Talk:Edward Snowden

CIA's Ex-No. 2 Says ISIS ‘Learned From Snowden’

• Ex-No. 2 Says ISIS ‘Learned From Snowden’ • Arch♦Reader 04:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

This page doesn't exist according to google. The FISA court had to be restrained after we learned ( via Federal Courts) that they had wandered from the law. Right now on TV an idiot from NC is arguing " aw what's the problem". If Snowden hadn't blown the whistle on this criminals(FISA court) we would be well on the way to a dictator - maybe he only slowed it down.

Question- NSA uses a list of words ( bomb, Al*****,etc) to search all messages for - so they say. This same idiot says they only collect time, duration, and location of calls. Then what good is the word list. It appears he is lying or doesn't know what he is talking about. By the way after they search the content, what do they do with the content. Maybe they erase it, but logically they collected the content at least for a moment. 73.149.116.253 (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

IP 73.149.116.253, the link in ArchReader's comment seems to have been improperly formatted. Please try this: CIA's Ex-No. 2 Says ISIS 'Learned From Snowden'. Kent Krupa (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Russia contact in lead section - undue?

The sentence about Snowden having contact with Russian diplomats in Hong Kong is non-neutral and a BLP violation. Putin is not a reliable source, and its awkward inclusion in the lead section implies some sort of broader connection with Russia without reliable sourcing. From the beginning there have been rumors, spread mostly by defense hawks, that Snowden is a Russian spy. But including that is pure unsourced conjecture and is plainly contrary to our policies. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to remove it. petrarchan47คุก 04:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Now that you have removed this bit, and have made no mention of further POV violations, and since the Lede is not too long per WP:LEADLENGTH, I am removing the tags. Obviously if I am mistaken, revert me and let us know specifically what prompted the tag. petrarchan47คุก 19:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

It is an undisputed fact that Putin said his officials met with Snowden in Hong Kong. You advanced your reliability argument in the past and there was no consensus in favour of your view, DrF--Brian Dell (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

No one is disputing the fact. We're saying it's not important enough for the lead. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

That's not Doc's argument. According to Doc, "Putin is not a reliable source." If you want to contend "not important," it's "I'm saying..." not "we're saying..." Doc has been too obsessed with trying to attack the claim that Snowden met with Russian officials before flying to Russia and getting "stranded" there to consider the claim trivial.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying both. And I've never been obsessed with anything except a desire to improve the article, and I don't appreciate those sorts of accusations. The Putin sentence stuck out like a sore thumb in the lead, both in neutrality and verifiability. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

So your position is, "Snowden never met with the Russians before he flew to Russia, but if he did, it's a trivial fact"? You weren't tacking on the latter part when you were alleging, falsely, that this material was "unsourced." The fact is that this is clearly sourced and was reported by Kommersant before Putin confirmed it (subsequently we could also read in the Wall St Journal that Snowden had been observed on CCTV cameras entering the Hong Kong tower where the Russian consulate is located). You proposed a change to a long lasting consensus for inclusion when you kicked off this thread, and I don't see support for exclusion on the particular grounds you present. In the mean time, the extended discussion that took place on this matter months ago remains.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there was ever any discussion about whether including the Putin statement in the lead was undue, just about the reliability of the statement. And I don't think there was consensus. Regardless, WP:consensus can change, and now you've reverted twice against the current consensus. That's disruption, and if you keep it up I'll seek administrative assistance. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

There was consensus, against you (losing the argument you up and declared you were walking away saying "too many nutcases patrolling this page. Have fun", a remark that says a lot about your level of respect for editors who don't agree with you), and further proof of this is how many months went by with no one objecting to inclusion until you came along this month to throw over that long standing consensus. That's disruption, all right, and I encourage you to invite an admin to look at what's going on here and especially at what your "nutcases" claim says about your attitude towards a consensus you don't like.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

unrelated

As for "rumours... spread by defense hawks" you've got a lot of chutzpah, Doc, using this month's Vice story to add the "talking points" spin in this article about Defence material that runs entirely opposite to the direction a fair minded person would say that Vice story went, which is to BACK UP (at least with respect to the US govt position) the line that Snowden took hundreds of thousands of DoD documents. I note that we read "...Moscow gained access to more than one million classified files" in the Sunday Times. For Moscow to gain access to more than a million Snowden would have had to taken more than a million, no? But you still want Wikipedia going out of its way to try and discredit as a "talking point" the notion Snowden took anything like that many? Before telling me the Sunday Times story is unreliable, I note that "a senior government source has told the BBC" the same general thing.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC) I don't understand your point, but it doesn't sound very AGF-y to me. I have no agenda here except to improve the article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC) You misrepresented the source by cherry picking "talking point" as the tag you had Wikipedia apply to the number of military documents when in fact the source further confirmed that hundreds of thousands of DoD documents is the position of the US government. If you "have no agenda" you wouldn't be trying to spin as a dubious public relations effort a number that the vast majority of RS report as accepted fact.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Size of lead

Sparked by Dr. Fleischman's 23:57, 4 June 2015‎ edit summary: "lead too long - too much detail," there is now renewed interest in reducing the size of our intro. Before making additional changes, I recommend that we await editorial consensus on my recent edits, which cut the lead from 555 words to 349 words—a 37% reduction. Kent Krupa (talk) 04:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Your removal of one paragraph - a paragraph which is the result of much debate and consensus (see earliest talk page archives) - is not the way to reduce words, if indeed the community agrees that should be a goal. I doubt DrFleischman would support this either. Ideally one would reduce by more tightly summarizing all of the content. Perception of Snowden and the resulting effects of his actions was fodder for probably 90% of the reporting. It must be mentioned in the Lede per WP:LEDE given that it is extensively covered in the article. petrarchan47คุก 04:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, thanks for your comment. Of course your contributions to this article have been nonpareil. However, please let Dr. Fleischman speak for himself. He has not yet had a chance to review my edits. I appreciate your patience. Kent Krupa (talk) 04:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree with petrarchan47. We don't chop for chopping's sake. The impact of his actions and how they were perceived is a major part of his notability. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I'm in no way stopping him from responding, however the community consists of multiple editors. The LEDE does not violate WP:LEADLENGTH, so I am unsure what justification there is for the recent hack job/edit war. petrarchan47คุก 05:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Or why the deletion can't be proposed here and gain consensus first before being done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Paragraphs 1 + 2 now seem about right. Paragraphs 3 and 4 should be reduced to about 1 or 2 sentences, with the details being transferred to the body of the article (though they're probably all already there, but that just needs checking). The sentence(s) left in the lead should read something like:

• 'A former analyst at the CIA [citation] and trainer at the DIA [citation] and subsequent contractor at NSA [citation], after arranging to leak the information, he fled to Hong Kong,[citation] and then to Moscow, Russia,[citation] in Month, Year, from where he has been seeking political asylum in the EU [citation], after United States federal prosecutors filed a criminal complaint against him in June 2013, charging him with theft of government property, and two counts of violating the Espionage Act through unauthorized communication of national defense information and "willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person."[22][263] Each of the three charges carries a maximum possible prison term of ten years.[23]

