Talk:Glenn Greenwald

Biography assessment rating comment

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

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

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

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

Goofy picture

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

Hasn't been addressed before. I've searched Wiki commons: no real pic. I think the article should keep it, and in the event we get an actual picture, moved to a lower place in the article (near the 'salon' section). I only placed it at the top because it is the only related graphic we have for now. I believe it is the only likeness we can get that meets current wikipedia Fair Use criteria for images. I'm going to put it back in and request an actual photo at wiki commons. R. Baley 17:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Best of luck. If we don't get an actually photo, I still think this should be removed. Are there any other bios that use this type of carton charactures? I doubt it and it looks silly, imho. --Tom 19:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Other bios notwithstanding, I would still like to keep the image, as it is an identifier for his blog space. But I understand your concern about not having a real photo. Toward that end, I have sent him an email requesting a photo for use -under our image use policy. Hopefully, I'll get a good response. R. Baley 20:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Update:I've heard back from him and Glenn said he would send a photo. I've sent him the declaration of consent form, and so hopefully we'll have a real "free" picture, real soon. R. Baley 00:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice work R. Baley! I would have no problem including the caricture(sp) LOWER in the article, once the photo is inserted at the top. Cheers! --Tom 12:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Update #2 I've received the pic and the appropriate permissions. Just trying to figure out the best way to do upload the image for use. R. Baley 19:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Update #3For anyone interseted, I've uploaded the image to commons, but am waiting to see that PermissionsOTRS issues a ticketID before inserting into article. R. Baley 19:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Thanks R. Baley, much better! --Tom 17:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Reference Change

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

GA review

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

Con Law Reverts

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

Sockpuppets

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

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

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

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

OK then. Thank you. OneGyT/T|C 02:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I posted yesterday, but my response was deleted as evidently I was responding to a banned user. Just to refactor: I wanted to point out that BLP demands a cautious approach to such material. The allegations, denied by Greenwald, are clearly not permitted by WP:NPF. --Samiharris 10:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This source the "banned user" gives is of note, I think: [1]. Dig it out of the edit history for more of his reasoning. OneGyT/T|C 05:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse the interruption, but I would not want this added as it is from a blog as noted above. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if this wasn't from a blog it would still not be usable under NPF. --Samiharris (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Do you have links to these comments from US News and USA Today?—Preceding unsigned comment added by JustThatGuy2 (talk • contribs)

This is not a question of "liberal" or "conservative" but applicability of BLP, as has been discussed in some detail previously. Please sign talk page comments.--Samiharris (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I didn't even know there was a Sockpuppet (internet) article so thanks for bringing that to my attention. I agree with JustThatGuy2's comments above.--Samiharris (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Material added

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

I tidied up the Joe Klein material but have to read through the source materials. I have my doubts about this addition. Seems disproportionate.--Samiharris (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Tried to accommodate your concerns regarding see also phrasing. As you can see, my technical skill are poor.<br. />--Nbahn (talk) 04:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that did the trick. I still have concerns about the section related to WP:WEIGHT. It is mentioned disproportionate to its significance in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with mentioning it but I would suggest that the size of the mention be reduced significantly, perhaps to one or two sentences. Also I assume this is a fair discussion of the controversy but one must be careful because of BLP as it relates to Mr. Klein.--Samiharris (talk) 12:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

'Factual errors' vs. 'Disputed'

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

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

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

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

There is a lot of talk about this in the blogosphere. Two Democratic members of the Intelligence Committee are said to have complained about Klein's column, but I don't know yet if any reliable sources have carried their complaints. Since Wikipedia is not news, I suggest waiting a little before we can get a better summary of the situation from some reliable source, and then quote that. The situation is in flux. EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

We could put up a current event tag. How do you feel about that?<br. />--Nbahn (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Joe Klein himself is not a current event, and it is not one of Wikipedia's missions to keep up with everything that is said in the blogosphere. It appears this issue may be more important to you personally than it is to the reliable sources that we usually quote from. EdJohnston (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This can be sourced to both the Chicago Tribune (link) and Washington Post (link) now. . .R. Baley (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, given R. Baley's reliable source, I propose this for the article:

"Chiacgo Tribune". 28 November 2007.

The Chicago Tribune's web site offered a correction to some material that appeared Wednesday 28 November in their print edition:

A Time magazine essay by Joe Klein that was excerpted on the editorial page Wednesday incorrectly stated that the House Democratic version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act would require a court approval of individual foreign surveillance targets. It does not.

The text of the Tribune's comment could be included in the footnote. What do you all think? EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it.<br. />--Nbahn (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ed, you may also want to wander over to Joe Klein. I think it is OK now but I would like to get your opinion. It is there, at Klein, that we have the real WEIGHT concern, though I think that this is now less of an issue than previously. Klein's admission of error certainly obviates the BLP issue, at least to my mind. --Samiharris (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge book articles?

