Talk:Glenn Greenwald/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Kickoff

I noticed the bit about sockpuppetry got added, then cut. I imagine it will be brought back. So let's kick off a discussion page and figure out if that bit is encyclopedic or not. I will say if it deserves inclusion the section was too long - there is a wiki page on sock puppetry so no need for an explanation of the accusation. --FNV 04:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the cut also took out the section on Greenwald's blog, which was reinstated and removed again. (In fact, since the same IP took out the blog section twice, it would be reasonable to assume it was the intent of the editor, and the sockpuppetry bit was collateral damage, not the other way around.) In either case, I think if the blog section is in, the sockpuppet allegations need to be in as well, but if it is out, then the sockpuppetry is moot. --The Monster 05:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with FNV that there's no need to explain sock puppetry in detail in this article, and I've trimmed it slightly. I've also

• restored all the recently deleted stuff, and
• convert most of the in-line links to <ref> format,

but I had some problems, as discussed below. CWC(talk) 08:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree a brief explanation of what sock puppetry is should suffice.

Also, I agree that mentioning the sockpuppetry accusations is appropriate. If people have an issue with how the section is worded or sourced (and this is a bio of a living person, so caution is particularly appropriate) then the best approach is to edit not delete the section. Crust 13:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Bush followers "not conservatives"

Note that GG bases this statement on the Bushies big-government tendencies. (Actually, there is considerable anger amongst the conservative base over the big-spending ways of the current Administration and (even more so) Congress. Bush's first veto elicited a wave of wishes that he'd started vetoing spending bills long, long ago.) I think we should clarify this. Maybe something like:

Indeed, he contends that recent spending increases prove that "Bush followers are not conservatives".

I'm sure one of us can come up with something better than that. Cheers, CWC(talk) 08:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to differ with you on that one, CWC. Bush's spending is one of GG's reasons for not viewing Bush or his followers as conservatives, but not his only or even principal reason. The biggest reason is surely the Bush admin's theory of executive power (and how they have used it), which GG views as profoundly unconservative. Crust 13:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hale's appeal re law licence

We have two links for details of Hale's failed attempts to get an Illinois law licence.

1. http://hatemonitor.csusb.edu/NewsHeadlines/hale_complaint.htm is "Dated: June 27, 2001" (and apparently written by GG, BTW). It's an appeal to the U.S. District Court for Northern Illinios, Eastern Division.
2. http://www.state.il.us/court/PressRel/1999/102999.htm is a Press Release from (take a deep breath) "the Committee on Character and Fitness" of "the Board of Admissions to the Bar" which administers the bar admission process on behalf of the Illinois Supreme Court. The committee rejected Hale's initial application on December 16 1998 and rejected his first appeal on June 30, 1999. Hale appealed to the Illinois supreme court on July 29, 1999; this press release announces that the Committee will oppose that appeal.

For one thing, we seem to have these links in the wrong chronological order. For another, I don't know how to cite those links. Help, please? CWC(talk) 08:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Bush administration

This section looks a lot like a blog - Wikipedia is not a blog - maybe a link to his blog would be best.

Thanks for saying something on Talk, but really the reason why there is an article about GG is because of his blog. If you don't think it is encyclopedic to summarize some of his views, mention his book, etc. do you really think it is encyclopedic to mention the sock puppetry allegations? Crust 15:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Heralded?

I've removed the following paragraph

This investigation by Greenwald was also heralded as a new advance in the importance of blogs in the national discourse. [1]

because anonymous off-topic comments on a blog posting are a long way short of Wikipedia's standards. Cheers, CWC(talk) 08:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. Crust 13:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Feingold speech link

Does anyone have a working link for that Russ Feingold speech which mentioned GG's blog? The fednews.com one we have at the moment is subscriber-only. Neither the internal search at feingold.senate.gov for "greenwald" nor googling for "site:feingold.senate.gov greenwald" found anything. Surely there must be a better link for that speech! Thanks in advance, CWC(talk) 08:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

For some reason, on a quick google search I can't find a free transcript either. If you go to Greenwald's post[2] that was quoted and scroll down to the updates, you can find various links to video of this. Crust 13:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection requested

I've just requested "semi-protection" of this article, because the speed at which anonymous and inexperienced editors keep deleting and restoring bits is too great for my tired old brain.

