Talk:Edward Snowden/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

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. petrarchan47 t c 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? petrarchan47 t c 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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.[1] 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 "[Masnick is] 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. "[H]is analysis of the BuzzFeed source is quite relevant" yet it would be undue in your books for Wikipedia 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). petrarchan47 t c 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 Wikipedia 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? petrarchan47 t c 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. petrarchan47 t c 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. petrarchan47 t c 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. petrarchan47 t c 23:35, 24 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. petrarchan47 t c 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 Wikipedia COI policy relates to editing Wikipedia - 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. petrarchan47 t c 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. Jus da fax 07:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

"disclosures" vs "leaks"

Petrarchan47 has once again [re-reverted] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. petrarchan47 t c 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)

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

Request completed. Was originally submitted but not signed by User:InhlanziEyikati 10:20, 27 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. petrarchan47 t c 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)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. petrarchan47 t c 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 Wikipedia and the truth, and those who [don't]..." 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. Jus da fax 07:56, 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)

Thank you, JusDaFax. Your insight and support is very much appreciated. petrarchan47 t c 18:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

I think ideally we should say something in the article text like "In a Jan. 23 live chat on FreeSnowden.is, a website created by Wikileaks to raise money for Snowden's legal defence, Snowden said [such and such]" in order to be as transparent as possible about the nature of the sourcing. However, I'm not about to edit war over this. If FreeSnowden.is appears in the citation only, interested readers can at least do their own research on FreeSnowden.is having seen it in the citation. No mention of the website anywhere in the article, including the citation, is the furthest from our mandate of providing information to readers because that expects readers to either assume (incorrectly) that The New Yorker interviewed Snowden directly or read The New Yorker story in detail and from there figure out that the medium through which the comments were made was ultimately controlled by Wikileaks/a partisan group.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

No offense but I think you're both missing the bigger picture. This isn't an RS issue, it's a neutrality/promotion issue. Including citations to "Free Snowden" without qualification or even attribution is an endorsement of "Free Snowden" and we absolutely cannot do that. We simply should not and cannot be citing any website that is blatant advocacy like this. Simply put it discredits our coverage. We can have the exact same content and cite neutral, reliable secondary sources without referencing a website called "Free Snowden". Why would we not want to do that? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I get that Doc but Petrarchan and her self-described "friends" are not going to tolerate removal of these words attributed to Snowden. We can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough. Unwrap for the reader the fact this stuff is coming from "Free Snowden" and at least we've offered up a grain of salt the reader can take with this. Hiding the fact that this is coming from "Free Snowden" by keeping the quotes and sticking in an intermediary that re-quotes from "Free Snowden" is the worst thing you can do.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I will not stand for this blatant policy violation. Petrarchan talks high and mighty about supporting Wikipedia but in fact she is knowingly corrupting it. This must stop, and it will one way or another. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

You should not threaten another editor or you will get blocked. Binksternet (talk) 06:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Not a threat. You are the one engaging in empty threats. I am simply talking reality here, you can only blatantly disregard project policies for so long before someone puts an end to it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Major changes to long standing Lede

These changes need to wait until they are discussed. You cannot remove well-cited information and make these changes whilst discussions are underway here. As for that which is lacking proper citation, please know that the Lede is not meant to have refs as the information and refs are included in the body of the article. Please tag with citation needed, and I will dig up the refs. This Lede has been scoured for months, and no dramatic problems have surfaced. It has, along with the article itself, been deemed neutral and well-cited. Often times, with many changes, the citations may be lost - so just tag the section instead of removing information, and please engage in discussion here with patience whilst the community decides how to tell this story, if changes are needed. Thanks. petrarchan47 t c 23:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific as to which changes you're referring to. In recent days we've seen a large variety of changes by three separate editors. You can't just write them all off as being in dispute and then revert all of them in one swell foop. Specify what you object to, explain why, and let the rest stand. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Not to worry. If you're alluding to me as one of the three editors who's lately made changes, rest assured that the ever-vigilant Petrarchan47 has undone my revisions in toto. My apologies for the inconvenience. JohnValeron (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow, what's it like to have a team? Looks fun. Valeron's uber-important revision was to remove a well-cited and easily referenced detail. It takes a second to google this and find out whether sources are available. Secondly, once another ref was added, it was removed by the ever-vigilant-one for a false reason (that it didn't contain the facts it did). As for Flieschman's contention "In recent days we've seen a large variety of changes by three separate editors". Yes, and there is no good reason for you 3 to be teaming up and changing this article whilst loosing every single argument here at the talk page. I think we need an intervention because you all are obviously not intending to adhere to consensus building, and aren't looking to allow this page to return to its once-peaceful state. petrarchan47 t c 01:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

By all means, intervene! In the meantime, please answer my question and stop engaging in personal attacks. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

IMO changes to the lead in an article such as this should absolutely be discussed before changes are made. Gandydancer (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion appears to be divorced from accepted WP practices and guidelines. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Petrarchan's preferred version has not been "long standing." It being disputed is what is "long standing."--Brian Dell (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Travel details in the lede section

I agree with Petrarchan47tc and Gandydancer that the current lede section is highly problematic. While I appreciate the efforts of several editors to be WP:BOLD while editing, it should be clear that this article is a particularly controversial one, and any major change to the lede is bound to be challenged by someone. This obviously does not mean that we should stop editing altogether, but I do think that we need to be more careful about adding or removing large amounts of text to the lede. What I find particularly problematic, however, is the large chunk of travel details found in the 3rd paragraph. We're not here to bombard the reader with excessive details about Snowden's dates of departure, passport, name of transit airport, etc. His final destination needs to be mentioned, but everything else should be summarized in a single sentence or two.

Also, I see no harm in adding a little bit more information about the surveillance programs revealed by Snowden. The previous lede seemed to be quite a well-written one, and the current one isn't that bad either as long as we agree do something about the third paragraph.

Finally, we don't have to continuously repeat the fact that Snowden has been charged with espionage. This is already included in the fifth paragraph of the lede section. Whoever added it again apparently did not even bother to read the article before making such edits. -A1candidate (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The travel dates are particularly necessary if the lede is also going to assert that the explanation for Snowden's presence in Russia is something other than Snowden or Russia, since the travel dates invite the reader to further examine an explanation that asserts that Snowden's presence in Russia is due to neither Snowden nor Russia but to the actions of the U.S. government. Pointing the finger at the U.S. State Department is not the same sort of fact claim as stating how old Snowden is. If the travel dates are in any way inaccurate, or their presentation biased, that is of course another matter. They should not be removed if they are accurate and neutrally presented by just saying mentioning travel dates is too much detail. The detail has a reader service role here beyond just giving dates for their own sake.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Look Brian, for the past few months you've been trying hard to establish a connection between Snowden and the Russian government. At first, I looked forward to your contributions because they seemed to have added a new perspecitve to the article, but then you kept on doing it and your edits became increasingly unconstructive. Frankly, I don't see how "Pointing the finger at the U.S. State Department", as you claim, is supposed to be neutral or necessary in the lede section. -A1candidate (talk) 04:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

When Snowden insists "the State Department decided they wanted me in Moscow, and cancelled my passport" he's not "pointing the finger at the U.S. State Department"? When have I ever suggested inserting "Pointing the finger at the U.S. State Department" into "the lede section"? Look, A1, I invited you to state any objections you might have to my belief that the travel dates are both accurate and neutrally presented. Instead you, yet again, resort to labeling other editors, in this case as "unconstructive." Where in the diff, A1, am I establishing a connection? This seems to be a pattern with you: repeatedly commenting on what appears on the Talk page instead of what appears, or not, in the article. This Talk page is a means to an end, the end being the article. I am REMOVING the declaration, in Wikipedia's voice, that there is a "connection", to use your terminology, between the actions of the U.S. government and Snowden ending up in Moscow. There simply isn't enough reliable support for that notion to completely override the less conspiratorial explanation that Snowden ending up in Moscow had something to do with Snowden and/or Moscow. This doesn't mean I have objected to giving the finger pointing aimed at Washington a full, even repeated, airing in the body of the article where the finger pointing can be properly attributed, etc. I am not replacing the contention that the U.S. government conspired with the contention that the Kremlin conspired. I am rather positing the Kremlin as a possible alternative explanation for phenomena like the one Binksternet observed - "something we don't precisely know about kept Snowden in Moscow" - to the machinations of the U.S. government. If you'd open your mind here to possible alternatives, perhaps you'd take a more skeptical view of the repeated assertions in the article that the U.S. government is to blame for one thing after another. Maybe you'd ask whether pursuing this particular blame game is neutral, and maybe you'd agree that when there is more than one explanation, what is said in the article should be dialed back to something more reserved.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that from my perspective, you seem to be more interested in pushing a particular POV instead of improving the article as a whole. A large portion of your edits appear to be related to Russia, Russia, and more Russia. We don't know for sure whether the Kremlin is behind Snowden's flight, as you have been claiming all along. While I do think it's a plausible theory, it's nothing more than mere speculation. -A1candidate (talk) 11:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

This is getting even further off topic, but from your perspective, sure, how could I not have "a particular POV", when your perspective includes the view that the "political leaders" of the U.S. "most certainly do not" "believe in the ideals of democracy and individual freedom," the opinion that "the Cultural Revolution was indeed necessary... Mao Zedong['s]... actions have benefited the People's Republic of China," and the conviction that the Wall Street Journal, CNN, and the BBC are all "unreliable sources"? It is not a requirement of Wikipedia editors that they agree with these views of yours, is it? Forgive me for believing that the Cultural Revolution was an unmitigated disaster ("Chinese literature, scrolls and other classics were burned, paintings torn apart, murals defaced and priceless antiquities shattered to pieces") and believing that Mao's intervention in Korea not only failed to benefit Koreans but created a problem today that even China would rather not have.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the 3rd para if fine. It's important to me to know the dates. This applies to many other articles I've edited, not just this one. Dates are important to me to judge the info that is presented. Gandydancer (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with A1 that the lead section shouldn't be gummed up with excessive details, particularly those designed to advance or counter particular theories. I believe all of of my changes (which were reverted without meaningful explanation, btw) were deletions that were done with concision in mind, per WP:LEAD. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

"[In Hong Kong Snowden] released his copies of the NSA documents"

Binksternet evidently insists on the lede stating this but there are a number of problems with this. First of all, you may have noticed that the British spy agency GCHQ has featured in a lot of reporting. Where did that stuff come from if Snowden only took "NSA documents"? May I suggest that Greenwald got it from Snowden? In other words, "NSA" should be removed here and we should just say "documents." The NSA did not author the GCHQ documents and does not "own" the GCHQ documents. It is clear what "documents" refers to here because the first paragraph in the article says that "The leaked documents revealed operational details of a global surveillance apparatus run by the NSA and other members of the Five Eyes alliance."

Secondly, Greenwald "told host Reinhold Beckmann that he and journalist Laura Poitras had obtained full sets of the documents during a trip to Hong Kong, with around 9,000 to 10,000 top secret documents in total." How often is it reported that Snowden took only ten thousand? Even if Voice of Russia presenter John Robles is correct that "the 1.7 million claim is false as is the military operations claim," note that in Robles' interview with Jesselyn Radack, even Radack says that "journalists" have received "55,000". Wikipedia should not be implying that the number of documents was just 9 or 10 thousands in the lede (by saying they were all turned over to the journos that met him in HK) without discussing the various competing numbers.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Realy? "And as far as I know Mr. Snowden, according to the journalists who received the documents, the number is really 55,000. I'm not sure if that refers to 55,000 pages or files, but the number is far less than 1.7 million." TMCk (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Really what? What are you trying to say here? If we believe what Greenwald told Beckmann (and I don't see a reason not to believe Greenwald on this point) then at issue here is whether Greenwald and Poitras indeed have the "full set" of Snowden docs. If there's only ten thousand, then Binksternet's preferred version, which doesn't acknowledge the possibility that Greenwald/Poitras got just a fraction, is fine. If Snowden took more, than that version is not fine, even if "more" is not 1.7 million more but just 45 thousand more.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to your misinterpretation of what she actually said, as her actual response doesn't back up your assertion made at all. Do you think no one would notice???TMCk (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

My "assertion" is that she believes there are more than 10 thousand docs. If you don't dispute that then what is your point? You can use my User Talk page to accuse me of dishonesty if you have nothing to say about the content dispute at hand here. The source says "Snowden’s legal advisor Jesselyn Radack told the Voice of Russia’s John Robles that the actual number of files was 55,000." That's a direct quote of the source's "interpretation," if you will, of what she said. Why did I give you the link which you can use to verify if I am trying to engage in some sort of misrepresentation here? Ignore Radack if you like. There's still others out there, not least the authors of the report to Congress, who say there are more than 10 thousand docs.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I spell it out for you, again, since you tend to ignore "inconvenient" facts: "I'm not sure if that refers to 55,000 pages or files,..."! I'm not going to feed further thou.TMCk (talk) 00:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Why didn't you say from the get go you believe the guy who interviewed her was wrong to just write "files" in his summary because she may have been referring to pages and that would render Radack's statement potentially compatible with Greenwald's? Just boldfacing "pages" in your first comment would have made it clear enough. If I failed to appreciate this, it is because Radack immediately precedes this by using the word "documents" in conjunction with "55 000." Now I'll concede your point here and say compatibility is theoretically possible. Maybe there are 9 to 10 thousand documents AND the average number of pages per document is 5 to 6. However, it remains the case that Radack appears to be referring to something besides just Greenwald's statement (otherwise why didn't she just say 9 to 10K docs?) and the U.S. officials say the number of docs is 1.7 million. Wikipedia is rejecting the view of U.S. officials without proof it is false by just saying that everything was turned over in Hong Kong. That everything was turned over in HK should be attributed if that claim is to stand uncontested.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

To turn again to the content dispute at hand, "...May 20, 2013, where he later... released his copies of the NSA documents" is not correct if Barton Gellman had docs "released" to him prior to May 20 or after Snowden left Hong Kong, no? I'll add that Greenwald said in July that Snowden "is in possession of literally thousands of documents." If he is in possession in July then he did not give up possession in June, no? Why is not sufficient for the lede to just say he handed a lot of docs over to the journos who met him in HK?--Brian Dell (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