Tlhslobus (talk) 06:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I may make those changes myself, perhaps tomorrow (to give time to hear objections, if any), though I may get lazy or lose interest and not bother, so if anybody wants to go ahead and make those changes themselves, please go ahead and do so. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Tlhslobus, I object. This is a highly contentious issue that deserves full discussion. Please wait more than 24 hours to give other editors a chance to weigh in. Also, you propose that "after arranging to leak the information, he fled to Hong Kong." That is false. First, he did not finalize arrangements to leak until after he left Hawaii. Second, it's misleading to say he "fled" to Hong Kong, since on May 20 he was not a fugitive and was not being pursued. It's also misleading to state, as you propose, that from Moscow "he has been seeking political asylum in the EU." That's true as far as it goes, but since arriving in Moscow he has sought asylum in countries worldwide, not just EU. Kent Krupa (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I firmly object to drastic lead changes without full approval from interested editors. Period. Gandydancer (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Tlhslobus, please read WP:LEDE if you haven't seen it yet. I'm thinking your comment, "Paragraphs 3 and 4 should be reduced to about 1 or 2 sentences", is not based on any guideline I'm aware of. With many editors each having a personal view, we have to rely on the guidelines whenever possible. petrarchan47คุก 19:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I am offended that my {{lead too long}} tag has been used as an excuse to re-write the lead in a grossly non-neutral way. I agree with Petrarchan and Kent Krupa and strongly object to the changes of the last 24 hours, particularly the new second paragraph describing what Snowden has been called and the consequences of the disclosures. This is not productive and is contrary to hard-fought consensus that was built over the last 2 years. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, I am somewhat confused by your post. The two editors you named are at odds at the beginning of this section and the content of the second paragraph has long existed in the lead. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Kent Krupa to the extent that he seeks the removal of the non-neutral content that Tlhslobus added. Unless I'm mistaken, this content wasn't previously in the lead. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

You prefer the lead in this version over the current one? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. And now that I look more closely at the history, I can see that after I added the tag and before Tlhslobus got involved, Kent cut quite a bit of content from the lead. Some of these cuts were excessive in my view, particularly the hero/whistleblower sentence. I might have a few more quibbles--e.g. Greenwald and Poitras should probably stay in the lead as they were central to Snowden's story--but overall I don't have the strong reaction to Kent's changes that I have to Tlhslobus's. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of my tag was merely to point out that there were (and still are) too many unnecessary details in what were the third and fourth paragraphs. There is no need for us to include in the lead the specific dates Snowden did this, Snowden did that when it was all in June 2013. The fact that Snowden made his identity public 4 days after the first press stories, who cares now. The fact that he feels very secure in Russia, who cares. The fact that he faces 30 years in prison, probably overkill. Even the stuff about being stuck in the Moscow airport is excessive. The big picture is that he's stuck in Russia without a passport on a 3 year residency period and has sought asylum elsewhere. It's also sufficiently notable that he's made a number of online appearances with the West since June 2013. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Any support to change the lead back to this version and then discussing potential changes here first before making them? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Changes since then have been radical and currently lack consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
• Huge Support. Going forward, editors would do well to mimic DrF's example just above this section, where he seeks consensus on one single change, with explanation, before making the change. Please stick to policy so that we aren't wasting time with arguments that are nothing more than one's personal opinion. petrarchan47คุก 21:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I apologize for exercising Wikipedia:Be bold and am disappointed that Dr. Fleischman considers my edits "radical." I remain convinced that the current version is better, but will recuse myself from editing the lead hereafter. Kent Krupa (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Kent Krupa, as I wrote, I didn't consider your edits radical. Please reconsider your recusal, as while I disagree with aspects of your changes I think your input is valuable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support Tlhslobus (talk) 01:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Based on the above, I've restored the old lead. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks, NeilN. Tlhslobus (talk) 03:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, NeilN. Kent Krupa, I think this was just a misunderstanding of the guidelines, which is not a big deal, not a reason to recuse yourself, it's just a learning process. petrarchan47คุก 03:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for clarification as to lead length and NPOV

At 20:21 on 5 June 2015, Dr. Fleischman restored a Lead Too Long tag and added a POV-lead template to this article. Considering the lead's radioactive nature, I request that Dr. Fleischman specify all instances that ought to be trimmed or deleted to reduce length, and identify all violations of neutrality within this article's introduction. Once he has done so, we can await editorial consensus supporting or opposing each point, and then best decide how to proceed. If no consensus materializes, I propose removing both templates. As it stands, this prominent caveat in Wikipedia's voice represents the unsupported opinion of a single editor, and is therefore misleading. Kent Krupa (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Update: Forty-three minutes after I posted my request for clarification, Petrarchan47 removed the two tags in question. So apparently my request is now moot. Kent Krupa (talk) 19:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Unless there is justification for and consensus on the need for tagging, they should remain absent. There is open discussion on this talk page, where no arguments for the tags have yet been provided. petrarchan47คุก 20:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I provided some details about what I think should be cut from the lead, and why, right here, before this discussion thread was started. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Guess I spoke too soon about my request being moot. Eight hours to the minute after Petrarchan47 removed the Lead Too Long tag, Dr. Fleischman restored it. This is what I admire about Wikipedia. Teamwork. Kent Krupa (talk) 03:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Anyhow, I'd like to reformulate my request. Dr. Fleischman points to this comment as to what should be cut from the lead. Mostly his rationale consists of Who cares?

The fact that Snowden made his identity public 4 days after the first press stories…

Who cares?

The fact that he feels very secure in Russia…

Who cares?

The fact that he faces 30 years in prison…

Probably overkill.

Oh, and as for including the specific dates Snowden did this, Snowden did that…

There is no need. It was all in June 2013.

Given this carefree approach, I think it's better to pose a larger question: Do any editors besides Dr. Fleischman think the lead is too long?

Forget about what in particular ought to be cut. Let's find out first whether there's a consensus on the fundamental issue of cutting the lead at all.

I suspect there is not. Kent Krupa (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

What do you think? Do you agree with my suggestions? Why or why not? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, I think it's all talk. Editors lack the will to cut this lead in any meaningful way. Kent Krupa (talk) 05:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. I have the will to cut the lead if we can achieve consensus to do so. This is an opportunity for you to weigh in. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, OK, then let me rephrase. Editors lack the will to achieve consensus to cut this lead in any meaningful way. It's not going to happen. Kent Krupa (talk) 05:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

So far there's a consensus of 2. You are welcome to join in. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I think almost all the fourth paragraph could be cut. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

While I don't think that the lead is too long compared to other similar articles, I agree that it would be improved with a few cuts, mostly or perhaps all in the fourth para. I've worked on several similar articles and it's quite the norm to need to go through the article and cut back on some of the more particular facts, for instance the "who cares" stuff that Dr.F speaks of, as time goes on. Would it help to present a proposal for a 4th para replacement that we could all take a look at? Gandydancer (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Gandydancer, thanks for your constructive response. Yes, I think it would help greatly if you would propose a revised fourth paragraph. Kent Krupa (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Kent, but that's not going to happen! :) Both Petra and Dr.F have a much better grasp of this article than I do and could do a much better job on a proposal. Also, it might well be that the lead could need some additions as well. I have been keeping the West Africa Ebola article under my wing since the epidemic began and have spent endless hours to keep it up to date, needing to go through the entire article every few weeks with a large amount of editing and I know its a big job and best left to someone that is very familiar with the topic. For Ebola, I know it up and down and back and forth and every which way there is and consider myself an expert, but here, not so much. :D Gandydancer (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I see no urgency in the Lede-cutting operation, but those who do are free to present a proposal. petrarchan47คุก 03:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, you are right. It is not urgent. However, it is embarrassing. The first thing visitors see is a page-width banner proclaiming our inability to get the first four paragraphs right. What are readers to infer about the rest of the article? Edward Snowden is a mature BLP, created two years ago. It has undergone 7,685 revisions by a combined 1,295 editors. You yourself made 1,330 edits—17.31% of the total. In particular, the lead has remained essentially unchanged for months. For us now to be suddenly debating its length—and its content hard won by consensus—is an admission of negligence if not incompetence. It deserves to be expeditiously addressed. Kent Krupa (talk) 04:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