Hint: that "<references />" bit is actually quite important. Also, we probably should have at least one link to GG's blog ... just sayin', ya know. (Thanks to User:Crust on that one.)

Let's all take a deep breath and calm down. Wikipedia is a wonderful source of information, but we do not claim to be authoritative*, so errors do not have to be fixed immediately. Discussing things on "talk" pages like this one may seem boring and frustrating, but long experience shows that it produces better articles and less wikistress for everyone involved.

*Some people treat Wikipedia as gospel. If you know anyone with this problem, please educate them.

Have a nice weekend! CWC(talk) 12:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Crust 14:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The semi-protection request was denied. (Memo to self: steer clear of articles with real edit wars!) Cheers, CWC(talk) 03:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

68.127.37.172: I reverted your changes back. That last bit about "damaging his credibility" is POV, and the very last bit about how right wing bloggers use some mocking term "a glenn full of sock puppets" is unencyclopedic and not relevant to an article about Greenwald unless that term hits levels of other names turned into terms like "Quisling" or perhaps "Borked" in contemporary parlance. Also, if you want to change "right wing bloggers" to some more general term you'll need some references to non-right wing blogs carrying this charge against Greenwald.

I'm satisfied as a fan of Greenwald to leave a mention in here on this accusation (it shouldn't be a heading though), but as a living person biography we must not let criticism overwhelm the article. The reader can follow the reference link on the charges to investigate for themselves.--FNV 20:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

As a non-fan of Greenwald I was satisfied to leave the sockpuppetry section as edited by SarekOfVulcan, even though I didn't think it fully captured how low Greenwald had sunk. Some people insist on completely deleting the whole issue and that's the reason I went back to my original. Regarding deleting "right-wing bloggers", is characterizing those bloggers as right-wing any less POV than saying sock-puppeting is "damaging his credibility"? 68.127.37.172

They're substantively different. "Right wing bloggers" is descriptive and only pejorative to a small class of politically extreme people. "damaging his credibility" is necessarily pejoritive. Besides, to my knowledge they are right wing bloggers, so why be afraid to say so? If we're going to allow the opinions and accusations of bloggers in an encycopedia article, it should be clear they themselves have some bias.--FNV 15:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Being pejorative has nothing to do with it. From your point of view Glenn Reynolds is a "right wing blogger", he describes himself as a libertarian [3]. It all depends on one's point of view. As for damaging Greenwald's credibility, don't you think that blog posts like this [4] or this [5] make clear that Greenwald's credibility has suffered?Classical liberal 18:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The two blogs cited are pretty clearly right-wing bloggers (in that they are bloggers and are right-wing). Saying it damaged his credibility is a lot more POV (as well thinking that something should do something is different than it actually happening). Patrick Frey (who writes Patterico), for example, self-identifies as that term [6]. What about rightist or right-of-centre if right-wing is seen as perjorative? Makgraf 03:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. I put "right of center" in instead of "right-wing" and dropped the question of damaging his credibility completely. Can we get SouthieFL to stop trying to drop the whole issue down the memory hole?Classical liberal 17:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

(back to margin) I suggest using "Controversy and Criticism" as a heading instead of "Alleged Sock-Puppetry". After all, there is bound to be more controversy, and more criticism ;-). In fact, that heading appears in lots of Wikipedia articles about people.

I also think it's a pity that we no longer describe the alleged puppetry as a venial sin (ie., a minor failing). Compared to death threats from Larry Johnson and the disturbed (and disturbing) of Deb Frisch, this is small potatoes and should be kept in proportion. OTOH, I say we should reinstate the link to Patterico's summary post here.

