to the primary sources (see why it's not a primary source). The House has certainly seen his employment record from CIA. they know he was a technical services officer and at what grade. Without a college degree or a high school diploma he's unlikely to be more than a GS-7. No entry-level employee is going to be considered a "considered the top technical and cybersecurity expert". GS-7 is by definition not the top.

That's my issue with a lot of this article. Its tone is far too laudatory. The articles include statement given by Snowden as if they are facts without any journalistic rigor. It includes very little opposing views on the matter.

The policy mentioned above explains why terms such as "however" should be avoided. Let the sentence stand by itself without the editorialising. Readers will form their own conclusions. Burrobert (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I really don't think we need to be writing stuff in the article based on our own guesswork about what level of educational attainment we think kinda corresponds to which federal government pay grades we think kinda correspond to which levels of computer knowledge or whatever -- this is a couple steps beyond original research and leaning towards satire. jp×g🗯️ 01:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not writing anything about it. I'm explaining my thought process on why I believe Snowdon is exaggerating. ItsjustGatsby (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Biography articles of living people
• B-Class level-5 vital articles
• Misplaced Pages level-5 vital articles in People
• B-Class vital articles in People
• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Espionage articles
• Mid-importance Espionage articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Mid-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
• B-Class North Carolina articles
• High-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
• High-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• B-Class Mass surveillance articles
• High-importance Mass surveillance articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report