Talk:Glenn Greenwald

RfC to tighten sourcing on Glenn Greenwald

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

RfC withdrawn by proposer. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

---

This article (with a subject who is clearly both notable and controversial) relies to a large extent primary sources. This RfC proposes to eliminate primary sources for this article to clamp down on POV pushing and promotion. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• I support to eliminate the primary sources ( as discussed above by Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs)) to stop the POV pushing on both sides. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• I support a trimming of and/or elimination of primary sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Without reviewing the article, which may very well have serious problems, the proposal is facially contrary to policy. Primary sources are permitted as along as there aren't too many of them. It's also inappropriate to talk about "clamping down on POV pushing and promotion" in a content-based RfC. If people are POV pushing and engaging in promotion then they should be warned, and if they persist then administrative intervention can be requested. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The RfC is not a properly specified proposal. Primary sources are just fine in many circumstances, including those that apply to the two sources OP is apparently attempting to suppress. The article does have too much self-serving or trivial primary sourced information from sources that are Greenwald or affiliated with him, and these can be pared down to essentials without tampering with valid, cited opinion from notable commentators. Would somebody please review and revert Darouet's blanket reinstatement of trivia and other UNDUE stuff not cited to independent secondary RS? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

My rationale for this is that I see SPECIFICO (talk · contribs) arguing for reduction in primary sources here [1] and 6 months later the same user demanding to include primary sources here [2]. The purpose of this is not related to a specific editor, but this was just the first example that I found on the talk page. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• I pull this RfC as it is not properly specificed per comments above. It would be helpful if an admin would check to see if i have closed it according to the protocol, as this is my first time to do so. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[outlines]

I searched for some new, more informations about Glenn Greenwald and try to add that in this article.

I tried to add this informations about

1. Difference between movie "snowden" and real 2. More works about previous and afterworks after snowden works made by Greenwald 3. Any colloborate works with Greenwald and other journalists? 4. What was his exact role in repoting Snowden Gate?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KyHylee (talk • contribs) 23:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The claim that Greenwald supported the Iraq war is absolutely false and, at best, contested. See: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2013/1/30/1182442/-Glenn-Greenwald-Responds-to-Widespread-Lies-About-Him-on-Cato-Iraq-War-and-more He was not publicly talking or writing about politics prior to 2005. The source placed says he was not engaged in politics at the time. At the very least, this needs to be clarified in the article; otherwise this is extremely misleading.

Gch234 (talk) 04:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Impeachment March (34874639643).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

changes

Here are some changes by an IP address editor. Some looks interesting and neutral. But how could he have a residence in Florida? I thought he lived in Brazil. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The Bluecoat Systems Scandal

In April of 2013, the gatekeeper at MulhollandRaceway.org set a trap which ensnared and exposed a secret contract, Eric Holder's Department of Justice having engaged Blue Coat Systems, to surreptitiously perform on-line intelligence on The Guardian news website, in an attempt to smoke out (e.g., monitor, geolocate, expose and blacklist) those having commented to all Glenn Greenwald authored articles related to the Edward Snowdon scandal.

Presumably, by extension, the Obama administration had Mr. Greenwald bugged; under surveillance, 24/7-365. Whether a warrant for surveillance was ever generated, is unknown.

Monitoring traffic surfing in from a link posted to Mr. Greenwald's Snowdon articles, logs revealed hits by several Blue-Coat systems regulars, as well as several DOJ.gov staffers, thereafter. In an e-mail query to Bluecoat's web site admin, for which to inquire as to what interest such an organization would have, in a sleepy, backwater Southern California driver's group, the gatekeeper at Mulholland Raceway employed use of the "read receipt" function in Microsoft Outlook's desktop e-mail client to expose, geo-locate and classify all individuals, as the e-mail message forwarded uncontrollably, exposing every individual employed at Bluecoat Systems, worldwide.

Caught, with their pants down, by a sleepy, backwater drivers' group in Southern California, it was discovered no employee at Bluecoat Systems at the time merited wherewithal sufficient to have toggled off the principle default preference in Microsoft Outlook's e-mail client, which automatically transmissions "read receipts," whensoever requested.

Immediately thereafter, having forwarded its findings, to both The Guardian and elected officials in America's policy community, Mulholland Raceway scrubbed from social media, then went on permanent lock-down, citing concern regarding integrity and veracity of America's 1st amendment privilege - asj@mhr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.138.81.137 (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

You need to cite a source for this -- promptly -- or it will be removed from this page. SPECIFICO talk 23:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd suspect Greenwald of writing the above except for the fact that he probably knows the difference between principle and principal. Cross Reference (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Washington post and Haaretz

Both, WP and Haaretz are progressive sites and Haaretz is on the extreme especially re Israel. Nevertheless both are noted prominent sources/sites. No valid reason was provided to remove them (by Daveout).

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

Haaretz in an article “Fascism and the Far Left: A Grim Global Love Affair.."“Fascism and the Far Left: A Grim Global Love Affair.." “... Many observers drew comparisons with other once-shocking cohabitations between prominent left and right-wingers such as Fox News' Tucker Carlson and The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald the crossover between leftists and the far-right in defense of Syria's Bashar Assad, to dismiss charges of Russian interference in U.S. elections and to boost Russian geopolitics. ...” Haaretz, May 27, 2019.Kacziey (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

It looks likes your intention is to label Glenn far-left, am I correct? 1) Neither of those sources unambiguously label Glenn "far-left". 2) About the Washington Post: Glenn's views about vaccination weren't being criticized, you missread it. this sentence: "Anti-vaccine activists come from both the far left and the far right" has nothing to do with this one: "most of those who defend President Trump’s dealings with Russia are on the right, some, such as Glenn Greenwald and Stephen F. Cohen, are on the left" (they were put together for comparison purposes only). - Daveout(talk) 02:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

My intentions are to define him as he has been defined by noted sources. Pro or con.Kacziey (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

"by noted sources" that refer to him the way you think he should be labeled. The vast majority of sources do not refer to him as a far left person, cherry-picking sources is against wp:due. - Daveout(talk) 02:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

You shouldn’t remove original quotation to suit your POV.

You mean, that Rachel Meadows quote has to be removed because she was cherry picked? Speaking of “vast majority” I challenge you to come up with a few RS stating extremist Greenwald is CENTER LEFT. Being defined as left does not mean one isn’t far left. I didn’t post from Washington Times but from Washington Post. This means Greenwald is far far far, left...Kacziey (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm gonna add the NYmag source latter. The article looks ok as it is now. Just give it a rest already. Jesus. - Daveout(talk) 02:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Reminding what you said:

“And this is a 2014 article, can't u find anything more recent? “

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Intercept&diff=prev&oldid=980258229 and when you have 3 from 2019 you still keep on edit warring.

Here are additional two sources. 2017, 2018:

6 ”The Alt Left is Real and It’s Helping Fascists.” Date of publication: 25 August, 2017 ”For the alt-left, Hillary Clinton's call for a no-fly zone to protect Syria's civilians was proof that she wanted a global war. Donald Trump on the other hand was going to protect America from WWIII because of his "non-interventionist mindset" (Glenn Greenwald).” https://english.alaraby.co.uk/english/comment/2017/8/25/the-alt-left-is-real-and-its-helping-fascists

7 (Notes editor Ben Cohen profile in HuffPost: https://www.huffpost.com/author/ben-cohen) ”The Far Left Is Growing More Deranged By The Day... There is no Russiagate, no collusion, no threat to democracy from Donald Trump. The enemy is the center left and anyone who deviates from this doctrine is a neoliberal sellout engaging in a CIA backed 'psyop'.” BEN COHENUPDATED:NOV 9, 2018ORIGINAL:JAN 23, 2018 https://thedailybanter.com/2018/01/23/far-left-is-growing-more-deranged-by-the-day/?li_source=LI&li_medium=m2m-rcw-the-daily-banter Kacziey (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Added from The Independent: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/alt-left-alt-right-trump-internet-subculture-90s-cyber-what-we-stood-a7906246.html

More recently, some influential “left” commentators have claimed that a US “deep state” seeks to undermine Donald Trump and poses a greater threat to democracy than either Trump or Putin. Glenn Greenwald, for example, wrote a piece titled: The Deep State Goes to War With President-Elect, Using Unverified Claims, as Democrats Cheer. Greenwald has been critical of Trump, but is perceived by many as someone who spends far more time criticising “Dems” and “liberals” (analysis of his Twitter account tends to give this impression).”Kacziey (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Fidel Castro glorifier

Asides from the at least 8 sources on Glenn Greenwald as far left, already in 2005 he hailed Fidel Castro as: “that great crusader for economic justice and world peace, Fidel Castro”

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/11/meet-oh-so-noble-peace-protestors-in.html?m=1 Kacziey (talk) 10:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Greenwald's article, on protests in Argentina in 2006, ends with comments in the last two paragraphs which do not suggest he has an admiration for Fidel Castro. Philip Cross (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

What’s your take on Greenwald posting this: https://mobile.twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/802495984848736256?lang=en ?

