Talk:Edward Snowden

Citation for Live Q&A

The titel in the citation for the Live Q&A has an error but I can't edit the article. Can anyone fix it? I also archived the link. The new citation would be:

here

Hathaway's analysis about airport transit lounges

We have discussed Hathaway's analysis before, as can be seen in Archive 4 and Archive 5. No consensus has been formed for inserting his view that airport transit lounges are legally part of the host country.

Whether Hathaway is correct in his analysis is not the point: the general practice worldwide is that airport transit lounges serve as extra-legal places of refuge. Many cases can be listed to support this notion, while none support Hathaway's analysis. I hold that Hathaway's analysis cannot be put into this article on Snowden because it is not part of general practice, nor was the Hathaway viewpoint in place in the Moscow airport during Snowden's time there. This makes Hathaway's complaint about international law an empty concern, and a triviality with regard to Snowden. Binksternet (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Hathaway's name does not appear in Archive 4. It appears twice in Archive 5, both times in favor of including his comment in the article. Please stop grandstanding about "the general practice worldwide" and "many cases [that] can be listed to support" your individual point of view, without providing a single such case or reliably sourced article to back up your sweeping claims. JohnValeron (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Hathaway's name appears in Archive 4 as a URL. Brian Dell linked to the URL to support his wish to include Hathaway's analysis.

The burden of proof is not on me to show Hathaway insignificant. Rather, the burden is on those who wish to include Hathaway, to show his viewpoint relevant and having sufficient weight. One quote in one news piece does not do this. Binksternet (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The Associated Press deemed it newsworthy and relevant to report the observations of Professor James C. Hathaway, whom Wikipedia identifies as "an eminent Canadian/American legal scholar in the field of international refugee law." To me, this carries infinitely more weight than the unsupported claims of a Wikipedia editor who self-identifies as a "live audio engineer" and likes to drink microbrews. JohnValeron (talk) 20:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree it seems trivial and should not be included per previous discussion. And I would appreciate it if you could keep your personal attacks out of this discussion. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Please enlighten me. How can quoting verbatim from an editor's own User Page be considered a personal attack? JohnValeron (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Cut it out John. Your attack was bad enough--don't make it worse. I'm sure you would not make that sort of comment among your coworkers at work. Gandydancer (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I also agree that it is too trivial to be included. Gandydancer (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm reverting Valeron's addition of Hathaway per consensus. petrarchan47tc 02:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The Atlantic quotes Hathaway saying "Being in the transit zone is as 'being in Russia' as standing on the Kremlin steps." If Hathaway says the Russians are choosing to make a big deal about the airport transit zone because they choose to do so, say what you will but that's anything but "trivial." It means they are pretending, and Hathway uses that very word with AP, "Many nations pretend that airport transit lounges are not part of their territory, indeed not under their jurisdiction. As a matter of international law, this is completely false." If Binksternet knows what's false as a matter of international law better than Hathaway, I'd like to know what Binksternet's qualifications are to judge both the point of fact and it's importance. At least three different news organizations have quoted Hathaway as an authority with respect to Snowden. If Kucherena is a RS and an authority such that his views should be repeatedly noted in the article, Hathaway's should be as well. If you want to cut down on "Hathaway's analysis", you could render the need for correcting expert perspectives weaker by not turning to Snowden partisan after Snowden partisan for their "analysis", especially when it is pretty much the exact same as the last supporter's analysis.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted this edit (again). This article is not the place to debate international law/diplomatic convention. Gandydancer (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

In that case the article should not be referring to the airport transit zone as if it has separate status. If you are going to say it matters, it should be admitted if an internationally recognized expert says that it in fact only matters as much as the party claiming it matters wants it to matter. If the article makes a statement of fact and it is disputed, that should be noted. As the Atlantic and the Associated Press do in order to present the full story.--Brian Dell (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I have opened a RfC here. I'll add here that it is not, in fact, proven that the Russians even did what they "pretend" international law (or third parties like the U.S.) compel them to do, namely, keep Snowden trapped in the airport transit zone. It's possible he was at some dacha miles away from the airport most of the time for all that has been confirmed.--Brian Dell (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

If you're suggesting the "Russia" section should be cut back, I would agree with that. I think at this point adding to it in an attempt to achieve balance is counterproductive. Personally, I would get rid of "media speculated" and Kucherena and cut way back on or eliminate Greenwald. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Get rid of Patrick Weil going on about the Privileges or Immunities Clause as well (if "this article is not the place to debate international law" why is there a paragraph using material that only appears in a law journal?) and we'll be getting somewhere.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Weil is the subject of another talk page discussion below, so I'm not going to remove that right now. I'm tempted to tackle the rest of it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Hathaway is the subject of THIS discussion, and you don't seem to consider that any reason for hesitation with respect to removal. The fact that the one law prof is quoted at length and the other deleted is a typical example of the bias around here.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You don't get to choose which of the two discussions I participate in. But I think you have a good idea there. I will suggest we take them both out. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

OR about Snowden's Moscow stay

I've just removed what looks like more OR/SYNTH from Brian Dell:

• Although Kucherena acknowledged that there were "many expressions of doubt about whether he is actually living in the airport transit area" he claimed that Snowden was "was stuck there the entire time in this capsule hotel." Kucherena was less insistent about the capsule hotel contention when asked by an interviewer why no reporter had encountered Snowden in the capsule hotel, however, saying "But there’s more than one hotel." [Of interest too is the use of RT here, after these comments were made bashing the media outlet as 'Russian spin']

We are editors allowed to add what RS has said, and no more. We don't get to editorialize, we don't get to string together unrelated news stories to try and make a point NOT being made already in RS. Dell is trying to cast doubt about certain aspects of the travel story - doubt is fine but it must come from RS used properly. This has to be the tenth time I've tried to explain OR/SYNTH and the need for this synthesis to take place in RS for inclusion here. I don't believe a lack of understanding is the problem, however. petrarchan47tc 02:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The synthesis here is trying to discredit Kucherena. That's not our job. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

If the facts discredit Kucherena it's not our job to suppress those facts. Are you guys going to continue to block the inclusion of TIME magazine's observation that Kucherena has "a knack for misleading the press" as well? That Kucherena acknowledges there has been doubt about his claim is a reliably sourced fact, not "editorializing." It is also a fact that Kucherena backed off part of his "stranded" story when pressed. Readers are entitled to know. Not every use of "although" on Wikipedia is SYNTH. If one is going to be unreasonable, EVERYTHING on Wikipedia that isn't between quotes is SYNTH because the words used are not in the source. These sentences are very much related, they all concern Kucherena's claim about where Snowden was for all of July.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Petrarchan and Kendall-K1. This is fundamentally non-neutral editing and probably a BLP violation. The goal here appears to me to be to discredit Kucharena (and thereby discredit Snowden). This should not be done. It is not our purpose to discredit anyone. And even if it was, we should not be juxtaposing contradictory statements without reliable sources doing the same. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

You just complained below about an ABSENCE of juxtaposed contradictory statements! "These quotes are presented as truth without any contradictory statements" was your objection, was it not? But of course that's because the government guys are the bad guys and accordingly need to be contradicted, right? If one is quoting Kucherena, God forbid if the quote is not presented as truth and free of anything contradictory! You can call Castro a liar, a Congressman a liar, and well, no BLP sensitivities to hold back how judgmental you are, but introduce something that you deem unflattering to Kucherena, well, that's not only an affront to Kucherena's dignity, but Snowden's as well!--Brian Dell (talk) 00:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Subsection 3.2 Russia – Glaring example of suppression of proper balance to enforce one-sided narrative favorable to Snowden

His Russian lawyer Kucherena contends that shortly after Snowden left Hong Kong the U.S. declared his passport was void. Kucherena claims there is documentary evidence to confirm this. Yet the supporting citation—Angela Shunina (September 6, 2013), "Snowden 'asked Russian diplomats in Hong Kong for help' – Putin," Russia Beyond the Headlines—fails to mention such documentary evidence. Indeed, even to find Kucherena's claim, one must Google, which turns up "Snowden is in 'safe place' waiting for his father to discuss future" at ITAR-TASS, which Wikipedia notes "has been accused of bias and dissemination of Russian state-sanctioned propaganda on multiple occasions." ITAR-TASS at least reveals that Kucherena's "documentary evidence" merely confirms that the U.S. had cancelled Snowden's passport—not that it had done so "shortly after Snowden left Hong Kong."

Next Barton Gellman contends that Snowden "was literally changing planes in the Moscow airport when the U.S. revoked his passport."

Then Glenn Greenwald claims that Snowden's passport was revoked midair, "before he arrived in Moscow."

I remind you that each of these three men—Kucherena, Gellman, and Greenwald—has a vested interest in portraying Snowden in the most heroic light. Kucherena is (besides being an FSB insider) literally on Snowden's payroll. Gellman and Greenwald have immeasurably enhanced their careers as adversarial journalists by championing Snowden.

So what happens when I insert a single sentence to counterbalance this corrupt and one-sided account?