DrFleischman, seeing that we have agreed on a process to trim the Lede (via proposal submissions), I wonder if you would be willing to remove the tag; its purpose to alert fellow editors has been served, and Kent makes good points. petrarchan47คุก 04:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd actually prefer to keep the tag until the issue is resolved. If editors come along having been alerted by the tag, that would be a good thing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Lede is not too long

The Lede simply is not too long as per WP:LEADLENGTH; it isn't too long considering the article content and complexity of the story to follow. It isn't arranged very well, and doesn't read well, the facts are plunked together somewhat randomly and it isn't fun to read. However, it cannot be said that it is too long or that it suffers from a problematic amount of superficial info. I know this article and the Snowden story fairly well, and can't really find an obviously excessive tidbit. petrarchan47คุก 23:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, when we began this round of edits, the lead length was 555 words. It is now 427 words, meaning we've reduced it by 23%. I wonder if that satisfies Dr. Fleischman. He seems not to have objected when you removed the Lead Too Long template, but if he's expressly acknowledged this is now an acceptable length, I missed it. Kent Krupa (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

My concerns were never based on WP:LEADLENGTH, they were really about excessive detail not sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion in the lede (MOS:INTRO and to a lesser extent, WP:BALASPS). By removing the clutter we also have the opportunity to add missing details that are more noteworthy (probably a subject for a separate discussion). We are definitely on the right track, in my view. I think we still have too much detail about Snowden's movements and the Russian residency permit. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, wonderful. You inserted a Lead Too Long template and insisted it remain, over the protests of several editors, even though your concerns "were never based on WP:LEADLENGTH." Thanks for nothing. Kent Krupa (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow, that's really bitter and unforgiving. I meant the tag in good faith to reduce unnecessary detail from the lead, and the tag did result in the reduction of unnecessary detail from the lead. I measure it as a huge success. Criticize me for using a tag that invokes a different guideline, but "thanks for nothing?" That's going way too far. In good faith, you might want to consider chilling out a bit. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

IMO Kent reacted as anyone would to being deceived, but in this case I think he speaks for the wider group of editors, who evaluated the Lede in good faith, looking at the length, when in all honesty you simply had an issue with a few details. Those details should have been discussed one by one on the talk. There was no need for a tag, and even after you were told that it upset people, you choose to remained uncooperative and allowed us to continue trying to cut the Lede's length. Although the work has been good for the article, the ends don't justify the means in this case. Rather than all this drama, there should have been a section posted here entitled "Too many details in the Russia travel portion of Lede". Using the wrong tag and leaving it uncorrected on such a high profile page is obstructive, non-collegial and not appreciated. petrarchan47คุก 19:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

None of that was intended, and I think I was pretty upfront from the start--both in the edit summary when I added the tag, and in my very first comment on the subject, less than 24 hours later. My choice of tag was in no way meant to deceive; I simply chose that template that came closest to describing my good faith concerns, concerns that ended up being shared by the consensus. I'm sorry that the tag didn't fit my concerns perfectly, and that as a result some people are bothered by that. In hindsight I could have added a {{POV-lead}} tag instead, and that would have been technically more accurate even though, in my view, it would have been unnecessarily inflammatory and less likely to lead to a positive result. Let's renew our commitment to AGF, keeping things positive, and improving the lead and the rest of the article. If anyone wishes to discuss my tagging conduct further, let's do it on my user talk. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You misrepresented yourself then, by letting the conversation focus on length. We were actually word-counting and you said nothing. You claimed that "surveillance" wasn't mentioned in the Lede, when it is mentioned twice, proving you have not actually read the Lede very carefully, and if that's the case, I'm confused by your sudden interest in this article. This is so unbecoming. Following me around is not a good idea, not with the history we have, as WP:HOUNDING is not hard to prove. If you want editors to have good faith, your actions need to lead the way. petrarchan47คุก 23:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

At first glance, here again, Petrarchan47 is making tremendous sense. I see enough to be troubled. Jusdafax 23:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

O...K... Boo! It's the government coming to get you again, Petra! It's hard to take you seriously with those sorts of comments. Again, let's try to keep things positive. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed text to trim the lead

In recognition of consensus to shorten the lead, this section is meant to accommodate proposed text to accomplish that purpose, and comments thereon by editors.

---

Done. Edit reduced lead by 17%—from 555 to 462 words.

I'll prime the pump with a markup of the lead's final three sentences:

Snowden lives in an undisclosed location in Russia and reportedly feels very secure in Moscow.[29] He is nevertheless seeking asylum in the European Union,.[30] although member state Germany—which rejected his application in July 2013—announced in November 2014 that Snowden had not renewed his request and was not being considered for German asylum.[31] Speaking from Moscow by video link to a Swiss audience on March 5, 2015, Snowden publicly appealed for Switzerland to grant him asylum, saying he wants to return to live in Geneva, where he once worked undercover for the CIA. However, by law, an applicant must be on Swiss territory to lodge an asylum request.[32]

I invite discussion. Kent Krupa (talk) 05:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support proposed trim. The lede is better served by relocating this material into the body of the article. Jusdafax 06:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support and thanks for the good work, Kent. petrarchan47คุก 18:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support per the above comments. Gandydancer (talk) 09:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Not one soul has objected to the removal of the above and I went ahead and removed it. (Though still open to discussion, I'm fairly satisfied with the lead as it now stands.) Gandydancer (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Done. Edit reduced lead to 448 words—81% of original total.

In accordance with consensus, first sentence in the lead's second paragraph was revised as shown in the following markup. Please note that "U.S. National Security Agency (NSA)" already appears in the immediately preceding sentence and does not require repetition in full.

A former system administrator for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and a counterintelligence trainer at the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), he later worked for Dell assigned as a contractor to U.S. National Security Agency facilities in the United States and inside an NSAoutpost in Japan.

I invite discussion. Kent Krupa (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support (and thank you again for the effort, as well as for the clarity with which you present the options). petrarchan47คุก 18:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support and I agree with Petra re the excellent way Kent presents his suggestions. Makes things a whole lot easier to follow. Gandydancer (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support. The important point is that he did contract work for the NSA, not where he did it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support - good trim, per above. Jusdafax 23:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Pending

I propose that sentences 5, 6 and 7 in the lead's second paragraph be revised as shown in the following markup:

A subject of controversy, Snowden has been variously called a hero,[8][9][10] a whistleblower,[11][12][13][14] a dissident,[15] a patriot,[16][17][18] and a traitor.[19][20][21][22] Hhis disclosures have fueled debates over mass surveillance, government secrecy, and the balance between national security and information privacy. Two court rulings since the initial leaks have split on the constitutionality of the NSA's bulk collection of telephone metadata.[23]