Do you think he just reported the news or sympathetic?

Kacziey (talk) 11:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The blog post you are using as a source is taking a sarcastic approach so your quote is out of context and doesn't represent his views from that time. As pointed out, his actual views are contained in the last paragraph, specifically "Isn't it more a badge of honor than anything else to be protested against by truly odious people like this?". I don't know what Greenwald's current views on Castro are. Also, your text is misplaced in the Venezuela section. Burrobert (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the tweet you have posted: firstly, as you probably know since you didn't add it to his bio, we can't use twitter as a source for Greenwald's bio. Secondly, it may show that he has some sympathy with Castro's ideas. If that is the case, given Greenwald is a journalist, it shouldn't be hard to find a useable source for that. Burrobert (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

First of all, the entire Tweet is inside double quotes. He's quoting someone. Secondly, the comment, "Do you think he just reported the news or sympathetic?" above is not appropriate to even ask here, as it implies that if there were some consensus among editors one way or another on that question, then we could add to the article that he was (or wasn't) sympathetic, or that he "just" reported (or didn't "just" report it). But any of those conclusions would be inappropriate here. This is a biography of a living person, and we don't speculate on what he meant in WP:PRIMARY materials like a tweet. Our role here is to find reliable, independent, secondary sources, and summarize what they say about him. By the same token, writing that he is a Castro glorifier *must* come from some other reliable source that says that; you cannot use his own tweet, other than to quote it without any interpretation at all. Maybe it's an inside joke, and his friends know that when he says that, he means the opposite. We don't know. We must go with what the secondary sources say. Writing about what *we* think he meant is completely out of bounds, and will be removed immediately from the article as original research on a WP:BLP. Mathglot (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Article titles

Why are we including article titles in the text ("I was in the original 'alt-left' and this is what we really stood for”, "Does Glenn Greenwald Know More Than Robert Mueller?”, "The Alt Left is Real and It’s Helping Fascists"). What are they adding that isn't included in the article itself? The discussion here [3] contains some reasons why article titles are not reliable sources. Burrobert (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Relevance?

How are these points relevant to Greenwald's bio? And, more importantly, what do they mean?

• "Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, the presumptive 2016 favorites … firebrands sometimes called the alt-left".
• "Writer in Al Araby in 2017: "The Alt Left is Real and It’s Helping Fascists". quoting Greenwald's statement".
• "Ben Cohen wrote in 2018: "The Far Left Is Growing More Deranged By The Day... There is no Russiagate, no collusion, no threat to democracy from Donald Trump. The enemy is the center left and anyone who deviates from this doctrine is a neoliberal sellout engaging in a CIA backed 'psyop"."
• "Anti-vaccine activists come from both the far left and the far right".
• "In November 2019, Nancy leTourneau asked: "Why Is the Far Left Defending Tulsi Gabbard?", including in reference to Glenn Greenwald’s tweet."

Burrobert (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

They are not. They all need to go. Mathglot (talk) 10:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 October 2020

Please remove the statements described in this thread. NonsensicalSystem^(err0r?)_(.log) 10:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Were they added by a single editor, or group of editors? Shtove (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe they can all be traced to this edit [4] by user Kacziey. Burrobert (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see - his history shows how he runs to Philip Cross!. Shtove (talk) 02:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

 Administrator note Please clarify exactly what you want changed? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The IP user is asking for each of the sentences listed under the topic “Relevance” above to be removed from the article. Burrobert (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I protected the article five days (through October 7) per WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive417#User:Kacziey reported by User:NonsensicalSystem (Result: Protected) . Other admins should feel free to allow edit requests as they deem appropriate. The original dispute is hard to summarize, but the main participants were User:Kacziey and User:Daveout. Since Greenwald is a colorful character, some things that might appear to be BLP violations at first glance can occasionally be sourced directly from his writings. To show that Greenwald might be hard to pin down, note that he has appeared on Fox News and is also described by some as far left. EdJohnston (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The reason we are having trouble pinning down his political beliefs could be because he is moderate or centrist on the left/right scale (which refers to economic philosophy principally). However, on the often-neglected vertical axis of authoritarian/libertarian, he is decidedly libertarian, and this is the main focal point of his activism and work.BigFriendlyGiant2 (talk) 04:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I searched the article for various phrases quoted above, "Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush", "The Alt Left is Real", "The Far Left Is Growing More Deranged" and they don't appear in the article. I have disabled this request as it is still unclear to me. Suggest making required changes to Draft:Glenn Greenwald and getting agreement here, before reactivating. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Some of the sentences were removed in this edit [5]. The two that remain are in the Reception section:

• "Anti-vaccine activists come from both the far left and the far right".
• "In November 2019, Nancy leTourneau asked: "Why Is the Far Left Defending Tulsi Gabbard?", including in reference to Glenn Greenwald’s tweet."

Burrobert (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Joe and Hunter Biden coverage op-ed

Headline: Glenn Greenwald calls out hypocrites covering for Biden on Post’s Hunter Biden stories Shall we report on it? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Not biographically significant, so no. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

From the headline, I assume you're referring to the New York Post article (now renamed slightly to "Glenn Greenwald calls out hypocrites covering for Biden on Post's Hunter Biden stories"). Not only is the New York Post an unreliable source (WP:RSP#New York Post), this is an op-ed. There's plenty of coverage in reliable sources of Greenwald's resignation and claims against The Intercept, as well as The Intercept's rebuttal, but the New York Post is not usable by any stretch. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

"The oldest newspaper in America is an unreliable source," said Hunter Biden. 2603:7081:4F06:2869:A908:2B91:47D:5DD (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, I think a restrained approach — giving this no more attention that it deserves in his wider biography — is justified. That said, we should note somewhere that he's now publishing at substack (there's an external link but that doesn't provide readers any explanation in the main text). -Darouet (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC

 Done with this edit by Darouet. NedFausa (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

This casts a new light on everything he has said and done in his career. Its significance can hardly be overstated. There are many examples of once-respected public individuals -- athletes, academics, statesmen -- whose reputations were forever altered by a signal revelatory act or incident. SPECIFICO talk 15:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Indeed — I feel like Paul on the way to Damascus, blinded by the light. -Darouet (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Citation parameter names

The updates to citation parameter names is via AWB general-fixes. These consensus based changes effectively deprecate previous parameter name usage and are not a function of Citation Style. The Citation Style itself is not being changed and all citation styles are expected to use the parameters as documented at Template:Citation Style documentation For my part I will not be turning off AWB general fixes. Neils51 (talk) 04:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Neils51:, probably the right content choice soon or eventually, so I won't be changing it back, but wrong reason. The Template:Citation Style documentation says nothing about deprecating |accessdate=. To the contrary: it still uses it in the #Examples section of the documentation, and in the #url section. Furthermore, the #Deprecated section of {{Citation}} doesn't mention it, and section #URL still shows it as a current alias of access-date.

Finally, AWB fixes are WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and do not override content guidelines; points #1 and 2 of WP:AWBRULES make this clear. WP:CITEVAR says, "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change" and goes on to quote an ArbCom decision about it. The aliases that were removed are not deprecated, are still valid, documented, and were long-time consensus here which should not have been changed without a new consensus for it. The interests or preferences of editors at the AWB page don't override a Wikipedia content guideline. If you disagree with WP:CITEVAR, the proper venue to challenge that is its talk page; an appeal to the AWB regular expressions list counts for nothing.

