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 DrFleischman (talk | contribs) at 18:21, 3 December 2013 (→‎Enough). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

added videos

Hi all

I've added videos from the Sam Adams award presentation in Moscow (one of which is media of the day on commons today), I think the videos are a worthwhile addition to the article but the descriptions may need some work.

Thanks

Mrjohncummings (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed as this gives WP:UNDUE emphasis to a minor story that is pure WP:RECENTISM about an organization that barely exists. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am adding them back; your rational doesn't hold water. If your reasoning was that the Award is entirely undue, you would have no reason for having left the section about the Award in the article. I disagree that this could be categorized as a minor story - with regard to the subject matter and a quick look at reliable sources, it is not. Although the award may not be well known, the people behind the award are highly notable, all ex-intelligence officials and most are quite famous.
This 'organization that barely exists' has been active since at least 2002.
This is the second of two videos appearances we have of the Snowden, and is his first public appearance since becoming an asylee, which makes these videos even more notable, as we can see from the coverage in RS below. petrarchan47tc 01:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying anything about the reliability of the sources; WP:UNDUE is about neutrality, not verifiability. The award is already covered in the text. On top of that it gets not one, not two, but four videos? Whether it's intended this way or not, it comes off as abject hero-worshiping. Even a single video is inappropriate, as it puts disproportionate emphasis on a very small aspect of Snowden's biography. He is famous for his leaks, not the award he received for his leaks. This is not the Nobel Prize. And yes, this is an organization that barely exists. They have no website and you won't find a single reliable source that even acknowledges their existence prior to Snowden's disclosures. And every other recipient of the award has an article, but you won't find links to videos of any of them receiving it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second of two videos appearances we have of the Snowden, and is his first public appearance since becoming an asylee, which makes these videos even more notable. (I've just re-added my note from above.) In media coverage these videos are receiving attention not for the award, the catalyst for the visit and public appearance, but because since becoming a household name after the Guardian interview, no one has heard from him until now. Regarding the videos, I'd like to hear more from the editor who added them as well as the rest of the community. Regarding "hero worship", that is a personal judgement void of substance, given that editors are simply reflecting RS and should not be made to feel guilty for that. The opposite of hero worship is equally egregious for an editor, and I would point to the removal of Snowden's White House petition as well as the recent grumbling at Sam Adams Award as red flags for a certain potential POV. petrarchan47tc 22:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that content is supported by reliable sources doesn't mean we abdicate our responsibility to ensure that the content is presented in a neutral and WP:BALANCEd way without giving WP:UNDUE weight to any particular aspect of the subject. I do not dispute that Snowden's public reappearance is notable; indeed it is. What I dispute is that his reappearance is somehow so much more notable than all other aspects of his biography that it gets four videos, while the rest of his biography gets none. And the fact that these four videos paint him in an overwhelmingly positive light, far more positively than the article as a whole. Where is the video of the DOJ announcing his indictment? Or the C-SPAN coverage of the congressional hearings about him? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The videos are important IMHO and should be in Blade-of-the-South (talk) 07:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please point to a comparable article that has links to a video concerning a comparable event. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has been a week without a response. I sense stonewalling. Someone please respond re comparable articles, or I'll interpret silence as acquiescence. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, no response. I'm re-deleting the videos. If anyone disagrees with this, please make an effort to advance this discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I re-added the videos again as it seems their removal is controversial (3 against removal on talk). Receiving the award was a notable event, we're lucky enough to have footage of it-- it doesn't strike me as UNDUE to link to the footage of the event. --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We're "lucky enough" to have footage of lots of other things, both related to Snowden and not, that never gets a link on WP. Why is this special? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why does this article have videos when most articles still don't? Well, most video producers don't release their videos under Creative Commons, and thus they can't be uploaded to our servers. In this case, the footage was released under CC. Most editors don't understand how to upload and include videos, so articles that attract the interest of tech-saavy editors are probably going to be more prone to have videos.
I do agree we should worry about hagiography-- for example, the video clip where he's handed the award might be best put in the gallery and a still image used to illustrate the event. The gallery, meanwhile, might belong in the section on the award, rather than 'motivations'.
I recognize that even in 2013, it IS unusual for our articles to have videos (sigh). And I recognize the videos we do have present Snowden in the best possible light. So I do see your concerns that that article is getting 'special treatment'-- but the solution is for us to make video galleries a more regular occurrence on WP, not to delete links to the footage we already have. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your response doesn't hold water, for two reasons. First, there's lots of relevant footage available, such as C-SPAN footage, that may be freely used for non-commercial purposes with attribution. We could include all sorts of video coverage of Snowden related events, such as congressional hearings and NSA/DCI press conferences. Second, just because it might be desirable to promote video galleries on WP doesn't in any way negate the requirement that we adhere to WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE. You acknowledge that the videos present Snowden in the best possible light; that should settle the matter, as we have a responsibility to present the facts neutrally, rather than in any sort of good or bad light. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"We could include all sorts of video coverage of Snowden related events, such as congressional hearings and NSA/DCI press conferences"-- You'll get no argument from me! There's a definite 'need for balance' in the video sections-- I think Congressional Hearings would make fine addition-- either hosted on Commons or at minimum linked to. That might be a great way to have our cake and eat it too. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about 4 videos for each congressional hearing and each press conference? Ok, I'm not serious. But do you see what I'm getting at? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should the links to the four Sam Adams Award videos be deleted?