There has not been consensus for the number of documents released. I would like this conversation to be completed before asserting in the Lede, as Dell did tonight, that a few thousand were handed over in HK. petrarchan47 t c 08:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Please stop insisting on there being prior consensus before certain editors add content. You seem to be targeting specific editors with this tactic, which is mean-spirited. This is not consistent with any number of policies and guidelines. Consensus is only required when a bona fide disagreement has arisen. Simply saying "we need consensus" without any explanation for the reason for your opposition is akin to "I don't like it" and does not create a real dispute. In other words, it's no more than obstruction. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Meaning no disrespect to other editors or to the process of consensus, I today followed Dr. Fleischman's advice and added content without prior consensus. Specifically, I revised the lede's 3rd paragraph with text and citations tracing the ever-expanding number of documents that Snowden passed to journalists in Hong Kong. I earnestly hope this meets with approval and does not offend particular editors with an aggravated sense of sole proprietorship over this article. JohnValeron (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I am certainly not inclined to edit war over this when it appears to be thorough and accurate, but having a whole paragraph on this (the number of documents that journalists have) in the lede is a lot. Note that this could be avoided if other editors would be satisfied with having the lede avoid the contested issues, and the idea that Snowden delivered everything he had to Greenwald and/or Poitras in Hong Kong is contested. Some have also been insisting that the lede say Snowden hopes to move from Russia to France or Germany. Since the sources proving that are few and there are even sources that may be construed as contradicting that, including this causes the lede to have several sentences on this point if the presentation of Snowden's expected country of residence is going to properly acknowledge the limited and conflicting state of the sourcing. Binksternet, in another thread, says "something we don't precisely know about kept Snowden in Moscow." Well, then, why insist in the lede that that something be identified? Any explanation that ignores the possibility that at least part of that "something" involves the will of the visitor himself (Snowden), the host (Russia), or the visitor's travel arranger (Wikileaks) is an explanation that is going to require a justification which will take up more than just a half sentence. Matters that are not cut and dried can be left aside for the body of the article, where the messy details can dealt with systematically.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Brian but I feel a bit stronger. Speculation about the number of leaked documents is worthy of inclusion in the body but absolutely not appropriate in the lede. Per WP:LEAD, the lede must be concise (more concise than it currently is) and scrupulously neutral. In this case the paragraph added by John is waaay too detailed for the lede, and my impression is that it has the effect of promoting a certain anti-Snowden POV (namely, "look at how much damage Snowden has done"). Based on what we know it's perfectly sufficient for the lede to say that Snowden leaked "thousands" of documents and leave it at that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll make another observation here. Snowden parted ways with Greenwald and Poitras on June 10. On June 12, however, he "divulged information that he claimed showed hacking by the NSA into computers in Hong Kong and the mainland" to the South China Morning Post and "The documents he divulged to the Post were obtained at Booz Allen Hamilton in April, he said. He intends to leak more of those documents later." Now how could he have divulged to the Post documents (concerning U.S. operations in China) if he had already given everything he had to Greenwald and Poitras? And how could he "leak more of those documents later" if he's given them all up? It's true that Snowden told James Risen of The New York Times that he kept no copies himself but this claim simply does not stand up to scrutiny and Wikipedia should accordingly not be making that claim.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

These are interesting points, perhaps even valid ones, but they don't really bear on our article, in my view. We summarize verifiable information and avoid independent synthesis. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a content dispute here Doc that very much bears on the article because there has been edit warring over it. It is not WP:SYNTH for me to point out that the claim that Snowden gave up everything in Hong Kong is not verifiable and therefore should not be included in the article. If it is attributed to Snowden, that's one thing, but if it is not attributed and Wikipedia is using its own voice to make the claim, it is our job to verify that the claim is being made by a reliable source. If the claim is contradicted by other reports and there is no reason to believe those other reports are not accurate, then the claim is dubious.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I think I understand your point here. It's fine to point out problems you see with the reliability of sources, but here you're putting together a jigsaw puzzle of independent analysis to impugn the judgment of journalists and editors who have much more experience doing this than us lay folk. In my opinion, if we're going to question the accuracy of otherwise-reliable sources then the evidence must be direct and incontrovertible. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

At the risk of butting in where I'm not wanted, may I please respectfully suggest the possibility that Snowden could have passed copies of ALL his files to Greenwald/Poitras/MacAskill/Gellman on or before June 10, yet still have retained copies of (at least) the subset he divulged to the South China Morning Post on or before June 12. This does not conflict with Risen's report that Snowden took no copies with him upon leaving Hong Kong. It means only that Snowden might have retained at least those few copies until June 21–22. As for Snowden's expressed intention "to leak more of those documents later" (i.e., post-June 12), he may have been alluding to his proxy leakers, the aforementioned journalists. JohnValeron (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree, or leaking the same documents to other media outlets. My point here (Brian) is that we're straying into the land of conjecture. Let the journalists, subject-matter experts, and bloggers come up with and investigate these sorts of hypotheses. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

What we are "straying" from is the content issue at hand. The article text I am objecting to is "met with journalists Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras and released his copies of the NSA documents." If we are going to mention just Greenwald and Poitras, then we should say "some". If we are not going to say "some", then we should attribute to Snowden. You suggest we defer to the judgment of editors, Doc, yet you believe we should not follow the example of the NYT, which was to attribute to Snowden what Snowden claimed, and instead use Wikipedia's voice to make the claim? There is to be no questioning of the reliability of Edward Snowden around here? We're supposed to hide the name of the claimant, Snowden, in order to create the appearance we are dispensing disinterested truth? If Snowden says it it is gospel and we're just supposed to bow down and receive our daily bread? Business Insider made an issue out of the contradictions here. Does the editorial judgment of Business Insider get any deference here? There is also nothing in the WP:RS policy that suggests an assessment of reliability should be limited to just a superficial analysis. If "...Poitras and released his copies of the NSA documents" is correct, one must believe that the 1.7 million number is bogus (no one anywhere has ever contended that Snowden turned over anything like 1.7 million docs to journos in Hong Kong), and if one believes it's bogus, isn't one "impugn[ing] the judgment" of all the "journalists and editors" who have seen fit to print claims that the number of docs Snowden took on the order of 1.7 million? We cannot just defer to the source when the sources conflict.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, that's a different story. Sorry, sometimes it can be hard for me to come in late and understand what a dispute is really over. "Some" and "all" are mutually exclusive, i.e. "some" implies "not all," and "all" implies "more than some." In light of this we can't use either qualifier without uncontroverted reliable sourcing. Do we have that going in either direction? P.S. Can you please link to the Business Insider article you're referring to? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not an article, it's more like a blogpost. I mentioned it simply because I noticed that someone who works for a media outlet has gone digging through this as well. Has anything hosted on a media website contested "some" like this piece has contested "all"? It's not clear to me that there is any objection to "some" beyond what Snowden's statements imply. In any case, we could avoid "some" as well by just going with "9 or 10 thousand" cited to Greenwald's German media interview.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

That's interesting but I don't think you answered my central question, which was, (a) what reliable sources say without attribution that Snowden turned over some of the his docs, and (b) what (otherwise) reliable sources say without attribution that he turned over all of the his docs? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:57, 3 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 "[Snowden] 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.^[1] 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 Wikipedia respond? petrarchan47 t c 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. Jus da fax 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, Wikipedia 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 "[Snowden} hopes that [asylum] 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 Wikipedia 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)

He does "hope" to stay in Russia. According to Radack. I am not making up that word. It's in the text. That you don't like it is not a good enough reason to keep to deleting it.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Context is key here, as is reading comprehension. Radack's words are spoken as a reaction to questions; they are not carefully composed for presentation. The general drift of her words is that Snowden knows he is safe in Russia and does not wish for anything less. He does, however, wish for more! He would like to live in a democratic country. Binksternet (talk) 05:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

"Reading comprehension" means when you "read" "he hopes that will be renewed for another year or into a permanent asylum because he is safe there and he knows that," you "comprehend" that Snowden "hopes" to have the opportunity to continue to live in Russia and the reason for that is safety. The "context" here is that this is from Part 2 of a two part interview and in Part 1 Radack was invited to consider the possibility that Snowden was interested in receiving asylum in Brazil or Germany and Radack rejected that, saying "...he wasn't trying to get to Brazil, he [simply] wrote letters to both Germany and to Brazil, open letters for the public to read. And I think the US intentionally misconstrued those letters as being petitions for asylum..." The interviewer's summary of the exchange was that "Edward Snowden is acclimating to his new home in Russia and is grateful to have asylum from Russia and is not attempting to go to another country." If Radack had any dissent with that summary why didn't she resist when invited to return to the topic in part 2? Using the opportunity to declare flat out that Snowden "hopes" to remain in Russia suggests Radack wanted to remove any remaining doubt! May I also note that according to the Guardian, last July 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'". Where do you get from that, or any other Snowden comment, that he has a problem with the state of democracy in Russia? Also back in July, Kucherena said his client "wants to stay in Russia." Look, I am not trying to add this to the lede, I rather asking you to stop having the lede declare that Snowden wants to go somewhere else without any acknowledgement that this is disputed.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

See also the Guardian, August 1, 2013: Snowden "indicated that he wants to stay in Russia for the long term."--Brian Dell (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Snowden Effect

I'm struggling with how we might use the concept of the "Snowden Effect." If you look at the reliable sources that use the term (e.g. The Economist, Reuters, USA Today, Information Week, The Wall Street Journal, CNBC, and BBC News), you'll see that each one uses it to mean something different. Meanwhile we have a comprehensive definition by Jay Rosen (not reliable by the way, as it's self-published) of "Direct and indirect gains in public knowledge from the cascade of events and further reporting that followed Edward Snowden’s leaks of classified information about the surveillance state in the U.S." This definition seems so broad and nebulous to be basically useless besides as a candidate for a rename of Aftermath of the global surveillance disclosure. I wonder, is this nothing more than a catchphrase? I suggest that we avoid writing any portion of the article around the term "Snowden Effect" and instead simply include a sentence or two saying something like, "Some news media have described some of these downstream effects collectively as the "Snowden Effect."[cite sources above]. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

You're completely mistaken that Jay Rosen is unreliable. In fact, his article detailing the definition of the "Snowden Effect" is referenced by The Nation (and again by Bill Moyers) as the source of the definition. Given that Rosen is who he is, his self published site is RS. I know you are aware of these rules, and I can not for a moment conceive of how you could be unaware of Jay Rosen. Anyway, thanks for weighing in but as per usual, it's actually more time-consuming than helpful. petrarchan47 t c 08:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Please review WP:SPS. The Rosen source is self-published, pure and simple. His blog post does not appear to have received any editorial review. Rosen is a highly-respected journalist but he's not a published expert in the subject matter. Regardless, my comment above doesn't depend on Rosen being unreliable. Please respond to it instead of attacking me. Again. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

You once defended the NYT, now purport to be unaware of Jay Rosen. Funny. Anyway, read this again WP:USERGENERATED "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications". Secondly, even is Rosen wasn't RS of an by himself, the Nation and others have pointed to his article for the definition of the oft-cited phenomenon they call Snowden Effect. I've only begun this section, and during those wonderful 5 months when you focused on ALEC article instead on my edits, I built much of this article incrementally, because of time constraints. So although there is MUCH to say and reference with regard to this Effect, I can't complete it in one night. I would appreciate you focus your energy on helping build Wikipedia and ensuring against things like vandalism and misspelling instead of interfering with my harmless process of building this encyclopedia. Your watching over my shoulder is not helping the Pedia in any way. petrarchan47 t c 23:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

You could help find more information, and help with this section. I found this just now from the Neiman Foundation at Harvard:

The Snowden revelations are a classic example of journalistic critical mass. The journalists covering them have used the documents to identify and amplify an issue of such importance and scope that it doesn’t flame up and out in the manner of most stories. Rather, this one has gained weight in the public sphere as time goes on, in what Jay Rosen aptly calls the “Snowden Effect.” petrarchan47 t c 00:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

You didn't read my response. I never "purported to be unaware of Jay Rosen," just the opposite. As I wrote, Rosen is a highly respected journalist but he's not a published expert in a relevant field (Snowden, or mass surveillance, or digital privacy). Moreover, please read the last sentence of SPS: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.". And WP:BLPSPS: "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs" That pretty much settles it. The Rosen blog may not be used in this BLP as a fact source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I just showed you that his piece is referenced when a definition of the Snowden Effect is given in several respectable journals. Here are more - they aren't tough to find (hint hint). I don't take your constant concerns about my edits to be stemming from good faith. I am asking you to move along and help the Project, and leave me alone. If I hurt the Project, I assure you others will alert me. petrarchan47 t c 00:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

MSNBC "On Monday’s NOW with Alex Wagner, Alex and the panel discussed “The Snowden Effect” – a term coined by NYU Journalism professor Jay Rosen."
FORBES "New York University journalism professor and media critic Jay Rosen defines the Snowden Effect (a term that may have been coined by Esquire political columnist Charles Pierce) thusly..."
"The Snowden Effect with expert NYU Prof. Jay Rosen" at NJPPN
Guardian " NYU Journalism professor Jay Rosen and Charles Pierce have both written about what they call "the Snowden effect": the tidal wave of revelations about US surveillance policy stemming not only from the documents he enabled us to report, but also the resulting unprecedented focus on the Surveillance State."
Gawker "Media critic Jay Rosen has coined the Snowden Effect, to talk about the flood of new, valuable information about the surveillance state sparked by NSA whistleblower Ed Snowden."

What part of WP:BLPSPS did you not understand? (And remember that reverts of BLP violations are not subject to 3RR.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Under "Snowden Effect," the template in the article states, "The specific problem is: Consensus needed on how to handle such a broad and nebulous concept." The concept is indeed broad—in the overview, everything that's happened in this realm since his leaks is part of the Snowden Effect—but it doesn't necessarily have to be nebulous. Perhaps we could take our cue from the sources themselves.

As the article now stands, the first three sources (The Economist, The Nation, Forbes) do indeed include "Snowden Effect" in their titles, as do the initial four sources under the Tech subheading. The fifth Tech source calls it Snowden's "Impact," which seems synonymous with Effect.

However, we then go astray by citing The New Yorker's "A Phone for the Age of Snowden," which mentions him by name only twice in the body and establishes at best a tenuous connection to what is, even if true, a relatively narrow consequence of Snowden's disclosures.