• On June 23, 2013, a U.S. official said that Snowden's passport was annulled before he left Hong Kong, and in his July 2013 letter to the Russian Minister of Justice, U.S. Attorney General Holder confirmed that Snowden's passport was revoked on June 22, 2013.

Why, it gets deleted, of course! There is simply no room for balance in Wikipedia's hagiography of Edward Snowden. JohnValeron (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

We already said that in the previous section, but I agree it bears repeating in the context of the Kucherena-Gellman-Greenwald quotes. I don't think it needs to be said twice. I wonder if it might make sense to consolidate the passport discussion at the end of the Hong Kong section with the one at the end of the Russia section. I don't understand this fascination with the passport details, and would prefer to cut all of this way back. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I see now that I missed this same thing at the end of the second paragraph. Agreed we don't need to say this three times. We could move one of the other mentions to the end of this section if that seems to make sense. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Why passport details matter

Kendall-K1 comments above, "I don't understand this fascination with the passport details, and would prefer to cut all of this way back." The principal dispute about Snowden's passport is whether it was revoked before or after he left Hong Kong. On July 26, 2013, the BBC reported that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder had contacted Russian officials about Snowden, and in its report the BBC embedded a link to Holder's letter to the Russian minister of justice, in which Holder states for the record that Snowden's passport was revoked on June 22, 2013.

To counter this, Wikipedia's pro-Snowden editors have presented numerous unsubstantiated claims that Snowden's passport was revoked after he left Hong Kong on June 23—all asserted by individuals with a vested interest in portraying Snowden as a martyr in order to enhance their own careers as lawyers or crusading journalists. Snowden's Russian lawyer, Kucherena, says the U.S. voided Snowden's passport "shortly after he had left Hong Kong." Snowden's journalistic confidante Barton Gellman says Snowden "was literally changing planes in the Moscow airport when the U.S. revoked his passport." Snowden's journalistic champion-in-chief and disburser of the leaks, Glenn Greenwald, likewise contends that Snowden's passport was revoked in midair before he arrived in Moscow. WikiLeaks' representative Sarah Harrison, who accompanied Snowden from Hong Kong to Moscow, says, "I was travelling with him on our way to Latin America when the U.S. revoked his passport."

These claims by people either directly on Snowden's payroll or otherwise beholden to him are in no instance substantiated by documentary evidence that disproves Attorney General Holder's official statement. Instead they are presented as gospel, to be accepted on faith and immune from contextual balance.

Why are Wikipedia's pro-Snowden editors given this platform to advance what are, in plain language, self-serving lies by Snowden and those who benefit from his bogus martyrdom? JohnValeron (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how it makes any difference whatsoever whether his passport was revoked before or after he left HK. If the only reason we talk about this is to further someone's agenda, then this material should all be removed. Would anyone like to tell me why this matters? Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Kendall-K1, you mention on John Valerion's talk page that you agree with him about the passport, and would like to see a less biased article. Would you please elaborate with specifics about the bias you are seeing? And what exactly it is about the passport with which you agree? As as aside, from my review of RS, any questioning of the passport story constitutes WP:FRINGE. What sources are you seeing that might support a claim of bias in the article with regard to the passport? Thanks, petrarchan47tc 21:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Just what I said above. And I believe the article is filled with bias on both sides, which is why it's so long. I'm happy to include a discussion about the passport if it's important. I just don't think it's important. Unless there is some good reason to do otherwise, I would include a sentence about the US saying the passport was revoked on the 22d, and a part of the Snowden quote, and leave it at that. My comments on users' talk pages are intended only to bring them in to the discussion in a helpful way. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree. The article is long because the subject is complex, the story ongoing, and there are heated opinions on both sides. Snowden is being called "the most wanted man in the world", and is wanted by the most powerful country in the world. That's going to be a long article. I am asking for specifics about the bias you see. The passport and second para in the Lede will be dealt with via RfC. But as for the article as a whole, please specify your concerns (simply sprinkling accusations on the talk page isn't going to fix the perceived problem). petrarchan47tc 06:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding the controversy here. Given the sequence of event described in the article it seems entirely possible the Snowden and his supporters did not become aware that his passport was revoked until after he left Hong Kong. The quote from the State Department suggests that State was upset with the Hong Kong authorities over this. And I don't see what big difference the timing of the revocation makes, I think not enough to support an allegation of editorial bias, so WP:AGF would seem to apply here. I'd also remind editors that our WP:BLP policy applies to talk pages, as well as articles. We should not be calling living people criminals unless they have been convicted in a court of law. --agr (talk) 23:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• I've just changed the second paragraph back. I am unsure why it keeps being changed, but it is incorrect, for one thing, to claim "the journalists revealed his identity at his request". I don't know where this line came from as there is no ref given, but this isn't how RS talks about it. As I have stated, because this second paragraph dealing with Snowden's travels has been the target of edit-warring since December, I am planning to have an RfC to formalize what can be said and to end the edit war. However I haven't had time to put it together yet. petrarchan47tc 04:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@ agr, as best as I can tell, some editors believe that Snowden has secret ties to Russia, in other words, that he is actually a Russian spy. They seem to want to show that his move to Russia was part of a master plan, rather than that he became stranded there. Gandydancer (talk) 11:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm just not getting the connection between his being a Russian spy and what date his passport was revoked on.--agr (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The history on this talk page and article is that since December a series of editors have consistently sought to make connections between Snowden and Putin/Russia with gross violations of SYNTH and OR. Check the talk archives. There has been an emphasis on anything to do with Russia, especially how Snowden ended up there, and a complete disregard for other aspects of the article, unfortunately. The passport timing has not only been an emphasis here, it's one the Whote House seems to regard as important too. I think the effort is to undermine Snowden's story and to do anything to make sure he doesn't look innocent, but rather as guilty as possible - and a connection to Russia has that effect. (Forgive the long-windedness here, but I've been dealing with this for 5 solid months.) petrarchan47tc 20:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell we only have one editor arguing for the extended version of the second paragraph, and he hasn't given us a reason. I don't see how that constitutes a consensus. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

You oppose the second para based on the extra 2 sentences? My rationale is that this para (almost) meets WP:LEDE requirements regarding proper summary of the body. petrarchan47tc 20:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It most definitely does not properly summarize the body because in the body we see just who it is that is making the claims, namely figures affiliated with Snowden and/or the Kremlin. You hide this in the lede by attributing to "ABC News". Also, some of the holes in the "stranded" story are pointed out in the body in the article, but the way you have the lede written, the story never has been and never could be questioned. Lately you've gone beyond what even the Snowdenistas say, concluding based on your own research that Cuba denied Snowden boarding in Moscow and adding that to the lede without even a supporting citation.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Girlfriend's name

A few days ago I added Snowden's girlfriend's name to the article, since it is relevant information that was mentioned in numerous reliable news sources. Kendall-K1 reverted my edit, saying "revert per BLP" [1]. Can you please clarify exactly which part of the lengthy WP:BLP policy you are citing and how it applies in this case? --Albany NY (talk) 03:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

We've discussed this before and concluded her name should not be included. I believe the relevant policies include WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPNAME. You can search the talk page archives for the previous discussion. We can revisit this question if you like but I think we should reach consensus before including her name. I still think it should be left out, as it adds nothing to understanding the subject. Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

(comment removed per WP:BLPREMOVE Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC))

Valid reasoning but skip the editorializing please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

SYNTH removed for review

This is likely usable info, albeit incomplete, misplaced and clumped together in violation of WP:SYNTH. petrarchan47tc 11:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

In July 2013, Greenwald said that Snowden had additional sensitive information about the NSA he had chosen not to make public, including "very sensitive, detailed blueprints of how the NSA does what they do." A joint statement issued by the House Intelligence Committee's Republican Chairman and Ranking Democrat in January 2014 asserted that "Though press reporting to date has focused on NSA's foreign intelligence collection, much of the information stolen by Snowden is related to current U.S. military operations." A U.S. intelligence official told The Daily Beast that Snowden had fabricated the identity of more than one user who had extensive access and this allowed Snowden to take documents indicating how the U.S. coordinated its satellite coverage, potentially allowing military adversaries to better hide their assets.

