Talk:Edward Snowden

Picture of Snowden

It's pretty ridiculous that there's always an issue adding an image to some current event.

What was so wrong with the image from The Guardian? Does fair use rationale not exist anymore? Everytime I tried uploading it it got deleted. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

You may want to weigh in here: Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_June_14#File:The_Guardian_front_page_10_June_2013.jpg Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

This is getting annoying how we still don't have an image up. WHAT HAPPENED TO FAIR USE RATIONALE? RocketLauncher2 (talk) 00:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

There's a picture farther down the page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

RocketLauncher2, "fair use" is a surprisingly narrow rule. If you'd like to see it broadened (and you're an American citizen) you should consider contacting your congressman/woman, as the House of Representatives is currently considering an the first overall of copyright law in 30 years. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia's "fair use" rules are much stricter than what the law requires. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Currently, there are two pictures, both well-placed. TNKS, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• The still from the video interview conducted by The Guardian may be deleted. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

This article needs a picture of Edward Snowden at the top. The first picture that we (and WP readers) see is of Snowden's Hong Kong lawyer; the second is a picture of the Ecuador embassy car in front of Sheremetyevo Airport in Moscow; the third picture is of Snowden and the PRISM logo on the front page of The Guardian. These three pictures are excellent choices for their sections, but a picture at the top is needed. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Silly Question, but has anybody asked the Guardian for written permission? --71.20.55.6 (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The image we have at commons, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Edward_Snowden.jpg ,is in deletion review now. It wasn't created by The Guardian we don't think. We think it may have been created by Praxis films. The image is marked as a creation by VOA and whether they put their mark on it in error or financed/owned the camera is the major issue. I have emailed The Guardian, Praxis, and the VOA. I put links in the emails to the deletion review as well as the OTRS licensing permission page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to someone who put an Edward Snowden picture back at the top of the article. It's the best picture, capturing what we remember. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Happy 4th of July, Independence Day, USA. FYI, still no face-photo at the article top! What's up, Doc? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • There are only a couple of pictures of Snowden that we've seen floating around, and they seem to be copyrighted, so the current situation might be the best that can be done. I wonder if he ever had a US Government ID photo, which could be considered public domain if it's available. Kind of like that one picture of Monica Lewinsky that circulated for months before someone finally got some new pictures. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Today, there is a picture back, not too suitable: "Edward Snowden graffiti by Thierry Ehrmann in the Abode of Chaos museum, France" with a totally red face. Although I don't like this, it is better than nothing. — TNKS, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
      • No, it's not suitable at all. In addition to freedom-of-panorama concerns, it's painting him like a Communist. It's not appropriate for the lead picture. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
        • ...can we use a fair use rationale and just upload a real picture? Considering this is one of the most visited articles on Wikipedia right now, I think we need to do something. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 22:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
          • It would likely be shot down, because they will argue that a freebie should be available somewhere, or at least "possible". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
          • As of today, there is a picture back at the top (replacing the Red-Paris-art-work) from the NSA it says when he is a smiling 19-yr-old. He is now 29, as in the next picture. It's OK, but selection could be better. Thanks to editors working on this. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
            • Just a couple of brief comments: (1) In case you didn't notice, a picture at the top was missing for days, and then someone put in a screen-shot of what everyone who sees any news saw from Day One: "Screen capture from the interview with Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras on June 6, 2013" which is brilliant, why didn't we think of this in the first place? (2) I will be on a brief hiatus for an indefinite short time but will probably not see the one seeking asylum, nor be on his decoy plane to Venezuela nor the boat to Pacific islands :-) Till later, signed electronically for the database, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• PS: To me, the article is looking great. There is another section here on TALK about the appropriateness of picture. They are greatly improved, looking good. The article does not end well -- we are all waiting to add another section or two on resolution. I'll be watching from afar and be back to assisting in August. Till then, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Whistleblower vs leaker

The article's introduction defines Snowden as a leaker. Practically all European media (eg the Guardian image linked in the article and the few non European ones I found) define him as a whistleblower.

I'm aware that American mainstream media strictly avoid the term whistleblower when talking about him, but this just clearly shows how US specific the description leaker is. Limiting the introduction to the term leaker is clearly US-POV. Since Wikipedia is a international project we should either use none of these terms or both. --Nemissimo (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Leaker is factual. Whistleblower is a political viewpoint. Just as "traitor" is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that both terms carry certain connotations and should be avoided. As the article currently stands it doesn't use either term so I think we're OK. The lead does say that Snowden "leaked" details but in my view the verb "leak" doesn't carry the same pejorative connotations as the noun "leaker." News leak has its own page and doesn't say anything positive or negative about those who leak. --Nstrauss (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Another thing to note is that "leaker" is a more descriptive term than "whistleblower" because leaking means disclosing to the news media, whereas whistleblowing can mean reporting the wrongdoing internally, filing a lawsuit, etc. --Nstrauss (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Besides which, no American legal body has yet ruled on the legality of what Snowden considers to be "wrongdoing". In fact, it's curious that no one has started a process to get this question before the US Supreme Court. Or have they? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure they have. The leading case is Jewel v. NSA. --Nstrauss (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

There are also FISC and FISCR rulings. But those are totally secret. ACLU has filed a lawsuit that will likely wind up in SCOTUS. There are multiple other Suits in progress.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/aclu-lawsuit-nsa-prism-surveillance-92840.html

http://pryordailytimes.com/editorials/x493355525/NSA-slapped-with-20-billion-class-action-suit

http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/06/21/why-eff-is-suing-the-nsa-and-doj-attorne

http://www.ktvb.com/news/Idaho-woman-sues-NSA-over-seizure-of-phone-records-211475531.html

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I would think that is the ACLU's goal. As I understand it, the core problem is that these phone companies destroy all their records after 6 months, so the government's program fills in that gap. The court battle should be interesting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

From a German and from most European nations' perspective it is absolutely clear that the NSA SIGINT operations are illegal under our national laws. It is critical for the NPOV to not limit this article to a US-only perspective.Nemissimo (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

What German court has issued that determination? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The South China Morning Post which did an interview with Snowden also calls him a "whistleblower"

Agencies in Moscow. "Whistle-blower Snowden seeks asylum in China, among other nations, says Wikileaks." (print title: "SNOWDEN ASKS FOR ASYLUM IN RUSSIA") South China Morning Post. Tuesday July 2, 2013.

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Saw on a Russia Today interview that the reporter noted this difference in calling Snowden Leaker in U.S. but whistleblower elsewhere, and some notes on why. Since the reporter described the terminology discussion, the discussion itself looks to be verifiable enough to be mentioned in the article if we want. This gives the option to not pick a specific side, but rather just report what is reported. Belorn (talk) 11:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The usage of those terms could be discussed, sure. Those who think they aren't affected by these revelations are using the term "whistleblower". It's a political term, like "traitor". "Leaker" is factual. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I must have been unclear. We don't need to discuss or bring up argument in favor or against anything, because the news reporters are doing that for us. We can simply write in the article what has been said in reliable sources. If some sources include arguments such as "whistleblower is a political term", we include that using such source as source. Simply put, we don't need to discuss what is or is not a political term. We simply let the sources do the talking and simply describe the discussion. Belorn (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

We don't do things blindly either. A source with a political slant one way or another needs to be identified as such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Whistleblower, Leaker or Traitor depends on whether you want an American Spring or a Police State..... Snowden is one of the most courageous American's alive, and he is in exile. How about American Hero!!! -- 70.65.181.170 (talk · contribs) 02:28, 5 July 2013‎ (UTC)

It's too early to tell yet. We wouldn't even have this phone number list situation if the phone companies would keep their data instead of deleting it after 6 months. As regards "exile", he left voluntarily. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

From the Associated Press style guide: "A whistle-blower is a person who exposes wrongdoing. It’s not a person who simply asserts that what he has uncovered is illegal or immoral. Whether the actions exposed by Snowden … constitute wrongdoing is hotly contested, so we should not call them whistle-blowers on our own at this point."--Brian Dell (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Letters from Snowden 1 Jul

Talks about his views and politics. In the end the Obama administration is not afraid of whistleblowers like me, Bradley Manning or Thomas Drake. We are stateless, imprisoned, or powerless. No, the Obama administration is afraid of you. It is afraid of an informed, angry public demanding the constitutional government it was promised — and it should be.

http://wikileaks.org/Statement-from-Edward-Snowden-in.html?snow

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Letter to Rafael Correa

As I face this persecution, there has been silence from governments afraid of the United States Government and their threats. Ecuador, however, rose to stand and defend the human right to seek asylum. The decisive action of your Consul in London, Fidel Narvaez, guaranteed my rights would be protected upon departing Hong Kong - I could never have risked travel without that. Now, as a result, and through the continued support of your government, I remain free and able to publish information that serves the public interest.

