Talk:Snowden

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was resolved. There seems to be a pretty solid consensus that the WP:BOLD redirect of Snowden should not stand. The point here is not to shut down discussion—simply that we should discuss from the status quo. An editor is free to bring up an RM of Snowden → Snowden (disambiguation), though this seems quite unlikely to succeed. --BDD (talk) 05:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowden (disambiguation) → Snowden – An editor recently made it so Snowden redirects to Edward Snowden, without any consensus that I can see. This move should be undone, and this page placed back at Snowden with Snowden (disambiguation) redirecting there. Why? Because there's a lot of people surnamed Snowden, and also things named Snowden as well, who are independently notable from Edward. It seems unfair to point to just one person. I know that stuff like Mondale redirects to Walter Mondale, but that's a case where there are not any Mondales who are independently notable from Walter. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Any claim for Edward Snowden being PT for Snowden can be countered by Wikipedia:Recentism. Zarcadia (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sometimes recentism can conflict with our goal of making a simple, high-quality reading experience for our users, but that doesn't mean we need to chase headlines. The inclusion of Edward Snowden here on the dab (instead of making readers go to the dab, then the surname page, then finding the article) is a sensible compromise. It would require much more coverage over an extended period of time to justify a surname redirect here. If it were me, I would've simply reverted this redirect, but I suppose it's good to talk it out. --BDD (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is a cut-and-paste-move do not move this back, the edit history is contained at Snowden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and since it is an improperly done move I've reverted it per cut-and-paste guidelines. All you need is to restore the redirect here by reverting the dab page. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 00:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, speedy close and revert cut-and-paste without move per 76.65.128.222. WP:BRD and WP:RECENT. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy support: There's a Countess of Snowden, a place name Snowden, and a whole lot of other people named Snowden. In five years, those are the things that'll be getting most of the hits p b p 01:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate close suggested: No move is needed. The improper cut-and-paste move has been repaired by reverts already. Dicklyon (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 16 September 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Closing, no consensus for the move seemed to be emerging from the discussion. Neither by head count (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snowden → Snowden (disambiguation) – In 2013 there was a discussion about whether Snowden should redirect to Edward Snowden or Snowden (disambiguation). That discussion is above. In 2013 not enough time had passed to clarity if the biography on Snowden was the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

I am now asserting that "Edward Snowden" meets the criteria of a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and I propose to make Snowden redirect to "Edward Snowden", contrary to the 2013 discussion. Other uses of the term should be sorted in a disambiguation page. Here is supporting evidence that "Edward Snowden" is the primary topic for the term Snowden:

The biography on Edward Snowden gets more Wikipedia page views than all the other terms put together. See for example that on average between May and August 2016, the biography got 16,000 views per day when other "Snowden" articles were getting many fewer, and perhaps only hundreds per day.
More than 1000 Wikipedia articles link into Edward Snowden as shown at Special:WhatLinksHere/Edward_Snowden&limit=500. None of the other terms has 100 inbound links.
None of the other terms have established long-term significance in popular discussion. Edward Snowden has been discussed in news and journalism daily since 2013.

Thoughts from others? Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BDD, Taylor Trescott, Zarcadia, In ictu oculi, Purplebackpack89, and Dicklyon: who commented in 2013. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. The sustaining evidence, as presented above, is clear and convincing. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. When I made the above request years back, it was too soon to accurately decide. But he is clearly the primary redirect for the term now. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 11:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose obviously not, he's not known as a mononym like "Churchill" or "Stalin", no WP:RS refers to him without first name. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Even looking at the most popular articles, Edward Snowden receives 82% of the page views.[1] The second highest use is Snowden (film), which is obviously about Edward Snowden. None of the other uses have a more obvious claim to long-term significance.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But as a mononym the film gets more hits than Edward Snowden. If anything the film would be primary for the mononym. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't get more hits than Edward Snowden...--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Still seems like recentism to me. Will we still see those sort of numbers in 10 years? 20? Long-term significance indeed. --BDD (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think Snowden has proved he's going to be around for a while, and he clearly already has encyclopedic significance. Right now, no one else even slightly comes close, and if another one arises in the future, we can just pull another Scott Walker. Nohomersryan (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Snowden is ambiguous and should be treated as such. Edward Snowden is almost always referred to by his full name, and Snowden alone would seem that likely to not be about him. Dicklyon (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WP:RECENTISM and the current setup makes it easier to spot incorrect incoming links. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – it has been firmly established, that in the long term, Edward Snowden is the primary topic for the surname Snowden. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 00:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the reasons given above plus an additional one: there is large potential for confusion with Snowdon (see the previous discussion on the move which shows that at least some people were confused) so there is a big advantage of the status quo in which Snowden is a disamb page that says "see also Snowdon (disambiguation)". MrStoofer (talk) 09:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Pure recentism. In the grand scheme of things, Philip Snowden, for example, is far more significant and will probably be remembered long after Edward Snowden is dead and forgotten. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 September, I created a new redirect at "Edward Snowden (whistleblower)" and piped it on the Edward Snowden link on the Snowden dab page to determine traffic through that page to the Edward Snowden page. A comparison of hits for the two (also see the bar chart under "Chart type" and uncheck the "logarithmic scale" box) over the subsequent four days shows a high number of users reaching the dab page are seeking the Edward Snowden article. — AjaxSmack 19:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, though the fact that this all occurred during the RM means this isn't the most representative sample. There's also a lot of chatter right now about Snowden (film), which a user could very plausibly be looking for under just "Snowden". It dwarfs the other two pages over the same period. --BDD (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Recentism, ghits is not how to organise an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not google. No objection to making Edward Snowden more prominent on the dab page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per IIO and others. It's rare for us to do primary redirects on surnames where the guy isn't generally known by surname only, and where the term is ambiguous. It's highly unlikely he wins long term significance on this reasonably common surname (which can also be confused with the more common Snowdon spelling). — Amakuru (talk) 11:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support as it's not unheard of that we would do things like this for names where one person completely dominates modern usage. Red Slash 18:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Snowden House

I suggest adding a reference to Snowden House, found here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterloo,_Iowa#Snowden_House

Hopefully, a Wiki page could be created for this place. I would like to see how it relates to the Snowdens in America. Thanx - madman101 on LJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.110.98 (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok to add: Edward Joseph Snowden (born June 21, 1983) is an American former computer intelligence consultant

Did a search on 'snowden' looking for Edward... surprised that he's not listed. Shouldn't he be?
proposed text:
"Edward Joseph Snowden (born June 21, 1983) is an American former computer intelligence consultant & whistleblower."
Thoughts? Will-SeymoreIII (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He's listed in the surname article, linked at the top of this page. -- Fyrael (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see! Thank you. Will-SeymoreIII (talk) 02:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]