What exactly is SYNTH here? We've got sentences A, B, and C here and according to your SYNTH allegation an additional, unsupported claim is being made, a claim D if you will, that goes beyond A, B, and C. Just what is that that element, D, that you object to? I will note that you cannot build a readable Wikipedia article without putting sentences together. A see a common theme here, namely, that the material taken could assist U.S. enemies, that warrants a paragraph on that topic with these sentences.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, "clumping" sentences together in a particulary way can't be synth. However it can be non-neutral by implying improper conclusions. And the individual sentences can be impermissible. In this case we have serious WP:BLP violations in the 2nd and 3rd sentences. These quotes are presented as truth without any contradictory statements. The Rogers/Ruppersberger joint statement is self-published by a couple of politicians with a stake in what happened, obviously unreliable. The Daily Beast quote is attributed to an anonymous intelligence source and should be treated with extreme caution. Ultimately these are exceptional claims and require multiple exceptional sources. (The Rogers/Ruppersberger sentence may be notable and worthy of inclusion but only in a more balanced context.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The material is not being presented as truth. It's being presented as what the people claiming it claim. Readers can draw their own conclusions. There's plenty of "contradictory statements" in the article suggesting the subject deserves applause. Greenwald doesn't have a stake in what happened? Snowden doesn't have a stake in what happened? Why do the "stakeholders" become reliable if they are on the other side? If government sources are "obviously unreliable" then readers should be able to see that as well, should they not? Why are Wikipedians substituting their judgment here in the place of the editors like the Daily Beast, who obviously believe their story solid enough to report? Didn't you used to contend we should follow what the sources say and not speculate as to what's going on behind them when assessing their reliability?--Brian Dell (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

" "clumping" sentences together in a particulary way can't be synth " - I'm afraid I have no idea what this sentence means. I think it's been clear forever that BDell555 has one particular POV with regard to the subject of this article, and has disrupted the article and talk page for far too long. With that POV, I truly believe that Brian doesn't see how the paragraph is OR/SYNTH/POV and completely inadmissible as written. Because I believe this to be a lost cause (and this is easily the tenth time I've tried to address and explain the problem with OR/SYNTH to BDell) I'm not going to pretend to patiently (re)explain things as if a neutral article was EVER the goal. petrarchan47tc 00:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

If there's SYNTH then you should be able to answer my question, Petrarchan. What's "D"? If you can't identify anything that isn't supported by the cited sources then you are just throwing around the SYNTH charge because you find that it's nebulous nature makes it the go-to objection for stuff you don't like. Re Doc's complaint that the claims that Snowden took military material are presented "without any contradictory statements," I'll leave aside Doc's double standard about whose claims are allowed to stand unchallenged to note that maybe that's because in this case there aren't any contradictory statements available. Brian Williams invited Snowden to make a contradictory statement and Snowden declined to do so: "Snowden did not directly dispute the idea that military information was in the documents he handed over to the journalists."--Brian Dell (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

"Havana asked Moscow not to let him on the plane"

I do not believe this is a fair summary of the article content when the article content at one point cites a Reuters story titled "Fidel Castro labels libelous report Cuba blocked Snowden travel". When the claim "Havana asked Moscow not to let him on the plane" is disputed by Fidel Castro it is disputed, is it not? Petrarchan has been busy trying to cover up how questionable this claim is by layering. For example, Petrarchan adds "According to a Reuters report..." when that Reuters report just says according to Kommersant. Indeed, the only source for the claim that Cuba asked Moscow to not allow Snowden to board is a single story in Kommersant, and Kommersant says this is just what anonymous Russian officials claimed. Several different sources have been cited here, but they all say they are just noting what that Kommersant story said. If what's in that Kommersant story deserves mention in the lede, we should also cite the element in that story that has been CONFIRMED by a state leader (Putin) instead of just citing the one element that's been REJECTED by a state leader (Castro), no? Because "Mr. Snowden first appeared in Hong Kong and met with [Russian] diplomatic representatives," to quote what Putin said in early September, was first reported in that same late August Kommersant story.

I find it remarkable how little Petrarchan is bothered by consistency. Petrarchan is keen to have Snowden's U.S. lawyer, Wizner, in this article denouncing that Kommersant story as "false", but at the same time presents something else from the same story in the article lede as undisputed fact! Kucherena also says the Kommersant story is bogus, contradicting Putin 100%. Greenwald, in turn, said on August 28 that that Kommersant story is "fabricated." But on this "Havana asked Moscow not to let him on the plane" claim, apparently Wizner, Kucherena, and Greenwald are all mistaken about the reliability of Kommersant, in Petrarchan's view. And not only that, but no less than Fidel Castro is mistaken about what his own country did or did not do!--Brian Dell (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you give a TLDR version of this please? Otherwise, can someone else here deal with BDell please? petrarchan47tc 03:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Fidel Castro says what you wrote in this article's introduction, without any citation, about what you believe his country did, is a lie and libel. You can start by explaining why you refuse to acknowledge Castro's denial when you make your allegation.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Castro is totally unreliable about what his country did or did not do. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I have to assume here that you are not being sarcastic. Do reliable sources share your opinion that he is totally unreliable? If they do, then where are all the sources that mention the allegation, which is only reported in the August 26 Kommersant story, AFTER Castro spoke out on August 28? Not that I expect you to find this sort of argument convincing when you've previously demanded that we not look beyond what a source says (when it says "stranded") to consider context and how more recent reporting may differ, but the context here is that Cuba is getting blamed by Wikipedia to a far greater extent than the totality of sources assign that blame and it's primarily because Wikipedia (or more precisely, Petrarchan) is freezing the sources at last August 27 and ignoring Castro's clear rejection, a rejection the rest of the media is aware of. If Castro is unreliable on this in the eyes of other sources, Castro should not have been able to tamp down the "Blame Cuba" story as completely as he did. Russia Beyond the Headlines mentions it on September 6 but only incidentally; the main object of that story is to say that Kucherena's line "[Snowden] did not enter into any communication with our diplomats when he was in Hong Kong. That is his position. He has no need to lie about this," has been contradicted by Putin.--Brian Dell (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? You've been at WP for long enough to know that a head of state isn't a reliable source for anything. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Let me get this right. For months and months neither Wikipedia nor the media could conclusively figure out what was keeping Snowden in Moscow. Was it Snowden? Was it Russia? Was it the U.S.? Was it Ecuador, as Binksternet once contended? It's Cuba! Because Petrarchan just recently figured it all out! And now you are absolutely convinced Petrarchan cracked the case such that Castro is obviously lying? Why didn't you suggest Cuba before if it is so obvious? Why haven't other sources cottoned on to this "truth" and played it up? I've been around WP for a while, yes, long enough to know that an on-the-record statement by a named person, especially a named person whose position could be jeopardized if exposed as a chronic liar, is more reliable than some anonymous figure who is obviously blaming someone else just to pass the buck (in this case on to the Cubans). Evidently other sources agree with me since there's little evidence the media has taken the claim seriously since Castro said it's bogus.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

If you insist that Castro is a reliable source then frankly I think we have a competence problem. Let's move on. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

RT notes the denial and then says "it still remains unclear why the former NSA contractor, who is wanted in the US on espionage charges, did not fly to Havana." It could only remain unclear if Castro's denial was believed. If Castro is not believed, then the whole controversy is put to bed. Which raises the question why it was not put to bed long ago by the Snowden supporters by their just claiming poor Cuba was bullied by the U.S. I'll add that you can hardly believe the Kommersant story on this point and not believe it's other point, which is that Snowden was living at the Russian consulate before he left Hong Kong. Which means Kucherena and/or Snowden is a liar. In other words, your refusal to believe Castro and instead accept Kommersant leads to a BLP violation because accepting Kommersant means Snowden denying contact with Russians in Hong Kong is a lie. Isn't that right? You can't cherrypick what you like out of that Kommersant story.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I think both the Kommersant story and Castro are unreliable. Both should go. However I'm deeply disturbed by your participation in the website while clinging to the idea that a dictator is a reliable source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

If TIME magazine said somewhere that Castro misleads the press like TIME said Kucherena does, sure. Here, Castro and Kommersant cannot both be wrong. If Kommersant is wrong then Castro is right that their story is bogus. You don't think a U.S. politician like John Kerry (or some Tea Party figure) would ever lie like Fidel Castro would? Petrarchan referred to Kerry below as if what Kerry claims to be the case should be taken into consideration. That doesn't disturb you? I'm a little disturbed by how simplistic your views are. Is Castro a reliable source on the nobility of the USA? No. Is he a reliable source about whether his country's government did or did not make a particular decision? He's in a position to know, is he not? He's of course not reliable enough to not use attribution, but with attribution I fail to see why he's so unreliable we can't have a "he said, she said" between Castro and a Kommersant story that many besides Castro have attacked as unreliable. If Kommersant wasn't being cited in the lede we wouldn't need Castro.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Patrick Weil's comments

I've again removed Weil's claim that Snowden left Hong Kong the morning of June 22 "Hong Kong time" since this isn't a competing narratives situation where we give both. It is a matter of record that Snowden left Hong Kong between 11 AM and noon Hong Kong time on June 23, arriving in Moscow after 5 pm Moscow time that same day, June 23. Weil is simply incorrect here. For what it's worth, I asked Weil if he had any additional sources on this and he acknowledged that didn't. I'll add that other claims by Weil are also disputed. "University of Michigan Law School professor James Hathaway, a leading authority on international refugee law," says that there isn't an internationally recognized "right" to a passport: "Traditionally, a state can simply decide whether to issue someone a passport. That’s solely their decision and no one could say anything.... You can’t say both ‘my nation is too dangerous and is persecuting’ and ‘by the way, I would like them to issue me a passport.’” If Snowden were demanding to be able to return to the U.S. his right to a travel document that allowed him to do so would be altogether different. Excluding Hathway's views but including Weil's views is unbalanced. This lengthly article can manage without either party's take on whether any injustice was done in revoking the passport as a matter of law. It's enough to say that it simply was.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

You're misreading the article. He didn't say it was the 22cd. I'm replacing the content. petrarchan47tc 02:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• "Patrick Weil, visiting professor at Yale Law School, said that while the U.S. State Department affirmed that Snowden was still a U.S. citizen, once he reached Moscow he was only eligible for a "limited validity passport good for direct return to the United States". He writes that on the morning that Snowden's passport was revoked (Hong Kong time), he was able to board the flight to Moscow."

