Jump to content

Talk:Glenn Greenwald/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Bias by including political "cybercrimes" smear in lede

This accusation was entirely poltical in nature and it is given way too much weight and importance by including it in the top of the article, especially now that it was dismissed without even having a trial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.93.163 (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

False Implication

The following misuses the English language.

"In his Salon.com column of November 21, 2007, Greenwald documented what he considers to be factual errors in a national column written by Joe Klein in Time magazine.[30][31][32]"

Specifically, "Greenwald documented what he considers to be factual errors ...."

  1. That part of the sentence falsely implies that Greenwald and Greenwald alone considers that what he documented "... to be factual errors ...." (and speaking of "documented".....)
  2. Here are the definitions of "documented":
  • Verb
  • S: (v) document (record in detail) "The parents documented every step of their child's development"
  • S: (v) document (support or supply with references) "Can you document your claims?"
  • Adjective
  • S: (adj) documented (furnished with or supported by documents) "the first documented case of shark attack in those waters"
  • S: (adj) attested, authenticated, documented (established as genuine)
  1. So, please allow me to present this question: If something is recorded in detail and supplied with references, then how is it possible for Greenwald, and Greenwald alone to be convinced that something has been supported? It does not make sense.
  2. Therefore, I propose that the sentence be amended to read as:
"In his Salon.com column of November 21, 2007, Greenwald documented what he considers to be factual errors in a national column written by Joe Klein in Time magazine.[30][31][32]"
I think that this is a reasonable approach; in order to consider it unreasonable, one would have to ipso facto accept the premise that Greenwald had, in fact, failed to document any factual errors at all in Joe Klein's column.

Thoughts, anyone?<br. />—NBahn (talk) 05:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Greenwald a far-left/progressive

The two sources cited (one from The Young turks and the other in an article he wrote) clearly shows his political alignment as far-left/progressive. In fact, in one of the sources, he calls himself as part of the far-left. Why is it being removed?Fellytone (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

of course he's a far-left kook but its wikipedia's job to pretend that the far-left is actually centrist and that centrists are actually far-right wing extremists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.38.81.254 (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

This is not a very compelling argument, especially since you're anonymous, ignoring the more thought-out response below, and inserting a weird (probably accidental) subheading. I suppose it's your right to throw around partisan political rhetoric, but you're unlikely to create consensus by doing so. If you want to argue politics, the comment sections of newspapers and websites are a much better forum.Msalt (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
yeah man, go to the comments section of some 'website' and argue about it so we don't have to hear it. it's called a TALK PAGE for a reason.216.96.229.198 (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you are new here? Talk pages are for discussion of the attached article. Look right up at the top of this page and it spells it out pretty clearly:
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Glenn Greenwald article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
If you want to discuss Glenn Greenwald generally, or the general biases you find in Wikipedia, you should in fact go to some other website to do so.Msalt (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

This comment, above, proves that the change Fellytone keeps inserting is silly and baseless. He keeps inserting the claim "Greenwald has been described as far-left and/or progressive[22][23]"

Even if that were true (and it's not), how can that possibly be in an encyclopedia entry? What someone is "described" as being is entirely subjective.

But more to the point, everyone should check the two sources he inserts. They do not even come close to describing Greenwald as "far-left" or "progressive." Neither source applies a label to him at all (one is from Greenwald himself, and he doesn't use those labels at all for himself there, and The Young Turks thing doesn't even use the term "far-left").

To justify the change, Fellytone writes: "The two sources cited (one from The Young turks and the other in an article he wrote) clearly shows his political alignment as far-left/progressive." Those two pieces do nothing of the sort, but even if they did, "shows his political alignment" is completely different than "is described as."

Why would a user's subjective views about a person's political ideology be a legitimate entry in an article like this, especially when those assertions are supported by absolutely nothing?

Enzuli (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources on Glenn Greenwald as far-left

1. "Would You Feel Differently About Snowden, Greenwald, and Assange If You Knew What They Really Thought?" Greenwald had come to reside in a peculiar corner of the political forest, where the far left meets the far right. . The New Republic - Jan, 2014


2. Max Boot: “Democrats need to beware their loony left “Indeed, it’s often hard to tell the extremists apart. Anti-vaccine activists come from both the far left and the far right — and while most of those who defend President Trump’s dealings with Russia are on the right, some, such as Glenn Greenwald and Stephen F. Cohen, are on the left.” Washington Post, February 13, 2019 (incidentally Max writes against Trump in WP).

3. The National Interest. "Why Are So Many Leftists Skeptical of the Russia Investigation?". "The purest form of this sentiment on the far left is a vein of attacks that are almost indistinguishable from Republican rhetoric about the investigation. The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald has gone from insisting evidence of Russian interference should be discounted until Robert Mueller produced some indictments to now saying indictments themselves should also be discounted." NY Magazine July 29, 2018

4. "Why Is the Far Left Defending Tulsi Gabbard?" Nancy leTourneau, Washington Monthly, Nov. 12, 2019

5. Fascism and the Far Left: A Grim Global Love Affair.." “... Tucker Carlson and The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald the crossover...” Haaretz, May 27, 2019.Kacziey (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Kacziey: I think it's feasible tho include a paragraph saying that some refer to him as far-left (based on NY magazine & Washington Monthly). those are the only sources that call him that unequivocally. I'll write it for you later, your last attempt to write it was very convoluted. For the meantime, please stop edit warring - Daveout(talk) 14:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

removal of maintenance tags

I've removed two maintenance tags as there was no supporting discussion. If anyone feels that these tags need to be in place, some explanation of why would be good. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I know nothing about the guy but a one minute reading of the article makes it blindingly obvious that it is an unholy mess. A lengthy paragraph on how much time he spends in Brazil for goodness sake? I'm putting the tags back. NBeddoe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC).

Sigh. But not doing anything to fix the problem yourself, NBeddoe? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope. But then you wouldn't want me putting my ill-informed opinions on the page when as I said, I know little about him. I don't think this detracts from the fact that the article is of very low quality and doesn't meet Wiki guidelines. I will try and find the time to do some research on him but don't hold your breath. NBeddoe (talk) 08:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:DRIVEBY, "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies". Rostz (talk) 12:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

"despite believing that Hale had been wrongfully convicted..."

In the Background section, this article notes that Hale's mother asked Greenwald to forward an encoded message. Instead of simply saying Greenwald declined to do so, it adds: "despite believing that Hale had been wrongfully convicted and uninvolved in the more recent murders, Greenwald declined to do so."

As if such a belief would obligate him to participate in the transmission of such messages. The passage involves unfounded speculation as to Greenwald's motivations and invites the reader to draw a conclusion hurtful to Greenwald's reputation.

Per WP:BLP contentious material should be removed immediately, without waiting for discussion. Which is what I will be doing here. Abbenm (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Good idea: editorial comment should be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Did Greenwald 'break' the manning story

I've changed "broke the story" to "wrote." Do we have a source that supports the first language? Even then, I'd be opposed to reversing the wording until we have some consensus that it's an accurate description, as opposed to us simply repeating someone's puffery. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions article not neutral

This entry does not meet Wikipedia standards

This entry borders on a puff-piece. Greenwald is a respected commentator in some circles and a radical in others. No section mentions that he is a divisive figure, instead each individual subsection seems to hail his achievements. I think the unbalance is problematic.

As noted in the discussion, there was a decision made to remove a so-called Sockpuppet controversy from the page. I do not claim expertise on what happened in that incident, but the core takeaway seemed to be that Greenwald was accused of leaving various comments supporting articles that he has written and (as an anonymous commenter) praised his own intelligence and ideological positions.

I cannot speak to whether or not Greenwald was found guilty of those accusations. But my larger concern is that the same phenomena may have occurred here with this entry. Though the history reflects multiple authorships, I am suspicious the subject or his confederates may have tampered with the page to purge it of balancing factors that portray Greenwald as somewhat less than the messianic figure reflected on his entry.

For example, we have an entire section dedicated to "Popularity," but have purged even a mention of what appears to be a significant and well-publicized controversy that brings the subject's integrity into question. I found several pieces online from respectable sources that ask valid, policy-grounded questions about Greenwald's honesty, his ability to accurately convey factual information, and what appears to be shoddy research in several of his pieces.