I invite discussion. Kent Krupa (talk) 01:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I would not support anything about this revision. The "variously called" bit is the distillation of a vast amount of information contained in the body, and represents the topic of most of the news coverage for the first 6-9 months that we knew of him. The sentence came about through intense debate and consensus, and was then written and inserted by an admin; no one has touched it since. The court rulings are also pivotal to this story, and being only one sentence, its removal wouldn't help much anyway. The court cases are also well covered in the body, so per WP:LEDE, should be mentioned in the intro. Perhaps one good way forward would be to really read through the entire article. The intro should reflect what we are offering the reader. You'll have a much better idea for what are minor details, and what parts of the intro are good summaries of article content. petrarchan47คุก 04:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree completely with Petrarchan47. This is too much. Jusdafax 04:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't imagine why anyone would think that the two court rulings are not important enough for the lead. As for the "has been called..." sentence, this goes right to the heart of the matter and is perhaps the best way to say so in as short a manner as possible for brevity, as is needed in a lead. Gandydancer (talk) 09:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Petra, Jusdafax, and Gandy. How Snowden is viewed (hero/traitor/etc.) is an enduring subject of press coverage and debate. The court decisions aren't quite as notable but probably still belong. They need to be updated to reflect that Judge Pauley's ruling in ACLU v. Clapper was reversed by the Second Circuit, so Snowden is currently "winning" 2-0. (As the number of cases grows, it may become difficult to succinctly summarize them in the lead, at which point I might support removing them. But we're not there yet.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Support Deleting Entire Paragraph 3 and Paragraph 4 As per MOS:INTRO "Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, since greater detail is saved for the body of the article." I question whether we need details of Snowden's travel itinerary covering a 60-day period two years ago. This is more appropriate in the body. LavaBaron (talk) 09:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• I would move Paragraphs 3 and 4 to the article body and replace them in the lede with this summary: "On May 20, 2013, Snowden flew to Hong Kong, where he revealed numerous classified NSA documents to journalists Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras. After publication of some of the documents, Snowden made his identity public on June 9 and was subsequently charged with violating the U.S. Espionage Act and theft of government property. On June 23, Snowden flew to Moscow's [[Sheremetyevo International Airport[]] where he was stranded in the airport transit zone for 39 days until Russian authorities granted him one-year asylum, followed, year later, by a three-year residency permit. Snowden lives in an undisclosed location in Russia and is seeking asylum in the European Union." (citations omitted) --agr (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I reiterate my opposition to including travel itineraries in the lede. I would, however, be fine in keeping the last sentence of your proposed alternative as a new third paragraph. LavaBaron (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The only travel destination in the first sentence that I proposed is Hong Kong and it's significance is that he left US jurisdiction to meet with the reporters and transmit the documents, so it's not over-specific detail. The second sentence has no travel info whatsoever and tells readers he was charged with a crime, a fact that certainly belongs in the lede.--agr (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with agr and support his proposed version. I oppose the wholesale removal of Snowden's travels, as they are essential to telling even a short version of what happened. I support agr's proposed version. Perhaps there could be a few more minor tweaks/cuts beyond that but I think it's definitely an improvement. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I would support the substitution proposed by agr but only with the following modifications to his second sentence:

"After publication of some of the documents, Snowden made his identity public. on June 9 and He was subsequently charged with violating the U.S. Espionage Act and theft of government property, and on June 22 the U.S. Department of State revoked his passport."

The timing of his passport revocation is an indispensable element of the Snowden saga, and belongs in the lead. Kent Krupa (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Sentence 1) As a reader, "some" really bothers me. A question immediately starts to grind away in the back of my mind" "how many?" If we can give an idea of the percentage, roughly, of docs that were published before Snowden came out, that would be good. Sentence 2) We might actually add a couple of words to tell readers that per the US, Snowden was allowed to travel, but only if it was back to the US to face charges. Without this, we are telling readers that this was an attempt to revoke all travel, and insinuating that the US wanted him to stay wherever he was. petrarchan47คุก 22:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Good points, but I'm not too concerned about either one. They seem a bit too technical to be incorporated in the lead. What I don't like is the reference to "publication of some of the documents." Yes, the Verizon court order was published during that short period, and perhaps a few others, but the significant thing wasn't he publication of documents, it was the publication of news stories about programs such as PRISM. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

"Some" is awkward and so very encyclopedic. Even "several of the hundreds yet to be released" - something to give an idea of scale. The word "some" just doesn't work and leaves me with questions rather than answers. The "Snowden was only allowed to travel back to the US to face charges" was big, big news and seems an important detail, and doesn't take much space, but is not a sticking point for me. petrarchan47คุก 23:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, The Snowden Digital Surveillance Archive, launched on March 4, 2015, is a free, searchable online repository designed and built at the University of Toronto in partnership with the nonprofit NGO Canadian Journalists for Free Expression. A search shows four articles appeared from June 6–June 8, 2013 containing files leaked by Snowden. The Guardian and The Washington Post posted two stories apiece.

• The first leaked document published was a 4-page Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court order, "In re Application of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for an Order Requiring the Production of Tangible Things."

• The second was the NSA's "PRISM / US-984XN Overview, or The SIGAD Used Most in NSA Reporting Overview," a PowerPoint presentation consisting of four slides.

• The third was another NSA file, "PRISM Tasking Process, also a PowerPoint presentation consisting of four slides.

• The fourth was a single NSA PowerPoint slide, "PRISM : FAA702 Operations."

Obviously, what created the worldwide furor was not the number of leaked files published in those first days, but their explosive content. Kent Krupa (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you elude to that? "Several" would cover the number well, but that they were some of the most newsworthy, etc. would be nice to add for context. petrarchan47คุก 23:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I like "several." I would say "After the press revealed details about several secret mass surveillance programs, ..." (It's weird that somehow the word "surveillance" has been dropped from the lead section.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, that is simply false. As Wikipedia explains, PRISM "is operated under the supervision of the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court, or FISC)." The first leaked document published was a FISC order to Verizon within the aegis of PRISM. The other leaked files posted from June 6–June 8, 2013 were NSA PowerPoint slides solely pertaining to PRISM. The press did not, as you would have it, reveal details "about several secret mass surveillance programs." It was a single such program: PRISM. Kent Krupa (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Very strange that surveillance has been edited out of the Lede, as Dr F notes. He may have simply misspoken, meaning instead "After the press revealed the contents of several (top?) secret documents (about the mass surveillance)..." Is this getting closer? petrarchan47คุก 02:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, it might indeed be very strange that surveillance has been edited out of the lead—if it were true. The second paragraph contains these two sentences (emphasis added): "Snowden's leaked documents revealed numerous global surveillance programs, many of them run by the NSA and the Five Eyes with the cooperation of telecommunication companies and European governments. … His disclosures have fueled debates over mass surveillance, government secrecy, and the balance between national security and information privacy." Is there a quota dictating how many times we must mention surveillance in the lead? Kent Krupa (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Phew. Glad someone's paying attention :) I made some cuts to the fourth paragraph. Feel free to revert me, I won't mind. petrarchan47คุก 02:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Kent, I think we're not understanding each other. Are you saying PRISM was the only program that was revealed before Snowden revealed his identity? That's not correct. The telephone metadata program was also revealed before that. My point though is the one Petrarchan articulated better, that the significant events before Snowden disclosed his identity were the news stories about the programs, not the published documents themselves. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, I apologize. The FISC order to Verizon was unrelated to PRISM. So we can accurately state that the leaks published prior to Snowden disclosing his identity involved two programs: (1) the NSA’s collection of domestic email and telephone metadata from Verizon; and (2) PRISM. I hope we can agree, though, that these two programs do not constitute "several." Kent Krupa (talk) 05:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: When is it appropriate to remove Lead Too Long template from Edward Snowden bio?

