Talk:Glenn Greenwald

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Glenn Greenwald was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
September 17, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Arts and Entertainment (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Law (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Mass surveillance (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Glenn Greenwald is within the scope of WikiProject Mass surveillance, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of mass surveillance and mass surveillance-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject New York City (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Blogging (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of Blogging WikiProject, an attempt to build better coverage of Blogging on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the Project Page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Journalism (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Brazil  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Contents

Biography assessment rating comment[edit]

Although the article received a B, it still may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Jreferee (Talk) 19:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Raphaelaarchon sock "KCooper" (see User_talk:68.84.254.176) removed. R. Baley 03:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Could we include something in here about the irony of Greenwald authoring a book about Patriotism and then winning something called the "Izzy" Award, named after a traitor (I.F. Stone). -Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.63.172 (talk) 05:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead. Try. Check with Sarah Palin first in case she has a comment.

Unclear Statement[edit]

"President Obama's NSA spying on Americans scandal." Perhaps a more clear way of putting it would be like this: The PRISM program was created by congress and signed into law by President George W Bush in 2007. During President Obama's presidency, the existence of PRISM was leaked to the public, creating a scandal. RichBryan (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Goofy picture[edit]

This has to have been addressed before. Can't we get a better picture? If not, can't we leave the caricture(sp) out? This dosen't seem appropriate for an encyclopediatic article. It also seems that more sources are needed for alot of the material??Thanks, --Tom 13:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't been addressed before. I've searched Wiki commons: no real pic. I think the article should keep it, and in the event we get an actual picture, moved to a lower place in the article (near the 'salon' section). I only placed it at the top because it is the only related graphic we have for now. I believe it is the only likeness we can get that meets current wikipedia Fair Use criteria for images. I'm going to put it back in and request an actual photo at wiki commons. R. Baley 17:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Best of luck. If we don't get an actually photo, I still think this should be removed. Are there any other bios that use this type of carton charactures? I doubt it and it looks silly, imho. --Tom 19:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Other bios notwithstanding, I would still like to keep the image, as it is an identifier for his blog space. But I understand your concern about not having a real photo. Toward that end, I have sent him an email requesting a photo for use -under our image use policy. Hopefully, I'll get a good response. R. Baley 20:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Update:I've heard back from him and Glenn said he would send a photo. I've sent him the declaration of consent form, and so hopefully we'll have a real "free" picture, real soon. R. Baley 00:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Nice work R. Baley! I would have no problem including the caricture(sp) LOWER in the article, once the photo is inserted at the top. Cheers! --Tom 12:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Update #2 I've received the pic and the appropriate permissions. Just trying to figure out the best way to do upload the image for use. R. Baley 19:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Update #3For anyone interseted, I've uploaded the image to commons, but am waiting to see that PermissionsOTRS issues a ticketID before inserting into article. R. Baley 19:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)Final Update: The picture has been accepted at wikicommons, so I've inserted it into the article at the top using the Template:Infobox Writer biography template. If anyone thinks there's a better template out there. . .well, it was just the first one I could find. I've also moved the salon caricature/image down to an appropriate place in the article. R. Baley 05:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks R. Baley, much better! --Tom 17:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done — Six years later, the picture (portrait-photo) looks fine to me. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Reference Change[edit]

Just changed the reference for the NYT bestseller claim to a page from the actual Times, rather than Greenwald's blog referring to it.JustThatGuy2 13:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

GA review[edit]

  1. The lead is too short per WP:MoS.
  2. It doesn't cite enough sources. GreenJoe 21:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Con Law Reverts[edit]

Can we please have a discussion, rather than just reverting back and forth... —Preceding unsigned comment added by JustThatGuy2 (talkcontribs) 11:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets[edit]

As shown here, Greenwald has dishonestly operated as numerous sockpuppets. Should this be added? OneGyT/T|C 11:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No such thing has been shown there or anywhere else. Your assertion is libelous and in violation of WP policy. -- 98.108.206.28 (talk) 03:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't think it should be added - while that page is funny, it's (a) from a blog, which probably doesn't rise to the level necessary given the biography of living persons standards, and (b) doesn't even actually try to prove the case.JustThatGuy2 11:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The actual evidence was linked to at the bottom of the page I just showed. And I see your point about it being a blog (which also includes this link too), but what about when the person in question is a blogger? Are the standards the same? OneGyT/T|C 17:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Already been discussed ad nauseam. If it gets published in a reliable source as required by our biographies of living persons policy, then it can go in the article. Until then, it stays out. —bbatsell ¿? 17:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