I am not suggesting we assassinate the subject's character. But I suggest more rigorous citations, including a banner calling for better inline citations. And we should consider providing balance in some way, perhaps individual in each subsection or a "Criticism" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.231.249.138 (talk • contribs)

It has often been alleged here that this sockpuppet thing is "a significant and well-publicized controversy", but I've never seen any evidence presented to that effect. The only thing I've seen is a few blog posts, which we can't use for sources in a BLP. Gamaliel (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Aside from the sockpuppetry thing, anon's point is well taken. This is a very puffy piece. Greenwald is a hard-charging, crusading, ex-attorney columnist. He is not universally loved or admired, but you wouldn't know that from this article.Msalt (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree entirely. The article is definitely not-neutral. There's also no mention of Greenwald's articles repeatedly being accused of bias.--Craigboy (talk) 09:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Forget Sockpuppetry

It's a minor issue. Entry lacks neutrality. "Popularity" is over the top, though I am ok with it if there is a balancing section underneath. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.231.249.138 (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal of tag

If there are specific problems w/ neutrality, please point out a particular section and (using reliable sources) say how it should be fixed up. I've removed the tag until there's actually a reason to put it in place. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Several specific problems with neutrality have been cited. I will repeat them, add a couple of sources and revert your removal of the tag, which does not appear to be based on anything other than your disagreement. Problems: the article is written in the form of a resume or laudatory biography, listing only his career highlights and favorable citations of him. It is not neutral or noteworthy that a liberal Senator quotes a liberal columnist, for example. We do not need repeated, separate listings of him as one of the top 50 bloggers/columnists. He makes bold, dramatic charges which have often been criticized for inaccuracy or lack of balance; no sign of that in this article. As 143.231.249.138 notes above, the Popularity section is way over the top puffery. Here are some criticisms from reliable sources (and to preempt your attack on this point, if we disregard all blog posts, most of Greenwald's own work would not be considered reliable sources either.)
-"On Assange and on CNN, Glenn Greenwald is talking out of his hat and is an embarrassment to The Guardian" Daily Telegraph [a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/willardfoxton2/100007533/on-assange-and-on-cnn-glenn-greenwald-is-talking-out-of-his-hat-and-is-an-embarrassment-to-the-guardian/"]
-Jeremy Duns (novelist, UK citizen living in Sweden) rebutting Greenwald on Sweden's legal system: [a href="http://jeremyduns.blogspot.se/2012/06/perils-of-googledemia.html] Msalt (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm also concerned about the extensive detailing of the issues Greenwald has addressed. He's a columnist; that's what they do. The Joe Klein controversy in particular does not seem notable. I can see why it's important to Greenwald in the context of his career, but not why it's notable to the rest of the world. Unless someone has a good rationale for keeping it, I plan to remove that paragraph as excessive weight/unencyclopedic detail.Msalt (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, no objection, so I removed that paragraph and summarized the others. It doesn't make sense to have each issue Greenwald has discussed as a columnist get its own section equivalent to his original blog, legal career or Salon.com. Also removed the excessive and POV detail on his living (part time) in Brazil. With the reaction section more balanced now, this is pretty close to a fair, NPOV encyclopedia article, IMHO. Msalt (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Dead Link?

I removed the "dead link" tag from the Texas Observer reference. http://www.texasobserver.org/forrestforthetrees/ron-paul-fool%E2%80%99s-gold I don't know what to tell you; I clicked on it and the article came right up. Maybe there was a temporary web site problem?Msalt (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

article fixation on his spending half his time in Brazil

the section on "Glenn spends half his time in Brazil because the U.S. gov't wont allow his partner to emigrate...blah blah blah" is poorly written, repeats itself numerous times and has an clear agenda. This is why wikipedia is regarded as a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.38.81.254 (talk) 21:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that we need editorials about Wikipedia being regarded as a joke, and it's always nice to sign your comments, but your point is well taken. I drastically pruned the text about his residency, and moved the legal stuff to a new subheading in his career section which makes more sense.Msalt (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald and controversy over his views on Israel

I reverted user Phillip Cross' removal of the line about controversy over Greenwald's views on Israel. I believe that this removal was based on a good faith misunderstanding of WP:IRS. The policy does NOT say that blogs cannot be reliable sources. That would not only be not sensible in the modern world, it would be absurd in the discussion of someone who is famous precisely for being a blogger. Greenwald himself would not then be notable.

Here is what the policy says in [the relevant section|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IRS#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29], "Self-published sources (online and paper)."

self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. ... "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control.

The source that was listed, CIFWATCH, is clearly a professional news-oriented website. It was listed in Technorati's Top 100 Blogs.

I've gone further and added several other links from sources such as The Atlantic Magazine's blog and The Times of Israel's blog, both explicitly allowed by the policy, as well as other professional blogs such as The Volokh Conspiracy and Legal Insurrection.

Finally, I am removing the language inserted by Anon that characterized Greenwald's critics on Israel as "pro-Israeli blogs." First, this is no longer true given the new sources, if it ever was, and it is clearly POV language aimed at diminishing the critics of Greenwald by portraying them as partisan.Msalt (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Confusing edits

As per this edit, Greenwald's article has a section devoted to his political views, so the lead needs to reflect that. Gobbleygook (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

And that section that you've written about was added by a disruptive, indefinitely blocked sock puppet whose edits you are trying to restore without any consensus. Further, they do not accurately reflect the subject nor the sources. Viriditas (talk) 02:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Political views redux

Politically, Greenwald described himself as independent though others described him as a liberal or progressive.

