Talk:Edward Snowden/Archive 6

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 4

Do we use RS, or BDell555, in determining content?

The latest edit summary from BDell555 is: as explained, and as has been explained, on Talk, the narrative supported [by] the most reliable sources does not support the implication that the U.S. "stranded" anyone

He admits that he is not keen to use RS, but rather his own OR. This, my friends, is EXACTLY the problem I have been trying to point out for literally months. There is no reason this argument should continue to hold sway over this article and talk page. It is 100% backwards according to my read of the Wikipedia guidelines. We go with RS EVEN if/when they have it wrong, because we are not allowed to include our own research here. Can you imagine the anarchy if we did? So why is it allowed at the Snowden article?

To keep OR out of this most crucial bit of information, I added a direct quotation from the Guardian: stranded in the Moscow airport transit zone...on 23 June, after US authorities annulled his passport while he was travelling from Hong Kong petrarchan47 t c 23:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

"According to my read of the Wikipedia guidelines," writes petrarchan47, "we go with RS EVEN if/when they have it wrong." That is appalling—a blueprint for an Encyclopedia of Misinformation assembled not by editors but by robots. JohnValeron (talk) 03:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

We have many reliable sources saying Snowden was "stranded". In fact, most of the sources use this concept. Note that this is a passive construction—Snowden was not stranded by the US who wished him to be stranded, he was stranded by the overall situation of having an invalid US passport, and by Russian authorities not allowing further travel. Brian Dell's reverts appear to be based on his certainty that the US did not intend to strand Snowden in Moscow's airport. Well it is obvious that Snowden being stranded is not an accusation that the US did it on purpose. Instead, the US wanted Snowden arrested and sent back to the US. Binksternet (talk) 04:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Question to the community

Is it time to hold an RfC about what exactly we can say regarding the passport/stranding situation? Does the RS hold up, or are we swayed by the arguments (if anyone can read or understand them) repeatedly put forth by BDell555? petrarchan47 t c 23:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Can someone sum up the argument against including "stranded" without attribution or qualification? No more than 200 words max please. Also no references to any editors or to the history of this argument. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully! petrarchan47 t c 06:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that BDell should be the one to explain it to Kendall in 200 words or less. Gandydancer (talk) 13:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the lead should mention significant controversies. In our present instance, the word "stranded" is challenged because it signifies the controversy over whether or not Snowden was forced by the U.S. government to discontinue his flight upon landing in Russia. As now written, the lead presents only one side of this controversy, citing The Guardian report that Snowden was "stranded in the Moscow airport transit zone on 23 June, after US authorities annulled his passport while he was travelling from Hong Kong." The lead also cites Snowden's WikiLeaks escort Sarah Harrison to the effect that Snowden was unable to leave the transit zone with a revoked passport.

When this incident is described in the body, however, we suddenly encounter a controversy to which the lead fails to allude. Let me flesh out the relevant sources cited in the first paragraph of subsection 3.2 Russia:

From an AP report: "A U.S. official on Sunday said Edward Snowden's passport was annulled before he left Hong Kong for Russia. Snowden's travel plans could be complicated—but not thwarted—by a lack of passport. The U.S. official said that if a senior official in a country or airline ordered it, a country could overlook the withdrawn passport."
From another AP report: "Russian President Vladimir Putin says Snowden is in the airport's transit area after flying in from Hong Kong on Sunday. Authorities in Moscow say he is not officially in Russia and is free to leave. His best bet could be to seek political asylum from a country that would grant him safe passage. … 'Having documents to travel is not a prerequisite to applying for asylum,' said Laura Padoan of the United Nations refugee agency. 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."
From SPIEGEL: "From a legal standpoint, bringing Snowden to Germany does not pose a significant problem. The fact that he does not have a valid passport would not stand in the way of his departure, nor would it prevent the Russians from allowing him to board a flight to Germany. Upon his arrival at a German airport, he could apply for asylum. … If there were no risk of flight, there would be no grounds for taking Snowden into custody. Experts are virtually certain in ruling out the possibility of Snowden actually being extradited to the United States, since the German-American extradition treaty does not apply to 'political offences.'"

Why is this controversy broached in the body but omitted from the lead? Granted, per our due weight policy, articles should not give minority views as much attention as more widely held views. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources. But that does not mean a minority view must be excluded from the lead. "When reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence," we are instructed, "describe both approaches and work for balance." Whichever editors addressed this issue in the body obviously concluded that AP and SPIEGEL are reliable sources and equal in prominence to The Guardian and Sarah Harrison. Thus, after quoting Barton Gellman on Face the Nation that Snowden was "literally changing planes in the Moscow airport when the United States revoked his passport," our editors cite a source directly contradicting Gellman: "A US official said that Snowden's passport was annulled before he left Hong Kong." This is great. With both sides of the controversy in immediate proximity, we can make up our own minds as to which is more believable.

Why can't the same approach be employed in the lead? Why do we get only one side of the story there? I submit that the controversy—not among editors but among equally reputable and equally prominent sources—over the timing of Snowden's cancelled passport and his capacity to nevertheless resume his trip, compromises any use of the loaded word stranded in the lead. Please, let's stop playing the Edward Snowden victimization card long enough to strike a seemly balance. JohnValeron (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. It doesn't seem like much of a controversy to me. Your first source relies on an anonymous US official and doesn't say that Snowden wasn't stranded. Your second source actually says that he was stranded. Your third source doesn't say that he wasn't stranded, in fact it says he would be arrested if he went to Germany. It also isn't talking about his stay at the airport, but later after he left the airport. We don't know why he was stranded, but we have several sources that say he was, and none that say he wasn't. The issue of when his passport was revoked hardly seems worth mentioning in the lead. Kendall-K1 (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

2-Person Consensus: As now written, the lead states: "… and his passport was revoked by the State Department on June 22." Since you and I agree that, as you write, "The issue of when his passport was revoked hardly seems worth mentioning in the lead," I will exercise WP:BOLD and delete the date, which will flush out members of the Wikipedia editorial community who disagree with us. Hopefully, they will also read this Talk exchange and take a moment to explain why the date of revocation is, in their opinion, required in the lead. JohnValeron (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC) Again acting on our consensus that the date his passport was revoked is not worth mentioning in the lead, I shall also delete the phrase "… while he was travelling from Hong Kong" from The Guardian quotation. JohnValeron (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that consensus, I don't like the word "thereafter," and I prefer edits that make the lead shorter. I'd like to cut that paragraph way back, and get rid of all those references. Ideally there wouldn't be any refs in the lead. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I used the word thereafter because that sentence begins, "On June 21" and since we no longer specify a date of revocation, readers could easily misconstrue it as being on June 21. As for cutting that paragraph way back, I encourage you to exercise WP:BOLD and trim the lead to show us how it ought to look. Capital idea! JohnValeron (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Irrespective of Stranded: If we can agree that an anonymous U.S. official quoted by the Associated Press constitutes a source at least equal in reliability and prominence to Snowden's WikiLeaks escort Sarah Harrison, I propose adding to the lead—immediately following "he was unable to leave the transit zone with a revoked passport"—the following, with citation to its AP source: "The Associated Press, however, cited an anonymous U.S. official who said that if a senior official in a country or airline ordered it, a country could overlook the withdrawn passport, thus allowing Snowden to continue his travels." JohnValeron (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous U.S. officials are not sources. Sarah Harrison is not a source. The AP is a source. See WP:RS. I have taken you up on your offer, and avoided "stranded" since some people don't like it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your editing. The lead's troublesome third paragraph is now much improved. I fully support this version and encourage other editors to do likewise. JohnValeron (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Numerous RS used the term "stranded", and it matters absolutely naught whether a couple Wikipedia editors "don't like it". You don't get to cut apart a paragraph leaving no actual information just because one guy complains on the talk for months, and then another pops in all of the sudden to make his arguments for him. I'm calling bull.petrarchan47 t c 03:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I want to know where BDell555 is, and why John Valerian appears to be speaking for him. When I try to get a handle on this months-long edit war, someone always jumps in and completely shifts the focus. Last time it was Dr F. Why are people covering for BDell555? Why not let him continue his argument so we can get closure? I would appreciate that, because I am always the one left to deal with him Thank you. petrarchan47 t c 04:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Please let me state categorically for the record: I am not speaking for Brian Dell or any other Wikipedia editor. I obviously jumped the gun in declaring a 2-person consensus with Kendall-K1, who rebuked me accordingly and for which I apologize. But I am participating here in good faith with the object of providing much-needed balance to this article, which is overly sympathetic to its controversial subject. JohnValeron (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

So you admit to having a bias - one that is in alignment with Bdell555 and Dr F. I am uncomfortable with your assumption that this article needs to be more negative towards the subject. You seamlessly stepped in to support Dr F when he was alone in arguing this very thing, and when he was alone in supporting BDell555 (just as we were getting somewhere with calling attention to the edit warring in January, ending the process in an instant). I notice you suddenly popped in and made a critical edit at The Day We Fight Back, again seamlessly on the heels of Dr F (by one day). I'm not calling you a sock, but there is and has been somewhat of a partnership that I must call attention to, as this problem with Bdell555's consistent edit warring has continued because of Dr F's using this page to retaliate against me personally rather than to deal with the article-related issues here, and completely railroading the beginnings of a very healthy, cathartic conversation, and because this game playing has kept us from addressing a very real problem that almost ended my WP editing altogether.

The conversation about Bdell555's edits needs to happen - I am unwilling to deal with it for another 6 months or weeks. Those who've just stepped in cannot recognize the game that is being played here - but it is clear to me. This section is about Bdell555's edit warring, and it is up to him to finally explain and defend what he has been doing since December. What he has been doing, with regularity, has taken up countless hours of my time, and of a few others. One needs only to scan this talk page to see what we've been required to read, and scan the edit history to see the edit warring. I am finally asking: should we be required to deal with BDell555 any longer, and whether there is validity to his arguments or not - because ultimately if there is not, the editors should no longer be required to deal with him.

Maybe a request for comment on user is needed. But for now, please stop confounding this serious situation at an article you've dropped into during the height of talk-page controversy. Your edits and arguments are tendentious and you've admitted to the reason. If you feel the article as a whole is just too friendly towards Snowden, be responsible and create a new section to voice your concerns. I will note that Dr F is now in agreement with me and refuses to support Bdell555 in this passport edit war, though I am not expecting an apology. He disappeared... but here you are as if only the name has changed. And Bdell555 is suddenly is nowhere to be seen, meaning he will be back once the noise dies down, leaving me to deal with him by myself, again. petrarchan47 t c 16:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

At the very least John, use the talk page rather edit warring over passport information in the lede. Can we agree to this? I thought this was a given. petrarchan47 t c 17:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Notwithstanding your paranoid fantasies, my only "bias" here is in striving for fairness. In becoming interested in Edward Snowden, I was disappointed to find a Wikipedia article that leans over backward at every step to depict him in the most favorable light, while autocratically rejecting any attempts to balance this controversial subject. I will continue to make edits as I see fit, and you will no doubt continue to revert my edits. So be it. Perhaps eventually we will reach a stalemate. If, at that point, this article is more balanced, I will be satisfied. JohnValeron (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Voice your concerns with specifically how this article is biased in favor of Snowden in a separate section, please. "[L]eans over backward at every step to depict him in the most favorable light" - can I assume this is in reference the subject at hand, the passport situation? I would argue that a read of the article shows it covers both sides fairly in general, and that what I have leaned over backwards in favor of, is simply getting the fact straight. If you have arguments about how the facts are bing misrepresented in the (current) Lede with regard to the contested para, please state them here: petrarchan47 t c 17:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

To review, let's first look at the evidence against the "stranded" thesis, and then also at the absence of reliable evidence for:

NOTABLE EVIDENCE AGAINST
The Washington Post speaks of "Snowden’s ability to board an Aeroflot flight Sunday to Moscow, despite the revocation of his passport and the warrant for his arrest..." If Snowden can leave Hong Kong "despite the revocation of his passport" why can't he similarly leave Russia?

A "leading authority on international refugee law whose work is regularly cited by the most senior courts of the common law world" has said that Snowden could have walked out of the airport at any time as the transit zone is legally the same as the rest of Russia: "Moscow airport is as much a part of Russia as is the Kremlin. Many nations pretend that airport transit lounges are not part of their territory, indeed not under their jurisdiction. As a matter of international law, this is completely false." In the print version of the South China Morning Post there is an article titled "No passport, no problem" and in there we read "Even though the US had cancelled his passport, Snowden could still leave Russia, Simpson said, saying sovereign nations had the right to act on their own." See also the AP and Spiegel quotes provided by JohnValeron earlier in this thread.

Wikileaks says that Snowden's passport had not yet been revoked at the time he left HK, only getting revoked while he was in the air, yet according to Wikileaks they arranged a Ecuadorean temporary travel document for Snowden so he could leave Hong Kong. Why couldn't he just use his U.S. passport to leave Hong Kong if it hadn't been revoked? And why couldn't the same Ecuadorean document be used to leave Russia and continue on towards Ecuador?

WEAK EVIDENCE FOR:
"there isn't a trace of him [in the airport transit zone]-- except, of course, for the steady stream of quotations that the Russian news agency Interfax gets from a mysterious source supposedly 'close' to Snowden."
How reliable is Interfax?
"the headlines of Russian news agencies were rather misleading.... concealing the Kremlin's involvement"
Example of Interfax conflicting with the New York Times:
"The New York Times has managed to speak to an Aeroflot reservations agent who said Snowden's ticket to Moscow was one-way and didn't include any onward travel. ..." versus "Interfax, the Russian news agency, is saying .... there is a ticket in the American's name for a Moscow to Cuba flight". New York Times again: "Russian news services reported that Mr. Snowden would take a Monday afternoon flight to Cuba... But others dismissed it as a ruse..."

When a particular source for the stranded claim is identified who was in a position to know, it is Anatoly Kucherena, Snowden's "only link with the outside world." Who is Kucherena? "a man with close ties to the Kremlin and a knack for misleading the press" Before Snowden's name ever appeared in the news, Kucherena was calling for the prosecution of those who developed software that could help users evade government surveillance. Kucherena is frequently contradicted. He claimed that Snowden "did not enter into any communication with our diplomats when he was in Hong Kong" but Putin has acknowledged that "Mr. Snowden first appeared in Hong Kong and met with our diplomatic representatives."

After 24:35 of this interview the interviewer's body language suggests great skepticism ("so we're told") about Kucherena's claim that Snowden was stranded in the transit area. When the interviewer suggests the capsule hotel claim is dubious, Kucherena replies "But there’s more than one hotel." Why would Kucherena say that when Kucherena has elsewhere insisted that "He was stuck there the entire time in this capsule hotel"? Kucherena is all too willing to tell you a second story if you don't believe the first one. Kucherena once admitted 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 Kucherena feel he needed to correct the "many expressions of doubt" unless the doubt is serious?--Brian Dell (talk) 03:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Why are you bothering to post your original research about body language? Binksternet (talk) 03:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You know what the evidence comes down to? Kucherena's claim that he couldn't have left the terminal because "If he had been able to leave the terminal, at the very least he could have gotten another shirt. I have seen him in the same clothing over and over again." Kucherena says that's what he's going on. And then every other source in turn relies on Kucherena. Not exactly rock solid.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it's gone unnoticed, but as the article now stands, the only use of the hotly contested word is part of a quotation from Sarah Harrison under the Temporary asylum in Russia section: "I was travelling with him on our way to Latin America when the United States revoked his passport, stranding him in Russia." The word no longer appears in Wikipedia's voice. JohnValeron (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

A synonym has the same problem. The claim should not go into the lede without attribution regardless of which word is chosen unless the reliably sourced material that places the claim in grave doubt is also acknowledged.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If by synonym you mean statement in lede that Snowden was "caught in limbo," please note that it appears within quotation marks and is attributed to LA Times. JohnValeron (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, let's use a LA Times story by Sergei L. Loiko. But let's not cherry pick our LA Times stories by Sergei L. Loiko, how about? How about we use this one which says "The United States canceled Snowden's passport before he left Hong Kong on a flight to Moscow on June 23. Snowden was believed to be planning to transfer in Moscow to a flight to Cuba, and from there make his way eventually to Ecuador. However, he has missed several flights to Cuba and has not left the transit zone of Sheremetyevo-2 airport, according to the Russian Foreign Ministry." Note 1) unequivocal statement that passport was revoked "before he left Hong Kong and 2) attribution of the "not left the transit zone" claim to the Russian government. This is what I mean by attribution: Wikipedia:Citing_sources#In-text_attribution.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It's difficult to talk about this because the lead's contentious second paragraph changes every few minutes as each side in turn petulantly reverts the other side's edits. At this instant, it reads in pertinent part: "The United States federal government charged Snowden with espionage and revoked his passport. Snowden then flew to Moscow…" (emphasis added). Doesn't that satisfy your desire to clarify that the US canceled his passport before he left Hong Kong? As for adding in-text attribution to the LA Times for the phrase "caught in limbo," please note this example to avoid at Wikipedia:Citing_sources#In-text_attribution: "In-text attribution can mislead. The sentence below suggests The New York Times has alone made this important discovery: 'According to The New York Times, the sun will set in the west this evening.'" Similarly, if we were to write that Snowden was, "according to the LA Times, 'caught in limbo,'" readers might mistakenly infer that only the LA Times reported such a complication. JohnValeron (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not change "...passport. Snowden then flew to Moscow..." and have no issues with that. The issue here is asserting a causal relationship between the US government's actions and Snowden being stuck in Russia without even using attribution never mind acknowledging the other sources that have expressed doubt. "Stuck" = "stranded" = "caught in limbo", no? The issue is saying he's been grounded by his passport when legal experts say that's not true. You previously agreed that the claim is questionable yet now you think that if a synonym is used that's all it takes to becomes as solid as "the sun will set in the west this evening"?

The New York Times never, in fact, "discovered" anything about Snowden in Moscow and neither did any other western based source. They are simply repeating what Russian source(s) say they discovered. We could settle this by using this LA Times material: "RUSSIAN AUTHORITIES SAY that Snowden has remained in a transit area of the airport..." It seems to me that some editors don't like that story because it also quotes a commentator saying "The Chinese siphoned all the information out of Snowden and in a very smart fashion shook him off to Russia" and that's supposedly irresponsible journalism. But for another sort of claim the same paper and same author becomes highly reliable? Why not use this by the same author in the same paper: "The United States canceled Snowden's passport before he left Hong Kong on a flight to Moscow on June 23. Snowden was believed to be planning to transfer in Moscow to a flight to Cuba, and from there make his way eventually to Ecuador. However, he has missed several flights to Cuba and has not left the transit zone of Sheremetyevo-2 airport, according to the Russian Foreign Ministry." Just what is wrong with that? The "according to the Russian Foreign Ministry" part? Deutsche Welle writes "...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..." so attributing to the Russian government is not unique to the LA Times.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I previously agreed that the claim of Snowden being "stranded" is questionable, and I still think so. As I explained earlier, I consider stranded a loaded word because it self-servingly victimizes Snowden, painting him as helpless in the face of forces beyond his control, when there is (as you have tirelessly pointed out) reliably sourced reporting to suggest he could have continued his journey without a valid passport. For example, AP cited the United Nations refugee agency as saying there are established procedures allowing countries to grant travel documents for the resettlement of refugees who do not have passports.

In this regard, I was particularly impressed by your objections early last month to using stranded in Wikipedia's voice.

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 22:17, 1 March
Again, "stranded" is fine IF it is attributed to Snowden (or Greenwald or Kucherena etc.)--Brian Dell 19:28, 3 March
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.--Brian Dell 03:05, 5 March

More recently, Brian, I have endorsed Kendall-K1's edited lead of 23:07, 29 March and A1candidate's version two days later. Alas, both fell by the wayside.

I am now again satisfied with this part of the lead, which declares that without a valid passport, Snowden was "caught in limbo." The key here is putting that phrase within quotation marks. For readers who presume Wikipedia's voice is speaking, that punctuation serves as scare quotes, alerting the reader that the phrase (in Wikipedia's words) "should be understood to include caveats to the conventional meaning." Other readers, who presume this phrase is quoted directly from a source, will find it within our inline citation after the sentence. To me, this is an acceptable compromise that avoids stating the bogus "stranded" in Wikipedia's voice yet conveys Snowden's precarious situation that may have been mostly of his own making. JohnValeron (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

"intended to change planes" has better proof than "why Snowden did not board an onward flight is unclear"? Where is the clarity coming from? That's so indisputable that using Wikipedia's voice instead of attributing is appropriate? If he intended to do so why didn't he? There's never been a satisfactory explanation for why not. A revoked passport didn't prevent him from getting on a plane departing Hong Kong for another country. Why didn't he use that document issued by Ecuador to continue onwards? It wasn't disowned by Ecuador until days later. The New York Times says reports of onward travel were just a "ruse." Under Russian law permission is only required to NOT board an onward flight within 24 hours. "but without a valid passport was 'caught in limbo'" clearly blames the passport for not changing planes as intended and presents the passport as the explanation for being 'caught in limbo'. This is the narrative the partisans want you to believe: it's the US government that explains Snowden's presence in Russia. This narrative should be presented to the reader, and in the body of the article it is, but in the body of the article the problems with the narrative are also noted and we also see in the body just who is making the claim (namely, partisans who, when presenting the narrative as they believe it get details like just when the passport was revoked demonstrably wrong). The lede should not be making stronger, more unequivocal claims than the article's body (or the sources) support.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. In focusing on "caught in limbo" within quotation marks as a substitute for stranded with no quotation marks, I overlooked the immediately preceding "without a valid passport." Whether or not that construction "clearly blames the passport for not changing planes," as you write, it does create the potential for serious misunderstanding. Indeed, the more I look at the LA Times source for this sentence, the less satisfactory it becomes.

He was intending to change planes in Moscow, apparently for Latin America, but was caught in limbo when the United States canceled his passport.