No, I am not misreading. His passport was revoked on June 22 and he did NOT board a flight to Moscow that day "(Hong Kong time)". I'll add that Weil would have told me I was misreading when I contacted him were that the case.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Consider that there is a huge time difference - it's always tomorrow in Hong Kong for those in the West.

• Weil: "On June 14, the U.S. Justice Department filed criminal charges against Snowden in federal district court.3 The following day, the Justice Department formally requested that Hong Kong authorities issue a provisional arrest warrant for Snowden.4 Eight days later, on the very morning—Hong Kong time—that his passport was revoked, Mr. Snowden was able to board a flight to Moscow." Yale Law Journal

• Even Kerry thought he was using his passport: "Kerry said it wasn't clear whether Snowden was traveling on his U.S. passport or an alternative document."

• The strongest we have from Kerry is, ""We do know that his passport was appropriately cancelled within two hours, I think', of the complaint being made public," Kerry explained." CBS

• "it was not clear whether the Hong Kong authorities knew that by the time he boarded the plane, nor was it clear whether revoking it earlier would have made a difference, given the Ecuadorean travel document that Mr. Assange said he helped arrange. When Mr. Snowden landed in Moscow, he was informed of his passport revocation." NYT petrarchan47tc 02:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• • Also, this edit summary is bullshit: "This is not Greenwald's/Kucherena's/Snowden's private soapbox such that all questioning voices are to be suppressed" You have been asked previously to stop using the edit summaries as a place to attack other editors. If you want to claim that there is a POV problem with regard to this article, be straightforward about it and leave examples here on talk. petrarchan47tc 02:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll first address that NYT story to note that it is dated June 24 (the publication date should be given in the cite, no reader cares when a Wikipedian "retrieved" it) and accordingly apparently before the State Dept presser where the official spokesman blasted the media for getting it wrong regarding how quickly State had moved with respect to making requests of Hong Kong. But the NYT makes a good point, which is what's going to stop him if he's holding that Ecuadorean travel doc and the Russians choose to recognize it (not that the Russians would even need to look at it if he is truly just transiting within 24 hours and not going through passport control. Doc checks are delegated to the airlines in the case of genuine sterile transits and the airline that he supposedly booked to Havana is the same airline that thought his docs were good enough to board in Hong Kong). If he lost it on his way to Moscow why doesn't Snowden own up to losing it instead of blaming the U.S.? If the Russians decided the Ecuadorean doc was bogus why don't they own up to that? And Wikileaks, who engineered the document. Assange doesn't seem to be too upset Snowden didn't continue on, what with Assange talking about how Russia is better for Snowden than Latin America.

Anyway, I appreciate that tidbit, "We do know that his passport was appropriately cancelled within two hours, I think, of the complaint being made public" because that really settles it. The complaint was made public ON JUNE 21: "After The Washington Post reported the charges, senior administration officials said late Friday that the Justice Department was barraged with calls from lawmakers and reporters and decided to unseal the criminal complaint." If Kerry is referring to when the Post first leaked the charges, then Snowden in fact had his passport revoked June 21 Washington time and the June 22 date refers to Hong Kong time. At the absolute latest, regardless of whether Kerry is referring to the Post's first story on the Friday or the topic of its second later that day, it would have been 2 AM June 22 Washington time, or 2 PM Hong Kong time June 22. So more than 20 hours went by following the passport cancellation before Snowden left Hong Kong no matter how you slice it. If you want to question this, trying to sneak it in the back door by quoting someone with an opinion who is not in a position to know is not going to do it.

Weil does not contend that he left Hong Kong on June 22 in some other place's time, he said Snowden left on June 22 "Hong Kong time." He additionally claims that Snowden left Hong Kong the "morning" that his passport was revoked, and when Snowden got on that plane at no place on earth was it both morning and the day Snowden's passport was revoked. As I write, it is about when Snowden left Hong Kong, that is, Sunday between 11 AM and noon Hong Kong time. I'm looking at the "world clock" and it says it is between 5 and 6 pm Saturday in Honolulu. Everything else is later yet. The LA Times says "The United States canceled Snowden's passport before he left Hong Kong on a flight to Moscow on June 23." You used to say we should just take what the LA Times claims to be the case at face value and not try to relitigate it. Fact is, I think one CAN relitigate the sources, it is part of our job to test them, but in this case Weil does not overturn the established chronology just because he thinks he left Hong Kong on June 22 "Hong Kong time". There are too many sources agreeing with the LA TImes here, and Weil has not shown he's done investigations on the ground that prove otherwise. As for that edit summary, it's entirely accurate. You've been busy adding opinion after opinion from someone spinning on Snowden's behalf one way or another, while deleting and/or obscuring material that doesn't support the spin.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't read all of the above, but I'll point out that just because someone said something that is false is not a reason to remove the statement from an article. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Why should Wikipedia present false statements, if not to discredit the speaker, which you earlier claimed on this page is an illegitimate objective? Apparently quoting James Clapper's "least untruthful answer" on Wikipedia is unacceptable in your books if it is done so in order to discredit Clapper. In fact it is totally legitimate to discredit a speaker if the facts discredit the speaker. If the facts that raise doubt about the claim are presented neutrally, it is not Wikipedia that does the discrediting but the speaker's own inconsistency with other evidence. But I digress because THIS statement is not being presented because Petrarchan believes it dubious and undermining of the speaker's credibility, it's being presented because Petrarchan wants readers to believe it instead of what's better documented. The issue here is whether the speaker here, on this particular point (which does not draw on his legal expertise), is a reliable source. If not, we remove. That's actually quite elementary to how Wikipedia does and should work. The source here is contradicted by too many other reliable sources to continue maintain that we have a RS here.--Brian Dell (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Kendall-K1. This is just not how WP:V works. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The way WP:V works is that a claim as demonstrably unreliable as this one is excluded.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

No, a source that is demonstrably unreliable is excluded (unless the source itself is independently notable). There are lots and lots of unreliable claims in Wikipedia. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

So you will never ever quote James Clapper then on Wikipedia? Because he's an unreliable source, right? Fact is, the claims of an unreliable source can and should be given depending on the context. Here the context is Weil making a claim about what time Snowden boarded a flight when that claim is contradicted. Take another look at WP:V. What does it say there when it comes to the specific matter of "contradiction"? Why, it says "CLAIMS that are contradicted..." should be excluded unless there is at least one more reliable source advancing the same claim. It does not say "SOURCES that are contradicted..." at that juncture. We do not have to throw out all of Weil's claims as unreliable just because he is not a reliable source for facts outside his area of expertise or knowledge when those facts are contradicted. The problem with the rest of Weil's claims is not that they are demonstrably incorrect but that they being included simply to advance the argument that Snowden has been persecuted, without acknowledging the fact another law professor, Hathaway, takes a different view.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Clapper is not a source. Weil is not a source. See WP:RS. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Whatever. Doc thinks dictators are sources. Unreliable sources. The WIkipedia terminology and bureaucracy is a means to an end, presenting the reader with good material, and Weil's claim about when Snowden boarded a plane is not good material because it is contradicted by too many other sources.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Pivoting a bit from the dispute above, in my view the Weil source is a tertiary source and should not be used for this purpose. The source simply cites to a NY Times article that says, in relevant part, "But they did not revoke Mr. Snowden’s passport until Saturday[.]" If you look at a calendar of June 2013 you'll see this means June 22. The Times article is a reliable source that does not require attribution. If other reliable contradict it then the conflict should be laid out as usual per WP:NPV. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course, although some might dispute "simply". But I'm struck by at how far you've come here. Back when I pointed out that the New Yorker simply cited freesnowden.is you suggested it was practically a crime to dare to look through the immediate source to comment on the reliability of the source it was citing in turn. Here, a work that is supposed to be cited as "123 YALE L.J. F. 565 (2014)" cites another source and you are diving in to investigate, even to the point of checking the calendar, the sort of investigative work you earlier indicated was a no no since you were of the view that we are just supposed to make a decision on whether YALE L.J.F. is RS or not and that's that.--Brian Dell (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

How you could be surprised by folks distancing themselves from you, after you argued nonstop for 5+ months that Snowden was not stuck in Russia, is somewhat mystifying. petrarchan47tc 00:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest that we take out both Hathaway and Weil. We don't need any analysis as to when the passport was revoked. At the very most we could have the different versions, both sourced and with no analysis, although I think even that much is silly. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Weil reference pt 2