Likewise the five sources cited under the Lavabit subheading, which focus on a single aspect without stipulating any larger, all-encompassing context.

It may seem like a crude criterion, but what do you think about restricting sources in this section to those that, at minimum, employ "Snowden Effect" or a similar term? JohnValeron (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

That a reasonable approach but it doesn't solve the problem since the sources that use the term "Snowden Effect" are all across the map. Take the seven I linked to in my first comment in this discussion thread, only one of which is currently cited in the article. Each one seems to have a different conception of what the "Snowden Effect" is. If we were to synthesize all of them, we'd have something close to Rosen's definition, which is unmanageably broad IMO.

My current feeling is that we should re-write this section to be not about the Snowden Effect itself, but on the term "Snowden Effect" and how it's been used in various contexts. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Now that's an excellent idea. Unless somebody comes up with something better, I fully support your suggestion. JohnValeron (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Overuse of quotations

As a stylistic matter I think we're running afoul of WP:QUOTEFARM, as we're using too many quotations and as a result much of the prose is un-encyclopedic. We all need to make a greater effort to paraphrase the quotes we find in the reliable sources, retaining attribution and being sure to avoid taking away any of the meaning. IMO, quotes should only be used when paraphrasing would be inadequate. These include:

quotes whose language itself is notable and discussed by reliable sources
quotes that can't be paraphrased due to ambiguity
quotes containing notable subtleties or emotional overtones that are difficult to paraphrase

Cheers. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Lead: "along with numerous commercial and international partners"

Where is the explanation and sourcing for the first paragraph's "along with numerous commercial and international partners?" It's clear that a number of businesses have assisted in mass surveillance but I'm concerned this clause is overstating the reliably sourced facts. In particular I have questions about the verifiability of "numerous," "and international," and "partners" based on my less-than-complete knowledge of the sources:

"numerous": How many is it, really, and can we say "numerous?" Might it be only a handful? I don't know.
"and international" (my main concern): Since the Five Eyes governments are covered by the preceding phrase, and businesses are covered by "commercial," what does this even mean? (International NGOs?)
"partners": Some businesses allegedly only cooperated when forced to (Google and Yahoo come to mind in particular). In light of this, is "partners" misleading?

In light of these issues, would it be more accurate to say "along with a number of (businesses / private sector entities)?" --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I would refer you to Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present) since there's a comprehensive summary in the first few paragraphs. But for the sake of clarity, do allow me to explain a little:

Numerous - refers to most Western countries apart from the Five Eyes, including Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, etc

Commercial - refers to the tech giants of Silicon Valley and major telecoms such as BT, Verizon, Vodafone, etc

Partners - If I may quote from an NSA document: Prism is a team sport!

While I do not deny that some companies may have been forced into handing over data, the documents released by Snowden show that there have been "key corporate partnerships forged by the NSA, with Microsoft being a particularly notable example. There's not much difference between "commercial" and "private sector" so I'm ambivalent as to which term is more suitable -A1candidate (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

A1, you're just the person I was hoping would answer, so thank you. Good reading, it's hard to keep up on all of these stories. I think in light of these stories we may need to investigate and tweak a bit:

numerous: The August 2 story says 7 telecoms cooperated. But there are more companies, since some Silicon Valley companies cooperated too. Then there appear to have been 11 countries (the Five Eyes plus the 4 other cooperating countries countries in the Nov 1 story). So, is this "numerous"? I'm on the fence. At this point I would take a slightly cautious approach and switch to "a number of."
Five Eyes: Should this be changed to reflect that it wasn't just the Five Eyes, in light of the Nov 1 story?
and international: If the "international" cooperators were all either sovereign governments or businesses, "and international" is redundant, no?
partners: The issue isn't really about the businesses that did cooperate willingly, like Microsoft, but the ones that didn't. Is it fair to call Google and Yahoo "partners"? (I don't think so.) And if not, are we misleading the reader? (Again I'm on the fence.)

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

(I also want to note, assuming the language is reliably sourced somewhere in Wikipedia I don't think inline citations is necessary or appropriate for such a broad statement in the lead section (per WP:LEADCITE). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC))

"Lawful" cooperation

"Lawful" cooperation is pushing things too far. Some businesses say they thought the government requests were lawful. That doesn't mean they were lawful. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The lede asserts that "global surveillance programs [were] run by the NSA and the other Five Eyes governments … with the cooperation of a number of businesses and European governments." This is only slightly less damning than calling the businesses "partners" in these hugely controversial programs. Please, can you cite a single instance where it's been established that the NSA's requests to businesses were unlawful? As a compromise, let's change "cooperation" to "compliance." JohnValeron (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

While I could go either way on the businesses, the European governments willingly "cooperated" (per the Nov 1 Guardian article) and "complied" wouldn't be accurate for them. I'm in favor of "cooperated" for both. Involuntary cooperation is still cooperation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

That's precisely my point about businesses. (I'm not talking about governments.) Please cite a single instance where it's been established that any of those businesses involuntarily cooperated with the NSA—meaning, they fought it in court and were compelled to comply. To the contrary, they voluntarily acceded to what they deemed to be lawful requests. Otherwise they would have resisted and litigated the matter. JohnValeron (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused. These businesses were asked to cooperate. Some did so willingly, some (such as Yahoo, see here, here) fought it and then were forced to cooperate. Either way they eventually cooperated. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for these two links. I was unaware that Yahoo, Google and Twitter had challenged NSA orders in court, and apologize for the confusion. You were right to use the word "cooperation." The businesses may have cooperated grudgingly, but cooperate they did.

Please note, however, that these legal challenges go unmentioned in the Edward Snowden Wikipedia article. They deserve to be a part of the story.

If I were to incorporate this topic into the "Court rulings" subsection of this entry's "Reaction" section, would you revert it on principle? JohnValeron (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm disappointed that this part of the mass surveillance story isn't covered, but actually I don't think that's the right place. I mean, these court battles happened years before the Snowden leaks. I think the "proper" thing is to move "Court rulings" to MAINWAY and/or Reactions to global surveillance disclosures. The tech companies' fights should go under PRISM and the respective companies' article. That said, I wouldn't revert this material wherever you put it, because writing it up is the hard part, and then it's relatively easy to find a place to put it. :-) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:27, 6 March 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. petrarchan47 t c 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 ([2], [3], [4],[5], [6] ), 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:

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.
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."
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.)
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 ([7], [8] ), the brazilian petition ([9], [10],[11],[12],[13], [14],[15],[16],[17]), the Whitehouse petition, [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23],[24]) and ACLU petition ([25], [26],[27], [28],[29],[30]) 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 [31] 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 [Monsanto] have [its] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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):

Are we opposing all of these? petrarchan47 t c 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)

It seems we have tacit acceptance of (or at least resignation to) the longstanding consensus to exclude the Nobel nominations. And although this hasn't been voiced explicitly it appears we have consensus to retain the Glasgow rectorship as Snowden did actually receive it (coincidentally, after this discussion thread began). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent headline maker Vladimir Putin has also been nominated for the Peace Prize. I again suggest that the significance of a nomination not be overinterpreted.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

"Putin's chances of winning the prize appear limited given the ongoing crisis in Ukraine," the Voice of Russia article observes with nary a trace of irony. Duh!

This year, we are told, Putin and Snowden join a record 278 nominees. "The number of nominations increases almost every year," observes the Director of the Institute, "which shows a growing interest in the prize."

Actually it shows ever-diminishing standards. Nowadays, getting nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize is equivalent to the old joke about grand juries' willingness to indict a ham sandwich. We should attach no importance whatever to this charade. JohnValeron (talk) 05:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

WashPo article about US officials alerting foreign services

This article should be used as a reference, I think:

Nakashima, Ellen (October 24, 2013). "Officials alert foreign services that Snowden has documents on their cooperation with U.S." The Washington Post.

The article says that in October 2013, U.S. intelligence had (finally) figured out what Snowden acquired, and that they started to warn other countries about what might be revealed. A key point is that the officials say Russia does not yet know about what might be revealed: "If the Russians knew about it, it wouldn’t be hard for them to take appropriate measures to put a stop to it." So we know that U.S. intelligence assessment of October was that Russia did not have the documents.

Mike Masnick of Techdirt agrees that the story settles the question of whether Russia has the Snowden documents: "US Intelligence Effectively Admits That, Despite Earlier Statements, They Don't Think Snowden Gave Docs To Russians"

I think we can put the WashPo article into our description of who has the Snowden documents, perhaps as an addendum to the "zero percent chance" quote. Binksternet (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

"U.S. intelligence assessment of October was that Russia did not have the documents" does not, in fact, follow. What follows is "U.S. intelligence assessment of October was that it was POSSIBLE Russia did not have all the documents [as officials believed it was worthwhile to continue efforts to try to manage the disclosures]." Anyway, I'm surprised you find this WaPo story reliable when "the files contain information about a program run from a NATO country against Russia that provides valuable intelligence for the U.S. Air Force and Navy" appears in it and most people would say that contradicts Snowden's claim that "I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest."--Brian Dell (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Two easy possibilities come to mind: Snowden's careful evaluation might have missed something, or the U.S. intelligence experts are evaluating a larger number of files than Snowden actually took. Binksternet (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Bink, a similar statement here: "Mr. Snowden said he had never considered defecting while in Hong Kong, nor in Russia, where he has been permitted to stay for one year. He said he felt confident that he had kept the documents secure from Chinese spies, and that the N.S.A. knew he had done so. His last target while working as an agency contractor was China, he said, adding that he had had “access to every target, every active operation” mounted by the N.S.A. against the Chinese. “Full lists of them,” he said. “If that was compromised,” he went on, “N.S.A. would have set the table on fire from slamming it so many times in denouncing the damage it had caused. Yet N.S.A. has not offered a single example of damage from the leaks. They haven’t said boo about it except ‘we think,’ ‘maybe,’ ‘have to assume’ from anonymous and former officials. Not ‘China is going dark.’ Not ‘the Chinese military has shut us out.’ ” NYT petrarchan47 t c 00:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Meanwhile, both of you have been edit warring with me to suppress quotes from the Buzzfeed story where intelligence personnel DO complain about sources "going dark."--Brian Dell (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a good source, Petra. I think a little text from both the WashPo and NYT sources can be brought into the article. Binksternet (talk) 05:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

If you ignore WP:No original research (while Masnick admits the claim he spins out of the WaPo story is "not stated explicitly," WP:NOR says sources must "directly support the material being presented"), you mean, and insist on ignoring the fact that even if WP:NOR did not prohibit "new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources themselves," your analysis is a non-sequitur anyway (as I explained above).--Brian Dell (talk) 08:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

These are fine sources but they can't be used to say that "that U.S. intelligence assessment of October was that Russia did not have the documents," as that is pretty clearly WP:SYNTH. And the TechDirt post is insightful but not reliable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to move "Court rulings" out of article

Pursuant to Dr. Fleischman's recent suggestion under Talk's "Lawful cooperation" (04:27, 6 March 2014), I propose to relocate the "Court rulings" subsection from Edward Snowden to MAINWAY and/or Reactions to global surveillance disclosures. Although Klayman v. Obama and ACLU v. Clapper were filed consequent to Snowden's leaks and involved the surveillance programs he revealed, Snowden was not a party to either case and his disclosure of top secret documents was not therein litigated. Moreover, each lawsuit has its own Main Article here at Wikipedia to which we already point and link—something we could retain within a short summary paragraph. Please weigh in with any recommendations or objections. Thank you. JohnValeron (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree, this material should be merged into Klayman v. Obama and ACLU v. Clapper with summaries at both MAINWAY and Reactions to global surveillance disclosures. I think a very brief mention of these cases is warranted here, but it should be no more than a sentence or two. (Similar moves of large portions of Reactions -> Debate -> United States should be similarly moved. This section should mainly focus on Snowden's disclosures generally, rather than on the individual disclosed programs.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Given no objections since March 6, I executed proposed move today and distilled to concise summary in Snowden article. JohnValeron (talk) 21:02, 9 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. petrarchan47 t c 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? petrarchan47 t c 19:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

@Binksternet apparently wishes to deny me a reply here but I am adding it back here: Let's discuss content (as opposed to an imaginary "whistleblower"-suppression agenda). This morning you reverted me to have the article declare "US officials revoked his passport upon his arrival in Russia..." That's simply not true according to the Wired story that Binksternet apparently considers a reliable source, since that story clearly accepts as fact that Snowden's passport was revoked on "Saturday" (June 22) and you've never disputed the fact Snowden did not leave Hong Kong until Sunday, June 23. Snowden's passport was not revoked "upon his arrival" in Russia, it was revoked earlier.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about deleting your earlier comment; I got no edit conflict message at this addition of mine which apparently removed your post.

It does not really matter the exact time the passport was cancelled, since Hong Kong allowed him to leave. I'm sure we can all agree that Snowden found he could not move out of Moscow's airport after he discovered his passport was not valid. The question of whether it was thought to be valid at his departure from Hong Kong is still debated. Per Wired, I bet Snowden knew that the document was going to be invalidated very soon, which is why he left Hong Kong. Binksternet (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

If you didn't have a history of elsewhere removing my comments, and Doc's as well, I would have just assumed some sort of accident.
It does matter when the passport was cancelled because, according to you, Snowden cannot travel if his passport is "not valid." If he left Hong Kong in spite of a revoked passport, it contradicts your assertion that he cannot leave Russia for this reason. Sheremetyevo also has sterile transit meaning there would have been no need for Snowden to go through passport control should he have desired to board that onward flight to Cuba. There were also journalists boarding that flight to Cuba who would have seen Snowden trying to board that flight had he wanted to board it. There was no obstacle to Snowden moving on to Cuba had Snowden desired it and the Kremlin allowed it. There WAS, however, a legal obstacle to remaining in the transit zone more than 24 hours and that's Russian law. As a WaPo contributor noted, Russian law says permission is required otherwise the stay is illegal. Since permission is required anyway, the Kremlin could have just as well granted permission to leave the country as opposed to permission to overstay in the transit zone. As for being "stranded" at the airport, the Associated Press cites this expert who says that "Moscow airport is as much a part of Russia as is the Kremlin."
If Snowden was just worried about his passport status why didn't he leave HK earlier? According to the BBC, Snowden had thought about leaving late on June 22, but he ultimately didn't, instead leaving close to noon on June 23. Why? Could it have been because Cathay Pacific couldn't be counted on to tell the media what the state-controlled Aeroflot would say? I bet Snowden left Hong Kong because the Chinese could no longer continue with the charade of not understanding what the U.S. wanted after the U.S. had not just advised the Chinese privately of the charges against Snowden but had made those charges public by unsealing them. In any case, the body of the article properly reports that "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" because it has "According to Snowden" if front of it. If you want to claim he was "stranded" in a Moscow airport, that claim should be attributed instead of using Wikipedia's voice.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

"Stranded"

The word "stranded" is used by dozens of sources to describe Snowden's predicament in Moscow. It is trivially easy to source it. We should, however, address your assertion that Snowden is purposely in Moscow, not "stranded".