There are currently four links to uploaded videos related to the Sam Adams Award footage: one to Snowden receiving the award (in the Edward Snowden#Awards subsection), and three of Snowden speaking at the same event (in the Edward Snowden#Motivations subsection). The question is whether these links should be removed. Arguments for removal have centered around WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE. Arguments against removal have mostly said that the event was highly notable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plural was used for describing "argument(s) for". If this was in error, please correct your entry to reflect the singular. Thanks, petrarchan47tc 09:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete most, keep one. Four videos seems to me excessive for anything short of the Kennedy assassination. FWIW, I wouldn't support four videos if Snowden had won the Nobel Prize, much less this comparatively obscure award. Adding this many video links makes it seem the most important moment of Snowden's life, but I think few reliable sources would consider it such (it certainly didn't dominate world headlines similarly to other Snowden events). This emphasis also raises some mild neutrality concerns. For comparison, we would never include four video links to White House spokespeople discussing and condemning Snowden's actions, though White House press broadcasts are presumably public domain. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But we did include the White House reaction to the Russian asylum - it is the largest paragraph in that section. Further, media covering Snowden didn't just talk about this event, they included these videos. Wikipedia is in keeping with RS in this regard. If you haven't researched the coverage, let me know and I will add links. petrarchan47tc 18:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reactions to Snowden were moved to the 2013 global surveillance disclosures article, where there is a good amount of space dedicated to WH reaction/condemnation. For inclusion in this article, (video) statements by Snowden can't be compared with WH reactions. It might make to sense to give equal space in this way if the article was 'Snowden controversy' or 'Snowden relationship with US government'. petrarchan47tc 21:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Adding four video snippets that make Snowden's case, and zero that criticize him, really does raise POV issues, unless your plan is to correspondingly overemphasize anti-Snowden views in the prose for some kind of overall balance. Despite taking the time to respond twice, I think you've missed the point here in both. Of course there are reliable sources about this event, but I'm not arguing that it didn't exist (and in fact argued that one video should be kept). I'm arguing that it's undue weight to link readers to this ceremony four additional times. This event doesn't even appear in the article's own lead section, for crying out loud. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Khazar2 makes a good argument that's hard to dispute. As a reader, I certainly don't want to look at four videos, which is why I have brought up other technical solutions that obviously won't happen within the time frame of this RfC. No matter how many arguments people make to keep these videos, it is an inescapable fact that from a merely aesthetic POV, it doesn't work. Viriditas (talk) 07:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Khazar2 -- These are not video snippets about any ceremony, they were simply recorded at one. The snippets are not "pro-Snowden", they inform the reader about him using his own words. To me, that is good, encyclopedic content. If there has been criticism or notable response to his statements in the videos, I would add them to page myself. As for their placement in the article, I would agree this isn't the best. The videos were added by an editor who has not worked on the article before. I do wish the three could be linked to play as one, which is how media outlets such as Washington Post covered this. But for now, even with the 4 clips and 3 still images, the Snowden article is sparse and visually unappealing compared with most Wikipedia articles, in my mind. To remove more media would certainly not help the situation, and is in no way a POV issue any more than text detailing his childhood history would be. It's information about the subject of the article. I don't see the problem. petrarchan47tc 22:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The 4th video, showing Snowden accepting the award, was removed and in its place is a still image. The 3 video clips now have context, with an introduction and a proper spot chronologically in the Temporary Russian asylum section. petrarchan47tc 00:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think it would be neutral to have videos of Barack Obama or George W. Bush talking about their political beliefs on their own pages? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I'd also add that responding twice to every post someone makes in a discussion borders on bludgeoning; instead, let's agree to disagree. You still have plenty of space to explain your rationale in your own !vote without needing to also pound mine into the ground. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The videos are all very short. The three in the "motivations" section are all very short snippets, probably all taken from a single, much longer, video (someone please correct me if this assumption is incorrect). They are useful because they help explain Snowden's motivations. The one showing him receiving the award is also relevant to its section. Its removal would not be a great loss to the article, but it does little harm, in my view, to keep such a short clip. --NSH001 (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The short, seconds-long video clips were released by Wikileaks in this format. A longer video, or the source video, has not been released or doesn't exist AFAIK. petrarchan47tc 18:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NSH001; this article is quite anemic with regard to non-text content, and as information trickles out about the subject, I expect editors to add more, be it text, video or still images just as we do any other article. Check out Deepwater Horizon oil spill, another article I've worked on a bit, to get an idea how comparably sparse this one is, making this RfC seem a bit of a time-waste. Frankly I'm getting sick of the needless difficultly placed on editors trying to work on this and the Sam Adams Award - a related article and recipient of similar complaints by the same RfC-filing editor. petrarchan47tc 18:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most, keep one. Four videos is overkill. --Inayity (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's sad that in 2013 (going on 2014), Wikipedia has still not integrated multiple media formats into its articles. We should be able to easily link to and play all four videos in one small window with a loadable playlist template that can handle all types of media files. Otherwise, a variation of the {{collapse}} template would provide a quick fix for those wishing to preserve the videos. But really, we need a way to easily integrate slideshows, audio recordings, and video in a single display. Viriditas (talk) 04:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This event is simply not particularly notable. Yes, it received some press, so it merits mention in the text, but there are lots and lots of *more* notable events mentioned in the article that don't have any videos, despite them being available. This event probably wouldn't make the top 10. Bear in mind that this is an extremely obscure group that doesn't have a website and whose very existence isn't supported by reliable sources prior to this particular event. And aside from the notability issue, no one has explained how the videos provide any benefit over and above what's in the text. So he won the award. We say he won the award; isn't that enough? Likewise, the motivations videos "explain Snowden's motivations" (quoting Petrarchan); are his motivations unclear from our text? And if so, isn't the solution to change the text? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: this is a biography article. It doesn't matter if the event was notable, what matters is if the commentary in the video helps illustrate the subject. For what it's worth, it wouldn't matter if it was a home video taken in a hotel room or a major production. What matters here is content, not the notability of the event. Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BALASPS, the weight given to the Sam Adams event shouldn't be disproportionate to its significance to the biography of Edward Snowden. I believe we've all been using the terms "significance" and "notability" interchangeably. The point, though, is that whether content is "helpful" or "illustrative" doesn't end our inquiry; there's still a neutrality standard (BALASPS) that must be met. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The videos show Snowden talking about NSA programmes, the dangers to democracy, and about government transparency. Those issues are entirely relevant and significant in this article. The fact that he is speaking at a conference that you may or may not heard of is irrelevant. WP:BALASP has no application here, and I'm surprised you even brought it up. Viriditas (talk) 07:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis would WP:BALASPS not be applicable? As far as I know it always applies. And, as it says, it's about proportionality of the event's significance, not simply whether the event is or isn't significant. Put another way, we don't get to put in unlimited videos (or text) just because an event meets some "significance" threshold. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The event has no bearing on the content. I'm not going to repeat myself again. Viriditas (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, for some reason I can't make heads or tails of your comment "The event has no bearing on the content." How is WP:BALASPS not applicable? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: There's absolutely no reason to split a short videos into three even shorter parts. Having said that, the video itself is worth keeping but should be moved to Edward_Snowden#Political_views. -A1candidate (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Before A1candidate made his comment, I requested further input on a proposed merge here. Anyone who has the skills to merge these segments together is invited to do so provided it won't cause any problems for our readers (or the servers). Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Keep One. Multiple videos of the same event do not belong in an encyclopedic article unless each video, on its own, provides important content that is not already incorporated by the balance of the text and other videos. In this instance, all videos are of the same event and each does not sufficiently expand or extend the theme to warrant multiple inclusions. Factchecker25 (talk) 14:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still oppose keeping any of these videos, but if the decision is between merging or keeping one I strongly prefer keeping one, the awards ceremony itself. The other three videos are Snowden elucidating his political views and motivations, things that are already well covered in the text of this article, and additional video coverage of the same material creates a neutrality issue. We would never allow similar footage in a politician's article, and I don't see any meaningful difference. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - per reasoning stated above by Viriditas. This is information that improves the the article, as it presents the subject in his own words. I call that encyclopedic, as I define it in the year 2013. Jusdafax 22:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the videos, separately or Merged into one is fine by me. The videos facilitate seeing the subject in his own words in a story that has gone viral, and due to the subject's necessary removal from US jurisdiction, a story that has mostly been told for him by media intermediaries. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is possible