By using the preposition "when" for causal effect, the LA Times does clearly blame the passport for not changing planes. By obscuring that point, Wikipedia's current paraphrase is unfaithful to its source and is therefore unacceptable. JohnValeron (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring in the lede instead of voicing concerns on talk and waiting for consensus

I note that instead of engaging on the talk and answering these questions, John is now completely reworking the Lede. I would argue that drastic changes to the Lede be discussed here first, and that to make drastic changes one needs a good knowledge of the subject, the story, and what is contained within the body of the article, as the lede is supposed to summarize all of this. Right now it's being used as a battleground. Please stop. petrarchan47 t c 18:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Please stop ordering me around like a schoolmarm. And please stop pretending that I am the only editor presently striving to improve the lead. Check the article's Revision History tab. JohnValeron (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

What's the rationale behind the inclusion of Snowden's travel dates, passport details, and itinerary changes? This is not Wikitravel. -A1candidate (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I fully support deleting ALL mention in the lead of travel dates, passport details, and itinerary changes. JohnValeron (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I tried. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion. Don't put anything that requires attribution in the lead. Leave that stuff for the article if you must. So nothing about how Snowden said he was headed to Cuba (or wherever), nothing about how the Russians said he was free to go, etc. Just stuff that actually happened, like that he flew from HK to Moscow. If we start putting in what people said, this edit war will not end. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Kendall-K1, rest assured your efforts have not gone unappreciated, at least by me. I was satisfied with the lead as you left it as of 23:07, 29 March 2014. Regrettably, Petrarchan47 saw fit at 04:01, 30 March 2014‎ to "add back some information," thereby precipitating a renewed exchange of edits. As it now stands, thanks mostly to A1candidate, I am again satisfied with the lead. We'll see how long it lasts. JohnValeron (talk) 01:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The Lede has became a mess because it has been hit with edit warring for months now. The refs aren't supposed to be included, but we have had new editors pop in and put citation needed tags in the Lede (even though the details were in the body), so I took the easy route and added refs. Also, since the 'how Snowden ended up in Russia' story, which is a very big part of Snowden's story, has taken the brunt of the edit warring, dates and random details have been added as editors wrangle over how the story is told. It shouldn't sound like a travel itinerary, it should sound like RS, which states it very very simply, but which BDell555 has been arguing non-stop against, and that is how the dates ended up in the Lede. I will show you how RS talks about it in the following section, and I ask again why we aren't allowed to say it simply. To say "Snowden flew to Moscow and has been living there..." is not sufficient and it is misleading. He didn't intend to fly to Russia. If we can find RS that talks about his winding up in Russia like this, without mentioning how he got there, and if it outweighs the sources that state unequivocally that he was "stranded" or "stuck" there, we will have to go with that telling. But we don't choose text just to quiet complainers on the talk page. We go with what RS says, and try to state it similarly to keep our own OR out of it. petrarchan47 t c 05:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

"'Snowden flew to Moscow and has been living there...'" is not sufficient and it is misleading." It is on the contrary both accurate and solidly sourced. "He didn't intend to fly to Russia." Then why did he? Fact is, he went there and stayed there, and none of the excuses for why he failed to continue on to a third country stand up to the scrutiny that other reliable sources have applied. The people who have tried to spin the story that somehow the U.S. government picked him up and dropped him in Russia cannot get their story straight.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

RS on Snowden's Russia stay

Previous conversations here and here and here

* [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.
* Russia, though it was initially supposed to be a stopover, perhaps on the way to Ecuador
* The transit lounge in Moscow's Sheremetyevo Airport has become the latest world hotspot with American whistleblower Edward Snowden reportedly stuck there amid a war of words between the United States and Russia.
* Kucherena said he handed the asylum papers to Snowden today, and Snowden then left the airport, where he has been stuck since arriving from Hong Kong on 23 June.
* The Russian president defied U.S. calls last week to hand over Snowden, who remained stuck in the transit area of Moscow’s Sheremetyevo airport days after arriving on June 23 from Hong Kong
* “I was only transiting through Russia,” he wrote. “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.”
* Snowden was supposed to fly to Havana after a 22-hour layover in Moscow, and connect to either Bolivia or Ecuador. However, he did not board the flight, to the chagrin of nearly the entire Moscow press corps who found his reserved seat 17A empty.

The United States pressured Cuba to prohibit the flight from landing if Snowden was on board, several sources told the newspaper. Cuba was one of the countries that the United States threatened with “unfavorable consequences” if it accepted Snowden, a source close to the State Department was quoted as saying by Kommersant.

A Russian official told Kommersant that before flying to Moscow, Snowden spent two days at the Russian consulate in Hong Kong. Snowden told the Russians that he planned to ask for political asylum in a Latin American country and presented a ticket to Havana, with a 22-hour layover in Moscow, dated June 23. He said that his life was in danger and asked for help, citing international conventions for refugees.

* Moscow was initially intended as a temporary stopover on his journey, as Snowden was believed to be headed to Ecuador via Cuba. However, he ended up getting stranded at Sheremetyevo Airport after the US government revoked his passport. Snowden could neither leave Russia nor enter it, forcing him to remain in the airport’s transit zone.
* According to Russian news agencies, Snowden landed in Moscow on a flight from Hong Kong, where he was met by officials from the Ecuadoran embassy. Snowden, who is reportedly staying at an airport hotel, is said to be en route to Ecuador via Cuba and Venezuela.

WikiLeaks, which has been assisting Snowden since he blew the whistle on NSA's surveillance program, said that the former government contractor is "being escorted by diplomats and legal advisers from WikiLeaks." Ricardo Patiño Aroca, Ecuador's foreign minister, confirmed on Twitter that the government theree had indeed "received an asylum request from Edward J. #Snowden."

* Associated Press reported Snowden landed in Russia’s capital and appeared to be headed for Cuba on Monday and then on to Caracas, Venezuela.

But other reports said Snowden eventually wants to land in Ecuador.

The Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. officials said they would pursue Snowden regardless of wherever he seeks refuge.

His flight came after Hong Kong declined a U.S. request to extradite the man who revealed information on highly classified National Security Agency spy programs.

* Diplomats and law enforcement officials from the United States warned countries in Latin America not to harbor Mr. Snowden or allow him to pass through to other destinations after he fled Hong Kong for Moscow, possibly en route to Ecuador or another nation where he could seek asylum.

Mr. Snowden managed to elude capture just as American officials were asking the Hong Kong authorities to detain and send him to the United States on charges that he illegally disclosed classified documents about global American surveillance programs. He was aided in his escape by WikiLeaks, the antisecrecy organization, whose founder said he helped arrange special refugee travel documents from Ecuador.

* Former U.S. National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden will fly from Moscow to Cuba on Monday and then plans to go to Venezuela, a source at the Russian airline Aeroflot said on Sunday.

The source said Snowden was already on his way to Moscow from Hong Kong and would leave for Havana within 24 hours.

The South China Morning Post also reported that Snowden had left Hong Kong for Moscow and that his final destination might be Ecuador or Iceland. The WikiLeaks anti-secrecy website said Snowden was heading for an unnamed "democratic nation".

The flight to Moscow prompted speculation that Snowden might remain in Russia, whose leaders accuse the United States of double standards on democracy and have championed public figures who challenge Western governments.

But Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said he was unaware of Snowden's plans and the Foreign Ministry declined immediate comment on whether he had asked for asylum.

* As Washington put pressure on Hong Kong to extradite him, Snowden boarded a flight to Moscow on June 23. He was booked on another flight from Moscow to Cuba, presumably en route to seeking asylum in a Latin American country.

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 was initially expected to fly onward to Cuba on Monday, rendering speculation moot that Russia could offer him asylum. But according to media reports, he was not on the 2 p.m. flight from Moscow to Havana. Pushkov said, however, that it wasn't likely that Moscow would grant him asylum, despite previous indications to the contrary. Russian news agencies had reported on Sunday, citing employees of the Russian airline Aeroflot, that Snowden intended to fly onward from Cuba, possibly to Venezuela.

The foreign minister of Ecuador, however, said on Monday that the country was currently looking at an asylum request from Snowden and suggested that it could be the final destination of the NSA informant's journey. "We are analyzing it with a lot of responsibility," Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino told reporters in Vietnam, which he is currently visiting.

I note that most of these sources are quite hedged and imprecise in what they say and to the extent that Wikipedia also takes a cautious approach, there is no conflict here. In the few cases where the claims about exactly where Snowden is, was, or is doing in Russia are unqualified, you continue to miss the point, Petrarchan. It doesn't matter how many sources you find when they are all secondary to a primary source that is demonstrably unreliable. Repeating a bogus claim does not salvage the claim. The PRESUMPTION is of reliability. Here, that presumption has been thoroughly rebutted by those sources that have sought to verify the claim. Show us a source that has attempted to VERIFY the claim and successfully done so and then, and only then, will you have answered the objections. Luke Harding is an example of a independently aligned reporter (if anything, he is sympathetic to Snowden) who investigated the claim and he was unable to verify it. You are ignoring the many sources that raise grave doubts about the claim, starting this new section, for example, instead of responding to the sources I called attention to in an earlier section. In some cases there are outright contradictions between sources, and you have never said anything about how you would resolve those conflicts beyond just picking the source which tells the narrative you prefer and demanding that it be included without consideration of conflicting sources.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Note the editor here who says "not reliable" in boldfaced text and then goes on to say "the BBC citation... is just reporting what the Xinhua citation says. It is not an independent source." This reflects the editing community's view of how sources should be analyzed. Another editor in that thread says "If a reporter saw it with his own eyes, then it can be used and this is a good source for facts (but to be reliable, it has to come from a reliable media, and probably has to name the reporter). Ideally two independent witnesses are needed. If a reporter is just repeating a press release/statement, then this is pure hearsay..." That standard is not official in any way yet it is still worth noting that we have here doesn't come within a million miles of that standard.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Stranded

Folks, I do apologize. I had to re-add the "stranded" as I simply cannot escape it. 90% or more of the sources I read use this terminology, and state it very simply. I looked for a source to suport the statement that had been added to the Lede Why he did not board the plane is unknown. I did not find any source supporting this, I found more sources saying he was stranded there by the US revocation of his passport. If RS says it, we are obligated to do the same. The bit added about Ecuador doesn't make sense to me. It seems like SYNTH. No article connects this Ecuador information in their telling of the "stranded" story, and we WP editors aren't allowed to make these connections unless they are already made in RS. Since this is also Fringe, it needs to be removed from the Lede.

WP:SYNTH - Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[8] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article. petrarchan47 t c 23:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Later note: OK, the Ecuadorian temporary passport information is good, but I don't think it belongs in the Lede. Though I am not going to press on that issue, it does seem overly-detailed for the Lede. petrarchan47 t c 23:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

RS indicate that it is demonstrably false that the US government stranded him anywhere. If he could get from Hong Kong to Moscow without a valid US passport, he could have continued onwards as well. The RS is clear here and the sources repeating what Russian sources have claimed are demonstrably not reliable on this point, however reliable they might be on other points.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm uneasy with Brian's latest edits to the lead, in which he has twice inserted the word "reportedly." Look, everything we know about Snowden is based on news reports. We could use the word "reportedly" at least once in every sentence. But the more often it's used, the more "reportedly" stands out as an editorial weasel word. I don't understand why we need it anywhere. JohnValeron (talk) 03:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Why does the BBC use it then? Why does Der Spiegel: "Edward Snowden has reportedly been inside the transit terminal of a Moscow airport for days now, but there is no evidence to prove it."? There is a distinct difference with THESE "news reports" claiming "stranded" and that's that they have been contradicted and/or come up short in terms of independent verification. The other alternative is to use attribution and attribute the claim to those making it: Kremlin officials and/or Snowden partisans.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

As it stands, the lead states: "Without a valid passport, Snowden reportedly remained stranded…" At that point we insert an inline citation to a BBC article, where the word "stranded" appears only once, in a photo caption that reads: "Edward Snowden is reportedly stranded in a Moscow airport transit zone." The BBC does not attribute "stranded" to the Kremlin or anyone else. It is strictly in the BBC's own voice. So the question becomes, Who is reporting that Snowden is stranded? Is it the BBC? If so, why don't they just say Snowden is stranded? It's a shell game. The whole thing is bogus. JohnValeron (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Snowden stranded in Russia by Ecuador?

Who else could serve to explain Snowden's presence in Russia when one is unwilling to accept the obvious (the obvious being Snowden and/or Russia)? Ecuador, apparently. I see this is the speculation du jour. The timing of the document cancellation doesn't work any better (the U.S. cancellation was too early to be blamed, the Ecuadorian too late) but full points to Binksternet for some creative thinking here and for, shall we say, creative use of sources. We don't find this theory in the body of the article but I see it's currently in the lede.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't fathom why you want to let stand this doubly dubious statement in the lead:

"He was then stuck in the transit zone for 39 days, most likely because his safe passage had been canceled by Ecuador and he had no other valid travel documents."

First, since the United Nations refugee agency has confirmed there are established procedures allowing countries to grant travel documents for the resettlement of refugees who do not have passports or other papers, that part of Binksternet's sentence is false on its face. Second, have we really sunk to the level of indulging "most likely" conjecture in the lead? To whom, exactly, is this most likely?

I'll support anyone, even Petrarchan47, who strikes that nonsense. My respect for Wikipedia editors is rapidly dwindling. JohnValeron (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The UN procedures allow countries to grant passage. If no country grants passage, then the individual is stranded. Also, the time frame of such procedures is not established. Binksternet (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

To which UN procedures do you refer? I'd appreciate a link. JohnValeron (talk) 00:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Gee, it was you who brought up UN procedures here. That bit is from this version of the article as put forward by Brian Dell. The AP source published by Yahoo! News says that "'Having documents to travel is not a prerequisite to applying for asylum,' said Laura Padoan of the United Nations refugee agency. 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." I guess your question could be answered by Laura Padoan. It is my guess that the UN process takes at least a few days, and probably quite a bit longer. If Snowden had initiated the process of asking one or more countries for travel documents, which is very likely, he would still have been stuck in Moscow for some days waiting for the responses, just like was reported. Binksternet (talk) 12:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Gee, thank you for confirming that you are merely guessing about the timeframe of such procedures and have no factual basis for speculating. JohnValeron (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The timeframe of your version is that the safe passage document from Ecuador's London consul was "canceled" on June 27. The source says it was "publicly disowned" on June 27. That wording allows for a back channel cancellation which stranded Snowden. Binksternet (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Correction: July => June. The source also says that VP Biden called Ecuadorean President Correa to apply pressure against granting Snowden asylum. The phone call from Biden is not dated in the source, but it may have come before Snowden had a chance to board his flight to Cuba. Binksternet (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

U.S. pressure on Ecuador does not equate to U.S. pressure on Cuba and with respect to Cuba "Fidel Castro labels libelous report Cuba blocked Snowden travel". This would have been more plausible had Snowden become stranded in Havana. The one scenario that is completely problem free is "Why Snowden did not board an onward flight is unclear"--Brian Dell (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The New York Times reported on June 29, 2013, that Vice President Biden called Ecuador's President Correa the previous day—June 28, one day after Ecuador canceled Snowden's safe passage issued on June 22. The subject of this high-level conversation was Snowden's pending request for asylum in Ecuador. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/world/americas/ecuador-leader-says-biden-called-him-about-snowden.html JohnValeron (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not inclined to let it stand; although I agree with Binksternet's first sentence immediately above (if "stranded" means the whole country as opposed to an airport, legal experts say there isn't a distinction) I don't agree with his second (Snowden was good to go doc-wise on June 24 and didn't). Rather than edit war (there's been a lot of that today already), however, we should give editors some time to encounter this theory and respond to it.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that while you are patiently waiting for editors to encounter Binksternet's "theory," unsuspecting readers are exposed to this unrebutted rubbish as if it were founded in fact. That is irresponsible, Brian. JohnValeron (talk) 01:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Petrarchan's edit warring burned up our reverts for the day. Don't expect Binksternet to give either of us another one just because the reason they got burned up was because Petrarchan went to to 6RR in less than two and a half hours. Or for Binksternet to refrain because my third revert was of you. He has made it very clear to me just when he thinks it's appropriate to try and get someone blocked under WP:3RR, and that's every time there is a "legal" possibility and that someone isn't on the exemption list, like Petrarchan.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll note something else about this Ecuador theory: "there were Russian undercover agents all over the terminal where we believed him to be. It was really clear that the Russians were in charge of the situation here. There were Ecuadorian diplomats milling around trying to get to talk to him but the Russians seemed to be controlling everything here."--Brian Dell (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

"All I can say, being at the airport until 1am last night," reports The Guardian's Miriam Elder, "is that there were Russian undercover agents all over the terminal where we believed him to be." Gotta hand it to those Russian "undercover" agents. They sure know how to attract the attention of a UK journalist. JohnValeron (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

He was ticketed for onward travel

Here we are again. Bdell555 is trying to say that this story has been dis-proven, and has removed it due to his stance that Russian sources are unreliable no matter what.

In this change, with the edit summary The NYT reported on June 23 that their source at Aeroflot said Snowden did NOT hold an onward ticket. You cannot ignore these conflicting sources just because you don't like them. If making a disputed claim, use attribution. (here to Russian sources), Bdell555 removed:

He was ticketed for onward flight to Latin America via Cuba,AP Reuters New Yorker

And changed it to:

purportedly to take another flight (to Latin America via Cuba, but he did not board that flight)

To my knowledge there has not been clear evidence this story isn't true. I'm lost as to where the past discussions ended up, but I feel as if we've been here before. Is everyone on board with allowing this same argument to continue? Has Bdell555 brought a clear succinct, understandable case to show that Russian sources are automatically unreliable? Also, seriously, this is disruptive and should be stopped, don't you think? petrarchan47 t c 02:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

It's obvious he was ticketed for travel to Cuba, otherwise two dozen[1] very jaded journalists would not have fought to get on that flight so they could (hopefully) interview Snowden. Binksternet (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

BDell555 claims we need to source the claim to Russians, but Snowden himself stated he was "ticketed for onward flight" in the New Yorker. It doesn't sound right to add the caveat "according to Snowden and the Russians" since it conveys to the reader that there is doubt about their claim. petrarchan47 t c 02:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

BDell555 also added "reportedly" as a caveat to "stranded", since he couldn't remove it altogether. Well, that also conveys doubt (well done!) where there is none. We simply have too many sources using the term not to unabashedly use it here. petrarchan47 t c 02:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

It may be obvious to you, Binksternet, that Snowden was ticketed for travel to Cuba. But after reading The Washington Post dispatch that you link to, what's obvious to me is that 24 journalists in Moscow were salivating like Pavlov's dogs at the prospect of catching sight of the world's most wanted man. The Post doesn't explain how the rumor started that Snowden "bought a ticket for a trans-Atlantic flight," only that there were such unspecified "reports." The Post does tell us, however, that "not a single person had so much as glimpsed Snowden in an airport lounge."

In The New Yorker article petrarchan47 links to, Snowden says: "I was ticketed for onward travel via Havana…but the State Department decided they wanted me in Moscow, and cancelled my passport." If we are to take Snowden's word as dispositive of his being ticketed, should we not also regurgitate his nonsensical assertion that the State Department cancelled his passport because they wanted him in Moscow? Hell, while we're at it, let's just cede editorial control of this Wikipedia article to Ed Snowden or one of his journalistic cronies, and let them tell their side of the story unchallenged. JohnValeron (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

We do not throw into Wikipedia every last rumour and only keep it out if there is "clear evidence this story isn't true." That is not the way things work around here. If you want to include something dubious, then at at minimum the article should say "according to..." or something like that. We see here: "The New York Times has managed to speak to an Aeroflot reservations agent who said Snowden's ticket to Moscow was one-way and DIDN'T INCLUDE ANY ONWARD TRAVEL." If you are going to contradict that then you should identify who is claiming the contradictory story. The New York Times also says "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." I raised this here on the Talk page in January and you, Petrarchan agreed at that time that "If you are mainly saying 'let's attribute this to Russian media as the NYT did', then I agree 100%." Now, of course, you are going back on your word, instigating an edit war over something you previously indicated you wouldn't edit war over.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Brian, you embed a link to The Guardian, which states: "The New York Times has managed to speak to an Aeroflot reservations agent who said Snowden's ticket to Moscow was one-way and didn't include any onward travel." However, within that quotation at The Guardian is a link to a 2-page NYT story that makes no mention of an Aeroflot reservations agent, Snowden's ticket to Moscow, one-way or onward travel. What is your purpose in citing this unsupported claim? JohnValeron (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I would argue that is almost certainly still the case that the NYT spoke with an Aeroflot person (who wasn't "on message") and got this (honest) answer (unlike the Russian news agencies). I recall noticing it at the time and the Guardian evidently did as well. That the NYT subsequently dropped it from their story does not mean it never happened.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Then what does it mean? Are you suggesting that someone pressured the NYT to drop this from their story? JohnValeron (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

What it means is that, with a few exceptions, the western media has had no backbone when it comes to challenging the narrative spun by the Kremlin. The NYT reports that their independent investigation revealed no onward ticket. The Russian wires then flood the media with the tale that there IS an onward ticket. Other western media outlets start reporting that, attributing to Russian news agencies (and weeks later simply for shorthand purposes start dropping even the attribution). The NYT then faces an editorial decision to directly contradict the Kremlin line or just express the skepticism involved in calling it all a "ruse." They decide to content themselves with "ruse" and withdraw what's attributed to their Aeroflot source out of conservatism. Or simply a lack of moxie in the face of the Russian propaganda machine. That doesn't mean that contradictory Aeroflot source doesn't exist.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

"Kremlin" my ass. You are the only one who is spouting nonsense about the Kremlin directing the media. Binksternet (talk) 04:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The one-way ticket from Hong Kong to Moscow is entirely believable, and does not cast any portion of the story into doubt. Snowden was leaving Hong Kong in a big hurry, so he bought one ticket. Moscow was where he would buy his next ticket, after he sorted out his travel options. Binksternet (talk) 04:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

He would have to had Kremlin permission to do this (or a Russian visa), which means Kremlin collusion, and so the Russian news agencies say you are wrong, Binksternet. The Russian news agencies were telling anyone who would listen that Snowden had an onward ticket BEFORE he landed in Moscow. Look at the chronology of the stories. Reuters reported Interfax claiming Snowden is set to fly on to Cuba while Snowden's plane was in the air three and a half hours before he landed in Moscow. Both Interfax and Itar-Tass were claiming that Snowden was booked on a Monday (June 24) flight from Moscow to Havana more than three hours prior to landing. You can see here an Interfax report claiming that he would be residing in the transit zone and with a time stamp of 15:15 Moscow time, still almost two hours before Snowden landed. Interfax at one point claimed that Snowden would spend the night at the Venezuelan embassy in Moscow, but that story no longer appears on Interfax's website, presumably because that wouldn't fit the "stranded" narrative.--Brian Dell (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

You can see here examples of how the Russian media is not to be trusted.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

New news (Putin & Snowden)

Headine-1: Snowden asks Putin LIVE: Does Russia intercept millions of citizens’ data?

http://rt.com/news/snowden-putin-spy-online-140/

QUOTE: “Russia has “no mass surveillance in our country,” according to President Vladimir Putin, after he was asked a surprise question by whistleblower Edward Snowden at his Q&A session, adding “our surveillance activities are strictly controlled by the law.”” — [A reader-comment under the article: "Putin not knowing a 'surprise question' was coming was as unlikely as not knowing the sun comes up in the morning."] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC) — PS: FYI for future editing.

Headine-2: Spy vs. spy: Snowden presses Putin on surveillance

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/04/17/snowden-putin-question-surveillence/7815957/

QUOTE: “National Security Agency leaker and fugitive Edward Snowden asked Russian President Vladimir Putin on live television if Russia spies on its citizens.” [Unlike Russia Today (RT), this is USA Today ;-) — Their 2-min video is excellent for details, not just for this but for Snowden info.] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC) — PS: FYI also for future editing.

Thanks for tip. I have accordingly created a new subsection in Article called "Snowden appears with Putin on live TV." JohnValeron (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Allegedly stranded

I can't go along with "allegedly stranded." The sources say "stranded." I won't rehash the arguments here, but "allegedly stranded" was debunked above, in the "Question to the community" section of the talk page. If "stranded" is unacceptable, I could reluctantly go along with removing it, but "allegedly stranded" is no good. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, it is really bothering me that we are allowing this edit war to lead us so very far from the simple facts as repeatedly covered in RS. I was especially embarrassed for Wikipedia when I heard Glenn Greenwald succinctly tell the story we've been struggling with here for the past 4-5 months. Because this POV pushing has not been properly confronted, and has indeed been coddled by SPAs, our coverage seem to veer far from the truth - most unfortunate for an encyclopedia:

AMY GOODMAN: What has been your latest communication with Edward Snowden? What is he—what are his concerns now and where he stands in Russia?