This is terrible prose and does not belong in the lead. We don't use the lead section to describe what someone might have described themselves as in the past nor what others describe themselves as now. In fact, we don't use lead sections like this at all. Viriditas (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly (political commentator).
But back to your argument, the lead is supposed to report on all major sections of the article; as the article includes a section on Greenwald's views, it has to be in there as the function of the lead is to provide a summary of all the sections in the article. Yes, it really is that simple. Gobbleygook (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Not true, and you're misusing sources to push a polarizing, singular POV about a BLP that is not reflected by the subject, which is essentially a form of POV pushing. Further, there is no support for these edits which should be reverted. Viriditas (talk) 02:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
There's an entire (and quite lengthy) section on Greenwald's political views and if you don't see how or why the line explaining Greenwald's political views should be included in the lead, then you need to re-read what WP:LEAD is. If you still can't understand how or why that should be the case, then you may want to reconsider your ability to edit Wikipedia.Gobbleygook (talk) 10:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
That material was added by the sock puppet User:Festermunk and has been removed as misrepresenting our sources and our BLP policies. Supporting Festermunk's edits, you recently added to the lead the following statement: "Politically, Greenwald describes himself independent though others see him politically as a liberal or progressive."[1] The source you claim as support for Greenwald describing himself as an independent does not say that.[2] This is Festermunk's modus operandi. He adds biased claims and cites sources that do not support the claims. And, we don't add these kinds of polarizing statements to our lead sections, as you have already been informed many times now. To top it off, you've linked to articles that are not about Greenwald in an attempt to label him as a liberal or a progressive. There is no "debate" or "dispute" about Greenwald's self-identification as neither left nor right, and you have once again misrepresented this with the ambiguous term "independent" which is used differently in the U.S. than the way you've used it here (he is not an Independent_(politician)). Given that the material you added is barely English and shows that you don't understand what you are writing, I'm removing it once again as a BLP violation. The biographical sources describe him as an attorney, a blogger, and an author, not as a progressive nor a liberal. End of story. Finally, describing him as an independent who others view as progressive or liberal is a polarizing tactic used by POV pushers to make him seem like an extremist and to paint him into a black and white corner that eliminates the possibility of rational moderation. This tactic is transparent and needs to stop. The artificial continuum of left–right politics does not automatically get applied to every person who expresses an opinion on a political issue. Greenwald is taking a legal approach, not a political approach. Viriditas (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
It's telling how you don't address the point about the WP:LEAD bit as that would constitute the legal grounds to include a summary of opinions on Greenwald's political views; to say otherwise is usually a POV pushing tactic for the subject of the article to prevent the inclusion of material (valid third-party sources I should add) that would undermine the subject's putative claim to ideological objectivity via political claim of non-partisanship. Your cant [3] about the political spectrum isn't relevant to this discussion, as is your claim about what kind of analytical approach Greenwald as the edits are about his political views in general.
"you have once again misrepresented this with the ambiguous term "independent"" so then I'll put in the part about where his pre-political views were neither Republican nor Democrat.
" The biographical sources describe him as an attorney, a blogger, and an author, not as a progressive nor a liberal." So what. Sources about Gleen Greenwald's views doesn't have to be just limited to biographical sources....admittedly the links to the sources cited are broken so I'll try to find new ones. Gobbleygook (talk) 05:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Since you are engaging in deliberate political polarization, my comments are directly relevant. He never claimed to be an independent. That was a distortion of a primary source added by now blocked user Festermunk which was correctly removed as a blatant distortion. You added it back in to make it seem like there was a debate about his ideological position, which is not true. That someone thinks he is progressive or liberal is irrelevant. What counts here is what he self-identifies as and we have other sources indicating that he criticizes both the left and the right. If you are serious about actually improving this biography and not just engaging in disruption, then you will find sources that describe his work as progressive or liberal, not his person. He doesn't self-identify as these things, and we give weight only to his stated views. Further, none of the sources you've used are about Greenwald the person; you're just cherry picking passing comments about him from sources that aren't focused on his life and work. Viriditas (talk) 10:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
It's obvious you didn't read what I wrote, so I'll write it again: "It's telling how you don't address the point about the WP:LEAD bit as that would constitute the legal grounds to include a summary of opinions on Greenwald's political views; to say otherwise is usually a POV pushing tactic for the subject of the article to prevent the inclusion of material (valid third-party sources I should add) that would undermine the subject's putative claim to ideological objectivity via political claim of non-partisanship." It's obvious you also didn't read my latest edits as I changed the bit about his political self-identification.
"He doesn't self-identify as these things, and we give weight only to his stated views." Is that a Wikipedia editing rule? Or is that something you made up on the spot? Gobbleygook (talk) 11:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
No, we don't address "views about views" in a BLP. We focus primarily on the BLP subject using standard biographical sources about the subject, proportionally represented in the literature. Read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Viriditas (talk) 11:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
"He doesn't self-identify as these things, and we give weight only to his stated views." Is that a Wikipedia editing rule? Or is that something you made up on the spot? Gobbleygook (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
No, it is how we write articles. You're trying to categorize a BLP using the views of people other than himself to push a POV and you need to stop. Viriditas (talk) 11:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
As per the 3O below, basically it's what I thought: there's nothing in Wikipedia to support your ridiculous point that we give weight "only to his [Greenwald]'s stated views." As for pushing a POV....how am I doing this?

3O Response: WP:BLPs have much tighter rules than standard articles, what he identifies as personally, is what counts the most. The opinion of another matters little and should be a qualified statement much further into the article, if required at all. Nbound (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

We must reading different versions of BLP. As per WP:BLPSTYLE, how would including just Greenwald's political self-identification achieve a balanced writing style by, not giving, "disproportionate space to particular viewpoints"? (which on another note would violate LEAD as well) It's understandable that the article give more space to Greenwald's views (which is what I tried to do in my edit) but to say that "the opinion of another matters little" doesn't seem to contribute to a balanced writing style as entailed by WP:BLPSTYLE. Gobbleygook (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
How do your proposed edits "balance" out the article? You are cherry picking passing references to your preferred POV, misusing sources and misquoting them over and over again. I can't see how this kind of bad editing helps improve this topic. If you want to propose a change, do so here on the talk page, and we can discuss it. Viriditas (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Political Views and "Criticism"

The last sentence of the "Political Views" section seems highly out of place and irrelevant. It says "Greenwald has been criticized regarding his positions which are critical of Israel's foreign policy and influence on U.S. politics."

I don't quite know how to respond to this except with a "...so what?" Anybody who either is either "critical" or uncritical of "Israel's foreign policy and influence on U.S. politics" "has been criticized" at one time or another. I think this sentence should be removed. It conveys no useful content and says nothing about Greenwald -- or, indeed, anybody. Wiki.correct.1 (talk) 06:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The point is that if the views are the subject of criticism, then it should be reported so as not to give undue weight to the argument (or at least the perception) that what he's saying isn't controversial. Gobbleygook (talk) 06:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Except, there is nothing in the article that supports that view. Do you even read the discussion before you comment? Viriditas (talk) 09:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
It helps if you know how to read. I wasn't referring to anything in the article, but more about a general point on Wikipedia editing.Gobbleygook (talk) 10:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
The only general point that applies is WP:NPOV. Have you read it? Viriditas (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
If you happen to read the discussion you'd know that that's EXACTLY what I'm getting at. Gobbleygook (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
You're not following the discussion. You said, "if the views are the subject of criticism, then it should be reported so as not to give undue weight to the argument". His views are not being given undue weight, nor could the be given undue weight...in an article about the person. What you are saying doesn't even make any sense. Undue weight about the views of a person in an article about that person? Huh? Viriditas (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Again it helps if you happened to read the discussion. The original user said criticism of Greenwald's views should be removed because it conveys "no useful content and says nothing about Greenwald," to which I responded (on grounds of NPOV) that to do so would give his views (particularly reception to his views) undue weight and thus the criticisms shouldn't be removed. Yes the discussion is really that simple.Gobbleygook (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
There's no such thing as giving the views of a biographical person undue weight in an article about their person. You either don't understand what is being said or you are deliberately disrupting this page. Viriditas (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Then you need to go back and re-read how to make edits on Wikipedia. The fact that the article is about a biographical person doesn't mean stipulations of UNDUE are non-applicable. UNDUE (and by extension NPOV) applies to all Wikipedia articles, which includes biographical as well as non-biographical ones. Gobbleygook (talk) 08:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but you aren't making any sense in the language called "English". You said, "if the views are the subject of criticism, then it should be reported so as not to give undue weight to the argument (or at least the perception) that what he's saying isn't controversial." The fact that Greenwald has been criticized regarding his positions isn't in and of itself important or worthy of inclusion. Viriditas (talk) 06:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
"The fact that Greenwald has been criticized regarding his positions isn't in and of itself important or worthy of inclusion." The fact that the article is about a biographical person doesn't mean stipulations of UNDUE are non-applicable. UNDUE (and by extension NPOV) applies to all Wikipedia articles, which includes biographical as well as non-biographical ones. Like I said, it helps if you know how to read. Gobbleygook (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be adding this material against the consensus of myself and User:Wiki.correct.1. Again, the question stands, so what? Why are you adding this? Viriditas (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
There is no consensus as personal opinions of editor are not substitutes for Wikipedia editing guidelines. As for the inclusion of the criticism part, it is included to rectify OR as some of the sources cited to the relevant content is disparaging Greenwald's views on Israel.Gobbleygook (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Per Wiki.correct.1, it does not appear useful or informative and your citation of two attack opinion pieces is not the best reliable source for a BLP. If it is notable that Greenwald's views have been criticized, then you should be able to find a more reliable source on this subject. At this point, I don't think you will find anyone who will support the addition of this poorly-sourced paragraph. Viriditas (talk) 09:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Wiki.correct.1's opinion isn't relevant as the personal opinions of editors are not substitutes for Wikipedia editing guidelines. Also, if you read the source cited that describe Greenwald's political views, they are just that: descriptive articles about Greenwald's political views, and not "attack opinion pieces" as you put it. Gobbleygook (talk) 07:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. I restored it from a large set of edits that were removed en masse from an earlier version. Viriditas (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

As per the summary of this edit, the part about Greenwald's book was removed because of BOLD, BURDEN and violation of SELFPUB (he's making a third party claim).