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

justthatguy2--

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

The first edit was obviously the remove the kind of POV-pushing weaselly nonsense which plagues political articles around here. If the see also links provide any relevant context then they should be discussed properly, not shunted into stealth-piped see also links. The second is not "absurd"; it's making the statements less strong, yes, but it isn't actually changing their meaning.

I don't see anything wrong with these edits; they help keep the article fair and balanced without being fair and balanced. I'm restoring them. Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

What the devil is a "stealth pipe"?<br. />--NBahn (talk) 10:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

A piped link where the target is unclear from looking at the link. For instance, a link like Jane Hamsher looks like it's going to another biographical article, whereas in fact it's pointing directly at an incident involving Joe Klein's sources (Jane Hamsher herself isn't really relevant). If this infomation is relevant to the Greenwald article (again, disputable), it's should be pointed out in prose and given context; for instance, it could be included inline in the Unclaimed Territory section, with a sentence like

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

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

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

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

Attention all--

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

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

R. Baley reverts

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

The irony in a section on sockpuppets being repeatedly re-added by a group of different anonymous editors should hopefully not be lost on anyone. Regardless, the section in question has been exhaustively discussed on here, and has been established as being too unreliable and potentially damaging for a WP:BLP. R.Baley is right to revert on sight. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree.--Samiharris (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to be kind, edits reverted diff were made by a banned user, [2]. But no doubt the "disturbed" "anon" above knows that. . .R. Baley (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The irony to which Chris refers has been even more obvious in other BLP articles. No point in going into them here but email me for the details.--Samiharris (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the same anonymous/banned editor has been causing problems on Sock puppet as well - you can guess what the rationale was. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Trademark case

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

edit by User:Arkon

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

The main reason would be that the ref was from the comments section of a blog, but also the parts in ()'s were quite unneccessary and read terribly. I won't touch it again, but I don't think it helps the article. Arkon (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't asking you to avoid editing the page; I was asking for a clarification of your rationale. I think that I understand your rationale (I do not agree with it, but that is irrelevant.) If you like, I'll undo my revert -- or you can do it yourself.
--NBahn (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Contributor to The American Conservative

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

Source citation added yesterday provides links to 4 articles listed via [the magazine's own] search facility. The revised lede provides the source citation. If someone wants to add links to the earlier articles too, one needs to provide an appropriately coherent sentence for such additional source citations. --NYScholar (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Added fact that the search facility is the magazine's own one; we don't link to Google searches (see WP:NOR), but to actual appropriate source citations. --NYScholar (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Political Views?

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

I've developed that section with some source citations and quotations from the sources cited. --NYScholar (talk) 05:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

And further edited them, editing out some of the lengthy less necessary quotations and retaining those that are necessary to illustrate the section topic ("Political views"). --NYScholar (talk) 03:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Great work. I don't have any problem with the remaining quotes. The current version of the article is a significant improvement. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks--I appreciate your comment.--NYScholar (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Topics

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

Another possibility (still neutral wording) is "Selected controversies" or "Selected controversial topics", if not satisfied w/ "Selected topics". --NYScholar (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

My resolution--see edit summ--is to use sub-subsections under Salon.com subsection--which is clear enough and does not require any "topics" heading, circumventing this problem and, I think, resolving it. --NYScholar (talk) 23:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone just changed format somewhat, and this one is okay w/ me too. --NYScholar (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think we need these to be put under one roof - Greenwald is primarily known to the larger world as a blogger, so devoting two level-2 sections to his blogging is appropriate. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Media appearances

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

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

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

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

So far as I can see, our only real disagreement here is in the use of the {{refbegin}} / {{refend}} templates for formatting. I can live without these, as the use of these templates is largely a matter of personal preference. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

According to the whole page referenced, those templates are for notes/footnotes, not bibliographical "References" lists (which are alphabetized); I've substituted {{Ref indent}} and {{Ref indent-end}}, which are for alphabetized bibliographical lists of "References" and/or "Bibliography" and create "hanging paragraphs". If a consensus among editors prefers the way I had left it before today (flush left entries, with no hanging paragraphs), the changes to create current hanging paras. that I just made can be reverted back to non indented format. --NYScholar (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC) --[apparently, with use of these templates, the asterisk that makes a bulleted item is nec. and creates an initial indent of each item. That indent is unnec. and not standard in alphabetized bibliographical lists; they are flush lefthand margin [for 1st lines of hanging paragraphs, that is]. --NYScholar (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)] [clarified in brackets. --NYScholar (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)]

Popularity?

