Talk:Edward Snowden

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amulli (article contribs). Template:Vital article

Snowden article needs updating

What's new with Ed Snowden ca 2019? Is he still living in Russia with Lindsay Mills?Richard8081 (talk) 05:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Done, a while ago. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Use of the term "Whistleblower" is misleading

Manning meets the dictionary definition for "whistleblower," e.g. "one who reveals something covert or who informs against another" (Merriam-Webster) However use of the term here may lead readers to understand that Snowden qualified for or received protections under the Whistleblower Protection Act, 5 USFC 2302(b)(8)-(9). This is not correct, as Snowden was charged with 2 counts of criminal activity as stated elsewhere in this article. Suggested alternative wording is "Edward Snowden is an American who disclosed classified information without authorization." Walt539 (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

References

I have fought for words to similar effect, and frankly it's completely unnerving how many POV folks there are here in wikipedialand that want to establish him as some kind of obvious hero. Much of wikipedia attempts to establish things I'd label as "attempted fait accompli". He is /not/ a whistleblower, and the fact that he /says/ he is is irrelevant. Christ, this is getting so aggravating. Go and make the change and I'll back you up, but people seem to forget that the man did not read everything he disclosed. 𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

You are turning your back on the WP:Reliable sources which are thoroughly in agreement with the label "whistleblower". Take a look at The Guardian, The New Yorker magazine, HuffPost, USA Today, Voice of America News, CNBC, The Nation, Wired magazine and Reuters, for just a small sample of sources. You cannot set a definition in defiance of WP:SECONDARY sources and expect it to stay here. Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I was not setting a definition in defiance of anything, I was removing a controversial adjective. Removal of that does not set any definition. I fully doubt that you even read any of those quoted sources. For instance(indent moved left):

1. In that reuters article, the ONLY place "whistle blower" is mentioned is in his own quote about himself, outside of the title. The title is referring to his own belief system, NOT REUTERS.

2. In that Wired article, "Whistle-Blower" was how he referred to himself, NOT HOW WIRED REFERRED TO HIM. Read the article!.

3. The Nation IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE. It is a liberal opinion-only site. Take into account this HIGHLY POV lead article (among many): "Republicans Have Made It Clear They Will Let Trump Become a Dictator. Will We?"

4. The Guardian. ANOTHER HIGHLY POV SITE AS STATED BY THEMSELVES!. Proof, take a look at The Guardian Media Groups own quote: "The trust was created in 1936 to "secure the financial and editorial independence of The Guardian in perpetuity and to safeguard the journalistic freedom and liberal values of The Guardian free from commercial or political interference"

You had better do better than that if you're going to attempt this kind of NPOV-violating stuff again.𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Tgm1024: Looks like POV pushing here. The WP:RS says "The worlds most famous whistle-blower" (The Guardian) is good enough for wikipedia. We dont do WP:OR by looking at dictionaries. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but you cannot throw around wp links like WP:RS as if that self evidently makes your point. Here is a quote from WP:RS:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).

Show me where in that article is it more than one sided. WP:RS clearly does not allow this guardian article. You seem like you're POV pushing. In fact, so many of you are, and it's becoming ridiculous. You intent on using words that imply heroism. One guy above even insisted on using Patriot. Right or Wrong, you cannot imply whistle-blower without reading everything you're divulging...and he simply did not. BUT I DON'T EVEN NEED TO PROVE THAT. The burden of prove is upon YOU, and instead you reply with WP:RS as if I've never read through it and will just take the link itself as evidence. I'm guessing people throw the wp links around because they believe that no one will call them on it.𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm waiting for an answer to my cogent explanations that I placed both here and on my talk page.𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Your explanations weren't cogent, but mostly focused on your own personal characterization of sources that Wikipedia deems acceptable. If you have a problem with Nation or Guardian, for example, take it up on WP:RSN. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Riiiight. Did or did not the guardian specificallhttps://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inboxy established their mission/charter to be liberal? Did you see their quote? And you're so confused by your own POV of Snowden somehow being a hero you can't see that my simply REMOVING the heroic accolade of "whistle blower" is a step TOWARD NPOV not away from it. POV agendas like yours are what make Wikipedia a joke. I'm not advocating we call Snowden an A-hole, I'm trying to stay NPOV, however YOU want to imply he's a hero. I'm done here, you all are a joke. You have no argument I haven't cogently refuted.𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Tgm1024: I haven't made any argument. All I did was point out that you have failed to get any consensus from the Wikipedia community about the reliability of sources you personally dislike. Take it to WP:RSN and come back when you're done.