GLENN GREENWALD: Well, I mean, you know, I don’t think it’s any secret that I talk to him regularly. And, you know, I feel like a lot of what we do has an impact on him, because things—just choices that we make can have an influence on how he’s perceived or even what his legal situation is. So, you know, we certainly talked about our plans to come back, and he was very supportive of that.

And, you know, I think that his situation in Russia is what it’s basically been for the last eight months, which is that he’s in a country that he didn’t choose to be in, that he was forced to remain in by the United States revoking his passport and then threatening other countries not to allow him safe transit. But at the same time, that alternative, as imperfect as it might be, is certainly preferable to the alternative of not being in Russia, which is being put into a supermax prison in the United States for the next 30 years, if not the rest of his life. And so, given how likely of an outcome that was, and he knew that was when he made his choice, I think he’s very happy with his current situation. petrarchan47 t c 21:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Greenwald won the the Pulitzer Prize today together with Washington Post reporter Barton Gellman. Does that make either of them infallible? On another occasion Greenwald insisted "That story about the Russian consulate was fabricated; it never happened." Yet just days later Putin admitted on TV that "Mr. Snowden first appeared in Hong Kong and met with our diplomatic representatives" proving that what was "fabricated" was Greenwald's (and Anatoly Kucherena's) claim about the Kommersant story, not the Kommersant story reporting Snowden's presence at the Russian consulate. As for Gellman, Gellman says Snowden "was literally changing planes in the Moscow airport when the United States revoked his passport. He was stuck there by that." Should what Gellman claims here be reported as fact? No, if the claim is demonstrably false, which in this case it is. The U.S. revoked his passport BEFORE he left Hong Kong and NOT while "literally changing planes" in Moscow. Sources like the LA Times unequivocally say "before" and other sources are quite clear that the passport was revoked on Saturday June 22 while Snowden did not leave Hong Kong until June 23. Legal experts say the absence of a valid passport can be overlooked if an airline and a jurisdiction decide to do so. The Washington Post is quite clear that Hong Kong/China did this with respect to Snowden. Even if Snowden left Hong Kong because he held an asylum document issued by Ecuador as opposed to just being let go for political reasons, that document was still valid June 24 such that he could have used it to continue onwards (if there was ever an intention to, subsequent remarks by Assange suggest that the Ecuador doc was never intended to get him to Ecuador). It's also not true that we was stranded at the airport according to legal experts, who say there is no legal distinction between an airport and the rest of a country. Finally, no independent investigator saw Snowden in the airport, never mind stranded there for weeks. The primary source for the claim, Kucherena, has been thoroughly discredited. If you want to claim "stranded", then say according to Russian sources.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Kucherena isn't the source for "stranded." Kucherena isn't a source; see WP:RS. See the section "Russia, Kucherena, and stranded AGAIN" for a list of the sources. Your LA Times source doesn't use the word "stranded" but it doesn't say he wasn't stranded, and strongly suggests that he was, for example with the opening line, "Does anyone -- besides the United States -- want Edward Snowden?" Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, he is the source, although he is not acting entirely alone and Russian sources or Russian officials would be the broadest attribution: "He is currently holed up in the transit area of Moscow's Sheremetyevo Airport while his request for asylum is under review by Russian immigration authorities, according to Snowden's lawyer." "... a Moscow airport, where he has been holed up for over a month, Snowden’s Russian lawyer said." "Advocate Anatoly Kucherena of Russia’s Civic Chamber... quoted Snowden as saying that he is not planning to go anywhere outside of Russia. ... The lawyer added Mr Snowden is still staying at an airside hotel in Moscow’s Sheremetyevo airport." It is completely arbitrary to cite a source that happens to not have the attribution to Kucherena (or other Russian source). This issue keeps coming back to the same Wikipedia policy violation, which is picking out one's sources and calling them representative of the sources when they are not. Claiming "stranded" without attribution is NOT representative of the sources. See WP:NPOV.--Brian Dell (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPOV would apply if there were a dispute among the sources as to whether Snowden had been stranded at the airport. Since there is no such dispute, it doesn't apply here. We don't need to attribute or qualify "stranded" because we have sources that don't attribute or qualify it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 10:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

That's simply not true, unless you cherry pick your sources. What stranded him? His passport getting revoked? Then why didn't that "strand" him in Hong Kong? The claim that his passport was valid when he left Hong Kong has been confirmed to be false. What's non-neutral is denying all the doubt. From the New York Times just today: "And so began another day of bluster and hyperbole, of the misinformation, exaggerations, conspiracy theories, overheated rhetoric and, occasionally, outright lies about the political crisis in Ukraine that have emanated from the highest echelons of the Kremlin and reverberated on state-controlled Russian television, hour after hour, day after day, week after week. It is an extraordinary propaganda campaign that political analysts say reflects a new brazenness on the part of Russian officials. And in recent days, it has largely succeeded..." Substitute the topic of Snowden for Ukraine and suddenly they transform into reliable sources? Please. The Snowden being stranded story does not add up, no matter how much you try to ignore the problems with it.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Uh... isn't the NYT controlled by the Kremlin (according to Brian Dell)?TMCk (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's consider how Bloomberg News deals with this: "He was granted one year of asylum in Russia in August, after arriving in June from Hong Kong. ... Putin ... blamed Snowden’s continued presence in the country on the U.S. revoking his passport." The question here is why Wikipedia deviates from this sort of reporting to remove the attribution to a figure like Mr Putin.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Where is Snowden's hometown?

This Wikipeida article has cited an NBC News report saying "he grew up in Wilmington, N.C., but later moved to Ellicott City, Md., he told The Guardian." [2] However, The Guardian does not mention Wilmington. [3] Moreover, the Wilmington StarNews reports he lived in Wilmington for only two years, being registered to vote from 2009–2011, but "none of the neighbors recalled ever seeing Edward Snowden at the house" owned by his mother. [4] As for NBC's claim that "he grew up in Wilmington," that is contradicted by The Baltimore Sun, which reports that "when he was about 9 or 10, the family moved to Maryland," where Snowden attended Crofton Woods Elementary School, Crofton Middle School, Arundel High School, and Anne Arundel Community College until age 22. [5] There is similarly scant evidence to claim Ellicott City as Snowden's hometown. USA Today reported last June that Snowden hadn't lived in the condo his mother owned there for more than a decade—meaning circa 2004—and all told lived there for only two or three years. [6] Until we can sort this out, I shall remove the references to Wilmington as Snowden's hometown and as the place where he grew up.

Thanks. I made the same argument early on when this article was first created, but was overruled. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal of direct quote for specious reasons

Either there is a lack of basic understanding of the WP guidelines, or an editor is trying to push a POV. The motivation behind this edit, if good faith, is lost on me. petrarchan47 t c 19:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The party pushing a POV is the party insisting on including tendentious, unverified claims one wouldn't find in a more neutral encyclopedia like Britannica.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

petrarchan47, much is lost on you. Please note that in the edit immediately preceding mine, HaeB copied and pasted [7] the phrase "meant for me there was no going back" into the paragraph's first sentence, while leaving it intact in the fourth sentence. Judging this proximal redundancy to be unnecessary, and since Snowden had already made his point about Clapper's "lie," I deleted two sentences: "There's no saving an intelligence community that believes it can lie to the public and the legislators who need to be able to trust it and regulate its actions. Seeing that really meant for me there was no going back." For this transgression you have called me a "sneaky dude" and accused me of removing text "for specious reasons." I suggest a few deep breaths are in order, dear. JohnValeron (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed we only need to say "no going back" once. I'm not crazy about "three months after" because it smells a bit of WP:SYNTH. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Kendall-K1, I welcome your perspective. The article recounts Snowden's initial outreach to Greenwald in the second sentence of subsection 2.1 Release of NSA documents. DNI Clapper is not mentioned until the next-to-last paragraph in subsection 2.4 Motivations—some 2,729 words later. At that point in a complex narrative brimming with dates and details, does it not serve the reader to contextualize Snowden's "breaking point" by recalling that Clapper's "lie" came three months after Snowden first sought to share thousands of NSA documents with Greenwald? WP:SYNTH instructs us, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." I do not believe that the relative juxtaposition of "breaking point" and "three months after" implies a conclusion. It is factual information, properly sourced to The New York Times, provided for the reader's awareness. It should not be suppressed. JohnValeron (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess you're right. I have changed it to "two months before the initial articles based on the leaked documents were published," as the initial publication is more of a milestone. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that in this context the initial publication is more of a milestone. If you insist on including that—and incidentally it was closer to three months, not two—then we ought to have both. Accordingly, I've restored "three months after" while leaving your "two months before" intact. JohnValeron (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

More of a milestone in the sense that the initial publication is when Snowden was most in the news, so it makes a better reference point in the mind of the reader. No one was even aware of his contact with Greenwald at the time. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Awards and Prizes

Can we just consolidate all these in one section and cut them back a bit? When there was just one or two it made sense to have a section and quote for each one, but now it just seems like too much. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

When you say "cut them back a bit," do you mean reduce the number of words describing each honor, or removing some awards & prizes altogether? I'd agree that the longest subsections—Rector of the University of Glasgow & Alternative Christmas Message—would be better without the quotations from Chairman Snowden. But I'd balk at selectively eliminating entire subsections, since they all seem equally unmeritorious. JohnValeron (talk) 00:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I would start by cutting each award (all of them, not selectively) back to one or two sentences and putting them all in the "Recognition" section. I gather you wouldn't be opposed if I did that? Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether John Valerion finds these meritorious awards. If you want to cut these sections back due to the length of this article, please move the present section to one of the spinoff articles to preserve the information, which has been considered perfectly acceptable on WP until just now, so I don't expect it violates any guidelines. petrarchan47 t c 01:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a sensible solution. Move the entire subsection 6.2 Recognition to a new subsection 3.2 in Commentary on Edward Snowden's disclosure, leaving a one-paragraph summary of the various awards as 6.2 Recognition in the main article. That's essentially what we did with subsection 6.1.2.3 Public opinion polls, which became subsection 3.1 Public opinion polls in Commentary on Edward Snowden's disclosure. JohnValeron (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Update: to illustrate, I have copied the entire subsection 6.2 Recognition to a new subsection 3.2 in Commentary on Edward Snowden's disclosure and reformatted as a bulleted list to match the immediately preceding subsection 3.1 Public opinion polls, leaving the existing subsection 6.2 Recognition in the main article undisturbed. JohnValeron (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Update 2: to further illustrate, I have distilled the main article's section 6.2 Recognition to one-sentence descriptions of each award, per foregoing discussion, in conjunction with moving full list to Commentary on Edward Snowden's disclosure. JohnValeron (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

What was the reason for cutting two images and so much text? The current version is horrible. Why is the goal to squish all that information about his accolades into 2 paragraphs, again??? petrarchan47 t c 02:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I like the current version. What's wrong with it? Compare, for example, the Awards section of Bill Clinton. The article is too long, and the material isn't gone, just moved. We had two photos of Snowden at Sam Adams (one is actually a video), and I see you restored one of them. I don't think we need both. I would support including the TED photo, just because (as you know) I think we need more photos, but I don't feel strongly about this. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted to the way it was before. The thing is, these are accolades, so to remove them from this article is very POV - unless an attempt is made to reduce *every* section. What if I only moved criticism of Snowden to another page, and reduced it all to 2 paragraphs here? See what I mean? This section is not, and never was, a source of controversy. If the page is too long, this is the first I've heard of it. Why not just let things be peaceful here for awhile? If there are sections which need to be trimmed, let's talk about that. If the article is too long, show the guideline to support that and we can begin to discuss what should be trimmed, then do it in a decent way, not a hack job with 20 commas per sentence. petrarchan47 t c 02:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

There seemed to be a great deal of reliably sourced content removed, although I don't prefer any of the two versions. -A1candidate (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Does that include my recent cuts? I scaled back some of the excessive quotations, but don't feel as if anything novel was removed (what was removed was said elsewhere already, in other ways). See what you think of the current version. petrarchan47 t c 03:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

No, those quotations are not necessary and we should provide such background information in prose form. As for the sub-headings, it may be better for us to highlight the notable ones (e.g. Time magazine) and merge the non-notable ones (e.g. Business Insider). -A1candidate (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I've highlighted Time, but not sure what you mean by 'merge' non-notables - what would that look like? petrarchan47 t c 10:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I thought we had talked about it. This article is way too long, and the Awards seem like a good place to start cutting. Again, please take a look at Bill Clinton, or any recent US President or other public figure. Even Mother Teresa has a shorter Awards section. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)2

If something needs to be trimmed, that would be first and foremost the unnecessary travel details in the lede. We could then merge the sub-headings for the other parts of the article. -A1candidate (talk) 03:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The weird travel details are the result of editors not allowing us to quote RS, which states it very succinctly and simply. I have repeated myself too many times here, I'm sure everyone is aware of what RS says. I intend to start an RfC to clear this up once and for all. I would be happy to add to the Lede the short, well-cited version of his travels. It is one sentence or so. However I have no reason to believe doing so won't start an edit war again. The reason I favor an RfC is that this article is way out of alignment now with what reliable sources say (again, the result of an edit war). Thoughts? petrarchan47 t c 03:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

After so many months of talk page discussions, an RfC would be a good way to settle it for once -A1candidate (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

A1candidate, by "unnecessary travel details in the lede," I presume you mean the 2nd paragraph—145 words in its entirety. Obviously that would not significantly reduce the size of this article, which presently runs to 15,729 words. Also, please explain what you mean by "We could then merge the sub-headings for the other parts of the article." I don't understand. Which subheadings do you have in mind? JohnValeron (talk) 04:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

We can't just chop off words without paying attention to the structure of the article. Some of the sub-headings under Russia, Temporary asylum in Russia, United States and Recognition do not seem to be necesary.-A1candidate (talk)

A1candidate, how would eliminating the sub-headings under Russia, Temporary asylum in Russia, United States and Recognition reduce the size of this 15,729-word article? Or are you talking about deleting those subsections altogether? JohnValeron (talk) 04:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

As I've already mentioned in my previous posts, a merge is better than a complete removal -A1candidate (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

A1candidate, I'm sorry I missed your previous posts, but perhaps the confusion here is your use of the word "sub-heading." To me, a subheading is just that—a heading, the title that goes above a section of text. The subheading is not the text itself. So when you talk about eliminating subheadings, I naturally don't see how that could appreciably reduce the size of this article. However, if you mean the text of the subsection that follows under a subheading, then obviously that could have the desired effect. I hope you will clear up this misunderstanding. And, please, can't you be specific? Are you talking about rewriting this entire article? I wish you would precisely identify what portions of the text you consider expendable. JohnValeron (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

John, the reason we moved the Public Opinion Polls to a spin off article last summer was to trim this one. Why did you dig it out and bring it back here, only to then complain that this article is too long? petrarchan47 t c 10:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I've moved it back. petrarchan47 t c 10:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Petrarchan47tc, in your zeal to revert my every edit, you have blinded yourself to reality. Your preceding account is false. Here is what actually happened.

5 April 2014

03:40 – I added subsection 6.1.2.3 "Public Opinion Surveys" to main article.
05:37 – Petrarchan47tc added section "Public opinion polls needs to be condensed" to this Talk page, and wrote: "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."
07:11 – Petrarchan47 removed subsection 6.1.2.3 "Public Opinion Surveys" from the main article, and wrote in the edit summary: "Sorry, please don't replce [sic] this information until it's bite-sized. Public opinion polls don't warrant this much space and the list format looks ridiculous."
07:21 – Petrarchan47 pasted subsection 6.1.2.3 "Public Opinion Surveys" into Commentary on Edward Snowden's disclosure and wrote in the edit summary: "Moved from the already long Snowden article."
21:07 – I added to the main article a completely revised subsection 6.1.2.3 "Public Opinion Surveys" in summary form, reduced to four paragraphs.

6 April 2014

22:18 – Petrarchan47 commenced a series of edits ADDING to, not replacing, the new subsection 6.1.2.3 "Public Opinion Surveys."

24 April 2014

03:13 – After 17 days in which subsection 6.1.2.3 remained unchanged, Petrarchan47 updated it by adding an April 2014 UK YouGov poll.
10:10 – Petrarchan47 peremptorily moved the entire subsection 6.1.2.3 to Commentary on Edward Snowden's disclosure, REPLACING the full list of reliably sourced Public Opinion Polls that had been in place therein without dispute for 19 days—ever since Petrarchan47 had originally inserted it on 5 April.

For the record, I never complained that this article is too long. Other editors did, including Petrarchan47tc, who as shown above referred on 5 April to "the already long Snowden article." Most recently, at the Talk page on 22 April, Kendall-K1 suggested that we ought to reduce the size of subsection 6.2 "Recognition," not the entire article. During the ensuing discussion, Petrarchan47tc wrote on 23 April, "If you want to cut these sections back due to the length of this article, please move the present section to one of the spinoff articles to preserve the information…." Acting accordingly, I first copied the subsection 6.2 "Recognition" to a new subsection 3.2 in Commentary on Edward Snowden's disclosure and reformatted as a bulleted list to match the immediately preceding subsection 3.1 'Public Opinion Polls." I next distilled the main article's section 6.2 "Recognition" to short descriptions of each award in summary form, reducing the subsection's size to two paragraphs. Since these edits were done expressly for purposes of illustration, I did not protest when Petrarchan47, as usual, reverted them. But I do object to this latest misrepresentation, and to the corresponding edits by Petrarchan47. JohnValeron (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

If you're not arguing that the article needs to be shorter, then I have misunderstood Kendal. If he is the only one calling for cuts, that's a relief, because I don't see the need. I never liked the idea of taking something that was already sent to a spin-off article and adding it back here, and please don't take my lack of fighting the move as a positive response. I'm just tired of fighting at this page and have sought peace over all else for the last few months. I do wish you hadn't added that section because it does make the article more susceptible to complaints about size, and random POV cuts like we saw yesterday. But whatever. petrarchan47 t c 18:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, the notion that you are a peacemaker at the Edward Snowden article or its Talk page is preposterous. You are resolutely proprietary and consistently combative. JohnValeron (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the attack, but I did not call myself a "peacemaker" - I am explaining why I didn't put up a big fight over the addition of the Public Polls section. I did not put up a fight about the stupid Putin photo, nor have I attempted to remove the Polls again. I don't think "consistently combative" can be proven. These types of statements have no place in this thread. petrarchan47 t c 01:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

How about cutting back on the material sourced to RT, for a start? "Margarita Simonyan, the editor-in-chief of Russia's English-language television network, Russia Today, posted a tweet in the wee hours of Thursday morning in which she appeared to declare Ukraine dead. The tweet, which was written in both Russian and English translates to "R.I.P. Ukraine".... The network's coverage of Russia's military action in Ukraine has earned widespread criticism, including internally. In March, RT anchor and correspondent Liz Wahl resigned during a live broadcast after claiming the network "whitewashes the actions of Putin."--Brian Dell (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

This makes no sense whatsoever. If we are writing about the Ukraine, then RT might be a questionable source. petrarchan47 t c 01:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

So if a source is notorious for making dubious claims and spreading propaganda, it's reliable if it changes the topic? There's a common thread in these two topics, namely, "whitewashes the actions of" the Kremlin.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content. Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and the context here is that Kremlin-affiliated sources have ample motivation and means to spin the Snowden story hard. Which is fine to a point, if readers know which material in this article is originating with such sources. It's the hiding of the origins of the material that I most object to. That, and the constant efforts to suppress contrary views like that of Cedric Leighton in this article.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Brian Dell, taking your cue, I have added Col. Leighton's reliably sourced remarks to subsection 6.4.1 Tech. When our Hong Kong editor wakes up, we shall no doubt see the immediate suppression of these contrary views. JohnValeron (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Who are you referring to as "our Hong Kong editor"? petrarchan47 t c 05:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to consolidate subsection 6.4 Recognition

Subsection 6.4 Recognition consists of nine sub-subsections, each numbered and occupying a separate line in the list of Contents following the article's lead.

This arrangement creates an unnecessarily overlong subsection that frankly looks like padding.

For instance, three of the nine sub-subsections consist of a single sentence, respectively, each of which essentially repeats its bolded subheading without adding anything of substance.

6.4.1 Time person of the Year Runner-up

6.4.2 Time 100 Most Influential People

6.4.7 Ridenhour Truth-Telling Prize

Two other paragraphs contain only three sentences apiece.

6.4.8 German "positive" Big Brother Award

6.4.9 New Russian journalism award named for Snowden

Altogether, including subheadings, subsection 6.4 Recognition spreads 1,047 words over a disproportionate amount of real estate.

I propose to rewrite this subsection by removing subheadings and where appropriate distilling the description of each award. Input is invited. JohnValeron (talk) 03:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Finish what you started in the section above. Do not obfuscate by starting up another project while ignoring unfinished business, please. petrarchan47 t c 03:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I liked the way you had it before you got reverted. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that this was a good suggestion and I have combined some of the very short recognition sections. Gandydancer (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

McConnell quote

Let's leave this out. It's contentious and adds nothing to understanding of the subject. It might be appropriate at McConnell's article. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia's due weight policy instructs, "Neutrality requires that each article fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Former NSA director Mike McConnell's reference to Snowden as narcissistic is reliably sourced to New York magazine. McConnell served as U.S. Director of National Intelligence during the period when Snowden was employed by the CIA, which reports to the DNI. After leaving that post, McConnell rejoined Booz Allen Hamilton to lead the firm's intelligence business, and was vice chairman throughout Snowden's brief (less than three months) tenure as a BAH employee. These high-level positions give McConnell's perspective on Snowden significant weight. Moreover, this McConnell quotation provides the only balance to an otherwise self-serving 1,074-word subsection that includes 566 of Snowden's own words (53% of the total), plus paraphrasing of his views not directly quoted and statements by his enabler Laura Poitras. By excluding a single sentence—all of 23 words—spoken by a prominent critic of Snowden's motivations, you would totally suppress a verifiable point of view that has sufficient due weight. In violation of policy, you would thus be promoting Wikipedia's unbalanced cheerleading on behalf of Edward Snowden. JohnValeron (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with John. Gandydancer (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Clarification sought: What is Reaction & what is Debate?

I am confused by the respective contents of section 6 Reaction and subsection 6.1 Debate. The section titled Reaction mentions "debate" half a dozen times. Why are those not demoted to the appropriate subsection under 6.1 Debate?

Similarly, parts of subsection 6.1.2 United States deal with Reaction, not Debate. For example:

An analysis released by the New America Foundation in January 2014 reviewed 225 terrorism cases since the September 11 attacks found that the NSA's bulk collection of phone records "has had no discernible impact on preventing acts of terrorism," and that U.S. government claims of the program's usefulness were "overblown." Officials maintained that the program was a good "insurance policy."

