What ever the “cool kids” high school drama analogy you wish to bring to the situation, “traitor” does not belong in the Wikipedia page. There is significant disagreement over whether such a word applies. If Snowden were convicted of treason it would have more support. Still, the point of Wikipedia is not for it to serve as a venue for cool kids to air their opinions and shut down the opinions non-cool kids (which I agree is an awful analogy for a lot of reasons). It strives to maintain a neutral tone, and… act as an online encyclopedia.
No one is saying that people in government don’t have a right to an opinion. It is just that obviously, an encyclopedia should not be the forum for expressing personal opinions. Is there something you find objectionable about this?
