Talk:Edward Snowden

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Burrobert (talk | contribs) at 12:42, 24 April 2024 (→‎Use of an Intelligence Committee report: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wiki Education assignment: Communication and Culture

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

Calling him American-Russian

I think this is misleading, and a mistake. The average reader, when they read such a thing, will assume he is ethnically Russian. 2603:7081:7C0F:B43:CD0A:8A53:C17F:962D (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I like how the lede now reads: "an American and naturalized Russian". That's an elegant solution. Kudos. 24.246.14.216 (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To further clarify, when American is paired with a prefix or suffix of another country, it is assumed to be their ethnicity. African American, Polish American, Italian American, etc. It has nothing to do with their citizenship in another country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Binglederry (talk • contribs) 00:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have changed it back to American as it was WP:UNDUE weight in the WP:LEDE. He is widely known as American and his new recently acquired citizenship is not sufficient to use this much weight in the lede. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
excellent, it reads much better now Binglederry (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the correct formulation is to call him American and later in the lead say Putin granted him Russian citizenship. nableezy - 22:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above 4 editors. North8000 (talk) 00:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

being traded Russian citizenship for his spying is one of the most notable things about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.143.192.197 (talk) 03:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The correct order should be Russian-American as he renounced his American citizenship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.203.12.86 (talk) 07:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor, per Reuters et al, and the U.S. State Department, he has NOT renounced his American citizenship. Even if he wanted to, it requires him visiting the American consulate to do so, and that's not going to happen. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 07:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Epithets in Lede

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

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

"Naturalized Russian

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

I'm not defending / advocating any particular wording, but that wording does It does does convey / contain the information that the Russian status came later. North8000 (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because calling him Russian implies ethnicity. "Russian" is an ambiguous term and can imply either ethnicity or nationality. "American" is very different in that there's no ethnicity attached to it. At the end of the day it's about reducing ambiguity. And in this case I'd argue even misinformation, because many people would assume he's an ethnic Russian with that wording. Binglederry (talk) 05:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unconstitutional

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

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

Nationality and citizenship

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

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

Peculiar attribution?

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

Verizon court order

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

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

Use of an Intelligence Committee report

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

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

Burrobert (talk) 12:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edward_Snowden&oldid=1220540126"