As per this edit, these are legitimate third party sources which describe his political views and as such belong in the section for which the sources are cited. Gobbleygook (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but you will need to discuss it first. Viriditas (talk) 06:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
They've been discussed but you didn't come up with a sufficient reply. Gobbleygook (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
No, you did not discuss it. You avoided any and all discussion about your edits. Viriditas (talk)|
Serious question: are you visually impaired? The discussion are the two paragraphs that initiated this section, one about the summary of Greenwald's book and the other about his political views. Gobbleygook (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I see no consensus for your changes here on this talk page, just your refusal to explain why you added them. Serious question: which reliable secondary sources about Glenn Greenwald discuss his political views? And, why have you not used them? To quote the 3O opinion you are ignoring on this matter: "WP:BLPs have much tighter rules than standard articles, what he identifies as personally, is what counts the most. The opinion of another matters little and should be a qualified statement much further into the article, if required at all." I would be happy to consider these statement provided it comes from a reliable secondary source about the subject's views. Please provide those sources here, in this discussion, for me to look at. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
There's no consensus for your change on this talk page either so I guess that cancels out. If you happened to take a look at the sources cited in my edits describing Greenwald's political views, you will see that almost all of them are reliable (Forbes, the Guardian, etc). If you also happened to actually read the 3O opinion, you'll note that the editor doesn't write (with good reason) that opinion of others don't matter at all; to interpret that statement otherwise is original synthesis and is not allowed as per Wikipedia editing rules. Gobbleygook (talk) 03:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
No. There are three editors on this page saying "Please stop making your edits, Gobbleygook". And the 3O says that your proposed edits may not be required at all. The burden is on the editor adding content, which is what you are doing. Now, since you've acknowledged that your edits aren't supported, please provide reliable secondary sources about Greenwald, showing his political beliefs and how they are relevant. This is a very simple request. If you can't do that, you can't add the content. Your referred to "Forbes" and "The Guardian" so let's look at those. First, the Forbes source you cite is not about Greenwald at all, it's and outdated, 2009 opinion poll regarding "The 25 Most Influential Liberals In The U.S. Media" conducted by the magazine. Greenwald doesn't work or publish for the U.S. media. Forbes even admits that it is a subjective exercise, so we aren't even able to take it seriously. It's not even an actual article, it's a slide show, so it's not a reliable source for our purposed. The full, unattributed text reads: "This constitutional lawyer has established himself as a Bush critic with heft. His blog delivers a daily, almost pugilistic, analysis of what’s going on in Washington. Civil liberties are his specialty, and he’ll look to keep Obama “honest” on Gitmo and the like."[4] Sorry, but I fail to see how this supports your argument to include your propsed text. This doesn't meet our BLP criteria for inclusion. I don't see anything from The Guaradian here, so I can't address it, but the Forbes "slide show" isn't an acceptable use of a source. Viriditas (talk) 03:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
" There are three editors on this page saying "Please stop making your edits, Gobbleygook"" Which ones?Gobbleygook (talk) 05:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Nbound, Wiki.correct.1, and myself. I think you'll find that if you improve the quality of your sources you won't have any problems. Viriditas (talk) 09:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
That's a distortion of the discussion as you're the only one who has an issue with the quality of the sources; Wiki.correct.1 wrote about the reception to Greenwald's views on Israeli foreign policy while Nbound did not rule out inclusion of secondary sources that describe Greenwald's political views. Gobbleygook (talk) 07:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

3O Response: Is this about the edits from May? Perhaps the work on the article has made this debate OBE. But here are some observations: The comment about selfpublishing is not well founded. Salon.com is the publisher and exercises more or less editorial control. Third party is not well founded. That pertains to third persons, not the USG. Mention of his book, How would a patriot act? is an acceptable addition to the article. Working Assets, even though a stub article, gives us indication that Greenwald did not publish the book himself. Even so, OCLC 69366025 has it listed in 300+ libraries, which indicates that librarians think it is worthwhile enough to stock on their shelves. Are there book reviews out there which tell us what the book is about? If so, they can be included IOT describe what Greenwald's view are. But restating particular view from the book is OR/SYN -- we can provide a general description of what it is about. Regarding Forbes, if it mentioned Greenwald by name then its inclusion is acceptable, subjective or not -- the inclusion needs to be qualified by "In 2009 he was listed as ..... by Forbes." Gobbley -- do not make comments like "are you visually impaired". It was not a "serious question" and such PA remarks only weaken your position in these discussions. (Does that cover the bases? If not, and if you want more input from me, let me know.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


Sources on Greenwald and the NSA leaks

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

NY Daily News piece on Greenwald and response

NY Daily News piece on Greenwald and response:

Greenwald is accusing the NY Daily piece as being an attack piece meant to discredit him and divert the attention from the NSA leaks WhisperToMe (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It's an attack piece as much as his articles of others are "attack pieces meant to discredit." --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Are you referring to Dareh Gregorian? Are there references that talk about the other ones? WhisperToMe (talk) 00:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm referring to his history as an op-ed columnist.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay. Do you think Gregorian would qualify for a Wikipedia article himself? WhisperToMe (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I looked around but I didn't see sufficient sources on Gregorian himself. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, nothing on this has appeared and it left a hole of some years in his biography. I added a section under "Career" titled "Businessman" on August 19. It's been edited since by someone without discussion, but I have no objections to the editing except that it deletes his questionable financial dealings with the government. Since he's reporting on the government, it seems relevant to me. Also, it is now news that he lives in Brazil with his partner, and according to the Daily News, Greenwald has said that is not IOT avoid his unpaid taxes in the U.S. In fact, he says he's paid what has been shown not to be paid, and claims he's making arrangements to pay the IRS. Until he cleans up his financial dealings, which reflect on his credibility, I think it needs to be there and I'm putting it back it. I did, and will do so, in as neutral a way as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leslynjd (talk • contribs) 14:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

His NSA reporting not in the lead

Doesn't it merit a mention (cf. Woodward & Bernstein)? Writegeist (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Look at the last sentence now. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

NPOV issues in the "Critics" section removed by proper attribution of charges against Greenwald's critics

Under the heading "Critics" in the article, the following two sentences:

"=== Critics ===
"Around 2010/2011 Aaron Barr of HBGary and Team Themis planned to damage Greenwald's career as a way to respond to a potential dump of Bank of America documents by Wikileaks, saying that "Without the support of people like Glenn WikiLeaks would fold."
and
"In 2013 congressman Peter King suggested Greenwald should be arrested for his reporting on the NSA PRISM program and NSA leaker/whistleblower Edward Snowden."

created the impression that WP itself was stating that the alleged plan to damage Greenwald's career by HBGary and Team Themis and Rep King's suggestion that Greenwald's reporting on PRISM and Edward Snowden were incontrovertible facts.

Appearances are important. Justifiably or not, WP gets criticized for lack of an NPOV. We ought to make clear that we're honest brokers of information in an encyclopedia, not advocacy journalists.

Given the controversial nature of these statements, I felt it necessary to change the text to restore neutral point of view (NPOV) to the article and place responsibility for the statements clearly in the hands of the people writing them in the source reference material, thus:

"=== Critics ===
"According to Nate Anderson, writing in arstechnica.com, around 2010/2011 Aaron Barr of HBGary and Team Themis planned to damage Greenwald's career as a way to respond to a potential dump of Bank of America documents by Wikileaks, saying that "Without the support of people like Glenn WikiLeaks would fold." [1]
Josh Voorhees, writing in slate.com, reported that in 2013 congressman Peter King suggested Greenwald should be arrested for his reporting on the NSA PRISM program and NSA leaker/whistleblower Edward Snowden.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vfrickey (talk • contribs) 23:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Added graph about TV interview on ABC's "This Week" in which Greenwald accused the House Intelligence Committee of stonewalling other members of Congress, and ranking members of the HIC pushed back, particularly Rep. Peter King, (R-NY), who said such accusations were made by "people trying to make a name for themselves."

Given all that has transpired in this Talk section I would say that this article is beyond any hope of being corrected to NPOV. The subject Glenn himself, but his reporting and the controversy surrounding it needs a total rework. The Talk section commentary is all that I need to justify this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.34.149 (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Spy games: Inside the convoluted plot to bring down WikiLeaks by Nate Anderson - Feb 14 2011, Ars Technica, retrieved 6/24/2013 from arstechnica.com

David Miranda: Separate article?