The first problem facing the question is the passport controversy. It's funny—Snowden was able to travel from the U.S. to Hong Kong on an invalid passport, according to The Washington Post: "Julian Assange: Edward Snowden is ‘marooned in Russia’" And our Wired author says Snowden was able to leave Hong Kong with the same invalid passport. He also says that a passport is not totally necessary for Snowden to leave Moscow, just an entry visa to another country. From his place of protection at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, Julian Assange was able to get Snowden such an official document, issued by the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, saying Snowden should be given safe passage to Ecuador. This document was issued on June 22 so that Snowden could leave Hong Kong without a valid passport, and to help him keep traveling. However, after Snowden left Hong Kong the president of Ecuador played dumb about whether Snowden could leave Moscow, saying that Snowden's lack of a passport was stopping his progress, that the matter was now in Russian hands. (He said his country's embassy in London made a "serious error" in issuing the safe travel paper.) Another report from Reuters in Moscow ("Cuban U-turn stranded Snowden: report") quoting the major Russian newspaper Kommersant says that Cuban authorities told Moscow authorities to keep Snowden from boarding the airplane. It was previously reported in American papers that a half dozen American journalists trying to get on the Cuba-bound flight with Snowden were denied tickets because Cuban authorities did not want them to land in Cuba.

Of course the Russian authorities could have allowed Snowden to board the airplane, much like the Hong Kong authorities allowed him to leave Hong Kong, so that they could be rid of the political hot potato. But something we don't precisely know about kept Snowden in Moscow. The main story that is published about the "something" is that Snowden's invalid passport is stopping him. I think it would be irresponsible of us to lead the reader to conclude that Snowden was purposely staying in Moscow, as that idea is only coming from a few voices at the fringe.

Regarding the quote "Moscow airport is as much a part of Russia as is the Kremlin", the point is that quite a few cases exist demonstrating that the transit area of an airport is commonly regarded as some sort of neutral limbo area where those without a nation have been stranded, sometimes for years. The difference between theory and practice? In theory they are the same. Binksternet (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Bink, did you mean to say that "Snowden was able to travel from the U.S. to Hong Kong on an invalid passport"? He definately flew from HA to HK with a valid possport - no one had even known at that point what had happened.

No, you're right, I misread the WashPo source. Binksternet (talk) 05:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Assange was in charge of his travels at that time, and here is what he said: his group had arranged for Mr. Snowden to travel via a “special refugee travel document” issued by Ecuador last Monday — days before the United States announced the criminal charges against him and revoked his passport. Mr. Assange said he believed that Ecuador was still considering Mr. Snowden’s asylum application. “He left Hong Kong with that document,” Mr. Assange [said] he had raised Mr. Snowden’s case with Ecuador’s foreign minister in a meeting at the embassy last Monday. Mr. Assange said it was unclear whether Mr. Snowden’s passport was revoked before he left Hong Kong. But, he said, Mr. Snowden was informed of the revocation when he landed in Moscow. He said it was uncertain whether and where Mr. Snowden might be able to travel from Moscow using the Ecuadorean document, which he described as a “safe pass"...."Different airlines have different rules, so it’s a technical matter whether they will accept the document" NTY petrarchan47 t c 00:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

"issued by Ecuador last Monday [June 17]" is obviously contradicted by the fact that it has an issue date of "June 22" stamped on it.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's be clear here: I am not "assert[ing] that Snowden is purposely in Moscow" and your reversion of me, Binksternet, makes that clear. My view is rather that while it is not clear just how much the "purpose" should be distributed between Snowden, the Kremlin, and Wikileaks, this isn't just an accident. Why was he in contact with Russian diplomats in Moscow before leaving Hong Kong if he hoped to just quietly transit without interference from Russian authorities (no visa is required if transiting with 24 hours)? But I am not calling for Wikipedia to give that view any heed in the lede. I am rather just disputing your conviction that Snowden was "stranded" by governments other than Russia not issuing him "travel papers" that would allow him to depart. In fact the State Department has repeatedly said they would issue Snowden whatever documents were necessary to return to the U.S. If you are going to add an explanation for his ongoing presence in Russia then that explanation ought to either be attributed or allow the text to acknowledge that the explanation has been disputed. As for what Assange had to say, it is entirely possible that Assange knew the Ecuadorean doc he arranged was iffy or even bogus from the get go. Assange's later comment, "While Venezuela and Ecuador could protect him in the short term, over the long term there could be a change in government. In Russia, he's safe, he's well-regarded, and that is not likely to change." certainly does not eliminate the possibility that Assange never really hoped to see Snowden safely on past Russia to somewhere else. But this means that Snowden ending up in Russia has more to do with Assange's connivance than with the nominal status of his documents. At issue here is not just your ruling out of any "purpose"fulness on the part of Snowden, but on the part of Wikileaks and the Kremlin as well. You want to explain it as due to anyone BUT these actors, preferring to instead point the finger at the U.S. (which revoked his passport) or other governments for failing to issue him "travel documents" he could use to travel onwards.
If you believe Snowden held an onward ticket to Cuba but was denied boarding (never mind he never showed up at the gate to even try) why was Snowden even issued a ticket if "half dozen American journalists trying to get on the Cuba-bound flight with Snowden were denied tickets"? Note that Fidel Castro says it is a "lie" and a "libel" that Cuba ever would have denied boarding for Snowden. Re those stories about people being stranded in transit zones for years, note that in those cases the countries in which the airports were located didn't want to have to deal with these people. They were not secured in some location access to which was restricted by the national authorities. If the Kremlin truly wanted to wash its hands of Snowden, why didn't authorities refuse to have anything to do with him, with the result that people could have located him and interviewed him like all those other cases of being stranded?--Brian Dell (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

You‘re at the wrong talk page. This article is about Snowden, not Russia. -A1candidate (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

In the above paragraph I gave the diff at issue. It doesn't get any more relevant than that. If you have nothing to say about that diff, or any other content matter, I dare say you are at the wrong Talk page. If you did take the time to consider that diff, you'd notice I am adding nothing at all about Russia, I am rather removing the finger pointing directed at OTHER governments with respect to why Snowden is in Russia, the issuer of Snowden's passport in particular.--Brian Dell (talk)

LA Times puts it pretty succinctly. Are editors OK with telling the story as it appears in RS? If no, the problem is not with the article, but with editors not adhering to the NPOV requirement. There is a lot of work that could have been done to add to and improve this article, but we have spent months here in discussions instead, all because one person wants to retell this simple story. This is highly disruptive to the Project and should NOT be allowed to continue. petrarchan47 t c 00:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

[Snowden] had been effectively trapped at Moscow's Sheremetyevo International Airport since June 23, when he arrived on a flight from Hong Kong. He was intending to change planes in Moscow, apparently for Latin America, but was caught in limbo when the United States canceled his passport.

You are pretending that the implication in this quote that the passport was cancelled after arrival in Moscow was never been thrown into question by any other reporting. The LA Times is PRESUMPTIVELY a reliable source. That presumption can be rebutted with respect to specific fact claims. Our job here is to look at all of the reliable sources, not just one, since some element of a story found in one might be revealed to be inaccurate by its conflict with other accounts, other accounts that cannot be impeached. Assessing the reliability of sources is not "original research," it means doing our job to assess which account has the best support when there are competing accounts. Note that this does not preclude presenting both accounts and the support for them where space allows. If there isn't room for both accounts in the lede, then you should wait for the body of the article instead of just asserting one of them as if it is unchallenged fact.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I need to call a quick time-out. Petrarchan, please explain very succinctly what you don't like about Brian's proposed changes and why. I have a feeling I might actually agree with you on this one (believe it or not) but I can't commit when I don't quite understand what you're fighting over. (I have no problem with the lede saying that the revocation of his passport causing Snowden to be "stranded." I rather liked that language.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The revocation couldn't have caused him to be stranded in Russia because the passport was revoked while he was still in Hong Kong. He shouldn't have been able to leave Hong Kong if the revocation really mattered. Even Binksternet has conceded that the Chinese did not have their hands tied by technicalities like the status of his documents and that they made a political decision that saw Snowden leave. There's a variety of solutions to the dispute here. One would be to just note Snowden's presence in Russia in the lede and leave the explanations to the body of the article. Another would be to explain Snowden's presence in Russia as due to the U.S. government, as Petrarchan and A1 et al desire, but attribute that. For example, this diff, which Petrarchan reverted, attributes the view instead of using Wikipedia's voice. The only reason I can see for refusing to have this attribution is because Petrarchan doesn't want readers asking themselves whether the claim is true or not. If there's no attribution, naturally readers are going to assume that Wikipedia wouldn't lie to them. --Brian Dell (talk) 07:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I see. There may be other solutions. Do you object to the word "stranded," to the causal relationship between the passport revocation and the stranding, or both? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

If he isn't, and wasn't, "stranded" then the question of why he wasn't stranded doesn't even arise. Again, "stranded" is fine IF it is attributed to Snowden (or Greenwald or Kucherena etc).--Brian Dell (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

"Stranded" is used by a wide variety of reliable sources, not just by Snowden and his people. Am I wrong? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It originated with "Snowden and his people" and in any sort of "he said, she said" context only Snowden partisans have stepped up to defend the claim, to my knowledge. Have they had some success in mainstreaming the notion, even getting it to the point that it's the received wisdom for many? Yes, they have, but when it comes to assessing reliable sources, the key question is what claims are appearing because of the source's original investigative journalism and what claims are appearing because the source is printing something because it happens to be in circulation. One of the biggest differences between reliable and unreliable sources is how lazy they are, not how likely they are to generate fabrications. Has the source printing the claim independently fact-checked it? If we fact check this one it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Why did the Associated Press turn to the legal expert who basically said that the "stranded" line is a contrivance? Because they turned to a fact checker, is why. If there's a source that is unconnected to Snowden that has asserted this AND has clearly tried to verify it that should certainly be important. But I don't think there is.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Baffled. Are you talking about this AP source? Doesn't it say that Snowden was "stranded" in Russia, just like many other sources? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Note that it is sandwiched between "if Russia's government is to be believed" and the legal expert's take. AP also attributes the claim that he is in the transit zone to Putin. There's also the observation that "The U.N. agency says there are established procedures allowing countries to grant travel documents for the resettlement of refugees who do not have passports or other papers." Preface this with "if Russia's government is to be believed" like AP does and of course I have no problem with "stranded"--Brian Dell (talk)

The source says: "The former National Security Agency contractor who leaked U.S. surveillance secrets is not the first person to be stranded in the legally ambiguous zone between the arrivals gate and the immigration desks of an international airport." This certainly seems to me like an unattributed statement that Snowden was "stranded" in the Moscow airport. Just like the other reliable sources. It seems we have unanimity among the sources that he was "stranded." The fact that you and some unreliable sources have questioned the reliable sources is really beside the point, from a verifiability point of view. If you don't like how the journalists have come out on this then by all means, write them. (I've done it before with some success.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it is misleading to ignore everything in the AP story but what you quote here. AP very clearly says that Snowden is "staying put" IF "Russia's government is to be believed." Having adding that condition to kick off the article, AP quite rightly believes it shouldn't be necessary to continue to repeat that condition throughout the story.

Der Spiegel is careful to say that Snowden is "reportedly" in the transit terminal and "there isn't a trace of him -- except, of course, for the steady stream of quotations that the Russian news agency Interfax gets from a mysterious source supposedly 'close' to Snowden." When Spiegel says "The only thing that seems clear is that Snowden traveled to Russia" that isn't a reluctance to claim more than that as incontrovertible truth? Or is Der Spiegel in the category of "unreliable sources [that] have questioned..." such that we shouldn't consider adopting Spiegel's caution? Spiegel counts "Snowden is having problems with his invalidated passport" as amongst "possible scenarios." Sure, Spiegel allows that it is "likely," but likely does not equal as certain as the sun coming up tomorrow. The issue here, Doc, is that you evidently believe the "speculation" that Der Spiegel engages in here is totally illegitimate. Perhaps you'd like to write them to complain about their having the audacity to express doubts? All we have to do to resolve this is just attribute. There are all sorts of attribution options listed here.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the Der Spiegel story. When I read it my first reaction was "this is a fine mess," but now I think there's a simple explanation: there was a lot of confusion and uncertainty when Snowden first landed in Moscow. Notice that the Der Spiegel story is dated June 26 and quotes the New York Times' effort to find Snowden in the airport. The quoted Times article is dated from the day before and doesn't say there's "no evidence to prove" that Snowden was in Moscow. It simply said the times couldn't find him and there were a lot of locked doors. Fast forward 2 weeks to July 5, and now we have the Times saying Snowden was "stranded in a Moscow airport seeking a safe haven" (no attribution). On October 31, the Times said he was left "unintentionally stranded" in the airport. Mind you that the Times is the top news gatherer in the U.S. and possibly the world, with top-class journalists and the best respected editorial staff anywhere. Evidently for whatever reason, their doubts about whether Snowden was "stranded" in Moscow were allayed sometime between June 26 and July 6. That's enough for me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