http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=OBR&date=20130701&id=16658727

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM

If Russia does give him asylum, those continual shots against the USA will come to a screeching halt. And Christopher Boyce's predictions look more on-the-mark every day. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC) He seems unwilling to halt, and not even death stops him. I think he won't accept that condition. We will see what happens.--71.20.55.6 (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Well, death would stop him for sure. But forgetting that, if Russia decides not to give him asylum, how is he going to leave the airport? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Death triggers his insurance policy. Greenwald, Poitras and a few others already have his whole stash. What he would need in order to travel are documents from another country, similar to the ones provided by Fidel Narvaez, but officially approved. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC) I fail to see how an insurance policy would resuscitate him. Anyway, with the EU now mad at us, might the number of potential asylum targets increase? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC) More like posthumous vengeance and speaking from beyond the grave. He's asked 15 countries: So perhaps somewhere in the EU would let him in. His main difficulty seems to be "Must be present to win." He needs to obtain documents that allow him to at least physically get to an embassy. Either that or turn secret-agent and sneak past the Security somehow. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 01:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Past Russian security? Good luck with that. Unless they're slipping in their old age. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Of dubious authenticity. How often does a contemporary American refer to the United States in the plural? or date something 1st July 2013? The statement expresses sympathy for Bradley Manning yet Manning did a data dump while Snowden, at least previously, was thought to be more selective, suggesting that the real author here is a non-American affiliated with Wikileaks as opposed to Snowden. It is possible for an American to write "1st July" instead of "July 1" but put all of these various stylistic idiosyncrasies together and the authorship is dubious. If Wikileaks is absolutely reliable as a source why haven't Wikileaks' spokespeople been more forthcoming in response to media questions about where Snowden and his laptops are? Note how gingerly the New York Times deals with the question of authorship, repeatedly saying that the statement is attributed to Snowden as opposed to by Snowden.-Brian Dell (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Hard to tell, but CNN seems to give it credence.[1] It also says that he withdrew his asylum request for Russia once he learned they would put conditions on it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Aha, CNN does say "WikiLeaks released a statement attributed to Snowden..." So the article, if using this info, must state likewise. And the dead-giveaways that you're talking about, like "1st July", lend support to Ecuador's opinion that Assange is "running the show"... by implication, that it was he who wrote that stuff. Which does not rule out that Snowden might have given Assange some input on it at some point. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Assange is working this entirely to his own benefit. I never saw why Ecuador would want two hot political potatoes instead of just one. The lion roared and the hyena backed off. The second potato is simply too scorchingly hot that only China and Russia would be powerful enough to handle. The fact that he got pushed out of Hong Kong strongly implies it's too hot for China too. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Yes. I wonder at what point Snowden will realize that he's being played, by everyone. As Boyce indicated, he will eventually discover that he can't trust anyone, and it's liable to make him very depressed. I think I read someplace that he was disappointed that he, rather than his revelations, had become the focal point of the story. That suggests an incredible naivete about how the world works. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald confirms Jul 6 that the letter was exclusively Snowden's. https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/statuses/353620139805130752 --71.20.55.6 (talk) 04:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Germany

Germany rejects Snowden's request for asylum. The German Foreign Ministry and Interior Ministry issue a statement on July 2 saying the requisite conditions for a valid asylum appeal are not present in Snowden's situation.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/bundesregierung-lehnt-aufnahme-von-edward-snowden-in-deutschland-ab-a-909090.html

Sca (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the German source, It was throwing the page off. petrarchan47tc 07:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Better photo for the article

Hi, dear NSA-spyed-americans-people,

I think you should use this picture for the article presentation : [http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Edward_Joseph_Snowden.jpg], instead of the current, wich is ugly and not clearly noticeable, as used in the french wikipedia and other ones.

Regards,

2A01:E35:8AD1:8140:9C26:6D60:1120:51C3 (talk) 13:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The image you link is currently proposed for deletion - it is clearly a copyright violation. (Incidentally, not everyone who edits the English-language Wikipedia is from the US) AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• According to Chinese copyright law the video itself has a CC-by license. See Chapter I, Section 4 Limitations on Rights, article 22 "In the following cases, a work may be exploited without the permission from, and without payment of remuneration to, the copyright owner, provided that the name of the author and the title of the work are mentioned and the other rights enjoyed by the copyright owner by virtue of this Law are not infringed upon: , (4): reprinting by newspapers or periodicals or other media, or rebroadcasting by radio stations or television stations or other media, of the current event article s on the issues of politics, economy and religion, which have been published by other newspapers, periodicals, radio stations or television stations or other media, except where the author has declared that publication or broadcasting is not permitted;" Since the video was filmed in Hong Kong this law applies as country of origin.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
  • We can't pick and choose what law we apply. For copyright purposes, WP abides by US law. The interview may have been filmed in Hong Kong, but HK has a common law legal system quite distinct from the PRC. Also, the film wasn't published in HK, but on the Guardian website, which is presumably in the UK. So the film seems to fail Chapter I, Section 4 article 22. I don't know why we're going around the houses on this image. I think we might just get away with claiming Fair Use provisions. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 14:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair use is usually a no-no with living people. If we can justify that the image of him in the interview is necessary for reader comprehension then that may succeed. I will see if I can find HK law on derivative works. Someone from commons has emailed the mural artist for a license.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course we can argue Fair Use if he is expected to lose his liberty of go into hiding forever. But in view of the fact that there are already two passport photos of him now as PD images (which I wasn't aware of when I wrote the above post), and the five year statute of limitations on Snowden's crimes [sic], Fair Use claim isn't likely to succeed. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 16:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Statute of limitations wouldn't apply. He's already been charged, and the charges will stay active until or if he's taken into custody. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I quite like the idea of a "statue of limitations" ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 01:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I can upload the PD passport images to commons if we can show them as PD. I assume you mean the photographers were feds. Do you have any links to them?--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• No need to worry. Someone has already done that. And the images are already in use in our article. I don't think the Feds too the photos. They look like standard passport photos taken 5 years apart. I'm no expert, but I think the submission for passport purposes is sufficient to transfer them into US govt for copyright purposes. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 16:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually I don't think the copyrights do transfer but remain with the photographer. I heard back from Laura Poitras' people and they may have a single frame from the video licensed for us by Monday at the earliest.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• That would be good. But then the whole world, not just us, would be able to use it royalty free. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 01:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Probably copyvio see:Copyright status of work by the U.S. government where is says "...many publications of the U.S. government contain protectable works authored by others..."--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The original screenshot has received OTRS from Laura.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

• Is it just me, or does the infobox image look like it's been squashed or stretched? It was fine when OTRS ticket was obtained, but now it looks weird. I've refreshed the browser cache but to no avail. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 00:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• I can only get the "cropped" image to display properly. The original fucks up, so I swapped it out. Can we leave it at the "cropped" version? -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 02:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

There was an edit war of versions at commons. Try refresh on your browsers. If that doesn't fix then the server will correct in in a bit.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Lord knows how many times I've refreshed browser the cache. Space at Commons isn't an issue. There ought now to be two versions at commons – a "clean" original version that obtained OTRS ticket, and a second one, cropped that is clearly labelled as derivative work of a GFDL-compliant image. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 02:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The images are from two different video frames. We only have OTRS for the one version. The wider angle versions will probably be deleted. The problem was that the OTRS agent applied a license assuming one was a crop of the other. Details are on the talk page of the cropped version over there. File:Edward Snowden.jpg--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Venezuela

Venezuela's Maduro on July 5 offers asylum:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/06/us-usa-security-venezuela-idUSBRE96500420130706

Sca (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Doesn't tell us anything more about the supposed offer than we know already. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 16:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

July 7: "MOSCOW (AP) — An influential Russian parliament member who often speaks for the Kremlin encouraged NSA leaker Edward Snowden on Sunday to accept Venezuela's offer of asylum."