Why is that paragraph not promoted to section 6 Reaction? Any guidance on this point will be appreciated. JohnValeron (talk) 00:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

"Debate" is a reaction - so that whole section should be a subsection of "Reaction", and all 'debate material' can be nestled under the appropriate heading. petrarchan47 t c 01:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Truthfully, John, I've just had three edit conflicts and lost all my work because of your commitment to follow all my edits, checking them and 'fixing' them in seconds. Please chill out a bit. petrarchan47 t c 01:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Truthfully,Petrarchan47, as an editor you are a butcher. If you'd do a half-decent job I wouldn't have to correct so much. You couldn't even cite the right source, saying it was Wall Street Journal instead of Washington Post. You misspelled Ellsberg and Jesselyn. You put words within quotation marks that are not direct quotes. You attributed something to Greenwald that was actually said by Snowden. And all this within the space of four sentences! In my experience at Wikipedia, your ineptitude is singular. JohnValeron (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore the tone and rough comments. The truth is, every single thing was cited properly, and the source was the Post at the end of the paragraph. After creating the section, I read that the story was first broken by the Journal. So I changed that at the beginning to let readers know who broke the story, yet I left the rest of the context and the source for it at the end. It is true, I attributed the statement to Greenwald when Politico had not, although Greenwald has made the same statement countless times, and that fact is cited in our article already. I fixed all the perceived errors by simply changing the beginning sentence, pointing to the correct source for the text to follow, but unfortunately removing the information (cited in the ref) about which publication actually broke the story. This is not something that deserves your harsh comments, and it would be easier if you communicated on talk about the problems you're seeing rather than causing a ton of edit conflicts.

It was never OK that you threatened me with "I will from now on follow you around and check all of your edits", as you did on this talk page. That is "wiki-hounding", as evidenced by today. Misspellings are something you can be kind about, no one deserves to have their ass handed to them for misspelling a name.Certain edit habits and your attitude towards me are becoming problematic. petrarchan47 t c 02:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

petrarchan47, you are a liar. I never threatened you on this Talk page or anywhere else. I never wrote, "I will from now on follow you around and check all of your edits." What I did write on this page at 22:02, 8 April 2014 [8] was:

petrarchan47, in your edit summary at 19:25, 8 April 2014, you contend: "RS does not doubt the story we tell in Lede." Yet my edit cited an AP article that does indeed cast doubt on your partisan account. Moreover, for you to proclaim that the Associated Press is not a reliable source is preposterous—on a par with your earlier Talk absurdity: "We go with RS EVEN if/when they have it wrong…" [9] As far as I am concerned, you have zero credibility as a Wikipedia editor, and I shall henceforth independently confirm and where appropriate challenge whatever you contribute to this article.

Note that I specified this article only and said nothing about following you around and checking all of your edits. The fact that I later happened to edit the Laura Poitras page was a natural outgrowth of my interest in Snowden, and was—despite your paranoia—in no way prompted by your own interest in that page, of which I was honestly unaware when I first visited Poitras. JohnValeron (talk) 03:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I had just been editing Poitras, so you can see how one would guess that you had looked at my contribs. It doesn't, contrary to your edit summary, mean that I am paranoid. Note that you complained about a point at Poitras that could, and if your story is correct, should have led you to make similar edits at Greenwald and Gellman. But you did not (until I pointed this out). Why?

I did interpret "As far as I am concerned, you have zero credibility as a Wikipedia editor, and I shall henceforth independently confirm and where appropriate challenge whatever you contribute to this article" as a promise to be Wiki-hounding, and am seeing evidence that you are engaging in it, because these edits are accompanied by a sudden, hostile attitude from you. What you complain about regarding my edits today aren't things that usually earn one the label of a "butcher".

Further, you omit the explanation I gave about my comment: "we go to RS even when they have it wrong". I said that I am also disturbed by this, but that it is a reality given WP:RS - and I pointed you to an article about an author who could not correct the summary of his own book, since there was RS supporting the incorrect version but he was not supported by RS. The fact that you omit the context of my statement is disturbing. Also, starting out calling me a liar seems like disruptive behaviour. I'm not sure why you are so incredibly emotional about any of this, but it's getting in the way of editing, in my opinion, and not very constructive. petrarchan47 t c 03:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

In this series of edits, JohnValeron, you have now placed in Wikipedia's voice words directly copied from the source material. Please fix this. petrarchan47 t c 05:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

As you requested, I provided additional in-text attribution to The Washington Post. JohnValeron (talk) 05:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The request to avoid plagiarism does not stem from me - it's a basic rule here. To make all this fuss about how you need to follow me and "fix" my horrible edits, then to make the article far worse off by removing quotation marks, but leaving text intact, seems erratic and confusing at the very least. Coupled with the claim that my "ineptitude is singular" and that I am a "butcher" as an editor, you're going to have to do more than respond to my "request" that you not commit copyright violations.

The fact that you are purposely looking for me to make any mistake is how you misunderstood my edits yesterday, and what led to your freak out. In this edit, I corrected the original source of the story, leaving the Politico ref for support. But the paragraph was sourced and written correctly, save for the few technical errors, and although I correctly added the fact that the Journal released the story (per Politico), I did not change the source used to support the paragraph - which was the Post. You read the paragraph, and assumed I was quoting from the Journal, but failed to notice I never linked to the Journal. If you had checked the two sources I had used, you would see that everything was correctly sourced and you would not have made such a big scene. Your overreaction is disruptive, as is the name-calling.

Please also respond to the questions I've posed above, as well as letting us know who you are claiming to be "our Hong Kong editor" in the section before this one, and how you would know where said editor is located. It is disappointing that you've chosen to respond to only on one of my comments JohnValeron. It seems rude to create such drama and walk away when asked to explain. petrarchan47 t c 00:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph in question begins, "In April 2014, The Washington Post reported that some federal judges holding low-level positions had been balking at sweeping requests…." It consists of 170 words, and each of its five sentences contains an in-text attribution to the Post. At the end of the paragraph there is an inline citation to the Post. There is no copyright violation. Verbatim text incorporated from the Post is covered by the Fair Use exception under U.S. law for news reporting. JohnValeron (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I have specifically asked you to respond to the rest. They are important points. You are blatantly ignoring my pointed questions, discrediting yourself in the process.

Why was the Pulitzer attributed to Poitras problematic whilst Greenald and Gellman pages were left alone (until I pointed out the discrepancy)?
Why did you quote only half of what I said about RS, making my statement reflect the opposite of what I actually said?
Who is "our Hong Kong editor", how do you know, and why are you talking about an editor's location?

As for my editing, an important point to remember is that I originally requested that you allow me to have a bit of space, and not jump on my edits within seconds (giving me no chance to fix any mistakes). Three times I made somewhat extensive changes/fixes and ended up with an edit conflict, as you were frantically scraping through my freshly made edits. Give me a good 15 minutes before jumping all over me next time. There is a good chance I will find and fix the edits myself, JohnValeron. petrarchan47 t c 01:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

In my comment here at 03:04, 26 April 2014 [10], I quoted the most pertinent part of your statement ("We go with RS EVEN if/when they have it wrong…"), followed immediately by a link to its full, magnificent, immortal context [11]. Interested readers could readily click through to your every word. JohnValeron (talk) 02:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, without explanation, you choose to address only one segment of my 3-part question whilst ignoring the rest.

The most important part of any quotation is its context. The context was explained in the part you omitted: "My statement was not a reflection of what I do or prefer, but what the guidelines state. An example showing the absurdity of this rule is here."

Petrarchan47, you did not sign your post but I see from the edit history that it is you. My hesitation in answering your every question is easily explained. I do not respond well to badgering. JohnValeron (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any badgering on Petrarchan's part. Gandydancer (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

SEXINT

Hey! I figured some of you may want to factor this disclosure into your article: SEXINT. There is also a source in that article from Snowden about the NSA spying on Americans more than anyone, from this month, really recent. Not sure if it's on this page yet or if it's useful too. it's the one originally from the National Journal. thanks! toodles! Ogma the Scholar (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Strange addition - needs work

Russian authorities

After Snowden appeared in Russia - the whole russian part of global Internet or Runet started to feel the most oppressing time in it’s history from the russian high level authorities with the first ever signs of stop in development as industry, including the public words from president of Russia Vladimir Putin that “Internet is the project of CIA”^[1], the many new internet-laws of simplified blocking the whole IP addresses with all their resources to local view by special procedures outside of the court^[2], new restrictions for bloggers^[3] and closing of numerous russian internet mass media (Grani, Rosbalt agency and etc.)^[4], changing the head and founder of most popular local social net “Vkontakte" with forcing to emigration^[5], house arrest of local anti-corruption activist Alexei Navalny with full ban of his personal blog in Russia to access and court restriction to make any posts online.^[6] Many local internet-laws which is now actively developing in local parliament house contains such ideas like forcing all local internet-service providers to save all users traffic data for 6 months, new restrictions for online money transfers with full ban of anonymous payments for more than 1000 rubles per day and even the voice from one senator to cut off Russia connection with global net and other countries with building it’s own only local closed net in borders of country.^[7]^[8]^[9]

This addition looks to need help from a native English speaker, and someone familiar with the content. It might need to be condensed a bit, too. It was placed in the "Snowden Effect" section, which contains only sources using the term "Snowden Effect". So I'm not sure where the above best fits, possibly under "Reactions"? petrarchan47 t c 07:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree with (perhaps) the Reactions section. It is a going to be quite a task! Have you had a chance to read all of the sources yet? Gandydancer (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Strongly disagree that such information was fully removed from the main article (where's not even a word about such "vast" changes in Russia).
Snowden’s effect on Russia is completely opposite than most people thinks - russian people losing the liberties, rights and businesses in Internet every day by political reasons comparing to the earlier time before Putin wasn't so paranoid about NSA spying. 1)By some russian journalists Putin after Snowden revelations was so shocked that he now declined to use any electronics to work or discuss the important things (only russian sources). 2) Ironically when Snowden is traitor for USA government, Putin publicly announced that everyone in the Russia who criticise or disagree with his politics is “national traitors” (yes, the slogan which was originally invented and used by Adolf Hitler) and it’s already the second time when on the main street of Moscow Novyi Arbat (like Times Square) someone hang the big banner with faces of famous people in pop-culture (who criticized Putin) with the big signature “traitors” - all without any consequences by the law. (many global news sources about that) 3) Every organization which gets even a penny from foreign people by the law now must register the label “foreign agent” and always use it in addition to their main title, this is relating to all organizations including charities. Very big financial fines or closure by the court if disagree. (many global news sources)
The latest info - was approved the law which requires all foreign internet companies (including Google, Microsoft Skype, etc.) to have only local servers located in Russia for their services in Russia with possibility to cut off completely or making the fines to all foreign corporations which won't cooperate with official russian authorities - law will take effect starting the 1st august of 2014.Westsomething (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The famous scandal with biggest russian internet news aggregation agency Lenta.ru, where all editorial quit in protest. Numerous cases of fired journalists because of their personal posts in social nets with critics of current stance on Ukraine conflict or Putin. (do you have anyone fired in USA because tweet about Afghanistan? This is completely new things in Russia from the soviet times.)Westsomething (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Westsomething, I think you misunderstand why the section was removed. I believe that it is important that you brought this information into the article and your English is certainly good enough that your wording is completely understandable, but it really does need quite a bit of polishing and probably needs to be condensed somewhat. Work with the other editors here and we can come up with something that we will all be satisfied with. Gandydancer (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Westsomething, I sympathize with your desire to recount the troubling story of recent developments in Russia relating to the Internet. It is wrong that your reverted contribution was shunted onto this Talk page under the pejorative heading "Strange addition." However, of the nine sources you cited, only one mentions Snowden. The Guardian asserts, "The idea of breaking up the internet has gained ground in Germany, Brazil and elsewhere round the world in the light of the revelations by whistleblower Edward Snowden about the extent to which the US National Security Agency has infiltrated Facebook, Skype and other social media. Snowden's critics say that an unintended consequence of his revelations has been to undermine the global nature of the web as well as playing into the hands of dictators."

The Guardian does not name Putin as one such dictator. Although The Guardian contends, "Putin gave his clearest signal yet that he aims to break up the global nature of the internet when he branded the network a 'CIA project,'" The Guardian does not directly connect Putin's remarks with Snowden.

Westsomething, you write, "After Snowden appeared in Russia - the whole Russian part of global Internet started to feel the most oppressing time in its history from the Russian high level authorities." Yet I remind you, correlation does not imply causation. You and I may believe it's obvious that Snowden's presence prompted the Russian crackdown, but Wikipedia requires us to cite reliable sources to substantiate that claim. So far, you have not done so. JohnValeron (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your summary John. I haven't had time to read any of the references yet and now it is a little more clear to me. I agree re the heading--perhaps Petrarchan may want to change it to "Recent addition" or something like that. Gandydancer (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

More edit warring over Snowden being stuck/stranded

When will we be done with this edit war? As I explained in the edit summaries today, if RS isn't questioning the story, and since ample sources say he was stuck (most use the word "stranded", but that word caused 4 months of talk page hell, so...) we should have no problem saying it here. I used CBS news today since the last source troubled Valerion. It says: Snowden had been stuck inside the transit zone of the airport since he arrived June 23. He could not enter Russia because he did not have a Russian visa and he could not travel to safe haven opportunities in Latin America because the United States had canceled his passport. from ABC. petrarchan47 t c 19:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

(After more edit warring) The Lede is a condensed version of the body, which should represent the balance of RS on the topic. There is no wide array of sources questioning the claims we've got in the Lede, which I quoted from the ABC source above so there would be no problems. The UN blurb is already in the body. It does not warrant mention in the Lede. petrarchan47 t c 19:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

RS are most certainly questioning the story. You just don't like those RS and have been removing them. Your preferred version of the lede does NOT reflect the body of the article because when this comes up in the body of the article context is given and who is making the claim is also identified.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

No, you don't get to just state that. I have left lists of RS saying exactly what we claim in the Lede - even Dr F has told you that you have no case as you are arguing against stacks of articles using the very language we do. petrarchan47 t c 20:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do get to point out everything you are ignoring in order to push your bogus narrative. You still have yet to respond to that as opposed to just repeating your demand that we only look at the sources you prefer (sources that all ultimately rely on either the Kremlin or a Snowden partisan).--Brian Dell (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

No, you need to bring articles which clearly state your position. I have done that repeatedly. What did your buddy Dr F say? "There is consensus that "stranded" is reliably sourced and appropriate for the lead." and "When you're disputing an account made by dozens and dozens or reputable news sources, you've got to start asking yourself, are you trying to build an encyclopedia or are you trying to promote a fringe conspiracy theory instead?" petrarchan47 t c 06:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

petrarchan47, in your edit summary at 19:25, 8 April 2014, you contend: "RS does not doubt the story we tell in Lede." Yet my edit cited an AP article that does indeed cast doubt on your partisan account. Moreover, for you to proclaim that the Associated Press is not a reliable source is preposterous—on a par with your earlier Talk absurdity: "We go with RS EVEN if/when they have it wrong…" As far as I am concerned, you have zero credibility as a Wikipedia editor, and I shall henceforth independently confirm and where appropriate challenge whatever you contribute to this article. JohnValeron (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

My statement was not a reflection of what I do or prefer, but what the guidelines state. An example showing the absurdity of this rule is here. It's funny that you call my direct quote from ABC news "my partisan account". You're a silly one, I'll grant you that. petrarchan47 t c 05:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

JohnValeron The preponderance of RS supports exactly what we had in the Lede at the time:

"The United States federal government charged Snowden with espionage and revoked his passport. On June 23, Snowden flew to Moscow's Sheremetyevo International Airport, where he intended to change planes, apparently for Latin America. He was then stuck in the transit zone for 39 days; according to ABC news, he "could not enter Russia because he did not have a Russian visa and he could not travel to safe haven opportunities in Latin America because the United States had canceled his passport".[4] On August 1, Russian authorities granted him a one-year temporary renewable asylum."

I have shown that to be the case many times, starting here. Our current SYNTH version of this story in the Lede cannot be found, as we have it presented, anywhere in reliable sources. I'd like to point out that what you call 'my partisan account' is actually the account told by RS. petrarchan47 t c 03:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

And for the above reasons, as well as the fact that Greenwald has recently stated this same fact in media numerous times, and has not been refuted in the slightest, I am re-adding this version and removing the edit-warred OR/SYNTH version. What needs to be considered is that in this case, what is contained in reliable sources has been edit-warred into oblivion; what these sources state runs contrary to a main anti-Snowden talking point. I would argue that this has been a contributing factor in the past 5 months of continued warring. petrarchan47 t c 22:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Russian journalism prize a hoax?

We have Ben Wizner saying that this prize is a hoax. I would rather see some international coverage before I feel confident enough to re-add this to the article, and so far have not found any. I've removed it for now. petrarchan47 t c 01:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the New Russian Journalism Award section, with its reliably sourced text intact, supplemented by a reliably sourced report of the controversy. Since it makes claims about third parties, Ben Wizner's tweet is not a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Readers deserve to know about this controversy, just as readers deserve to know ALL SIDES (not just those favorable to Snowden) in this Wikipedia biography of an exceedingly controversial living person. Please stop trying to suppress reliably sourced information merely because it irks you. JohnValeron (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Please stop issuing motives to my actions. Why would I be irked by Snowden having a journalism award named after him? Ridiculous. I don't understand why we should have a section when only one Russian media source supports it, whilst other sources are saying Snowden knows nothing of it. petrarchan47 t c 08:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

It would be good to have better coverage but unless Snowden speaks out it seems that there won't be anything else. I added a second source for the tweet. The award section is not something that I would have added, but I can live with including it. Gandydancer (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

For the record, John Valeron argues that this deserves a large paragraph in the awards section, even with the claim it is a hoax and lack of any secondary source. I don't think it warrants inclusion in the article at all, to be honest. Kind of a non-event, imo. petrarchan47 t c 01:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I added a second source. Besides The Moscow Times report, we now have an interview published by RIA Novosti, one of Russia's largest news agencies. These are both reliable sources. And at 107 words, this is not a "large" paragraph. JohnValeron (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It is, considering it's pure fluff and unsubstantiated by any international media. It has no business taking up any space in the article. But my opinion as an editor means nothing to you, as you have very clearly revealed, in addition to the fact that you've admitted to having a POV in relation to the subject and this article, so I shall no longer waste my time interacting with you. petrarchan47 t c 22:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

"he could not travel to safe haven opportunities in Latin America because the United States had canceled his passport"

Experts in refugee law say this is not true. He is not precluded from traveling without a passport if the country he is traveling through allows it and/or issues him a temporary travel document. Editors have complained about having blaming the U.S. attributed to Russian sources or someone connected to Snowden, saying attribution should not be used, yet attribution to ABC News is fine? If attribution is used, then proper attribution should be used, with attribution to the sources responsible for originating the claim.--Brian Dell (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted your article edit - please get agreement from the group before replacing. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The text I have quoted needs group agreement before it is used. The source I have substituted notes it and then promptly observes that "There are several reasons to question that claim". There has been an ongoing effort to suppress that second element (the reasons to be skeptical) despite all the RS for it. --Brian Dell (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there has been an ongoing effort by certain editors of this article to suppress any information, no matter how reliably sourced, that runs counter to the prevailing pro-Snowden narrative advanced by Glenn Greenwald and others with vested interests—both economic (selling books, in Greenwald's case) and ideological (i.e., anti-Americanism). Wikipedia should not be a platform for the Hagiography of Edward Snowden. JohnValeron (talk) 00:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

No one is trying to suppress it, these facts have been in the body of the article all along. But they have been edit warred into the Lede in a way at violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. "Reasons to question" is a personal opinion of someone who calls whistleblowers conspiracy theorists. I will discuss it more in a RfC. petrarchan47 t c 08:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

"Reasons to question" is a quote from an news article published by Business Insider. If it is opinion, "he could not travel to safe haven opportunities in Latin America because the United States had canceled his passport" is also opinion. Whether ABC News and Business Insider are both reporting facts or both reporting opinion, it hardly matters if both are given: we simply report what the RS say. You, however, have ferociously objected to reporting both. You have continually and repeatedly deleted everything that does not advance the one-sided version you insist on trying to mislead the reader with. An example would be your insistence on quoting the LA Times when it suits you but then suddenly having a problem with quoting the LA Times when it says "The United States canceled Snowden's passport before he left Hong Kong on a flight to Moscow" because that chronology contradicts the chronology claimed by Snowden and friends. If I were you, trying to suppress material, I would quote the The Australian Financial Review, "It was Russia’s consulate in which Snowden hid on his final two nights in Hong Kong, and Russia that has offered him sanctuary ever since" and insist that that quote go into the lede without acknowledging the fact that some people affiliated with Snowden deny that Snowden had contact with Russian diplomats in Hong Kong. But I'm not you, as I would like readers to hear both sides.--Brian Dell (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

As for the "whistleblowers" stuff, I note that the party who shares your perspective on this, Sibel Edmonds, thinks Greenwald is a corporate sell out. To the point that she's suspicious of Snowden's bona fides as a whistleblower because he worked with Greenwald. Well, Edmonds probably need not worry, since Wikileaks, which recently got into a purity test back-and-forth with Greenwald on Twitter over revealing Afghanistan as a target country for the NSA, apparently has Snowden's material too. The Appelbaum/Harrison/Assange team wouldn't have docs indicating Afghanistan that were given to them by Greenwald. They accordingly must have got it directly from Snowden. This isn't the first time we've seen new material from this gang. A headline from last December was Appelbaum's Latest NSA Revelations From The Edward Snowden Documents, indicating Appelbaum has had access to the trove for a while.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Snowden in the electric chair - tasteless image

I have twice removed an image added to this BLP depicting Snowden in the electric chair. I have asked the editor to seek consensus here before adding it again. IMO, this should be the last image anyone would think to add to a BLP. It adds nothing beneficial to this article. It is an ugly attack on the subject. petrarchan47 t c 02:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

You could also view it as an ugly attack on Obama. Either way I agree it should go. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The Second Paragraph

I've said this before. The second paragraph should only say what actually happened. There is some controvery over where he was headed and whether the revoked passport prevented him from leaving Moscow. These issues should be covered in the body of the article. Trying to cover these issues in the lead is a hopeless endeavor. The second paragraph should not speculate on where he was headed but didn't actually get to, or why he didn't leave Moscow. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. It's a sensible solution for a knotty problem: The second paragraph should only say what actually happened.

In May 2013, Snowden flew from Hawaii to Hong Kong, where he met with journalists Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras and released numerous NSA documents to them. On June 9, The Guardian revealed his identity at his request.^[10] On June 21, the U.S. Department of Justice unsealed criminal charges that had been filed on June 14 accusing Snowden of espionage,^[11] and on June 22 the U.S. Department of State revoked his passport. On June 23 Snowden flew to Moscow's Sheremetyevo International Airport. Snowden remained stranded in the airport transit zone for 39 days, during which time he applied for asylum in 21 countries. On August 1, Russian authorities granted him a one-year temporary renewable asylum.

