This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theEdward Snowden article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text.Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome!Learn to edit;get help. Assume good faith Be polite andavoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seekdispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL

Archives:1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8Auto-archiving period:3 months

The subject of this article iscontroversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article,be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, use the talk page to discuss them.Content must be written from aneutral point of view. Includecitations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Article milestones Date Process Result June 10, 2013 Articles for deletion Speedily kept
	A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia'sMain Page in the"In the news" column onAugust 2, 2013.

This level-5 vital article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited tojoin the project andcontribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to thedocumentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography EspionageMid‑importance Edward Snowden is within the scope ofWikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage ofespionage,intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit theproject page, or contribute to thediscussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage Mid This article has been rated asMid-importance on theproject's importance scale. Human rightsMid‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofHuman rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Mid This article has been rated asMid-importance on theproject's importance scale. International relationsHigh‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofInternational relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations High This article has been rated asHigh-importance on theproject's importance scale. Mass surveillanceHigh‑importance Edward Snowden is within the scope ofWikiProject Mass surveillance, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage ofmass surveillance and mass surveillance-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit theproject page, or contribute to thediscussion.Mass surveillanceWikipedia:WikiProject Mass surveillanceTemplate:WikiProject Mass surveillanceMass surveillance High This article has been rated asHigh-importance on theproject's importance scale. RussiaLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Russia, aWikiProject dedicated to coverage ofRussia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at theproject page, or contribute to theproject discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale. United States:North Carolina /GovernmentMid‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to theUnited States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated asMid-importance on theproject's importance scale. This article is supported byWikiProject North Carolina (assessed asHigh-importance). This article is supported byWikiProject U.S. Government (assessed asMid-importance).

The content ofEdward Snowden in Hong Kong wasmerged intoEdward Snowden on June 16, 2013. The former page'shistory now serves toprovide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see itstalk page.

Schengen Cloud was nominated fordeletion.The discussion was closed onDecember 28, 2024 with a consensus tomerge. Its contents weremerged intoEdward Snowden. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please seeits history; for its talk page, seehere.

This article has beenmentioned by multiple media organizations: Michael Jaccarino (August 4, 2013)."Snowden a friend or foe? Wikipedia fight takes both sides".Fox News. RetrievedAugust 4, 2013. Ryan Gorman (August 4, 2013)."Someone within the US Senate edited Edward Snowden's Wikipedia page to change his description from 'dissident' to 'traitor'".The Daily Mail.

The following reference(s) may be useful when improving this article in the future: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/why-so-silent-edward-snowden-has-gone-underground-since-russias-invasion

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in theTop 25 Report7 times. The weeks in which this happened: June 9 to 15, 2013 June 23 to 29, 2013 June 30 to July 6, 2013 July 7 to 13, 2013 July 28 to August 3, 2013 September 11 to 17, 2016 October 20 to 26, 2019

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between2 February 2021 and14 May 2021. Further details are availableon the course page. Student editor(s):S.benjamin28 (article contribs).

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

Edward Snowden was a national hero albeitNoahMusic2009 (talk)21:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

legally snowden is not a whistle blower. you can describe him as a "self-styled" whistle blower but to claim otherwise in the lead paragraph prejudices the reader. his alleged whistle blower status is discussed later.ItsjustGatsby (talk)12:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason that this silly attribution ("whistleblower") has remained is because of the baseless belief by some here that there should be a positive light shone on this person. That's it. That's theentire reason. Not because of what he legally is and certainly not because of what he's done (releasing hundreds of thousands of documents he couldn't even have read the contents of).

𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk)03:37, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we not state that he's an alleged spy? He's been indicted for espionage.

He did not pass his GED. He lied. The primary source confirms this.ItsjustGatsby (talk)12:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the credibility of that report isfar from established. Moreover, basic common sense tells us that if somebody reveals embarrassing information about a government, that government's own subsequent report on itself is extremely unlikely to serve as an impartial source.jp×g🗯️01:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you're using the "needs non primary sources" correctly. The intent is to not engage in original research on Wikipedia. The use of the report is not a primary source. it's a report. a synthesis by other researchers. if we were using primary source, I would have cited his military discharge papers or GED. I think the note should be removed.ItsjustGatsby (talk)13:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it were not wp:OR to derive "Suspected spy for Russia and the People's Republic of China" from indicted for espionage, the common meaning of "spy" does not follow from what he was indicted for. Sincerely,North8000 (talk)13:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the reference. it now states only that he has been indicted for espionage.ItsjustGatsby (talk)13:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The description “whistle-blower” is long-standing content based on reliable sources which describe him in that way. It is unreasonable to remove that description based on a report by a US intelligence committee, which obviously has a vested interest in denying Snowden is a whistle-blower.