OK then. Thank you. OneGyT/T|C 02:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I posted yesterday, but my response was deleted as evidently I was responding to a banned user. Just to refactor: I wanted to point out that BLP demands a cautious approach to such material. The allegations, denied by Greenwald, are clearly not permitted by WP:NPF. --Samiharris 10:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
This source the "banned user" gives is of note, I think: [1]. Dig it out of the edit history for more of his reasoning. OneGyT/T|C 05:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Excuse the interruption, but I would not want this added as it is from a blog as noted above. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Even if this wasn't from a blog it would still not be usable under NPF. --Samiharris (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

{comment by banned editor removed} 17:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have links to these comments from US News and USA Today?—Preceding unsigned comment added by JustThatGuy2 (talkcontribs)
This is not a question of "liberal" or "conservative" but applicability of BLP, as has been discussed in some detail previously. Please sign talk page comments.--Samiharris (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

{comments by banned editor removed} 17:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, all these links are from blogs, and usually partisan blogs. You mention that this has been covered at US News, although Barone's blog posting is actually about Reynolds's blog, and takes its conclusions from that. All the sock puppets listed on the sock puppets wiki are either admitted to by the puppeteer, or have cites from actual publication articles, not bloggers working for a publication. I agree that there is some pretty significant evidence here, but without a reference from a real publication (not a blogger referring to another blogger's conclusions), I don't think there's enough here to overcome the BLP hurdle. JustThatGuy2 (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't even know there was a Sockpuppet (internet) article so thanks for bringing that to my attention. I agree with JustThatGuy2's comments above.--Samiharris (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

{comments by banned editor removed} 17:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

First draft for how to include this in the article: "The incident started when bloggers noticed someone was visiting comment sections defending Glenn Greenwald using similar language. *Insert source here* On July 12, 2006, a blogger named xxx baited Greenwald by disparaging him in the comments section of xxx. A reply came from a person calling himself "Ellison" at the IP address 201.37.43.1.[1] On July 20, 2006 it was confirmed that this address belonged to Greenwald himself.[2] *insert any other followup people might want* JettaMann (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Material added[edit]

Experienced editors may want to review it.....
--Nbahn (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I tidied up the Joe Klein material but have to read through the source materials. I have my doubts about this addition. Seems disproportionate.--Samiharris (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Tried to accommodate your concerns regarding see also phrasing. As you can see, my technical skill are poor.
--Nbahn (talk) 04:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that did the trick. I still have concerns about the section related to WP:WEIGHT. It is mentioned disproportionate to its significance in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with mentioning it but I would suggest that the size of the mention be reduced significantly, perhaps to one or two sentences. Also I assume this is a fair discussion of the controversy but one must be careful because of BLP as it relates to Mr. Klein.--Samiharris (talk) 12:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


'Factual errors' vs. 'Disputed'[edit]

