Talk:Edward Snowden

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Incorrect information in this wiki[edit]


Under the Background section, specifically the fist line of Career, it says "Feeling a duty to fight in the Iraq War to help free oppressed people,[22] Snowden enlisted in the United States Army Reserve on May 7, 2004, as a Special Forces candidate through its 18X enlistment option.[34] He did not complete the training.[7] After breaking both legs in a training accident,[35] he was discharged on September 28, 2004.[36]"

This CANNOT be correct their is NO special forces in the United States Army Reserves, only Active Duty and a limited number in the Army National Guard.

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Forces_(United_States_Army)#Organizational_structure

This is a link to the US Army Special Forces from wikipedia as you will see their is NO Reserves, only Active Duty and National Guard (designated as NG). In fact not only is their no special forces in the United States Army Reserve, their is no combat arms period. I know this because I served in the United States Army Reserves myself.

107.13.123.223 (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your service. We now rely on a report by The Guardian that states: "His records indicate he enlisted in the army reserve as a special forces recruit (18X) on 7 May 2004…." Please provide a citation to WP:RS showing that the U.S. Army Reserve in May 2004 did not offer an 18X enlistment option as a Special Forces candidate. KalHolmann (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think the requestor should be written off so quickly but I think they've misunderstood the content. It doesn't say Snowden was really in the Special Forces, it says he was a Special Forces candidate. Other sources bear out that he enlisted in the Special Forces through the 18X program while he was in the Army Reserves. If our text is confusing there may be a way to make it clearer. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Dr. Fleischman, I hope you're not alluding to me as having "written off" the requestor. I did no such thing. Rather, User:LittlePuppers did that in prematurely changing the {edit semi-protected} template's answered parameter to "yes" before discussion could ensue. KalHolmann (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I did mean you, and sorry. Thanks for clarifying. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
@DrFleischman and KalHolmann: Apologies to both of you, I may have misunderstood how to use that. You answered saying that a source was needed, so looking through requested edits it appeared to have been answered without any further ongoing discussion. I was under the assumption that after it was answered (where a discussion was not ongoing, such as in this case) it should be marked as such until someone responded. Is that incorrect, should I wait until significant time has passed without discussion? I'd appreciate some clarification. LittlePuppers (talk) 04:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
@LittlePuppers: Your marking was fine. The template is a request for an edit, not a request for discussion and marking the request as answered in no way closes off discussion. Indeed, if the request is not uncontroversial and requires discussion then the request should be answered as such. --NeilN talk to me 04:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
@LittlePuppers: Yes, I did reply that a source was needed. However, you are wrong in suggesting that my request "appeared to have been answered." No one provided a single WP:RS. Dr. Fleischman made a very slight change to the wording but added no citation. There were no other edits pertaining to the supposedly "Incorrect information in this wiki." KalHolmann (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. NeilN talk to me 04:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
No change needs to be made to mark the request as answered. I think we can move on. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd feel better about this if the editor who initially changed the {edit semi-protected} template's answered parameter to "yes" had been more descriptive in his edit summary. "Responded to edit request" does not suffice when that editor did not, in fact, respond to the edit request. The only response was mine, asking for WP:RS. I do not believe that "answered" the edit request, which I neither executed nor declined. KalHolmann (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
@KalHolmann: I did not say that your request had been answered. I said that the edit request, by 107.13.123.223, had been answered. "Responded to edit request" is the default edit summary EPH gives. If I had know that my edit would be this controversial, I would have done it manually with a custom edit summary. Either way, it's done now and there's nothing I can do to change it. LittlePuppers (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)