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-official-venezuela-last-chance-snowden-110851353.html

Sca (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

A Maduro quote "We told this young man, 'you are being persecuted by the empire, come here,"'

http://www.smh.com.au/world/venezuela-receives-snowden-asylum-application-20130709-2pnbf.html#ixzz2YVWvJRaC

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Edward Snowden’s nightmare comes true

Isn't it proper to start the American responses section with Snowden's fears that his "great work" will be met with a collective yawn and a note that it has? Hcobb (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Who is saying that it came true? WhisperToMe (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/edward-snowden-nsa-93742.html

Title of article. Hcobb (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

That is the opinion of Philip Ewing of Politico.com - or rather, it would be, if the article itself didn't go on to state that "Edward Snowden’s nightmare may be coming true". "May be". A vague assertion, and a prediction about the future anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Other nations didn't yawn; just saying, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

No, not the ones who already hate the USA and see this as a propaganda opportunity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The article points out several sources that align with Snowden's reported fears, so it's evidence based and not just op-ed. Hcobb (talk) 03:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Hcobb that the article is a reliable non-opinion source -- except for the first sentence ("Edward Snowden’s nightmare may be coming true."), which is pure editorial. There are some good opinions in there that are worthy of citation (with attribution). That said, they don't deserve their own special section. Probably a paragraph. --Nstrauss (talk) 07:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It's also weasel-wording. "His nightmare may be coming true. Then again, it may not be coming true." It's really too early to tell. Now, if he's still in the Moscow airport a year from now, that could be fairly nightmarish. But it appears some Latin American countries are willing to take him in. That could be a problem for him too, but that's a nightmare of a different color. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Of course it's weasely. These headers are typically written by some sub-editor whose job is just to write catchy titles. They don't necessarily have proper regard for the underlying story. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 10:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Snowden's fear isn't for his own fate:

http://www.businessinsider.com/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-2013-6 "The greatest fear that I have regarding the outcome for America of these disclosures is that nothing will change," Snowden said. "People will see in the media all of these disclosures, they'll know the lengths the government is going to grant themselves power unilaterally to create greater control over American society and global society, but they won't be willing to take the risks necessary to stand up and fight to change things to force their representatives to actually take a stand in their interests."

And is the nightmare that is coming true. Hcobb (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Instead of staying here and taking the risk, standing up and fighting like a true hero would, as he gives lip service to, he instead put himself on a world tour and drew almost all the media attention to himself and away from what is allegedly the real issue. Any nightmare he's experiencing is of his own making. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Please quit criticizing the subject of the article. You've already plastered your feelings across the talk page enough. At some point it stops sounding like friendly discussion and starts sounding like you're using this page as your personal WP:SOAPBOX. Go start a blog or something. --Nstrauss (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Then tell the others to stop heaping praise on this guy. I assure you, I've said much less than I could have. Also, I'm trying to raise issues that others here seem not to be considering - blinded as they are by hero worship, and overlooking the irony of it, which some columnists have pointed out. (To be clear, I do not detect that you yourself are in that category). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't care what your motivation is. This talk page is neither a forum nor a battleground, and you've been the biggest offender lately. --Nstrauss (talk) 04:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Fine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

According to CNN,[2] Venezuela made an offer but he has not responded yet. Does anyone know, from reliable sources, when he was last heard from? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Greenwald recently confirmed that Snowden did indeed issue the wikileaks statement exclusively. So that would be Jul 6. https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/statuses/353620139805130752 --71.20.55.6 (talk) 04:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess this could flow into the "where is he" question below. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Netherlands Also Not Treating Asylum Application

Addition to the Edward Snowden#Others section: "the Netherlands", because, like Finland and the other countries mentioned there, the Netherlands mentioned the same technical grounds for not treating the asylum application. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

References

 Done BryanG (talk) 03:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

New Interview with Der Spiegel and related articles - Jul 7

This interview with Snowden was conducted by Poitras when Snowden was still in Hawaii. NSA "in bed with" Germans and most others.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/07/edward-snowden-spiegel-nsa-germans

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/edward-snowden-accuses-germany-of-aiding-nsa-in-spying-efforts-a-909847.html

https://magazin.spiegel.de/reader/index_SP.html#j=2013&h=28&a=102241618

http://cryptome.org/2013/07/snowden-spiegel-13-0707.pdf

Translation of interview. http://cryptome.org/2013/07/snowden-spiegel-13-0707-en.htm --71.20.55.6 (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Der Spiegel's translation of their article. The interview is reproduced in it's original English.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-with-whistleblower-edward-snowden-on-global-spying-a-910006.html

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Raul Castro

Has issued a statement supporting other countries' rights to grant asylum. But not whether Snowden would be allowed to transit Cuba.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/2013/07/07/raul-castro-backs-asylum-offers-nsa-leaker/u2Paj4t1fdHB22NPmQv64I/story.html

Further reactions of Daniel Ellsberg

In a piece written to the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/daniel-ellsberg-nsa-leaker-snowden-made-the-right-call/2013/07/07/0b46d96c-e5b7-11e2-aef3-339619eab080_story.html

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 06:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Where is he?

There's so much media noise about the asylum seeking and official government announcements from governments that I no longer know where Edward Snowden actually is, at this point in time. I can't ascertain with any umm certainty from the news media, or more importantly, from our WP article ;o) Is Edward Snowden STILL in that airport in Moscow?

I would suggest considering the addition of an info box to the article, with a very brief time line. Item 1 could be May 1, Snowden leaves house in Hong Kong, Item 2 could be whenever he arrived in Hong Kong if we know the date. Item 3 is the date of his arrival at that airport in Moscow. Item 4 is or will be whenever we know that he has departed Moscow. I am happy to add this, but want to know what y'all think about it.

Second issue

One may not study for a Master's degree without completion of a Bachelor's degree. Snowden didn't even have a high school diploma, but he did have a GED. That qualified him for study at a community college or four year degree program. He never came close to receiving either designation. He possibly completed a class in "MS Windows 2000 Systems Engineer w/ Exchange", but there seems to be no evidence that he completed it. This is from the Washington Post:

"... Snowden also said he attended classes at Johns Hopkins on a campus in Columbia, Maryland. A spokeswoman for Johns Hopkins University said they have "no record" of Edward Snowden taking classes there. Instead, the Maryland Higher Education Commission said that someone named Ed Snowden actually took "MS Windows 2000 Systems Engineer w/ Exchange" at a for-profit entity known as Advanced Career Technologies from February 2002 to May 2002. The school offered career training in Columbia, Maryland, under the name "Computer Career Institute at Johns Hopkins University." Hopkins ended its relationship with the company in 2009 and it shut down in 2012."

As for the Master's degree, I realize that a number of sources say the following:

"In addition, Snowden did work towards a Master's Degree at the University of Liverpool, taking an online Computer Security class in 2011. Kate Mizen, head of public relations for the University of Liverpool, said he studied there, but "he is not active in his studies and has not completed the program.""

He took one online computer security class in 2011 at the University of Liverpool, which he didn't necessarily complete (after being employed by the CIA et al. as an information technology expert for four, five (?) years prior). That hardly counts as doing work toward a Master's degree. It is misleading to state that he studied for a Master's degree, while omitting the fact that he never obtained a Bachelor's degree. (This entire thing is just blowing my mind, as I know so many people who actually went to school, have credentials and experience, and could never in their wildest dreams get a job like Edward Snowden had, but that is beside the point. For that matter, I would like to have Edward Snowden's job! I'm better qualified than he was. I would hazard a guess that at least 25% of the contributors to WP articles are more qualified than Ed was for his $122,000 per year job...)

In fact, the quote as cited should be: 'A spokesperson for the university said that in 2011 Snowden registered for an online master's degree program in computer security and that "he is not active in his studies and has not completed the programme."[46]

(British spelling is in the original, in the article this is incorrectly spelt as 'program'. 2.96.96.198 (talk) 08:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Third issue

Finally, it would be a good idea to mention something about Edward Snowden's girlfriend. Maybe you did, I couldn't find anything. The BBC said that her name is Lindsey Wells, and that they moved out of the house together on May 1, and that Ed had photos of her pole-dancing (which surprised me, that BBC mentioned that, without further follow-up).

What happened to the girlfriend? Did she travel to Hong Kong with Ed? Is she with him now? Are both the girlfriend AND the female Wikileaks handler with Ed now, at the airport in Russia? I am not being sarcastic. I don't see this covered, and as a woman, I would really like to know. These sort of details are important and of interest to me. If there isn't any information available, that's fine. But if there is, or becomes available in time, please include it. It is topical while he is a fugitive. Later, maybe not so much, I'll concede.

Thank you for considering my requests. I would be happy to insert that info box, if you want me to. --FeralOink (talk) 07:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• First issue – Timeline: not so hot on that idea. He hasn't been to many places and so it seems unwarranted to dwell on such recentist and "newsy" information.

  Second issue – Liverpool Uni: We've only written about what the news outlets have said about his education history. We're not allowed to comment or speculate on stuff that hasn't been reported. Nowhere does it say or imply he obtained a Bachelors or Masters degree. The only distinction I would perhaps examine is whether he simply enrolled or whether he did submit some work for assessment, but considering his background checkers missed out on a whole lot more, it's kinda trivial in the whole scheme of things.