That is Kendall-K1's revision as of 21:58, 24 May 2014, and it's perfect. JohnValeron (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Putin photo

Just curious why the Putin photo was removed. The change log says, "rmvd Putin img as encyclopedic," but I would think that if it's "encyclopedic" that would be a reason to retain it, not remove it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 05:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I have removed it again (and I apologize that my edit summary got lost...). I really have no idea why anyone would think that a Putin photo is appropriate for this article. Gandydancer (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I have restored it again. A Putin photo is as appropriate for this article as are photos of Anne Arundel Community College; Geneva, Switzerland; Protesters at a one-off rally in Hong Kong; Lawyers and judges protesting in Germany; and a Metro bus ad in DC. Unlike Arundel College, Geneva, Hong Kong protesters, German protestors, and a Metro bus, President Putin is a central character in the Snowden saga and deserves a place of prominence, including his (very handsome) photograph. JohnValeron (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I've been trying to find photos to brighten up this otherwise drab article. I wouldn't have any problem with someone removing the community college photo, which is really just fluff. But Putin is central to the story. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

My edit summary was a typo, I meant to write UNencyclopedic, because it adds no information as Putin is recognizable as Obama (and we don't have or need a picture of POTUS either). petrarchan47 t c 21:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I was just informed that there is support on talk for the addition of the Putin photo - i don't see it. I am removing it again as it just doesn't make sense. Based on these arguments, you could also say that the head of the NSA and Obama should have their photos added here. petrarchan47 t c 23:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

petrarchan47, both Kendall-K1 and I support including the Putin photo. You and Gandydancer oppose. I'm no math whiz, but that pretty much seems like a draw, which certainly doesn't justify your customary edit warring over this. The photo should stand until there is a genuine consensus to remove it. Meanwhile, please let me point out that the article includes photos of three separate individuals: Snowden (mentioned 361 times), Greenwald (24 times) and Poitras (17 times). Putin is mentioned 16 times—only once less than Poitras, showing just how central he is to this saga. Obama is mentioned 20 times, so you'd be entirely justified in adding his photo. However, since NSA Director Keith Alexander is mentioned only 3 times, including his photo would be unwarranted. JohnValeron (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

John, arguments are not counted, they are judged by their validity. If you have 11 idiotic statements, they will not trump the one or two sane voices in the community (not referring to the editors here). Explain to me why you would insist on including a photo of one of the most recognizable, well-known humans on earth, who is merely peripherally related to the subject, no more so than Obama? Shall we add a giant image of the POTUS and just plaster the page with silliness? petrarchan47 t c 00:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

petrarchan47, I thought we were talking about consensus, which most certainly is a matter of enumeration. And in any case, you are not entitled to be sole and final judge of my arguments' validity, nor are you entitled to attack others' opinions as "idiotic" and posit yourself among "the one or two sane voices in the community." Contrary to your repeated protestations, the photo of President Putin is not gigantic. It is dignified and proportionately sized. As for his being recognizable, please cite the Wikipedia policy that prohibits inclusion of a photo of someone simply because he is famous. JohnValeron (talk) 01:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm at a complete loss trying to understand the objection to Putin's photo. If we had too many photos (which we don't) I would support removing some, but I'd start with Poitras, whose role is similar to Greenwald's. I have no objection to adding Obama's photo although he seems (to me) less relevant than Putin. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

As we have seen over the past two days—and as evidenced by the most recent edits to the article—Putin's role in the Snowden saga is becoming more not less central with each passing day. The Russian president is a far more important character in this play than is Laura Poitras. To exclude his photo merely because he's more recognizable than Greenwald or Poitras is unsupportable. JohnValeron (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Since Obama is mentioned more times than Putin is, it makes no sense to include a photo of Putin but not of Obama. Since everyone knows what both Putin and Obama look like, there is no point in including a picture of either. Including a picture of Putin just makes Wikipedia look like a mediocre children's encyclopedia. – Herzen (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, portraits of both leaders are in the article (at least in the current version). Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Excellent point Herzen. I have again removed the photo--I never did understand why anyone would have thought it appropriate. Gandydancer (talk) 11:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

"Obama" appears 21 times in the article. "Putin" appears 23 times. JohnValeron (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

In other words about the same number of times. And yet, I'm sure that we all agree that an Obama photo would not be appropriate. Gandydancer (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

You evidently haven't glanced at the article lately. There's a photo of Obama in Section 6.1. JohnValeron (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

John, above you said, " A Putin photo is as appropriate for this article as are photos of Anne Arundel Community College; Geneva, Switzerland; Protesters at a one-off rally in Hong Kong; Lawyers and judges protesting in Germany; and a Metro bus ad in DC." As experienced editors, I think that we both know that some of our Wikipedia photos are just added in an attempt to break up the text and/or used because they are the best we can come up with when we check out the Commons. But IMO adding a Putin photo to a bio, and certainly in this case, adds a sort of suggestion of an important political connection between the two people. In my reading of the article, no such connection exists, at least to the point that a photo is needed. Gandydancer (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

If you can read this article and conclude there's no important political connection between Snowden and Putin, you are ignoring reality. Putin is a central character in the Snowden saga—far more significant than Obama. JohnValeron (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Putin's role is not so prominent as to need a photo in this article. BTW, it would help if you'd state your position without suggesting that if I don't agree I must be nuts. Gandydancer (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I did not state nor did I mean to imply that you are nuts. In my observation, many pro-Snowden partisans are rational but willfully ignore reality in order to advance their anti-American agenda without risking cognitive dissonance. JohnValeron (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

When you claim that Putin is "far more significant" in the "Snowden saga", you are in effect taking a political position. (Not that I, unlike many WP editors, think that there's anything wrong with doing that in a Talk page. Some editing issues are inherently political.) I could say that Snowden is Obama's creation, because if Obama had rolled back the changes that George Bush made to the United States government following 9/11, Snowden may have had little reason to become a whistleblower. The article itself says this! Snowden "decided to wait because he 'believed in Obama's promises.' He was later disappointed that Obama 'continued with the policies of his predecessor.'" Hence, if Obama had not continued Bush's policies, there would have been no "Snowden saga". Thus, Obama is infinitely more significant to Snowden's story than Putin is.

At present, there is neither a photo of Putin nor of Obama. I hope it stays that way. – Herzen (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm against including the Putin photo. Putin's role in Snowden's biography is simply too minor. There are also neutrality/BLP issues with the suggestion that Snowden is a Russian spy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Girlfriend's name

A few days ago I added Snowden's girlfriend's name to the article, since it is relevant information that was mentioned in numerous reliable news sources. Kendall-K1 reverted my edit, saying "revert per BLP" [12]. Can you please clarify exactly which part of the lengthy WP:BLP policy you are citing and how it applies in this case? --Albany NY (talk) 03:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

We've discussed this before and concluded her name should not be included. I believe the relevant policies include WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPNAME. You can search the talk page archives for the previous discussion. We can revisit this question if you like but I think we should reach consensus before including her name. I still think it should be left out, as it adds nothing to understanding the subject. Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

(comment removed per WP:BLPREMOVE Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC))

Valid reasoning but skip the editorializing please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Subsection 3.2 Russia – Glaring example of suppression of proper balance to enforce one-sided narrative favorable to Snowden

His Russian lawyer Kucherena contends that shortly after Snowden left Hong Kong the U.S. declared his passport was void. Kucherena claims there is documentary evidence to confirm this. Yet the supporting citation—Angela Shunina (September 6, 2013), "Snowden 'asked Russian diplomats in Hong Kong for help' – Putin," Russia Beyond the Headlines—fails to mention such documentary evidence. Indeed, even to find Kucherena's claim, one must Google, which turns up "Snowden is in 'safe place' waiting for his father to discuss future" at ITAR-TASS, which Wikipedia notes "has been accused of bias and dissemination of Russian state-sanctioned propaganda on multiple occasions." ITAR-TASS at least reveals that Kucherena's "documentary evidence" merely confirms that the U.S. had cancelled Snowden's passport—not that it had done so "shortly after Snowden left Hong Kong."

Next Barton Gellman contends that Snowden "was literally changing planes in the Moscow airport when the U.S. revoked his passport."

Then Glenn Greenwald claims that Snowden's passport was revoked midair, "before he arrived in Moscow."

I remind you that each of these three men—Kucherena, Gellman, and Greenwald—has a vested interest in portraying Snowden in the most heroic light. Kucherena is (besides being an FSB insider) literally on Snowden's payroll. Gellman and Greenwald have immeasurably enhanced their careers as adversarial journalists by championing Snowden.

So what happens when I insert a single sentence to counterbalance this corrupt and one-sided account?

On June 23, 2013, a U.S. official said that Snowden's passport was annulled before he left Hong Kong,^[12] and in his July 2013 letter to the Russian Minister of Justice, U.S. Attorney General Holder confirmed that Snowden's passport was revoked on June 22, 2013.^[13]

Why, it gets deleted, of course! There is simply no room for balance in Wikipedia's hagiography of Edward Snowden. JohnValeron (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

We already said that in the previous section, but I agree it bears repeating in the context of the Kucherena-Gellman-Greenwald quotes. I don't think it needs to be said twice. I wonder if it might make sense to consolidate the passport discussion at the end of the Hong Kong section with the one at the end of the Russia section. I don't understand this fascination with the passport details, and would prefer to cut all of this way back. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I see now that I missed this same thing at the end of the second paragraph. Agreed we don't need to say this three times. We could move one of the other mentions to the end of this section if that seems to make sense. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Why passport details matter

Kendall-K1 comments above, "I don't understand this fascination with the passport details, and would prefer to cut all of this way back." The principal dispute about Snowden's passport is whether it was revoked before or after he left Hong Kong. On July 26, 2013, the BBC reported that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder had contacted Russian officials about Snowden, and in its report the BBC embedded a link to Holder's letter to the Russian minister of justice, in which Holder states for the record that Snowden's passport was revoked on June 22, 2013.

To counter this, Wikipedia's pro-Snowden editors have presented numerous unsubstantiated claims that Snowden's passport was revoked after he left Hong Kong on June 23—all asserted by individuals with a vested interest in portraying Snowden as a martyr in order to enhance their own careers as lawyers or crusading journalists. Snowden's Russian lawyer, Kucherena, says the U.S. voided Snowden's passport "shortly after he had left Hong Kong." Snowden's journalistic confidante Barton Gellman says Snowden "was literally changing planes in the Moscow airport when the U.S. revoked his passport." Snowden's journalistic champion-in-chief and disburser of the leaks, Glenn Greenwald, likewise contends that Snowden's passport was revoked in midair before he arrived in Moscow. WikiLeaks' representative Sarah Harrison, who accompanied Snowden from Hong Kong to Moscow, says, "I was travelling with him on our way to Latin America when the U.S. revoked his passport."

These claims by people either directly on Snowden's payroll or otherwise beholden to him are in no instance substantiated by documentary evidence that disproves Attorney General Holder's official statement. Instead they are presented as gospel, to be accepted on faith and immune from contextual balance.

Why are Wikipedia's pro-Snowden editors given this platform to advance what are, in plain language, self-serving lies by Snowden and those who benefit from his bogus martyrdom? JohnValeron (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how it makes any difference whatsoever whether his passport was revoked before or after he left HK. If the only reason we talk about this is to further someone's agenda, then this material should all be removed. Would anyone like to tell me why this matters? Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Kendall-K1, you mention on John Valerion's talk page that you agree with him about the passport, and would like to see a less biased article. Would you please elaborate with specifics about the bias you are seeing? And what exactly it is about the passport with which you agree? As as aside, from my review of RS, any questioning of the passport story constitutes WP:FRINGE. What sources are you seeing that might support a claim of bias in the article with regard to the passport? Thanks, petrarchan47 t c 21:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Just what I said above. And I believe the article is filled with bias on both sides, which is why it's so long. I'm happy to include a discussion about the passport if it's important. I just don't think it's important. Unless there is some good reason to do otherwise, I would include a sentence about the US saying the passport was revoked on the 22d, and a part of the Snowden quote, and leave it at that. My comments on users' talk pages are intended only to bring them in to the discussion in a helpful way. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree. The article is long because the subject is complex, the story ongoing, and there are heated opinions on both sides. Snowden is being called "the most wanted man in the world", and is wanted by the most powerful country in the world. That's going to be a long article. I am asking for specifics about the bias you see. The passport and second para in the Lede will be dealt with via RfC. But as for the article as a whole, please specify your concerns (simply sprinkling accusations on the talk page isn't going to fix the perceived problem). petrarchan47 t c 06:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding the controversy here. Given the sequence of event described in the article it seems entirely possible the Snowden and his supporters did not become aware that his passport was revoked until after he left Hong Kong. The quote from the State Department suggests that State was upset with the Hong Kong authorities over this. And I don't see what big difference the timing of the revocation makes, I think not enough to support an allegation of editorial bias, so WP:AGF would seem to apply here. I'd also remind editors that our WP:BLP policy applies to talk pages, as well as articles. We should not be calling living people criminals unless they have been convicted in a court of law. --agr (talk) 23:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I've just changed the second paragraph back. I am unsure why it keeps being changed, but it is incorrect, for one thing, to claim "the journalists revealed his identity at his request". I don't know where this line came from as there is no ref given, but this isn't how RS talks about it. As I have stated, because this second paragraph dealing with Snowden's travels has been the target of edit-warring since December, I am planning to have an RfC to formalize what can be said and to end the edit war. However I haven't had time to put it together yet. petrarchan47 t c 04:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@ agr, as best as I can tell, some editors believe that Snowden has secret ties to Russia, in other words, that he is actually a Russian spy. They seem to want to show that his move to Russia was part of a master plan, rather than that he became stranded there. Gandydancer (talk) 11:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm just not getting the connection between his being a Russian spy and what date his passport was revoked on.--agr (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The history on this talk page and article is that since December a series of editors have consistently sought to make connections between Snowden and Putin/Russia with gross violations of SYNTH and OR. Check the talk archives. There has been an emphasis on anything to do with Russia, especially how Snowden ended up there, and a complete disregard for other aspects of the article, unfortunately. The passport timing has not only been an emphasis here, it's one the Whote House seems to regard as important too. I think the effort is to undermine Snowden's story and to do anything to make sure he doesn't look innocent, but rather as guilty as possible - and a connection to Russia has that effect. (Forgive the long-windedness here, but I've been dealing with this for 5 solid months.) petrarchan47 t c 20:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell we only have one editor arguing for the extended version of the second paragraph, and he hasn't given us a reason. I don't see how that constitutes a consensus. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

You oppose the second para based on the extra 2 sentences? My rationale is that this para (almost) meets WP:LEDE requirements regarding proper summary of the body. petrarchan47 t c 20:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It most definitely does not properly summarize the body because in the body we see just who it is that is making the claims, namely figures affiliated with Snowden and/or the Kremlin. You hide this in the lede by attributing to "ABC News". Also, some of the holes in the "stranded" story are pointed out in the body in the article, but the way you have the lede written, the story never has been and never could be questioned. Lately you've gone beyond what even the Snowdenistas say, concluding based on your own research that Cuba denied Snowden boarding in Moscow and adding that to the lede without even a supporting citation.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

OR about Snowden's Moscow stay

I've just removed what looks like more OR/SYNTH from Brian Dell:

Although Kucherena acknowledged that there were "many expressions of doubt about whether he is actually living in the airport transit area"^[14] he claimed that Snowden was "was stuck there the entire time in this capsule hotel."^[15] Kucherena was less insistent about the capsule hotel contention when asked by an interviewer why no reporter had encountered Snowden in the capsule hotel, however, saying "But there’s more than one hotel."^[16] [Of interest too is the use of RT here, after these comments were made bashing the media outlet as 'Russian spin']

We are editors allowed to add what RS has said, and no more. We don't get to editorialize, we don't get to string together unrelated news stories to try and make a point NOT being made already in RS. Dell is trying to cast doubt about certain aspects of the travel story - doubt is fine but it must come from RS used properly. This has to be the tenth time I've tried to explain OR/SYNTH and the need for this synthesis to take place in RS for inclusion here. I don't believe a lack of understanding is the problem, however. petrarchan47 t c 02:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The synthesis here is trying to discredit Kucherena. That's not our job. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

If the facts discredit Kucherena it's not our job to suppress those facts. Are you guys going to continue to block the inclusion of TIME magazine's observation that Kucherena has "a knack for misleading the press" as well? That Kucherena acknowledges there has been doubt about his claim is a reliably sourced fact, not "editorializing." It is also a fact that Kucherena backed off part of his "stranded" story when pressed. Readers are entitled to know. Not every use of "although" on Wikipedia is SYNTH. If one is going to be unreasonable, EVERYTHING on Wikipedia that isn't between quotes is SYNTH because the words used are not in the source. These sentences are very much related, they all concern Kucherena's claim about where Snowden was for all of July.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Petrarchan and Kendall-K1. This is fundamentally non-neutral editing and probably a BLP violation. The goal here appears to me to be to discredit Kucharena (and thereby discredit Snowden). This should not be done. It is not our purpose to discredit anyone. And even if it was, we should not be juxtaposing contradictory statements without reliable sources doing the same. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

You just complained below about an ABSENCE of juxtaposed contradictory statements! "These quotes are presented as truth without any contradictory statements" was your objection, was it not? But of course that's because the government guys are the bad guys and accordingly need to be contradicted, right? If one is quoting Kucherena, God forbid if the quote is not presented as truth and free of anything contradictory! You can call Castro a liar, a Congressman a liar, and well, no BLP sensitivities to hold back how judgmental you are, but introduce something that you deem unflattering to Kucherena, well, that's not only an affront to Kucherena's dignity, but Snowden's as well!--Brian Dell (talk) 00:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

"Havana asked Moscow not to let him on the plane"

I do not believe this is a fair summary of the article content when the article content at one point cites a Reuters story titled "Fidel Castro labels libelous report Cuba blocked Snowden travel". When the claim "Havana asked Moscow not to let him on the plane" is disputed by Fidel Castro it is disputed, is it not? Petrarchan has been busy trying to cover up how questionable this claim is by layering. For example, Petrarchan adds "According to a Reuters report..." when that Reuters report just says according to Kommersant. Indeed, the only source for the claim that Cuba asked Moscow to not allow Snowden to board is a single story in Kommersant, and Kommersant says this is just what anonymous Russian officials claimed. Several different sources have been cited here, but they all say they are just noting what that Kommersant story said. If what's in that Kommersant story deserves mention in the lede, we should also cite the element in that story that has been CONFIRMED by a state leader (Putin) instead of just citing the one element that's been REJECTED by a state leader (Castro), no? Because "Mr. Snowden first appeared in Hong Kong and met with [Russian] diplomatic representatives," to quote what Putin said in early September, was first reported in that same late August Kommersant story.

I find it remarkable how little Petrarchan is bothered by consistency. Petrarchan is keen to have Snowden's U.S. lawyer, Wizner, in this article denouncing that Kommersant story as "false", but at the same time presents something else from the same story in the article lede as undisputed fact! Kucherena also says the Kommersant story is bogus, contradicting Putin 100%. Greenwald, in turn, said on August 28 that that Kommersant story is "fabricated." But on this "Havana asked Moscow not to let him on the plane" claim, apparently Wizner, Kucherena, and Greenwald are all mistaken about the reliability of Kommersant, in Petrarchan's view. And not only that, but no less than Fidel Castro is mistaken about what his own country did or did not do!--Brian Dell (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you give a TLDR version of this please? Otherwise, can someone else here deal with BDell please? petrarchan47 t c 03:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Fidel Castro says what you wrote in this article's introduction, without any citation, about what you believe his country did, is a lie and libel. You can start by explaining why you refuse to acknowledge Castro's denial when you make your allegation.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Castro is totally unreliable about what his country did or did not do. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I have to assume here that you are not being sarcastic. Do reliable sources share your opinion that he is totally unreliable? If they do, then where are all the sources that mention the allegation, which is only reported in the August 26 Kommersant story, AFTER Castro spoke out on August 28? Not that I expect you to find this sort of argument convincing when you've previously demanded that we not look beyond what a source says (when it says "stranded") to consider context and how more recent reporting may differ, but the context here is that Cuba is getting blamed by Wikipedia to a far greater extent than the totality of sources assign that blame and it's primarily because Wikipedia (or more precisely, Petrarchan) is freezing the sources at last August 27 and ignoring Castro's clear rejection, a rejection the rest of the media is aware of. If Castro is unreliable on this in the eyes of other sources, Castro should not have been able to tamp down the "Blame Cuba" story as completely as he did. Russia Beyond the Headlines mentions it on September 6 but only incidentally; the main object of that story is to say that Kucherena's line "[Snowden] did not enter into any communication with our diplomats when he was in Hong Kong. That is his position. He has no need to lie about this," has been contradicted by Putin.--Brian Dell (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? You've been at WP for long enough to know that a head of state isn't a reliable source for anything. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Let me get this right. For months and months neither Wikipedia nor the media could conclusively figure out what was keeping Snowden in Moscow. Was it Snowden? Was it Russia? Was it the U.S.? Was it Ecuador, as Binksternet once contended? It's Cuba! Because Petrarchan just recently figured it all out! And now you are absolutely convinced Petrarchan cracked the case such that Castro is obviously lying? Why didn't you suggest Cuba before if it is so obvious? Why haven't other sources cottoned on to this "truth" and played it up? I've been around WP for a while, yes, long enough to know that an on-the-record statement by a named person, especially a named person whose position could be jeopardized if exposed as a chronic liar, is more reliable than some anonymous figure who is obviously blaming someone else just to pass the buck (in this case on to the Cubans). Evidently other sources agree with me since there's little evidence the media has taken the claim seriously since Castro said it's bogus.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

If you insist that Castro is a reliable source then frankly I think we have a competence problem. Let's move on. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

RT notes the denial and then says "it still remains unclear why the former NSA contractor, who is wanted in the US on espionage charges, did not fly to Havana." It could only remain unclear if Castro's denial was believed. If Castro is not believed, then the whole controversy is put to bed. Which raises the question why it was not put to bed long ago by the Snowden supporters by their just claiming poor Cuba was bullied by the U.S. I'll add that you can hardly believe the Kommersant story on this point and not believe it's other point, which is that Snowden was living at the Russian consulate before he left Hong Kong. Which means Kucherena and/or Snowden is a liar. In other words, your refusal to believe Castro and instead accept Kommersant leads to a BLP violation because accepting Kommersant means Snowden denying contact with Russians in Hong Kong is a lie. Isn't that right? You can't cherrypick what you like out of that Kommersant story.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I think both the Kommersant story and Castro are unreliable. Both should go. However I'm deeply disturbed by your participation in the website while clinging to the idea that a dictator is a reliable source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

If TIME magazine said somewhere that Castro misleads the press like TIME said Kucherena does, sure. Here, Castro and Kommersant cannot both be wrong. If Kommersant is wrong then Castro is right that their story is bogus. You don't think a U.S. politician like John Kerry (or some Tea Party figure) would ever lie like Fidel Castro would? Petrarchan referred to Kerry below as if what Kerry claims to be the case should be taken into consideration. That doesn't disturb you? I'm a little disturbed by how simplistic your views are. Is Castro a reliable source on the nobility of the USA? No. Is he a reliable source about whether his country's government did or did not make a particular decision? He's in a position to know, is he not? He's of course not reliable enough to not use attribution, but with attribution I fail to see why he's so unreliable we can't have a "he said, she said" between Castro and a Kommersant story that many besides Castro have attacked as unreliable. If Kommersant wasn't being cited in the lede we wouldn't need Castro.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Nick Morgan on Snowden's body language

Nick Morgan has commented on Snowden's interview with Brian Williams. "A particularly telling moment came when Brian Williams asked Snowden, 'What is your relationship with the host government?' ... "He was obviously lying," Morgan said." Wikipedia says Morgan is "an expert in non-verbal communications". What, if any, are the objections to including this?--Brian Dell (talk)

Strong BLP/NPV/notability objections. No offense but this is pretty obvious. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

How about this: "among those who say they’ve closely followed the story, 49 percent oppose Snowden’s actions and 33 percent support them." Yet another BLP violation there? Non-neutral? A notability objection?--Brian Dell (talk) 01:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Notable, but NBC isn't the only data point. You have to collect the data from other reliable sources as well, and summarize neutrally. Note that this was a poll of Americans only. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

We "have to" provide some other poll data as well, do we? Of non-Americans, you say? Any other demands?--Brian Dell (talk) 01:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, not just some other poll data, but all poll data that corroborates or contradicts the NBC poll you cited. No, we don't have to include foreigners. However if we are summarizing polls of Americans only then our text should say that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hathaway's analysis about airport transit lounges

We have discussed Hathaway's analysis before, as can be seen in Archive 4 and Archive 5. No consensus has been formed for inserting his view that airport transit lounges are legally part of the host country.