It's true that Snowden was still eligible only for a trip back to the US, once in Moscow. That's well cited in media, and should be in the article as well. Being well-cited, we shouldn't need Weil for support. However I don't see how the guidelines would allow for the removal of his other comments from the passport discussion. I may have misinterpreted the above, but it seems editors want the following removed:

• Patrick Weil, visiting professor at Yale Law School, said that while the U.S. State Department affirmed that Snowden was still a U.S. citizen, once he reached Moscow he was only eligible for a "limited validity passport good for direct return to the United States". He writes that on the morning that Snowden's passport was revoked (Hong Kong time), he was able to board the flight to Moscow. He further argues that the United States violated the Constitution with the revocation of Snowden's passport, specifically violating "a privilege and immunity of American citizenship, protected by the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment—namely a U.S. citizen’s ability to keep a passport while abroad as a document proving her legal identity and citizenship." petrarchan47tc 00:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I would say that should be removed. The US does revoke passports of people who have been charged with a crime.[2] Whether that's constitutional or not I would say is a debate for a different WP article. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

If Weil's comments are so notable then why haven't reporters called attention to them? Both the Associated Press and The Atlantic quote Hathaway as an expert yet some here insist that Hathaway's views are "trivial," not worth noting. Hathaway's views still more notable than Weil's, according to the general media.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I have never argued against including Hathaway's comments, that I can remember. It's very simple:

• Is the source reliable? - Yale Law
• Are the comments on-topic (avoiding SYNTH/OR)? - Specifically about Edward Snowden's case
• Relevant to an encyclopedia? - Information that comes from a trusted source, adding deeper insight for the reader

Regarding guidelines, per WP:NOTRS, having avoided any sort of analysis or interpretation ('editorializing'), and sticking with a direct quote from a reliable source and publication, the addition is supported. I wouldn't call these few lines about Snowden's passport revocation (a big topic by any standard) to be a "debate" warranting a separate article. I doubt given Weil's credentials that he is totally wrong about the law, and if he was, there would have been retraction by this time. He's got the reputation of Yale on his back. Surely someone would have set him straight by now? petrarchan47tc 01:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Although I hadn't commented on Hathaway yet, it's only because I hadn't looked into it. Seeing Binksternet's comment The problem, of course, is that Hathaway's analysis is easily countered by recognized examples of airport transit lounges being treated as extra-territorial. So in this case, Hathaway states the theory, but the practice is entirely different. *, I see once again I side with him. petrarchan47tc 06:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Nick Morgan on Snowden's body language

Nick Morgan has commented on Snowden's interview with Brian Williams. "A particularly telling moment came when Brian Williams asked Snowden, 'What is your relationship with the host government?' ... "He was obviously lying," Morgan said." Wikipedia says Morgan is "an expert in non-verbal communications". What, if any, are the objections to including this?--Brian Dell (talk)

Strong BLP/NPV/notability objections. No offense but this is pretty obvious. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

How about this: "among those who say they’ve closely followed the story, 49 percent oppose Snowden’s actions and 33 percent support them." Yet another BLP violation there? Non-neutral? A notability objection?--Brian Dell (talk) 01:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Notable, but NBC isn't the only data point. You have to collect the data from other reliable sources as well, and summarize neutrally. Note that this was a poll of Americans only. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

We "have to" provide some other poll data as well, do we? Of non-Americans, you say? Any other demands?--Brian Dell (talk) 01:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, not just some other poll data, but all poll data that corroborates or contradicts the NBC poll you cited. No, we don't have to include foreigners. However if we are summarizing polls of Americans only then our text should say that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Simplifying the passport story?

It's possible we are close to being able to simplify at least our Lede's presentation of the story, as we now have consensus in media about it, and no RS has denied...

@ 7:30 Andrea Mitchell during the post-"Inside the Mind of Snowden" discussion panel:

"There are other technical points that we have been trying to fact check. John Kerry jumped into it today and said "Well, why was he going to Cuba?", Well, that is not factually correct. I just wanted to point that out. Snowden is correct: he was, by all accounts, trying to pass from Moscow through Cuba, a transit point, to get to Ecuador or another friendly Latin American country that would grant him asylum, that would not extradite him to the US." petrarchan47tc 22:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

That settles it, does it? I note that according to AFP, "'I would love to live in Brazil,' Snowden told Brazil's Globo TV on Sunday.... In the interview Snowden said that he would not offer documents to any country in exchange for a safe haven... However he said that he had more documents to release..." Does this one AFP report settle the question of whether he took any documents with him to Russia? ITAR-TASS has some interesting news for us today: apparently Snowden never landed at Sheremetyevo airport... because he landed at Domodedovo! My point being that journalists are routinely mistaken about particular details. It's our job to make sense of the contradictions. And on that front, do you recall this earlier Talk page thread where you said that you "agree 100%" to attributing the onward ticket claim to Russian media? There's also this: "Edward Snowden Says The US Stranded Him In Russia — Here Are 4 Problems With That Claim"--Brian Dell (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that settles it. No one is reading your words anymore, dude. petrarchan47tc 01:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I am reading Brian Dell's words, madam, and accord them respect—something I withhold from whatever you write. JohnValeron (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

"Mr. Snowden said he gave all of the classified documents he had obtained to journalists he met in Hong Kong, before flying to Moscow"

Petrarchan has been insisting that the article state that Snowden gave away all of the docs to journos in Hong Kong, per this NY Times quote. But I note that Snowden told Brian Williams that he ensured that the Russians would not get their hands on any documents not by having first given them all away, but "by destroying the material that I was holding before I transited through Russia." Please explain, Petrarchan, how Snowden could "destroy" something after he had given it away. Or, in the alternative, how he could give away something after he had destroyed it.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps he copied the data for the journalists and then destroyed the original? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You know you're getting into semantics when had it been the other way around, that he gave away the original and kept the copy, it would have been functionally the exact same but you want to rule out that functionally identical scenario because of word choice reasons. If he retained a copy (a copy that wasn't a "copy" because it was the original) then the giving away didn't do anything to divest him of the material, did it?

I note that on June 12 he suggested to the South China Morning Post that he was in any case more interested in keeping the material than in destroying it, saying "I have to screen everything before releasing it to journalists... If I have time to go through this information, I would like to make it available to journalists in each country..." I'll add that the NYT story also appears to conflict with the Guardian, since the latter quotes Snowden saying "I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest. There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn't turn over..." How do you reconcile "gave all of the classified documents he had obtained" with "didn't turn over"?--Brian Dell (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The title of this subsection is taken from James Risen's New York Times story "Snowden Says He Took No Secret Files to Russia." The words, which are not quoted from a speaker, form part of Risen's 3rd-person narrative.

As Wikipedia's Edward Snowden now stands, we cite Risen's article four times—only once referring to files reaching Russia or China:

• 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."

So far as I can tell, our article does not repeat Snowden's claim that he "gave all of the classified documents he had obtained to journalists he met in Hong Kong, before flying to Moscow." Our lead says simply that he released "numerous NSA documents" to Greenwald and Poitras. We do not rule out the possibility of Snowden giving the remainder of his documents to other journos, such as Bart Gellman of The Washington Post or Lana Lam of South China Morning Post, before fleeing Hong Kong. Nor do we rule out Snowden's destroying anything left after he divvied up his trove among journos.

Brian, are we now discussing this merely to flesh out our understanding of how sources differ on what Snowden gave to journos? Or is there something specific in Wikipedia's Edward Snowden that you think ought to be changed to better reflect the current state of scholarship on this point? Thanks. JohnValeron (talk) 01:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Both of Snowden's explanations for why he carried no docs onward from Hong Kong should be noted in the article. Readers can decide which one to accept. It appears that Doc may consider including the "destroyed" claim an effort to "discredit" the article subject by implying a self-contradiction where he sees none, and the main response to that is that Doc isn't being consistent in his treatment of sources. On March 3 I said "It's true that Snowden told James Risen of The New York Times that he kept no copies himself but this claim simply does not stand up to scrutiny and Wikipedia should accordingly not be making that claim" and Doc jumped in at that time to wag his finger about "independent analysis" and "conjecture," saying "Let the journalists, subject-matter experts, and bloggers come up with and investigate these sorts of hypotheses." Yet Doc then shows up in this thread to posit the most conjectur-al "hypothesis" of all!--Brian Dell (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Must both explanations for why Snowden carried no docs from Hong Kong be noted in the lead, or would limiting those to the body of the article suffice? I ask because the lead is a perennial battleground, and this seems like a potential bombshell. JohnValeron (talk) 03:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Update: I added this as new ¶ 4 to Section 2 – Global Surveillance Disclosures. I did not add it to the lead, since it does not seem to rise to that level of importance. JohnValeron (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a very in-depth article] on Snowden in a recent Vanity Fair. It says the following: And so, that Sunday, Snowden and Sarah Harrison boarded Aeroflot Flight SU213 without incident. Snowden had his four laptops, but, he says, they had no government information on them and never did. He says he carried no documents. “I didn’t want to risk bringing them through Russia.” Joe Bodacious (talk) 04:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Joe Bodacious, the quotation you provide from Vanity Fair suggests you miss the point of this discussion. No one has suggested here that Snowden carried stolen documents to Russia. Rather, the issue is whether he gave them all to journalists in Hong Kong or held some back—including "all sorts of documents"[3] that he says would have made a big impact—which he then destroyed before flying to Moscow. Snowden wants to have it both ways, but there are at least two editors here who perceive a contradiction and are trying to understand which version (if either) is true. JohnValeron (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Good summary, but I think the VF article is worth at least mentioning on the talk page, as part of the debate here is whether Snowden took files with him to Russia. There's no need to smack down a newcomer to this article, we need all the help we can get. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, please, what do you see in this subsection that leads you to conclude that "part of the debate here is whether Snowden took files with him to Russia?" If you have previously debated that in these Talk pages, it's news to me. Plus, I resent your accusation that I have "smacked down a newcomer." I merely tried to clarify his apparent misunderstanding. I do not need snarky lessons in etiquette from you, thanks all the same. JohnValeron (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to trawl through his many lengthy comments but I think that's a big part of what Brian has been pressing. My apologies for sounding snarky, I was only trying to help. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