  Third issue – girlfriend: It may be "interesting" information, but this is the sort of unencyclopaedic gossip that I feel has no place in a WP biography. She wiped her entire online profile, so it's safe to assume that she would not want further attention on her. Her whereabouts would be a coatrack of no relevance to the storyline. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 07:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

  • According to user 76... a few sections above, he was heard from as recently as the 6th, and the TV news programs I've seen continue to say that he's at the Russian airport. As to the abandoned girlfriend, she was discussed on muckraking TV shows like Inside Edition for a couple of days after he fled to Hong Kong, and nothing since then, so the subject doesn't warrant more than a single sentence, or maybe just part of a sentence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm sure his departure from Moscow airport is not something that can take place in a clandestine manner, nor will it be an event that Russia will want to hide. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 14:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
    • However, it would not be surprising if it's not announced until after he arrives safely at wherever he eventually goes. Also, with the media having been burned by false rumors, they might exercise some caution, which might aid his next step. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
      • her name is Lindsay Mills, not Lindsey Wells, if I'm not wrong Matthew 13:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Ambox

Do we need an ambox to say that this documents a current event? George8211 12:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• The pace of edits seems to have slowed down a lot – there have been about 20 edits today. I'm not ruling something else happening to trigger a massive increase in the rate, but such a tag doesn't seem necessary at present. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 12:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • His name is in the news every day, so it's certainly an "ongoing" event. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree, the template can be removed now, as it exists to warn users of rapid editing, not of the existence of an "ongoing event". That's what the article itself should do. --Conti|✉ 16:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
    • On reflection, sure, it can go. The reality is that there isn't much "new news" for this guy at present. That could change, but for now he's taking a back seat to Egypt and the plane crash in San Francisco. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Just to check, it has been removed now hasn't it? Sorry, not thinking straight. Please ignore this comment. George8211 (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Updated 13:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Opinion on Hong Kong asylum

Found this http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1277373/why-edward-snowden-would-be-better-back-hong-kong 99.119.80.209 (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Video interview part 2

Has just been published today.

For the Image Debate, the copyright notice reads © 2013 Praxis Films /Laura Poitras http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/jul/08/edward-snowden-video-interview

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think he looks any different in part 2 so a newer image isn't needed. Laura has been kind enough to send ORTS on two screen shots from part 1 for us.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Ireland denies Arrest warrant

Interesting, though may not be relevant unless he actually lands there.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/dublin-rejects-snowden-arrest-plea-29404105.html

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• It is interesting and important to know that the US has been pre-emptively spraying arrest warrants all over the western hemisphere (at least) to cover all its bases in trying to corner Snowden. If Ireland has been served one, chances are the whole of Europe has also been dealt one. Such warrants may also be tests of the political support of these countries for the US. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 01:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Greenwald interview on Democracy Now

Describes contacts with Snowden on Jul 6 as an extensive conversation, and more details.

http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2013/7/8/glenn_greenwald_edward_snowden_satisfied_by_global_outrage_over_us_surveillance_operations

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

More Guardian sources

• Roberts, Dan. "US privacy group challenging NSA and FBI collection of phone records." The Guardian. Monday 8 July 2013.
• Hopkins, Nick. "NSA and GCHQ spy programmes face legal challenge." The Guardian. Monday 8 July 2013.
• Greenwald, Glenn, Laura Poitras and Ewen MacAskill. "Edward Snowden: US surveillance 'not something I'm willing to live under'." The Guardian. Monday 8 July 2013.

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Shows Its Bias Again

Rant

Once again, the would-be arbiter of all things arbitration-worthy screws up royally. It was really bad enough that Wikipedia made this article read-only—which, I imagine, is the only practicable approach for such an emotionally charged issue. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has abused its "power" by presenting just about the most biased picture conceivable. For, not only do they demonstrate their total disrespect for the government that protects three hundred million of their readers and Lord only knows what significant percentage of their authors and sysops, but they go out of their way to mischaracterize the response of the defense community by calling undue attention to a handful of named wackos and saying, "See, here, this is how people at NSA think." Utterly beyond reprehensible, gentlemen. Now, go ahead and edit this out in your standard cowardly fashion before too many others read it. That's another popular Wikipedia tactic: they cry poverty, yet they can afford to have sysops devoting undue attention to tracking edits effected by those who are known to harbor (Heavens!) an anti-Wikipedia stance. It's funny how power works, and it's even funnier how these sysops interpret "power." I used to think I was powerful when I was a sixteen-year-old system administrator (back then, we were UNIX kernel programmers who condescended to do some system admin on the side)—but I had outgrown it by my seventeenth birthday. Pressing buttons is not power. Knowing the root password when Joe Schmuck only knows the j.schmuck password is not power: it's pathetic. -- 98.249.207.46 (talk · contribs) 22:51, 8 July 2013 (UCT) Whats your point? You ramble. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC) It may be over the whistleblower vs leaker image of Mr. Snowden. We could try a Googlefight and see which gets more hits that may fall into wp:common name.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC) It's not read-only. You just need to sign up for an account with a username. It was semi-protected due to vandalism. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Troll. If the IP were acting in good faith he/she would (1) actually make a suggestion to improve the article and (2) know a little more about how Wikipedia actually works. --Nstrauss (talk) 03:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Snowden Guardian Interview, part two

Saving Strauss the trouble, we already have a link to part 2 a few sections above

Released today. The level of spying by NSA revealed here by Snowden is enormous. Snowdens reasons are also compelling viewing IMHO http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/jul/08/edward-snowden-video-interview This article backs up the utter enormity of the spying on the entire world. http://rt.com/usa/nsa-fiber-optic-cable-790/ Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC) If I can't editorialize, you can't either. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC) This is the talk page, you are entitled to your opinion. I hold that a figure of 99% interception is entitled to the descriptor 'utter enormity' Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC) I got rung up yesterday by an editor griping about my stating my opinion. I assume he, being a fair-minded individual, will likewise ring you up for it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Lol. They wont get these secrets back in the bottle. Lots of spooks on these sorts of pages. Their controllers are scared. E. Snowdens leaks are a game changer. They now it. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

How did the part saying Snowden was originally a Catholic disappear from the article?

I remember seeing this on day one of this story. But that information is now gone, and all the article says is that he switched to Buddhism. Switched from what? What's really weird though is that there's no electronic trace of the article ever mentioning his previous religion (as Catholicism or any other for that matter.) I can't locate it in history! Weird. Anyone? Aminidi (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It would be a needle in a haystack. But you might find reference to it in some of the discussions here, and that could pinpoint the date better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I wish Wikipedia had a better way of "searching" all revisions so stuff in old revisions could easily be found. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Try WP:BLAME. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 13:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow! I didn't know that existed! I searched BLAME from June 9, but I couldn't find "Catholic" WhisperToMe (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Me too. Someone's hiding something here at Wikipedia. Look below, they deleted my entire section in Talk (Is Snowden still alive? Is he real, or even a made-up character perhaps?) saying it was trolling. Which is rather bizarre to say, I mean where should we raise suspicions about an article or its subject being genuine if not in Talk pages? I rephrased it now, let's see if the secret keepers stick their head out of the hole again. Aminidi (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Those comments are still in the history.[3] They're just not appropriate for the talk page, unless you can find a valid source that makes your case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

If a revision is deleted, you'll see a strikethrough through a gray space that is normally clickable. Usually this happens due to copyright infringement or inappropriate personal information. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Operation Silverzephyr - More spying in Latin America

More from O Globo. Spying in Mexico, Venezuela, Argentina, Colombia and Ecuador, Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, Paraguay, Chile, Peru and El Salvador. Also references PRISM, Fairview, Boundless Informant and X-Keyscore.

http://oglobo.globo.com/mundo/espionagem-dos-eua-se-espalhou-pela-america-latina-8966619

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 07:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Fallout from the operation. Peru calling for an Investigation in its Congress. Ecuadoran VP says it's unacceptable. Argentinian President Kirchner asking for an explanation. Colombian senators are asking that the government formally protest. Carvalho of Brazil is calling for a joint response from Latin American countries.

http://oglobo.globo.com/mundo/kirchner-pede-explicacoes-aos-eua-sobre-denuncia-de-espionagem-8973129

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Glenn Greewald speaking in Portuguese. http://oglobo.globo.com/videos/t/todos-os-videos/v/webchamada/2680502

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Fallout from the Brazilian Spying Scandal

Senators asking Brazil to Grant Asylum

http://oglobo.globo.com/mundo/senadores-defendem-que-brasil-conceda-asilo-edward-snowden-8962251

Although Patriota still says no.

http://oglobo.globo.com/mundo/patriota-elogia-disposicao-dos-eua-para-dialogo-8959441

A police investigation ensues

http://oglobo.globo.com/mundo/anatel-abre-investigacao-sobre-espionagem-dos-eua-no-brasil-8962092

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 06:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Lawsuits over Tempora

Privacy International, a charity in London that works in the area of privacy, has charged in a statement Monday that "the expansive spying regime is seemingly operated outside of the rule of law, lacks any accountability, and is neither necessary nor proportionate."

http://www.techworld.com.au/article/507991/privacy_group_sues_uk_government_over_surveillance_programs/