Oh, and I would also like to rant about #&(*@%^#*^ bloggers like Greenwald and Patterico who use software that assigns humungously long URLs to blog posts. Hmm ... Greenwald and Patterico are both lawyers! it's a lawyer thing! the lawyers are doing it to annoy the rest of us! (goes off mumbling ...)

Cheers, CWC(talk) 13:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi CWC. "Controversy and Criticism" sounds fine to me, though we might as well wait until someone writes up a second controversy. The link to the summary is back in. I'm fine with including the Instapundit quote that this is a "venial sin" (i.e. a minor matter), which is mildly notable since Instapundit has frequently tangled with Greenwald (or vice versa). I wouldn't give too much weight to Instapundit's quote being mild compared to Frisch or Misha on other matters; I doubt it would take much work to find some shall we say colorful characterization of GG based on this controversy. Crust 13:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Other contributors

I think it's worth noting that Greenwald has guest bloggers at times. Other prominent blog pages, as that of Daily Kos note the front page contributors - and none of Greenwald's other contributors are in a position to warrant their own wiki pages as far as I know.

I also put back in the references tag so those little numbers go somewhere again.--FNV 20:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Homosexual Unions

The intro claims that Greenwalds' parter cannot live in the U.S. because the U.S. does not recognize homesexual unions. Does Greenwald in fact have a legally recognized homosexual union that the U.S. is not recognizing?

Brazil allows a legal homosexual union from abroad to be used for immigration purposes, but does not grant them, so does he have one, and from where?

United States immigration law does not recognize homosexual unions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.189.5.201 (talk • contribs) 4 August 2006

No, he doesn't have one, but if the USA recognised them he could get one so that he and his boyfriend could live in the USA. Since it doesn't, he can't, and that's relevant. Zsero 05:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, do you have a source of his non-union status?

Alleged Sock Puppetry Moved to Here

I removed the Alleged Sock Puppetry section and am placing it here. I realize that there has been some discussion about this already. This is an encyclopedia - not an electronic lynch mob. First, the vast majority of readers do not/cannot/will not understand what "sock puppetry" is. Second, the accusation - even if true - is so far below the threshold of what is legitimate to write about a current person's life.

Here is what was removed:

== Alleged sock puppetry ==

In July 2006, several right-of-center bloggers argued[7] [8] that comments praising Greenwald on multiple blogs under multiple names were in fact posted by Greenwald himself on the grounds that they came from two IP addresses also used by Greenwald. They also argued that the posts displayed similar writing style and content, for instance citing Greenwald's credentials. Greenwald denied the charge, stating "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." A few conservative bloggers[9][10] accepted Greenwald's denial and argued instead that Greenwald's partner had posted the comments. Some who initially felt the evidence of sock-puppetry was insufficient later recanted [11] after seeing further evidence and analysis[12].

There is no need to return it. --AStanhope 11:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the comments that say "Consensus is to keep" -- it was never sufficiently discussed here. I don't see any particular point in having it there, I just didn't argue with the people who did see the point.--SarekOfVulcan 02:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, was I ever able to read?--SarekOfVulcan 02:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The discussion under "Kickoff" and "Sockpuppetry" above shows a consensus to keep (though it can always be discussed more). As to your comments.

1. If the majority of people "do not" understand what sockpuppetry it, than where better than an encylopedia to educate them (and there is an entry on it). I highly doubt that most people "cannot" understand this, after all one person posting under multiple names isn't that complicated.