While it is possible that the "confusion and uncertainty" was cleared up as the New York Times, or somebody, was able to get independent verification of "the steady stream of quotations that the Russian news agency Interfax gets from a mysterious source supposedly 'close' to Snowden," the fact that there is no report that indicates that this verification was in fact found suggests to me that as time went by editors just decided to roll with it and drop "if Russia's government is to be believed" disclaimers for copyedit reasons. Look, Doc, if you want to be mechanical about this of course you can grab any given report and say that when I don't take its wording at face value I am just being stubborn. But see this PRI story from just a couple weeks ago: there's an interview with Luke Harding, who has written a book that seeks to cover the whole Snowden saga and who I believe has spent more man hours on this than anyone on the NYT staff, and at 2:55 in the audio Harding says that while there are still several unanswered questions, such as in regard to Snowden's time in Japan, "I think the thing that most puzzles everybody is how he ended up in Russia." The Snowdenistas say it is exceedingly simple how he ended up in Russia (he was just changing planes en route to refuge in Latin America when his passport was revoked by the U.S., leaving him stranded), but this guy who literally wrote the book on Snowden says it is in fact the #1 mystery! PRI writes this up as "the question most everyone wants to know: How did he end up in Moscow? Harding says it’s not entirely clear. He talked with Snowden’s lawyer who just said the reason is 'complicated.'" The problem I have here is that you are suggesting we render the "complicated" simple. What Petrarchan boldfaced earlier in this thread is certainly straightforward, but when you look at the totality of sourcing in an analytical way, a way that appreciates, for example, that the LA Times never had someone actually investigate like Harding tried to, I think it is not the case that "doubts" have in fact been "allayed." It is possible to deal with this very succinctly in the lead by using attribution. No violence at all is done to the NYT's reporting or anyone else's by taking this approach. But refuse to attribute and I think one is pretending that the Spiegel story, PRI story, and AP story (in full) do not exist.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

All I can say is that my doubts have been allayed. I understand that the truth may be quite complicated here, but the verifiability is not. The Harding source doesn't contradict the Times article or the other sources; at most it questions them, and even that isn't clear. This is a difficult thing to accept, but "proper" editing at WP is really rather reductionist from a content perspective. The creative and challenging part of our job is in summarizing and synthesizing the rich tapestry of reliable sources in a neutral and informative manner, not in digging behind the tapestry (what you call "looking at the totality of sourcing in an analytical way"). See WP:TRUTH#Editors are not truth finders. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

And another response that I think is appropriate in general: I'm against attribution of factual content in the lead. In any article. If something is truly unverifiable then it generally doesn't belong in the lead. If the information is absolutely critical then the lead should say something like "news reports disagree over..." However, we have to be able to say that truthfully, and in this case we can't. Attribution here would cast doubt when no doubt is due. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

My "digging" up the rest of the AP story, the Spiegel story, and the PRI story is not "digging behind the tapestry." It is locating sources that show that just cherry-picking a line out of the AP story or cherry-picking some other source wrongly ignores the fact that, to take just the PRI report, the reporter who apparently spent more time than any other reporter trying to verify this says verification is in fact still missing. You have attempted to explain away Der Spiegel's observation that there is no verification by saying that the NYT subsequently found verification but the NYT never actually says so, you only get that by inference. I do not believe that the NYT's editors would agree with your using them to trump Harding's long investigation if all the NYT decided to do here was just take what was appearing on Russian wires at face value. If we use attribution here there would be no conflict with any source. We could alternatively just note Snowden's presence in Russia without claims about how free he was/is there or attempts to explain why he was/is there, leaving the matter for the body of the article where there is the space to properly present it. If a fact claim has been challenged as unverified, it should be dialed back to what is indisputably verified OR the status of the verification/nature of the challenge should be presented to the reader (which, on the stylistic front, I don't think there is room for in the lede).--Brian Dell (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Verifiability is verifiability. I think you're not getting the policy. I really don't have anything else to offer, except to suggest that you turn to DR, as consensus is against you on this one. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Verifiability is indeed verifiability and we don't have verification here. You can find it only by rejecting those sources that say there isn't verification and to date you've justified your rejection by only saying they don't fit into "news reports disagree", which is a false alternative. The choice here is not limited to just 1) using Wikipedia's voice or 2) saying "news reports disagree". If there's only one narrative out there and the sources do not agree on the status of its verification, it does not fit into either (1) or (2). If Luke Harding does not present a competing narrative, then of course (2) does not apply. But that does not preclude Harding and Der Spiegel from disagreeing, as they obviously do, with the contention the narrative that's out there (propagated by Snowden supporters) has been verified. As for dispute resolution, I am open to all sorts of alternatives here such that I think that's still a long ways from necessary. You could edit as you see fit, and perhaps I would just add something that suggests even if most editors believe the verification to be good enough, it's not as solid as the number of states in the Union, e.g. noting that Snowden's never been seen in public since leaving Hong Kong, some little tidbit like that. Maybe you'd be fine with that.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It is quite verifiable. When I speak of verifiability, I'm talking about WP:V, not some broader meaning such as a requirement that journalists explain the bases for their conclusions. WP:V requires that content be supported by reliable sources. These many sources satisfy the reliability criteria. They do not fit the description of "questionable" sources either. I can find nothing in WP:V or WP:RS that supports your approach. It is true there are very occasionally times when an otherwise reliable source is clearly wrong, but this is not one of them. Notice my inclusion of the word "clearly." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you're still insisting on a black/white categorization I see as unnecessary. For example, here it is suggested "We don't use Wikipedia's voice to say it, instead we use inline attribution", not for "clearly wrong" material but for "potentially inaccurate material." Just because it's not black ("clearly wrong") doesn't mean it's white. I don't think it compromises our information mission to not use Wikipedia's voice in this instance, not least because attribution to Snowden or a Snowden supporter suggests to the reader that what's claimed here has potential significance for how the subject is perceived. You would not have Snowden's supporters insisting again and again that the status of Snowden's documents stranded him in Russia if nothing rode on that. Anyway, I think you may be more concerned about what you see as the principle of the thing than specific word choices that we would inevitably edit war over. Currently, "stranded" is being stated in Wikipedia's own voice and I don't have a problem with that because of the context, which includes an attributed explanation. In the interest of reducing Talk page length, I just drop out of threads when it's no longer clear that when we return to the field of editing there would inevitably be a conflict.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

This argument assumes that "stranded" is potentially inaccurate. It isn't. Compare to the examples in that (shoddily written) essay. Apples and oranges. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Capsule hotel

You know what else should be "quite verifiable" in your books, Doc? "Snowden... is hosted in a capsule hotel in the Sheremetyveo International Airport in Moscow" TeleSUR may be attributing Snowden being "on transit" to Putin, but with respect to his having rented a room at the capsule hotel, TeleSur is unequivocal. Have your doubts been allayed on this? The BBC even has a story headlined "Snowden hunt: Inside ‘fugitive’s hotel’ in Moscow"! The BBC would never pursue a baseless story, would it? Now you might observe here that at the end of the clip the BBC announcer says "We simply don't know Edward Snowden's whereabouts" but at that precise point you are quite certain the announcer is wrong because we DO know! He's "stranded in a Moscow airport"! The NYT says so without qualification! Now why shouldn't we consider the capsule hotel story verified as well? Anatoly Kucherena says "He was stuck there the entire time in this capsule hotel" and Kucherena is the only person on the planet talking to the media who actually does know where he is. Sure, The Guardian may feel attribution is necessary when Kucherena claims Snowden was stranded, the British paper saying, "...Moscow airport where he had been stranded for more than a month, according to his Russian lawyer" but you believe that on THAT fact claim Kucherena is giving you unimpeachable fact. You seemed to have it all sorted out here. When Kucherena told Der Spiegel "During our second meeting, I asked [Snowden] why he was staying at the airport for so long. "I don't know what I should do," he answered." that's not to be believed in your books, because Snowden could not have have left the airport, the New York Times says so! When Kucherena later appears to contradicts himself, as he's wont to do, and says Snowden has been stranded the whole time, well now Kucherena has got it right!

So what's your take on the capsule hotel story? Just using WP:V, include or exclude? An Agence France-Presse story dated July 15 seems to have found confirmation: "A source in Sheremetyevo airport said that Snowden still has a room reserved in the capsule hotel in the transit zone, but that he also has access to a 'special rest room for staff on duty,' Interfax reported. 'Snowden's safety is being guarded both in the hotel and in this room'..." Never mind that if what AFP says here is correct then Snowden has maintained a reservation in this capsule hotel for more than three weeks and never during that time did any of the journalists who went through this hotel ever see any sign of him. If I were to find it interesting that these maintained a reservation claims appeared on Russian wires (and then on Western wires like AFP) just after Kucherena had told Der Spiegel on July 12 "stuck there the entire time in this capsule hotel" and were to suggest that maybe these Russia media reports reckoned that Kucherena's claim was so dubious in its face some explanation need to be invented, well that would be just too much looking behind the curtain on my part, wouldn't it? Those AFP guys, they know BS when they see it, representing as they do the oldest news agency on the entire planet, and they would never repeat anything without getting their own independent confirmation, right? You've swallowed the "stranded" claim Doc, why not take the sinker and the line as well? The Washington Post quotes one Igor Pavelenko, "I'm not sure at all we are being told everything. For example, as far as I know, he is in Sheremetyevo now. Okay, but maybe this is just one version. Have they shown us video or pictures of him in Sheremetyevo? No!" This Igor guy is just being difficult, right? The New York Times says he's stranded in the airport!--Brian Dell (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

TeleSUR source? Link please?
BBC News - so the fact that two different news outlets concluded that he was "stranded" at the airport at different times means that the first one to conclude that was wrong? As if BBC and the Times have the exact same sources? Huh? (The BBC also eventually concluded that he was "stranded" at the airport.[32][33])
Capsule hotel - really, who cares? How does this undercut the reliability of dozens of otherwise reliable sources in any way?
Pavelenko - a "sales manager" is an authority on this subject? If the guy doesn't know where he is, then all of these sources are somehow rendered questionable?

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Why should we care about so much about whether he was stranded or not such that it is not enough to have that dealt with with all the nuance necessary in the body of the article?

I posited the TeleSUR story (available here) to illustrate that your interpretation of WP:V cannot be applied consistently without getting some highly dubious material included in Wikipedia. It follows that your interpretation may be in need of revisitation.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

"Why Snowden did not board the onward flight is unclear"

I see you evidently won't tolerate including the observations of Der Spiegel and Harding. You refuse to have this watered down to the less than certain level it is, eh? "I can find nothing in WP:V or WP:RS that supports" this removal. Are you going to read back to me where in WP:V or WP:RS you find this support or are you prepared to concede that satisfying WP:V and WP:RS is merely a necessary and not sufficient condition?--Brian Dell (talk) 04:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what you're talking about. If you're talking about re-opening the issue originally raised in this thread, then feel free to explain yourself here, but it's probably fruitless as consensus is against you. If you're talking about a different issue, it might be a good idea to start a new thread, as this one has gotten awfully long. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You "honestly don't know what [I'm] talking about" when I ask just what is it "in WP:V or WP:RS that supports" your removal of Der Spiegel's and Harding's observations that there isn't a confirmed explanation for Snowden's presence in Russia? It is a very straightforward question, Doc. I know you are an intelligent gentleman who can understand a question when he wants to. I understand that you want "stranded", i.e. against Snowden's will, unchallenged in any way. Yet in the body of the article, whenever the "stranded" narrative appears, it is attributed, to Snowden, and then to Harrison, and then to Greenwald, and then to Barton Gellman (with the question raising observations of "a U.S. official" and 'legal expert James C. Hathaway" immediately following up). If this is going to be in the lede, it ought to be attributed if for no other reason than failing to do so would fail to accurately reflect the body of the article. You say that "consensus" supports your view that having attribution in the lede is a no no. Please refer me to another editor who has agreed with that. And please refer me to the policy that says that as well. I am trying to find a solution that could potentially satisfy both of us by exploring different options. The Snowden/WikiLeaks/Greenwald "stranded" claim has notably failed to be accepted by notable parties. If you refuse to dial it back to having it attributed, the fact it has been not been accepted by all notable observers should be noted and not denied.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll also note that should you observe that it does not seem to read quite right to have Wikipedia acknowledging both Harding's statement and "stranded" side by side, I'd agree (compare "Why Snowden did not board the onward flight is unclear and he remained in..." with "Why Snowden did not board the onward flight is unclear and he remained stranded in"...). Which is why this is in my view a 2nd best compromise with you (attribution is better). But since you insisted, above, that "The Harding source doesn't contradict" there shouldn't be any problem with presenting both without further elaboration, no?

By the same token, do you see the obvious problem with your apparently preferred version "He remained stranded in Moscow until August 1"? He was in Moscow before August 1 and was still in Moscow after August 1, was he not? Do you have a source indicating that on this August day he skipped off to Siberia? or Japan? It appears to me that you may share, to some degree, my reservations about using Wikipedia's voice to say with finality that he was stranded in the airport transit zone, but you think it's still possible to have that doubt and still use "stranded." Perhaps you can find another way to square this circle. Let "stranded" go and we could have "Why Snowden did not board an onward flight is unclear and he remained in Russia. On August 1 the Russian government granted him a one-year temporary asylum." Wouldn't that be all of simple, straightforward, and indisputable?--Brian Dell (talk) 07:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Too many arguments, sorry. And you didn't even answer my question, which seems to be part of an emerging pattern. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The lede now reads:

"…he remained stranded in the airport transit zone."

Brian proposes:

"…he remained in Russia."

I second Brian's motion. The word stranded is a widely accepted part of the Snowden narrative that, as Brian argues, can ultimately be traced back to pro-Snowden partisans. Yet even if His Holiness the Pope was first to apply this word to Snowden's layover, stranded is problematic because it self-servingly victimizes Snowden, painting him as helpless in the face of forces beyond his control.

While that may have been true, a more complicated and nuanced scenario is suggested in the body of this Wikipedia entry: "A US official said that Snowden's passport was annulled before he left Hong Kong and along with other sources, such as legal expert James C. Hathaway, said not having a passport would not prevent Russia from allowing Snowden to board an onward flight as a matter of law."

Surely this compromises any use of the partisan word stranded in the lede.