I think we need to err on the side of caution in describing the Joe Klein controversy, particularly since it impacts on the reputation of Mr. Klein. Obviously Time magazine does not feel that these were factual errors. We need more neutral phraseology. Unless Time admits there were errors, "dispute" is more than adequate.--Samiharris (talk) 14:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have posted on this in the BLP Noticeboard. Please do not revert back to the more judgmental wording until we have some third opinions.--Samiharris (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems that Klein did not step carefully when trying to explain a tricky set of legalisms, and managed to bash the Democrats using a rationale that doesn't make sense. This doesn't yet give a basis for flat statements by Wikipedia saying that he 'made errors'. It is better to quote the actual words of the critics, if they are understandable. So I'm supporting the caution urged above by User:Samiharris. EdJohnston (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Since Klein admitted the error to Howard Kurtz, as has been posted elsewhere, I have no objection to the original language.--Samiharris (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a lot of talk about this in the blogosphere. Two Democratic members of the Intelligence Committee are said to have complained about Klein's column, but I don't know yet if any reliable sources have carried their complaints. Since Wikipedia is not news, I suggest waiting a little before we can get a better summary of the situation from some reliable source, and then quote that. The situation is in flux. EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
We could put up a current event tag. How do you feel about that?
--Nbahn (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Joe Klein himself is not a current event, and it is not one of Wikipedia's missions to keep up with everything that is said in the blogosphere. It appears this issue may be more important to you personally than it is to the reliable sources that we usually quote from. EdJohnston (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This can be sourced to both the Chicago Tribune (link) and Washington Post (link) now. . .R. Baley (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, given R. Baley's reliable source, I propose this for the article:
"Chiacgo Tribune". 28 November 2007. 
The Chicago Tribune's web site offered a correction to some material that appeared Wednesday 28 November in their print edition:
A Time magazine essay by Joe Klein that was excerpted on the editorial page Wednesday incorrectly stated that the House Democratic version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act would require a court approval of individual foreign surveillance targets. It does not.
The text of the Tribune's comment could be included in the footnote. What do you all think? EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with it.
--Nbahn (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Ed, you may also want to wander over to Joe Klein. I think it is OK now but I would like to get your opinion. It is there, at Klein, that we have the real WEIGHT concern, though I think that this is now less of an issue than previously. Klein's admission of error certainly obviates the BLP issue, at least to my mind. --Samiharris (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge book articles?[edit]

Both are substubs which arguably get more coverage in here than on their own pages. We should probably just subsume these for now. Chris Cunningham (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

justthatguy2--[edit]

Your first edit barely made any sense -- and made clear that you have not read the citations. Your second edit (without any justifications, to boot) is patently absurd. I'm reverting your edits -- both of 'em.
--NBahn (talk) 09:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The first edit was obviously the remove the kind of POV-pushing weaselly nonsense which plagues political articles around here. If the see also links provide any relevant context then they should be discussed properly, not shunted into stealth-piped see also links. The second is not "absurd"; it's making the statements less strong, yes, but it isn't actually changing their meaning.
I don't see anything wrong with these edits; they help keep the article fair and balanced without being fair and balanced. I'm restoring them. Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
What the devil is a "stealth pipe"?
--NBahn (talk) 10:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
A piped link where the target is unclear from looking at the link. For instance, a link like Jane Hamsher looks like it's going to another biographical article, whereas in fact it's pointing directly at an incident involving Joe Klein's sources (Jane Hamsher herself isn't really relevant). If this infomation is relevant to the Greenwald article (again, disputable), it's should be pointed out in prose and given context; for instance, it could be included inline in the Unclaimed Territory section, with a sentence like

Blogger Jane Hamsher also found that Klein had edited his articles after publishing to remove claims.

or the like. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Why can Jane Hamsher's blog be used to bash Joe Klein, but other bloggers can't be used to criticize Glenn Greenwald? You are one of the main defenders of Greenwald who keeps deleting references to his sockpuppet activity. Why is there this untoward shielding of Greenwald but any other person, especially those who attack him, can be smeared by blog sources? Also, why do you ban every IP of a member who criticizes Greenwald and accuse them of being sockpuppets? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.66.73.226 (talk) 11:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal blogs, except as provided in WP:RS, are inappropriate as sources for any article, this one or Joe Klein's. I skimmed the Klein article and see no blog used as a source or mentioned in the article. If it is there and I missed it, please let me know. --Samiharris (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Attention all--[edit]

I have basically finished writing up an article on l'affaire Klein. Please go to my user page and scroll down to read it. Please discuss it on my discussion page. Thanks!
All criticisms more or less accepted.
--NBahn (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Nbahn. I appreciate your flexibility on this.--Samiharris (talk) 04:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