The length and content of the lead to Edward Snowden have been historically contentious. On 4 June 2015, Dr. Fleischman inserted a Lead Too Long template, stating in his edit summary: "lead too long - too much detail." That triggered a round of revisions and reversions, as discussed here, that in turn forged consensus (a) that the lead ought to be shortened and (b) agreeing upon a process of submitting each proposed edit to the talk page for acceptance or rejection.

Petrarchan47, who has contributed more to this bio than anyone else (1,330 edits—17.31% of the total) then commented: "DrFleischman, seeing that we have agreed on a process to trim the Lede (via proposal submissions), I wonder if you would be willing to remove the tag; its purpose to alert fellow editors has been served, and Kent makes good points."

My points to which she referred include: "…it is embarrassing. The first thing visitors see is a page-width banner proclaiming our inability to get the first four paragraphs right. What are readers to infer about the rest of the article? Edward Snowden is a mature BLP, created two years ago, that ranks within the top 600 articles in traffic on en.wikipedia.org. It has undergone 7,685 revisions by a combined 1,295 editors. … In particular, the lead has remained essentially unchanged for months. For us now to be suddenly debating its length—and its content hard won by consensus—is an admission of negligence if not incompetence. It deserves to be expeditiously addressed."

However, Dr. Fleischman responded: "I'd actually prefer to keep the tag until the issue is resolved. If editors come along having been alerted by the tag, that would be a good thing."

I respectfully invite others to weigh in on this disagreement, which is not a dispute but would benefit from input by the wider editorial community than just the handful of us involved in maintaining Snowden's BLP. Kent Krupa (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Now - Assuming the choices are: remove immediately and remove after DrF is satisfied, I would chose to remove the tag now for reasons I've already stated. petrarchan47คุก 18:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Now - per Petrachan47. The tag disfigures an extremely high profile article over a minor procedural beef which is in the process of resolution. This appears to me to be disruptive. Jusdafax 20:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Upon consensus to remove - per WP:DETAG. No disruption intended. Tagging serves various valuable purposes. I am pro-tagging as it alerts interested editors to the issue and potentially brings them to the discussion. All articles are works in progress so I don't see tags as embarrassing. That said, I will obey the consensus, so if there is consensus to remove the tag then I will support that consensus and remove the tag. As an aside, this RfC is completely unnecessary, as a consensus could have been determined without it through regular discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Remove Tag Without Prejudicing the Possibility of Further Discussion on Truncating the Lede Upon consensus to remove - as per WP:DETAG noted by Dr. Fleischman. As an aside, it really is quite long and needlessly detailed. LavaBaron (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment We are trying to establish consensus now, so "upon consensus" seems to be little more than a placeholder iVote. It would be helpful to have clarification from Kent Krupa as to what the iVote options are meant to be. petrarchan47คุก 01:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, I confess I am at a loss. This is my first RfC, and I did not realize I was expected to provide iVote options. The RfC process description explains, "The outcome is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing if they are consistent with Wikipedia policies. Counting 'votes' is not an appropriate method of determining outcome, though a closer should not ignore numbers entirely." (The scare quotes around "votes" are disconcerting. What does that mean?) As for consensus, the policy clearly states it is not "the result of a vote." So I honestly don't see the purpose of asking editors to vote on a given option, rather than commenting as they see fit. However, I do share your frustration at the "Upon consensus to remove" advice. After all, that is a given. Why an editor feels obliged to offer such vacuous counsel is beyond me. Kent Krupa (talk) 04:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The RfC essentially asks, in more words, if the tag should ever be removed. Obviously no one feels the tag should never be removed. That is why my opinion was to remove the tag following consensus which, while perhaps an unsatisfactory response, is as satisfactory as the possibilities with which we've been presented. If the RfC were reworded to perhaps present us with 2 or 3 succinct options (e.g. [a] remove the tag now, [b] keep the tag up pending further discussion on the lede, [c] remove the tag without prejudicing further discussion on the lede) we might be able to offer more actionable replies. For now, I've changed my !vote to option "C." LavaBaron (talk) 09:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment IMO it was a little early to open this discussion to an AfC as it seems to me that our discussion was going along quite well. If Dr.F should feel a little defensive, I can't blame him as I would too. To me he seems to be more wanting to strongly explain his position rather than stubbornly refusing to accept reasonable arguments despite hell or high water, as is usually the case when an AfC is opened. Gandydancer (talk) 10:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
• When the lede has been trimmed and other proposals to trim it have failed to achieve consensus. Trimming the lede is badly needed and shouldn't take that long. There is no point in arguing about the tag in the meantime.--agr (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment With active participation ongoing to fix the exact issue described by the tag, and with no opposition to that activity whatsoever, there is no reason for the tag. There is a healthy group of editors already engaged, and the argument that more editors will be alerted is not justification for the tag to remain. If there was friction stalling the trimming process, the tag wouldn't seem as unnecessary. It is ugly and bothering good faith editors. It seems as if the article is being held hostage. The tag does not have consensus to remain, yet it's message does. We don't allow a single editor to exert their will over a group here, and in this case, if it were me, I would happily concede to the group in order to allow things to move forward with less grief for others, and for the good of the encyclopedia. I disagree that this RfC is impeding the trimming process. petrarchan47คุก 18:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

On a personal note, I've never seen AfCs do much good anyway. People that are not familiar with the topic come and make decisions without a good grasp of the subject, IMO. That said, at this point I will begin to get very irritated with the tag as I believe that it is beginning to show a lack of good will since we now have a group of very capable editors who are willing and able to hammer out a good lead. Gandydancer (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Now Remove it now. I'm in agreement with Petra's comments. Gandydancer (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

[edit conflict ("great minds...")]

• Tag Removed I have removed the tag per this discussion, and per this talk page entry where DrF says, "The purpose of my tag was merely to point out that there were (and still are) too many unnecessary details". If DrF wants to add an "excessive detail" tag, that would make more sense. The "too long" tag does not have support here or in the guidelines. petrarchan47คุก 23:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
• RfC withdrawn: This RfC was withdrawn by its poster, Kent Krupa. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Paragraph break between first and second ' graph in the lede

I have merged the former first two sentences of the second paragraph into bottom of the first paragraph, to give the lede better flow. No content is changed. I don't anticipate this change to be controversial or even debated, as this change now starts the second paragraph in a much stronger way. Still, as a courtesy, I invite comment especially if someone disagrees. Jusdafax 05:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Your work is always welcome - and you read my mind, thanks. petrarchan47คุก 07:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Substantial reordering, no content changes

Thank you, Petrarchan 47, for your encouragement. On further review, I have reordered the lede to eliminate a disjointed feel it had. I think the chronological flow is improved, and the concluding paragraph now propels the reader into the article proper. This reordering is substantial, but an improvement, and I again invite comment. Jusdafax 09:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Nice job by all. I have linked a couple of things that may seem to be over-linking to some but make sense for older people with little to no knowledge of modern communications (like me). Even still, feel free to remove links if overdone. Gandydancer (talk) 13:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

It looks great - I agree with Gandy. petrarchan47คุก 04:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. But now suddenly it's five paragraphs long with material about Putin in there. I don't like the new additions, at first glance. I think we may have to delete and discuss, but seek other thoughts first. One thing I know, we are a paragraph longer than suggested length. Jusdafax 05:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, the Putin addition is likely not going to go without a fight. petrarchan47คุก 05:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Update needed