2. Could you please explain why it is not legitimate to write this. The issue are allegations about public behaviour on the internet (far more personal issues than this are on, for example, Andrew Sullivan's page. Makgraf 02:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

We're talking about alleged behavior that even after reading the article on sockpuppetry 95% of readers won't understand. It is indeed alleged: Greenwald himself denies it. The only way to make it proven would be to post server logs and to educate readers on how Apache and TCP/IP work... Let's not lose perspective of what is real, what is important and what this encyclopedia is all about. --AStanhope 02:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your point here. The paragraph is called "Alleged Sock Puppetry". It does say that these are allegations and that Greenwald denies it. I don't know where the 95% statistic comes from, but it seems wrong. Makgraf 02:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I for one do not agree with keeping this text as it stands. (1) This version is too long, violating the "undue weight" part of the Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View policy. (2) This version makes no mention of the fact that both Instapundit[13] and "Patterico" described the alleged sock-puppetry as merely a "venial sin". (Also, there is no link to Sockpuppet (internet).) Cheers, CWC(talk) 02:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Given Instapundit and Patterico's obvious partisan bias against Glenn (in the interest of full disclosure, I've become a regular reader and commentor there), I'm not sure that the account really deserves attention. In fact, in light of other conservative bloggers' established record of doctoring photos for the purposes of ridicule (For example, Ace of Spades HQ[14]), I would be as suspicious of their "evidence" as they are of evidence of Israeli atrocities in Lebanon. It's very easy to photoshop images like this, and I reiterate that these people have an obvious bias against Glenn. If this section must stay, it should note that right-wing bloggers have a history of doctoring photos for the purposes of ridicule of figures they don't like. Eric 04:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Eric, I think you've misunderstood what CWC is saying. Yes, Instapundit dislikes Greenwald (not surprising as Instapundit has been several times the subject of vigorous criticism from Greenwald). CWC knows that. I think CWC's point is that even despite this, Instapundit thinks that the sockpuppetry even if true is only a minor matter. Crust 13:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's one of the points I was trying to make. My main point is that I strongly prefer the article with the currently-disputed text removed than with it present, because that text gives far too much weight to this minor matter, so I wish people would stop pasting it back in. Cheers, CWC(talk) 15:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with CWC. This paragraph is too long, at least relative to the length of the article, giving this matter undue weight. Crust 15:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I understood his point quite well. I perhaps erred in indenting my comment so far, but I meant to address the entire issue of the alleged sockpuppetry. This appears to have become a bit of a cause célèbre in their region of the blogosphere, and given the penchant among right-wing commentators and bloggers for going to any length to discredit people they don't like, my instinct is that this is yet another example of baseless ad hominem attacks against people they disagree with. Since the consensus appears to be to hang onto some mention of it, however, I think it deserves no more than a sentence stating that he's been accused of sockpuppetry by right-wing bloggers, and that he denies it. Eric 19:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The current version does seems to go on too long. I don't know exactly why Instapundit would even be mentioned. It's not a story he investigated, he just linked to it after the fact. What about something like this:

In July 2006, several right-of-center bloggers argued[15] [16] that comments praising Greenwald on multiple blogs under multiple names were in fact posted by Greenwald himself on the grounds that they came from two IP addresses also used by Greenwald and displayed similar writing style and content. Greenwald denied the charge, stating "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.". And then maybe something about venial sins? Makgraf 00:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think my 95% number (not understanding "sockpuppetry") is probably accurate for Wikipedia readers as a whole. Sure, it's second nature for us as we are Wikipedians. Most Wikipedia readers either come here through search engines or are reading Wikipedia content that is mirrored elsewhere... Only a tiny percentage of Wikipedia consumers are also editors. "Sockpuppetry" doesn't even have meaning in the political blogging world by itself - it is a Wikipedia term. . . . Greenwald is notable for being an attorney who represented famous clients in constitutional matters - and he is notable for being a New York Times bestselling offer. The allegations of sockpuppetry are at BEST weakly supported and at WORST possible fabrications/misunderstandings/mistakes. We shouldn't use the Wikipedia to push information as such, particularly where there is a clear agenda involved on behalf of the accusers. --AStanhope 14:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry is not an exlusively Wikipedian term, it is a general internet one. As such most people would either a) know what it means or b) find it very easy to understand (oh that guy's set up a fake identity to praise himself, kinda like a sockpuppet). Someone like John Lott might be notable for being a famous school but there's still a sockpuppetry section on his wikipedia article. Makgraf 00:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The allegations of sockpuppetry are actually pretty well supported by the facts, which some here apparently don't want to be aired. (Censorship sort of flies in the face of the whole Wikipedia ideal, don't you think?) It's a set of facts that provides some interesting insight concerning Greenwald's character and personality, issues that are always important, it would seem to me, especially for a writer of ideologically based opinions and commentary. It's also always important to show how one side or the other of political arguements have formed their views when possible.RFabian 18:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[[]]