R. Baley reverts[edit]

I note a disturbing pattern of one "R.Baley" reverting other contributors work with no discussion. I see nothing wrong with these edits and I'm reverting them back to what they were before he vandalized them. Recommend R.Baley be restricted or banned from making edits. 66.197.131.213 (talk) 10:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The irony in a section on sockpuppets being repeatedly re-added by a group of different anonymous editors should hopefully not be lost on anyone. Regardless, the section in question has been exhaustively discussed on here, and has been established as being too unreliable and potentially damaging for a WP:BLP. R.Baley is right to revert on sight. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree.--Samiharris (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I was trying to be kind, edits reverted diff were made by a banned user, [2]. But no doubt the "disturbed" "anon" above knows that. . .R. Baley (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The irony to which Chris refers has been even more obvious in other BLP articles. No point in going into them here but email me for the details.--Samiharris (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
For the record, the same anonymous/banned editor has been causing problems on Sock puppet as well - you can guess what the rationale was. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Trademark case[edit]

It says, "Hale was eventually jailed and tried for solicitation of murder against Joan Lefkow, who had been the federal judge in the trademark case." but doesn't explain what trademark case is being referred to. Superm401 - Talk 11:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

edit by User:Arkon[edit]

I am going to revert an edit by Arkon because I do not believe that s/he has sufficiently explained his/her reasoning. I am not asking for reasoning that I agree with (although that would be great) so much as reasoning that I can understand.
--NBahn (talk) 01:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The main reason would be that the ref was from the comments section of a blog, but also the parts in ()'s were quite unneccessary and read terribly. I won't touch it again, but I don't think it helps the article. Arkon (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't asking you to avoid editing the page; I was asking for a clarification of your rationale. I think that I understand your rationale (I do not agree with it, but that is irrelevant.) If you like, I'll undo my revert -- or you can do it yourself.
--NBahn (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Contributor to The American Conservative[edit]

Glenn Greenwald has contributed at least seven articles to The American Conservative. That's clearly not at the same level as his involvement with Salon, but still enough that it seems worth mentioning to me. Thoughts? Crust (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Oops, I see this already is mentioned in the text! Crust (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Source citation added yesterday provides links to 4 articles listed via [the magazine's own] search facility. The revised lede provides the source citation. If someone wants to add links to the earlier articles too, one needs to provide an appropriately coherent sentence for such additional source citations. --NYScholar (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Added fact that the search facility is the magazine's own one; we don't link to Google searches (see WP:NOR), but to actual appropriate source citations. --NYScholar (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Political Views?[edit]

The political views section is woefully short. Greenwald is "neither liberal nor conservative." Unfortunately, that does not tell us much as there are more than two schools of thought. Is he a libertarian? Based on what I read I get that impression, but that would need to be reliably sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.57.180 (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC) 03:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I've developed that section with some source citations and quotations from the sources cited. --NYScholar (talk) 05:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
And further edited them, editing out some of the lengthy less necessary quotations and retaining those that are necessary to illustrate the section topic ("Political views"). --NYScholar (talk) 03:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Great work. I don't have any problem with the remaining quotes. The current version of the article is a significant improvement. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks--I appreciate your comment.--NYScholar (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Topics[edit]

Hope others (see recent editing) can live with "Selected topics"--see edit summ for why I changed it. It seems like too few topics for "notable topics [of commentary]" since there are so many topics that Greenwald et al. have discussed in the Salon.com blog/column over the past couple of years that could be considered "notable". It seems judgmental (not NPOV) to use "notable"--by virtue of inclusion, they are "notable" (format)--so I go w/ "Selected"--the editors of the Wikipedia article have made the "selection" from a host of possibilities, that is. --NYScholar (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Another possibility (still neutral wording) is "Selected controversies" or "Selected controversial topics", if not satisfied w/ "Selected topics". --NYScholar (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
My resolution--see edit summ--is to use sub-subsections under Salon.com subsection--which is clear enough and does not require any "topics" heading, circumventing this problem and, I think, resolving it. --NYScholar (talk) 23:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Someone just changed format somewhat, and this one is okay w/ me too. --NYScholar (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think we need these to be put under one roof - Greenwald is primarily known to the larger world as a blogger, so devoting two level-2 sections to his blogging is appropriate. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Media appearances[edit]

The lede currently contains information on various media appearances such as on Air America and the like which are not covered in the article body. The lede should serve as a summary of what's in there, so I think some of this material should be moved into a new section (probably after the books one) detailing notable media appearances. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Done--reorganized related material for greater coh. as well. --NYScholar (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Bibliographical format for lists of "References" (not endnotes) and "Bibliography"[edit]