We should adopt Brian's version. JohnValeron (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

No, the word "stranded" can be traced back to a multitude of reputable sources. The fact that these reputable sources happen to agree in this respect with Snowden's prior version of the facts is completely irrelevant from a from a WP verifiability standpoint. And from a truth standpoint it shows that Snowden was probably right. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

From a truth standpoint Snowden is necessarily wrong because reliable sources are quite clear that Snowden's document deficiency at the time he left Hong Kong was irrelevant in terms of his leaving (Binksternet has agreed that politics carried the day there) and his document deficiency in Russia was the same apart from any additional docs provided by Russia. But quite aside from that you've provided no WP:V justification (you have been asked for this more than once and continue to refuse to answer) for removing Harding's observation that it is unknown why Snowden did not continue on to a third country. You insist that it is known why he did not continue: because he was not allowed to, with the U.S. State Department suggested as the restricting party as it is the only government entity whose actions are raised in the paragraph. I have explained, above, in detail what's wrong with your view Doc and your response is, in effect, that so many problems having been pointed out with your position you are unable to address them!--Brian Dell (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Harding is not a reliable source. He is a person. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

"Other details missing in the Snowden narrative include the question most everyone wants to know: How did he end up in Moscow?" You insist on filling some of those details in, and refuse to allow any attribution if there is any such filling out. Never mind that in all 4 or 5 times those details are given in the body of the article, attribution is always used. Public Radio International says the details are still missing, never mind your unshakeable conviction that they have been found. My quote here is of the PRI story. You now present your novel theory about why this PRI story is "not a reliable source": because it draws on what Luke Harding's investigations have found, or more precisely failed to find, and even provides Harding's own voice to boot in the audio, and you reject all this because... wait for it... Harding "is a person." And that just won't do. Because you've lasered in your focus on your particular, exacting, absolutely rigid definitions and no earthly force will jar you into breaking your fixation and looking at the matter in an unmechanical way. You've finally acceded to my request to apply your instruments to the PRI story and you say you cannot get a verifiability reading because they detect a "person". Ironically, it is the fact we've got a person who actually looked into this matter on the skeptical side is what makes it stronger in the conflict with those sources you say make it a done deal. The New York Times had a "person" trying to verify the "stranding" on the ground in Moscow and that person could not. The paper later on starts running snippets that could simply be boilerplate (lifted off largely unchanged from Russian sources) and you think the absence of evidence a "person" on the NYT payroll has actually turned their mind to verifying the material is a point in favour? And the fact PRI is quoting a "person" who actually dug into this is a point against?--Brian Dell (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, please clarify what you mean by "Harding is not a reliable source." Mr. Harding's book The Snowden Files: The Inside Story of the World's Most Wanted Man (published by Vintage Books) appears at the top of the list in the "Further reading" section of the Wikipedia article Edward Snowden, and reference 60 in that same Wikipedia article cites Mr. Harding's report "How Edward Snowden went from loyal NSA contractor to whistleblower" (published by The Guardian). Are you advising us to now remove both of those items on the grounds that Harding is not a reliable source, and to avoid or revert any future reference to his published writings on the same grounds? JohnValeron (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you are talking past the good doctor, John. Dr F draws some sort of distinction between the "book" and the "person" because he's looking at the issue like a bureaucrat down at the DMV. As far as Doc is concerned, either Form 1095-B has been completed in all particulars or it hasn't. He wants you to stay focused on the Form and prove him wrong instead of trying to excuse what he sees as an effort to end run around the system.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a pretty fair statement! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

With the result that while we are interested in Project A, writing an article, Doc is interested in Project B, adding a particular element to that article, and the people engaged in Project A are trying to end-run around Project B in Doc's mind. If I were to point out that all the sources out there each have elements of the story, it is our job to put them together to form a continuous narrative, and this project means that the elements and their sourcing cannot be assessed solely in isolation, Doc presumably disagrees, since when I presented Doc with different text proposals that included the element as a part and pointed out the problems with the larger text when the element is included, Doc wasn't much interested in engaging with that line of critique. I point out that it doesn't square with Harding and Doc's response is basically that Harding is not the issue. Which is technically true, because some other element in isolation isn't the issue either. It's the article that is the issue.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

That's all well and good (except for the underhanded part about me being not here to write an article), but I request that you make policy/guideline-based arguments. Here my concern is that you've apparently conceded that "stranded" is reliably sourced, but you continue to push your theory that he wasn't actually stranded, and your new approach is to include insufficiently notable language that casts doubt on the "stranded" meme. The two sources you cite have separate problems:

The Spiegel source is clearly out of date, as it said there was no evidence proving Snowden was in the Moscow airport, but plenty of reliable sources published since then (including from the Spiegel itself [34][35][36]) now say without reservation that Snowden was "stranded" at the airport.
The problems with the PRI story are that it's not a reliable source, and it doesn't even support the sentence. This is a book review; it merely parrots Harding without any independent review of his statements. And Harding doesn't say it's not clear why Snowden didn't leave Moscow, he says it isn't clear how he "ended up" there.

On top of all of that, this information is simply too detailed for the lead, since the lead should have only the very, very most notable information, and this information is way, way less notable then lots of other content that didn't make the cut--such as, off the top of my head, that Snowden used a crawler to scrape classified files, or that he obtained passwords from his colleagues by subterfuge, or that he collected documents while working at Dell, or that a "Snowden phone" is coming out, etc. etc. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You've got it quite backwards in terms of on whom the burden of proof lies. I'm not pushing a theory of my own. I'm pushing back at your theory that it is impossible for the "stranded" meme to be inaccurate. If you allowed that it was possible, you'd be acknowledging "We don't use Wikipedia's voice to say it, instead we use inline attribution" for "potentially inaccurate material."
Your excuse for dismissing the Spiegel story is a classic argument from ignorance. You've got no evidence that the confirmation Spiegel noted as being conspicuously absent has appeared, you instead find in the fact that the "this is unconfirmed / we're only getting this from Kremlin-controlled media" riders are being dropped in later stories evidence that confirmation was subsequently found. If you want to argue that the Spiegel story was in this way rendered stale, the PRI story renders the sources you've pointed to stale as well because the PRI program effectively adds the unconfirmed rider back (as PRI says, Harding has provided "the first accounting of what happened...," with his book providing "the account put together into a whole")
Re "parrots Harding without any independent review of his statements" this is really the height of hypocrisy. The whole problem with what you say are confirmations of the "stranded" narrative is that these sources parrot what Kremlin-connected entities claimed without any independent review. The New Yorker simply "parroted" Snowden statements "without any independent review" and you thought that was not only just fine, The New Yorker's "parroting" in fact redeemed the statements from their being otherwise dubious! At least with the PRI story we can hear Harding's voice and know that PRI's source is actually Harding and not a Wikileaks or Kremlin-connected propagandist pretending to be Harding.
As for notability, you beg the question here by taking the view that although you think the "stranded" meme is notable, what you want removed here as not notable because it casts no "doubt on the 'stranded' meme" and is accordingly not serving here as a caveat to the "stranded" claim. When PRI says it is "the question most everyone wants to know" I should think the observation is presumptively notable. Is there a similar source calling use of a crawler the answer to "the question most everyone wants to know"? You seriously doubt whether "why Snowden did not board the onward flight is unclear" is accurate? You're convinced it IS clear? Your efforts to undermine on WP:V grounds this statement that we don't know for sure are based on a good faith concern about the credibility of the sourcing, right?
With respect to my comments about being here for Project B, adding a particular element to an article, as opposed to Project A, writing the article, let me provide you with an example. In its story, "Snowden, in Russia, Seeks Asylum in Ecuador", the New York Times says "Legal experts said the administration appeared to have flubbed Mr. Snowden’s case". Suppose our Project B advocate wants this quote introduced into the article. Why not include it? Because of what a Project A worker sees, that's why. Like Harding, we are supposed to be Project A workers trying to put the account together as a whole. And because of that, we are aware of what the authors of this New York Times piece were apparently unaware of. The NYT story says a legal expert was "puzzled by the decision to unseal the charges on Friday rather than waiting until the defendant was in custody" but the Washington Post says there's no mystery here: "The complaint... initially was sealed... After The Washington Post reported the charges, senior administration officials said late Friday that the Justice Department was barraged with calls from lawmakers and reporters and decided to unseal the criminal complaint." We also know that the next day the official U.S. State Department spokesman said "some media reporting that somehow the State Department had dropped the ball... I just want to outright reject that... I just want to reject some of that reporting... it has been frustrating to some of us to watch some news reporting implying something in that direction which is simply not true." You seem to have a hard time accepting the possibility of inaccurate reporting. The spokesman's statements are a clear denial of the "administration appeared to have flubbed" allegation in particular and the "it's the U.S. government's fault" meme in general notwithstanding the fact it appears in the New York Times. Does this mean that the NYT was "clearly wrong" to have printed this stuff? No, but that doesn't mean it it cannot be excluded from Wikipedia on grounds of unconfirmed/dubious. Something can be dubious because of what we know from other sources without having the absolute "he said, she said" word for word contradiction you apparently demand before you are willing to concede that attribution should be used, never mind exclusion.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, is your goal to convince me of something or keep arguing longer and longer, more and more vehemently until I cry uncle? Your comment doesn't appear intended to achieve the former. Your argument has gotten absurdly complex, to the point where my simple brain can no longer understand it, let alone respond to it. Please write, in four sentences or less, what you want and why. We can then take that to the appropriate noticeboard (DRN or RSN, I suspect). If you don't do this then I will. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

If you don't have time to address the issue then my view is that you don't have time to revert. Let me ask about just one element of your theory that the "stranded" story cannot possibly be inaccurate: you say Der Spiegel had found the confirmation they had noted was missing by July 15. Yet on July 12 Der Spiegel apparently still wasn't buying it, because it made no sense to ask Kucherena on July 12 "So he hasn't left the airport's transit zone at all over the weeks?" if Der Spiegel already knows that the answer is yes. So it was between July 12 and July 15 that Der Spiegel found the missing proof. That's your theory, right? Or was it the July 12 interview with Kucherena itself that provided the proof? The guy whom TIME magazine has described as having "a knack for misleading the press" is the guy who finally allayed your doubts? That TIME has also said that most of what Kucherena says is "fiction" doesn't bother you?--Brian Dell (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

How do you expect me to answer your "bite sized Q" without links? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

There's more text in the links than in the bullet points I gave above which you didn't have time to read. The Spiegel interview is here and "knack for misleading the press" is here.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? That's your evidence that dozens of reputable news outlets were all wrong? A question by a reporter to confirm? Look at the caption of the photo at the top of that July 12 story: "Snowden during a press conference at Moscow's international airport on July 12." If you're going to continue throwing out arguments like that then we're done here. Please let me know if you intend to fulfill this request. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Those "dozens" are all sourced to the exact same guy and that guy is a known liar. Yes, I absolutely think that raises "serious" questions! You seem to actually believe "If you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes truth." since the only thing you seem to be interested in is how many times it is has been repeated and not whether the source at the bottom of the chain of repetitions is notoriously unreliable. Note that Kucherena says "I asked him why he was staying at the airport for so long." How does that make any sense if he was under "house arrest" in the "capsule hotel" as Kucherena claims in the same interview? Why does somebody stay at home if they are under house arrest? Isn't it obvious why they aren't out on the town? At one point Kucherena gave an interview with Russian media where in answer to the observation that his official job is doing public relations for the FSB (the successor agency to the KGB) he acknowledges that there have been "many expressions of doubt about whether he is actually living in the airport transit area," but "I've met him many times, he's there!" Why would he possibly see a need to correct all the doubt on the record if there's no doubt on the record? If you think the fact Snowden showed up behind closed doors at the airport for one day in that "press conference" stage-managed by the Kremlin (this was the day Snowden praised Russia's human rights record) means he was there for the other 5 weeks then, yes, throwing out arguments like that does mean we're done here! At present, John and I agree on this such that I think you're view as to how much we know about Snowden's time in Russia is not consistent with consensus.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you leaving it to me to frame this issue for DRN? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

too pro Snowden

Snowden is a fugitive, the considered in the lead should be eliminated. Too much pro and no mention of leading journalists who have criticized the traitor.12.133.231.42 (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you please provide links for the "leading sources who have criticized the traitor"? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:24, 11 March 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. petrarchan47 t c 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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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)

Last line of the introduction: 'snowden currently serves as rector'. Snowden is not currently Rector. He has not yet been installed. Installation is not until April. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.209.99.71 (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Also in the section about his rectorship there is a quote: 'the position is largely symbolic'. This is not the case. The reference is from a US news website article and contains other errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.209.99.71 (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Do you have any reliable sources (e.g. news reports) indicating that Snowden's appointment is other than largely symbolic? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see the Article, where I have restored "symbolic" and added four citations to reliable sources documenting said description. JohnValeron (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Russia, Kucherena, and "stranded" AGAIN

Well, this edit war has been ongoing for about 4 months now, maybe longer. It has to do with citing reliable sources regarding the passport situation. BDell555 has determined that Snowden's Russian lawyer (Kucherina) is unreliable, no matter what he is quoted as saying, nor where he is quoted. This is based on a TIME magazine article which mentions someone saying that Kucherina likes to brag to the press.

The latest edit summary for making this reversal was: "(and you don't get to declare he is reliable in face of all the contrary evidence, which has been outlined at length on the Talk page. This is already repeatedly stated in the body of the article. That's enough.)"

Our coverage (as of this edit) of the passport situation has been discussed here ad infinitum, and what we have in the article best represents what RS say. BDell555 is using OR to change the way the story is told to our readers in a way that is not represented in sources, but only in his mind.

I don't want to have to go over this again. Would others from the community care to suggest a way to end this edit war? What type of Rf? or noticeboard would work for this content dispute? Thanks in advance. petrarchan47 t c 10:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we can have an RfC about Kucherena, to establish what we trust about his statements. Most of his statements appear to be straight facts, while some may be angled to make his client look good. The main arguments we employ should be based on whether the media generally accepts the statement, or expresses doubt about the statement. Binksternet (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure there are any other arguments against using Kucherina, though to get clear on using him as RS would be good. Media outlets don't seem to question him and quote him without reservation. TIME made a comment that BDell555 has used as an excuse to remove undesirable info. It's that info that I'd like to seek clarity on, first and foremost. We've discussed the passport/transit zone fiasco on this talk page for far too long, and the edit war has not been affected one iota by these efforts. I will dig up our past work in a bit. An RfC about what can be said on this topic would probably be the way to go. petrarchan47 t c 19:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

One comment in TIME is certainly a piece of evidence to examine, but it is not the whole story. We would have to ask whether other observers have the same problem with Kucherena, and the answer is that a large majority do not. Binksternet (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

TIME magazine doesn't say he "brags" to the press, it says he MISLEADS the press. And describes most of what Kucherena says as "fiction", not bragging. This Forbes piece points out how clueless western media outlets including the New York Times have been about Kucherena's Institute of Democracy and Cooperation propaganda outfit and the Kremlin's capacity for propaganda generally. So it's not true that only TIME has complained about the press being taken for a ride.