Whether Hathaway is correct in his analysis is not the point: the general practice worldwide is that airport transit lounges serve as extra-legal places of refuge. Many cases can be listed to support this notion, while none support Hathaway's analysis. I hold that Hathaway's analysis cannot be put into this article on Snowden because it is not part of general practice, nor was the Hathaway viewpoint in place in the Moscow airport during Snowden's time there. This makes Hathaway's complaint about international law an empty concern, and a triviality with regard to Snowden. Binksternet (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Hathaway's name does not appear in Archive 4. It appears twice in Archive 5, both times in favor of including his comment in the article. Please stop grandstanding about "the general practice worldwide" and "many cases [that] can be listed to support" your individual point of view, without providing a single such case or reliably sourced article to back up your sweeping claims. JohnValeron (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Hathaway's name appears in Archive 4 as a URL. Brian Dell linked to the URL to support his wish to include Hathaway's analysis.

The burden of proof is not on me to show Hathaway insignificant. Rather, the burden is on those who wish to include Hathaway, to show his viewpoint relevant and having sufficient weight. One quote in one news piece does not do this. Binksternet (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The Associated Press deemed it newsworthy and relevant to report the observations of Professor James C. Hathaway, whom Wikipedia identifies as "an eminent Canadian/American legal scholar in the field of international refugee law." To me, this carries infinitely more weight than the unsupported claims of a Wikipedia editor who self-identifies as a "live audio engineer" and likes to drink microbrews. JohnValeron (talk) 20:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree it seems trivial and should not be included per previous discussion. And I would appreciate it if you could keep your personal attacks out of this discussion. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Please enlighten me. How can quoting verbatim from an editor's own User Page be considered a personal attack? JohnValeron (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Cut it out John. Your attack was bad enough--don't make it worse. I'm sure you would not make that sort of comment among your coworkers at work. Gandydancer (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I also agree that it is too trivial to be included. Gandydancer (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm reverting Valeron's addition of Hathaway per consensus. petrarchan47 t c 02:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The Atlantic quotes Hathaway saying "Being in the transit zone is as 'being in Russia' as standing on the Kremlin steps." If Hathaway says the Russians are choosing to make a big deal about the airport transit zone because they choose to do so, say what you will but that's anything but "trivial." It means they are pretending, and Hathway uses that very word with AP, "Many nations pretend that airport transit lounges are not part of their territory, indeed not under their jurisdiction. As a matter of international law, this is completely false." If Binksternet knows what's false as a matter of international law better than Hathaway, I'd like to know what Binksternet's qualifications are to judge both the point of fact and it's importance. At least three different news organizations have quoted Hathaway as an authority with respect to Snowden. If Kucherena is a RS and an authority such that his views should be repeatedly noted in the article, Hathaway's should be as well. If you want to cut down on "Hathaway's analysis", you could render the need for correcting expert perspectives weaker by not turning to Snowden partisan after Snowden partisan for their "analysis", especially when it is pretty much the exact same as the last supporter's analysis.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted this edit (again). This article is not the place to debate international law/diplomatic convention. Gandydancer (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

In that case the article should not be referring to the airport transit zone as if it has separate status. If you are going to say it matters, it should be admitted if an internationally recognized expert says that it in fact only matters as much as the party claiming it matters wants it to matter. If the article makes a statement of fact and it is disputed, that should be noted. As the Atlantic and the Associated Press do in order to present the full story.--Brian Dell (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I have opened a RfC here. I'll add here that it is not, in fact, proven that the Russians even did what they "pretend" international law (or third parties like the U.S.) compel them to do, namely, keep Snowden trapped in the airport transit zone. It's possible he was at some dacha miles away from the airport most of the time for all that has been confirmed.--Brian Dell (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

If you're suggesting the "Russia" section should be cut back, I would agree with that. I think at this point adding to it in an attempt to achieve balance is counterproductive. Personally, I would get rid of "media speculated" and Kucherena and cut way back on or eliminate Greenwald. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Get rid of Patrick Weil going on about the Privileges or Immunities Clause as well (if "this article is not the place to debate international law" why is there a paragraph using material that only appears in a law journal?) and we'll be getting somewhere.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Weil is the subject of another talk page discussion below, so I'm not going to remove that right now. I'm tempted to tackle the rest of it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Hathaway is the subject of THIS discussion, and you don't seem to consider that any reason for hesitation with respect to removal. The fact that the one law prof is quoted at length and the other deleted is a typical example of the bias around here.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You don't get to choose which of the two discussions I participate in. But I think you have a good idea there. I will suggest we take them both out. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

SYNTH removed for review

This is likely usable info, albeit incomplete, misplaced and clumped together in violation of WP:SYNTH. petrarchan47 t c 11:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

In July 2013, Greenwald said that Snowden had additional sensitive information about the NSA he had chosen not to make public, including "very sensitive, detailed blueprints of how the NSA does what they do."^[17] A joint statement issued by the House Intelligence Committee's Republican Chairman and Ranking Democrat in January 2014 asserted that "Though press reporting to date has focused on NSA's foreign intelligence collection, much of the information stolen by Snowden is related to current U.S. military operations."^[18] A U.S. intelligence official told The Daily Beast that Snowden had fabricated the identity of more than one user who had extensive access and this allowed Snowden to take documents indicating how the U.S. coordinated its satellite coverage, potentially allowing military adversaries to better hide their assets.^[19]

What exactly is SYNTH here? We've got sentences A, B, and C here and according to your SYNTH allegation an additional, unsupported claim is being made, a claim D if you will, that goes beyond A, B, and C. Just what is that that element, D, that you object to? I will note that you cannot build a readable Wikipedia article without putting sentences together. A see a common theme here, namely, that the material taken could assist U.S. enemies, that warrants a paragraph on that topic with these sentences.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, "clumping" sentences together in a particulary way can't be synth. However it can be non-neutral by implying improper conclusions. And the individual sentences can be impermissible. In this case we have serious WP:BLP violations in the 2nd and 3rd sentences. These quotes are presented as truth without any contradictory statements. The Rogers/Ruppersberger joint statement is self-published by a couple of politicians with a stake in what happened, obviously unreliable. The Daily Beast quote is attributed to an anonymous intelligence source and should be treated with extreme caution. Ultimately these are exceptional claims and require multiple exceptional sources. (The Rogers/Ruppersberger sentence may be notable and worthy of inclusion but only in a more balanced context.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The material is not being presented as truth. It's being presented as what the people claiming it claim. Readers can draw their own conclusions. There's plenty of "contradictory statements" in the article suggesting the subject deserves applause. Greenwald doesn't have a stake in what happened? Snowden doesn't have a stake in what happened? Why do the "stakeholders" become reliable if they are on the other side? If government sources are "obviously unreliable" then readers should be able to see that as well, should they not? Why are Wikipedians substituting their judgment here in the place of the editors like the Daily Beast, who obviously believe their story solid enough to report? Didn't you used to contend we should follow what the sources say and not speculate as to what's going on behind them when assessing their reliability?--Brian Dell (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

" "clumping" sentences together in a particulary way can't be synth " - I'm afraid I have no idea what this sentence means. I think it's been clear forever that BDell555 has one particular POV with regard to the subject of this article, and has disrupted the article and talk page for far too long. With that POV, I truly believe that Brian doesn't see how the paragraph is OR/SYNTH/POV and completely inadmissible as written. Because I believe this to be a lost cause (and this is easily the tenth time I've tried to address and explain the problem with OR/SYNTH to BDell) I'm not going to pretend to patiently (re)explain things as if a neutral article was EVER the goal. petrarchan47 t c 00:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

If there's SYNTH then you should be able to answer my question, Petrarchan. What's "D"? If you can't identify anything that isn't supported by the cited sources then you are just throwing around the SYNTH charge because you find that it's nebulous nature makes it the go-to objection for stuff you don't like. Re Doc's complaint that the claims that Snowden took military material are presented "without any contradictory statements," I'll leave aside Doc's double standard about whose claims are allowed to stand unchallenged to note that maybe that's because in this case there aren't any contradictory statements available. Brian Williams invited Snowden to make a contradictory statement and Snowden declined to do so: "Snowden did not directly dispute the idea that military information was in the documents he handed over to the journalists."--Brian Dell (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Patrick Weil's comments

I've again removed Weil's claim that Snowden left Hong Kong the morning of June 22 "Hong Kong time" since this isn't a competing narratives situation where we give both. It is a matter of record that Snowden left Hong Kong between 11 AM and noon Hong Kong time on June 23, arriving in Moscow after 5 pm Moscow time that same day, June 23. Weil is simply incorrect here. For what it's worth, I asked Weil if he had any additional sources on this and he acknowledged that didn't. I'll add that other claims by Weil are also disputed. "University of Michigan Law School professor James Hathaway, a leading authority on international refugee law," says that there isn't an internationally recognized "right" to a passport: "Traditionally, a state can simply decide whether to issue someone a passport. That’s solely their decision and no one could say anything.... You can’t say both ‘my nation is too dangerous and is persecuting’ and ‘by the way, I would like them to issue me a passport.’” If Snowden were demanding to be able to return to the U.S. his right to a travel document that allowed him to do so would be altogether different. Excluding Hathway's views but including Weil's views is unbalanced. This lengthly article can manage without either party's take on whether any injustice was done in revoking the passport as a matter of law. It's enough to say that it simply was.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

You're misreading the article. He didn't say it was the 22cd. I'm replacing the content. petrarchan47 t c 02:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

"Patrick Weil, visiting professor at Yale Law School, said that while the U.S. State Department affirmed that Snowden was still a U.S. citizen, once he reached Moscow he was only eligible for a "limited validity passport good for direct return to the United States". He writes that on the morning that Snowden's passport was revoked (Hong Kong time), he was able to board the flight to Moscow."

No, I am not misreading. His passport was revoked on June 22 and he did NOT board a flight to Moscow that day "(Hong Kong time)". I'll add that Weil would have told me I was misreading when I contacted him were that the case.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Consider that there is a huge time difference - it's always tomorrow in Hong Kong for those in the West.

Weil: "On June 14, the U.S. Justice Department filed criminal charges against Snowden in federal district court.3 The following day, the Justice Department formally requested that Hong Kong authorities issue a provisional arrest warrant for Snowden.4 Eight days later, on the very morning—Hong Kong time—that his passport was revoked, Mr. Snowden was able to board a flight to Moscow." Yale Law Journal

Even Kerry thought he was using his passport: "Kerry said it wasn't clear whether Snowden was traveling on his U.S. passport or an alternative document."

The strongest we have from Kerry is, ""We do know that his passport was appropriately cancelled within two hours, I think', of the complaint being made public," Kerry explained." CBS

"it was not clear whether the Hong Kong authorities knew that by the time he boarded the plane, nor was it clear whether revoking it earlier would have made a difference, given the Ecuadorean travel document that Mr. Assange said he helped arrange. When Mr. Snowden landed in Moscow, he was informed of his passport revocation." NYT petrarchan47 t c 02:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

- Also, this edit summary is bullshit: "This is not Greenwald's/Kucherena's/Snowden's private soapbox such that all questioning voices are to be suppressed" You have been asked previously to stop using the edit summaries as a place to attack other editors. If you want to claim that there is a POV problem with regard to this article, be straightforward about it and leave examples here on talk. petrarchan47 t c 02:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll first address that NYT story to note that it is dated June 24 (the publication date should be given in the cite, no reader cares when a Wikipedian "retrieved" it) and accordingly apparently before the State Dept presser where the official spokesman blasted the media for getting it wrong regarding how quickly State had moved with respect to making requests of Hong Kong. But the NYT makes a good point, which is what's going to stop him if he's holding that Ecuadorean travel doc and the Russians choose to recognize it (not that the Russians would even need to look at it if he is truly just transiting within 24 hours and not going through passport control. Doc checks are delegated to the airlines in the case of genuine sterile transits and the airline that he supposedly booked to Havana is the same airline that thought his docs were good enough to board in Hong Kong). If he lost it on his way to Moscow why doesn't Snowden own up to losing it instead of blaming the U.S.? If the Russians decided the Ecuadorean doc was bogus why don't they own up to that? And Wikileaks, who engineered the document. Assange doesn't seem to be too upset Snowden didn't continue on, what with Assange talking about how Russia is better for Snowden than Latin America.

Anyway, I appreciate that tidbit, "We do know that his passport was appropriately cancelled within two hours, I think, of the complaint being made public" because that really settles it. The complaint was made public ON JUNE 21: "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." If Kerry is referring to when the Post first leaked the charges, then Snowden in fact had his passport revoked June 21 Washington time and the June 22 date refers to Hong Kong time. At the absolute latest, regardless of whether Kerry is referring to the Post's first story on the Friday or the topic of its second later that day, it would have been 2 AM June 22 Washington time, or 2 PM Hong Kong time June 22. So more than 20 hours went by following the passport cancellation before Snowden left Hong Kong no matter how you slice it. If you want to question this, trying to sneak it in the back door by quoting someone with an opinion who is not in a position to know is not going to do it.

Weil does not contend that he left Hong Kong on June 22 in some other place's time, he said Snowden left on June 22 "Hong Kong time." He additionally claims that Snowden left Hong Kong the "morning" that his passport was revoked, and when Snowden got on that plane at no place on earth was it both morning and the day Snowden's passport was revoked. As I write, it is about when Snowden left Hong Kong, that is, Sunday between 11 AM and noon Hong Kong time. I'm looking at the "world clock" and it says it is between 5 and 6 pm Saturday in Honolulu. Everything else is later yet. The LA Times says "The United States canceled Snowden's passport before he left Hong Kong on a flight to Moscow on June 23." You used to say we should just take what the LA Times claims to be the case at face value and not try to relitigate it. Fact is, I think one CAN relitigate the sources, it is part of our job to test them, but in this case Weil does not overturn the established chronology just because he thinks he left Hong Kong on June 22 "Hong Kong time". There are too many sources agreeing with the LA TImes here, and Weil has not shown he's done investigations on the ground that prove otherwise. As for that edit summary, it's entirely accurate. You've been busy adding opinion after opinion from someone spinning on Snowden's behalf one way or another, while deleting and/or obscuring material that doesn't support the spin.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't read all of the above, but I'll point out that just because someone said something that is false is not a reason to remove the statement from an article. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Why should Wikipedia present false statements, if not to discredit the speaker, which you earlier claimed on this page is an illegitimate objective? Apparently quoting James Clapper's "least untruthful answer" on Wikipedia is unacceptable in your books if it is done so in order to discredit Clapper. In fact it is totally legitimate to discredit a speaker if the facts discredit the speaker. If the facts that raise doubt about the claim are presented neutrally, it is not Wikipedia that does the discrediting but the speaker's own inconsistency with other evidence. But I digress because THIS statement is not being presented because Petrarchan believes it dubious and undermining of the speaker's credibility, it's being presented because Petrarchan wants readers to believe it instead of what's better documented. The issue here is whether the speaker here, on this particular point (which does not draw on his legal expertise), is a reliable source. If not, we remove. That's actually quite elementary to how Wikipedia does and should work. The source here is contradicted by too many other reliable sources to continue maintain that we have a RS here.--Brian Dell (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Kendall-K1. This is just not how WP:V works. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The way WP:V works is that a claim as demonstrably unreliable as this one is excluded.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

No, a source that is demonstrably unreliable is excluded (unless the source itself is independently notable). There are lots and lots of unreliable claims in Wikipedia. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

So you will never ever quote James Clapper then on Wikipedia? Because he's an unreliable source, right? Fact is, the claims of an unreliable source can and should be given depending on the context. Here the context is Weil making a claim about what time Snowden boarded a flight when that claim is contradicted. Take another look at WP:V. What does it say there when it comes to the specific matter of "contradiction"? Why, it says "CLAIMS that are contradicted..." should be excluded unless there is at least one more reliable source advancing the same claim. It does not say "SOURCES that are contradicted..." at that juncture. We do not have to throw out all of Weil's claims as unreliable just because he is not a reliable source for facts outside his area of expertise or knowledge when those facts are contradicted. The problem with the rest of Weil's claims is not that they are demonstrably incorrect but that they being included simply to advance the argument that Snowden has been persecuted, without acknowledging the fact another law professor, Hathaway, takes a different view.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Clapper is not a source. Weil is not a source. See WP:RS. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Whatever. Doc thinks dictators are sources. Unreliable sources. The WIkipedia terminology and bureaucracy is a means to an end, presenting the reader with good material, and Weil's claim about when Snowden boarded a plane is not good material because it is contradicted by too many other sources.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Pivoting a bit from the dispute above, in my view the Weil source is a tertiary source and should not be used for this purpose. The source simply cites to a NY Times article that says, in relevant part, "But they did not revoke Mr. Snowden’s passport until Saturday[.]" If you look at a calendar of June 2013 you'll see this means June 22. The Times article is a reliable source that does not require attribution. If other reliable contradict it then the conflict should be laid out as usual per WP:NPV. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course, although some might dispute "simply". But I'm struck by at how far you've come here. Back when I pointed out that the New Yorker simply cited freesnowden.is you suggested it was practically a crime to dare to look through the immediate source to comment on the reliability of the source it was citing in turn. Here, a work that is supposed to be cited as "123 YALE L.J. F. 565 (2014)" cites another source and you are diving in to investigate, even to the point of checking the calendar, the sort of investigative work you earlier indicated was a no no since you were of the view that we are just supposed to make a decision on whether YALE L.J.F. is RS or not and that's that.--Brian Dell (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

How you could be surprised by folks distancing themselves from you, after you argued nonstop for 5+ months that Snowden was not stuck in Russia, is somewhat mystifying. petrarchan47 t c 00:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest that we take out both Hathaway and Weil. We don't need any analysis as to when the passport was revoked. At the very most we could have the different versions, both sourced and with no analysis, although I think even that much is silly. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Weil reference pt 2

It's true that Snowden was still eligible only for a trip back to the US, once in Moscow. That's well cited in media, and should be in the article as well. Being well-cited, we shouldn't need Weil for support. However I don't see how the guidelines would allow for the removal of his other comments from the passport discussion. I may have misinterpreted the above, but it seems editors want the following removed:

Patrick Weil, visiting professor at Yale Law School, said that while the U.S. State Department affirmed that Snowden was still a U.S. citizen, once he reached Moscow he was only eligible for a "limited validity passport good for direct return to the United States". He writes that on the morning that Snowden's passport was revoked (Hong Kong time), he was able to board the flight to Moscow. He further argues that the United States violated the Constitution with the revocation of Snowden's passport, specifically violating "a privilege and immunity of American citizenship, protected by the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment—namely a U.S. citizen’s ability to keep a passport while abroad as a document proving her legal identity and citizenship." petrarchan47 t c 00:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I would say that should be removed. The US does revoke passports of people who have been charged with a crime.[13] Whether that's constitutional or not I would say is a debate for a different WP article. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

If Weil's comments are so notable then why haven't reporters called attention to them? Both the Associated Press and The Atlantic quote Hathaway as an expert yet some here insist that Hathaway's views are "trivial," not worth noting. Hathaway's views still more notable than Weil's, according to the general media.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I have never argued against including Hathaway's comments, that I can remember. It's very simple:

Is the source reliable? - Yale Law
Are the comments on-topic (avoiding SYNTH/OR)? - Specifically about Edward Snowden's case
Relevant to an encyclopedia? - Information that comes from a trusted source, adding deeper insight for the reader

Regarding guidelines, per WP:NOTRS, having avoided any sort of analysis or interpretation ('editorializing'), and sticking with a direct quote from a reliable source and publication, the addition is supported. I wouldn't call these few lines about Snowden's passport revocation (a big topic by any standard) to be a "debate" warranting a separate article. I doubt given Weil's credentials that he is totally wrong about the law, and if he was, there would have been retraction by this time. He's got the reputation of Yale on his back. Surely someone would have set him straight by now? petrarchan47 t c 01:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Although I hadn't commented on Hathaway yet, it's only because I hadn't looked into it. Seeing Binksternet's comment The problem, of course, is that Hathaway's analysis is easily countered by recognized examples of airport transit lounges being treated as extra-territorial. So in this case, Hathaway states the theory, but the practice is entirely different. *, I see once again I side with him. petrarchan47 t c 06:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Simplifying the passport story?

It's possible we are close to being able to simplify at least our Lede's presentation of the story, as we now have consensus in media about it, and no RS has denied...

@ 7:30 Andrea Mitchell during the post-"Inside the Mind of Snowden" discussion panel:

"There are other technical points that we have been trying to fact check. John Kerry jumped into it today and said "Well, why was he going to Cuba?", Well, that is not factually correct. I just wanted to point that out. Snowden is correct: he was, by all accounts, trying to pass from Moscow through Cuba, a transit point, to get to Ecuador or another friendly Latin American country that would grant him asylum, that would not extradite him to the US." petrarchan47 t c 22:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

That settles it, does it? I note that according to AFP, "'I would love to live in Brazil,' Snowden told Brazil's Globo TV on Sunday.... In the interview Snowden said that he would not offer documents to any country in exchange for a safe haven... However he said that he had more documents to release..." Does this one AFP report settle the question of whether he took any documents with him to Russia? ITAR-TASS has some interesting news for us today: apparently Snowden never landed at Sheremetyevo airport... because he landed at Domodedovo! My point being that journalists are routinely mistaken about particular details. It's our job to make sense of the contradictions. And on that front, do you recall this earlier Talk page thread where you said that you "agree 100%" to attributing the onward ticket claim to Russian media? There's also this: "Edward Snowden Says The US Stranded Him In Russia — Here Are 4 Problems With That Claim"--Brian Dell (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that settles it. No one is reading your words anymore, dude. petrarchan47 t c 01:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I am reading Brian Dell's words, madam, and accord them respect—something I withhold from whatever you write. JohnValeron (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The Register: CIA rendition aircraft

Campbell, Duncan. "CIA rendition jet was waiting in Europe to SNATCH SNOWDEN." The Register. June 13, 2014.

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

"Mr. Snowden said he gave all of the classified documents he had obtained to journalists he met in Hong Kong, before flying to Moscow"

Petrarchan has been insisting that the article state that Snowden gave away all of the docs to journos in Hong Kong, per this NY Times quote. But I note that Snowden told Brian Williams that he ensured that the Russians would not get their hands on any documents not by having first given them all away, but "by destroying the material that I was holding before I transited through Russia." Please explain, Petrarchan, how Snowden could "destroy" something after he had given it away. Or, in the alternative, how he could give away something after he had destroyed it.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps he copied the data for the journalists and then destroyed the original? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You know you're getting into semantics when had it been the other way around, that he gave away the original and kept the copy, it would have been functionally the exact same but you want to rule out that functionally identical scenario because of word choice reasons. If he retained a copy (a copy that wasn't a "copy" because it was the original) then the giving away didn't do anything to divest him of the material, did it?

I note that on June 12 he suggested to the South China Morning Post that he was in any case more interested in keeping the material than in destroying it, saying "I have to screen everything before releasing it to journalists... If I have time to go through this information, I would like to make it available to journalists in each country..." I'll add that the NYT story also appears to conflict with the Guardian, since the latter quotes Snowden saying "I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest. There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn't turn over..." How do you reconcile "gave all of the classified documents he had obtained" with "didn't turn over"?--Brian Dell (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The title of this subsection is taken from James Risen's New York Times story "Snowden Says He Took No Secret Files to Russia." The words, which are not quoted from a speaker, form part of Risen's 3rd-person narrative.

