Talk:Glenn Greenwald/Archive 1

message: Note that GG bases this statement on the Bushies big-government tendencies. (Actually, there is considerable anger amongst the conservative base over the big-spending ways of the current Administration and (even more so) Congress. Bush's first veto elicited a wave of wishes that he'd started vetoing spending bills long, long ago.) I think we should clarify this. Maybe something like:
:Indeed, he contends that recent spending increases prove that "Bush followers are not conservatives".
I'm sure one of us can come up with something better than that. Cheers, CWC(talk) 08:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to differ with you on that one, CWC.  Bush's spending is one of GG's reasons for not viewing Bush or his followers as conservatives, but not his only or even principal reason.  The biggest reason is surely the Bush admin's theory of executive power (and how they have used it), which GG views as profoundly unconservative.   Crust 13:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bush followers "not conservatives"

message: We have two links for details of Hale's failed attempts to get an Illinois law licence.
# http://hatemonitor.csusb.edu/NewsHeadlines/hale_complaint.htm is "Dated: June 27, 2001" (and apparently written by GG, BTW). It's an appeal to the U.S. District Court for Northern Illinios, Eastern Division.
# http://www.state.il.us/court/PressRel/1999/102999.htm is a Press Release from (take a deep breath) "the Committee on Character and Fitness" of "the Board of Admissions to the Bar" which administers the bar admission process on behalf of the Illinois Supreme Court. The committee rejected Hale's initial application on December 16 1998 and rejected his first appeal on June 30, 1999. Hale appealed to the Illinois supreme court on July 29, 1999; this press release announces that the Committee will oppose that appeal.
For one thing, we seem to have these links in the wrong chronological order. For another, I don't know how to cite those links. Help, please? CWC(talk) 08:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hale's appeal re law licence

message: This section looks a lot like a blog - Wikipedia is not a blog - maybe a link to his blog would be best.
:Thanks for saying something on Talk, but really the reason why there is an article about GG is because of his blog.  If you don't think it is encyclopedic to summarize some of his views, mention his book, etc. do you really think it is encyclopedic to mention the sock puppetry allegations? Crust 15:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of Bush administration 

message: I've removed the following paragraph
:This investigation by Greenwald was also heralded as a new advance in the importance of blogs in the national discourse. 
because anonymous off-topic comments on a blog posting are a long way short of Wikipedia's standards. Cheers, CWC(talk) 08:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. Crust 13:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Heralded?

message: Does anyone have a working link for that Russ Feingold speech which mentioned GG's blog? The fednews.com one we have at the moment is subscriber-only. Neither the internal search at feingold.senate.gov for "greenwald" nor googling for "site:feingold.senate.gov greenwald" found anything. Surely there must be a better link for that speech! Thanks in advance, CWC(talk) 08:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For some reason, on a quick google search I can't find a free transcript either.  If you go to Greenwald's post that was quoted and scroll down to the updates, you can find various links to video of this. Crust 13:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Feingold speech link

message: I've just requested "semi-protection" of this article, because the speed at which anonymous and inexperienced editors keep deleting and restoring bits is too great for my tired old brain.
Hint: that "" bit is actually quite important. Also, we probably should have at least one link to GG's blog ... just sayin', ya know. (Thanks to User:Crust on that one.)
Let's all take a deep breath and calm down. Wikipedia is a wonderful source of information, but we do not claim to be authoritative*, so errors do not have to be fixed immediately. Discussing things on "talk" pages like this one may seem boring and frustrating, but long experience shows that it produces better articles and less wikistress for everyone involved.
:*Some people treat Wikipedia as gospel. If you know anyone with this problem, please educate them.
Have a nice weekend! CWC(talk) 12:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Crust 14:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The semi-protection request was denied. (Memo to self: steer clear of articles with real edit wars!) Cheers, CWC(talk) 03:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection requested 

message: I think it's worth noting that Greenwald has guest bloggers at times.  Other prominent blog pages, as that of Daily Kos note the front page contributors - and none of Greenwald's other contributors are in a position to warrant their own wiki pages as far as I know.
I also put back in the references tag so those little numbers go somewhere again.--FNV 20:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other contributors 

message: "President Obama's NSA spying on Americans scandal."
Perhaps a more clear way of putting it would be like this:
The PRISM program was created by congress and signed into law by President George W Bush in 2007. During President Obama's presidency, the existence of PRISM was leaked to the public, creating a scandal.
RichBryan (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to have been removed as I cannot find the phrase in the article. It may have been in the "Media publications" subsection of the "Global surveillance disclosures" section. If so, this subsection is marked for expansion. I agree that it would be a good idea to clearly state the roles of both Presidents Bush and Obama. (Lena Key (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Unclear Statement