Kucherena was contradicted by Putin when Putin admitted that Snowden had had contact with Russian diplomats in Hong Kong and Kucherena is in fact frequently contradicted by others and himself. Kucherena said that "I am his only link with the outside world" while Greenwald says he, Greenwald, is "in constant contact with Snowden." Which is it? I could go on. "The whistleblower was unaccompanied when he left the airport in a regular taxi, Kucherena added. However, WikiLeaks contradicted the lawyer, saying the organization’s activist Sarah Harrison accompanied Snowden." Note that here you have the media pointing out the contradiction, not just me. One minute Kucherena says the only thing keeping Snowden in Russia is the U.S. but in the next minute he says Snowden "has no right to cross Russian borders."

This interview with Sophie Shevardnadze is classic Kucherena: while Snowden says he handed everything to journos in Hong Kong, Kucherena says just "some" were handed over and Snowden "certainly" still has "some materials that haven’t been made public yet". Kucherena says "the US.... effectively locked him inside the airport" (by making the false assertion Snowden's passport was not revoked until June 23) within seconds of saying one should look to Snowden's will for why he was "locked" for as long as he allegedly was: "Actually, it took some time for Snowden to make up his mind". So which is it? Kucherena then admits the transit zone "is still Russian territory"! After 24:35 you can see the way Sophie rolls her eyes at the "so we're told" claim that Snowden was stranded in the transit area. Even this Russia Today personality is like "yeah, right" and Wikipedia is supposed to declare "remained stranded in the airport transit zone until August" with the same sort of certainty that the Earth is the third planet from the sun?

Kucherena insists Snowden was "at the capsule hotel" but when told "there were also reporters who stayed at that capsule hotel for weeks on end, looking out for Snowden 24/7. He couldn’t spend six weeks inside his capsule, could he?" Kucherena suddenly decides maybe Snowden's at another hotel! "But there’s more than one hotel." Why couldn't Kucherena just stick to what he claimed was the case and say it's not his fault if nobody else could find him at the capsule hotel instead of turning on a dime and saying, OK, well maybe he was at some other hotel?--Brian Dell (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Luckily for us, Kucherina has nothing to do with any of this. For the Lede, we want summary style, very clear language as close to sources as possible. BDell555 doesn't seem to like the very clearly stated assertion that Snowden was stranded in the airport, and therefore in Russia. He has talked and talked and talked, and will continue to, about why we can't possibly state this in the Lede, but this is not in keeping with RS guidelines and should not be allowed to continue to take up editor's time any longer. Here is what RS says. I am asking now that we make it official: Bdell555 does not get to rewrite or whitewash this in the Lede or elsewhere, and if he continues to disrupt this article he should be banned from it.

Snowden was stranded in the Moscow airport transit zone
Snowden has been stranded for more than 20 days
Snowden remains stranded in Russian airport as Ecuador asylum may take months
Snowden stranded in Moscow airport for now
The NSA leaker was stranded for six weeks
Edward Snowden still stuck in airport
But he never got on that flight. The United States had cancelled his passport, so he lacked documents to board the plane or enter Russia – leaving Snowden stranded in an airport no man's land
Snowden’s stranded at the airport
[Snowden had been effectively trapped] at Moscow's Sheremetyevo International Airport since June 23, when he arrived on a flight from Hong Kong. He was intending to change planes in Moscow, apparently for Latin America, but was caught in limbo when the United States canceled his passport.
‘US trapped Snowden in Russia’
Snowden, who is stranded at Moscow airport
Putin says Putin on Monday accused the United States of trapping US intelligence leaker Edward Snowden in Moscow..."He arrived on our territory uninvited, he did not fly to us, he was flying in transit to other countries...But as soon as he was in the air, it became known, and our American partners essentially blocked off his further flight."
Daniel Ellsburg (41:11): "They made [Snowden] stateless by virtue of revoking his passport while he was in transit through Russia to go on to Latin America. He actually had tickets for an outbound flight from Moscow. One of the ironies here is that he ends up in Russia, not because he choose to, but because the US saw fit to revoke his passport. They forced his to remain there because he no longer had valid travel papers. It makes it extraordinarily difficult to continue traveling, you're stuck where you are."
Whistleblower Snowden stranded in Moscow airport transit area
more here
and here

When it is THIS difficult to get what is widely reported in RS, as it is reported, onto a Wikipedia article, the likely case is that there is a POV problem with some editors. I think it is next to insane to allow this topic to continue to be discussed any more. When BDell555 argues that we can't possibly quote RS in this case, he gives us long endless diatribes that make no sense to anyone. To keep entertaining this nonsense as if it's anything but just makes us all look ridiculous. It's time for some kind of formal process about this issue. (I'm also really sick of edit summaries like "we've discussed it already - Kucherina just can't be trusted!". I don't know if this person is serious, or just having a laugh, but you can't pour out your personal ideologies on a talk page and consider it some kind of formal judgement - at least not one recognized by anyone else.) petrarchan47 t c 06:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I could point out your errors here, like the fact that speaker at "41:11" is not "Daniel Ellsburg" (sic) but Thomas Drake, a person who is not in a position to know where Snowden really was in July 2013, but let's just look at the very first instance you give here, Petrarchan, as an example. We see "Snowden was stranded in the Moscow airport transit zone, which is technically not Russian territory, on 23 June, after US authorities annulled his passport while he was travelling from Hong Kong." Yes, the Guardian uses its own voice here, but the Guardian is demonstrably wrong. It's claimed his passport was annulled during travel. That's false, the passport was revoked June 22, and Snowden did not board a flight until June 23. The State Department's official spokesperson has rejected the media reporting that State moved too late to prevent Snowden from leaving HK. The truth is that the Chinese simply ignored the U.S. It's also not true that the transit zone is not Russian territory. See the legal expert quoted in the body of the article on this point, and see Kucherena's own admission that the transit zone "is still Russian territory"! I see the title of this Guardian article is "Edward Snowden plans to stay in Russia, says lawyer" yet you presumably reject this article as unreliable on that point and when it specifically says "Snowden... intends to remain in Russia long-term" since you currently have the lede declaring that Snowden "is seeking asylum in the European Union." How is Snowden supposed to get to western Europe when Kucherena is there insisting that Snowden "has no right to cross Russian borders"? Evidently this Guardian article is only reliable for the particular points on which you want it to be reliable! This article is based on Kucherena's media scrum. Can you not see Kucherena's photo there surrounded by the world's media? If Kucherena is unreliable then this article is unreliable. And all the other sources here also rely on Kucherena. There's no other source here in a position to know except Sarah Harrison of Wikileaks who is also unreliable. You've refused to respond to any of the observations I just noted above like how that interviewer who had an opportunity to "cross examine" Kucherena quite clearly thinks this guy is full of it, and Kucherena himself couldn't keep his story straight as he insists Snowden was stranded at the capsule hotel until he faces scepticism about that claim from his interviewer at which point he casually drops the claim and throws something else out there.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Your appreciation of the unreliability of the sources used by a journalist is not relevant. If the journalist thinks the source is good enough to quote, then that information becomes reliably sourced for Wikipedia. We can weigh the relative value of sources that we choose to use, but dismissing Kucherena or Harrison out of hand is not what we're doing. Binksternet (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no "water to wine" transformative effect when an unreliable source is used by a reliable source, it simply turns a presumption of unreliability into a presumption of reliability. That presumption of reliability can be, and here is, rebutted by showing that the source used is unreliable. What's claimed here is contradicted by other, more reliable sources. Russians in Russia are skeptical, Pavel Felgenhauer calls the "stranded" claim "absurd", noting that Aeroflot could put any transit passenger on any plane if it wished to (if the Kremlin allows, see Kucherena's statement that Snowden cannot cross the Russian border in order to go to Germany), and that the Sheremetyevo transit area is the sovereign territory of Russia. In November Deutsche Welle was still using gloves with the stranded in the airport claim: "On July 12, 2013... Snowden had already been in the transit area of the airport for three weeks. At least that is what the Russian authorities claimed; journalists hadn't seen Snowden..." (in the same piece DW says "It is impossible for anyone trying to contact Snowden to bypass Kucherena. He is not only the whistleblower's lawyer, he is also his spokesperson.") Add the caveat here like DW does and there's no dispute. Use Wikipedia's voice and in light of the skepticism and the contradictions it is necessary to present some evidence here that "the journalist" who does not use attribution tried to independently verify the claim, or was aware of TIME magazine's view that the source "mislead[s] the press," and that would shift the burden of proof again back on to the skeptics. Shevardnadze cross-examined Kucherena on the claim and Kucherena couldn't keep his story straight.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

French telecoms giant shares all its call data with France's intelligence agency

Introducing the French version of PRISM, as revealed by Snowden in Le Monde. Note that the intercepted data is shared with GCHQ. Perhaps important enough to be briefly mentioned here?

-A1candidate (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

conflicting sources? Hong Kong to Moscow

Again, to the Lede in reference to Russia. This time, he has declared a Fox News article "demonstrably false", and I assume he will be willing to demonstrate for you good people all day long why this article is not valid as a source. Unfortunately, BDell555 has been directed to the guidelines about both OR and SYNC in the past, but has shown no indication that he gives much credence to them - only to his favored version of 'facts'.

How long do we put up with this? We look really silly. I feel like an idiot writing on this talk page over and over the very same thing. This is why Wikipedia is loosing editors. It's a mind-numbingly stupid experience at times. petrarchan47 t c 05:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Your refusal to assess all of the sources here, not just your cherry picked ones, and appreciate the problem here is indeed getting ridiculous. You have edit warred over this article for months now while refusing to address the problems with your editing. Your refusal to respond to me above and instead of addressing the content issue start a new section levelling accusations at me as an editor is part of the unceasing pattern here.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Cherry picking? I could hardly find an article that didn't refer to it a "stranded". DW is a RS, but this article is cherry picking. It is essentially a hit piece on Kucherina and only briefly mentions Snowden leaving the airport. It in no way refutes our statement in the Lede, and has no business there. It is demonstrably untrue that Russian authorities are the only source for the claim being made, and is proven by my laundry list of links above. I'm not participating in this with you any longer. petrarchan47 t c 05:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Then how is that no western reporter ever saw Snowden even once in this transit zone if it is so widely verified? Kucherena says Snowden was right there in the public areas including that transit hotel the whole time. The source you say is "a hit piece" supports "according to Russian authorities" and does so reliably. I suppose you think the TIME story saying Kucherena "mislead[s] the press" is also a "hit piece"? You can go hide your head in the sand here but that is not going to change reality. You went to a noticeboard about the Russ Tice article and were clearly told that I had the better argument. You then proceeded to ignore that result for an extended period of time. I suggest returning to a noticeboard as I am quite confident that the editing community will not support using Wikipedia's voice to declare "stranded in the airport" when all the evidence for how doubtful that claim happens to be is laid out in front of them.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Neat thing is, it's not up to me. I just report what's in RS. You can take a rest too, because what you deduce and conclude is completely irrelevant to Wikipedia unless it's written in RS (and used appropriately).

[edit conflict] I would agree to go to a noticeboard, or better yet to have an RfC here on two content issues: Is Kucherina RS? and Can we say Snowden was stranded? petrarchan47 t c 06:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

What you report is contradicted by other RS. Stop pretending otherwise.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to stop dialoguing with you altogether, we will invite others to respond instead. Cheers, petrarchan47 t c 06:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I can only shake my head at the idea that you think there would be community support for the idea that Kucherena is a reliable source. The TIME claim that he has a "knack for misleading the press" would just be exhibit A in a long line of exhibits.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If it's just exhibit A, then why the obsessive over-quoting of it? You mention this blurb by TIME repeatedly. I haven't seen other exhibits, but RS quotes Kucherina without reservation, and by WP standards, there is nothing more to discuss. I think you are harassing editors and not following guidelines properly. You should not be allowed to do it any longer. petrarchan47 t c 06:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

There's no point in proceeding to exhibit B when you refuse to look at exhibit A, is there? I see you have now deleted the fact that Snowden's passport was revoked on June 22 to have Wikipedia make the false claim that it was revoked June 23. I have gone on repeatedly at great length to explain why sources reporting a June 23 date are wrong. You have never made even the slightest attempt to justify doubting the (more reliable) sources indicating a June 22 date yet you just now removed the Associated Press article which refers to "the revocation of Snowden's passport on June 22". If it were revoked in Hong Kong while he was in the air it would have had to have been revoked during the afternoon or evening of June 23. If it were revoked in Moscow while he was in the air it would have had to have been revoked during the afternoon or morning of June 23. If it were revoked in Washington while he was in the air it would have had to have been revoked during the middle of the night or morning of June 23 (he arrived in Moscow after 9 AM Washington time). These are all still June 23 and incompatible with AP's definitive June 22 date besides the State Department (which is the only entity to definitively know when it acted) officially denying that it moved too late and in fact complaining about the false media reports. You know there is a conflict and that's why you have deleted a reference to the Associated Press article. The Guardian is simply wrong here yet you want to use it instead because it suits the false narrative you want to spin. The fact that you can point to a bazillion other sources making the same mistake doesn't mean they are not wrong too. If Kucherena hadn't misled the press as he's been accused you wouldn't have cases where the press was misled now, would you?--Brian Dell (talk) 07:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If it is true that you "just report what's in RS", Petrarchan, then how about reporting that "The United States canceled Snowden's passport before he left Hong Kong"? Those are the EXACT WORDS used by the Los Angeles Times, and the LA Times uses its own voice to say them, without any attribution. Are you going to tell me that you cannot "report" that because the source is unreliable? Yet you have been edit warring to add back a citation to, not just the exact same source, the Los Angeles Times, but the exact same author, one Sergei L. Loiko! When I said, above, that "What you report is contradicted by other RS. Stop pretending otherwise." your retort was "I'm going to stop dialoguing". That makes the clear conflict between the sources go away, does it?