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The courts will decide the answer to those claims. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Trolling.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is Snowden real? I think this whole story is so bizarre we need to question authenticity of the entire article and its subject. Simply put, Snowden is either not alive, or he never existed. Media talk about this guy every day and every time they do it as if they have just gotten his exclusive statement or interview. But officially, no one has seen him since he departed from Hong Kong 22 June. I mean, how hard would it be to go to the Hong Kong airport before that date, or the Moscow airport now, and make an actual interview with the guy? Or, why not do it via phone, txt, or Twitter? Wouldn't this be every journalist's dream? How come we don't see any CNN cameras at the Moscow airport, with a taped interview if not broadcasting live? You'd expect Richards Quest would buy a ticket as a passenger in order to get inside the closed-customs zone and get the hold of Snowden. It wouldn't be the first time, he's done crazier stuff. Weird. I call intelligence community's performance. Anyone? Aminidi (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC) The guy is an ex-CIA operative. I don't think it'd be that hard for him to avoid the media, who have no idea where he'll be. I did read somewhere that a bunch of journalists got seats on a plane that he had a ticket for, but he never got on the plane. Howicus (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC) CIA doesn't turn its agents into spider-men. How much hiding room is there inside an airport's no-customs zone? Try the WCs, and chances are you'll find him in there at least for an hour or more each day! Haven't you ever been abroad? No-customs zones are very (very) tiny compared to the whole airport. Aminidi (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Here we go [4]. Howicus (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Can you find a valid source that makes your case for you? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC) I don't make any claims. My point is that there are no reliable sources (like on-camera interviews) that the guy is real or alive, and you're asking me to provide sources? Sources that say there are no sources? Wow. Don't twist it, please. Aminidi (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Please don't add the Conspiracy theory collapsible box. I didn't postulate a theory or made any claims. I simply questioned authenticity of the article and its subject since there is no evidence he is real or alive. Given the caliber of the case and the fact we're in high-tech 2013, here by evidence I (as should everyone else) consider interviews on camera, with him or his family. Isn't what I'm asking precisely the opposite from a conspiracy theory? Aminidi (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Asylum requests

WP:NOTFORUM AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Snowden has seeked asylum based on information that was to be found out sooner or later. This was beneficial for Europe. It could be neutral to protect him in Europe. Could European Union act as partner and give him freedom of residence in country he selects? Many Europeans would accept this: [5] Watti Renew (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC) That would depend on how much the EU wants to harm their trade relationship with America. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk subject deserves to be shown as in fact stated by the MEPs on July 4th 2013 the whistleblower persons need international protection. (ref Helsingin Sanomat 5.7.2013: "Mepit korostivat, että ilmiantajien on saatava tarvittaessa kansainvälisen tason suojelua." Statement needs action. Protection could take response e.g. in Belgium, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Luxemburg, Vatican, Monaco. Watti Renew (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

This should be addressed in the article more clearly: Jürgen Trittin The Guardian Europe (2.7.2013) [6] wrote “The man who revealed that our US and UK allies are spying on us ought to be given refuge by an EU country”. " Edward Snowden has done us all a great service. In the past two weeks Europeans have been made aware of massive data collection from their private and business communications by American and British security services. The commission must act when it comes to such grave attacks on our shared values. Snowden blew the whistle on activities that threaten the very freedom our democracies are built on. If ever a case demonstrated why we need the protection of whistleblowers, this is it." Watti Renew (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Fisa Judge Robertson

He states that the FISA court needs an adversary. And suggests that the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB), should perhaps become one.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/jul/09/fisa-courts-judge-nsa-surveillance

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Venezuela?

Maybe just another red herring, but worth keeping an eye on, especially if Venezuelan leaders make a statement today.[7] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Assange seems to have quashed that one. Saying he has not "formally applied" yet. But here's another interesting snippet. "Tomorrow the first phase of Edward Snowden's 'Flight of Liberty 'campaign will be launched. Follow for further details." https://twitter.com/wikileaks --71.20.55.6 (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that in the updated CNN article. This is like waiting for the next episode of The Kardashians or something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's a plausible route, though it requires a private plane. Olafur Sigvirinsson of Iceland, a huge Wilileaks supporter does have one capable of phase one. Avoids everybody's airspace. Svalbard isn't really a waypoint in terms of landing, just a convenient landmark for the map.

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=moscow++to+svalbard+to+reykjavik+to+Caracas

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I would think that all he really needs to do is get to the Venezuelan embassy somehow. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Is He Or Isn't He? Much Confusion Over Snowden And Venezuela. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/07/09/200382725/is-he-or-isnt-he-much-confusion-over-snowden-venezuela

Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not the first time, either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The Jester

Hacktivist "The Jester" has been rather active in the Snowden issue, apparently going so far as to hack sites of countries considering granting him asylum, including a major Venezuelan newspaper. (Sorry it's only a primary source.) Is this too trivial to include in the article? Machdelu (talk) 05:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Are newspapers reporting on the issue? If not, I would not include it. Check to see if newspapers are discussing the issue. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Got one: Liebelson, Dana. ""The Jester" Hacks Top Venezuelan Newspaper Over Snowden." Mother Jones. Tuesday July 9, 2013. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Fox news. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/07/02/pro-us-hacker-jester-takes-aim-at-nations-helping-snowden/ Blade-of-the-South (talk) 11:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Leonard Pitts column

Leonard Pitts states opposition to Snowden's fleeing from the US:

• Pitts, Leonard Jr. "Snowden’s only principled choice: Come home." Miami Herald. July 9, 2013.

Alternate copies:

• Pitts, Leonard Jr. "By refusing to stand by his actions, NSA leaker Snowden is no hero." The News Tribune. July 10, 2013.
• Pitts, Leonard Jr. "Leonard Pitts Jr.: Why Edward Snowden is not a hero." San Jose Mercury News. July 10, 2013.
• Pitts, Leonard Jr. "Leonard Pitts: Snowden should come home." Anchorage Daily News. July 10, 2013.

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Greenwald says Venezuela is best bet, and Snowden says Russia and China didn't get contents of his laptop

• Greenwald, Glenn. "Venezuela is Edward Snowden's best option, says Guardian's Glenn Greenwald - video." The Guardian. Wednesday 10 July 2013.
• Greenwald, Glenn. "Snowden: I never gave any information to Chinese or Russian governments." The Guardian. Wednesday 10 July 2013.

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• • Is there any independent evidence of that claim? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
    • What would be independent evidence? --Conti|✉ 17:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Confirmation by the CIA, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Um... the CIA is hardly "independent" in this matter. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
          • Lol, the CIA is part of the problem Bugs. I cant believe you said that, you sound like a true believer in the CIA. Cmon. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
            • I think y'all are missing the point. If the CIA were to confirm he did not pass along any info to Russia, we could be pretty certain it's true. Snowden is facing various criminal charges at this point, so of course he's not going to say anything to worsen his situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
        • How on earth would the CIA be able to confirm this? The only way for them would be to ask Russia, in which case you might say (reasonably so) that Russia simply lied to them. That, or the CIA would have to admit that they indeed spy on Russia, and that their spying confirmed what Russia did or did not do. Silliness aside, we'll have to take Snowden's (and Greenwald's) word for it. There is no neutral party to independently verify these claims. --Conti|✉ 12:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
          • Obama has already said that "everybody spies on everybody". Meanwhile, there is no reason to take Snowden's word on anything. But you can say "Snowden claimed, via Greenwald..." and that keeps it factual. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
            • The entirety of the leaks are on a basis of "Snowden said via Greenwald". This is no different. --Conti|✉ 13:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Snowden's statement should be included (along with a brief note of the stories, founded or not, that the Russians or Chinese have profited from his presence in their territory, which Snowden's statement is a response to) but coupled with a note that it is via Greenwald, since Snowden is not making himself available to less sympathetic (i.e. independent) media who could suggest various different scenarios to Snowden and ask if he would then rule all of those specific scenarios out. In other words, we don't have context or independent sourcing.--Brian Dell (talk) 11:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Snowden's public appearance today would suggest he's on board with all of this (assuming he's not actually a captive). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yahoo! wishes to show that it "objected strenuously"

By releasing its arguments in a 2008 FISA case.

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_23635466/yahoo-asks-secret-surveillance-court-unseal-files

--71.20.55.6 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

All this Snowden fanboy page needs are cheerleaders with pompoms

I read this bio several times in the early days when Snowden was just coming into the media. It was well balanced, presenting both sides of the issue. Now it's been locked and turned into a gigantic fanboy page.

References to some of Snowden's prominent critics have been sandpapered right out of the article. The highly respected writer Jeffrey Toobin, who early on criticized Snowden[8], was disappeared straight out of the article. I see on an earlier talk page that somebody disagreed with what Toobin said, so in rampant partiality, Toobin's name vanished. Josef Stalin would be so proud.

