Talk:Edward Snowden

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• we should not use the report to remove Snowden's description as a whistleblower
• we should not use the report to accuse him of being a "suspected spy for Russia and the People's Republic of China".
• we should not use the report to say he "falsely claimed to have passed the GED". The USNews article used as a source discusses this.[1]
• The shin splints/stress fracture issue is also discussed in the USnews article above titled "In Declassified Edward Snowden Report, Committee Walks Back Claims About 'Intentional Lying'".
• we should not use the report to say "sources disagree on" whether Snowden "was hand-picked by the CIA to support the president at the 2008 NATO summit in Romania".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Regarding the stress fracture/shin split issue, the source you removed,[2] which discusses claims made in the intelligence committee report, says “[T]hree-time Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Barton Gellman, … rebutted executive summary claims in a blog post, writing that Snowden's military discharge paperwork listed a diagnosis of "bilateral tibial stress fractures" and that he reviewed a copy of Snowden's GED test report, printing what he said was Snowden's test score and diploma number”. Nothing from the intelligence committee report should be written in wikivoice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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