As a practical matter, since it appears that unhyphenated params will eventually be deprecated from citation params at some point, it's not worth reverting this change now, since it's no worse than before. However, if you seek other changes like this in the future, please follow WP:BRD and WP:CITEVAR (or whatever the relevant guideline is) and seek consensus first rather than just jump in and change it first, and please recognize that running AWB does not confer immunity from existing content and other guidelines and policies. You don't need to turn off general fixes, but you're still responsible for every edit, even if an editor unknown to you added something to general fixes that is contrary to policy. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments on socialism and the Daily Caller

We have two sources about Glenn's comment on socialism: (1) The Daily Caller is a deprecated source, however its reporting on this matter is almost entirely direct transcriptions of what he said along with a video of him saying those things. On the other hand, we have (2) New York Magazine, which is reliable but heavily editorialized, it's almost an opinion piece and what Glenn actually said is obfuscated. Readers simply cannot verify it directly. In this particular case, I think that using the daily caller as a source is acceptable. Thoughts? - Daveout(talk) 20:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I don’t see any significant differences in the quotes from Greenwald provided by the DC and NYMag, so either would be fine as a source. However, our presentation of Greenwald’s views has a few problems:

• Greenwald refers to the 2016 version of Trump
• the phrase “unlike the socialism of the Soviet Union” is an editorial comment that appears in neither source.
• “there is a kind of socialism that … embraces civil liberties and free market”: what Greenwald says is that Lula “was successful because he believed in civil liberties and a free market”. He doesn’t equate that with a distinct form of socialism.
• “what you are seeing is this kind of hybrid socialism that really is about nothing more than trying to sandpaper the edges off of neoliberalism”: the NYMag interprets this as a comment on the centre-left which does not contain “authentic socialists”. I am unsure of what context the DC is placing on that quote.

Burrobert (talk) 07:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. My problem with NYmag’s phrasing is that Greenwald himself doesn’t use terms like “authentic socialist” or ‘’center-left”, for example. (I may be wrong, but I think this complicates things further). If I got this right, for greenwald and NYmag:

• the populist right = ‘’authentic’’ socialism = antiglobalist = pretending to be neoliberalism = tucker and trump
• the ’’center-left’’ = hybrid socialism = ’’sandpapered’’ neoliberalism = lula and cuomo

I feel that we should expand on his reasoning but I’m having a hard time figuring how. - Daveout(talk) 09:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I searched for other sources where Greenwald has discussed socialism and can't find much. Even his twitter feed contains few mentions of socialism. Perhaps "socialism" as a concept is not important in his thinking. On the other hand "neoliberal" appears often. He is very critical of neo-liberals (for example in their abandonment of Julian Assange) and delights in pointing out their hypocrisy. This does not appear in his bio and would be worth adding. Burrobert (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The entire thing is WP:UNDUE weight based on one off-handed interview comment, and being represented as some fundamental view of his, without more consistent sources over a longer period of time than these, isn't reasonable and arguably also qualifies as WP:OR. At least, it shouldn't be in that section of the article where it is held out as some deeply held view of his that is fundamental to his worldview; it might belong in some "Controversies" section, but even that seems to have little weight arguing for its inclusion. Also, using the Daily Caller here as a source, whether deprecated or not, is inappropriate because it has a direct connection with one of the subjects involved (Tucker Carlson) and an inherent motivation to make him more broadly appealing. The NYmag article, as you note, is an opinion piece. The whole paragraph is simply not encyclopedic and should be removed. 71.62.227.79 (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The IP has a point. - Daveout(talk) 00:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

+1. Junk the entire content as blatantly UNDUE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring

@LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08:, @Daveout:: I have edited that sentence in the lead in a way that I hope both of you will find acceptable. Please try to discuss things on the talk page rather than going back and forth about it on the article for (days? weeks?) jp×g 19:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm OK with including his assertion that he never advocated his support for the war publicly, so long as it is attributed to Greenwald. What I don't understand is why we are continuing to remove his support for the Bush Administration's foreign policy more generally, e.g. the War in Afghanistan. Can Dave explain to me his reasoning for removing this? LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@JPxG:, Thanks. I totally agree with your edit and will explain why. @LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08:, (1) There's a huge difference between "supporting" something and "believing" something. The first verb gives an "active" and "outward" vibe to the individual's behavior. (as in "promoting" or "arguing in favor" of something). On the other hand, if you read what he wrote, you'll notice that his reaction was "passive" and "internal" (something he kept for himself). He gave Bush the benefit of the doubt and decided not to take action; decided not to criticize him. That's why it is far more appropriate to use the word "believed" or "trusted", instead of "supported" or "promoted".

(2) You say that there's no source stating that he never promoted that publicly; actually, the same source that claims he defended the war (daily banter) also published his response:

When the Iraq War was debated and then commenced, I was not a writer. I was not a journalist. I was not politically engaged or active. I never played any role in political debates or controversies. [...] I never once wrote in favor of the Iraq War or argued for it in any way, shape or form.Ask anyone who claims that I "supported" the Iraq War to point to a single instance where I ever supported or defended it in any way. There is no such instance. It's a pure fabrication.

(3) There's a single source interpreting the words in Glenn's preface as a defence of the war. This raises duenes concerns; and I'm not ever sure whether Daily Blanter is really a reliable source. If this is such a widely accepted interpretation, why then there are no other source interpreting Glenn's words the way DB does? And is that particular interpretation of Glenn's preface really that significat in order to be placed with prominence in the lede? - Daveout(talk) 10:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, we don't put that Greenwald supported a war of a foreign country. He is a journalist and we don't interpret his writings to mean this or that. It is all undue. And certainly not in the lede, we dont add extra weight to things that are already undue. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

He WAS a journalist. Now he's effectively a right-wing pundit.Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Do we have any indication he changed his profession from journalism to "right-wing pundit"? Or is it simply some leftists upset he is revealing some dark secrets of the left side as he have done the same against the right for the past 30 years? In any case it is interesting how some people get upset when somebody expose both sides of the political spectrum. OAquchaSeafoamshame (talk) 04:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Ha ha! Who says I'm upset? (Sounds like you are.) Or even a "leftist"? In any case, in re your question, "Do we have any indication he changed his profession from journalism to "right-wing pundit"? The answer is yes. His now-regular appearances on Tucker Carlson's and Laura Ingraham's FNC opinion shows provide the "indication" you seek. Along with Hannity's, their shows do not in the remotest sense resemble journalism or news. The primetime FNC personalities have Greenwald on their shows for exactly one purpose: to attack liberals and Democrats in bolstering the current rhetoric and narratives of the MAGA far-right. In any case, let’s not quibble about whether or not Greenwald is still a “journalist”; that wasn't my point anyway. Let's agree that he is. But his recent gigs as a well-paid guest on, for example, Fox News primetime opinion shows deserve a paragraph in this article if it is to accurately represent the arc of this “journalist’s” career. Classicfilmbuff (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

FFS. He goes to Tucker's show to defend free speech and criticize the political establishment (bc there he has a large audience), not to promote right-wing policies. He was a Bernie supporter last time I checked. - Daveout(talk) 17:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Alas, I did not say GG personally promotes right-wing causes on the TC show; I said the only reason TC has GG on his show is because GG can be relied upon to trash liberals and Democrats in promoting the host's right-wing agenda. What this means is that GG's regular, well-paid gig with the Fox News commentariat is entirely in the SERVICE of right-wing causes. If GG seriously wanted to use his prominence and influence to "defend free speech and criticize the political establishment" in good faith he would not do it on Tucker Carlson's or Laura Ingraham's shows. I should think this is obvious. That I'm engaging with ppl here to whom it isn't tells me it's time to take this talk p. off my watchlist. We do not share a common set of facts and understandings about news and politics. Ciao ciao Classicfilmbuff (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

This is like saying that Ben Shapiro's participation on Bill Maher's talk show is in the service of left-wing causes. (🤔?) - Daveout(talk) 01:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Arguing a point through analogy by equating Bill Maher with Tucker Carlson is a fine example of a logical fallacy. One would not equate, e.g., Joy Behar with Laura Ingraham in analogy. Or how about Chris Wallace and Colbert? So no, your analogy unpersuasive. xo Classicfilmbuff (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

False claim in the intro section

Greenwald has not “won” a Pulitzer Prize. The newspapers he worked for did.