The fact that Toobin wrote an early critique of Snowden is what matters; that a Wikipedia user has a different opinion is no reason to completely disappear something. Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Leonard Pitts, Jr. has also criticized Snowden[9], but don't expect to see his name mentioned, either, since that doesn't fit with the fanboy meme of this page, where a laundry list of Snowden supporters is lovingly maintained, while those critical are only given the short shrift of the unnamed "other commentators were more critical."

When prominent media persons like Toobin and Pitts are critical of Snowden, they should be named, just like those who praise him.

Academics and publishing professionals often criticize Wikipedia for its inherent bias, and this lovingly crafted Snowden mush piece trying to pass itself off as "objective" is a great example of that fatal deficiency.92.48.194.154 (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

We have to be careful of citing random, uninvolved news commentators. That's probably why that stuff was removed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's an absurdly weak rationalization for bias because the article includes mentions of many pro-Snowden people who are uninvolved. Most of the people cited and quoted in the article are uninvolved, yet their point of view is included because it's pro-Snowden. How is Glenn Beck involved? Oliver Stone? Michael Moore? Toobin is arguably far more involved as a prominent commentator and columnist than Oliver Stone, who's primarily a Hollywood moviemaker. Also, the award-winning journalist Jennifer Rubin should be added to the list of people who have criticized Snowden; she's called him "a criminal" and excoriated those who support him. 84.244.183.116 (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

People who dont sign on and rant need to be rant labelled Blade-of-the-South (talk) 07:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, great job proving my point. You do nothing to address the valid criticisms I've raised and, instead, censor what I wrote by hiding it. So I've un-hid it because it wasn't a rant. A rant would be blathering away a personal opinion about the subject. It was an on-point criticism of the article's pro-Snowden bias. And, FYI, there's nothing wrong about editing Wikipedia without an account. It's allowed and has happened for years. The fact that you feel my doing so is a valid reason to censor me and dismiss my criticism only underscores your bias and subjectivity. And, hey, since you feel a need to criticize my Wikipedia use, how about you learn to indent your comment properly? I've been Miss Helpful and done it for you. 84.244.183.116 (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Toobin's essay was written June 10th, before much of the story had developed, and also resorted to baseless rhetoric such as "narcissist". Since that time, other essays and opinions, with a much broader view of the events, have surfaced. Former President Carter has a more nuanced view, in which he states that "He's obviously violated the laws of America, for which he's responsible" ... "If the United States can acquire custody of him, I'm sure he will be brought to trial, and that's the way the law should be implemented." But also that "I think that the bringing of it to the public notice has probably been, in the long term, beneficial."

The Pitts essay is rather better, I can see no objection to its inclusion. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Less essay and more fact is better still. Jonathunder (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I am certainly not a fan of this character, and haven't the energy at the moment to read the whole bloody thing. But I did read the lead paragraph, and it looks very good. It provides a succinct and fair summary of what's going on with this guy. One thing that needs to be added to the lead is where he settles. That's still not public knowledge, of course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Majority of Americans think Snowden did the right thing

Fifty-five percent of registered American voters consider former NSA contractor Edward Snowden to be a whistleblower, and only 34 percent call him a traitor - despite US lawmakers labeling him as such.

http://rt.com/usa/snowden-americans-majority-poll-906/ Blade-of-the-South (talk) 07:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

This columnist points out the biased nature of the poll's question:[10] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thats a biased view imo Blade-of-the-South (talk) 11:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

No it's not. They gave no middle-ground choices. I ran across an earlier poll that said around 55 percent of Americans thought he was right (rendering the current poll as old news), and at the same time 55 percent of Americans thought he should face prosecution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

There was an "undecided" option, which it appears about 11% took. The earlier Reuters poll had 46% undecided. The latest poll used the term "whistleblower", and the Reuters version used "hero." In either event, it demonstrates a shift in the public perception as they become more familiar with the issues at hand. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

In any case, poll results don't belong in the article, as they can shift like sand in the wind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I can support that. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I can support the right to debate points by people who bother to open an account, and sign off. Those who dont are just puerile time wasters. One key point of such polls is that as the enormity of the privacy breaches is revealed piece by piece people are disgusted. People are turning against the nefarious agencies who conduct such outrages, and support for Snowden is subsequently increasing. As indeed are legal actions against complicit organizations.Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

All of those cases (including Snowden's hoped-for asylum) have one thing in common: Nothing has actually happened yet. It's pretty hard to report on non-action. That doesn't stop TV and radio from commenting on it, of course. But while the various yakkety-yak may be interesting to we the citizens, it doesn't necessarily qualify for an encyclopedia article. This story is only just beginning, with a long way to go. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Microsoft - Jul 11

Microsoft allowed the NSA to

• Read Encrypted email
• Access SkyDrive via Prism
• Collect video and audio of Skype calls (Skype was purchased by Microsoft) via Prism
• Material collected via Prism is routinely shared with FBI and CIA

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-collaboration-user-data

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Moscow-Cuba plane detour sparks speculation Snowden may be on board

An Aeroflot plane en route from Moscow to Havana has deviated from its course, FlightAware live flight tracking indicates. http://rt.com/news/snowden-plane-route-cuba-965/ Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I would check that out except the NSA is probably monitoring it. Or worse yet, an internet carpet-bomber. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Several other trans-Atlantic flights have taken a different route today because of turbulence over Greenland. [11] Jonathunder (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe he'll fool everybody and sail to Venezuela on a raft, Kon-Tiki style. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

and maybe he'll end up on an island talking to a volleyball. One could speculate all day, but not here, please. Jonathunder (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

So he is allegedly not on board. But did anything check the cargo hold? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Snowden was not aboard. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

71.20.55.6. Get an account, sign in, back up statements with references otherwise its POV, and a waste of space. You're becoming tiresome Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Check the article YOU posted again. It's been updated.

"Once again, #Snowden was not on board of the AFL150 flight - confirmed by the pilot.::— RT_Cuba (@RT_Cuba) July 11, 2013 "

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 00:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I never said he was on board, I merely provided a link that showed what is reported. It is clearly a ruse, a distraction tactic which may mean he is about to use another tactic in this high stakes game. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

He (or whoever is starting these rumors) might just be enjoying the media running around like ants every time. Didn't Assange say something was going to happen Wednesday? So one might suspect he has already stealthily headed on to his next port of call, to be announced after he gets there - as has become his tradition. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Possibly, but think on it. If your going to have to cross the Atlantic in a plane with rabid NSA types baying for your head who have an air force to employ as you near Cuba or wherever, wouldn't you test out how they might respond by buying a ticket, not boarding and watching? Certainly. BTW the flight deviation fits in with Russian complicity. Im sure there is more going on that will come out Blade-of-the-South (talk) 07:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

As Johnathunder pointed out, a number of flights across the Atlantic were diverted due to air turbulence. This is starting to look like conspiracy-theory stuff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

As I predicted this is expanding. “Edward Snowden wishes to express his thoughts on the US campaign for his capture that has put other passengers heading to Latin America at risk as a result,” the source told Interfax" http://rt.com/news/snowden-meet-human-rights-000/ Blade-of-the-South (talk) 08:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It is he himself that has put them at risk, as he is a fugitive from justice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm raising fair points, so I assume you are talking to the so-called "fanboy" editors here. He's accused of taking government property. There is no arguing around that. Unless he actually did not take those computers and stuff? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Today's news indicates he's still in Russia and is asking for temporary asylum there.[12] Whether Russia has revised its official stance that he has to keep silent, it doesn't say. The article also contains the first known photo of Snowden taken since he left the US. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

That was three days ago, and unless something has happened in the last hour (since I heard the radio news report), he has still not formally asked Russia for asylum. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Complaints filed by Human Rights organizations in France

This seems worth mentioning:

After rather low key reactions from the French executives in the wake Edward Snowden's revelations on the global espionage system set up by the American Security Agency (NSA), the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) and the League of human Rights (LDH) jointly filed a complaint, Thursday, July 11, 2013, with the public prosecutor of Paris. This points to several offenses: unauthorized access in an automated data processing system, illegal collection of personal data, invasion of privacy, or interference with the secrecy of electronic correspondence. A wide range of charges, in the extent of the allegations by NSA former technician, relayed by the Guardian, the Washington Post and Der Spiegel.