See Paragraph and WP:MOS--hanging paragraphs are proper when last name of author is alphabetically listed, but not used in Wikipedia; non-indented bulleted items are how these lists are composed. See most such lists, which match EL sec. bullets throughout most articles that I have seen and/or worked on in Wikipedia. (There is no guideline or policy for the changes that I have reverted. Format is not idiosyncratic w/ editors' personal prefs., but conventional w/in Wikipedia's guidelines and policies as illustrated in the policy and guidelines pages themselves.)--NYScholar (talk) 11:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

So far as I can see, our only real disagreement here is in the use of the {{refbegin}} / {{refend}} templates for formatting. I can live without these, as the use of these templates is largely a matter of personal preference. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
According to the whole page referenced, those templates are for notes/footnotes, not bibliographical "References" lists (which are alphabetized); I've substituted {{Ref indent}} and {{Ref indent-end}}, which are for alphabetized bibliographical lists of "References" and/or "Bibliography" and create "hanging paragraphs". If a consensus among editors prefers the way I had left it before today (flush left entries, with no hanging paragraphs), the changes to create current hanging paras. that I just made can be reverted back to non indented format. --NYScholar (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC) --[apparently, with use of these templates, the asterisk that makes a bulleted item is nec. and creates an initial indent of each item. That indent is unnec. and not standard in alphabetized bibliographical lists; they are flush lefthand margin [for 1st lines of hanging paragraphs, that is]. --NYScholar (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)] [clarified in brackets. --NYScholar (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)]

Popularity?[edit]

Is he popular, relatively speaking? Yes, but why is this such an important facet of his life and career that it merits an entire section? That information should be integrated elsewhere. The Squicks (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion, but it seems fine as is to me. Crust (talk) 02:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Leaving out "Sockpuppet" Controversy[edit]

I can see not taking a position one way or the other on the "sockpuppet" issue. In fact, whether he did it or not is a small matter when weighed against Greenwald's overall intellectual consistency and honesty. However, to not mention the FACT of the controversy at all seems to me to be a disservice to the reader, given what a huge meme the "Greenwald as sockpuppet" issue has been in the past. It will make it harder for the reader to understand discussions about the subject without knowing that this (relatively small) allegation was made some years back. I wonder whether the gravity of sockpuppeting on-Wiki is leading to unconscious censorship of matters that occurred off-Wiki in fora where Greenwald's alleged infraction was not particularly serious stuff.(No, I didn't look all the way through the archives for this; I skimmed, so please forgive me if this viewpoint has already been aired.)Scooge (talk) 01:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It's perfectly legitimate to bring up something from long ago. But I'd have to say that Greenwald's sockpuppetry is a non-notable thing. It's like whether or not he was photographed picking his nose or if he's caught jaywalking. If you don't believe me, ask some of the people who discovered what Greenwald did:
Keep in mind that sock-puppetry is, as Instapundit says, a “venial sin” (as opposed to a mortal sin). Yes, there is an element of dishonesty to it. But really, it’s mostly goofy and laughable — which is why the puppets are on hand to help me make the point.[3]
I don't know what Instapundit is, but sock puppeting messages under your own column or other columns is definitely worth noting about anyone if it happens. Journalists are supposed to be credible, sock puppetry is not credible, and this reflects on who Glen Greenwald is as a person. I can't believe here is even a discussion here about whether it should be mentioned. Just mention it, with a source. End of story. JettaMann (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
WP:BLP is also our lodestar here, which makes blogs an inherently problematic source of information in the first place. The Squicks (talk) 00:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Didn't Greenwald eventually admit to the sock puppetry? 66.208.17.254 (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
No, he denied it.[4] Here's an example of a right-of-center blogger who believed him.[5] Crust (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's also a fact sourced to rather obscure blog-like publications, which makes it of dubious importance or credibility. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Reading through this it's become clear that there's some misunderstanding here that skews toward Greenwald's claim. He did deny that he was engaging in sockpuppetry, but that claim came with an important caveat that's missing here (I've bolded it). And there's new information, inadvertently revealed by Greenwald (or his boyfriend) that sheds some more light on this controversy. And it's not favorable to Greenwald.