As Wikipedia's Edward Snowden now stands, we cite Risen's article four times—only once referring to files reaching Russia or China:

Snowden maintained that he did not bring any classified material into Russia "because it wouldn't serve the public interest." He added "there's a zero percent chance the Russians or Chinese have received any documents."

So far as I can tell, our article does not repeat Snowden's claim that he "gave all of the classified documents he had obtained to journalists he met in Hong Kong, before flying to Moscow." Our lead says simply that he released "numerous NSA documents" to Greenwald and Poitras. We do not rule out the possibility of Snowden giving the remainder of his documents to other journos, such as Bart Gellman of The Washington Post or Lana Lam of South China Morning Post, before fleeing Hong Kong. Nor do we rule out Snowden's destroying anything left after he divvied up his trove among journos.

Brian, are we now discussing this merely to flesh out our understanding of how sources differ on what Snowden gave to journos? Or is there something specific in Wikipedia's Edward Snowden that you think ought to be changed to better reflect the current state of scholarship on this point? Thanks. JohnValeron (talk) 01:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Both of Snowden's explanations for why he carried no docs onward from Hong Kong should be noted in the article. Readers can decide which one to accept. It appears that Doc may consider including the "destroyed" claim an effort to "discredit" the article subject by implying a self-contradiction where he sees none, and the main response to that is that Doc isn't being consistent in his treatment of sources. On March 3 I said "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" and Doc jumped in at that time to wag his finger about "independent analysis" and "conjecture," saying "Let the journalists, subject-matter experts, and bloggers come up with and investigate these sorts of hypotheses." Yet Doc then shows up in this thread to posit the most conjectur-al "hypothesis" of all!--Brian Dell (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Must both explanations for why Snowden carried no docs from Hong Kong be noted in the lead, or would limiting those to the body of the article suffice? I ask because the lead is a perennial battleground, and this seems like a potential bombshell. JohnValeron (talk) 03:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Update: I added this as new ¶ 4 to Section 2 – Global Surveillance Disclosures. I did not add it to the lead, since it does not seem to rise to that level of importance. JohnValeron (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a very in-depth article] on Snowden in a recent Vanity Fair. It says the following: And so, that Sunday, Snowden and Sarah Harrison boarded Aeroflot Flight SU213 without incident. Snowden had his four laptops, but, he says, they had no government information on them and never did. He says he carried no documents. “I didn’t want to risk bringing them through Russia.” Joe Bodacious (talk) 04:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Joe Bodacious, the quotation you provide from Vanity Fair suggests you miss the point of this discussion. No one has suggested here that Snowden carried stolen documents to Russia. Rather, the issue is whether he gave them all to journalists in Hong Kong or held some back—including "all sorts of documents"[14] that he says would have made a big impact—which he then destroyed before flying to Moscow. Snowden wants to have it both ways, but there are at least two editors here who perceive a contradiction and are trying to understand which version (if either) is true. JohnValeron (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Good summary, but I think the VF article is worth at least mentioning on the talk page, as part of the debate here is whether Snowden took files with him to Russia. There's no need to smack down a newcomer to this article, we need all the help we can get. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, please, what do you see in this subsection that leads you to conclude that "part of the debate here is whether Snowden took files with him to Russia?" If you have previously debated that in these Talk pages, it's news to me. Plus, I resent your accusation that I have "smacked down a newcomer." I merely tried to clarify his apparent misunderstanding. I do not need snarky lessons in etiquette from you, thanks all the same. JohnValeron (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to trawl through his many lengthy comments but I think that's a big part of what Brian has been pressing. My apologies for sounding snarky, I was only trying to help. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

My apologies for sounding snarky as well, but it seems to me that a couple of editors are more interested in splitting hairs and conducting their own private Wikipedia investigation into this matter. I agree with Dr. F that this information from this recent interview should be included in the article. If nobody else puts it in first, I will do it when I have time. Gandydancer (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I emphatically deny your insinuation that I am conducting my own "private Wikipedia investigation into this matter." To the contrary, I am trying to get at the truth through reliable sources. As for you adding redundant information from "The Snowden Saga: A Shadowland of Secrets and Light," please note that we've already included four separate citations to that same Vanity Fair source, although none to the effect that Snowden carried no documents to Russia. However, we do cite The New York Times, The Courage Foundation, and NBC News—all on point and all reliable sources—in ¶ 4 of Section 2, Global Surveillance Disclosures. How many times must we hammer home that same point in this article? JohnValeron (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no debate about whether Snowden claims that he took no documents to Russia. Including another instance of Snowden making that claim is accordingly not going to help settle any debates.
I might add that Doc is apparently convinced that that Kommersant story blaming Cuba for Snowden's presence in Russia is so reliable that it ought to be featured in Wikipedia as the definitive explanation (never mind that neither Snowden nor any Snowdenista has ever advanced the blame Cuba theory as opposed to the blame the U.S. directly theory, Wikipedia blazes the way, presenting as authoritative an account that appeared in an article a Snowdenista (Greenwald) actually "dis"-endorsed as "fabricated"!). If Doc buys that Kommersant story, then he presumably also believes that Snowden was living at the Russian consulate in the days before he left Hong Kong, since that account is also in the Kommersant article. And if that's true, there's nothing at all riding on the question of whether he took docs to Russia because he could have just handed everything over to his Russian hosts in Hong Kong!--Brian Dell (talk) 01:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Snowden still "working with the NSA"?

I noticed an odd comment after 10:15 in Snowden's testimony earlier this week (on June 24) to the Council of Europe:

Q: Can you be more precise about what internal actions you took and what kind of replies you got? How many times did you try to raise it and what was the typical answer, the typical actions the NSA took on the complaints you lodged? Were those complaints formal or informal?
A: So this is still an ongoing process that I am working with the NSA in regard to these records and we’re going back and forth, so I don’t want to reveal everything that will come out because there’s still an ongoing debate. But what I can say is that... I went many colleagues... and also vertically: to supervisors, to managers, to directors, to people who worked above me... as well as the Office of General Counsel and the Office of Compliance...

He's "going back and forth" with the NSA? Now? If he is talking about having a "he said, she said" through the media that would hardly be "working with the NSA" would it? If we just take it at face value that he is "working with the NSA" that would be quite notable!--Brian Dell (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Brian, this is nothing new. Last December, Barton Gellman quoted Snowden in The Washington Post: "I am not trying to bring down the NSA, I am working to improve the NSA. I am still working for the NSA right now. They are the only ones who don't realize it." JohnValeron (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

This is quite specific though. He says " in regard to these records". Records that he complained to all the people he says he complained to. Apparently he doesn't "want to reveal everything" because "there's still an ongoing debate." When it's his word against the NSA's, why not settle that "ongoing debate" in his favour instead of pleading that he's "going back and forth" with the NSA about this?--Brian Dell (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Brian, when you ask, why not settle that debate in his favor, I surmise you mean why doesn't Snowden release his copies of the purported emails raising concerns to superiors.

His answer, relying on the passage you quote above, is that this is an ongoing process about which he's working with the NSA. That does not mean, of course, that Snowden is personally engaged in the "back and forth" to which he alludes. He has Washington-based attorneys, including Jesselyn Radack and Plato Cacheris, who have held continuing discussions with the government over the issue of Snowden's return. His lawyers can thus be said to be "working with the NSA" on his behalf.

In any case, what revision to Edward Snowden do you propose? We've already noted: "In May 2014 U.S. officials released a single email that Snowden had written in April 2013 inquiring about legal authorities but said that they had found no other evidence that Snowden had expressed his concerns to someone in an oversight position. In June 2014 the NSA said it had not been able to find any records of Snowden raising internal complaints about the agency's operations."

Is there something more we ought to add? JohnValeron (talk) 00:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks like we could add that readers should not expect the NSA to be contradicted any time soon on this point, since Snowden evidently wouldn't want to pre-empt his supposed ongoing negotiations with the NSA even if he could.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I added two sentences to the two quoted in my preceding comment: "That same month, appearing via video before the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Snowden insisted he had complained to lateral colleagues, supervisors, managers, directors, and other people in positions of authority, including the NSA's Office of General Counsel and Office of Compliance. But, he said, 'this is still an ongoing process that I am working with the NSA in regard to these records and we're going back and forth, so I don't want to reveal everything that will come out because there's still an ongoing debate.'" JohnValeron (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

"found a technical support job"

This should be removed from the article.
"In October various news organizations — including the BBC — reported that Snowden had begun working in “technical support” on a major Russian website. The source was Anatoly Kucherena. "Kucherena is completely unreliable as a source,” says Harding. “We [The Guardian] did the rounds of Russian IT companies when he made that claim last year and none of them — none of the big ones, at least — confirmed this. I think it is unlikely. The idea was to create an image that Snowden was leading a normal life. I think that’s highly unlikely. He cannot lead a normal life.”--Brian Dell (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that Kucherena's claim, which has gained considerable currency, should be removed. Instead I added the following sentence: "Asked about this by The Moscow Times in June 2014, The Guardian correspondent Luke Harding replied, 'Kucherena is completely unreliable as a source. We [The Guardian] did the rounds of Russian IT companies when he made that claim last year and none of them—none of the big ones, at least—confirmed this.'" JohnValeron (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

That's also fine, although you can expect @Kendall-K1 and Doc F to pipe up to complain that again there is an effort to discredit Kucherena.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you could stick to the discussion at hand. As a general principle, I am in favor of including "what happened" and leaving out "what was said." In this case I would leave this out. But I have no objection to including this along with Valeron's disclaimer. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Castro calling Russian report "a lie" and "libel"

Why do we need to insist that Castro's calling the Kommersant report (about Cuba's nixing Snowden to Havana) "a lie" and "libel" use those exact words? Do we really need to parrot a dictator who is obviously unreliable accusing reporters of committing a crime? How does that advance our biography of Edward Snowden? Isn't it enough -- and considerably more encyclopedic -- to simply say that Castro "denied" the claim, or "strongly denied" the claim, or "denounced" the claim? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

According to Reuters, Castro said the Kommersant article was a "lie" and "libel." We are not, as you contend, parroting a dictator. We are citing a reliable source. It is not our role as editors to sanitize anyone's wording. I do not recall you advocating that we water down the often harsh anti-American rhetoric of Edward Snowden or such bellicose supporters as Glenn Greenwald. And I would oppose any attempt to do so. JohnValeron (talk) 04:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The key difference between that example and this is that in that example, Snowden's views (and others' views about Snowden) are highly relevant to a biography about Snowden. Here, on the other hand, whether Kommersant made an honest mistake or committed an unconscionable lie has absolutely no bearing on a biography about Snowden. We have no obligation to repeat every quote that makes it into the news. Castro has an obvious motive to smear Kommersant; I have no interest in defending Kommersant, but neither do I have any desire to perpetuate an unsubstantiated smear, especially when it conveys no benefit to our article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Reporting accurately what Castro said seems of benefit to the article to me. We aren't asserting that there is any truth to it - and I think our readers are quite capable of deciding for themselves whether it is a 'smear' or not. It isn't our job to withhold cogent details in order to prevent readers from forming their own opinions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing inaccurate in saying that Castro "denied" the claim. Agree/disagree? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. Castro did far more than merely "deny" the claim. To pretend that's all he did is like saying JFK died in a traffic mishap. JohnValeron (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not at all like that. An assassination is not a traffic mishap, even if it happens in a moving car. An accusation of "a lie" and "libel" is a denial. The point is, the article is about Snowden, not Kommersant. What matters is whether Kommersant's report about Snowden was correct. By saying that Castro denied the claim we accurately convey that Castro contested the accuracy of the report. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

If there's a relevancy issue here Doc then I suggest you stop pushing the contention that Cuba's to blame for Snowden's presence in Russia. It's your advocacy of this that makes Castro's denial relevant. When a national leader states what his country's policy is, he's "obviously unreliable", is he? Raul Castro told Cuba's National Assembly in early July that Cuba supported Snowden finding asylum in Latin America. But you see in a story that the mainstream media hasn't touched with a long pole since Fidel called it a lie reliable anonymous sources indicating that Raul was lying and that Cuba in fact did not want Snowden leaving Russia eh? And brother Fidel then doubled-down on the deception? May I note that Fidel's remarks were carried in a column in official media? Can you point to sources calling the Cuban government unreliable like I've pointed to sources calling Kucherena unreliable? In any case, if you were truly concerned about libel I'd think you'd be less keen to have Wikipedia feature as fact something that someone says is a libel. In other words, if you truly "have no interest in defending Kommersant" then agree that Wikipedia will not refer to the disputed claim in Kommersant that Cuba told Russia to stop Snowden from coming.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I stopped reading when you accused me of pushing a contention. AGF. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Well of course you stopped reading. You declared quite recently what MY contention was ("what Brian has been pressing"), got it wrong, but admitted at the time that you were not going to read what I've written to check whether your statement as to what I have been "pressing" was accurate or not (it wasn't)! Why bother to "trawl through his many lengthy comments" when you can determine what my contentions are via the grand power of assumption? If you aren't contending anything here about whether the Cubans did or did not block Snowden and are only objecting to Castro's language then when I solve your problem with "lie" in the lede by taking out the reference to the Kommersant story that is necessitating the Cuban reaction to it I expect there won't be any objections from you.--Brian Dell (talk) 12:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, as an editor you have no business impugning the motives of Castro or anyone else in this article. And for the same reason I am not permitted to call Kucherena a shill or Greenwald a profiteer, you are not entitled to bowdlerize Fidel Castro. JohnValeron (talk) 05:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I have every business impugning the motives of Castro. His words aren't even remotely reliable. More importantly it appears you didn't read anything else I wrote. This article is about Snowden, not Kommersant. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Yet should an editor dare to impugn the motives of Kucherena you are crying BLP, as if the article is about Kucherena! Make the article "about Snowden" by not having Wikipedia make claims here about Cuban policy sourced to a single Russian newspaper citing anonymous figures and the view of the Cuban government about those claims THEN becomes irrelevant.
"His words aren't even remotely reliable." Says you. Point out contradictions and instances where his claims have gotten a skeptical reception like I've pointed out about Kucherena, who is repeatedly cited in the article. As I said some time ago, whether Castro is a reliable source for whether the U.S. is a noble country and whether he's a reliable source for what the Cuban government has done are two different questions.--Brian Dell (talk) 12:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Please stop drawing in unrelated issues to accuse me of my own personal hypocrisy. These do nothing to advance the discussion and serve only to derail it; hence, they're disruptive. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of pointing out your hypocrisy is not to advance some sort of put down. It's to get you to revisit your logic, which lately has been mighty dubious. You somehow found a BLP violation against a Russian newspaper! A Russian newspaper that made a claim Snowden has never advanced and accordingly has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this article in terms of BLP, and a claim that said newspaper attributed on to anonymous sources. Andy stepped in to call that "nonsense", which it is. Take it to the BLP noticeboard and see what the reaction is. The number 1 thing that you, and in fact every editor, can do in terms of collegial editing is to bring all available effort to solving problems which may be complex in a systematic, thoroughly thought through way. If a person constantly being accused of hypocrisy is acting in good faith, which I assume here, then the explanation for why he or she rejects his own arguments as soon as the shoe is on the other foot is that his or her reasoning is consistently faulty. I invite you to point out any hypocrisy on my part, but I doubt you'll find much, since I don't just grab whatever rationale appears to be lying at the feet of my particular perspective. I try to take a minute and test it against how it would look and work if I adopted another perspective. Don't do that, keep using arguments that don't work unless your particular POV is adopted, and the conflicts will just keep cropping up.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not various comments I've left on this talk page are consistent with one another has little to no bearing on the discussion at hand. It's a distraction; hence, it's disruptive. I question whether your goal is to really to advance the article, or to browbeat your fellow editors into submission. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Your reasoning or the lack thereof in fact has everything to do with the discussion at hand. We are not here to chat about the weather or discuss the price of tea in China. We are here because there is a dispute about the content of the article and resolving it means generating arguments for why it should read one way instead of another. If you have a problem with me pointing out the repeated contradictions in your arguments for why the article should read the way you want it to, perhaps you can find relief by complaining about this on an administrator noticeboard.--Brian Dell (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I should probably point out that I have no horse in this race - I've not been following this aspect of the Snowden story in any detail, and have no opinion one way or another about whether Castro's 'libel' claim is valid. My edit was made simply on the basis that he was cited in a reliable source as stating that it was a libel - and that following the source accurately was in accord with normal Wikipedia practice. 05:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Not normal practice. WP:NOTEVERYTHING. If the Fidel Castro article had every printed word he ever said it would be 10 times the length. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree we should not include "every printed word he ever said" in the article. Now can we stick to talking about what's actually at issue?--Brian Dell (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

What's actually at issue is whether we should include that Castro called the Kommersant report a lie and/or a libel, versus simply saying that he denied the report. I say the latter. As explained above. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't see any explanation - just an assertion. What exactly is wrong with accurate reporting of what Castro said? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

As I already explained, because an accusation that a newspaper committed a crime, by a head of state known for his fiery rhetoric and with a motive to smear that newspaper, has no relevance to this article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion of Castro is of precisely zero relevance to this article. If you want a platform to promote your own personal opinions, find one elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk)]

Ha ha, this has nothing to do with me promoting any personal opinions. Everything I wrote here about Castro is well sourced and noncontroversial. There is no soap going on here on my end. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I have asked you to produce those sources supporting what you have written about Castro and you have refused to do so, Doc. It's time to put or shut up with your "well sourced" contention. If I can produce reams of material for Kucherena, you can surely come up with an instance or two where Castro's claims about what occurred are suspicious, don't add up, or have been doubted by those who have tried to investigate them.
A story Castro calls a "lie" Greenwald calls "fabricated" and Snowden's U.S. lawyer says "Every news organization in the world has been trying to confirm that story. They haven't been able to, because it's false." How about saving a little indignation for Greenwald and that ACLU lawyer for daring to "smear" Kommersant as a spreader of false news?--Brian Dell (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman's position, if I understand it correctly, is disingenuous to the point of risibility. He seems to want us to believe that the word denial accurately conveys what Castro said. That's ridiculous. Castro's words, reported by a reliable source, are emphatic and go well beyond mere denial in implicating the shoddiness of Kommersant's reporting. JohnValeron (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up: If we assume arguendo that Castro is—as Dr. Fleischman insists—biased against Kommersant, Wikipedia's guidance on Attributing and specifying biased statements provides this pertinent advice: "Avoid the temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words." Yet that is what Dr. Fleischman advocates, substituting a bland denial for Castro's vivid lie and libel. To do so would violate Wikipedia policy. JohnValeron (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

As a further follow-up, here’s an entry in the My How He Has Changed His Tune sweepstakes:

"Per WP:RS, reliable sources are not required to be neutral. Biased or opinionated sources are perfectly acceptable as long as they're attributed. In this case, Cheney and Carter's comments are absolutely, absolutely notable and should be reinserted forthwith." Dr. Fleischman 04:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

JohnValeron (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

And the hits just keep on coming! Yet another entry in the My How He Has Changed His Tune sweepstakes:

"At Wikipedia we don't require 'proof' of anything, just verifiability via reliable sources. Per WP:RS, biased or non-neutral sources (such as Snowden's own claims) are citable as long as they're properly attributed. So, this really is about attribution." Dr. Fleischman 21:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

JohnValeron (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

"newspaper statement attributing to anonymous sources is much more reliable than words of any politician"

Apparently I have to pick apart the logic in Doc's claim here. First of all, let's consider what the "newspaper statement" is saying and what the "politician" is saying. The former is saying that Snowden "spent a couple of days in the Russian consulate in Hong Kong" plus some other things. The latter is saying that Snowden merely "met with Russian diplomats while in Hong Kong". In what way is our politician here saying ANYTHING that isn't already asserted in the "much more reliable" source? It makes no sense at all to claim that Putin's claim is dubious when the "much more reliable" source said everything Putin said here and more.
As for the reliability of a politician, there is no mention of this at WP:RS except to say that attribution is warranted when appropriate, giving the example of "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that..." That attribution has been given here. As for what's "much more reliable", what you say is "much more reliable" here is, in fact, a "lie" and a "libel" according to an authority (rightly or wrongly) in a position to know, while no published source anywhere has ever disputed the claim you believe to be less reliable. This is, of course, on top of the fact that Putin's claim is a subset of the Kommersant claim such you can't affirm the latter without affirming the former.
I'll also remind Dr F here that the "more more reliable" Kommersant story (which Doc has "no interest in defending" except when he's defending it) is STILL in the article anyway, just not featured in the lede.--Brian Dell (talk)

The overarching issue is that the statement attributed to Putin isn't notable to this article except as a statement of fact (i.e. to prove the truth of the matter asserted). And like any head of state, Putin isn't reliable in anything he says, especially in controversial matters of foreign affairs. Heads of state and diplomats are defending their countries' interests, not defending truth or historical accuracy. On the other hand, a newspaper article citing anonymous sources, while not ideal, is a reliable source per WP guidelines (provided that the article bears the typical indicia of reliability, of course). So it doesn't make sense to replace a conclusion attributed to an established newspaper with a statement made by a head of state. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman's edit summary as of 15:57, 28 June 2014, which is reproduced as the title of this section, is the most absurd statement by a Wikipedia editor I have seen since a previous Edward Snowden editor declared (in a now-archived section), "We go with RS EVEN if/when they have it wrong…"

There is no mention in WP:RS of politicians or, for that matter, anonymous sources. But suffice to say, we are not plucking the "words of any politician" out of the blue. Rather, we cite a reliable source, The Moscow News, which directly quotes the Russian president: "Mr. Snowden first appeared in Hong Kong and met with our diplomatic representatives." JohnValeron (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

You just can't resist taking personal swipes with every comment, can you? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

And you're missing the point. It's not in dispute that Putin said that. The question is what purpose it serves for our article, and why we're using it to replace reliably sourced content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is now saying less than it did before and no new claims have been introduced, there cannot now be a reliable source problem if there wasn't one before. Got that? If you dispute my logic here then dispute the logic. It's serving the same purpose that the same information served before it was expanded to further claim he was additionally actually living with Russian diplomats instead of just meeting with them: to inform the reader. The question is do we feature that Kommersant story in the lede as opposed to just noting it in the article body. When Greenwald calls it "fabricated" and a Cuban official calls it a "libel" we should presumptively move cautiously. As the party wanting to include it, the burden of proof is on you. I am of the view that far too much is being made of the Kommersant story if you cannot produce any evidence any media source has ever referred to it after Castro called it a lie other than in a story about Castro calling it a lie. I'm fine with it in the body of the article. I'm not fine with pushing the blame Cuba for Snowden's presence in Russia theory in the introduction when the overwhelming majority of reliable sources are either advancing another theory or no theory at all.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's set aside the inconsistencies between your "views" and basic WP policies and guidelines. By your logic, why include any of these theories in lead at all? The fact is that Snowden is in Moscow and we have a whole bunch of unverified explanations as to why. The lead is larded up with attributed statements to obviously biased individuals. Let's clean house and only include what has actually been independently verified by reliable sources. All this he-said-she-said stuff is inappropriate per WP:LEADCLUTTER.