• The wiki bio says Snowden has been charged “with three felonies: theft of government property and two counts of violating the Espionage Act of 1917”. Afaict, there is no mention of spying for Russia or China.

• Regarding the stress fracture/shin split issue, the source you removed,[2] which discusses claims made in the intelligence committee report, says “[T]hree-time Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Barton Gellman, … rebutted executive summary claims in a blog post, writing that Snowden's military discharge paperwork listed a diagnosis of "bilateral tibial stress fractures" and that he reviewed a copy of Snowden's GED test report, printing what he said was Snowden's test score and diploma number”. Nothing from the intelligence committee report should be written in wikivoice.

• Regarding the treatment of the intelligence committee report as a primary source, there are some footnotes on the pageWikipedia:No_original_research#Primary which may be relevant. E.g. “Duke University Libraries offers this definition: "A primary source is a first-hand account of an event. Primary sources may include newspaper articles, letters, diaries, interviews, laws,reports of government commissions, and many other types of documents." There is a noticeboard where you can ask for advice on this issue.Burrobert (talk)13:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Just because everyone is using the term incorrectly, doesn't mean it's okay to continue to do so. You're accepting a bias by blindly accepting that term. he claims to be a whistle blower. he did not meet the legal requirement of whistle blower.
2. I have updated the sentence to indicate his indictment. nothing else.
3. Barton Gellman is a friend of Snowden's and is not a reliable source. Without documentary evidence of the claim we are merely repeating his assertions. Is that what wikipedia does?
4. So, we can't use newspaper articles as citations?
5. where is the notice board?
6. thank you for the help with the article.

ItsjustGatsby (talk)13:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• We generally defer to reliable sources, even if we disagree with their descriptions.
• Don't know anything about Barton Gellman. I wouldn't necessarily discount his version of events because a US government intelligence report says otherwise. The USnews article mentioned above discusses the lack of evidence provided in the report for both the GED claim and the shin splint claim. I think Gellman was correct to say "I think all this debate about shin splints and GED is a silly diversion (trifling, I wrote)".
• Some newspaper articles such as investigative reports, editorials and blogs can be considered primary sources. Primary sources can be used in Wikipedia but care needs to be taken with their use as described on the page linked above.
• The two noticeboards which may be relevant areReliable sources noticeboard and thebiography of living persons noticeboard.Burrobert (talk)14:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How is the House report not a reliable source? The reader should be able to make that determination, shouldn't they? Are we discounting the report because we don't like the conclusion? ItsjustGatsby (talk)14:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I feel like the reason for this has already been explained in some depth -- I would recommend reading our policies about primary and secondary sources. It's a primary source because it comes from one of the entities participating in the dispute. If I write a newspaper article about the wildfires in Elbonia, that's a secondary source, and if I write a newspaper article about how the law office next door to the newspaper always fills up the dumpster with gross stuff because they use really thin bags when they take out their trash, that's a primary source.jp×g🗯️01:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have started a new topic on the reliable sources noticeboard. thanks for the link.ItsjustGatsby (talk)14:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With #1, have to agree that it's iffy to let Wikipedia be the one to litigate whether or not someone meets the definition for the term "whistleblower", even if "everyone is using it incorrectly". If the majority of reliable sources consistently describe him as a "whistleblower", then not sure it'd make sense to let one source override all the others. Especially if that source is referring to a specific legal sense.