Original article in Le Monde: http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2013/07/11/la-fidh-et-la-ldh-portent-plainte-dans-l-affaire-snowden_3445855_651865.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.234.250.62 (talk) 07:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Has that organization ever filed a complaint against al-Qaeda? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a fair question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

For the full-witted readers, I do second the proposal to include these complaints in the article as they may be the beginning of a long series and will have a worldwide impact on the developments of this story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semantia (talk • contribs) 13:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

How long have you had the ability to see into the future? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey Doc, whats up? Are you playing the role of the local spook. Quietly trying to slow the Snowden express. Its pointless, nothing can get these stupendously huge incredibly game changing leaks back in the bottle. I agree with Semantia, at some point these complaints should be in the article. Why? The full witted reader will see these issues will be a long dominating theme tied in with the USA's impotent illegal attempts to silence him. Here is the proof of this statement.

http://rt.com/news/snowden-meets-rights-activists-013/

Whats the US going to do? Invade Russia to get him. lol. No the USA is now almost helpless and powerless. Score to date. US zero Russia 10. Lol. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM. I am on the verge of reporting 'contributors' to this talk page for soapboxing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You've been dragged to ANI more times than I can count, and blocked more recently than I have. I guess you're hoping to score some points the other direction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

What Edward Snowden reveals and exposes are challenging topics that have the potential to upset many people, deeply, especially Americans. User talk:AndyTheGrump this is not a light weight subject. It deals with the highest levels of our society and mires them implicitly in illegal dubious and unconstitutional activities. If it upsets you, maybe you need to reappraise your involvement. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion here has all actually been fairly mild and civil compared to the all-out edit war that was going on with the Sarah Palin article in the fall of 2008. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

True, but Bugs, its the conflict in peoples heads and hearts that causes them angst. Snowdens leaks have called the USA leadership / intel out in a big way. Many of us knew what they were like already, but the sheeple didnt, some still dont get it. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Whatever. I stand by what I said. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Whatever. Keep standing by, and you won't cause any trouble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikileaks reliability

I believe material like "On June 20 and 21, a representative of WikiLeaks said that a chartered jet had been prepared to transport Snowden to Iceland," may be excluded in an already lengthy article. Aside from the fact that this article talks up Iceland a lot more than the mainstream media sources do (presumably because of wishful thinking on the part of editors about a free democracy serving as asylum) the reliability of Wikileaks itself is not firmly established. Today this statement said "Seated to the left of Mr. Snowden was Sarah Harrison, a legal advisor in this matter from WikiLeaks and to Mr. Snowden’s right, a translator." This is just flat out backwards. The translator is to Snowden's left, a fact that becomes apparent from looking at the video of Snowden making his July 12 statement. A trivial point, you might say, but the point that Wikileaks' does not "fact check" like the mainstream media is not a trivial.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

All sources make mistakes occasionally - that isn't in itself a reason to stop using them entirely. The article cites the South China Morning Post for the quote, and unless there is evidence that the statement is wrong, it seems questionable to second-guess them regarding their judgement as to the reliability of the statement. As to whether this material needs to be included at all, it could be argued that as nothing came of it, removal might be appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

(Incidentally, "Seated to the left of Mr. Snowden was Sarah Harrison" is arguably ambiguous. Who's left? Mr Snowden's, or someone facing him from the front?) AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, "to the left of Snowden" could mean either (a) next to Snowden's left hand OR (b) on the left side of Snowden in a photo/video intended to accompany the press release. But that's a minor point. Wikileaks has claimed to be a legit news organization but they have an obvious bias and they haven't proven to have a robust editorial process. In light of this its reliability is questionable. Nonetheless in many cases it's the most reliable source out there. I see nothing wrong with citing it -- with attribution -- for its opinions, and for relatively uncontroversial fact statements when more reliable sources are unavailable. This appears to be what's been done in other articles (such as Cablegate).

P.S. A discussion on the reliability of Wikileaks can be found in this RSN archive. The reliability of a leaked document may be completely different than the reliability of a statement in a press release, of course. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Typically "to the left" or "to the right", without qualification, refers to the viewer's point of view, and as Grumpy suggests, "to the left" and "on his right" would actually be the same body. I don't know about the accuracy of wikileaks in general, but is it possible the caption was translated from some other language? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

She appears to be a translator. There are a few videos already up on youtube. Ive found none have given her a positive ID so far. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Bf2SniptRc

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think typos and careless proofreading necessarily reflect badly on a medium's reportage. I've seen gaffes of that kind on almost any news source from time to time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Snowden's statement to human rights activists.

It speaks to his politics and motivation. Of note: "I believe in the principle declared at Nuremberg in 1945: 'Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience. Therefore individual citizens have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring.'"

http://wikileaks.org/Statement-by-Edward-Snowden-to.html

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Certainly his comments today are a lot more relevant to this article than all the recent tabloid-level guesswork. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

He speaks well here at that meeting, open and plain about securing asylum in Russia until secure passage to Latin america is arranged. http://rt.com/news/snowden-meets-rights-activists-013/ Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

There are at least three unique videos present covering that meeting. His speech matches very close to the Wikileaks statement already referenced. Apparently he had requested no pictures or video. I've found no video from the q/a portion of the meeting, so far.

http://www.modbee.com/2013/07/12/2803900/amnesty-official-in-russia-plans.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zybdTqgz9Z8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwInSdrji2o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqRSXm9GEIY

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

CBS Evening News was just saying that, as per a Russian government official who attended that meeting, until otherwise notified, Russia's stance is the same as it was last week: That he won't get asylum in Russia unless he shuts up. We'll see. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

From top link. “I ask for your assistance in requesting guarantees of safe passage from the relevant nations in securing my travel to Latin America, as well as requesting asylum in Russia until such time as these states accede to law and my legal travel is permitted,” he told the meeting, attended by some 13 representatives of rights organizations. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Full Audio from the meeting. (42 minutes)

https://soundcloud.com/frank-forrester-1/full-edward-snowdens-statement

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Consequences of Possible Snowden Plane Intercept

S. American states to recall ambassadors from Europe over Bolivian plane incident

http://rt.com/news/mercosur-countries-ambassadors-europe-030/ Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

"Humans rights organizations" section typos/grammar

The paragraph beginning with "Widney Brown, Senior Director.." needs editing for readability. "Snowden seems to be charged.." Could say: "He states that Snowden seems to be charged.." perhaps? Or is this supposed to be WP saying that Snowden seems to be charged..? The phrase "Amnesty fair that there is a serious risk" is particularly confusing."Amnesty criticize the US attempts" may have grammar/tense issues. Again, is the whole paragraph a quote, or a synopsis of one person's position, or an organization's position, or WP's statement?

A claim Snowden has released all data now

And thus wont release more, clearing the way for Russian asylum.In last video on this link, entitled 'Watch RT's special coverage of the event' at 7.50 plus. http://rt.com/news/snowden-meets-rights-activists-013/

Blade-of-the-South (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Clarification. Snowden has given out all data. Journalists still have data to release. Asylum for Snowden won't stop Greenwald from publishing more leaks. http://rt.com/news/asylum-nsa-leaks-greenwald-037/ Blade-of-the-South (talk) 05:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Given that, Russia could still refuse to grant asylum. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Claim. Greenwald: Snowden has enough information to cause US govt ‘worst damage in history’ :::http://rt.com/news/snowden-us-nightmare-greenwald-064/

Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Russia has yet to receive an actual request for asylum (as per a news broadcast I heard an hour ago). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Broadcast

Extracts from Snowden’s statement have been broadcasted on main Russian TV channels for millions people. http://www.ntv.ru/novosti/630318/ --Psychiatrick (talk) 04:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Evo Morales plane FAB001 departed from Moscow Vnukovo

It should be noted that the plane with Evo Morales departed from Moscow Vnukovo Airport, while Edward Snowden was in Moscow Sheremetyewo Airport; s. http://www.opednews.com/articles/U-S-Bully-Tactics-Behind-by-Dave-Lefcourt-130703-421.html and http://m.ria.ru/moscow/20130703/947379545.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.147.244.83 (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Media contradictions

Today's (online) London Times story, "Trapped Snowden accepts Putin’s offer of asylum," claims on the basis of Friday's airport news conference that he's opted for (gag order-conditioned) Russian asylum, but other reports quote officials as saying Russia "has not received an asylum bid" from him (BBC) and indeed "had had no contact with him" (NYT). Meanwhile, Reuters quotes La Nación (Rio) quoting Guardian writer Glenn Greenwald regarding a supposed "dead man's switch" whereby even weightier disclosures would automatically be made if Snowden were eliminated — a sort of classified-information Doomsday Machine. Ganz merkwürdig, as Dr. Strangelove might say.

Sca (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

What you're describing sounds like blackmail. Regardless, does the Times really know anything, or are they just trying to connect dots? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd prefer to wait before including any of this in the main article. Give the Bureaucracies some time to catch up and process requests. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. And posturing, on the part of all involved parties. Nothing has actually happened yet, as far as we know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

If Snowden dies its the USA's Worst Nightmare

“The US government should be on its knees every day begging that nothing happen to Snowden, because if something does happen to him, all the information will be revealed and it could be its worst nightmare. Snowden has enough information to cause more damage to the US government in a minute alone than anyone else has ever had in the history of the United States,” Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian journalist responsible for publishing some of Snowden’s first leaks, told Argentina-based newspaper La Nación.

http://rt.com/news/snowden-us-nightmare-greenwald-064/Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

<redacted per BLP>

http://rt.com/news/snowden-us-nightmare-greenwald-064/Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

More from Greenwald about the dead man's switch. Some points:

• Greenwald has no access to his iBomb
• Snowden doesn't believe his murder is the most likely scenario but is planning for the contingency
• The Dead Man's switch is only activated upon Snowden's untimely death, and that he doesn't plan harm under any other circumstance
• This article links to a summary of revelations (update II). These should be checked, for inclusion in the Mass Surveilance scandal article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/13/reuters-article-dead-man-s-switch

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The perfect opportunity for someone who hates the US to murder this guy and try to make it look like the US did it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thos Drake is Speaking About the Snowden Files.