I'll add that the reason you haven't refuted anything, least of all "cogently", is because your underlying premise is false, therefore your arguments don't follow. You're basically saying that if a publication is "liberal" then it must be unreliable. That's false. Reliable sources do have biases. For example, the Washington Times leans right, the Washington Post leans left, but both are reliable sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

No, apparently you didn't read through WP:RS. It was thrown at me by jtbobwaysf as if just throwing a wiki link will quiet folks up. Well SOME of us actually know what these pages say. BOTH SIDES HAVE TO BE REPRESENTED! And using "whistle-blower" is hardly a representation of both sides.𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, if you have an argument to make about undue weight, then make it. If you don't believe the sources are reliable, then go hash it out on WP:RSN and come back here when you're done. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

And backing up, we have yet another perfect example of how wikipedia will forever remain a joke. The population will put in POV bullshit like "whistle-blower". Let's take a look at how a couple *real* encyclopedias phrase things, hmmm???

Encyclopedia Britannica: (No mention of "whistle-blower") https://www.britannica.com/biography/Edward-Snowden

The Columbia Encyclopedia: (No mention of "whistle-blower"). Note the careful use of "activist". This is via the encyclopedia.com broad search across encyclopedias. https://www.encyclopedia.com/reference/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/snowden-edward-joseph

And yet HERE in wikipedialand we end up with a bunch of people insisting on promoting their own view of the world with accolades. Ask yourself, what harm is there in becoming NPOV and removing the hero-dripping word of "whistle-blower", hmmm? Oh, but of course! You have "sources".

Wikipedia is hopeless, and you all should be ashamed of yourselves.𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Tgm1024: You're making assumptions about people you know nothing about.

I have no problem with "activist". Those "real" encyclopedias don't cite their sources, they are written by staff. Wikipedia works to different standards, and the results are expected to be different. You haven't made a single "cogent" argument yet, instead you assert that the sources are "liberal" and therefore invalid. I have a hard time believing you have a neutral POV here. Me, I have no POV about Snowden one way or another, I don't consider him a hero or a whistleblower or any other term, I don't really care what we call him. I care more about what reliable sources call him. If you disagree, then we have a venue for discussing the reliability of sources, and I have already pointed you there. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY sources. Secondary sources are preferred over tertiary sources such as other encyclopedias. Binksternet (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

You may have misread wp:secondary. Wikipedia is itself a tertiary source. Other encyclopedias are themselves tertiary sources as well. They both are built upon secondary sources.

𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 03:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The key line at WP:SECONDARY is the one that says Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources.. Tertiary sources are not the preferred source for building articles, but they can be useful to establish proper weight if secondary sources are in contradiction. Binksternet (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

This has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Wikipedia is as tertiary as Britannica. Don't believe me? Read further in that page:

Wikipedia is to be a tertiary source.[h] Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources.

And further down, another reference regarding wikipedia as a tertiary source:

Wikipedia articles may not be used as tertiary sources in other Wikipedia articles, but are sometimes used as primary sources in articles about Wikipedia itself

Just as with the WP:RS mention above, you've misunderstood a key component in an attempt to win an argument by simply dropping a wikilink. It's becoming apparent that I'm the only one of us that read through wp:secondary and wp:rs. You've either misread wp:secondary, or are attempting a red herring (secondary vs. tertiary doesn't apply because both wikipedia and britannica are tertiary). Especially since I'm not attempting to use britannica as a source. I'm comparing wikipedia POV to Britannica's carefully neutral prose to drive the point home to you guys blinded by your own wiki dogma.

𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

You DO understand that right? I'm not positing Britannica as a source for this article. I'm showing you how an encyclopedia should behave.https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox

𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I listed a bunch of good secondary sources describing and labeling Snowden as a whistleblower. You tried to impeach the sources on unfounded procedural nonsense, splitting hairs and wikilawyering. What else do you want to try? Because despite your efforts I don't see any convincing reason to turn our backs on these fine sources, which are just a sample of many more similar ones. Binksternet (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

This is WP:RGW. In this case you will need a large number of sources that dispute that Assange is a whistleblower, not that they simply fail to refer to him as such. Then we can cover the whistleblower title as controversial. In no likelihood will we remove it entirely, given the huge number of existing whistleblower sources. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Binkersternet, Did you or did you not think that I was attempting to use Britannica as a source? Had you actually decided to read anything of what I wrote, you'd see it was a comparison to this wikipedia nonsense.𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

(<----indent moved) Since Binkersternet will avoid admitting that he brought up wp:secondary for no reason, and since he will also not admit the the wp:rs section that he pretended to read states making sure both sides are read, let's simplify this. New section below.𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

He brought up WP:SECONDARY because you are the one who brought up other encyclopedias as if that were somehow relevant to this discussion. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

And in what way is wp:secondary relevent (including his inapplicable references to tertiary) UNLESS he thought I was using real encyclopedias as sources? Hmmmm? And it's wikipedia that dares call it's an encyclopedia. So comparing it to real ones is hardly out of the question, and you know it.𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that using the term whistleblower is misleading. Whistleblower implies that he disclosed information that would qualify him as such under the (WPA) Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 (5 USC 2302(b)(8)-(9); S.20, Public Law 101-12). Regardless of whether one approves or disapproves of his actions on philosophical ground is irrelevant. Objectively what Edward Snowden is, is a leaker of classified information and a fugitive from justice. These are facts and using the term whistleblower is a possible violation of WP:NPOV. Calling him a whistleblower takes a definite POV that he exposed wrongdoing. Sloppy usage of language is a problem and should be avoided. If the Times of Sherwood Forest (an otherwise reliable source) reports that Robin Hoob was a Freedom Fighter, it does not change the fact that he was a robber (albeit, of the rich to benefit the poor). If leaker is too charged, just say me made unauthorized disclosures. Just because several sources misuse a word, does not make it justified. That is purely factual, with no bias either way. Abelian (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on published sources, and it follows those sources in terms of style and weight. A great many sources call Snowden a whistleblower, for example the Voice of America News. Almost nobody calls him a leaker. The huge disparity give little hope for your preferred term. Binksternet (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the law is WP:OR. This talk page is not place for discussion of Robin Hood (I guess that is what you meant) and WP:NOTFORUM applies to your convoluted WP:OSE reasoning. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The Two Broken Legs Claim

I just read a few pages of Edward Jay Epstein's book on Snowden, and came across the 'two broken legs' claim in reference to Snowden's discharge from the US Army's MOS 18X program. Snowden claims, in his book 'Permanent Record', that he suffered tibial fractures, stress fractures. Not the bone broken clear through. Apparently, no cast required. As a descriptive term, "two broken legs" seems like an over-reach. What he claims to have had were something in the neighborhood of a sprain, if it were of a neighboring joint. Does anyone see a more descriptive, less dramatic phrase? Rainbow-five (talk) 04:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• I think I understood that Snowden claimed to have stress fractured leg bones. Synonyms are "simple fracture" and "hairline fracture". Calling this sort of bone fracture "broken" is overstatement. "Fractured" is more accurate. eg. "Snowden had fractured tibias." --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

In June 2013, The Guardian reported that Snowden, after enlisting in the U.S. Army in 2003, "broke both his legs in a training accident." This is the source we rely on for stating as much in our article space. If Snowden, in his 2019 autobiography Permanent Record, denies that his legs were broken, please quote the relevant passage in full so that editors may evaluate it. Should we achieve consensus to replace or supplement The Guardian reference with a new one citing his book, it would improve our BLP. Meanwhile, any attempt by Wikipedia editors to pose as orthopedic specialists diagnosing a patient whose medical records they've never seen—much less having contemporaneously examined him in person—is pure WP:SYNTH and, as such, worthless. NedFausa (talk) 06:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Various secondary sources, eg mention the broken legs claim as disputed in favour of the term “shin splints”. This is not SYNTH or orthopaedic medicine, but simple English. While a shin splint may technically involve broken bone, specifically stress fractures, shin splints are not properly referred to as “broken legs”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The entry at biography.com to which you link relates: "…an unclassified report published on September 15, 2016 by the House Intelligence Committee refuted his claim, stating: 'He claimed to have left Army basic training because of broken legs when in fact he washed out because of shin splints.'" However, Barton Gellman, senior fellow at The Century Foundation and one of the journalists who (for The Washington Post) broke the Snowden story in 2013, condemned the House report a day after it was published as "aggressively dishonest" and singled out the committee's statement about shin splints as "verifiably false." According to Gellman, Snowden's Army paperwork shows the diagnosis that led to his discharge was "bilateral tibial stress fractures." U.S. News & World Report subsequently reported that, in response to Gellman's criticism, the House Intelligence Committee had "walked back" its accusation that Snowden lied about breaking his legs.