But no other major issues/comments with the others.MediumRob (talk)20:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This section relates to a lot of work/wide range of changes that you two folks have recently made plus reasoning for or against them. If you are hoping for some third party input, right now it's such a complex bundle that few would tackle learning it. Next, Wiki's primary vs. secondary source definitions are nuanced with several parts and references. Also it expressly permits primary sources within certain restrictions. Any interpretation is going to be context-specific to the article content involved. So I don't think that any general debates on classification, usage and suitability of the sources detached from the context of the article is going to be productive. May I suggest, whether it be for you two to sort this out or to garner third party input, that this be organized by what the (proposed) article text is and whether or not the provided source is suitable / sufficient to support it? Sincerely,North8000 (talk)14:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested the Reliable sources noticeboard as a venue to ask for opinions on whether the report should be considered a primary source for Snowden's bio. That was because you did not agree that it was a primary source.Burrobert (talk)14:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was indented under my post. I never gave any opinion on what you just wrote.North8000 (talk)15:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The change removing the "however" before the statement refuting the claim by Greenwald on Snowden's job at CIA is incorrect. the statement is supposed to be linked to the previous because it is meant to refute his claims.

Greenwald doesn't have access to any special trove of data. He's repeating statements made by Snowden, who has an interest in being presented in a certain light. The House Report, by contrast does have access to the primary sources (see why it's not a primary source). The House has certainly seen his employment record from CIA. they know he was a technical services officer and at what grade. Without a college degree or a high school diploma he's unlikely to be more than a GS-7. No entry-level employee is going to be considered a "considered the top technical and cybersecurity expert". GS-7 is by definition not the top.

That's my issue with a lot of this article. Its tone is far too laudatory. The articles include statement given by Snowden as if they are facts without any journalistic rigor. It includes very little opposing views on the matter.

The policy mentioned above explains why terms such as "however" should be avoided. Let the sentence stand by itself without the editorialising. Readers will form their own conclusions.Burrobert (talk)15:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think we need to be writing stuff in the article based on our own guesswork about what level of educational attainment we think kinda corresponds to which federal government pay grades we think kinda correspond to which levels of computer knowledge or whatever -- this is a couple steps beyond original research and leaning towards satire.jp×g🗯️01:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not writing anything about it. I'm explaining my thought process on why I believe Snowdon is exaggerating.ItsjustGatsby (talk)01:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snowden Archive Redirects toThe Intercept

Snowden archive Redirects toThe Intercept

https://github.com/iamcryptoki/snowden-archive

https://theintercept.com/series/snowden-archive/

https://www.aclu.org/nsa-documents-released-to-the-public-since-june-2013

there is no section onThe Intercept aboutSnowden Archive

Snowden Archive Redirect toEdward_Snowden#Surveillance_disclosures  ?

Snowden archive Redirect toEdward_Snowden#Surveillance_disclosures  ?

Piñanana (talk)02:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366552520/New-revelations-from-the-Snowden-archive-surface

https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366554957/Why-only-1-of-the-Snowden-Archive-will-ever-be-published

Piñanana (talk)03:28, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I updatedWikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Nationality section to include multiple citizenships (e.g.Elon Musk).

Snowden lost US citizenship in 2013, then granted Russian citizenship from 2022. Because of this, "American-born" or "naturalized Russian" should not included in the lead sentence perMOS:BLPLEAD.Absolutiva06:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, thank you!Jtbobwaysf (talk)14:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

He still holds US citizenship. Only his passport was revoked, which is legally a distinct concept. See:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/02/edward-snowden-where-can-he-go

https://yalelawjournal.org/essay/citizenship-passports-and-the-legal-identity-of-americansPhotographyEdits (talk)15:18, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia controversial topics
• Wikipedia In the news articles
• Biography articles of living people
• B-Class level-5 vital articles
• Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in People
• B-Class vital articles in People
• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Espionage articles
• Mid-importance Espionage articles
• B-Class Human rights articles
• Mid-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• B-Class International relations articles
• High-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• B-Class Mass surveillance articles
• High-importance Mass surveillance articles
• B-Class Russia articles
• Low-importance Russia articles
• Low-importance B-Class Russia articles
• WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force
• WikiProject Russia articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Mid-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
• B-Class North Carolina articles
• High-importance North Carolina articles
• WikiProject North Carolina articles
• B-Class United States Government articles
• Mid-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Pages in the Wikipedia Top 25 Report

• Noindexed pages
• All Wikipedia vital articles
• WikiProject Espionage biography articles
• Wikipedia pages using copied template
• Wikipedia pages using merged-from template without oldid
• Wikipedia pages referenced by the press