This section done by a right wing think tank needs an update:

In March 2015, The Times reported that Snowden's intelligence leaks have devastated Britain's ability to fight terrorism and organised crime according to the first public analysis of their impact. The report, by the Henry Jackson Society think-tank, will be published April 2015.[97]

The report is here: [1] I'll do it if nobody else does, but others could likely do a better job of it... Gandydancer (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, that's no good. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

What needs to be updated is the picture created by this article of someone who just leaked to the media domestic surveillance practices. As noted by the June 4 VICE story, the US government clearly believes that the majority of the files he took were military related. And now this weekend we've got the Sunday Times report that the British government believes their foreign operatives have been compromised or could be comprised by Moscow and Beijing having access to Snowden's material, access British officials believe these countries now have.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Then add it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I've updated the reference to the Henry Jackson Society report to include a link to the report (or rather a link to an HJS web page discussing the report that includes a link). The Sunday Times piece is linked twice in the article presently. c1cada (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

"Without a passport, he was unable to travel further"

This is not true. If it were, why was he able to leave Hong Kong more than 20 hours after the passport was revoked? I'll add that James C. Hathaway says he wasn't "stranded" either: "Being in the transit zone is as 'being in Russia' as standing on the Kremlin steps." --Brian Dell (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Pure original research. This statement was reliably sourced and there is no known contradiction among reliable sources. We've been through this before. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Experts like Hathaway say it's false and the only reason Hathaway's view isn't included in this article is because editors like you don't want the narrative challenged. We have, indeed, been through this before and you're apparently just as unwilling to acknowledge the fact that that "stranded in Russia because of the actions of the US State Department" narrative doesn't add up as you were before. I am, of course, fine with the narrative appearing anywhere in the article so long as it is attributed to Snowden or a Snowden advocate.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Neither Hathaway nor that source says contradicts the reliably sourced statement that "without a passport, Snowden was unable to travel further." Hathaway was merely speculating about why Russia might have agreed to let him stay. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I think Hathaway, as an expert on the issue, is in a better position to state whether he is speculating or speaking definitively than you are. In any case, it is simply false that he is just speculating as to legal justifications for Russia's actions because he said, and said definitively, that there is, in fact, NO legal reason to treat the airport as off limits to the Kremlim's border controls, the "stranded" narrative is accordingly just for public relations. Hathaway's statements are inconsistent with the "stranded" contention. I'm nonetheless fine with including the contention if Hathaway's remarks are included as well. Either that, or attribute the whole U.S. to blame for "stranding" Snowden in Russia theory to its most famous proponent, Snowden (the article does not quote the CS Monitor piece noting that Snowden "has a track record of mutually incompatible public statements" so what exactly is the objection to attributing to Snowden, or alternatively not going down the "blame the US" road at all?)--Brian Dell (talk) 05:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The unreliability of Snowden's statements is exactly why he should not be quoted in the lead section. Contentious statements by involved parties should very rarely be included in lead sections, as it is extremely difficult to cover them in a way that is both neutral and concise. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Fleischman, surely there is a better source than this? This has been a widely pontificated upon issue, and being a highly desired US fugitive is obviously an infinitely more significant obstacle to international travel than a cancelled passport.[2] [3] [4] [5] I admit that I've not had chance to delve into the talk archives yet, but I can't imagine there is something in there that would explain this.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what was wrong with the source (and the many others that say the same thing), but this issue is currently moot as I removed the issue from the lead section on noteworthiness grounds. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

You most certainly did not "remove the issue," Doc. You removed the attribution to Snowden, thereby making an issue out of it where there wasn't before (no one disputes that Snowden claims it's the US' fault he's in Russia, at issue here is using Wikipedia's voice to claim that he was stranded, ie is in Russia by virtue of forces other than his own will and/or Russia's). May I ask where you found the consensus to make this edit in this thread? Respecting consensus being something you are continually reminding others about? If you want to shorten the lede, why not just state the simple fact that he went to Russia and remained there, without any excuses or explanation for why he went there or remained there? If you can't refrain from keeping it that simple, I believe it ought to also be noted that, according to Putin (and other evidence), he met with Russian officials before he flew to Russia, as that could also explain why he went to Russia and remained there (no need to meet with any Russian officials in advance if you truly intend to just transit, as you can just remain airside and not go through Russian passport control before you board your next flight).--Brian Dell (talk) 04:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused. There has been an ongoing dispute for years among us regarding the circumstances of exactly how Snowden ended up in Russia. My deletion does not resolve the issue one way or the other; it merely reflects the fact that the lead reads like a battleground, we collectively seem unable to resolve this dispute, and it's not sufficiently notable for inclusion in the lead section anyway. What is wrong with my edit? Is there something else you would like to have deleted? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Files released by Snowden include names of British agents

This information is already in the article; it is new information that is significant and notabl, and lede sections summarize the material in the article. Therefore it should be in the lede. I note that references are generally omitted from the lede and the sources for this addition are already in the article. I also agree that a lede should not be changes on a whim; however, the information that came out this weekend regarding the withdrawal of agents by the British government is a significant new development that should be included. Currently the revision to my addition have been

• the lede has been stable - this may be persuasive if I was adding information that had already been discussed or rewording without substantive change. However, neither is true - this is a new development, it is being factually reported without in a neutral manner, it has been sourced to reputable newspapers, the information is in the article and should therefore be part of the lede which summarizes the article.
• not properly sourced - that British agents have been withdrawn due to files released by Snowden being decrypted has been reported by many significant published reliable sources who have significant editorial review have been included in the article - here are some more The Sunday Times (the largest selling quality press in the UK; Newsweek; the guardian (questioning the timing of the report but restating the original report of agents being moved as having come from the Home Office and other British security officials) . The general recommendation is not to include references in the lede so I didn't include these.

Therefore - this new development should be included in the lede. --Trödel 18:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

To my understanding lede requires references, but okay. However, the source is very weak, the story got retracted in parts, and if we go there to extend the lede with this opinion piece - based on an anon account, we eventually end up with opposing views based on reliable sources. See for instance arguments which debunk the claims made in The Sunday Times article. (here or here or here German) I have no problem with the current paragraph but i think that the lede should not be extended based on an opinion piece. prokaryotes (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that until the story gets researched by other news agencies - the back and forth should stay out of the lede. RE using references in the lede, I agree with this "There is no rule forbidding references in the lead, but it is nice when they can be left out. Keeping references out of the lead makes it easier to read, and keeps it free of clutter and easier to edit. The explanatory and more detailed text with the references is already found in the article. Since references are used to document specific content, but the lead is a short summation in a generalized and unspecific format, the use of references in the lead is a duplication of effort." See References in the lead --Trödel 19:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the info. prokaryotes (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Here is an CNN interview with the ST article author, he himself has no clue .... duh. prokaryotes (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding refs in the Lede, the idea is that everything in the Lede must also be included in the body, which is where the refs would be found. petrarchan47คุก 22:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Prokaryoyes that the story is too weak to merit inclusion in the lede. If there were some confirmation from US sources, then that would certainly have sufficient weight to appear as part of the lede. Otherwise no. Always this credibility problem with the securocracy. I don't think the article presently needs attach more weight to the claims beyond recording them matter of factly. c1cada (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed I think everyone is in agreement that my edit was premature and this info shouldn't be in the lede unless substantiated somehow which seems unlikely right now. --Trödel 01:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd also hold off on this info for a few days. Re refs in the lead, the WP guideline article would be better than the page that has been offered, which gives one editor's view of the WP guideline. The quideline article states:

The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead.