Thanks to help from User: Viriditas and the good folks at Village Pump, we should have a single video containing all 3 clips shortly :) petrarchan47tc 22:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that with this merged video to replace the three clips (having already replaced the fourth video from the "Sam Adams" section with a still image), we are now left with a single video. petrarchan47tc 22:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
This is certainly a step in the right direction, and I appreciate your efforts, Petrarchan47, but we still have neutrality/BALASPS issues. Why do we have two redundant paragraphs about the Sam Adams Award? And as for the content of the video, we still have the subject of the article speaking his mind on his political views - how is this neutral? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowden is still an American fugitive even with temporary asylum

The deletion of the description of Snowden as an American fugitive is contrary to the subject reference in the lede sentence. Snowden is an American fugitive even with temporary asylum granted by Russian authorities while Snowden remains within Russia. Please restore my edit.Patroit22 (talk) 11:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100%. Yes he is also an asylee, but he is much better known for being a fugitive. (See WP:BEGIN.) He's a fugitive until the U.S. government catches him or gives up. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like how the first sentence is currently written, without reference Snowden's asylum/fugitive status (as it's not what he's primarily known for). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Edward Snowden article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. petrarchan47tc 00:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Activist basically said that Russia is a barbaric country. Is this kind of blatant expression of one's prejudices allowed at Wikipedia, especially in cases where it has nothing to do with the topic at hand? Is hate speech like this treated as acceptable by Wikipedia policy, or is there a mechanism to control it? – Herzen (talk) 09:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said or implied that Russia was "barbaric." I would appreciate your withdrawal of your comment. Activist (talk) 10:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you take this to Activist's talk page or the noticeboards if you feel so strongly about it. It has no place on this page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of PC, Snowden is a fugitive.There seems to be consesus on that. should change be made?MagicKirin11 (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowden using passwords of other NSA contractors

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Direct source:
--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

German poll

This looks notable. Very favourable Snowden poll. Might find more refs. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/07/us-usa-security-snowden-germany-idUSBRE9A60W920131107http://rt.com/news/germany-lose-trust-us-snowden-431/ Blade-of-the-South talk 02:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters source for no leaks in Russia or China?

After reading the Alan Rusbridger piece on Snowden in this week's The New York Review of Books ("The Snowden Leaks and the Public", pp. 31–34), I thought I would come here to check up on this biography and see how it was developing. Rusbridger quotes Snowden saying he did not leak any secrets to Russia or China, and then Rusbridger writes, "Reuters recently confirmed that US officials have no proof that any of Snowden's material has leaked to either country." I looked for such an article at reuters.com but did not find it. Does anyone here have a clue? Rusbridger describes how Snowden was careful in his choice of where to leak the material, and Rusbridger also says that Snowden's recipients have been careful with the material.

Because of various people publicly stating their worries to the contrary, I think this biography could use a little more emphasis on the assertion that Snowden did not give secrets to the Russians or Chinese. The Reuters item would be useful for that. Binksternet (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do have this in the "Temporary Russian asylum" section: petrarchan47tc 23:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In an October 2013 interview, Snowden maintained that he did not bring any classified material into Russia "because it wouldn’t serve the public interest". He added "there’s a zero percent chance the Russians or Chinese have received any documents". NYT
Rusbridger is clearly talking about a different story because he acknowledges the NY Times interview right before that quote. A Reuters article from earlier this month says of "Snowden and some of his interlocutors": "They have emphatically denied that he provided any classified material to countries such as China or Russia." But I still can't find anything about confirmation that the US government has "no proof." Odd. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, odd. I was looking for US officials saying that they have not seen any evidence that Snowden leaked secrets to Russia or China. Binksternet (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article you're looking for is here:

U.S. officials have said that they were operating on the assumption that any classified materials downloaded by Snowden have fallen into the hands of China and Russia's spy agencies, though the officials acknowledge they have no proof of this.

— Reuters

-A1candidate (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales' opinions on Edward Snowden

Not sure where this fits, but...

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC) As stated before Wales oppinion is irrelevant and should not be given speciul consideration.MagicKirin11 (talk) 05:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's relevant, and given Wales' notability it should probably be included. Unfortunately the "Debate" section has been neutered compared to what it once was (improperly, in my view), and if Wales' views were added to this section in its current state it would be out of WP:BALANCE. Basically I think the "Debate" section needs major expansion, including the addition of Wales' views among many others. (This thread is what triggered my addition of the undue tag and the discussion immediately below.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Dr. Fleischman, could you provide diffs of the pre-neutered version you prefer? Since the splitting off of the main reactions section, which was moved by the admin who locked the page a while back, sans summary, the Debate section has only expanded. But it needs to be summary style, as the discussion is now at 2013 mass surveillance disclosures. What do you think, specifically, should be added to the debate section? As for Wales, I don't agree in the least that there should be mention of it here, beyond the link I added to the lede. A lot of important and famous people are saying a lot of things about Snowden. There is a list style discussion of this at the 2013 msd article, and it should go there imo. We are sorely missing a global view. Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Indonesia are hot spots right now with leaks and fallout, and we have no mention of them. They are all undergoing the same debate as the US and EU. I would go for adding more context, rather than adding random examples of reactions to a summary. petrarchan47tc 04:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:LENGTH, at 113 bytes the article is already too long and should be split. Jusdafax 05:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think should be split? Personally, I have not wanted to trim the Asylum applications or Hong Kong sections because I didn't feel confident about removing information. Maybe those sections could be split. petrarchan47tc 07:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undue tag

The overall neutrality and balance in this article have degraded since I was last actively editing it in August. Relatively speaking, the article overemphasizes the following subjects/sections:

  • Career
  • Hong Kong
  • Asylum applications
  • Awards (especially)
  • Fundraising (this is blatant promotion and should be deleted outright)

relative to the following subjects/sections:

  • Debate
  • Criminal prosecution and investigation (especially; this needs major expansion)

Please do not remove the tag until consensus has been reached. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's incorrect. You are the only person who thinks this material is "undue" and this has been addressed in the above RFC. You are now disrupting this article by creating duplicate discussions and asking people to prove a negative. That's not how it works and you're holding this article hostage to your demands. We don't have to prove it isn't undue, but you have to show us that it is. Unless you can demonstrate that these things are undue in a very narrow and specific way, there's nothing anyone can say or do to address your concerns. It looks like you are playing the all or nothing hostage game. You have repeatedly asked other editors to prove that it's neutral, and to prove x, y, and z. Meanwhile, you don't have to prove your stated concerns, so you are essentially transferring the burden on to other editors. When other editors address it, as in the RFC up above, you then move the goalposts. When other editors point this out, you then open up multiple discussion threads claiming that you are now holding the article hostage to your maintenance tag demands and that all the material you personally dislike must be removed or the tag stays. This little game is entirely transparent, disruptive, and not how Wikipedia works. If you have a specific problem with content, then you describe it and ask that it be modified or removed. Previously when you've done this, other editors have disagreed with you. You can't drop the stick, so now you are forced to slapping tags on sections and yelling at the top of your voice that no man shall pass unless your personal whims are met. Viriditas (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? This is a separate issue. The RFC was about the videos. I'm not talking about the videos here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DR is correct there is too much cheerleading on this article and not enough on Snowden's crime and illegal activity.MagicKirin11 (talk) 05:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We report issues as they appear in RS. There is a section just waiting for your assistance all about the charges against him, but note that he has not been convicted of any crime, so whether it was illegal activity has not been determined. petrarchan47tc 06:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that MagicKirin11's reference to "crime and illegal activity" was rather POV and certainly inconsistent with BLP. However you should bear in mind that all editors, including you, must comply with WP:WEIGHT and specifically WP:BALASPS. The fact that you've voluntarily chosen to write at length about certain sections of the article and not others doesn't give you license to violate these aspects of WP:NPV. In line with policy you should (a) write less about your favorite Snowden aspects, (b) write more about the other aspects, or (c) a combination of both. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove tag - This article needs great NPOV care now that Jimmy Wales has publicly praised Snowden. In general I agree with Viriditas regarding the tag, though DrFleischman's dislike of the awards section allowed me to review and delete per WP:CRYSTAL a short subsection about a school in Germany that may, or may not, give Snowden an honorary degree. I lean keep on the fundraising subsection but am open to discussion. But overall, I think the burden should be on supporters of such a tag to speedily prove that consensus exists to justify such a major disfigurement of this high-profile article. As Viriditas notes, based on past talk page history here, it appears that no such consensus exists. Jusdafax 05:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain what you mean by a "such a major disfigurement?" I never suggested disfiguring the article, let alone in a major way. I'm suggesting expanding some sections and trimming others. I'm not talking about lead editing or dismemberment. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry not to be more precise in my meaning of the phrase in question, which is meant for the tag itself. It goes without saying that a prominent tag at the very start of an article on such a controversial figure is the first thing one sees. In my view it casts a serious taint on the efforts of Wikipedian editors who contribute in good faith. Furthermore, coming on the heels of a discussion in which you didn't prevail, it gives the appearance, rightly or wrongly of your being a bad sport. I do not make this accusation, but I suggest you remove your tag in the interests of collegial fairness allowing us to begin to discuss your points on a case by case basis and achieve a truly encyclopedic NPOV. Again, it is my view that things have significantly changed because of the Founder's recent laudatory statement regarding the article's subject. More than ever, this important article truly needs to be squeaky clean, so for that we should all be grateful to you. Again, let's lose the tag, please. It would be much much easier if it came from you now instead of as a result of !votes. Thanks. Jusdafax 07:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully decline. I appreciate you elaborating on your previous comment. I agree that the tag is a bit of a black mark but sadly, I believe it's warranted, as the article has in my view become rather lopsided. My tagging of the article had little to do with the previous RFC (which resulted in a compromise, btw) and I did it in good faith. Any appearance of my being a "bad sport" is purely coincidental. There's also nothing unfair or un-collegial about the tag. It serves a number of useful purposes, not least of which is that it attracts the attention and input of editors who don't have this article on their watchlists. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove tag. petrarchan47tc 06:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tag removed. DrFleischman, you don't get to hold the article hostage to your POV. If you have concerns, great, discuss them. If you have issues, great, discuss them. But you do not get to tag this article simply because you personally don't like it. This is a deliberate misuse of the maintenance tag. The tag is designed to bring attention to a problem that can be fixed. It is not intended for single use by one editor who can't communicate a problem that needs fixing. You don't get to hang a badge of shame on this article simply because of the way the wind is blowing. If you see a problem, then you need to communicate that problem so that others can look at it and determine if there really is a problem. Tags are used to draw attention to a problem where there is no attention. Well, that is not the case here. You have attention, but you can't communicate the problem and/or others don't see a problem. When you are able to communicate an actual problem that others agree with and when those editors say, "you're right, there's a problem and we need to fix it" and seem unable to do so, then and only then does the tag get added. Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I am violating a policy or guideline then please identify it for me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 10:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To return after a lengthy period of time and state, "The overall neutrality and balance in this article have degraded since I was last actively editing it in August", make a list of demands, and tag the article is extremely arrogant and not the way this place is supposed to work. Gandydancer (talk) 09:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to come off as arrogant, and my reference to August was solely to explain that I haven't given the article much scrutiny in recent months. And to clarify, this is not a list of demands. It's simply my two cents. I feel the problem is sufficiently pervasive and profound that it merits a tag. This isn't holding the article hostage; nothing is being censored or withheld from readers. The tag serves to recruit interested editors and also to signal to like-minded readers that the issue is being worked on. I understand some editors don't like these sorts of tags, but that's really a personal preference. I like them in the certain situations such as this one. I've violated no policy or guideline, and I'm here on the talk page to discuss the matter openly. I'm not sure how that can be described as "not the way this place is supposed to work." Now, aside from all that, does anyone aside from Jusdafax care to weigh in on the substantive merit of my concern? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 10:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to our guidelines: If the consensus of the other editors is that there is a problem or an editorial dispute that deserves such a clean-up template, then the editors should work to fix the problem as quickly and cleanly as possible so the template message can be removed. If the consensus is that there is no problem, then the message can be removed immediately. The consensus seems to be that there is no problem. Gandydancer (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with this except that it's definitely premature to call a consensus for two reasons. First, it's too early, as the discussion has been going for less than 13 hours, which isn't enough time to allow for the participation of editors who don't have this page watchlisted. Second, consensus isn't determined by vote. Two editors (MagicKirin11 and Jusdafax) have responded in a substantive way to my concerns. One agreed with me and the other partially agreed with me.
(Also, just a minor quibble, the "guideline" language you quote above comes from WP:TC which is not a guideline. I don't know what weight should be official given to it, but regardless I agree with the language so this is rather moot.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For those who have concerns about my use of the tag, I urge you to read WP:TAGGING, which I just discovered. Of course it's just an essay but perhaps it will convince some folks here that I acted in good faith and in line with the views of some portion of the community. Moreover this wasn't WP:DRIVEBYTAGGING as I initiated (and continue to engage in) this discussion. And finally, the essay gives some helpful suggestions on how to resolve exactly this kind of dispute. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just highlight the parts of the article that you feel are a problem and spend time discussing how they can be improved. Obviously dropping tags on entire work is going to cause a problem. I am not a fan of tagging entire well written articles unless absolutely necessary, get specific with your grievance. With so many editors taking issue with the tag it might be now just beating a dead horse (I am afraid). --Inayity (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I did highlight the parts of the article I feel are a problem, but I'm happy to go over it in more detail. This is really about relative lengths of sections and details of coverage. The most glaring problem is that the "Criminal prosecution and investigation" section is way too short compared to other sections, a problem Petrarchan has apparently already acknowledged. The second most glaring problem is that the "Debate" section is also way too short; anyone who has followed the Snowden story even slightly knows there's been a tremendous amount of commentary on him (mostly positive, I believe) - yet we only have a few sentences? It's just weird. The third-worst problem is that the "Awards" section has excessive detail compared to the rest of the article, with subsections about obscure awards and gratuitous quotes by Snowden that you'd never see in a comparable article. The fourth-worst problem is that the "Fundraising" section appears promotional. I could go on, but those are my biggest concerns. So you see, these are article-wide concerns, so a top-level tag is appropriate. I could have instead added section-level tags to all seven of the sections I complained about, but that would have created an awful lot of clutter and been more intrusive, in my view. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Energy vs Reward. It is clear you have hit a brick with the higher level tagging. it would be better (I think at least), to pick one area which is the most problematic. And start a thread and discuss that section, point by point. From what I have read, the critiques you list are very broad and invite the critical dialog above. Just remember tagging is not a final solution, the final solution is a better article.--Inayity (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fully understand tagging isn't a final solution and I believe I want a an excellent, balanced, and untagged article as much as anyone else here. As for splitting these issues out, that is really impossible as my concern is chiefly about relative weight among sections (WP:BALASPS). Yes, some of these issues can be dealt with separately the larger issue cannot. But, as a gesture of goodwill I'll start a separate discussion on what I believe is the most separable issue, which is the "Fundraising" section. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You mean you are finally going to get around to discussing why the tag is in the article? How magnanimous of you! The tag has no business being here and there is no consensus for it. Tags are used to draw attention to problems that can be fixed. They are not used as a badge of shame by editors who may get around to explaining why the tag is there sometime in the near future. You're still holding this article hostage with "I am going to tag this article until my personal demands are met, and although I can't exactly explain what my personal demands are or when the tag should be removed, if you all do what I say then maybe, just maybe, I'll remove the tag. Mighty nice article you've got here, it would be a shame if something would happen to it." I think that about sums up your position. Viriditas (talk) 03:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's something about your general approach that engenders the sense that there's no point in arguing with you on the merits. Perhaps that's why you end up in all sorts of conduct disputes. Care for another round, or will you review this discussion and revise your comment accordingly? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another dodge, another day. Notice how whenever the problem you claim exists is addressed, you fail to address it? Again, are you finally going to get around to discussing why the tag is in the article or are you just going to keep changing the subject and moving the goalposts? Why is the tag in the article? We have consensus against it, so why is it still there? Is it because 1) you have no reason, and you just added it to hold this article hostage to your demands, and 2) the reason you haven't removed it is because you don't follow consensus? Are both 1 and 2 examples of intentional disruption on your part? And what about 3) intentionaly reverting two different editors who disagreed with the tag? Is that also disruption on your part? Now, here's the part where you respond by changing the subject again... Viriditas (talk) 07:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're wasting your time. If you want something from me, please ask nicely and avoid misrepresenting my past comments. Care to try again? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the tag in the article and what can be done to immediately remove it? Am I wasting my time expecting an answer to this simple question? Viriditas (talk) 07:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baloney