He wrote on the subject at UT:

"Not frequently, I leave comments at blogs which criticize or respond to something I have written. I always, in every single instance, use my own name when doing so. I have never left a single comment at any other blog using any name other than my own, at least not since I began blogging. IP addresses signify the Internet account one uses, not any one individual. Those in the same household have the same IP address. In response to the personal attacks that have been oozing forth these last couple of weeks, others have left comments responding to them and correcting the factual inaccuracies, as have I. In each case when I did, I have used my own name.

One can assume one of the "others" he was talking about is his boyfriend, who is Brazilian. And yet, in the recent Out Magazine profile of Greenwald, it talks about how his partner spoke little English but eventually learned. Many of the 'sockpuppet' posts in question were far too fluent for someone who is not a native English speaker. It's hard to believe his boyfriend was posting such cogent defenses of Greenwald unless he had Greenwald standing over his shoulder while he typed them. And if that was the case, then it is sockpuppetry.

On the whole, the Out Magazine article lends more than a bit of credence to these accusations. Greenwald states that it was someone in his household rather than him who made those posts. Unless Greenwald wants us to believe that he had other people living with him besides his boyfriend (there were several alleged sockpuppets) all apparently fluent in English, it becomes more than suspicious, edging into a strong odor of deliberate obfuscation on Greenwald's part, if not outright lying.

And I would also dispute that these allegations were "relatively small," as they've been characterized here. Greenwald himself wrote that "the attacks have received relatively wide dissemination." So Greenwald appears to dispute this characterization as well.

This page seems deliberately tilted to give Greenwald the benefit of the doubt on a very significant issue that occurred early in his blogging career. I read all about these incidents after the fact, but it seemed to me a pretty solid case was made that he engaged in this behavior. And the Out Magazine article only strengthens that case. In the interests of fair discussion, I think this issue should be included here.

  • To suggest this page is "[D]eliberately tilted" is too utterly miss the point: The issue is that this does not appear to have been covered in a reliable source. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • "Many of the 'sockpuppet' posts in question were far too fluent" -- That is your opinion. Another opinion, expressed by right-of-center blogger Steven Taylor, is that the posts are far too unfluent to be from Greenwald. But none of these opinions matter to this article. Your entire comment is completely and utterly irrelevant because it is speculation; how things "seem" to you or any other editor has no business on WP article pages. What you call "bias" is what is known at WP as "encyclopedic"; every WP page is subject to these considerations. Just because an article doesn't cater to some editor's policy-defying ideological preferences does not make it "tilted". 98.108.206.28 (talk) 04:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Jane Hamsher is cited on the page as a "reliable source." And not only that, but she and Greenwald are co-founders of the Accountability Now PAC, which, not surprisingly pays them both. So how is she a "reliable source" when she has a financial interest in his success? And why are the views of other prominent bloggers, whether you agree with them or not, discounted on this page?

Like I said, deliberately tilted in favor of Greenwald.

  • Some preliminaries: 1) Please sign your posts by placing four tildes at the end, thusly ~~~~. 2) Please review the page on assuming good faith with respect to other editor's motivations. Those quibbles aside, if you have an objection to a particular source, we can discuss that source as a separate issue. But to date none of the sources provided meet the standards for reliable sourcing. Do you have other sources we can discuss? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Jane Hamsher is cited on the page as a "reliable source." No she isn't. And even if she were, having a financial interest in a subject's success has no bearing on whether someone is a reliable source within the meaning of that term at WP. -- 98.108.206.28 (talk) 04:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

False Implication[edit]

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?
—NBahn (talk) 05:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Greenwald a far-left/progressive[edit]

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)

removal of maintenance tags[edit]

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..."[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

This entry does not meet Wikipedia standards[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

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[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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."[6] The source you claim as support for Greenwald describing himself as an independent does not say that.[7] 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 [8] 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?

Pictogram voting comment.png 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"[edit]

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[edit]

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."[9] 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)

Pictogram voting comment.png 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[edit]

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

NY Daily News piece on Greenwald and response[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 14:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

His NSA reporting not in the lead[edit]

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

Yes check.svg 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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

David Miranda: Separate article?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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"[edit]

"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." [10] 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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)
Yes check.svg 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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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)

  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