My apologies for sounding snarky as well, but it seems to me that a couple of editors are more interested in splitting hairs and conducting their own private Wikipedia investigation into this matter. I agree with Dr. F that this information from this recent interview should be included in the article. If nobody else puts it in first, I will do it when I have time. Gandydancer (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I emphatically deny your insinuation that I am conducting my own "private Wikipedia investigation into this matter." To the contrary, I am trying to get at the truth through reliable sources. As for you adding redundant information from "The Snowden Saga: A Shadowland of Secrets and Light," please note that we've already included four separate citations to that same Vanity Fair source, although none to the effect that Snowden carried no documents to Russia. However, we do cite The New York Times, The Courage Foundation, and NBC News—all on point and all reliable sources—in ¶ 4 of Section 2, Global Surveillance Disclosures. How many times must we hammer home that same point in this article? JohnValeron (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no debate about whether Snowden claims that he took no documents to Russia. Including another instance of Snowden making that claim is accordingly not going to help settle any debates.
I might add that Doc is apparently convinced that that Kommersant story blaming Cuba for Snowden's presence in Russia is so reliable that it ought to be featured in Wikipedia as the definitive explanation (never mind that neither Snowden nor any Snowdenista has ever advanced the blame Cuba theory as opposed to the blame the U.S. directly theory, Wikipedia blazes the way, presenting as authoritative an account that appeared in an article a Snowdenista (Greenwald) actually "dis"-endorsed as "fabricated"!). If Doc buys that Kommersant story, then he presumably also believes that Snowden was living at the Russian consulate in the days before he left Hong Kong, since that account is also in the Kommersant article. And if that's true, there's nothing at all riding on the question of whether he took docs to Russia because he could have just handed everything over to his Russian hosts in Hong Kong!--Brian Dell (talk) 01:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The Register: CIA rendition aircraft

• Campbell, Duncan. "CIA rendition jet was waiting in Europe to SNATCH SNOWDEN." The Register. June 13, 2014.

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Snowden still "working with the NSA"?

I noticed an odd comment after 10:15 in Snowden's testimony earlier this week (on June 24) to the Council of Europe:

Q: Can you be more precise about what internal actions you took and what kind of replies you got? How many times did you try to raise it and what was the typical answer, the typical actions the NSA took on the complaints you lodged? Were those complaints formal or informal?
A: So this is still an ongoing process that I am working with the NSA in regard to these records and we’re going back and forth, so I don’t want to reveal everything that will come out because there’s still an ongoing debate. But what I can say is that... I went many colleagues... and also vertically: to supervisors, to managers, to directors, to people who worked above me... as well as the Office of General Counsel and the Office of Compliance...

He's "going back and forth" with the NSA? Now? If he is talking about having a "he said, she said" through the media that would hardly be "working with the NSA" would it? If we just take it at face value that he is "working with the NSA" that would be quite notable!--Brian Dell (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Brian, this is nothing new. Last December, Barton Gellman quoted Snowden in The Washington Post: "I am not trying to bring down the NSA, I am working to improve the NSA. I am still working for the NSA right now. They are the only ones who don't realize it." JohnValeron (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

This is quite specific though. He says " in regard to these records". Records that he complained to all the people he says he complained to. Apparently he doesn't "want to reveal everything" because "there's still an ongoing debate." When it's his word against the NSA's, why not settle that "ongoing debate" in his favour instead of pleading that he's "going back and forth" with the NSA about this?--Brian Dell (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Brian, when you ask, why not settle that debate in his favor, I surmise you mean why doesn't Snowden release his copies of the purported emails raising concerns to superiors.

His answer, relying on the passage you quote above, is that this is an ongoing process about which he's working with the NSA. That does not mean, of course, that Snowden is personally engaged in the "back and forth" to which he alludes. He has Washington-based attorneys, including Jesselyn Radack and Plato Cacheris, who have held continuing discussions with the government over the issue of Snowden's return. His lawyers can thus be said to be "working with the NSA" on his behalf.

In any case, what revision to Edward Snowden do you propose? We've already noted: "In May 2014 U.S. officials released a single email that Snowden had written in April 2013 inquiring about legal authorities but said that they had found no other evidence that Snowden had expressed his concerns to someone in an oversight position. In June 2014 the NSA said it had not been able to find any records of Snowden raising internal complaints about the agency's operations."

Is there something more we ought to add? JohnValeron (talk) 00:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks like we could add that readers should not expect the NSA to be contradicted any time soon on this point, since Snowden evidently wouldn't want to pre-empt his supposed ongoing negotiations with the NSA even if he could.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I added two sentences to the two quoted in my preceding comment: "That same month, appearing via video before the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Snowden insisted he had complained to lateral colleagues, supervisors, managers, directors, and other people in positions of authority, including the NSA's Office of General Counsel and Office of Compliance. But, he said, 'this is still an ongoing process that I am working with the NSA in regard to these records and we're going back and forth, so I don't want to reveal everything that will come out because there's still an ongoing debate.'" JohnValeron (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

"found a technical support job"

This should be removed from the article.
"In October various news organizations — including the BBC — reported that Snowden had begun working in “technical support” on a major Russian website. The source was Anatoly Kucherena. "Kucherena is completely unreliable as a source,” says Harding. “We [The Guardian] did the rounds of Russian IT companies when he made that claim last year and none of them — none of the big ones, at least — confirmed this. I think it is unlikely. The idea was to create an image that Snowden was leading a normal life. I think that’s highly unlikely. He cannot lead a normal life.”--Brian Dell (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that Kucherena's claim, which has gained considerable currency, should be removed. Instead I added the following sentence: "Asked about this by The Moscow Times in June 2014, The Guardian correspondent Luke Harding replied, 'Kucherena is completely unreliable as a source. We [The Guardian] did the rounds of Russian IT companies when he made that claim last year and none of them—none of the big ones, at least—confirmed this.'" JohnValeron (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

That's also fine, although you can expect @Kendall-K1 and Doc F to pipe up to complain that again there is an effort to discredit Kucherena.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you could stick to the discussion at hand. As a general principle, I am in favor of including "what happened" and leaving out "what was said." In this case I would leave this out. But I have no objection to including this along with Valeron's disclaimer. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Castro calling Russian report "a lie" and "libel"

Why do we need to insist that Castro's calling the Kommersant report (about Cuba's nixing Snowden to Havana) "a lie" and "libel" use those exact words? Do we really need to parrot a dictator who is obviously unreliable accusing reporters of committing a crime? How does that advance our biography of Edward Snowden? Isn't it enough -- and considerably more encyclopedic -- to simply say that Castro "denied" the claim, or "strongly denied" the claim, or "denounced" the claim? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

According to Reuters, Castro said the Kommersant article was a "lie" and "libel." We are not, as you contend, parroting a dictator. We are citing a reliable source. It is not our role as editors to sanitize anyone's wording. I do not recall you advocating that we water down the often harsh anti-American rhetoric of Edward Snowden or such bellicose supporters as Glenn Greenwald. And I would oppose any attempt to do so. JohnValeron (talk) 04:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The key difference between that example and this is that in that example, Snowden's views (and others' views about Snowden) are highly relevant to a biography about Snowden. Here, on the other hand, whether Kommersant made an honest mistake or committed an unconscionable lie has absolutely no bearing on a biography about Snowden. We have no obligation to repeat every quote that makes it into the news. Castro has an obvious motive to smear Kommersant; I have no interest in defending Kommersant, but neither do I have any desire to perpetuate an unsubstantiated smear, especially when it conveys no benefit to our article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Reporting accurately what Castro said seems of benefit to the article to me. We aren't asserting that there is any truth to it - and I think our readers are quite capable of deciding for themselves whether it is a 'smear' or not. It isn't our job to withhold cogent details in order to prevent readers from forming their own opinions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing inaccurate in saying that Castro "denied" the claim. Agree/disagree? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. Castro did far more than merely "deny" the claim. To pretend that's all he did is like saying JFK died in a traffic mishap. JohnValeron (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not at all like that. An assassination is not a traffic mishap, even if it happens in a moving car. An accusation of "a lie" and "libel" is a denial. The point is, the article is about Snowden, not Kommersant. What matters is whether Kommersant's report about Snowden was correct. By saying that Castro denied the claim we accurately convey that Castro contested the accuracy of the report. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