Dr F says: "The overall neutrality and balance in this article have degraded since I was last actively editing it in August. Relatively speaking, the article overemphasizes the following subjects/sections:

Career

Hong Kong

Asylum applications

Awards (especially)

Fundraising (this is blatant promotion and should be deleted outright)

relative to the following subjects/sections:

Debate

Criminal prosecution and investigation (especially; this needs major expansion)

Response:
  • These sections have hardly been touched since August, if at all:
    • Career
    • Hong Kong
    • Asylum applications
  • RS about the awards did not exists prior to August
  • The fundraising section was added by a drive-by editor, and its removal is not contested
  • Debate needs a lot of work, this is only a skeleton, merely a place-holder, but I am doing my best with the little time I have to devote to wiki
  • No one is stopping you from making a giant federal case of the Federal case, so why a tag on the whole article?
Notes: I have been the only one really working on this article since August, and have only worked on the Russian asylum part, as well as updating important issues such as the awards, and have only begun to deal with what is being termed the "Snowden effect" example list of examples. There have been no great changes since August with respect to the sections you've outlined above, so to suddenly claim the whole article is twisted now leaves me confused. Perhaps though, editors will be attracted to help with research into what is lacking, what is being over or under-reported here, and get to work on improving a very important article.
I am wary of the meme that we are being too nice, too supportive, of Snowden and intentionally leaving out criticism. I would rather hear RS based arguments showing how this article diverges in coverage with relation to that seen in mass media. From my research, I see that there is a campaign in DC that we have yet to cover 1 2 3. Also, Germany's Green Party is calling loudly on the country to grant asylum to Snowden, who the majority of Germany calls a "hero". one example. My palms sweat when news comes out that should go into this article, but that seems to favor Snowden. I have purposely NOT added these two items because of the constant onslaught of POV claims. The article suffers from my fruitless attempts to not stir up controversy and veiled accusations of hero worship. petrarchan47tc 22:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the substantive response. I guess my reply has three parts. First, my reading of the first part of your response (the bullets) basically says, "Don't blame me, I did nothing wrong!" Let me be clear about this: I never claimed you did anything wrong (aside from your overemphasizing of the awards). I never claimed that you were personally responsible for the imbalance. I never claimed to have gone through the edit history to see who changed what when. I simply believe that the article is currently imbalanced and needs adjusting. Your comments above essentially agree with that, you seem to acknowledge that there are problems but you don't take responsibility for them. I never asked you to take responsibility for them. My feedback about this article is about the article, not about Petrarchan.
Nope, that isn't what I meant. I meant there isn't a problem that would justify tagging the entire article. petrarchan47tc 06:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The second part of my reply is that I suggest you make an effort to look at issues outside of the pro-Snowden-vs-anti-Snowden lens. We often fall into patterns where we end up pigeonholing discussions into disputes between familiar camps. This is a bad thing as it leads to avoidable miscommunication and conflict. My overall POV can't be neatly pigeonholed this way, nor can the concerns I've raised in this thread. For example, I've said the pro-Snowden part of the "Debate" section needs expansion. Yes of course, the amount of coverage should be roughly related to the amount of coverage by reliable sources, I don't dispute that. (I've actually been taking that very position on an unrelated politically charged article where I've been locking horns with a disruptive, corporatist, WP:COI WP:SPA.) When I say the article is unbalanced, I don't mean in a pro-Snowden way -- although there are shades of that, particularly in the Awards section -- I simply mean that the article in unbalanced. Please don't lump me in with the "constant onslaught" you refer to.
Hm, it seems the "pro-Snowden" language was actually introduced by you. I don't think in those terms, but rather what is available in RS that is relevant to this article. petrarchan47tc 03:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The third part of my reply, coming back to my first point, is that we all have a responsibility to edit articles in compliance with with WP policies and guidelines, and this includes WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASPS. This means that we can't wax ad nauseum on certain certain aspects of article and leave other sections stunted just because we have no interest in them. I'm sorry, but if you're going to continue adding detailed to the Awards section and such then you're going to have to add a comparable amount of detail to the "Criminal prosecution and investigation"; otherwise, you're just compounding the BALASPS problems, intentionally or not. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's untrue. The responsibility is on all of us, equally, to edit where we see fit. You have not added to this section, or introduced relevant sources one could use to expand it. I have not run across any new updates to the charges as we are in limbo with Snowden's asylum making him unavailable for trial. I do agree that the sections are not in a perfect state of balance. We could use some help in trimming the Applications for asylum and Hong Kong sections, which don't warrant a blow-by-blow. Snowden was in Hong Kong for what, a week or so? But the section is equal in size to his four months in Russia. The asylum-seeking story is interesting, but again, it was written as events unfolded is now unnecessarily bloated in comparison with other sections. I haven't had time to deal with this. I responded in what seems a personal way, because your claim is that the article has become problematic since August, and I have been the only editor here since then. I think we don't actually have an argument. I think we have a lack of editors doing the hard work this article requires. petrarchan47tc 03:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit that I'm feeling pretty guilty right now, as I've been watching the article but not getting involved since it seemed to be going well...I just kept thinking "not to worry--Petrar is taking care of things..." Gandydancer (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article is in good shape compared with the majority of wiki, and that has nothing to do with me. I think we are blowing things way out of proportion. Time to take the tag off, and if anyone can find sources with which to update the investigation of Snowden, the good doctor will probably be happy to work on that and we can call it a day. That is not to say an onslaught of editing help wouldn't be awesome. But no guilt (or tags) is warranted! petrarchan47tc 03:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that neither Gandydancer nor anyone else has a responsibility to contribute. We're all WP:VOLUNTEERs (well, hopefully) and our contributions are purely optional and appreciated. That said if our contributions create or exacerbate violations of WP policy or guidelines then they should be avoided. Hence in some situations, such as this one, it's inappropriate to continue adding content to certain aspects of article at the expense of other aspects, to the point where a BALASPS problem arises. The tag should remain as long as the article remains out of balance. I understand this bothers some editors, but that's the purpose of the tag. If the tag is so bothersome, then it will serve as an incentive to fix the problem. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DrFleischman, perhaps you haven't been here very long, but there is no policy or guideline that reflects your opinion. There is a consensus that the tag should be removed from this article until you have shown there is a problem that can be fixed. It is not, I repeat, not the purpose of the tag to hold this article hostage to your POV. Maintenance tags are used to address problems that can be fixed and to bring attention to an article that does not have it. Tags do not serve as an incentive to fix an ambiguous problem that only you believe exists in your head. If you can't communicate what can be fixed, and if there is no consensus that an outstanding problem exists, then the tag gets removed. It's that simple. I plan on removing the tag, and so does Petrarchan47. We have several other editors up above who disagree with your tagging. So, there does not appear to be consensus that a problem needs fixing nor is there consensus for keeping the tag. Viriditas (talk) 06:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree that there's a lack of consensus over whether the tag should stay or go. In such cases the tag should remain. Moreover, there does appear to be consensus that the article is imbalanced, so removal of the tag is wholly unjustified. Multiple editors who supported removal of the tag based their argument on unfounded accusations of my bad faith. Some of those editors may have changed their minds. If you have a problem with what I've written here, the solution is DR, not reversion. You've been here long enough to know there's no policy or guideline that reflects your opinion. However, you're also well aware that there are guidelines against edit warring, threatening edit warring, unfounded accusations of bad faith, knowing misrepresentation of other editors' opinions, and bullying in general. I urge you to self-correct. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The edit history shows you edit warring against two different editors to keep the tag, so I hope you are familiar with the policy. I am not threatening to edit war. I am telling you that there is no consensus for the maintenance tag, and this talk page supports that opinion. I am telling you that without having something to specifically fix, the tag can't remain. I am telling you that "assumptions of bad faith" have nothing to do with this discussion. The tag will be removed, and if you continue to revert other editors against consensus, then that's your decision. You are entirely misinformed as how we use maintenance tags, and because your strategy is so very common with POV pushers who think they can game the system by taking an article hostage and insisting that everyone else agree to their demands "or else", I was forced to write an essay about it several years ago. You're not being original, helpful, or unique. You are merely gaming the system to try and get people to agree to your demands, which nobody can predict because you keep coming up with new ones every day and moving the goalposts whenever you want. Sorry, that's not how it works. You don't get to hold this article hostage through the improper use of tags, and the tags will be removed per consensus. That's the way it is. I'm sorry you don't like it, but I'm calling a spade a spade. You will not be allowed to disrupt this article. Viriditas (talk) 06:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly it's hard to get past the incivility and IDHT. If you could make coherent arguments without the bullying then we might be able to avoid the noticeboards. I'm not holding my breath. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IDHT, like the fact that you've reverted two different editors, that you refuse to remove the tag based on the current consensus, you refuse to specify what exactly needs to be fixed, and you appear to be inventing policies and guidelines that don't exist to support keeping the tag? You mean that kind of IDHT? Viriditas (talk) 07:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit conflict] No one has agreed that the imbalance warrants this tag. Dr F, you are holding the article hostage saying the investigations section needs bulking up, yet have not provided any sources to help improve or update it. The imbalance, imo, can be remedied by trimming the Hong Kong and Asylum applications sections, but this is not a life or death need. This arguing hasn't done one thing to improve the article. In all this time, you could have made the fixes yourself, if you actually have some sources about the investigation and charges. I think you're just whining, frankly. petrarchan47tc 06:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the sources, and I don't need to have the sources to add the tag. Moreover if people would quit the personal attacks then perhaps I could spend the time doing the research you're requesting. Not that I have any obligation to do that research; the tag itself is a valuable contribution to the article, as it identifies a problem that needs to be fixed. It will take time. Please respect my view and refrain from disparagement. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, you have the process completely backwards. The burden is on you to tell us exactly what needs to be fixed, and if we don't recognize what you say justifies a tag, then you need to recognize the consensus. No maintenance tag is a "valuable contribution" to any article on Wikipedia; that statement is absurd. You need to respect our view, and you need to stop beating the horse. The tag is getting removed. What you don't seem to understand is that you are engaging in classical POV pushing behavior. Using a maintenance tag to attract attention to an article that is not being looked at is acceptable. Using a maintenance tag to attract editors to a problem that is not being looked at is acceptable. However, using a maintenance tag without exactly specifying what needs to be done to remove it is disruptive, and your above comment about it taking time shows that you have no intention of telling anyone how it can be removed. Classic POV pushing behavior. If it is going to take you time to do whatever research you intend to do, then great, put it on you calendar and make a date to do it, however, the tag will not remain on this article. Viriditas (talk) 07:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The research is required to back up claims that the investigation section is being ignored. You, Dr F, must have had an idea of what could be added before you came to make the complaint, so I assumed showing those sources wouldn't be a problem. petrarchan47tc 07:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I'm not following. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Fundraising" section