After the detention, does his spouse David Miranda warrant his own article, or an article about the detention? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Dentention of David Miranda

Should we spin off Miranda's Heathrow detention into a separate article? Detention of David Miranda? I fear this may run and run. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 01:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

2013 EFF Pioneer award

He has been announced as one of the winners of the 2013 EFF Pioneer awards (https://www.eff.org/press/releases/late-digital-rights-activist-international-access-knowledge-advocate-and-nsa-spying). Should this be mentioned somewhere? - GlaedrH (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Headline: "Glenn Greenwald Working on new NSA Revelations"

"Jeremy Scahill, a contributor to The Nation magazine and the New York Times best-selling author of "Dirty Wars," said he will be working with Glenn Greenwald, the Rio-based journalist who has written stories about U.S. surveillance programs based on documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden." [5] The headline of the AP article today is: "Glenn Greenwald Working on new NSA Revelations" — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

IMO, it hasn't happened yet, or produced anything, so it's not a "thing." Nothing to report.Leslynjd (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

What is the relevance of Glenn Greenwald and puppies?

The end of the lead talks about how many dogs Greenwald has (note: this may change at any time since the editor says he tries to adopt them out, so...at any time it may also not be accurate), and about how he takes in stray dogs and tries to adopt them out. What's the relevance? The article is not about dogs. It is not about dog adopters. Is this supposed to reflect somehow on his character? Why don't we then add that he helps old ladies across the street? Or if he doesn't help old ladies across the street, why don't we add that he doesn't do that? Are we going to find out next whether he was a Boy Scout? Or that he uses strictly organic salad dressing? IOW, This is a POV irrelevant to the main article. It should be deleted.Leslynjd (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, I note that this information comes from the Democratic Underground, a discussion forum, hardly a reputable news site. Inclusion doesn't meet Wikipedia guidelines.Leslynjd (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
It's just a cute (or GCH-cute?) line to add a bit of colour to a biographical article. It shouldn't have been so prominent at the end of the lead, so I've trimmed it and put it with the general Miranda section. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Letter from Alan Grayson

This letter is from Alan Grayson to Eric Holder asking what will happen if Greenwald re-enters the US:

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:whistleblowing

Greenwald isn't a whistleblower, he's a journalist who covers whistleblowers. Does that mean he belongs in the category? Joe Bodacious (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Technically, you are absolutely correct. He is a defacto whistleblower, or whistleblower enabler. I have no strong preference to remove this cat, nor to keep it either. Jusdafax 01:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 Done — I removed the disputed category tag. No source is cited in the article referring to Greenwald as a whistleblower, nor are the other major Edward Snowden journalists Laura Poitras and Barton Gellman members of this category. We must in this case distinguish between a whistleblower and a journalist who facilitates that person's whistleblowing. Greenwald is the latter, not the former. JohnValeron (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Removing Category: Businessman

The section entitled "Businessman" is not relevant to the overall article. It references two posts in the New York Post regarding a pornography venture and outstanding liens. Since Greenwald does not put himself forward as a businessman, since the the intent of Murdock's tabloid in publishing these articles are questionable, and since no attempt was made to present Greenwald's position on these 'revelations', since thousands of other biographical subjects in Wikipedia could reasonably have had one or more liens filed against them, and since neither of these quoted articles shed light on Greenwald as a journalist or a constitutional lawyer, then the section appears only to serve as a defamatory distraction from the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttheuth (talk • contribs) 17:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

  • The article serves as a balanced overview of Greenwald's life and work. The business ventures were clearly important to Greenwald at that time and so deserve to be mentioned in this article. Biographies should not only discuss a subjects life in light of their main vocation, and indeed the greater part of this article is on his important work as a lawyer and journalist. The section when originally added was written in a terribly snide and disparaging manner, and I sought to change it to its current dry prose. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Introductory Text is Biased

I don't know anything about Glenn Greenwald and have no particular political leaning - but by the fourth introductory paragraph I am reading:

Greenwald lives in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, the hometown of his partner, David Michael Miranda.[30][31][32][33][34] Greenwald has said his residence in Brazil is the result of an American law, the Defense of Marriage Act, barring federal recognition of same-sex marriages, which prevented his partner from receiving a visa to reside in the United States with him.[31] However, he had moved to Brazil prior to meeting his now partner, while under investigation by the IRS for substantial unpaid tax. [35] Additionally since the Defense of Marriage Act has been overturned, Greenwald has instead cited fears of arrest should he move back to the US [36] despite being able to visit the US without facing any legal issues [37]

It would seem that whether he can or cannot enter the states is a very secondary matter (as a reader I should learn more about who he is and what he is known for - surely not merely for living outside the US with a homosexual partner), but instead I am rapidly confronted with a paragraph suggesting a kind of general flakiness of character ("additionally since.. he has cited.... despite being able... etc.?)

At any rate I think this paragraph should be moved to it's own section, and out of the introductory block of material - it is not primary material, and it carries an obvious tint of bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.244.45.161 (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Glenn Greenwald. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Lead has too many paragraphs

See guidelines linked from maintenance tag at top of article. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'm going in. Wish me luck.Msalt (talk) 08:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

National Alliance

In addition to defending white supremacist Matthew F. Hale in 2001, he defended the National Alliance shortly thereafter.[6]

In 2002 he defended a strident anti-immigration group, National Alliance, in a New York civil rights lawsuit after two Mexican day workers were beaten and stabbed on Long Island by two men posing as contractors in search of laborers. The victims claimed that the anti-immigration rhetoric of National Alliance, which urged racist violence against Latino immigrants and other racial minorities, was partly to blame for the beatings. Greenwald argued that the case represented a misguided attempt to impose liability and punishment on groups because of their political and religious views. A federal judge threw out the case.

Kortoso (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that this be included in the article? -- Irn (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

New Atheism criticism

I don't know that we need to mention his criticism of New Atheism. Since Greenwald is a prolific writer who is also very critical, he has criticized a lot of different people/organizations/whatever, and I don't think they all deserve to be mentioned. I'm also not sure that this would belong in the "Religious views" section as that section is more about his personal religious views, but rather it should probably be put into "Political views", because the criticism is more grounded in politics than religion. -- Irn (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Glenn Greenwald. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Why do we see this crap as foreword to wikipedia, when we search for his name on google: Glenn Edward Greenwald (born March 6, 1967) is an American fake news propagandist and far-left extremist anti-Semite, best known for his role in a series of ...?! 80.62.117.152 (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)Jan Eskildsen

Removal of Category:Critics of Islamophobia from this article and removal of category by User: Cpt.a.haddock

This article is in the category "Critics of Islamophobia", but there seems to be no source to this.

There is a discussion about the inclusion of articles that are in this category at category "Critics of Islamophobia".

I am trying to understand if a source is needed to categorize it also for this and all other articles. There are many articles where the article is categorized and it is sourced to a published article.

User:Cpt.a.haddock is removing this category from several pages even though it is sourced to published article. He says it is not enough for categorization. (For example, at Vinay Lal the categorization is sourced to this article: V. Lal: Implications of American Islamophobia, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 50, Issue No. 51, 19 Dec, 2015. But even then, the category was removed by User Cpt.a.Haddock.)

See his contributions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cpt.a.haddock

The question is, is this enough for categorization? If this source is not good enough, I do not understand how this article is categorized in the category without sources. --Sebastianmaali (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glenn Greenwald. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Partner vs Spouse

I'd like to get a discussion started about this edit war that has been going on for some time. As I understand it (American), a spouse is a legally married partner. Just calling one's partner a "husband" or "wife", without proof of a legally binding marriage, does not make them a legal "spouse".

The latest reversion added a ref which shows Greenwald referring to his partner as "husband", but no indication in the article that I could see that they were legally married anywhere. Please share your thoughts. BTW, I am for equal rights and have voted for gay marriage in the USA.