Using this info, one would expect to find a lot of citations in the lead. Gandydancer (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The next paragraph of the section you cite says:

"Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Citations

Again clarifying that we should avoid them if we can so that they lede does not have a lot of citations. --Trödel 16:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any reliable source that makes the British spies claim without attribution to Downing Street, so of course we cannot either, and given that this is a BLP, we shouldn't be adding attributed, extremely controversial and unsubstantiated claims to the lead section. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm new to this article so apologies if I'm re-covering old ground with this. While this report is too vague to be earth-shattering I find the claim that spies had to be withdrawn to be believable. To me, the central question with Snowden is whether the benefit to society from his revelations (which others apparently found sensational) outweighs the cost of his methods. Given that from the moment he fled the US with his cache of secrets, all of the effected governments would have had to logically assume he was a defector, it is reasonable to think that the cost was significant. This aspect obviously isn't currently mentioned in the lede and seems to be only lightly covered in the rest of the article. This is just fair warning that I intend to do something about it. Also, I support @Dr. Fleischman's changes to the lede today, they certainly are a much needed improvement. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on what you do, but this sounds like original research and a BLP violation. We simply cannot have something in the lead suggesting that Snowden's actions led to the outing of British spies without reliable sources saying exactly that without attribution. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Not a regular here, but I though editors might like to know that the Wikimedia Foundation has its own sticky finger in the pie here at Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA - contributions welcomes. I'm sympathetic to what Trappedinburnley says, good analysis, but Dr. Fleischman right to caution regarding original research. c1cada (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the OR claims, and the reminder that this is a BLP is appreciated. petrarchan47คุก 03:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

No need to worry about the policies, I will be carefully researching and sourcing any contributions. I doubt any specific claims, especially those that cannot be attributed would be suitable for the lead. However I think there is enough in the article already to add the following statement or similar to the end of the current lede: "Debate has also centered on the ethics of leaking such a large number of classified files, his motives, and the potential costs to the United States and affected allies." I'll leave it here for discussion while I get back to the reading. Currently looking into the DoD task-force set-up to investigate the leak, sounds pricey! [6] --Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not immediately opposed to something along those lines. Of course it depends on the precise wording. This really goes well beyond the scope of this discussion, which was specifically about British spies, so if you wish to discuss this after conducting your research I suggest you open a new thread. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This seems a reasonable addition. It was probably the most-debated aspect of the story, at least in the US (which should be specified). petrarchan47คุก 20:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Collection of information

We seem to have a rather large hole in our coverage, namely, how and when Snowden collected all of the info that he eventually passed to Greenwald, Poitras, and others. Of course we don't know all the details, but I know there's been some coverage on this subject--the number of documents, how he collected them, how he gained access, when he started, etc. etc. At this point I'm nowhere near as familiar with the subject matter as Petrarchan47 is; perhaps she can work on this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, DrF, this isn't an aspect of the story with which I have much familiarity (or interest). petrarchan47คุก 19:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits by Brian Dell

I do not understand the basis for the following recent edits. Bdell555, perhaps you can explain them without the personalization and accusations of bad faith. Please interlineate your responses.

• [7] (edit summary: "you are cherry picking here, Doc. The majority of the material is Dept of Defense files. That should be acknowledged here if you are going to say what the material was about") -- The material you deleted as been in the lead for some time. I didn't add it; I merely moved it. Now the lead doesn't say that Snowden revealed surveillance programs, which is obviously what he's best known for. If you want something in there about the DoD, then we can probably work something in there. But deleting the whole sentence doesn't seem productive. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Before you moved it, that material referred to what he handed over to Greenwald, then working for the Guardian. You moved it so that it refers to the files he took as a whole. Which raises the question of why you didn't also move "The vast majority of the documents… had nothing to do with exposing government oversight of domestic activities. The vast majority of those were related to our military capabilities, operations, tactics, techniques and procedures" or a summary of that contention. Given that "His disclosures have fueled debates over mass surveillance, government secrecy, and the balance between national security and information privacy" is already in the lede, I also think your moving of the material to headline level - to the exclusion of considering what's widely reported to be the subject of the majority of the documents he took - is accordingly unbalanced.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand your concern here. What information can we add to the sentence you removed ("The information revealed numerous global surveillance programs, many run by the NSA and the Five Eyes with the cooperation of telecommunication companies and European governments.") that would balance it in your view, while still reflecting that Snowden is best known for revealing various mass surveillance programs? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

What in the lede reflects the fact that it is widely reported that the majority of the documents are military related? As long as that is absent, since we've already got "mass surveillance" in the lede, further piling up on the one side to the continued exclusion of the other is unbalanced. It is not all or nothing in terms of most assessments of Snowden. Many moderate Snowden supporters still have reservations. This lede currently gives minimal explanation to the reader for why those reservations exist. To further highlight the reasons why he has the support he does is to slant the article. You've apparently rejected including the "vast majority" quote and things like a reference to Snowden's meeting with Russian officials before he left for Russia so I would think the only compromise here is to keep the Snowden boosterism restrained as opposed to having a longer lede. I mean I could propose we include a quote or two from the recent Sunday Times story, but are you seriously open to that?--Brian Dell (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I think there may be a misunderstanding here about how WP:NPV works as applied to lead sections. The goal isn't to pick enough "anti-Snowden" facts to balance the "pro-Snowden" facts and reflect the concerns of the pro-Snowden and anti-Snowden crowds equally. The idea is to present the most noteworthy facts about Snowden using neutral language. If the noteworthy facts happen to paint Snowden in a particular light, positive or negative, sobeit. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Then stop deleting the noteworthy facts that you happen to believe paint Snowden in a negative light. You can't have it both ways here. You didn't answer my question about which of the quotes I pointed to you might be willing to include. Until then, hyping the "telecommunication" surveillance angle to the exclusion of the other million documents is not neutral.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• [8] (edit summary: "doing your best to try and whitewash the chronology via selective omission, I see. This is the true chronology, Doc.") -- Some of your additions have nothing to do with anything I did, and others re-added material that isn't sufficiently noteworthy of the lead. Snowden's specific contractor roles and the precising timing of the State Department's revocation of his passport are simply not essential facts for a 4-paragraph biography of the man. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You deleted the material about Snowden meeting with Russians in Hong Kong and you entirely deleted everything in the intro about the passport revocation, including the fact it was revoked before he left Hong Kong. Yet you kept "stranded for 39 days." Since the passport revocation, and more specifically its timing (before he was en route to Latin America), is supposed to be the main reason he was stranded in Russia, if the revocation is not of note then presumptively the stranding isn't either, such that you could just say he flew to Moscow and has been there ever since. You also kept the June 14 charge date which could hardly be more irrelevant since the charges were sealed at the time (i.e. a tree fell in the forest but no one heard it). It was the unsealing of the charges on Friday, June 21 that set the dominoes - and Snowden - in motion. The timing of the passport revocation became a very long and drawn out issue on this Talk page until Petrarchan inadvertently settled it by pointing out that CBS story where the Secretary of State made his statement about just when his Department acted. If it can be such a major issue amongst Wikipedians, it presumably could be a major question for readers for well. The phrasing here settles the matter. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate the argument that "within two hours" seems an odd detail to mention if one doesn't know the background.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Your edit did two things: (1) it restored details about Snowden's previous job history and (2) it restored details about the passport revocation. You still haven't explained why (1) is sufficiently noteworthy for the lead--do you mind if we remove this? As for (2), would you be satisfied with cutting the passport stuff and removing the word "stranded," i.e. "where he remained for 39 days?" I would support that while we seek broader community feedback in a separate discussion about whether we can say Snowden was "stranded" in Moscow. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking about this yesterday. How about "...Russia, ostensibly with onward travel plans, however he reportedly remained in the airport's international transit zone for 39 days." In terms of the passport bit, think it is important to make clear he left once the US officially tried have him detained. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