 Done - Daveout(talk) 05:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

GOAT

[6] Maybe over the top so I'll leave it up to others whether to add it to the article. 2602:24A:DE47:BA60:8FCB:EA4E:7FBD:4814 (talk) 00:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

CIA/JEWS

On August 20 2021 he suggested the CIA own most if not all liberal media in The United States https://theglobalherald.com/news/glenn-greenwald-suggests-cnn-liberal-media-is-controlled-by-cia/

He also claimed in that interview the media is always pushing for another war in the middle east or extending military intervention https://www.foxnews.com/media/glenn-greenwald-knocks-media-changing-tune-biden

What Greenwald has become

Greenwald's service now is to the... [Remainder redacted by Herostratus (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC) per WP:BLP, accusations of actual misbehavior without proximate proof, as well as number of strongly deprecatory characterizations. Can't do that. Editor does not care for Mr Greenwald, also considers him a political rightist is sufficient info to describe the post.] ...have to deal with him while doing so.2603:6081:2201:468F:D9DC:C632:DF4A:4F46 (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

We get it, you tankies hate Greenwald because he doesn't toe the party line, but trying to smear him like this only makes you look like an idiot. Greenwald is a man of integrity, and that's why you hate him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4F00:113A:D95E:BAFE:6BFA:E9CA (talk) 06:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I attempted to place this in the article a few months back - the primary news outlet that Greenwald currently appears on in the United States besides his own Substack is Fox News. He has clocked 72 appearances on their airwaves in the last 4 years. It was edited out for no apparent reason. Even if there is no additional discussion of Greenwald's own political views (something this article seems to have a lengthy section on) and regardless of his reasons for appearing on Fox News, it should be noted somewhere in this article that he is a frequent guest on Fox News shows. To not include that is to deprive readers of this article of important information about his journalism career.

 Done - Daveout(talk) 01:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

He does conservative media because liberal media often doesn't invite him or treat him fairly when they do. It's still selective on Fox's part as they only care when Greenwald criticizes left-wing authorities, and plenty on the right still resent him for criticizing their heroes, but at this point I think he just takes whatever gigs he can get to talk about stuff he cares about, regardless of which team they play for. That alone is not convincing proof of any political bias or partisan motives, but his critics in liberal journalism have certainly spun it as such. And just because he's occasionally endorsed pro-Trump sources, intentionally or not, doesn't also mean that he's a closet Trumpian. 2600:8801:710D:EA00:4413:9103:DB0E:F052 (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

All, be advised of WP:NOTFORUM. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Glenn views on mask and vaccines.

Taking into consideration the number of deaths and economic problems caused by the pandemic, I believe it's important to update Glenn's wiki to expose his anti-mask and anti-vaccine rethoric on twitter. It's important as an historical lesson for the future to look back and see that even well informed intellectuals like Glenn worked against the efforts to combat the covid19 pandemic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Diegomineiro (talk • contribs) 15:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Frequent guest on ...

What do editors think of the following edit:

• We currently say "Greenwald has also become a frequent guest on Tucker Carlson's talk show". One source used for this says Greenwald was "positioning himself as a frequent guest on Fox News". The other says "Greenwald has racked up at least 72 appearances on Fox since December 2017—40 of them on Tucker Carlson Tonight". If we are trying to inform readers about Greenwald's work, we should include both Fox News and Carlson's talk show as places where Greenwald has become a frequent guest. Is there a reason we have chosen only one location?

Burrobert (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Good catch. Both should be mentioned. -- Valjean (talk) 17:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The original edit that introduced that line had "fox news" in it. (diff). When I re-added it I changed it to Tucker's show because I thought most of Glenn's participations were in that show. (I probably shouldn't have done that.) Mentioning both would be redundant since Tucker's show is on fox news. - Daveout(talk) 18:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes Carlson's show is a subset of Fox News. Do you have a suggested wording that would include both while being both informative and not redundant? Or would it be preferable to only include the larger set - i.e. Fox News? Burrobert (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Both references at the end of the sentence support saying "Greenwald has also become a frequent guest on Fox News." Please, let's leave it at that. It is unnecessary in the lead to identify each host of the shows where he appears most often, especially since we do not specify it in the body of this BLP. Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Right-ho. Burrobert (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Either is ok with me, but I'd err toward brevity and omit Tucker. Inf-in MD (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

If 40 out of 70 are on Carlson, I think mentioning both would be preferable, especially if independent sources find mentioning Carlson noteworthy, so I'd just say something like "has also become a frequent guest on Fox News and in particular Tucker Carlson's talk show". (No need for more sources, but evidence of noteworthiness of Carlson:[7][8][9][10] However, I wonder if this sentence is due for the lead given it is not in the body; should it be moved down? BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Adding Glenn Greenwald's pornography career to his biography

This fully factually accurate and well cited edit was instantly reverted. I feel this was done in error, please review community: Glenn Greenwald - Wikipedia HairyDomBraz27 (talk) 06:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

That is an obvious misrepresentation of those sources, which do not support the content you are adding at all. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Have you... read the sources? They directly confirm all three points. HairyDomBraz27 (talk) 06:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

They are Glenn Greenwald's own words on the subject. Published in HX Magazine, a well respected gay culture magazine. HairyDomBraz27 (talk) 06:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with wallyfromdilbert here. The first sentence is not supported by the source and appears to be WP:SYNTH. Concerning the two other sentences, I'd remove them solely for their promotional tone ("pionered", "catering to"). Isabelle ^🔔 20:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Contradictory qualifiers

Summary text that appears in browser for this article refers to Greenwald as “far right” but politics section clearly shows that his positions have been characterized as both “far right” and “far left”. Summary qualifier should be removed. 75.172.13.36 (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

"far-right"???

When one Googles Glenn, Google provides an infobox, with a short blub attributed to Wikipedia which reads as follows: "Glenn Edward Greenwald is a far-right American journalist, author, and lawyer. In 1996, he founded a law firm concentrating on First Amendment litigation." (emphasis mine)

So is this a position which Wikipedia holds, or has Google simply misattributed this to Wikipedia? In the article now it doesn't state that - at least not in the lead, but the body of the article does quote a couple people who have made such allegations/insinuations. None of these are asserted as fact though by Wikipedia. I haven't yet checked the history, but perhaps there was a vandal which edited the lede to read as such, but this was then reverted?

Anyway, assuming that this is not Wikipedia's position, it would probably be a good idea for Wiki to let Google know, so that they can correct this! -2003:CA:8731:F02D:649E:A062:5D2A:71DF (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

what? 2601:1C0:4500:BFD0:0:0:0:6C44 (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I found the edit which added the "far-right" bit to the article's lede: [11] It was reverted about 21 minutes afterwards, but apparently Google still has this as their cached version of the page - even though this was several days ago (12 January), and the vandalous edit was only left up for less than half an hour....I wonder if the vandal somehow knew the schedule of when Google would be making a new cache of the page. -2003:CA:8731:F02D:649E:A062:5D2A:71DF (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Grammar checking needed

The following sentence in the lede seems odd to me (as a non-native speaker).

• "His work contributed to The Guardian and The Washington Post won a Pulitzer Prize"

Is that right? Could somebody fix it? - Daveout(talk) 03:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

As a native English speaker, I would say that the wording is technically grammatically correct, but that it is a bit of an awkward construction which could potentially be confusing or unclear to some readers. I would recommend replacing "contributed to" with "published in." -2003:A:502:E400:245F:D59:DC54:2C64 (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, alright then. Thank you. - Daveout(talk) 14:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

POV/Synth in "political views" section.

A recent edit [12] added the bolded text here:

"In his 2006 book How Would a Patriot Act?, Greenwald, contrary to his history running for local government office,[13] wrote that he was politically apathetic at the time of the Iraq War and accepted the Bush administration's judgement that "American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country"."

I see a couple problems with this: 1) It strikes me as rather POV - i.e. attempting to cast doubt on Greenwald's assertion that he wasn't closely following foreign affairs at the beginning of the Iraq war. 2) Given that the reference listed (number 13) does not make any mention of Greenwald's book or the Iraq War, this seems a pretty clearcut violation of WP:Synth.

As such, this new addition to the article should be removed. -2003:A:502:E400:C1E1:8947:66EE:BD7C (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Well spotted and thanks for pointing this out. I have removed it. Burrobert (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2022

Add section regarding the significant shift in political alignment of Glenn Greenwald. Greenwald has recently posted on twitter antisemitic tropes, a stark difference from the pulitzer prize-winning journalist. Source: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1492141783161225219?s=21 Readers learning about Greenwald should know about the evolution of his political alignment, especially something as significant as the shift into political antisemitism. 38.13.57.85 (talk) 02:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

What you suggest is dependent on the existence of reliable sources which, on this theme, seem to be scarce. I have added a further citation to the end of the Israel section which meets the necessary criteria. However, third-party reactions to his antipathy to the Jewish state are lacking and might be added to the passage. Philip Cross (talk) 10:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Located and added further citations on this theme in the last few hours and expanded section heading to "Israel and accusations of antisemitism". On the grounds of sustaining a neutral point of view, the claims against Greenwald cannot be taken as having been proven. Philip Cross (talk) 14:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Positions on the Ukraine war

Greenwald's positions on the Russo-Ukrainian War have attracted a lot of coverage - especially, though not exclusively, his comments on the Ukraine biolabs conspiracy theory, though also his early claims before the invasion that it was a ruse by Washington. I added a brief mention of his appearance on Tucker Carlson about it, but there's a lot more - should we create a section for this? Possible sources include [13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. --Aquillion (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

When the government comes out and emphatically denies that they have biological weapons, we know they’re not telling the truth.