The fundraising section appears to be not particularly notable and, more importantly. Evidence for this is that sourcing is weak (the only reliable source is really about Bitcoin, not about Snowden) and relies without attribution on an organization that has done nothing but raise money for the subject of the article. It links to a page titled "Free Edward Snowden" with a very prominent orange "Give" button. Frankly if this isn't WP:PROMOTION then I don't know what is. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I don't think its inclusion is defensible, so I'm removing it. Of course if anyone disagrees in good faith they may revert me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see you have blanked the section. After reading the guideline carefully, I have come around to seeing it your way, and under the circumstances we currently are editing under I feel that this is a good edit... possibly for different reasons than you do. But let me add that it would have been wise, in my view, to have let someone else pull the section, given the perception that some may have, rightly or wrongly, that you have a hostile POV to Snowden. To everyone else here, I suggest we not add that fundraising section back without a extremely strong consensus to do so. It's a promovio, on the face of it. Let's not Wikilawyer this to death, either, please. We have a lot of eyes on us right now, so let's put our best foot forward and see if we can't get a Good Article rating out of this. Jusdafax 20:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you review my full edit history (or the talk page archives) you'll see I don't have an anti-Snowden POV. Back when I was much more active on this article I spent most (not all) of my time battling with anti-Snowden POV pushers. Hopefully Petrarchan can attest to this, but regardless, you could have done your homework before labeling me in this manner. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any careful reading of my statement shows I took great care not to "label" you, and regardless of your beliefs, you do appear to be spoiling for a fight. Jusdafax 21:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, Dr F, I have seen no such thing. Your work at Sam Adams Award only reiterates my contention that you appear to have an anti-Snowden, anti-whistleblower, pro-USG stance. What have I missed? Can you present diffs to show me where you battled naysayers? I admit I was not active on the talk page this summer, but stuck to the article space, so may very well have missed your good deeds. Best, petrarchan47tc 22:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was this edit, as I've said previously, that shaped my viewpoint. The petition is relevant to this article, and the speedy collection of required signatures especially noteworthy. The White HGouse is in a very uneasy position, because they have promised to answer any petitions reaching the threshold, but remain silent on the matter to this day. I don't see how removing this section, due to "recentism", reflects someone "battling anti-Snowden POV pushers". petrarchan47tc
Here are some discussions in which I took "pro-Snowden" positions:
  • [1] (defending attributed sourcing to Wikileaks)
  • [2] (accusing editor of talk page BLP violations)
  • [3] (supporting inclusion of pro-Snowden poll results)
  • [4] (supporting inclusion of quotes both pro- and anti-Snowden)
  • [5] (supporting inclusion of material about lawsuits against the NSA)
  • [6] (opposing inclusion of arguably disparaging statements against Snowden by the govt)
  • [7] (defending use of the term "whistleblower")
  • [8] (opposing changes that would have questioned Snowden's credibility)
  • [9] (opposing connection between Snowden and KGB)
  • [10] (supporting use of the word "dissident" to describe Snowden)
  • [11] (tentatively opposing connection between Wikileaks and FSB; Petrarchan participated in this one)
  • [12] (supporting inclusion of quotes both pro- and anti-Snowden)
  • [13] (criticized anti-Snowden editor for edit warring)
And last but not least:
Reviewing these, while Petrarchan was active on Snowden during part of this period, it appears he really wasn't involved in the vast majority of these disputes, so I understand why he wouldn't be willing to vouch for me on this issue. Then again this exercise is rather silly as I shouldn't have to prove my "good deeds" to become a member of this little club. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So would you be willing to fix your removal of the White House Petition? And, sorry to put you through this. I was obviously wrong. petrarchan47tc 04:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean about the White House petition, but perhaps we should start a new thread about it. Thanks for the apology. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since you removed it for "recentism", which is a bogus reason, please remedy this by putting it back. It doesn't require a new thread. And take the tag off of the page. You said at my talk page that you just can't get to fixing this article. That is not a reason to tag it. petrarchan47tc 06:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged it because it was/is imbalanced. No more, no less. It would have been improper to tag for any other reason. And I stand by my removal of that petition. Calling my reasoning "bogus" isn't helpful or convincing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The petition was removed for being a recent issue, that you then argued was not relevant because subsequent polling showed the public's opinion of Snowden had changed (for that week, anyway, but this has no relation to the petition). That is not a convincing argument to remove the WH Petition. You do not sound like a person who is here with a neutral point of view, or to work well with others to attain consensus. I take back my apology. petrarchan47tc 07:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why I should have to agree with you on any particular substantive issue for you to behave in a collegial manner with me with respect to other issues. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dr. Fleischman about the deletion and his/her reasons for it as well. Gandydancer (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Debate" section

