This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Glenn Greenwald article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Glenn 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. | ||||||||||
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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/?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)
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)
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)
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)
How are these points relevant to Greenwald's bio? And, more importantly, what do they mean?
Burrobert ( talk) 12:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the statements described in this thread. NonsensicalSystem (err0r?) (.log) 10:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Administrator note Please clarify exactly what you want changed? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 19:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
|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.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)
Daveout
(talk)
09:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk)
00:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
@ 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)
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.
Daveout
(talk)
10:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk)
17:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk)
01:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Greenwald has not “won” a Pulitzer Prize. The newspapers he worked for did.
[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)
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
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)
Daveout
(talk)
01:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)All, be advised of WP:NOTFORUM. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 09:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
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. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Diegomineiro ( talk • contribs) 15:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
References
What do editors think of the following edit:
Burrobert ( talk) 16:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk)
18:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The following sentence in the lede seems odd to me (as a non-native speaker).
Is that right? Could somebody fix it? -
Daveout
(talk)
03:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk)
14:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
The following text was recently removed:
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:
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)
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)
Daveout
(talk)
13:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Glenn Greenwald have expressed support for the Twitter account Libs of TikTok, calling himself the account’s “Godfather”. [1] 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. [2] [3]. 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". [4] 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. [5] [6] [7]
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check |author-link=
value (
help); External link in |author-link=
(
help); Invalid |url-status=Live
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help); {{
Cite tweet}}: Missing or empty |number= (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check |archive-url=
value (
help)CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: Check |archive-url=
value (
help)CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: Check |archive-url=
value (
help)CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: Check |archive-url=
value (
help)CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
@ 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)
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.
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 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)
References
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)
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)
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)
References
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)
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)
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.
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.
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Glenn Greenwald article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Glenn 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. | ||||||||||
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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/?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)
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)
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)
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)
How are these points relevant to Greenwald's bio? And, more importantly, what do they mean?
Burrobert ( talk) 12:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the statements described in this thread. NonsensicalSystem (err0r?) (.log) 10:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Administrator note Please clarify exactly what you want changed? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 19:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
|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.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)
Daveout
(talk)
09:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk)
00:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
@ 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)
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.
Daveout
(talk)
10:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk)
17:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk)
01:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Greenwald has not “won” a Pulitzer Prize. The newspapers he worked for did.
[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)
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
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)
Daveout
(talk)
01:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)All, be advised of WP:NOTFORUM. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 09:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
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. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Diegomineiro ( talk • contribs) 15:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
References
What do editors think of the following edit:
Burrobert ( talk) 16:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk)
18:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The following sentence in the lede seems odd to me (as a non-native speaker).
Is that right? Could somebody fix it? -
Daveout
(talk)
03:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk)
14:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
The following text was recently removed:
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:
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)
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)
Daveout
(talk)
13:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Glenn Greenwald have expressed support for the Twitter account Libs of TikTok, calling himself the account’s “Godfather”. [1] 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. [2] [3]. 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". [4] 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. [5] [6] [7]
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check |author-link=
value (
help); External link in |author-link=
(
help); Invalid |url-status=Live
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help); {{
Cite tweet}}: Missing or empty |number= (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check |archive-url=
value (
help)CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: Check |archive-url=
value (
help)CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: Check |archive-url=
value (
help)CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: Check |archive-url=
value (
help)CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
@ 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)
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.
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 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)
References
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)
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)
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)
References
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)
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)
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.
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.
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)