You cite WP:LEADCLUTTER, which is concerned exclusively with parenthetical details in the lead. Our lead contains precisely four parenthetical details: (born June 21, 1983), (CIA), (DIA) and (NSA). Which of these four do you propose to delete? JohnValeron (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, I should have referred to WP:LEAD, WP:LEADLENGTH, and WP:MOSINTRO. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

What is your purpose in providing three separate links: WP:LEAD, WP:LEADLENGTH, and WP:MOSINTRO? It appears to me that WP:LEADLENGTH and WP:MOSINTRO are sections within WP:LEAD. If these two sections have special significance for you, please explain. JohnValeron (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Aside from LEADLENGTH and MOSINTRO, the introduction to LEAD says: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." A footnote immediately following says: "Do not violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section." I cite all three sections because together they stand for the proposition that the lead should be concise, approachable, and free of less important controversies. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The introduction to WP:LEAD consists of 234 words, including footnote.

WP:LEADLENGTH contains 152 words.

WP:MOSINTRO (Introductory text) is 2,361 words.

Altogether, then, you direct our attention to 2,513 words of instructions from Wikipedia. This is quite a craw full.

The lead in Edward Snowden is presently 838 words.

The challenge, obviously, is to identify each violation (as you see it) in our lead and to specify which part of WP:LEAD, WP:LEADLENGTH and/or WP:MOSINTRO that particular text violates. Only then will editors be able to evaluate and either consent or oppose your proposed deletion. I look forward to your cooperation in this matter. JohnValeron (talk) 00:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Seriously. A good start would be for you to tell us what, in your view, would constitute an ideal length for the lead, which as I stated is presently 838 words. Is that grossly overlong or just moderately overlong? JohnValeron (talk) 02:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, I don't think it's related to WP:LEAD, WP:LEADLENGTH or WP:MOSINTRO—none of which mentions bias—but I'd also like to follow up on your assertion that "The lead is larded up with attributed statements to obviously biased individuals." Wikipedia defines attribution as the identification of the source of reported information. Since you limit your complaint to individuals, I assume you mean statements directly attributed by name rather than indirectly via citation.

Accordingly, here are all seven statements in our lead expressly attributed to individuals:

Snowden's release of NSA material was called the most significant leak in U.S. history by Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg.
According to Russian President Vladimir Putin, Snowden met with Russian diplomats while in Hong Kong.
Snowden … later claimed to have been ticketed for onward travel via Havana.
The NSA reporting by these journalists earned The Guardian and The Washington Post the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, seen by Snowden as "a vindication."
In December 2013, a federal judge found the program to be likely unconstitutional and "almost Orwellian."
Another federal judge in a different case reached an opposite conclusion, ruling that the NSA's collection of phone data is legal.
Ex-CIA director James Woolsey said that Snowden should be hanged if convicted of treason.

Is it your contention that all of these individuals are "obviously biased," including Snowden himself? JohnValeron (talk) 03:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

"By your logic, why include any of these theories in lead at all? The fact is that Snowden is in Moscow..." Why indeed! What were you arguing about in March, Doc? Allow me to quote John:
The lede now reads:
"…he remained stranded in the airport transit zone."
Brian proposes:
"…he remained in Russia."
I second Brian's motion.
You refused to be satisfied at that time with going along with just stating that he's in Russia, Doc. You adamantly insisted that Wikipedia rule out the possibility he's in Russia because he wants to be by adding "stranded" and removing "why Snowden did not board the onward flight is unclear." Now you're saying the one established fact is that he's there and we should leave it at that! You may again complain that I'm just trying to embarrass you by pointing out your flip-flops. Embarrassing you doesn't do anything for me. Avoiding having my time wasted is what does something for me, and when you argue about something for paragraphs and paragraphs and then, a couple months later, concede the point that we shouldn't be pushing any particular explanation for why Snowden is Russia as opposed to just noting that he's there, I have to ask myself what else I could have been doing besides having an extended back-and-forth with you that ends with you calling for the same thing I've been calling for since the beginning. Now maybe you might say that there's in fact no flip flop here because Snowden being stranded in the airport is another indisputable "fact". Well in that case I'd say your problem is not, in fact, with the lede being larded up with biased views (the "stranded in the airport" claim is just like the "found a technical support job" claim in that it's being pushed for a public relations reason, has been occasionally reported in otherwise reliable sources, and ultimately rests solely on Kucherena's dubious word) but with the lede being "larded up" with with facts you don't like such as Snowden meeting with Russians in Hong Kong. You've already conceded that Snowden meeting with Russian diplomats is a fact by your insistence that the Kommersant story is reliable. If you want to remove the attribution to Putin and just state as an unattributed fact that he met with Russians in Hong Kong that's fine by me.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Going back to the beginning of this section, I'd have to say that in my opinion, the politician vs. news media debate is silly. Any newspaper big enough to meet WP:RS criteria is going to have a symbiotic relationship with government and corporate interests, putting it on exactly the same footing as the politician. Remember that WP:RS does not prefer newspapers or news media, who have historically been shown to be biased and incorrect more often than not. But there are too many circumstances where scholarly sources are simply not available. I think that we should always attribute, whether to newspaper or politician. Neither is axiomatically reliable. Joe Bodacious (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The independence of the media is on a continuum. There is certainly no magic line between, say, the People's Daily and China's "politicians" just because the former is a "newspaper". Snowden's Russian lawyer, Anatoly Kucherena, is Kremlin connected and in no sense an independent voice without an agenda. RT may more independent than Pravda was in Soviet days but RT at a minimum still avoids undermining the Kremlin POV. As RT points out, the BBC and PBS also take government money, but most observers consider the BBC and PBS relatively independent. --Brian Dell (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Too many nutcases patrolling this page. Have fun. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Editorial Bias in Edward Snowden

Since the creation of Edward Snowden, Wikipedians have periodically engaged on the associated Talk page in robust discussion of editorial bias. The first such charge came scarcely five hours after the article went online. My personal favorite appeared a month later when an editor noted sarcastically, "All this Snowden fanboy page needs are cheerleaders with pompoms."

Another comment worth recalling came last February from Brian Dell, who observed, "How can you repeatedly hand the microphone over to the article subject and not have an article biased in favour of the subject?" Of course that problem is endemic to any biography of a living person, but it seems particularly acute in the case of Edward Snowden.

The next month, another editor accused me of bias because I opined on the Talk page that this article "is overly sympathetic to its controversial subject."

Last month, Kendall-K1 asserted here, "I believe the article is filled with bias on both sides, which is why it's so long." However, when asked for specifics about this perceived bias, Kendall-K1 did not respond.

And now comes Dr. Fleischman, complaining that "The lead is larded up with attributed statements to obviously biased individuals" and contemptuously referring to those of us who challenge him as "nutcases."

Respectfully, I submit it's time for all of us to stop making vague charges of editorial bias in Edward Snowden and instead to identify specific instances, which we can then bring to this Talk page for discussion and, hopefully, resolution through consensus—and without insulting name-calling. For my part, I shall attempt to locate instances where this article is overly sympathetic to Snowden and draw them to the attention of our editorial community. I trust those claiming anti-Snowden bias will do likewise.

Meanwhile, please consider the following four excerpts from Wikipedia policy.

Biased or opinionated sources: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."
Bias in sources: "A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased and so another source should be given preference. The bias in sources argument is one way to present a POV as neutral by excluding sources that dispute the POV as biased. Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the writer's point of view."
Attributing and specifying biased statements: "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution. For instance, 'John Doe is the best baseball player' expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: 'John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre.' Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited."
Achieving neutrality: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage."

JohnValeron (talk) 21:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

"BuzzFeed reported that anonymous U.S. 'spies' wanted him murdered."

Where to begin.

First, I take it to be beyond discussion that this prose, as currently worded and in the lead, is outrageously, source-misrepresentingly, POV-pushingly inappropriate and the offending editor should be flogged. What the source article, whose author and publisher are both of flimsy pedigree, actually says, is that four unnamed sources (the article refers to sources as a "current NSA analyst", a "Pentagon official", a "defense contractor", and an "army intelligence officer") all wished he was dead. None of them suggested that they would actually do it, or that it should be done illegally, nor does the article refer to the purported act as a "murder". In fact, one of the sources is simply saying he should be tried and hanged, which is quite within the scope of the penalties that await him if he is ever tried (although that source then adds the suggestion that we should "forget the trial").

More generally, the prose is worded in a way that makes it sound like there's a network of black ops assassins just waiting to drop the blade. Perhaps true, but emphatically unsourced. The body text exacerbates this problem by making it sound like the article actually goes over details of multiple assassination plans, which it does not:

An interview with "intelligence operators," including a Pentagon official, an Army intelligence officer, and NSA analysts, published on the condition of anonymity by BuzzFeed in mid-January, detailed ways they said Snowden can be killed and expressed a strong desire by some to carry out such plans.

Second, exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and that's not supposed to mean exceptionally bad sources. To the extent that this salacious tidbit gets mentioned, it should be sourced to actual reputable journalistic outlets. As we can see from the sourcing, the NYT gave its own reaction to the article. We should use that instead of giving excessive weight to a marginal source and outlet like Benny Johnson and Buzzfeed. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Mea culpa. I confess and take ownership for the edit in our Lead changing "spies" want him killed to "spies" want him murdered. Thank you, Centrify, for pointing out that the source does not support use of the word murdered. I have now revised the Lead to conform to BuzzFeed's headline, replacing murdered with dead.

By way of additional discussion, but not in any way to suggest that murder ought to be used, I reasoned last March that murder better conveyed the essence of BuzzFeed's report than did killed. After all, one can be killed accidentally, and that was not what America's "spies" in BuzzFeed's story had in mind.

As for misrepresentation, Centrify, I note that you are guilty of that yourself. "None of them suggested that they would actually do it," you write, "or that it should be done illegally." Au contraire:

"In a world where I would not be restricted from killing an American, I personally would go and kill him myself," a current NSA analyst told BuzzFeed.
"I would love to put a bullet in his head," said one Pentagon official, a former special forces officer.
A defense contractor told BuzzFeed, "Most everyone I talk to says he needs to be tried and hung, forget the trial and just hang him.”

Going and killing Snowden, putting a bullet in his head, hanging him without a trial—these are all, Centrify, clear suggestions that he should be killed illegally, and two of the speakers expressed a desire to personally kill him.

Finally, I also revised the single sentence in the body text dealing with this topic, changing detailed to discussed in accordance with your objection.

Thanks again for your input. JohnValeron (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Who said "they would actually do it"? The guy who said "in a world"? Is that the "actual" world? I submit that it is not, and accordingly no reasonable person would believe there was a real intent here. The others said it would be satisfying to kill him or see him killed. Indeed, they are very angry. But they never said they actually planned to do so. If they did head to Russia to find Snowden and kill him, it would be in an entirely personal and unauthorized capacity such that any connecting to their government or their profession is misleading. You are being unreasonably literal here in your reading. The point of the Buzzfeed story is to show how pissed they are, not generate a genuine security threat that conveniently serves the argument that Snowden must remain in Russia if he is to remain alive.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that the response of the Snowden camp was shamelessly opportunistic, with Kucherena in particular posturing à la Claude Raines in Casablanca about how shocked, SHOCKED he was that anyone would want to harm a hair on the head of his sainted client. Even so, Snowden was asked about the BuzzFeed story during his German TV interview and The New York Times played along in reporting on said interview. We can't very well refuse to mention it in the body text—although you're probably right to remove it from the Lead, since the story and its government rebuttal does not reduce well to a single sentence. JohnValeron (talk) 03:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

As for Snowden's tirade about the BIll of Rights, it is irrelevant when the would-be assassins have been explicitly disowned by their employer. If a government employee attempts to murder me, I have no grievance against the government if the government has completely rejected the possibility that the employee may have been acting in any official capacity. If there's evidence the US government would in any way aid or abet Snowden's killing then that evidence must be shown if Snowden is to have grounds for accusing the government of violating his right to not be assassinated.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course, FCAYS, of course. But as you would see from the Talk page archives the commitment of Petrarchan47 and Binksternet to have this paragraph in the body of the article serve the POV pushing you point out and rightly object to was very intense. See also the Mike Masnick thread in the Talk archives, Masnick having been then added to the Buzzfeed story because Masnick's blogpost was even more extreme in hyping up the threats! Had you provided your opinion here at that time it would have helped mitigate that edit war.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment. Calling any past or future act "murder" is a legal conclusion which should not be drawn without sourcing. I'm sure legal scholars could endlessly debate whether such a killing would a "murder" or an "assassination". That was at the core of my concern. Thanks to John and Brian for their comments and cheers all around. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Obama: 29 year old hacker

Obama said this after Snowden's 30th birthday. It would at least be appropriate to change "June" to the actual date he said this. --80.187.106.128 (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the age discrepancy. I revised it to read:

President Obama was initially dismissive of Snowden, saying "I'm not going to be scrambling jets to get a 29-year-old hacker." (The President said this on June 27, 2013—six days after Snowden's 30th birthday.)

JohnValeron (talk) 23:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. --80.187.106.128 (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Breaking down the overly long "career" section

It seems to me that the career section is too long. Furthermore, I think it can be broken into manageable chunks because Snowden's career took place in discrete stages: (1) Pre-CIA employment (army, security guard); (2) CIA employment; (3) NSA contractor employment.

Is there a good argument for keeping the larger section? I tried to break this down once already, but was reversed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DancingHands56 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits on 8 July 2014. Since your idea of subsections within the Career section improves readability, I re-implemented them in the article. I suspect that The Last Arietta reverted your edits due to a misimpression that content had been removed, which was not the case. JohnValeron (talk) 05:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Please add "Honorary Member of Freie Universität Berlin" in "Recognition"

As I don't have an account, I can't add this in this article: Mr. Snowden is now an Honorary Member of Freie Universität Berlin. Source for that is: http://www.fu-berlin.de/en/presse/informationen/fup/2014/fup_14_252-snowden-akzeptiert-ehrung/index.html and it's already on his German Wiki page. Please add in the upper part in "Recognition"

Also he's about to get an honorary doctorate at Rostock University, but there is still a debate about this ongoing. 114.252.122.31 (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, I am at a loss as to whether or not this ought to be included. I'd feel better about adding it if you could provide at least one report from a reliable source showing that Snowden's honorary membership in Freie Universität Berlin is newsworthy. The university's own announcement, to which you've linked, concedes, "Other than the honor involved, there are no rights, privileges, or duties connected with honorary membership." While it's true we devote an entire subsection to Snowden's position of Rector at the University of Glasgow, the numerous citations in that subsection attest to the fact that the media (at least in the UK and USA) treated this as a newsworthy development. Have German media likewise reported on Snowden's honorary membership in Freie Universität Berlin? JohnValeron (talk) 05:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

German media have reported on it:

http://www.taz.de/!140820/

http://www.focus.de/regional/berlin/hochschulen-medien-snowden-wird-ehrenmitglied-der-fu_id_3933153.html

http://www.tagesspiegel.de/wissen/fu-berlin-edward-snowden-wird-ehrenmitglied/10068600.html

http://www.bz-berlin.de/berlin/edward-snowden-wir-ehrenmitglied-der-fu

http://www.morgenpost.de/politik/article129267377/Snowden-wird-Ehrenmitglied-der-FU-Stroebele-freut-sich.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.169.87.57 (talk) 09:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

DONE: I verified the assertion by IP 114.252.122.31 that this recognition appears on Snowden's page in the German Wikipedia, which in conjunction with its newsworthiness demonstrated via the links provided by IP 131.169.87.57 gives me confidence in adding it to the Recognition section of Edward Snowden. Thanks for your assistance. JohnValeron (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Archive links

About this edit it's common practice to include "Archive" links to webcitation.org to show an alternate location for a given source; in my opinion it's not confusing to use the word "Archive" as it's understood as "Alternate". These links are useful not only in case the source link dies, but also for people who are in countries where the Der Spiegel website is blocked or may be blocked in the future.

I am aware the editorial note on the Snowden interview is on the Der Spiegel page but I also prefer to add explanatory notes to the citation, as it in general gives more information on the page and it does so without having to visit the Der Spiegel page itself. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

It may be "common practice" but it's nevertheless confusing to add redundant links when the original source is still very much alive. As a reader, I would naturally presume such links would lead me to new, supplemental information—not to exactly the same article, at exactly the same location and in exactly the same language, as the fully functional primary link. Please, let's not jump the gun. Wikipedia's Edward Snowden already has 526 references. The last thing we need is to start cluttering those up with premature "archive" links. JohnValeron (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

There are Wikipedians who believe in being proactive and preemptive in archiving, so that the link doesn't disappear and then we find out "oops, we can't access it anymore!" (it's happened to me several times, sometimes because the Internet Archive never picked it up, and sometimes because of robots.txt). An "archive" often understood to be a saved copy of the same thing, so the Internet Archive has this name. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Fascinating. Is it your intention to add "archive links" to all 526 references in Edward Snowden? I can't imagine why only that one Der Spiegel citation would warrant special treatment. Certainly if you do, our hyper-inflated 3-column References section will stretch far enough down the page to reach China. JohnValeron (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

In theory any article can be archived but I focus on documents which have "unique" information (is it likely that you can find another source to replace what is said in that given source?). The Snowden interviews in full may be in only one particular webpage, and so I would focus my efforts on archiving such things. I make efforts to save official reports from government agencies (air crash reports, reports on prison riots). In addition if I think a government is hostile to particular information I may go to extra efforts to archive in multiple places so it can't be buried later (Gary Webb articles/reports). WhisperToMe (talk) 06:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, you convinced me. I restored your edit and apologize for reverting you. That said, I wonder if you'd comment on the overall shape this article is in. I see that you are, by number of edits, one of the Top 10 contributors to Edward Snowden, besides being an Admin and a Wikipedian of long standing. Has the article now reached such a state of relative maturity and refinement that providing archive links is called for? Thanks for your patience in helping me understand this issue. JohnValeron (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, and apologies accepted :) - I'll take a look! WhisperToMe (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the article is in a very complete state and if you want to archive more links you are welcome to. It's good to archive things: unlikely to be reported in other sources, on sites likely to use robots.txt or otherwise prevent archival, and/or pages which governments may be hostile to. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Archive links are standard 'best practice' on wikipedia.--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 23:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

^ Vasilyeva, Nataliya (2014-04-24). "Russia's Putin calls the Internet a 'CIA project'". The Seattle Times. The Seattle Times Company. Associated Press. Retrieved 2014-05-07.
^ Nechepurenko, Ivan (2014-04-28). "Russian Internet 'One Step Away' From Chinese Firewall". The Moscow Times. The Moscow Times. Retrieved 2014-05-07.
^ Pavliva, Halia (2014-04-25). "Yandex Sinks as Putin Hints at Stronger Internet Control". Bloomberg. Bloomberg L.P. Retrieved 2014-05-07.
^ Ryzhkov, Vladimir (2014-05-06). "Russia's Self-Isolation". The Moscow Times. The Moscow Times. Retrieved 2014-05-07.
^ "VKontakte CEO Pavel Durov quits steps down and flees country". news.com.au. News Limited. Associated Press. 2014-04-24. Retrieved 2014-05-07.
^ Mezzofiore, Gianluca (2014-04-30). "Russia Parliament Approves Laws Restricting Freedom of Bloggers". International Business Times. IBTimes Co., Ltd. Retrieved 2014-05-07.
^ MacAskill, Ewen (2014-04-24). "Putin calls internet a 'CIA project' renewing fears of web breakup". The Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. Retrieved 2014-05-07.
^ Lekarev, Peter (2014-04-30). "Russia may create its very own version of internet". The Voice of Russia. Retrieved 2014-05-07.
^ Tselikov, Andrey (2014-05-05). "Russian Internet on the Way to Pyongyang". Global Voices Advocacy. Global Voices Online. Retrieved 2014-05-07.
^ Cite error: The named reference GuardianGreenwaldFirstVideo was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference wapocharges was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ AP Source: State Department revokes NSA leaker Snowden's passport Associated Press June 23, 2013
^ Cite error: The named reference holderletter was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ О чем молчит Сноуден Итоги (The Outcome) 23 September 2013
^ Snowden's Lawyer: 'Russia Will Not Hand Him Over' Der Spiegel 24 July 2014
^ 'Snowden believes he did everything right' - lawyer Anatoly Kucherena at 24:35 RT 23 September 2013
^ Barchfield, Jenny (July 14, 2013). "Greenwald: Snowden docs contain NSA 'blueprint'". Associated Press.
^ HPSCI Chairman Mike Rogers and Ranking Member C.A. Dutch RuppersbergerL "Snowden's acts of betrayal truly place America's military men and women in greater danger around the world" U.S. House Intelligence Committee January 9, 2014
^ Eli Lake (January 30, 2014), Did an Angry Birds Leak Risk Spies' Lives? The Daily Beast

[1] Vasilyeva, Nataliya (2014-04-24). "Russia's Putin calls the Internet a 'CIA project'". The Seattle Times. The Seattle Times Company. Associated Press. Retrieved 2014-05-07.

[2] Nechepurenko, Ivan (2014-04-28). "Russian Internet 'One Step Away' From Chinese Firewall". The Moscow Times. The Moscow Times. Retrieved 2014-05-07.

[3] Pavliva, Halia (2014-04-25). "Yandex Sinks as Putin Hints at Stronger Internet Control". Bloomberg. Bloomberg L.P. Retrieved 2014-05-07.

[4] Ryzhkov, Vladimir (2014-05-06). "Russia's Self-Isolation". The Moscow Times. The Moscow Times. Retrieved 2014-05-07.

[5] "VKontakte CEO Pavel Durov quits steps down and flees country". news.com.au. News Limited. Associated Press. 2014-04-24. Retrieved 2014-05-07.

[6] Mezzofiore, Gianluca (2014-04-30). "Russia Parliament Approves Laws Restricting Freedom of Bloggers". International Business Times. IBTimes Co., Ltd. Retrieved 2014-05-07.

[7] MacAskill, Ewen (2014-04-24). "Putin calls internet a 'CIA project' renewing fears of web breakup". The Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. Retrieved 2014-05-07.

[8] Lekarev, Peter (2014-04-30). "Russia may create its very own version of internet". The Voice of Russia. Retrieved 2014-05-07.

[9] Tselikov, Andrey (2014-05-05). "Russian Internet on the Way to Pyongyang". Global Voices Advocacy. Global Voices Online. Retrieved 2014-05-07.

[GuardianGreenwaldFirstVideo-10] Cite error: The named reference GuardianGreenwaldFirstVideo was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[wapocharges-11] Cite error: The named reference wapocharges was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[12] AP Source: State Department revokes NSA leaker Snowden's passport Associated Press June 23, 2013

[holderletter-13] Cite error: The named reference holderletter was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[14] О чем молчит Сноуден Итоги (The Outcome) 23 September 2013

[15] Snowden's Lawyer: 'Russia Will Not Hand Him Over' Der Spiegel 24 July 2014

[16] 'Snowden believes he did everything right' - lawyer Anatoly Kucherena at 24:35 RT 23 September 2013

[17] Barchfield, Jenny (July 14, 2013). "Greenwald: Snowden docs contain NSA 'blueprint'". Associated Press.

[18] HPSCI Chairman Mike Rogers and Ranking Member C.A. Dutch RuppersbergerL "Snowden's acts of betrayal truly place America's military men and women in greater danger around the world" U.S. House Intelligence Committee January 9, 2014

[19] Eli Lake (January 30, 2014), Did an Angry Birds Leak Risk Spies' Lives? The Daily Beast

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]