These should be sources for the related articles on PRISM, Fairview, Blarney and Upstream.

• "BLARNEY is to the international Internet space as PRISM is to the domestic."
• “Upstream means you get inside the system before it’s in the Internet. In its pure form,”
• Fairview: “It’s just a name, that at the highest level means to own the Internet.”
• Fairview involves tapping international fiber-optic cables, to access the data. And that it may involve an agreement with telecom companies such as Global Crossing. (reference the Brazilian spying scandal)

http://www.dailydot.com/news/fairview-prism-blarney-nsa-internet-spying-projects/

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Removed accusations

Wikipedia is not a forum, and talk pages should be used to discuss article improvement, not make assertions that the article subject is guilty of a crime. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It is a forum, sometimes. One should never condone censorship, in any medium — particularly a global one. IMHO. Sca (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I should have said, sometimes a WP talk page can function as a forum on an unclear or complex issue.

But I agree it's not a place for speculation about alleged criminality, and certainly not for character assassination. Sca (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It cuts both ways. There seem to be no qualms about assertions that the US is committing crimes, despite no court of law having made such a determiation. And as the article subject is a champion of transparency and opennness, I'm sure he would welcome these discussions here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing mentioned in this forum here on the talk page to discuss the article and developments is inappropriate to date IMHO Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Asserting that the article subject is guilty of "treason and blackmail", as was done on this page, is completely prohibited, per WP:BLPCRIME among an infinite number of other policies. This page isn't the place to discuss what we think of the subject. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Any assertion that the US government is guilty of any crime is likewise prohibited. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

"Snowden has enough information to cause US govt ‘worst damage in history’" as mentioned in a section above. "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

There has been nothing like Snowdens whistleblowing. It will take top level lawyers a long time to decide the issues. This is a living mobile situation. Certainly USA administrators are being challenged and lawsuits have begun. What is clear is that peoples perceptions on guilt and culpability are moving favourably toward Snowden concurently as credibility falls for agencies like the NSA and those who enable them. Why? People dont like having their privacy invaded. Who does? The law is likely to uphold this right. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 04:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The law was passed in 2006, and what it will come down to is unreasonable search and seizure. The courts will have to decide that issue. And are you just fine with the rampant theft of personal information by private companies who are not accountable to anyone? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Please keep WP:BLP and WP:TPO in mind. Snowden is a living person (as far as we know). "The US government" is not. Sorry Bugs. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Dr. MeatMan, the US government is us, the citizens, and if someone tries to destroy the US government they are trying to destroy us, just as surely as al-Qaeda would like to. And Blade's comment about "don't like having their privacy invaded" is highly debatable. With the growth of social media, any number of commentators have been saying that "privacy is obsolete". So the anti-American rhetoric needs to stop here, and the hero-worship needs to stop. P.S. He is also accused of stealing government property. Supposedly he took one or more government PC's with him. If true, he had no right to do that, and does not occupy any moral high ground. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

To be blunt, I really don't give a flip about the views of you or any other editor here, so can you please turn down the vitriol? Stick to what you perceive as bias in the article itself. And, per WP:TPO, talk page deletions of WP:BLP violations are allowed but deletions of "anti-American rhetoric" and "hero-worship" generally are not. If you start deleting such language merely because you find it objectionable (the threat of which might be inferred from your above comments) then that is clearly disruptive behavior that will not be viewed favorably by admins. That's on top of your wearying, near-constant violations of WP:NOTFORUM. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Correct. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 09:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I generally like a little friendly off-topic discussion on the talk page but I am in full agreement with DrFleischman re Bugs. Gandydancer (talk) 11:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I too generally like a little friendly off-topic discussion, but there has been some rather uncivil, patronising and sanctimonious claptrap which should cease henceforth. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 14:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

If you agree that it's just fine to threaten to severely damage a nation, I don't know what to tell you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Side note, not sure which section it belongs in: Russia has yet to receive an actual request for asylum (as per a news broadcast I heard n hour ago). So nothing has happened yet, as far as we know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Edward Snowden polls

These polls account for gender, age, and race:

• Mali, Meghashyam. "Poll: Majority say Snowden a whistle-blower, not a traitor." The Hill. July 10, 2013.
• Muller, Sarah. "Poll: Americans say Snowden isn’t a traitor." MSNBC. July 10, 2013.

WhisperToMe (talk) 08:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

As has been discussed before, polls don't belong in the article. Polls are notoriously fleeting, if not inaccurate. Google [george zimmerman poll] and it seems a majority thought he was guilty. Guess what: He walked. And the only "poll" that will ultimately matter in the NSA cases is what 9 guys on the Supreme Court think. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Bugs, only you stated polls dont belong in the article in an above discussion. There was no straw poll. In fact Bugs your roll here seems to be one of limiting the content of the article so it is not neutral POV. Why? That is the question. Do you have motive or bias? The Snowden friendly polls are certainly an important factor, whether you believe so or not. Yes thy are. Its called democracy. That in a nutshell it what all this is about after all. The lack of it in fact. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

My role here, if any, is to try to keep the article neutral by minimizing the hero-worship factor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Blade, poll results belong in this article as long as (a) they're reported by reliable secondary sources (such as The Hill or MSNBC) or (b) the polls are performed by reputable pollsters (such as Quinnipiac, which happens to be one of the most well-respected pollsters in the country). Special care must be taken so as not to overstate the results. By the way, the "two" polls referenced by WhisperToMe are actually two stories about the same single poll. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments about the Zimmerman poll/trial have nothing to do with this article. I agree that reputable polls are appropriate here. Gandydancer (talk) 11:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• There cannot be any blanket "polls are good" nor "polls are bad". They are but a snapshot of a sample taken at a given time, The true test must be whether the given polls were notable, per reliable sources. Of course they can be wrong, but that is rather besides the point. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 14:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

These two articles are the same poll. That said, we are writing for the long term, and while they reflect perception, they don't necessarily reflect the actual facts of the case.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/search-releases/search-results/release-detail?ReleaseID=1919&What=&strArea=;&strTime=3

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

You're right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hacking the Emails of Bolivian Officials

Snowden seems NOT to be the source of this information. But it still seems to be fallout from the case. Bolivian president Morales states that he learned at the Mercosur summit that the US has hacked into the emails of high Bolivian officials, and that he (Morales) has shut down his own account as a result.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/07/13/morales-says-us-hacked-bolivian-leaders-emails/ --71.20.55.6 (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• No, it's unrelated and irrelevant and doesn't warrant any mention in the article. It's not that national leaders personally need email accounts anyway. Is he going to stop using the phone, because that's probably bugged too? ... -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 23:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Camera Shy

“The More Photographed I Am…the More Dangerous my Situation” -

http://www.bagnewsnotes.com/2013/07/more-photographed-more-dangerous/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Transparency only goes one way? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Snowden Has Received a Formal Nomination for the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize

Excerpt from Letter written by Stefan Svallfors, Professor of Sociology at Umeå University

Through his personal efforts, he has also shown that individuals can stand up for fundamental rights and freedoms. This example is important because since the Nuremberg trials in 1945 has been clear that the slogan "I was just following orders" is never claimed as an excuse for acts contrary to human rights and freedoms. Despite this, it is very rare that individual citizens having the insight of their personal responsibility and courage Edward Snowden shown in his revelation of the American surveillance program. For this reason, he is a highly affordable candidate.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2363191/Edward-Snowden-nominated-Nobel-Peace-Prize-Swedish-Professor.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, countless people can nominate someone for a nobel peace prize, and therefore, countless people are nominated every year. So a nomination alone isn't noteworthy at all. --Conti|✉ 22:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• As I have argued elsewhere here on WP, nomination criteria for the NPP are notoriously loose, that even one person holding an academic chair is enough to nominate. Thus, this non-discrimination nature renders the nomination near-worthless. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 23:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
• I'd agree that the nomination itself is of debatable notability, but might be worth a line in the article. If he wins, obviously, that's another matter. Jusdafax 23:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Isn't the list of names being given serious consideration each year supposed to be confidential? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's some interesting commentary by a writer who is sympathetic to Snowden but is also practical:[13] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)