Talk:Glenn Greenwald/Archive 2

message: In accordance with current Wikipedia practice, I've reported this edit here. I hope people agree with this action.
(BTW, has anyone been able to rearrange those words into something meaningful? ;-]) Cheers, CWC(talk) 03:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I don't understand.  --AStanhope 04:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my silly way of saying I've listed that silly edit on the Wikipedia page where we record edits with silly edit summaries. But I was almost serious when I asked if anyone has any idea what "History Puppets are Known Controversy Part of" means. Cheers, CWC(talk) 04:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incident logged 

message: I'm not entirely sure how to handle this, but something needs to be done about the fact that if one simply enters "Greenwald" in a Wikipedia search, you get the "Grünwald (disambiguation)" page, which, not surprisingly, doesn't contain a link to the Glenn Greenwald page (nor should it, IMO).  I would imagine that the solution is to have a separate "Greenwald (disambiguation)" page, which would include, among other things, a link to the Glenn Greenwald entry and to the "Grünwald (disambiguation)" page.  However, I'm enough of a newb not to want to go down this path without suggesting it first.--BenA 16:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: Just a friendly reminder to the malicious editors who have been posting lies in this article: This behavior is not allowed and will not be tolerated. Wikipedia standards prohibit the use of these pages for the promotion of ideological agendas, especially when based on lies and disinformation. 66.188.6.131 06:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Friendly reminder 

message: I promised myself I'd steer clear of this article, except maybe for the occasional obvious revert. But today I did one of those obvious reverts and was dismayed to discover just what a mess this article was in. So I've edited the article, hacking out lots and lots of stuff about the alleged sock puppetry. There are still far too many External Links about sock-puppetry, but I did reduce the coverage of this issue in the main text. Since that text will probably be bloated beyond belief within a few days, here's a copy:
:== Controversy and Criticism ==
:Greenwald has been accused of posting pseudonymous comments praising himself on conservative blogs. Sock puppetry of this kind is a minor offense in the blogosphere. Greenwald confirmed that these posts were made from his household, but denied any suggestion that he wrote them himself.
Please note: my version sucks. All I'm claiming is that it sucks less than what was there when I started. Please make further improvements.
I've requested WP:SEMIprotection for the article. Cheers, CWC(talk) 11:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And semi-protection has been granted! Thank you, Glen S, for doing that, and for warning . Glen's last edit summary was "reverted back to the version not in total breach of WP:BLP" (emphasis added), so let's edit the article into full conformance with all Wikipedia's policies. (Having written that call to action, I'm now going to run away and hope someone else does all the work.) Cheers, CWC(talk) 13:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes - thank you for the sprotect.  Let's leave it on for awhile.  --AStanhope 14:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *I will second that: Thank you for protecting the article. Personally, I think the sockpuppetry allegations should be removed entirely, because they are unproven, and Greenwald's explanation is reasonable. The people who have made these charges are clearly motivated by a political agenda to discredit and harm Greenwald. Anybody can accuse anyone of anything; therefore, the standard for inclusion in an encyclopedia should be proof, not the mere existence of allegations. 66.188.6.131 19:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes made 30-Sep-2006 

message: Greenwald has contributed a few featured opinion articles at Salon.com, as well as guest blogging for Tim Grieve (War Room) at same website .  He has also contributed to articles at crooksandliars.com .
I'm not a regular contributer to this article but thought this could go somewhere (I'd put it in myself, but the current format doesn't seem to lend itself to this info). R. Baley 00:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say be bold and put this in the article yourself.  I appreciate you're bringing it up on Talk first, but these don't strike me as controversial edits, so there isn't really a need IMHO.  Crust 17:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Writing/Works by Greenwald

message: The arguments made for keeping this section fail to address WP:BLP. Failure to provide reliable sources for negative biographical information is grounds for immediate removal. Notability is irrelevant. Chris Cunningham 12:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that Greenwald's blog is not a reliable source about what he himself has written? --GunnarRene 21:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was an allegation made by a blog.  There's no proof it was true, so now we have to include this slander because greenwald responded to it?  ridiculous, I'm removing it. R. Baley 21:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing sockpuppetry again 

message: Does the phrase "he is often described by critics as a liberal blogger" strike anyone else as POV? It uses 'liberal' in the sense of a criticism or slur. 70.245.163.74 05:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a particularly pejorative aspect to the phrasing, though it's likely that this was the original intent given Wikipedia's orc problem. Changing or removing "critics", perhaps? Chris Cunningham 09:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Liberal"