Just leaving notes for future aditions: petrarchan47tc 22:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowden effect

Notes for possible additions: petrarchan47tc 23:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On journalism:

On tech:

Lavabit:

Comment: When adding links please also add date, name of publication, and author so that if the links die one can still find the content. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, will do when I have time, and in the future. petrarchan47tc
I mentioned that the Mendoza article is an AP article published by The Guardian WhisperToMe (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enough

I'm through defending myself from the constant barrage of personal attacks from Viriditas and Petrarchan47. The above threads are getting too cluttered for meaningful discussion about the article. If anyone wants to engage in civil, good faith debate about my tagging of the article and/or my reasons for it, then I'm all ears, let's do it here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An editor added a maintenance tag at the top of the article. The tag says, the article "may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, controversies or matters relative to the article subject as a whole". Other editors don't see where this undue weight occurs nor how to fix a problem they can't identify. Should they remove the tag? If not, why not? How can the problem be resolved and the tag removed? Viriditas (talk) 08:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My explanation of the underlying imbalance can be found at these diffs: [15], [16]. If anyone would like further clarification, I'm happy to provide it. If there is consensus that there is an imbalance, or if there is no consensus, then the tag should stay until the problem is fixed. On the other hand, if there is consensus that there is no imbalance, then the tag should go. In this case at least a few editors agreed there is an imbalance. It's probably premature to call a consensus at this point; I'd give it another 24 hours. At that point we can assess consensus. If the tag stays after that point, it may unfortunately have to stay for a while, as fixing the problem could take some time. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. I would like to point out a communication problem. One, you didn't directly answer the meat of my question, although you acknowledged the role of consensus. You pointed me to two diffs; the former says you observe a neutrality and balance problem in multiple sections. You list those sections and then say one should be removed and another expanded. However, you don't provide an actionable basis for removing the tag. The first diff is more of a "Hey guys, there's something wrong but I don't have time to explain it" type of comment. So based on that first diff, I don't see the need for the tag. Now on to the latter diff. The second diff is a meta-diff pointing to the first, along with an explanation of what you see as a problem. You say there is a problem with the "relative lengths of sections and details of coverage". You specify that the Criminal prosecution and investigation section is shorter than other sections and that the debate section is too short. Finally, you say that the Awards section is too detailed and the fundraising is too promotional. In other words, you've provided a subjective, general observation but not much to go on—nothing specifically actionable. When we use a maintenance tag, we do so for specific reasons that can be directly addressed. Since this is a biography first and foremost, it might make sense for it to only briefly mention certain things over others, and it also might make sense to expand others. In other words, there may be good reasons for the current length of sections. I am curious what else could be added to the Criminal prosecution and investigation section beyond what we already have in this biography. I also think we can greatly shorten many of the other sections, including the debate which really doesn't belong in a biography. Is it possible that you have this article confused with the Global surveillance disclosure topic? Viriditas (talk) 09:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My goal with the tag was to describe a problem, but not necessarily a solution, which would be the next step. The solution would be to expand the sections that are too short and trim the sections that are too long. The particular details of the solution would take time to sort out, and possibly further discussion if disagreements arise during the process (e.g. what should be cut). We would simply follow the normal editing process, with effort to fix the problem. I don't mean to suggest that the "Criminal prosecution and investigation" section should be as long as other sections, merely that the level of detail should be commensurate, provided appropriate sources are available. Petrarchan has asked, how do we know the sources are available? My answer is, I've been reading the news the last few months and I've seen far more than two stories that would be relevant to the section; I just haven't collected them. Regarding what specifically could be added to this section, I don't know, as research is required first, as with the expansion of any section. Regarding the "Debate" section, that is certainly a funny moniker for a biography, but at one time the article had all kinds of notable quotes and opinions about Snowden, calling him a hero, a traitor, etc. What happened to that material, I haven't yet investigated, but it seems appropriate to me to include that type of material here, perhaps under a heading other than "Debate." However if there's consensus that the material doesn't belong in this article, then the "Debate" section should be removed entirely. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 10:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I get the feeling that it is more the sudden tagging of the article with Doc's note that was not taken very well as more the problem than his criticisms of the article, which seem reasonable to me. I'm sure that we can find plenty of room for improvement in the article if we work together and I'm sure that we can. Could we perhaps first work on the Criminal prosecution and investigation section to see if it needs to be broadened? Also, it seems that there was agreement that the China section could be trimmed. However, I would not agree to keeping the tag until the article is "fixed", and I believe that to continue to insist on that will only create an unfriendly atmosphere on the talk page that would make progress more difficult. Gandydancer (talk) 15:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From Dr F's response on my talk page, apparently we are supposed to wait until he finds sources with which to fill in the investigations section. I agree the tag and insistence it stays regardless of other editor's input is the problem. The debate section could be shortened to probably two sentences, but there does need to be a summary of the "fallout" which includes the debate, here - because this is the parent article, and that section was split from here and moved to 2013 mass surveillance disclosures. That msd article is mind bogglingly detailed. Unreadable, really, but see for yourself. Given that (it seems) every article covering the debate prompted by Snowden leaks mentions him in the intro, RS guidelines support/require coverage here. A readable bite-sized summary would be good. petrarchan47tc 17:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Ignoring Petrarchan's mischaracterization of my position, I'll buy Gandydancer's (and only Gandydancer's) reasonable argument in the name of forward progress. However I do so with considerable trepidation as it rewards bad behavior. I condemn those who ignored WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF, made repeated straw man arguments, and/or took a "my way or the highway" approach. This has been very disappointing to me from a faith-in-the-community perspective. Unfortunately the damage has been done (particularly here, here), and it's time to move on. Perhaps wounds will heal someday. I'll remove the tag. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edward_Snowden&oldid=584400161"