I could, of course, take a page from your playbook and go on and present a whole bunch of sources and demand that you recognize them. When the International Business Times said "ABC News later reported Snowden’s U.S. passport was revoked Saturday, one day before his Hong Kong departure, saying he no longer had legal travel documents at the time of his flight" you ought to be especially keen to report that because you can find the claim in not one but two RS here, right, both IBT and ABC News? When we read "[June 23] was a day of frustrated scrambling by U.S. officials who have been seeking Snowden’s extradition and had annulled his passport a day before he left Hong Kong as part of an effort to thwart his escape." in the Boston Globe that ought to be another twofer since you've got the Boston Globe and the New York Times, as the Boston Globe byline says the story appears by virtue of "New York Times Syndicate", right? In fact, I don't play this source counting game. To make the case that the "stranded" line is bogus I have been calling attention to genuinely new sources like this one: "Snowden does not need passport to travel, says refugee expert". In the case of the passport revocation I know that our source here is ultimately just one, the U.S. government, just like the source for "stranded at the airport" is ultimately just Anatoly Kucherena/the Kremlin. But I should at least think that you'd avoid the hypocrisy of dumping a whole bunch of sources here on the Talk page as if that strengthens your case and then turning around and saying it doesn't matter how many sources say Snowden's passport was revoked BEFORE he left Hong Kong as all of those sources ultimately rely on U.S. officials.

Let's look again the particular source you've cherry picked here, The Guardian. In the Guardian's version "Whistleblower Snowden escapes arrest in Hong Kong thanks to US errors." But the official State Department spokesman said the very next day that this reporting is hogwash: "There was some media reporting that somehow the State Department had dropped the ball or we didn’t proceed as we needed to on this case, and I just want to outright reject that". It is simply irresponsible to proceed with the Guardian's reporting here given the U.S. rejection, particularly when the Guardian even admits in the same story that it was aware at the time that "American authorities announced they had revoked his passport before he had got on the flight from Hong Kong"!--Brian Dell (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

"According to Russian authorities"

This statement was added to the claim that Snowden was stranded, yet the Fox news report does not say anything about Russian authorities, so I have to assume BDell555 is editorializing again, and I am wondering why this is allowed to continue. Wikipedia is not a fricking playground.

This is what RS says: [Snowden] has been stranded in the transit zone of Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport, after the US withdrew his passport on his arrival from Hong Kong three weeks ago.

Insinuating that only Russian authorities have supported this claim is meant to discredit the claim, and is complete BS. BDell555 was present when we covered all the people who have made this claim, and he is aware the list includes: Assange, Sarah Harrison (not a Russian authority, and was present during the ordeal), Gellman, Greenwald, Thomas Drake (also not Russian, and heard it from Snowden himself), and more.

The proper claim, if we need a caveat, would include all these names and would need a source for the claim added by BDell555 about Russian authorities. Until one emerges, I'm removing it and going to try sticking to what RS has to say, if that's all right with the "editors" obsessing over certain aspects of this article. petrarchan47 t c

Yes, that's clearly the right thing to do, and I can't believe you folks are even arguing over this. Unfortunately your edit does not seem to have had the intended effect. I put back a citation date that I assume you removed by accident. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the Fox ref was probably removed awhile back, as it continues to be. Thanks for the fix. "We" are not arguing over this - it is one person who has been arguing about this for going on 6 months now. I am beginning to wonder if we are all insane for putting up with it, and if it's possibly time for a noticeboard to see how others feel about a ban, or some corrective measure. petrarchan47 t c 00:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't really want to get involved, because then I'd have to read the half dozen screens of diatribe above, but just looking at the sources I don't see any need to attribute "stranded" to unnamed Russian authorities. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It needs to be attributed because it's extremely dubious! The reliable sources conflict, so we have to sort it out, and when you investigate it it becomes quite clear that "[Snowden] has been stranded in the transit zone of Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport, after the US withdrew his passport on his arrival from Hong Kong three weeks ago" is demonstrably false. Editor John Valeron agrees. Petrarchan continues to pretend that there isn't a problem with the material. We do not use Wikipedia's voice to make a claim of fact when the material can be proven dubious by reference to reliable sources. I'll also note that there is no conflict between "according to Russian authorities," which is clearly sourced to Deutsche Welle, and the fact that it's also according to a variety of Snowden advocates like G. Greenwald. One can add Greenwald and everyone else but I don't think it is necessary when we've already got them and their opinion on the point in the body of the article, and when most of these people did not actually witness Snowden "stranded in the airport" like Russian authorities would have been in a position to. These people are basically just saying they agree with the Kremlin line. By the way, what happened last time you went to a noticeboard about a conflict with me, Petrarchan? What were you told again?--Brian Dell (talk) 05:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The Register says "US authorities cancelled Snowden's passport shortly before his departure from Hong Kong... Snowden is supposedly stranded in the transit area of Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport" If you don't like having the "stranded" claim attributed, "supposedly" can be used instead.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hawaii photo

We could use a photo from Hawaii to brighten up this otherwise drab looking article. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Public opinion polls needs to be condensed

Public opinion polls are a great inclusion, but needs to be condensed and written in a couple paragraphs, using the other sections in the article as an example. How much weight/space should public opinion polls take? My opinion is, no more than 2 paragraphs. petrarchan47 t c 05:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Public opinion polls

Polls conducted by news organizations following Snowden's disclosures to the press of secret government surveillance programs found that American public opinion was divided.

June 10–11, 2013: Gallup poll showed 44 percent of Americans thought it was right for Snowden to share the information with the press while 42 percent thought it was wrong.^[2]

June 12–16: USA Today/Pew Research poll found that 49 percent thought the release of information served the public interest while 44 percent thought it harmed it. The same poll found that 54 percent felt a criminal case should be brought against Snowden, and 38 percent disagreed.^[3]

June 12–16: The Washington Post-ABC News poll cited 43 percent of respondents saying Snowden ought to be charged with a crime, while 48 percent said he ought not.^[4]

June 17–18: Rasmussen Reports found that 12 percent of American adults viewed Snowden as a hero, while 21 percent considered him a traitor.^[5]

June 15–July 1: The Economist/YouGov poll tracked public opinion over three consecutive weekends, comparing results from June 15–17, June 22–24 and June 29–July 1. Asked their view of Snowden, respondents indicating "favorable" rose from 40 percent to 42 percent then down to 36 percent. "Unfavorable" grew steadily from 39 percent to 41 percent to 43 percent. Those supporting his prosecution increased from 27 percent to 34 percent and held there; those opposed steadily declined from 32 percent to 31 percent to 25 percent.^[6]

July 1–2: The Huffington Post/YouGov poll found that 38 percent of Americans thought Snowden did the wrong thing, 33 percent said he did the right thing, and 29 percent were unsure.^[7]

July 17–21: NBC News/The Wall Street Journal Survey found that 11 percent of Americans viewed Snowden positively while 34 percent had a negative view.^[8]

June 28–July 8: Quinnipiac University Polling Institute survey found that 55 percent of Americans regarded Snowden as a whistleblower while 34 percent saw him as a traitor.^[9] When Quinnipiac repeated the poll from July 28–31, the results were unchanged.^[10]

July 28–29: Among likely U.S. voters surveyed by Rasmussen Reports, 32 percent considered Snowden a traitor who endangered lives and national security, whereas 11 percent called him a hero.^[11]

November 14–17: The Washington Post-ABC News poll found a significant shift in opinion as to whether or not Snowden ought to be charged with a crime. In contrast to the same organizations' June poll, November's results showed 52 percent favoring his prosecution (up from 43 percent) and 38 percent opposed (down from 48 percent). Similarly, when asked whether, irrespective of his being charged with a crime, Snowden was right or wrong to disclose the NSA intelligence-gathering efforts, 37 percent said he was right and 55 percent said he was wrong. All told, nearly two to one (60 percent versus 32 percent) thought Snowden's disclosures had harmed U.S. national security.^[12]

January 15–19, 2014: USA Today/Pew Research poll reported little change from the previous June on the question of the government pursuing a criminal case against Snowden, with 56 percent in favor and 32 percent opposed. The poll found that people younger than 30 offered the least support for prosecution, being evenly divided at 42 percent in favor and 42 percent opposed. Over all age groups, opinion was also nearly equally divided as to whether or not Snowden's disclosures had served the public interest: 45 percent said yes, while 43 percent said Snowden harmed the public interest.^[13]

January 18-20: The Economist/YouGov poll likewise found Americans evenly split, with 43 percent viewing Snowden favorably and 41 percent unfavorably; 46 percent approving his leaks and 43 percent disapproving; 28 percent supporting his prosecution and 29 percent opposed.^[14]

January 22: CBS News poll revealed a larger split (almost 3:1) as to whether or not Snowden ought to stand trial for his actions, with 61 percent in favor and 23 percent saying he should be granted amnesty. CBS News also differed from Pew Research on the issue of whether or not Snowden's disclosures had been good for the country, with 40 percent saying yes and 46 percent saying it had been bad. When asked to come up with a word that best describes Snowden, nearly a quarter of respondents volunteered either "traitor" or a similar word questioning his loyalty to his country, while 8 percent said he is "brave" or "courageous" or "a hero." Just 2 percent volunteered that he is a "patriot" or "patriotic," and another 2 percent said "terrorist."^[15]

January 22–25: NBC News/The Wall Street Journal Survey found continued low public approval for Snowden, with 23 percent supporting what he did, 37 percent opposing it, and 39 percent expressing no opinion.^[16]

March 26–28: The Huffington Post/YouGov poll found that 31 percent thought Snowden was right to leak top-secret information about government surveillance programs to the media, while 33 percent believed he was wrong; 45 percent favored his prosecution, with 34 percent opposed; and 35 percent would support a presidential pardon, with 43 percent opposed.^[17]

So apparently John Valerian didn't just create all this, he moved it from another article. It should have been moved to Commentary on Edward Snowden's disclosure, which I will do now. petrarchan47 t c 07:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

If you feel to write up a summary of these polls for this article, that would make sense. But we have spin off articles for a reason - this one is too long to support a blow by blow of every single public poll ever taken. petrarchan47 t c 07:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed this list doesn't belong in this article. Both of you might also want to read Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, which gives some attribution guidelines to follow when copying material from one article to another. Kendall-K1 (talk) 10:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

^ Germany wants Snowden to give evidence in Moscow, not Berlin. Reuters.
^ Newport, Frank (June 12, 2013). "Americans Disapprove of Government Surveillance Programs". Gallup.
^ "Public Split over Impact of NSA Leak, But Most Want Snowden Prosecuted". Pew Research Center. June 17, 2013. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
^ "Poll: Public wants congressional hearings on NSA surveillance". The Washington Post. June 19, 2013.
^ "12% See NSA Leaker Snowden As Hero, 21% As Traitor". Rasmussen Reports. June 19, 2013.
^ "As Snowden Stays In Russia, He Slips In Public Opinion". YouGov. July 3, 2013.
^ Emily Swanson (July 5, 2013). "Edward Snowden Poll Finds More Americans Now Think He Did The Wrong Thing". Huffington Post. Retrieved July 9, 2013.
^ Rebecca Ballhaus (July 24, 2013) WSJ/NBC Poll: Most Americans View Snowden Negatively The Wall Street Journal
^ Salant, Jonathan D. (July 10, 2013). "Snowden Seen as Whistle-Blower by Majority in New Poll". Bloomberg News. Retrieved July 10, 2013.
^ Nelson, Steven (August 1, 2013). "As Edward Snowden receives asylum in Russia, poll shows Americans sympathetic to NSA 'whistle-blower'". US News & World Report.
^ "12% See NSA Leaker Snowden As Hero, 21% As Traitor". Rasmussen Reports. June 19, 2013.
^ "Snowden and the NSA - November 2013". The Washington Post. November 20, 2013.
^ "Obama's NSA Speech Has Little Impact on Skeptical Public". Pew Research Center. January 20, 2014. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
^ "Poll Results: Snowden". YouGov. January 22, 2014.
^ "Poll: Most think Edward Snowden should stand trial in U.S." CBS News. January 22, 2014.
^ "January 2014 NBC News/Wall Street Journal Survey" (PDF). MSNBC. January 22–25, 2014.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)
^ "Poll Results: Snowden". YouGov. March 28, 2014.

[reuters.com-1] Germany wants Snowden to give evidence in Moscow, not Berlin. Reuters.

[Gallup-2] Newport, Frank (June 12, 2013). "Americans Disapprove of Government Surveillance Programs". Gallup.

[Pew-3] "Public Split over Impact of NSA Leak, But Most Want Snowden Prosecuted". Pew Research Center. June 17, 2013. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

[WaPoPollJune2013-4] "Poll: Public wants congressional hearings on NSA surveillance". The Washington Post. June 19, 2013.

[5] "12% See NSA Leaker Snowden As Hero, 21% As Traitor". Rasmussen Reports. June 19, 2013.

[6] "As Snowden Stays In Russia, He Slips In Public Opinion". YouGov. July 3, 2013.

[7] Emily Swanson (July 5, 2013). "Edward Snowden Poll Finds More Americans Now Think He Did The Wrong Thing". Huffington Post. Retrieved July 9, 2013.

[8] Rebecca Ballhaus (July 24, 2013) WSJ/NBC Poll: Most Americans View Snowden Negatively The Wall Street Journal

[quinny-9] Salant, Jonathan D. (July 10, 2013). "Snowden Seen as Whistle-Blower by Majority in New Poll". Bloomberg News. Retrieved July 10, 2013.

[10] Nelson, Steven (August 1, 2013). "As Edward Snowden receives asylum in Russia, poll shows Americans sympathetic to NSA 'whistle-blower'". US News & World Report.

[11] "12% See NSA Leaker Snowden As Hero, 21% As Traitor". Rasmussen Reports. June 19, 2013.

[WaPoPollNov2013-12] "Snowden and the NSA - November 2013". The Washington Post. November 20, 2013.

[PewJan2014-13] "Obama's NSA Speech Has Little Impact on Skeptical Public". Pew Research Center. January 20, 2014. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

[14] "Poll Results: Snowden". YouGov. January 22, 2014.

[15] "Poll: Most think Edward Snowden should stand trial in U.S." CBS News. January 22, 2014.

[16] "January 2014 NBC News/Wall Street Journal Survey" (PDF). MSNBC. January 22–25, 2014.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)

[17] "Poll Results: Snowden". YouGov. March 28, 2014.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]