You've got the green light from me, at least, to so edit if you wish.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Three issues. First, words such as "reportedly" and "obstensibly" are expressions of doubt that should be avoided. Second, I don't understand how your proposed edit makes clear that Snowden left after the US officially tried to have him detained. Third, I assume you're talking about Hong Kong? I don't quite understand the significance of the timing - is it the suggestion that the reason Snowden flew to Moscow was to flee from U.S. law enforcement? If so we shouldn't include that unless we have a reliable source saying that explicitly. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I think ostensibly is fine as there is doubt that he realistically had anywhere else to go. My suggestion probably could be improved upon and wasn't intended to deal with the passport question. The main issue I see with the passport sentence is that the two hour claim isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article and source isn't used either. The Hong Kong S2 has a decent amount on the events at the time he left (a couple of sources from it [9] [10]) I don't have opinion on the exact wording.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if there were a consensus to remove any mention of the fact he worked for the CIA, etc. It's a very brief summary of a significant part of the article and is more substantive information than airy and contentious conclusions about Snowden's legacy. I've already said I'm fine with just stating that Snowden went to Russia and remained there. It's when the lede is being used to declare definitively why Snowden went to Russia while excluding the facts that don't support the proffered why that I object to. There IS doubt, in other words, and expressions of doubt should not be avoided when there is doubt. Professor Hathaway has noted that the "stranding" was manufactured. The fact Snowden could leave Hong Kong with a revoked passport doesn't support the argument that a revoked passport stranded him in Russia. You've been trying too hard to suppress the reports that Snowden met with Russians before flying to Russia, Doc, to be in a position to credibly contend that you are agnostic about why Snowden flew to Russia. You've consistently lobbied for readings that suggest Snowden ended up in Russia against his (and/or Russia's) will.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Personal jabs aside, I've taken a stab at resolving the Moscow/passport stuff, which, based on the discussion above, might have consensus. If anyone disagrees with it, I urge you to tweak rather than revert. As for Snowden's past career, I still feel it breaks up the flow of the lead and is not sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion, but I'll let that one go as I don't think it's that big of a deal. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Why are you edit warring to include June 14 without any argument for what's notable about June 14? It's the June 21 unsealing of the charges that is notable. The BBC story "Why did US fugitive Edward Snowden leave Hong Kong?" specifically references the unsealing: "By this time, the US had made public the charges against Mr Snowden. He was feeling the heat." The unsealing was a significant event that was supposed to strand Snowden in Hong Kong until he was extradited (but was not done earlier because the charges had not been leaked prior to June 21 and State wanted to use behind the scenes diplomacy to bring the Chinese on board instead of forcing China's hand with a public charge and passport revocation). It also stands to reason the more time that passed after the passport was revoked, the more people who would ask why China let him exit on an invalid passport, so China wanted him out ASAP (or the Russians knew the Chinese would eventually be compelled to push him out and accordingly suggested he go to Hong Kong before he got to Hong Kong).--Brian Dell (talk) 05:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• [11] (edit summary: "I thot you thot the lede was too long, DrF? If you can find the length to tack on a one-sided political statement, the space could be found to reported undisputed facts like Snowden's meeting with Russians in HK") -- You removed reliably sourced content explaining that three courts have ruled on the legality of the telephone metadata program, not two. As written, the lead is misleading because Judge Pauley's decision was reversed by the Second Circuit. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

And you removed reliably sourced content that noted that Putin said his people met Snowden before he left Hong Kong for Russia. Many readers would find it a remarkable coincidence that he happened to then get "stranded" in Putin's country a few days later, when all he was supposedly trying to do was get from Hong Kong to Latin America (why didn't he go straight to Latin America from Hawaii? would the fact Russia isn't anywhere inbetween Hawaii and Latin America have anything to do with a detour to Hong Kong?). The telephone metadata program concerns an extremely small and accordingly unrepresentative fraction of the material Snowden absconded with, never mind Snowden's general biography. It remains a fact that courts ruled differently even if they are on different levels and I'll add here that this isn't a US-only story; British courts have had things to say as well. The bigger issue here is you turning aside an even-handed conclusion to the lede in favour of a selective, politically-toned conclusion. You're welcome to revise if you can resist the temptation to tilt the POV here, and I'd call focusing on one branch of government cherry picking when the other two branches (the executive and the legislature) have a rather different view of the subject (including the UK government).--Brian Dell (talk) 02:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I saw your edit deleting the lede final on the constitutionality of collecting telephone data and I support deleting that. It seemed to me to beg the question somewhat (as to whether Snowden was justified in his actions). c1cada (talk) 03:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

In hindsight I agree with both of you that the court rulings should be removed from the lead entirely. I think the material that included the Second Circuit decision was neutral in language and tone, but it could have been read to suggest vindication for Snowden that wasn't explicitly sourced. To that extent, I agree that the telephone metadata program was only a small part of what Snowden leaked and the court rulings do not reflect what some people are saying is the more significant political vindication expressed through the passage of the USA Freedom Act. The legality of the programs Snowden revealed (determined by the U.S. federal judiciary) is certainly noteworthy, but concisely explaining its significance in the lead section is impossible without some very special and reliable sources, which I'm not sure exist at this time. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that was my feeling. However material about the constitutionality of the various programs he revealed are surely part of the article in some appropriate place discussing whether Snowden's actions was justified, or indeed any section just describing those programs. Following from Burnley's and others' remarks about "costs", it doesn't necessarily follow that the illegality of these programs justifies Snowden's actions and it was the begging of this question (or so I felt) that I objected to when the material was in the lede. But I have no problem with it appearing elsewhere. c1cada (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

" front-door access" ?

Could somebody help me understand what this expression means? I assume it's a US expression. Could somebody re-write to make it more international? thanks! --mgaved (talk) 14:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good point. The single use in the article refers to an early source in the debate where it's used, I think, simply to suggest open-access i.e. NSA get the keys without having to go through the back door, "trapdoors" whatever. Since then it seems to have morphed into a more specialized usage involving keys split into parts so that no single user can access the data, "front doors with big locks". See for example this from kitguru.net. Editors here might like to clarify. c1cada (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a technical expression, but I'm not sure how to better explain it in the prose, a note maybe? Like @c1cada suggests, front-door means the companies involved knowingly provided access for the NSA, as appose to them breaking-in via another entry point (backdoor) or "hacking" an entrance of their own.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, but note also that source I gave (and there are others), where the term seems to have taken on the "with locks" connotation. I suggest the best editing solution is to let the existing occurrence of "front-door access" pass without explanation, or possibly replace by "direct access", and then at some suitable point in the article highight the latest demands for "front-door" access with locks. I'll add a 2013 Guardian citation to the existing text, but I'll leave it to the editors here to decide whether and how to reference these latest demands. c1cada (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I have replaced "front-door" by "direct", noticing that the Greenwald1 Guardian citation I added refers to that. c1cada (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)