I can go either way on including (or not) a section on this, but if there is a section it needs to be responsible and, frankly, most of the versions getting put in lately are not. This is particularly important in a criticism section of the biography of a living person. Some of the issues I've seen:

• This is alleged sock puppetry. I realize some editors feel that sockpuppetry is established beyond reasonable doubt, but Wikipedia shouldn't endorse that particular POV. This is not the place to get into the minutiae of this debate, but please note that even some right of center bloggers dispute the allegation, e.g. Steven Taylor of PoliBlog and Jon Henke of qando.net [17] (for John Henke, see comment #7)
• Similarly that the posts share Greenwald's writing style. This needs to be represented as a POV, not an uncontested fact. (I doubt anyone disputes that all or many of the alleged sockpuppet posts are similar to each other, but it's less clear that they are similar to Greenwald's posts on Unclaimed Territory[18].)
• Greenwald has denied the charge; there is no excuse for versions that leave this out. I think it is best to include the quote from Greenwald on this.
• The allegations are of sock puppetry on other blogs, not on GG's blog Unclaimed Territory.
• Language such as "Glenn Freaking Greenwald", etc. is unencyclopedic.

Crust 18:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. I really believe that this section fails to meet most standards we would generally apply to encyclopedic material here in the Wikipedia. Regardless of whether or not it is true (we can't prove whether or not it is true) it doesn't really add to his biography. --AStanhope 18:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

By point

• "First, the vast majority of readers do not/cannot/will not understand what "sock puppetry" is." They will, see arguments above.
• "Second, the accusation - even if true - is so far below the threshold of what is legitimate to write about a current person's life." It should be as little as possible, as it's a minor point (as the accusers also admit), see the this version for example. Greenwald did confirm some of the evidence used in the accusation, but denied actually writing those things himself.
• alleged - he did answer, and confirmed the IP address evidence.
• writing style - this was the first thing I removed, as it's all up to interpretation and POV unless we get more sources that note it.
• other blogs, not Unclaimed Territory - true. I don't get why somebody confused the two issues/items.
  

--GunnarRene 21:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

GunnarRene, I'm sure you think that anime cartoon you added is very funny, but if you want to be taken seriously, that's not going to help your case. Crust 15:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

OK then. Since you don't like cartoons, here's an illustration from a mainspace article.--GunnarRene 16:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Unclear Statement

"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)

This seems to have been removed as I cannot find the phrase in the article. It may have been in the "Media publications" subsection of the "Global surveillance disclosures" section. If so, this subsection is marked for expansion. I agree that it would be a good idea to clearly state the roles of both Presidents Bush and Obama. (Lena Key (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC))

Sockpuppets

As shown here, Greenwald has frequently engaged in sockpuppetry. Should this be added? OneGyT/T|C 11:08, 30 October 2007 (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: [19]. 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 (talk • contribs)

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. On July 20, 2006 it was confirmed that this address belonged to Greenwald himself. *insert any other followup people might want* JettaMann (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2012 (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)

References

Leaving out "Sockpuppet" Controversy

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.[20]

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.[21] Here's an example of a right-of-center blogger who believed him.[22] 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)