If there's a relevancy issue here Doc then I suggest you stop pushing the contention that Cuba's to blame for Snowden's presence in Russia. It's your advocacy of this that makes Castro's denial relevant. When a national leader states what his country's policy is, he's "obviously unreliable", is he? Raul Castro told Cuba's National Assembly in early July that Cuba supported Snowden finding asylum in Latin America. But you see in a story that the mainstream media hasn't touched with a long pole since Fidel called it a lie reliable anonymous sources indicating that Raul was lying and that Cuba in fact did not want Snowden leaving Russia eh? And brother Fidel then doubled-down on the deception? May I note that Fidel's remarks were carried in a column in official media? Can you point to sources calling the Cuban government unreliable like I've pointed to sources calling Kucherena unreliable? In any case, if you were truly concerned about libel I'd think you'd be less keen to have Wikipedia feature as fact something that someone says is a libel. In other words, if you truly "have no interest in defending Kommersant" then agree that Wikipedia will not refer to the disputed claim in Kommersant that Cuba told Russia to stop Snowden from coming.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I stopped reading when you accused me of pushing a contention. AGF. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Well of course you stopped reading. You declared quite recently what MY contention was ("what Brian has been pressing"), got it wrong, but admitted at the time that you were not going to read what I've written to check whether your statement as to what I have been "pressing" was accurate or not (it wasn't)! Why bother to "trawl through his many lengthy comments" when you can determine what my contentions are via the grand power of assumption? If you aren't contending anything here about whether the Cubans did or did not block Snowden and are only objecting to Castro's language then when I solve your problem with "lie" in the lede by taking out the reference to the Kommersant story that is necessitating the Cuban reaction to it I expect there won't be any objections from you.--Brian Dell (talk) 12:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, as an editor you have no business impugning the motives of Castro or anyone else in this article. And for the same reason I am not permitted to call Kucherena a shill or Greenwald a profiteer, you are not entitled to bowdlerize Fidel Castro. JohnValeron (talk) 05:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I have every business impugning the motives of Castro. His words aren't even remotely reliable. More importantly it appears you didn't read anything else I wrote. This article is about Snowden, not Kommersant. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Yet should an editor dare to impugn the motives of Kucherena you are crying BLP, as if the article is about Kucherena! Make the article "about Snowden" by not having Wikipedia make claims here about Cuban policy sourced to a single Russian newspaper citing anonymous figures and the view of the Cuban government about those claims THEN becomes irrelevant.
"His words aren't even remotely reliable." Says you. Point out contradictions and instances where his claims have gotten a skeptical reception like I've pointed out about Kucherena, who is repeatedly cited in the article. As I said some time ago, whether Castro is a reliable source for whether the U.S. is a noble country and whether he's a reliable source for what the Cuban government has done are two different questions.--Brian Dell (talk) 12:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Please stop drawing in unrelated issues to accuse me of my own personal hypocrisy. These do nothing to advance the discussion and serve only to derail it; hence, they're disruptive. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of pointing out your hypocrisy is not to advance some sort of put down. It's to get you to revisit your logic, which lately has been mighty dubious. You somehow found a BLP violation against a Russian newspaper! A Russian newspaper that made a claim Snowden has never advanced and accordingly has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this article in terms of BLP, and a claim that said newspaper attributed on to anonymous sources. Andy stepped in to call that "nonsense", which it is. Take it to the BLP noticeboard and see what the reaction is. The number 1 thing that you, and in fact every editor, can do in terms of collegial editing is to bring all available effort to solving problems which may be complex in a systematic, thoroughly thought through way. If a person constantly being accused of hypocrisy is acting in good faith, which I assume here, then the explanation for why he or she rejects his own arguments as soon as the shoe is on the other foot is that his or her reasoning is consistently faulty. I invite you to point out any hypocrisy on my part, but I doubt you'll find much, since I don't just grab whatever rationale appears to be lying at the feet of my particular perspective. I try to take a minute and test it against how it would look and work if I adopted another perspective. Don't do that, keep using arguments that don't work unless your particular POV is adopted, and the conflicts will just keep cropping up.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not various comments I've left on this talk page are consistent with one another has little to no bearing on the discussion at hand. It's a distraction; hence, it's disruptive. I question whether your goal is to really to advance the article, or to browbeat your fellow editors into submission. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Your reasoning or the lack thereof in fact has everything to do with the discussion at hand. We are not here to chat about the weather or discuss the price of tea in China. We are here because there is a dispute about the content of the article and resolving it means generating arguments for why it should read one way instead of another. If you have a problem with me pointing out the repeated contradictions in your arguments for why the article should read the way you want it to, perhaps you can find relief by complaining about this on an administrator noticeboard.--Brian Dell (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I should probably point out that I have no horse in this race - I've not been following this aspect of the Snowden story in any detail, and have no opinion one way or another about whether Castro's 'libel' claim is valid. My edit was made simply on the basis that he was cited in a reliable source as stating that it was a libel - and that following the source accurately was in accord with normal Wikipedia practice. 05:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Not normal practice. WP:NOTEVERYTHING. If the Fidel Castro article had every printed word he ever said it would be 10 times the length. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree we should not include "every printed word he ever said" in the article. Now can we stick to talking about what's actually at issue?--Brian Dell (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

What's actually at issue is whether we should include that Castro called the Kommersant report a lie and/or a libel, versus simply saying that he denied the report. I say the latter. As explained above. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't see any explanation - just an assertion. What exactly is wrong with accurate reporting of what Castro said? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

As I already explained, because an accusation that a newspaper committed a crime, by a head of state known for his fiery rhetoric and with a motive to smear that newspaper, has no relevance to this article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion of Castro is of precisely zero relevance to this article. If you want a platform to promote your own personal opinions, find one elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk)]

Ha ha, this has nothing to do with me promoting any personal opinions. Everything I wrote here about Castro is well sourced and noncontroversial. There is no soap going on here on my end. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I have asked you to produce those sources supporting what you have written about Castro and you have refused to do so, Doc. It's time to put or shut up with your "well sourced" contention. If I can produce reams of material for Kucherena, you can surely come up with an instance or two where Castro's claims about what occurred are suspicious, don't add up, or have been doubted by those who have tried to investigate them.
A story Castro calls a "lie" Greenwald calls "fabricated" and Snowden's U.S. lawyer says "Every news organization in the world has been trying to confirm that story. They haven't been able to, because it's false." How about saving a little indignation for Greenwald and that ACLU lawyer for daring to "smear" Kommersant as a spreader of false news?--Brian Dell (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman's position, if I understand it correctly, is disingenuous to the point of risibility. He seems to want us to believe that the word denial accurately conveys what Castro said. That's ridiculous. Castro's words, reported by a reliable source, are emphatic and go well beyond mere denial in implicating the shoddiness of Kommersant's reporting. JohnValeron (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up: If we assume arguendo that Castro is—as Dr. Fleischman insists—biased against Kommersant, Wikipedia's guidance on Attributing and specifying biased statements provides this pertinent advice: "Avoid the temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words." Yet that is what Dr. Fleischman advocates, substituting a bland denial for Castro's vivid lie and libel. To do so would violate Wikipedia policy. JohnValeron (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

As a further follow-up, here’s an entry in the My How He Has Changed His Tune sweepstakes:

• "Per WP:RS, reliable sources are not required to be neutral. Biased or opinionated sources are perfectly acceptable as long as they're attributed. In this case, Cheney and Carter's comments are absolutely, absolutely notable and should be reinserted forthwith." Dr. Fleischman 04:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

JohnValeron (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

And the hits just keep on coming! Yet another entry in the My How He Has Changed His Tune sweepstakes:

• "At Wikipedia we don't require 'proof' of anything, just verifiability via reliable sources. Per WP:RS, biased or non-neutral sources (such as Snowden's own claims) are citable as long as they're properly attributed. So, this really is about attribution." Dr. Fleischman 21:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

JohnValeron (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

"newspaper statement attributing to anonymous sources is much more reliable than words of any politician"