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

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

Leaving out "Sockpuppet" Controversy

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

It's perfectly legitimate to bring up something from long ago. But I'd have to say that Greenwald's sockpuppetry is a non-notable thing. It's like whether or not he was photographed picking his nose or if he's caught jaywalking. If you don't believe me, ask some of the people who discovered what Greenwald did:

Keep in mind that sock-puppetry is, as Instapundit says, a “venial sin” (as opposed to a mortal sin). Yes, there is an element of dishonesty to it. But really, it’s mostly goofy and laughable — which is why the puppets are on hand to help me make the point.[3]

WP:BLP is also our lodestar here, which makes blogs an inherently problematic source of information in the first place. The Squicks (talk) 00:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Didn't Greenwald eventually admit to the sock puppetry? 66.208.17.254 (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No, he denied it.[4] Here's an example of a right-of-center blogger who believed him.[5] Crust (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

He wrote on the subject at UT:

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

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

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

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

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

• To suggest this page is "[D]eliberately tilted" is too utterly miss the point: The issue is that this does not appear to have been covered in a reliable source. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Like I said, deliberately tilted in favor of Greenwald.

• Some preliminaries: 1) Please sign your posts by placing four tildes at the end, thusly ~~~~. 2) Please review the page on assuming good faith with respect to other editor's motivations. Those quibbles aside, if you have an objection to a particular source, we can discuss that source as a separate issue. But to date none of the sources provided meet the standards for reliable sourcing. Do you have other sources we can discuss? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

False Implication

The following misuses the English language.

"In his Salon.com column of November 21, 2007, Greenwald documented what he considers to be factual errors in a national column written by Joe Klein in Time magazine.[30][31][32]"

Specifically, "Greenwald documented what he considers to be factual errors ...."

1. That part of the sentence falsely implies that Greenwald and Greenwald alone considers that what he documented "... to be factual errors ...." (and speaking of "documented".....)
2. Here are the definitions of "documented":

• Verb

• S: (v) document (record in detail) "The parents documented every step of their child's development"
• S: (v) document (support or supply with references) "Can you document your claims?"

• Adjective

• S: (adj) documented (furnished with or supported by documents) "the first documented case of shark attack in those waters"
• S: (adj) attested, authenticated, documented (established as genuine)

1. So, please allow me to present this question: If something is recorded in detail and supplied with references, then how is it possible for Greenwald, and Greenwald alone to be convinced that something has been supported? It does not make sense.
2. Therefore, I propose that the sentence be amended to read as:

"In his Salon.com column of November 21, 2007, Greenwald documented what he considers to be factual errors in a national column written by Joe Klein in Time magazine.[30][31][32]"

I think that this is a reasonable approach; in order to consider it unreasonable, one would have to ipso facto accept the premise that Greenwald had, in fact, failed to document any factual errors at all in Joe Klein's column.

Thoughts, anyone?<br. />—NBahn (talk) 05:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Greenwald a far-left/progressive

The two sources cited (one from The Young turks and the other in an article he wrote) clearly shows his political alignment as far-left/progressive. In fact, in one of the sources, he calls himself as part of the far-left. Why is it being removed?Fellytone (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

_________

This comment, above, proves that the change Fellytone keeps inserting is silly and baseless. He keeps inserting the claim "Greenwald has been described as far-left and/or progressive[22][23]"

Even if that were true (and it's not), how can that possibly be in an encyclopedia entry? What someone is "described" as being is entirely subjective.

But more to the point, everyone should check the two sources he inserts. They do not even come close to describing Greenwald as "far-left" or "progressive." Neither source applies a label to him at all (one is from Greenwald himself, and he doesn't use those labels at all for himself there, and The Young Turks thing doesn't even use the term "far-left").

To justify the change, Fellytone writes: "The two sources cited (one from The Young turks and the other in an article he wrote) clearly shows his political alignment as far-left/progressive." Those two pieces do nothing of the sort, but even if they did, "shows his political alignment" is completely different than "is described as."

Why would a user's subjective views about a person's political ideology be a legitimate entry in an article like this, especially when those assertions are supported by absolutely nothing?

Enzuli (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

removal of maintenance tags

I've removed two maintenance tags as there was no supporting discussion. If anyone feels that these tags need to be in place, some explanation of why would be good. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I know nothing about the guy but a one minute reading of the article makes it blindingly obvious that it is an unholy mess. A lengthy paragraph on how much time he spends in Brazil for goodness sake? I'm putting the tags back. NBeddoe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC).

Sigh. But not doing anything to fix the problem yourself, NBeddoe? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope. But then you wouldn't want me putting my ill-informed opinions on the page when as I said, I know little about him. I don't think this detracts from the fact that the article is of very low quality and doesn't meet Wiki guidelines. I will try and find the time to do some research on him but don't hold your breath. 217.36.74.126 (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)