The following text was recently removed:

In an appearance on Tucker Carlson Tonight, Greenwald said "When the government comes out and emphatically denies that they have biological weapons, we know they’re not telling the truth". On Substack, Greenwald wrote that the Ukraine biolabs conspiracy theory could be true.

The reason given was "rv BLP violation. US did not deny it has such weapons". This is probably giving this more attention than it deserves, but can anyone explain the connection between the text that was removed and the explanation given for the removal? As a result of the text's removal we now say:

In an appearance on Tucker Carlson Tonight, Greenwald expressed support for the Ukraine biolabs conspiracy theory and has said the theory could be true.

Three sources have been provided for this sentence. One is a Guardian article in which Greenwald does not mention the labs and instead is quoted as saying "When the government comes out and emphatically denies that they have biological weapons, we know they’re not telling the truth". The other two sources do not mention Greenwald's appearance on Tucker's program. They do support the statement that "On Substack, Greenwald wrote that the Ukraine biolabs conspiracy theory could be true".

On a separate grammatical point, why say the same thing twice in the one sentence. Why not say "In an appearance on Tucker Carlson Tonight, Greenwald said the Ukraine biolabs conspiracy theory could be true"? (As mentioned above, we don't have a source which supports this) Burrobert (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Cover his views on Ukraine by all means. Please ensure that we write what the sources say rather than something else entirely. Burrobert (talk) 06:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I think that perhaps saying he promoted or advanced the conspiracy theory rather than saying he supported it might make more sense per the Slate ref [20], which we could also cite and which is probably more useful because it discusses Greenwald more. As the Slate ref essentially says, you can promote a conspiracy theory (by, in its words, giving it oxygen) while saying you are just asking questions, so to speak. --Aquillion (talk) 07:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll prefix this by saying I haven't read all the sources and am not particularly conversant with his views on Ukraine. However:

- It would be more helpful to readers, if we document his views rather than attached a label to them. If sources have categorised his views in a particular way, we could include that categorisation with attribution.

- He references Victoria Nuland's statement as evidence that claims that Ukraine maintains dangerous biological weapons labs as at least partly true ("the neocon official long in charge of U.S. policy in Ukraine testified on Monday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and strongly suggested that such claims are, at least in part, true.). It would be good to provide his reasoning here.

- If we say that " In an appearance on Tucker Carlson Tonight, Greenwald expressed support for the Ukraine biolabs conspiracy theory ...", we should provide a source which supports this claim. Burrobert (talk) 07:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Please address the point that @Aquillion: just made immediately above. The right wing media and its content artists frequently use indirect statements and loaded deflections to support various conspiracy theories and other propaganda narratives. That's what Greenwald did with Tucker Carlson and elsewhere. Nobody doubts that the US has chemical/bio weapons it will never use, just as it has many times more nukes and other weapons it will never use. SPECIFICO talk 12:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The reason given for reverting, that the text was a BLP violation, is obviously incorrect. In general I'm not a fan of encyclopedic content that is simply regurgitating what someone said on a cable show. There's a full industry of RS that cover the events of Tucker's show, but that doesn't make it relevant for an encyclopedia. I think it is better, instead of saying "On Tucker, Greenwald said X," to say "Greenwald's view on [topic] is X." Mr Ernie (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion to add Political Views subsections 'Support for Libs of TikTok'

I would like to thank User:Daveout for pointing me towards the talk pages. As the subject header indicate, I would suggest adding the subsection 'Support for Libs of TikTok' under Political Views to the Gleen Greenwald article. (I have prepared an initial suggestion below.) I would like to claim that this topic is relevant and informative, as Mr. Greenwald has heavily amplified the material posted on this Twitter account though his own social media. Further, it is relevant when taken into context the role the account plays for generating content for US right-winged media outlet and Mr. Greenwalds statements/engagements in LGBTQ+ rights issues. I think this Wikipedia article can help bring some clarity and perspective to Mr. Greenwalds political views related to this topic. I sincerely appreciate any feedback and critical discussion regarding this addition.

Best regards,

--CEdvardsson (talk) 12:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

• Top level question, which of those sources actually mention Greenwald? Springee (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

We now have an article for this event, Libs of TikTok. This WaPo article mentions Greenwald and his twit. We should take into account that his twit contais his usual irony and that Greenwald is currently in a feud with WaPo and the writer of the article (Taylor Lorentz). In this YouTube video, Greenwald explains his opinions on the matter. - Daveout(talk) 13:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

---

Support for Libs of TikTok

Glenn Greenwald have expressed support for the Twitter account Libs of TikTok, calling himself the account’s “Godfather”. Libs of TikTok is a conservative Twitter user known for reposting content created by left-wing, liberal, and LGBT TikTok accounts, often in a derogatory manner.. Anti-LGBTQ+ content taken from the account has been heavily featured in right-wing media and The Washington Post described the account’s impact "deep and far-reaching. Its content is amplified by high-profile media figures, politicians and right-wing influencers". The account has minimized the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic, promoted the conspiracy theory that the 2020 United States presidential election was stolen and stories related to the QAnon conspiracy theory.

References

Immigration section sourced to single source

@Cambial Yellowing and SPECIFICO:, regarding this recent removal and restoration [21], I tend to think CY was probably right to remove this. This seems like a case where the singular source that is being used to add weight may be putting a lot of their own spin on the topic. This is especially concerning when the whole section is based on the writer's summary of the meaning of a few tweets (rather than any of Greenwald's actual articles). It's also content at the end of an article that aims to "expose what these people really think". If this were part of a wider discussion on Greenwald's immigration views I could see it being DUE. As the only source I tend to view it as not DUE. Springee (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

First off, the edit summary for the removal was outright false. Second, the cited source is solid mainstream RS reporting of what he said (where and on what medium is irrelevant, except that we do have Verification of his own words). There's absolutely nothing unusual or problematic about this run-of-the-mill article content in a section that is tagged for needing more such content. Per BLP, his subsequent revision of his stated view is duly noted. Excellent article content that was reverted for no good reason. SPECIFICO talk 14:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

My removal was based on the unarguable and easily checked fact, regardless of Specifico's false claims to the contrary, that the earlier source cited does not support the content. That source does not support the content. Evidently the 'Science & Tech' editorial staff of the Statesman took a dimmer view of Wilentz's thoughts about some people he dislikes than the Republic, and removed the section entirely when republishing part of Wilentz's piece. I know little to nothing of the Republic, it being a US publication, and it's not completely clear whether the source is an opinion article or news. However, there can be no doubt that the quote reproduced is accurate, as the blog post is still online. Pretty marginal in terms of weight; very little comment about Greenwald's views on immigration in RS. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Cambial Yellowin, could you explain why the source doesn't support the claim. To me it appears to. I don't think this content is DUE (you didn't weigh in on that question) but I'm interested too understand the wp:V issue. Springee (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Springee: Note that although Specifico has used the undo button and framed his edit as a revert in ES, in reality he deleted the source and inserted a new one in his edit. The source prior to that edit was the New Statesman which I indicate in my previous comment. Put simply, save a brief mention of his first amendment work, it makes no reference to Greenwald's specific views on any subject whatsoever. It does not include the quote reproduced in the article. I suspect the reason the NS article had been used rather than the New Republic is that, on examination, it is obvious the New Republic piece is published as an opinion piece. It is not a reliable source and does not demonstrate that the view expressed by Greenwald, in a single blogpost from before anyone outside his personal connections and client base had ever heard of him, is at all noteworthy. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Hello. From a quick google search, here are other sources which discuss his 2005 blogpost on immigration: The Atlantic: In 2005, a left-leaning blogger wrote, “Illegal immigration wreaks havoc... The blogger was Glenn Greenwald, New Statesman: Under this heading might go Greenwald’s early opposition to illegal immigration, which he said caused a “parade of evils” in 2005. Current Affairs: He did, after all, begin his career as a commentator spouting vile right-wing myths about immigrants (“illegal immigration—whereby unmanageably endless hordes of people.... Also, it is mentioned in some presumably unreliable blogs: mronline.org, novakarchive.com, liberalcurrents.com.