You say this is a matter of simple English, and I agree. Wikipedia defines stress fracture as a fatigue-induced fracture of the bone. In turn, Wikipedia defines bone fracture as a partial or complete break in the continuity of the bone. If someone types "broken bone" in Wikipedia's search box, the user is redirected to Bone fracture. In simple English, a broken bone is synonymous with a bone fracture. Please provide a better source to support your contention that Snowden did not break his legs. NedFausa (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no evidence that he "broke his legs", but there was the claim. I surmise from very limited sources (including information that no x-rays were taken), that he had "shin splits" at least, which means microfractures of his tibias. Yes, "microfractures of the tibia" can be correctly called "broken bone" in simple English, but I do not agree that this equates to "broken legs". This is not an expert opinion. I note there was a claim of "broken legs", sort of sourced to the subject, but no direct quote. In the movie version, where he jumps from the bunk and crumbles to the floor, that could be characterised as a "broken" person, as a person who is not mechanically working right. This is my reading of the limited information. Someone asked for input, and this is mine. The 'two broken legs' claim reads as a slight exaggeration. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

From Snowden's "Permanent Record", the edition published by Macmillan UK, 2019, ISBN 978-1-5290-3566-7 (TPB), pp 88-92, beginning with the phrase near the bottom of page 88, "At the hospital I was X-Rayed and told I had bilateral tibial fractures ...". This narrative continues through to page 92, which ends the chapter. In simple English, "broke both legs" (a phrase Snowden does not use in this book) gives everybody I converse with an image of a guy with leg casts on a gurney, or in a wheel chair with leg extensions for support. A guy on crutches? Shin splints sounds about right. I have no axe to grind with The Guardian, my grandfather wrote for them (they were still The Manchester Guardian in 1920) so I theoretically have skin in that part of the game but journalists make errors, mischaracterizations, and employ phrases (deadlines, remember?) that may lack the full precision that appears over time. Another point: Snowden claims, earlier in the same book, that after the injury he hobbled back to the barracks with the rest of the company. With "two broken legs", ain't nobody hobblin'. Rainbow-five (talk) 05:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Rainbow-five: Thank you for the detailed reference, which I have cited in the article to change broken legs to bilateral tibial fractures. NedFausa (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, NedFausa. I believe we share the the goal of accuracy. Rainbow-five (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Better sequence in Global surveillance disclosures section

The article should state explain what happened and what was released and published before diving into the "size and scope". As it is, after a pretty straightforward buildup in the article in terms of his life, but before even clarifying what he released and how, it dives into analysis, statistics, global impact etc.

I suggest this sequence (leaving in place the current numbering to help clarify what is changing).

• Global surveillance disclosures

2.3	Release of NSA documents
2.4	Publication
2.5	Revelations
2.1	Size and scope of disclosures
2.2	Potential impact on U.S. national security
2.6	Motivations

★NealMcB★ (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Minor edit: IQ typo

In the section "Childhood, family, and education", the article currently states: "Snowden scored consistently above 145 on two separate IQ tests." The statement is based on this source: https://www.wired.com/2014/08/edward-snowden/

Here is the relevant part of the cited article: "His father told me, 'We always considered Ed the smartest one in the family.' It didn’t surprise him when his son scored above 145 on two separate IQ tests." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.183.152.223 (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Issue with "political views"

The section about Snowden's political views is more reminiscent of a celebrity's old Tweets being found than it is of a serious article. Are there not more recent articles about his political beliefs? I mean he obviously doesn't believe he should be "shot in the balls" like he apparently did in 2009. LeBron4 (talk) 02:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Missing parenthesis

In the last paragraph of the section "Whistleblower Status", there should be additional closing parenthesis after the text "(Case No. 1:13 CR 265 (0MH)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.160.99 (talk) 03:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thundermaker (talk) 09:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2020

There is debate surrounding the effects of a potential pardon for Mr. Snowden. Daj12414 (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)