The question that needs to be settled: Is there any proof that Greenwald and Miranda have been legally married anywhere? While they may have had some form of ceremony somewhere (please provide evidence of it, just for curiosity's sake) and decided to call each other "husband" does not settle the matter. Are there legally binding marriage papers somewhere? If not, the only thing that ref can be used for is to document that Greenwald refers to Miranda as his "husband". (Hey, that's cool enough!) -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

"Legally binding marriage papers" would not be a good reference as it would be WP:PRIMARY, and any inability to find them proves nothing (common-law marriage does not require papers.) And as we are not a legal service, we are not limited to legal definitions. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
The terms "husband" and "wife" - just like "spouse" - only apply to married couples. Greenwald's use of the term "husband" to describe his partner means that they are married. Do you have any reason to believe that he might be misusing that term? I did a little more digging, and I found this source which refers to "their marriage". -- irn (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
We don't have to have any "papers" to use here as evidence, but we do need RS which tell about their marriage. When did it happen? Where? Was it a civil or religious ceremony? We don't have to answer all those questions, but we do need RS which state that they were married. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Why would we need that? Greenwald is a source on himself. Per WP:SELFPUB, we can take him at his word that Miranda is his husband. -- irn (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
No, we don't need an RS to tell us details about their marriage. We only need to know that they are married. Here's any RS talking about "Glenn Greenwald's husband". Done. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
There is no doubt that Greenwald calls Miranda his "husband", and we can document it exactly in that manner: Greenwald refers to Miranda as his "husband". We can't do more without independent evidence. Usually that would mean they are married, but we need an independent source documenting they were married. Some partners adopt terms of endearment which don't conform to standard definitions. Without evidence of a marriage, I suspect this is an example of such usage. OTOH, we have plenty of independent RS which describe them as "partners". -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
There may be evidence from independent sources in Portuguese or Spanish. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
"Husband" is not a term of endearment; it's a description of a relationship. WP:SELFPUB supports the use of Greenwald as a source on himself. Plenty of RSs use the term "husband" as well, and, as I previously pointed out, at least one discusses "their marriage". Why is this insufficient for you and what policy supports your position? -- irn (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree that he can be used as a source about himself, which justifies writing that he calls Miranda his "husband". I wish we had a source where he claims they are married. Then we could say he claims that. The Motherboard source writes: "Before the Snowden revelations, the journalist Glenn Greenwald lived in Brazil with his husband, David Miranda, because American law didn't recognize their marriage. After the Defense of Marriage Act was struck down last June—the same month that Greenwald began publishing his reporting on Edward Snowden's revelations about the NSA—the couple faced a new reason not to relocate back to New York." Does this indicate they were married in Brazil? I believe same-sex marriage is legal there. I just find it odd that we have no source mentioning their wedding or civil ceremony. Maybe in Portuguese? This source (Google translate): "In Rio de Janeiro, he says he is comfortable to keep the marriage homoafetivo with the Brazilian David Miranda, something that was impossible to realize in his own country." That sounds good enough. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Over-reliance on primary sources

There should be more secondary RS coverage of Greenwald's actions and beliefs. The page relies too much on his own op-eds. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is long overdue. Fringe figures tend to lack RS mainstream coverage by which we can establish and evaluate the significance of their work. It's not ok to cherrypick primary sourced content according to editors' OR as to its significance. I think we should remove all such undue content and see what the bones of the article look like so we can strengthen it in keeping with WP policy. SPECIFICO talk 20:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Excellent source NYMAG

Excellent source today [7] with lots of info, certainly WP:RS. Happy editing! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Immigration views

Hi all,

I am new to the Wikipedia editing business, so not exactly sure how things ought to work. I edited the section under "political views" to incorporate Greenwald's circa 2005 views on illegal immigration. An example of it is here http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/11/gop-fights-itself-on-illegal.html

The edit was reversed, due to I assume, the lack of secondary evidence for the claim that such views reflect a nativist/right-wing perspective on illegal immigration (e.g. Greenwald calling it a parade of evil, that wreaks *cultural* havoc on society). I assumed that such talking points being American right-wing in nature was so obvious, that no source to substantiate it was required. I guess that was a misguided belief.

What would constitute evidence to uphold such a claim? Would it only be source that says so explicitly? Or could it be a source that describes popular right wing sentiments on illegal immigration and then juxtaposing the source with Greenwald's circa 2005 comments, thereby drawing strong parallels between the two? For the record, Greenwald himself says his views on illegal immigration were misguided, informed by "propaganda" (see the notice at the top of the linked blog post above).

Greenwald's previous views on illegal immigration (especially in the present climate) in my estimation is important in discussing his political transformation under "political views" section 4. Presently, there are no concrete examples which provide detail on Greenwald's political shift as he entered the political writing arena in the mid 00s (just broad language, with Greenwald providing the commentary). However it may be qualified, his developing thoughts on the red-button issue of illegal immigration in my opinion deserves a reference.

Or am I way off? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davos202 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Greetings. I think it is highly problematic (a violation of WP:NPOV?) that his transformation of political views, including toward immigration, are not in the article especially given his current close relationship with Tucker Carlson. This needs to be addressed by top editors (of which I am not; I am a bit of a newbie as well). Imagine&Engage (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


I tried to edit it back in as well. It was embarassing for him when those views were brought to light, but he's successfully memory holed it out of the public consciousness, now that he's rebranded himself as a left-wing dissident. I agree that it paints his association with Tucker Carlson in a highly unfavorable light (to the extent that it wasn't already) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.160.213 (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Criticism POV

@Darouet:, @SPECIFICO:, and @Bus stop: all three of you today have added some criticsm content [8] supported by blogs. Seems to me that WP:BLP would apply here and that blogs would not be sufficient to support this content. I will ping an uninvolved editor @Jytdog: and see if they agree or if im in the minority here. I wont bother with all the diffs, they were more or less about the same content. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I just wanted to delete a confusing clause that seemed to have no place in that sentence. I have a high opinion of Greenwald as a journalist but I don't object to briefly mentioning that his stance on Israel has been criticized. -Darouet (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I too don't object to some balance for NPOV, as this article is overly ra-ra hype. However, my understanding is that we have to stick to RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
@Jtbobwaysf: I have no idea if Volokh is a reliable source and would recommend removing it unless it were demonstrated to be significant. A blog post in the Times of Israel could be usable with attribution. Max Blumenthal is also a well-known commentator and their piece could be cited with attribution as well. -Darouet (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
@Darouet: I too have no idea what volokh is and pardon my ignorance, but is Max Blumenthal the same blementhal we are referring to here? As for the times of israel blog, it is still a blog. Seems we are really grasping for sourcing straws here... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Please: [9] - attribute all opinions. These are all RS for this content. SPECIFICO talk 18:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

According to The Volokh Conspiracy it says the site is also a blog. So the sources we have here is a an Israeli newspaper blog, a conspiracy blog, and a soundcloud interview of blogger Max Blumenthal. Is there even a transcript of this Blumenthal interview? WP:BLPREMOVE applies here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
No, what you have is the self-stated opinions of notable experts in the field and therefore citable as to their own opinions and uncontroversial facts -- as is done throughout Wikipedia on hundreds of topics. SPECIFICO talk 20:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
WP:BLPREMOVE states: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that 3. relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP." We have all self-published sources here right? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
There's nothing controversial about an attributed opinion. If you think this is a big problem, I suggest you post at BLPN and they will help out. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Another editor deleted it here [10] and then I noticed user busstop reverted to re-add it, and then I deleted it again, then you templated me, etc. This content is contentious as evidenced by the multiple editors deleting it, this talk page discussion, the templating, etc. The fact that the sources are blogs is not in dispute. I have created an RfC below and made a notice on the BLPN as you suggested. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Question for administrator

I have pulled the above RfC (as I failed to properly frame it and will later reframe it) but I dont know how to do the required housekeeping to close it properly. Can you please assist me with this? Should I just put the RfC closed tags at the top and the bottom? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

You did the close correctly Jtbobwaysf --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The edits by Philip Cross

Just to point out this controversial editor has made dozens of edits to this article in the space of a couple of days - as noted in this twitter feed. Shtove 17:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

(note added by a random passerby, who will create a wikipedia login for this purpose:) Phillip Cross's reference to Greenwald calling the Mueller investigation "a scam and a fraud from the beginning" on Democracy Now! is problematic. The citation provided doesn't point to the primary source, but points instead to an article by Alex Shephard. In the article, Shephard does claim that Greenwald said this about the Mueller investigation on Democracy Now!, but watching the Democracy Now! segment linked to by Shephard's article reveals that the phrase "a scam and a fraud from the beginning" is not used by Greenwald to describe the Mueller investigation, but instead is used by him to describe the media's coverage of Russiagate (26:09 at https://www.democracynow.org/2019/3/25/as_mueller_finds_no_collusion_did). I don't much about how wikipedia works, but plainly Greenwald is being misquoted here. (?) Publicist22 (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. Greenwald's comments cited here begin at about 25:48:

"He [Mueller] said something much, much, much, much more important than that. He said after 20 months of investigation with a huge team of FBI agents and prosecutors heralded as being the most aggressive and skilled in the world, we found no evidence that this happened, that's what Robert Mueller said. The whole thing was a scam and a fraud from the beginning. And a New York Times headline says that today as clearly as it can...".