Greenwald doesn't really talk about immigration much at all. A robust and complete account of Greenwald's views would probably include a brief (like, one sentence) mention of his views in that 2005 blog post, and a brief (like, one sentence) update on his views. Being one of six subsections/headers on his views perhaps gives it too much emphasis, but I'm not sure there's any better way to organise that information. Endwise (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

As part of a more significant section on imigration it might be worth something. However, the phenomena of quoting a tweet and then using it as the basis for an opinion/commentary claim on the meaning of the tweet and what it indicates about Greenwald's bigger picture thinking is really questionable in my book. Zooming out, why would we include this? Does it tell us about his current views on immigration? Not really other than we can assume he doesn't agree with the old tweet. Do we care that much about what he used to think? Not really if it doesn't tell us what he currently thinks. There is also an issue that quotes like these often can mean what ever the reader/commentator wants them to mean. Consider the "parade of evils" comment. Does he mean it's evil because the people who come to the US trying to find work are evil? Does he mean the organized crime and exploitation associated with trafficking's is an evil? Certainly he might mean something else but consider how much different people might view his comments if his meaning was the second vs the first? This, BTW, is why it's very problematic when the source that tells us how to interpret this comment is a source who's RSP entry notes it's comments/commentary are strongly opinionated. Looking at those sources it's clear the comment got some traction but it's also worth noting each source seems to read it differently. Current Affair seems to be taking the outrange angle (how dare this formerly reliable left leaning journalist support the right!). Mronline seems to be more nuanced and doesn't mention the tweet that the New Republic says represents walking back the original claim. I don't see where the New Republic article references this conversation [22] but I might have missed that. Anyway, this seems like a mess and not very useful information. It doesn't really tell us anything about his current views on illegal immigration (which seems to be the subject of the comment). If the objective is to say Greenwald has changed his view on immigration then we should present it as that rather than as his view on immigration. If the intent is, as CA is trying to show, that Greenwald is actually a far-right journalist who fooled the left for a while, well we should say that. The way this reads now is someone was able to find a gotcha moment in his tweets and we will now use that to discredit him. That's a very poor way to structure our BLPs (though it happens a lot). Springee (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Regarding "Do we care that much about what he used to think?" I mean, idk, I don't think that should be for us to decide. I think that's for RS to decide. Wikipedia biographies are biographies of people's entire lives, not just what they think as of [current date]. I agree with you that the relevance a lot of sources seem to find with it is something of the form of questioning his purity/commitment to the left (particularly after his departure from The Intercept and appearances on Tucker, etc.), but I don't think we need to frame it that way to include any mention of it. I think readers can make their own mind up about that, and explicitly mentioning the "is he really left-wing?" framing would only serve to give undue emphasis on his views on immigration (which, again, he almost never talks about). Minor point, but it was a post on his old blog, not a tweet: here is a link to the blog post. Endwise (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The content is OK and the sourcing is strong. Greenwald is not so important a figure on Earth such that we get dozens or hundreds of sources on him regarding practically anything, particularly in the last 5-7 years as he's become more or less a WP:FRINGE figure. So we simply need to be careful about sourcing. New Republic and his own tweet both verify and establish the significance of the content. SPECIFICO talk 16:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The NR is rated as mostly commentary with a strong liberal bend. I'm not sure it's a good source to establish weight for this comment. As the other sources make clear this comment doesn't really reflect his current views on illegal immigration and in general he doesn't say much about the subject and isn't known for his views on the subject. As such I don't see this as DUE. Springee (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that Greenwald has not amounted to a hill of beans for the last 5+ years. Do we just end his BLP when he was doing valid journalism? His recent life is not really of much widespread interest. He's one of thousands of pundit provocateurs on the internet. SPECIFICO talk 19:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Right or wrong, I think there are a number of sources that could be used to claim Greenwald shifted from left to right. We may also find some that defend his view that he has stayed on track and it was the left that moved away. That would be a good summary of where things are now. Consider that the NR article was basically an early source saying, "this guy isn't a lefty, he's actually a righty!" But that sort of content is different than just a random claim that "well he changed his view on illegal immigration". If our intent is to write a good article we really should consider content as part of a bigger article structure rather than individual factoids that don't see to have much to do with one another. Springee (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

If you have sources for that shift, it would be a constructive addition to document his transition to the conservative orbit. SPECIFICO talk 20:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't have good sources for it. Reason did an interview with Greenwald and this was one of the discussion points but I don't think that would count as a RS since it was an interview and much of it is Greenwald's claims [23]. Springee (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Might be RS for his opinions. Maybe post for help at NPVON on the weight and sourcing question. The article's worth improving. SPECIFICO talk 22:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a RS for his statements but we would have to be careful when using them. I'm not sure how much ABOUTSELF would apply. It certainly applies if his comments directly reply to something said about him. However, if we don't have a RS saying, "he said X" then we shouldn't post a reply to X. It's kind of frustrating since there are a lot of sources that could be good if we didn't strictly follow wp:RS. Of course the flood of not good sources is why we should avoid that. Springee (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

His statementd about himself are RS -- not just if he's replying to someone else. SPECIFICO talk 22:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I think a lot of editors object that a statement made by an individual about themselves may not actually be true ("I always wash my hands after using the restroom"). Thus, we always treat it as a fact that they said it but not necessarily a true statement. Springee (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeh but for statement of opinion, it's usually OK, unless clearly disingenuous. And since he later renounced that view, he was confirming that it had formerly been his view. SPECIFICO talk 00:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Why is a single post WP:DUE for an entire section? Seems like excess weight to me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  I don't like that it has its own subsection to itself either, but I'm not sure I see a better way to organise the section on his views. Endwise (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Renewed edit warring

The initial removal of this content was based on the appearance that it was a cherrypicked primary sourced comment that failed WEIGHT. But after @Endwise: corrected that lapse and provided two firm secondary sources that note Greenwald's view, I see no further justification for removal of the immigration comment. It is a core area of Greenwald's focus and it is a well-reasoned statement on the subject. SPECIFICO talk 11:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

"On [date] Glennwald tweeted [X]" is not encyclopedic content, and Salon is not a great source. Far better to find RS that summarize what that says about his views than just parrot the reactionary news stories that inevitably pop up over meaningless things. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Please read the thread and the cited sources, plural. If it were only Salon, that would be quite a different matter. But if you will please familiarize yourself with the discussion and sourcing, you will see why this is significant and appropriately sourced content. Immigration is not an a meaningless topic in the US. It's top tier. SPECIFICO talk 12:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments like these don't support your case. The thread links to New Republic and Reason, and the removed content is Salon and The Atlantic. Only one of those is considered a good source. It's far better if you link the sources yourself instead of hand waving and saying "top tier," because anyone reviewing will see through the smoke. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

More edit-warring

The content has again been reverted, despite the many RS that have discussed this tweet, our ABOUTSELF policy, and the disucssion above which produced no consensus that this was UNDUE or disqualified for any other valid reason. It should be restored. SPECIFICO talk 23:19, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Russian intervention in Trump election

I get the impression from this article that you think the Russian intervention in the Trump election did take place. Is this still common sense?--Ralfdetlef (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Recent revision - Early career

Hello Cambial Yellowing,

could you please explain your revert [[24]]? Both of those sources exactly support my addition to the article. I also dont get why you would think it gives undue weight to the subject, as it was just a single sentence... I think the topic is definetely noteworthy. Have a nice day.

Icarusatthesun (talk) 12:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

There is little to add beyond what is said in my edit summary. As this is a biography of a living person, content that is unsupported by reliable sources is removed immediately. The statement you make above is false. Contrary to your claim, in neither of the two articles you cited is there mention of the article subject as a "director of gay pornography". Hence this was fabricated unsourced content, which we do not use here.