Apparently I have to pick apart the logic in Doc's claim here. First of all, let's consider what the "newspaper statement" is saying and what the "politician" is saying. The former is saying that Snowden "spent a couple of days in the Russian consulate in Hong Kong" plus some other things. The latter is saying that Snowden merely "met with Russian diplomats while in Hong Kong". In what way is our politician here saying ANYTHING that isn't already asserted in the "much more reliable" source? It makes no sense at all to claim that Putin's claim is dubious when the "much more reliable" source said everything Putin said here and more.
As for the reliability of a politician, there is no mention of this at WP:RS except to say that attribution is warranted when appropriate, giving the example of "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that..." That attribution has been given here. As for what's "much more reliable", what you say is "much more reliable" here is, in fact, a "lie" and a "libel" according to an authority (rightly or wrongly) in a position to know, while no published source anywhere has ever disputed the claim you believe to be less reliable. This is, of course, on top of the fact that Putin's claim is a subset of the Kommersant claim such you can't affirm the latter without affirming the former.
I'll also remind Dr F here that the "more more reliable" Kommersant story (which Doc has "no interest in defending" except when he's defending it) is STILL in the article anyway, just not featured in the lede.--Brian Dell (talk)

The overarching issue is that the statement attributed to Putin isn't notable to this article except as a statement of fact (i.e. to prove the truth of the matter asserted). And like any head of state, Putin isn't reliable in anything he says, especially in controversial matters of foreign affairs. Heads of state and diplomats are defending their countries' interests, not defending truth or historical accuracy. On the other hand, a newspaper article citing anonymous sources, while not ideal, is a reliable source per WP guidelines (provided that the article bears the typical indicia of reliability, of course). So it doesn't make sense to replace a conclusion attributed to an established newspaper with a statement made by a head of state. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman's edit summary as of 15:57, 28 June 2014, which is reproduced as the title of this section, is the most absurd statement by a Wikipedia editor I have seen since a previous Edward Snowden editor declared (in a now-archived section), "We go with RS EVEN if/when they have it wrong…"

There is no mention in WP:RS of politicians or, for that matter, anonymous sources. But suffice to say, we are not plucking the "words of any politician" out of the blue. Rather, we cite a reliable source, The Moscow News, which directly quotes the Russian president: "Mr. Snowden first appeared in Hong Kong and met with our diplomatic representatives." JohnValeron (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

You just can't resist taking personal swipes with every comment, can you? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

And you're missing the point. It's not in dispute that Putin said that. The question is what purpose it serves for our article, and why we're using it to replace reliably sourced content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is now saying less than it did before and no new claims have been introduced, there cannot now be a reliable source problem if there wasn't one before. Got that? If you dispute my logic here then dispute the logic. It's serving the same purpose that the same information served before it was expanded to further claim he was additionally actually living with Russian diplomats instead of just meeting with them: to inform the reader. The question is do we feature that Kommersant story in the lede as opposed to just noting it in the article body. When Greenwald calls it "fabricated" and a Cuban official calls it a "libel" we should presumptively move cautiously. As the party wanting to include it, the burden of proof is on you. I am of the view that far too much is being made of the Kommersant story if you cannot produce any evidence any media source has ever referred to it after Castro called it a lie other than in a story about Castro calling it a lie. I'm fine with it in the body of the article. I'm not fine with pushing the blame Cuba for Snowden's presence in Russia theory in the introduction when the overwhelming majority of reliable sources are either advancing another theory or no theory at all.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's set aside the inconsistencies between your "views" and basic WP policies and guidelines. By your logic, why include any of these theories in lead at all? The fact is that Snowden is in Moscow and we have a whole bunch of unverified explanations as to why. The lead is larded up with attributed statements to obviously biased individuals. Let's clean house and only include what has actually been independently verified by reliable sources. All this he-said-she-said stuff is inappropriate per WP:LEADCLUTTER.

You cite WP:LEADCLUTTER, which is concerned exclusively with parenthetical details in the lead. Our lead contains precisely four parenthetical details: (born June 21, 1983), (CIA), (DIA) and (NSA). Which of these four do you propose to delete? JohnValeron (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, I should have referred to WP:LEAD, WP:LEADLENGTH, and WP:MOSINTRO. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

What is your purpose in providing three separate links: WP:LEAD, WP:LEADLENGTH, and WP:MOSINTRO? It appears to me that WP:LEADLENGTH and WP:MOSINTRO are sections within WP:LEAD. If these two sections have special significance for you, please explain. JohnValeron (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Aside from LEADLENGTH and MOSINTRO, the introduction to LEAD says: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." A footnote immediately following says: "Do not violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section." I cite all three sections because together they stand for the proposition that the lead should be concise, approachable, and free of less important controversies. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The introduction to WP:LEAD consists of 234 words, including footnote.

WP:LEADLENGTH contains 152 words.

WP:MOSINTRO (Introductory text) is 2,361 words.

Altogether, then, you direct our attention to 2,513 words of instructions from Wikipedia. This is quite a craw full.

The lead in Edward Snowden is presently 838 words.

The challenge, obviously, is to identify each violation (as you see it) in our lead and to specify which part of WP:LEAD, WP:LEADLENGTH and/or WP:MOSINTRO that particular text violates. Only then will editors be able to evaluate and either consent or oppose your proposed deletion. I look forward to your cooperation in this matter. JohnValeron (talk) 00:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Seriously. A good start would be for you to tell us what, in your view, would constitute an ideal length for the lead, which as I stated is presently 838 words. Is that grossly overlong or just moderately overlong? JohnValeron (talk) 02:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, I don't think it's related to WP:LEAD, WP:LEADLENGTH or WP:MOSINTRO—none of which mentions bias—but I'd also like to follow up on your assertion that "The lead is larded up with attributed statements to obviously biased individuals." Wikipedia defines attribution as the identification of the source of reported information. Since you limit your complaint to individuals, I assume you mean statements directly attributed by name rather than indirectly via citation.

Accordingly, here are all seven statements in our lead expressly attributed to individuals:

• Snowden's release of NSA material was called the most significant leak in U.S. history by Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg.

• According to Russian President Vladimir Putin, Snowden met with Russian diplomats while in Hong Kong.

• Snowden … later claimed to have been ticketed for onward travel via Havana.

• The NSA reporting by these journalists earned The Guardian and The Washington Post the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, seen by Snowden as "a vindication."

• In December 2013, a federal judge found the program to be likely unconstitutional and "almost Orwellian."

• Another federal judge in a different case reached an opposite conclusion, ruling that the NSA's collection of phone data is legal.

• Ex-CIA director James Woolsey said that Snowden should be hanged if convicted of treason.

Is it your contention that all of these individuals are "obviously biased," including Snowden himself? JohnValeron (talk) 03:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

"By your logic, why include any of these theories in lead at all? The fact is that Snowden is in Moscow..." Why indeed! What were you arguing about in March, Doc? Allow me to quote John:
The lede now reads:
"…he remained stranded in the airport transit zone."
Brian proposes:
"…he remained in Russia."
I second Brian's motion.
You refused to be satisfied at that time with going along with just stating that he's in Russia, Doc. You adamantly insisted that Wikipedia rule out the possibility he's in Russia because he wants to be by adding "stranded" and removing "why Snowden did not board the onward flight is unclear." Now you're saying the one established fact is that he's there and we should leave it at that! You may again complain that I'm just trying to embarrass you by pointing out your flip-flops. Embarrassing you doesn't do anything for me. Avoiding having my time wasted is what does something for me, and when you argue about something for paragraphs and paragraphs and then, a couple months later, concede the point that we shouldn't be pushing any particular explanation for why Snowden is Russia as opposed to just noting that he's there, I have to ask myself what else I could have been doing besides having an extended back-and-forth with you that ends with you calling for the same thing I've been calling for since the beginning. Now maybe you might say that there's in fact no flip flop here because Snowden being stranded in the airport is another indisputable "fact". Well in that case I'd say your problem is not, in fact, with the lede being larded up with biased views (the "stranded in the airport" claim is just like the "found a technical support job" claim in that it's being pushed for a public relations reason, has been occasionally reported in otherwise reliable sources, and ultimately rests solely on Kucherena's dubious word) but with the lede being "larded up" with with facts you don't like such as Snowden meeting with Russians in Hong Kong. You've already conceded that Snowden meeting with Russian diplomats is a fact by your insistence that the Kommersant story is reliable. If you want to remove the attribution to Putin and just state as an unattributed fact that he met with Russians in Hong Kong that's fine by me.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Going back to the beginning of this section, I'd have to say that in my opinion, the politician vs. news media debate is silly. Any newspaper big enough to meet WP:RS criteria is going to have a symbiotic relationship with government and corporate interests, putting it on exactly the same footing as the politician. Remember that WP:RS does not prefer newspapers or news media, who have historically been shown to be biased and incorrect more often than not. But there are too many circumstances where scholarly sources are simply not available. I think that we should always attribute, whether to newspaper or politician. Neither is axiomatically reliable. Joe Bodacious (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The independence of the media is on a continuum. There is certainly no magic line between, say, the People's Daily and China's "politicians" just because the former is a "newspaper". Snowden's Russian lawyer, Anatoly Kucherena, is Kremlin connected and in no sense an independent voice without an agenda. RT may more independent than Pravda was in Soviet days but RT at a minimum still avoids undermining the Kremlin POV. As RT points out, the BBC and PBS also take government money, but most observers consider the BBC and PBS relatively independent. --Brian Dell (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Too many nutcases patrolling this page. Have fun. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)