So the claim the quote is about the media and Russiagate, a term which redirects to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, is not accurate, while the cited article is a fair representation of what Greenwald said. Philip Cross (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Excessive emphasis on Snowden

Hello, I'm just passing by and thought I'd give my two cents. It seems to me that the lead over-emphasizes Greenwald's Snowden work. While I agree that Snowden is his most notable work, it's certainly not all that he's done. Greenwald was already quite well-known before Snowden, which is why Snowden actually reached out to him before he contacted Poitras.

Although the lead does give a nod to Greenwald's non-Snowden work, it's in the last paragraph and is framed around the Snowden work. ("Before the Snowden file disclosures...") It seems excessive to me. In my view the whole paragraph about Citizenfour could be removed--the movie focused primarily on Snowden himself, not on Greenwald--and a paragraph could be added about Greenwald's outspoken views and how he came to be "considered one of the most influential opinion columnists in the United States" before Snowden. (In fact, Greenwald wasn't just known for being an "opinion columnist"; he was known for being an investigative journalist and received multiple high-profile awards for it pre-2013.)

I also find it odd that there's nothing about Brazil in the lead. R2 (bleep) 17:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Additional sources for section on Russia and Trump

I am wondering if it would be helpful to put sources that are critical of Greenwald's stance and motives in the section on his views on the Mueller investigation and such, particularly ones that think of him as probably a Russian asset, for example Wonkette. Not out of wanting to slant the article, but rather to use all the sources available and put more information out there. I don't know ,maybe not, but it occurred to me. MarvelAge91 (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Links please, so we can review them? R2 (bleep) 20:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Sure, here they are. Although to be blunt, not exactly sure now of it. https://www.wonkette.com/greenwald-assange
https://www.wonkette.com/a-childrens-treasury-of-dinguses-insisting-donald-im-f-ked-trump-is-innocent
https://twitter.com/commiegirl1/status/1118926681400434691
https://www.wonkette.com/glenn-greenwald-wants-to-be-kinder-gentler-russian-stooge-fucking-moron-brainless-idiot
Again, not really sure of this now. MarvelAge91 (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Those can't be included, since they're not reliable sources. R2 (bleep) 22:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Got it. MarvelAge91 (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits by Tenzing312

Recent edits by Tenzin312 do not improve the article in my view. Prurient details about the subject (such as the age gap between him and his partner when they met) can't be added without a reliable source, even if they're accurate. Also, there needs to be some policy basis before reliably sourced content is removed. The basic rule is that we follow what the reliable, independent secondary sources say. R2 (bleep) 21:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The contributions I have made are all reliably sourced. The details of his personal life are accurate and well documented and if it is purring, then that is reflective of his personal life and relevant to the page. I have replaced that edit with source being a major São Paulo newspaper. I have also replaced the edit showing he was suspended from the practice of law and the source document is the relevant court order that ordered the same.Tenzing312 (talk) 22:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Your edits are still in violation of our BLP policy. Please stop edit warring and I will be happy to explain. R2 (bleep) 22:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

No. For instance you undid an edit that deleted the claim that his book was “best selling.” There is no source document or any other information on which the reader can believe that the book was “best selling.” In fact, it was not. It is obvious you have an agenda to protect the subject’s reputation, which is itself a violation of the BLP policy. Tenzing312 (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. The lead just summarizes the body. The body's claims that Greenwald had NYT bestsellers aren't as well sourced as they could be, but at least two of the cited sources verify that How Would a Patriot Act? and A Tragic Legacy were bestsellers. [11][12] R2 (bleep) 22:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I’ve assumed good faith but your edits and comments have proved otherwise. For instance, with respect to the lead you admit it was not accurate and then you cite to two sources from the body that do not even support the claim made. In one instance, the source is not reliable or accurate.Tenzing312 (talk) 22:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand, where did I admit something wasn't accurate? Can you be specific about the unreliable/inaccurate source you're referring to? R2 (bleep) 22:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

You have cited two sources for the claim of a book being a best seller. One is a pdf of a NYT best seller list that doesn’t even list his book. Clearly that is not reliable, verifiable or accurate and, thus, a violation of BLP policies. The second is an interview transcript where the interviewer says a book was a best seller, which is not reliable or verifiable and thus a violation of the BLP policy. This is another reason why my assumption of good faith has been challenged by your statements and actions and led to the conclusion that you have an agenda and are not neutral, which is again a violation of BLP policies.Tenzing312 (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you need to familiarize yourself with how we identify reliable sources. The PDF of the NYT bestseller list doesn't include Greenwald's book? Are you sure? R2 (bleep) 23:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I am familiar. Where on the PDF do you see his book listed? What number on the list, because I do not see it. If I am wrong, then I am wrong, but please identify. Aside from that, the statement of an interviewer is not a reliable or verifiable source, which I note you do not even try to defend. Tenzing312 (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Paperback nonfiction #11. A statement by a reputable interviewer is absolutely reliable. R2 (bleep) 23:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Age difference between Greenwald and Miranda

In addition to the bestseller issue — yes Greenwald's book is on the list — I strongly oppose adding leading and salacious text about Greenwald and his partner. This is a biography and as editors we have the responsibility and authority to judge what material belongs in the article. -Darouet (talk) 07:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

user:Jtbobwaysf and user:Waidawut: this is the section where the age discrepancy between Greenwald and his partner was earlier discussed. -Darouet (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Ah thank you for pointing me here user:Darouet -- I'm not sure this qualifies as a discussion of the issue -- the only mention was User:Ahrtoodeetoo's original comment, which only makes mention of this in passing, and your assertion that it is "leading and salacious." It is of note in that such large age discrepancies are somewhat unusual, especially considering the length of their relationship and their ages when it began. As for RS, both of their birth dates are listed in their respective articles, and I hardly think one needs to reliably source basic subtraction. Waidawut (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
In addition to the sourcing problem that R2 mentions below, what is the encyclopedic value of noting their age discrepancy? -Darouet (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I oppose the inclusion of the age difference, at least if it's phrased in this way. I could not find a single reliable source that draws attention to the age difference in such a suggestive, non-neutral way. It reads as a BLP violation to me. R2 (bleep) 16:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I too oppose inclusion of this content in was that appears to me to be non-neutral and a violation of WP:BLP. When I looked at the citations and did the revert, the fact that it included the out2.com source shows that this content is using a source that is far from acceptable. If there are multiple mainstream RS that have done some sort of expose on his relationship and the age issue and it is deserving of a section or a sentence at least, then we can include it. If it is simply passing mention in non-RS publications then this content is not kosher. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Political ideology