The first source you cite, the Toronto Sun is, according to the Washington Post, "Canada's most accomplished practitioner of tabloid journalism". The Post notes "The Sun's daily columns are filled with a hash of offbeat human-interest stories, entertainment news and gossip, lots of sports and some rather tame appeals to prurient interests." It evidently pursues similar editorial output as The Sun. Yet even this salacious source only mentions Greenwald's business involvement in the porn industry in passing; the longest reference to it is in quotation marks as a quote from Paul Calandra, not a statement in the paper's own voice. Wikipedia is not for gossip, so this seems to be undue weight given to a subject very few news organisations have decided to give even a single mention, with The Daily Mail a predictable exception. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The porn bit is Verified by the Village Voice reference, so it is not being sourced solely to the statement of the MP. The Toronto Sun is not affiliated with nor comparable to The Sun, UK, and appears to include legitimate journalism alongside some sensational content. Toronto Sun has been discussed repeatedly at RSN, but not deprecated. Pinging @The Four Deuces and Masem: who have commented there. More problelmatic for this content is that Greenwald's career in pornography is not mentioned elsewhere in the article. If it is indeed irrelevant to his life story, then this little bit of content is clearly UNDUE. If his pornography efforts are a substantive omission from the article, then there needs to be article text added to provide a valid predicate for the MP bit. Failing such WEIGHT relating to his entrepreneurial pursuits, the content cannot be reinstated in this BLP. SPECIFICO talk 14:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

There's an article in the Atlantic that discusses the matter in greater detail. (Abby Ohlheiser, "Here Comes the Glenn Greenwald Hit Piece" JUNE 26, 2013.) Even then there's very little information about the actual role if any Greenwald had with the porn company. Greenwald wrote a response to the claims which was published in the Guardian.[25] In it it mentions that his company was "multi-member."

So it seems that while the text added to this article is false, there may be sufficient coverage in reliable sources to add something, provided that both the Atlantic and Guardian articles are used. One of the benefits of weight is that articles don't contain allegations that have had so little coverage that the subject did not think they had to reply. OTOH, the story had no lasting significance.

The Toronto Sun incidentally was modelled on the London Sun except that it carried more detailed news, a wide range of mostly right-wing columnists and a fully clothed page 3 girl. I wouldn't recommend it as a news source, because it is selective in what it reports.

TFD (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I actually had remembered the story from back in the day and thought it was worthwhile to mention. I just quickly searched for both Toronto Sun and Village Voice and did not find them on the list for unreliable sources. I also found a Washington Babylon [[26]] piece about the subject, but thought it was quite opinionated, so I did not want to include it in the source material.

As for what the Washington Post thinks about the Toronto Sun should not matter to us in the slightest, they even have a vested interest to cast shade on competitors (even tabloids)...

As to the Guardian piece, it was written by himself so it can not really serve as a reliable source, can it? (Not a rhetorical question - I really dont know Wikipedia's policy in regard to auto-biographical pieces...)

In any way, I would write a complete paragraph about the subject, including the Atlantic, the Village Voice and the Toronto Sun piece for the allegation from Paul Calandra (and maybe the Guardian piece?), to include the whole story. Would this be acceptable? Icarusatthesun (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

As there is an Atlantic article, the New York Daily News, and Greenwald's response - certainly usable per Wp:ABOUTSELF, and it's appropriate to include article subject's response - there is little value in using a tabloid newspaper. The Toronto Sun is not a competitor to the Washington Post, even apart from their being published in different countries in cities 450 miles apart. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the content. This appears to be a bit of a WP:BLP issue, and contemporaneous reporting shows that Greenwald appears to have been involved only in a legal-side capacity. That he provided legal services to the company seems to be an unremarkable part of his life that doesn't seem to have passed the ten-year test, and I don't think that we want to be putting sensationalized reporting that hasn't really stood the test of time as sources into our articles. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:24, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey Red tailed hawk,

I did restore the content - I think it matters in terms of his perception in the public and political circles at the time and now. I do not even think it is particularly senationalist. Icarusatthesun (talk) 18:50, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Because it was an unexplained revert re inserting text that had possible BLP issues, I removed it before the comment above was posted. Softlemonades (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

My bad, forgot to give the explanation... Well it is better to discuss this beforehand anyway, otherwise this will just start a quarrel. Icarusatthesun (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Can you point to any profiles of Greenwald published by RS that give weight to this sort of thing? If the only sort of coverage with any weight was contemporary, and it hasn't received follow-up coverage, it's probably not worth prominently featuring based off of sensationalist sources published in 2013. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Well I could find this 2019 article in Czech Playboy, which even mentions he started an adult content server with his business partner. Icarusatthesun (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

References

"Days after they met?"

The personal life section includes this line - "Days after they met, the couple decided to move in together; the two would later marry." However, the cited source only says "The couple soon moved in together," without giving any specific timeframe. Is there a source that specifies "days after" rather than "soon after"? TechSkylander1518 (talk) 07:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is an odd and unjustified interpretation of the source. It should be changed until a source is found which is more specific. Burrobert (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Right-wing hack

The article ought to make more mention of what Greenwald has been up to for the past two and a half years. For the past 2.5 years, Greenwald has spent his every waking moment attacking liberals, attacking leftists, and defending conservatives.

In every major left-vs.-right election of the past 2.5 years—2020 US presidential, 2022 French presidential, 2022 Brazil presidential, 2022 US midterms, to name just a few—he has worked tirelessly to tarnish, bring down, and defeat the left-of-center candidate, and to boost, promote, defend, and raise the electoral fortunes of the right-of-center candidate.

He has made nonstop obsequious, groveling appearances on Fox News, and has acted as Tucker Carlson’s de facto defense lawyer, PR rep, and one-man rapid response team. He recently partnered with far-right video platform Rumble to produce content there as well. His entire audience—on Substack, Twitter, Fox, and Rumble—is virtually 100% right-wing — as any of his remaining leftist Twitter followers have either unfollowed him, or been blocked by him for criticizing him (he makes a show of consistently blocking liberal and leftist Twitter users — and *only* liberal and leftist Twitter users).

Everyone who’s kept up with him over the past 2.5 years knows him full well as a man of the right. He has ripped to shreds, burned, and incinerated any and all of his former leftist allegiances. This article essentially does PR for him by refusing to mention this. We need to talk about this. Mcleanm302 (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources which specifically state this? Greyjoy ^talk 02:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Greenwald has spent his every waking moment attacking liberals, attacking leftists, and defending conservatives. In every major left-vs.-right election of the past 2.5 years—2020 US presidential, 2022 French presidential, 2022 Brazil presidential, 2022 US midterms — liberals sure, but leftists? Given his past praises of Lula and the fact that Bolsonaro almost had Greenwald jailed after he effectively saved Lula’s career, I wouldn’t really say this is true of Brazil. See e.g. Jacobin on the matter. In the US, from what I understand his criticism mainly focused on the centrist liberals; his main criticism of the leftists (i.e. Bernie and the squad, not sure there are any else?) AFAIK is that they don’t exert their influence forcefully enough and/or are still too accepting of US foreign policy compared to leftist politicians internationally.

Regardless though, sources I can find seem to describe his current politics as muddy, confusing, or hard to pin down, but do seem to describe him as focusing on criticising liberals, and frequently joining hands with the right to do so: [27][28][29]. I think something could be written on his recent ideological shift, but describing him crudely as a right-winger critical of left-wingers appears neither accurate nor reflective of the more muddy way recent reliable sources talk about him. Endwise (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

You're conflating liberal and left. And if GW is a hack, what words are there left to describe those journalists who traduce him? Shtove (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

More significantly, does he matter? His erratic and apparently concocted narratives have long since cease to be taken seriously by mainstream media, scholars or public readers. Some of his stuff is fringe and illogical, but I don't see that he is taken seriously enough for his more recent statements to be getting much attention. SPECIFICO talk 19:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, mainstream coverage of him and his commentary is pretty scant nowadays, which is an issue. But the mainstream coverage that does exist of him takes a view more like "This guy's really bizarre now, wtf happened to him?" rather than a view that more describes him plainly as a right-wing hack. Endwise (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Here's some coverage of Greenwald's right-wing alignment: [30] I believe there's also some Brazilian material on the phenomenon. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

TDB is a poor source for such subjective commentary about a BLP subject. Springee (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

You're conflating mainstream media and reliable sources. Shtove (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Endwise, your analysis of Greenwald is outdated by about three years. What you claim he does: “attack liberals, but do so exclusively from the left” and “attack leftists, but do so exclusively from the left” is *not* what he does anymore. Nowadays, he attacks both leftists *and* liberals, *and*, he does so from both the left *and* the right — but mostly from the right. Nowadays, he intentionally combines liberals and leftists into one group, and attacks them both — attacks them all together. And usually, he attacks liberals and leftists from the right nowadays. Not only that, but he also attacks liberal*ism* *and* left*ism*. Not just people who are liberals, or people who are on the left. But liberal and left *ideas* as well — and literally the *entire* liberal and left *philosophies* as well. He has made a full transition to the right, to the right-wing, and to the far-right. Look at his Twitter account and read his tweets ever since late 2020. Everything he says on Twitter—which is where he spends the vast majority of his time nowadays—is right-wing, designed to hurt the left and help the right. Mcleanm302 (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

From the sources I linked in my response above (ordered by date):

Jan 2023 MSNBC opinion piece: Collectively, these and other lesser-known pundits push a political position that could be called “anti-lib populism.”... A skeptic of my schematic might say that I'm simply describing right-wing populists. Well, not exactly. First of all, these commentators don’t fit neatly into any conventional ideological box (and, complicating things further, never really did very neatly fit on the left). Greenwald’s stated normative views are decidedly not conventionally right-wing.

