Jump to content

Talk:Glenn Greenwald: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→"Greenwald is CIA": new section
Tags: Reverted review edit
Line 244: Line 244:


: 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. [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 11:38, 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. [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 11:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

== "Greenwald is CIA" ==

Greenwald has written from his million dollar compound in Brazil that his life is sometimes in danger and if not for his armed security guards "bad things might happen". They never have or will because he doesn't expose "corruption" - whether Brazil or the USA.

As fantastic, unreal or exciting as his tales sound the key to understanding this so-called journalist's role is to understand that he never levels any serious charge at anyone. It doesn't matter whether Greenwald is CIA or not. I hope that by adding a sensationalist title to this entry we can understand his popularity in terms of what little information or insight on any topic he discusses. There is nothing much of substance past the usual empty sensationalist titillation - he is a pulp reporter, ie the usual propaganda.

Revision as of 15:22, 28 April 2021

Template:Vital article

Former good article nomineeGlenn Greenwald was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 17, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • I support a trimming of and/or elimination of primary sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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:

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Protected edit request on 2 October 2020

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

Were they added by a single editor, or group of editors? Shtove (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they can all be traced to this edit [4] by user Kacziey. Burrobert (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see - his history shows how he runs to Philip Cross!. Shtove (talk) 02:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Not biographically significant, so no. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Indeed — I feel like Paul on the way to Damascus, blinded by the light. -Darouet (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The IP has a point. - Daveout(talk) 00:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
+1. Junk the entire content as blatantly UNDUE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"Greenwald is CIA"

Greenwald has written from his million dollar compound in Brazil that his life is sometimes in danger and if not for his armed security guards "bad things might happen". They never have or will because he doesn't expose "corruption" - whether Brazil or the USA.

As fantastic, unreal or exciting as his tales sound the key to understanding this so-called journalist's role is to understand that he never levels any serious charge at anyone. It doesn't matter whether Greenwald is CIA or not. I hope that by adding a sensationalist title to this entry we can understand his popularity in terms of what little information or insight on any topic he discusses. There is nothing much of substance past the usual empty sensationalist titillation - he is a pulp reporter, ie the usual propaganda.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glenn_Greenwald&oldid=1020340321"