Greetings User:Shtove I deleted the section on notable guest appearances that I had re-created, because the material fits better in subsequent discussions regarding Greenwald's political views. I appreciate your reversion and will leave it in place if consensus is that it is a useful section. There are many more guest appearances that are notable in positioning him ideologically. Furthermore, additional work needs to be done to clearly explicate his ideological positions including his relationship with Tucker Carlson through the Russiagate controversy. I hope my segment helps in this initiative, and look forward to subsequent edits. Imagine&Engage (talk) 10:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I support removal. These don't seem all that notable. Greenwald is a prolific writer and has contributed pieces to lots of publications. I don't see what's special about these, nor why we need a whole section about it. Also, these are not "guest appearances." R2 (bleep) 18:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
These are notable pieces because they provide insight into Greenwald's political ideology, which defines his work for better or worse. He claims to be a civil libertarian and anti-interventionist; these demonstrate that. However, he has also demonstrated tendencies to be more comfortable with (and seemingly hesitant to criticize) xenophobic and even white supremacist figures like Tancredo and Tucker Carlson. He has denied, furthermore, that he was ever "employed" by Cato, which would make these "guest appearances." Imagine&Engage (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
All political articles by Greenwald provide insight into Greenwald's political ideology. The question is why these particular two are more notable than the hundred of other's he's written. You seem to be acknowledging that your choice is driven by a desire to highlight or emphasize specific aspects of his ideology that you find more noteworthy than others. That's not how Wikipedia articles should be written, since they're not essays. As for "guest appearances," just because Greenwald says he wasn't employed by Cato doesn't mean that he was making a "guest appearance" by deduction. R2 (bleep) 16:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I am not highlighting specific aspects of his ideology. The WP editors are highlighting specific aspects of his ideology, based primarily on Greenwald's own words. I am simply providing third-party RSs that build on those aspects. If consensus is that no particular aspect of Greenwald's political ideology is more notable than any other, then the section on political views should be stricken in its entirety. Imagine&Engage (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
It seems like cherry picking to me. We should cull the "Political views" section of its over-reliance on primary sources. (To be clear, that's not the same thing as striking the entire section.) R2 (bleep) 20:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
The content also does not fit into the ‎"George W. Bush and Barack Obama eras" section either. The Weiss piece is a self-published blog entry. The American Conservative source doesn't verify that content. And the Wilentz source speaks to Greenwald's political positioning in 2005, not current. We should try to avoid manufacturing content to conform to any preconceived narratives. R2 (bleep) 21:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree that this doesn't fit into George W. Bush and Barack Obama; it is more general than that. Greenwald in 2005 is not completely different than Greenwald today. There are continuities that should be noted, in all of their ideological nuance. This content is not manufactured to fit any preconceived narratives. Greenwald wrote for American Conservative; that is an important (and often overlooked) part of his narrative. Imagine&Engage (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Greenwald in 2005 is not completely different than Greenwald today. According to what reliable source? R2 (bleep) 16:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
If we want to go down that road, we need to police every RS published before a particular date. Should we remove every source that was created before 2018? 2015? 2010? Imagine&Engage (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
You misunderstand. Older sources aren't unreliable. The source isn't even very old, having been published in 2014. The issue is that the material you're drawing from is expressly talking about the past, not the present. R2 (bleep) 20:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I see now, and agree that I misunderstood, but that is because you seem to have misunderstood what the Wilentz piece argued. Wilentz was not speaking "to Greenwald's political positioning in 2005" but to the genesis of his political position in 2014, indeed quite recent. As a result, Wilentz is actually a RS for this as well: Greenwald in 2005 is not completely different than Greenwald today.. Imagine&Engage (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
You will have to get consensus for this. As a general matter we don't put things in our articles that aren't expressly supported by a cited source. This rule is rigorously enforced for biographies of living people. R2 (bleep) 22:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Imagine&Engage and R2: Sean Wilentz' New Republic article [13] is already used as a citation in our article, which also notes that Greenwald authored a white paper published by the Cato Institute. Regarding the addition of disputed text being discussed here on the talk page [14], I definitely don't think Wilentz' article deserves its own section. At most, we could write somewhere that Greenwald's ideology has included aspects of Libertarianism over time. -Darouet (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that Wilentz does not deserve its own section. It isn't only Libertarianism, however, but also paleoconservatism of multiple forms (both the non-interventionist form and associated xenophobic form, including Tancredo, Carlson and Greenwald himself before he rejected his earlier anti-immigrant position) as seen in The American Conservative. My version here may have RS and other problems, but Greenwald's current political ideology and his evolution (not only self-described but as importantly described by others) is notable and should be part of the article. Should my version (or a variant thereof) introduce the section "Political views"? Imagine&Engage (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
It's important to note that Wilentz' article is itself written in a contentious manner and, in Wilentz's own words, goes against the grain of most media commentary. That's the very premise of Wilentz's article: "...Edward Snowden, Glenn Greenwald, and Julian Assange are celebrated as heroes on op-ed pages and across glossy magazine spreads... What’s astonishing about their ascent to heroism is the breadth of their support... effusions of praise for the leakers can also be found throughout the liberal establishment... The New York Times... A stellar array of liberal intellectuals and pundits... elected officials... But important caches of evidence have gone largely unexamined by the media." In that sense the implication that Greenwald was earlier associated with paleoconservatives needs to be treated carefully here: in a qualified manner that reflects the nature of his association, and with attribution to Wilentz, if such an association is described here at all. On the issue where Greenwald once most obviously departed from traditional liberal politics — immigration — the Wilentz article quickly points out that Greenwald wholly rejected his earlier position. It's not that his change of mind can't be documented in this bio, but if it is, we need to make sure we get it right. -Darouet (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Greenwald was not only associated with paleoconservatives but indeed wrote articles for The American Conservative. I agree this must be done carefully because some might take umbrage before examining precisely what paleoconservatism entails as well as what Greenwald's association is (both as he describes and as other reputable and/or attributed sources describe). However, it can be done and I believe needs to be done in order that the article accurately reflect his political views (including re: Tucker Carlson and Russiagate). For example, as far as I can tell, he still views his work with The American Conservative favorably.[15] Imagine&Engage (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
You continue to read between the lines and analyze primary sources to say things that secondary sources do not. Please don't do that. If you just follow what the secondary sources say then you'll receive much less pushback from me and others. R2 (bleep) 00:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I do appreciate the instruction on how to distill sources and "follow what the sources say" without "reading between the lines," even if it is presented in a paternalistic "I know (Wiki)-truth and you don't, young Padawan" manner. However, that is not the point. A more productive use of time is to do the shoe leather work necessary to gather together the sources that convey an accurate picture not only of what Greenwald says about himself but what RSs say about him. The fact that "editorial consensus" has so far represented Greenwald in a two-party (Democrat/Republican) manner, and indeed editors have removed any primary and secondary sources that go beyond that, does not reflect who he says he is or who others say he is. The resulting article is thus an incomplete representation of RSs at best, and biased at worst. Who even counts as an RS, when Greenwald "accused mainstream U.S. media of "spreading patriotic state propaganda"? Editors and associated gatekeepers have not addressed this much at all. Imagine&Engage (talk) 11:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Imagine&Engage, I don't actually think you are in some way inappropriately reading "between the lines" in proposing to add text stating that Greenwald earlier wrote for the American Conservative. I furthermore don't believe it really matters whether Greenwald is or isn't the person he was in 2005 — that sounds like the new planks same ship discussion to me — if Greenwald earlier wrote articles for them, it's something that could receive a brief mention in his bio. As you yourself agreed above, we can try to do this in a way that doesn't falsely lead readers to believe that Greenwald is a paleoconservative (which he clearly isn't). -Darouet (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Our guideline on identifying reliable sources is there to help us determine what counts as an RS, and WP:RSN provides additional guidance. Reliability has little or nothing to do with any accusations made by Greenwald. Sorry if I come off as patronizing; I'm just politely asking you to edit in conformance with community standards. You're certainly not obliged to follow my advice, but I will probably revert any non-conforming edits. R2 (bleep) 16:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@LH7605: You can see we previously discussed Greenwald's changed views on immigration. I'm just pinging you in case some discussion evolves further here / in the article itself. As I indicated previously I'm ambivalent on this issue. -Darouet (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for pinging / informing me about this discussion. Will keep an eye on it.--LH7605 (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Manafort

I have removed the sentence at the end of this note for the second time as it is unsourced. If it were sourced we would need to decide if it is relevant to an article about Greenwald. If he did actually say this (I don't know if Mueller made that claim) it would be also interesting to know why Muller said it and what evidence he thinks does exist. "However, during the testimony of former Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, he disagreed with the assertion stating there was no evidence of meetings between Assange and Manafort". Burrobert (talk) 05:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glenn_Greenwald/Archive_5&oldid=1083344870"