March 2022 Slate article: The situation is also a challenge to navigate for a tougher-to-categorize but increasingly popular type of writer often described as anti-anti-Trump. These journalists are exemplified by former Guardian and Intercept reporter Glenn Greenwald, whose stance one might define as … contrarian anti-woke civil libertarianism?... So is it unprecedented trans-ideological consensus or a gripping battle of opposed positions so high-stakes that the outcome could change the course of human history? Who knows! Check back in tomorrow for a just-as-passionate-and-accusatory take on … something! (I included the second part here is just to exemplify the confused nature with which the writer discusses Greenwald)

March 2021 New York Magazine article: Greenwald comes out of a tradition of progressive journalism that focused primarily on attacking liberals and the Democratic Party from the left... Greenwald took this impulse even further by positioning himself as a frequent guest on Fox News, where he would reliably bash the Democrats from the standpoint of the “good progressive.” The distinction between Greenwald’s attacks on the Democratic Party from the left and the Fox News attacks on Democrats from the right has grown increasingly difficult to discern... Greenwald’s primary focus is on foreign policy and national security, where the ideological lines really are blurry enough to construct a halfway-plausible case that Trump is to the left of the Democratic Party.

You might find it obvious that he's now a "right-wing hack", but sources really don't appear to be. They seem to present an above all confusing mishmash of reasons he attacks liberals (or "the left"). Endwise (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The Nation has recently described him as libertarian.[31] Peleio Aquiles (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald abandoned that distinction a long time ago. On Twitter he now criticizes liberals and leftists on the same breath. I make Mcleanm302's position on Greenwald's trajectory mine. For all of Greenwald's denial, it's obvious he's undergone an ideological transformation, one of the weirdest elements of which is his odd decision to operate as Tucker Carlson's "one-man rapid response team", as Mcleanm302 put it. He even bothered to recently trying to downplay Carlson's leaked racist comments about "how white men fight" when Carlson himself hasn't bothered to discuss the issue in public. A role usually usually played by one's lawyer or PR agent.

In the past few years Greenwald's few remaining non-right-wing fans have tried to salvage him from being seen as a reactionary by bringing attention to his Brazilian work, but this isn't even possible anymore. It was obvious throughout 2021 and 2022 that Greenwald decided to aim his fire at Lula and forget his previous criticism of Bolsonaro's authoritarianism, which included falsely portraying Bolsonaro as a victim of social media censorship in Brazil. Brazilian left-wing voices are widely hostile to Greenwald these days. There's simply no single issue Greenwald has paid attention to in the last two years where his views aligns with the left. He's much closer in rhetoric and in praxis to the MAGA right. And it's about time this entry reflect this fact. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

"Associated with Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones "

I've recently removed material stating Greenwald has come under scrutiny for associating with Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones, who have promoted numerous conspiracy theories, first from the lead and (after the material was restored to the body with the section heading "Associated with Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones") also from the body. The sources provided were Intelligencer, an opinion podcast from The Nation and an opinion piece in Salon. The first source doesn't mention Jones, nor conspiracy theories, and it doesn't use that sort of nebulous "associated with" language. The second source is an opinion podcast, which isn't the sort of thing that is reliable, much less carries enough weight for this sort of Wikivoice statement. The third source is also an opinion piece, from Salon (WP:MREL on RSP), and does mention Jones, but opinion pieces aren't reliable for this sort of thing (nor do they make them WP:DUE).

WP:BLP states that we must [b]e very firm about the use of high-quality sources in biographies of living persons and WP:BLPREMOVE instructs us to immediately remove contentious material from BLPs that is the result of SYNTH, is poorly sourced/unsourced, or otherwise fails WP:V. I've done that, and I'm opening up discussion here on the material. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

agree, poorly sourced BLP violation. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The first source obviously sources the Tucker Carlson part, not the Alex Jones part. If anything, the language is more damning than "associated with": Propelled by his unshakable conviction that the Democratic Party is the main obstacle to the progressive agenda, Greenwald has successfully completed his orbit around the political spectrum. He now finds himself hailing the socialist bona fides of a wealthy heir who uses racial resentment to redirect the white working class away from material concerns.

This may be a podcast but is indeed reliable though maybe it should be attributed. Same goes for Salon. There are additional sources for "association" with Alex Jones (and even more for Carlson). MSNBC:"Greenwald attended the premier of a documentary about right-wing disinformation mogul Alex Jones and conducted a shockingly sympathetic interview with him." Slate: "Glenn Greenwald quizzed Jones and Moyer at a Q&A after the documentary’s premiere in Austin in July, his presence a gift to Jones’ credibility that led to much furor in some online circles. " Here is SPLC: "At the film premiere, Fox News talking head Glenn Greenwald hosted a conversation with director Alex Moyer and the Infowars host. Greenwald said the film showcased “the soulful Alex Jones.”

Yes, these are mostly opinion pieces but that does not make them unreliable since these are exactly the kind of sources that would cover this kind of association. Also, there seems to be no problem with using these sources elsewhere in the article. So why in this instance?

WP:RSOPINION says "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact" so that's what we should do. Include the info but attribute it.

Also... is anyone actually questioning the fact (not opinion) that Greenwald hosted the release of the documentary? Or that he's been on Fox News a whole bunch? The latter in particular should definitely be included in the article. Volunteer Marek 07:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely not at this point in time and certainly not in wikivoice. We dont use podcasts to amplify these sort of claims. If the subject hosted an event, we can include that in a neutral manner. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

An inappropriate use of opinion sources for statements of fact; agree with Red-tailed Hawk’s analysis. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Which statements of fact exactly? If you think that the text should be rewritten to more precisely reflect the fact that Greenwald hosted the release of the film on Alex Jones or called Tucker Carlson a "true socialist" and appeared frequently on his show as a guest, that's fine. Those are the "statements of fact" here and I don't think either one is seriously in question. Volunteer Marek 14:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

We had a wikivoice statement in the lead alleging that he had been "associating with" certain people, using that very nebulous term. If that isn't an attempt to make a factual claim, then I don't know what is. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 13:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Associated with is always a questionable "fact" for a wikipedia article. I mean what does it actually mean? Eliot Ness is associated with Al Capone in the minds of many (my self included) because he was the one who put Capone behind bars. Often on Wikipedia and in articles written to persuade rather than inform, we see it used as a way to discredit person A by suggesting they are similar to unliked person B. Guilt by association rather than anything else. Springee (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

These concerns would be resolved by attribution. Fringe figures such as the current iteration of Mr. Greenwald rarely get broad coverage in mainstream news media. Credible tertiary analysis ("opinion") can be used with attribution. SPECIFICO talk 14:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

This is UNDUE tripe. The removal was proper. Springee (talk) 14:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

"Associated with" is way to vague for inclusion IMO and approaches WP:LABEL. Unclear what it even means. Included information should be more specific. I'm skeptical about WP:RSOPINION for BLPs too. Per WP:BLP, Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I think the Tucker Carlson stuff should explicitly mention that before Carlson left Fox News, Greenwald was a frequent guest on his show. And just in general, I've noticed that a lot of this article is heavy on pre-2016 stuff and doesn't cover much of, um, "developments" in Greenwald's career and views since that. Volunteer Marek 16:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

What SPECIFICO said. In particular Greenwald associating himself with Tucker Carlson is definitely newsworthy. As far as the argument that opinion pieces can't be used in BLPs ... that's news to me. Best case scenario here is that we have a very inconsistent application of that policy across Wikipedia. Volunteer Marek 14:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I see that the association with Tucker Carlson is mentioned elsewhere in the article and though it could be expanded upon, I think for now it's sufficient. Volunteer Marek 16:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)