Talk:Glenn Greenwald

message: 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)
thread_title: RfC to tighten sourcing on [[Glenn Greenwald]]

message: * I support to eliminate the primary sources ( as discussed above by ) to stop the POV pushing on both sides. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: My rationale for this is that I see  arguing for reduction in primary sources here  and 6 months later the same user demanding to include primary sources here . 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)
thread_title: Threaded Discussion

message: 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)
thread_title:  [outlines] 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  changes 

message: 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)
replies: text: You  need to cite a source for this -- promptly -- or it will be removed from this page.  SPECIFICO talk 23:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

text: I'd suspect Greenwald of writing the above except for the fact that he probably knows the difference between principle and principal.  Cross Reference (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Bluecoat Systems Scandal 

message: 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)
replies: text: It looks likes your intention is to label Glenn far-left, am I correct? 1) Neither of those sources unambiguously label Glenn "far-left". 2) About the Washington Post: Glenn's views about vaccination weren't being criticized, you missread it. this sentence: "Anti-vaccine activists come from both the far left and the far right" has nothing to do with this one: "most of those who defend President Trump’s dealings with Russia are on the right, some, such as Glenn Greenwald and Stephen F. Cohen, are on the left" (they were put together for comparison purposes only).  - Daveout(talk) 02:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Washington post and Haaretz 

message: 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)
replies: text: Greenwald's article, on protests in Argentina in 2006, ends with comments in the last two paragraphs which do not suggest he has an admiration for Fidel Castro. Philip Cross (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

text: The blog post you are using as a source is taking a sarcastic approach so your quote is out of context and doesn't represent his views from that time. As pointed out, his actual views are contained in the last paragraph, specifically "Isn't it more a badge of honor than anything else to be protested against by truly odious people like this?". I don't know what Greenwald's current views on Castro are. Also, your text is misplaced in the Venezuela section. Burrobert (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Regarding the tweet you have posted: firstly, as you probably know since you didn't add it to his bio, we can't use twitter as a source for Greenwald's bio. Secondly, it may show that he has some sympathy with Castro's ideas. If that is the case, given Greenwald is a journalist, it shouldn't be hard to find a useable source for that. Burrobert (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  First of all, the entire Tweet is inside double quotes. He's quoting someone.  Secondly, the comment, "" above is not appropriate to even ask here, as it implies that if there were some consensus among editors one way or another on that question, then we could add to the article that he was (or wasn't) sympathetic, or that he "just" reported (or didn't "just" report it).  But any of those conclusions would be inappropriate here.  This is a biography of a living person, and we don't speculate on what he meant in WP:PRIMARY materials like a tweet.  Our role here is to find reliable, independent, secondary sources, and summarize what they say about him. By the same token, writing that he is a Castro glorifier *must* come from some other reliable source that says that; you cannot use his own tweet, other than to quote it without any interpretation at all.  Maybe it's an inside joke, and his friends know that when he says that, he means the opposite.  We don't know. We must go with what the secondary sources say.  Writing about what *we* think he meant is completely out of bounds, and will be removed immediately from the article as original research on a WP:BLP. Mathglot (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fidel Castro glorifier 

message: 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  contains some reasons why article titles are not reliable sources. Burrobert (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article titles 

message: Greenwald has not “won” a Pulitzer Prize. The newspapers he worked for did.
: - Daveout(talk) 05:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: False claim in the intro section

message: 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)
thread_title:  GOAT 

message: 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.https://www.wvlt.tv/2020/07/02/mayor-glenn-jacobs-speaks-out-against-mask-mandate/https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/08/glenn-greenwald-speaks-truth-to-reply-guys.htmlhttps://www.foxnews.com/media/glenn-greenwald-rips-liberals-scientific-training-mask-advicehttps://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1436088178222510083?s=20https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1436091293579587591?s=20— Preceding unsigned comment added by Diegomineiro (talk • contribs) 15:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glenn views on mask and vaccines. 

message: What do editors think of the following edit:
* We currently say "Greenwald has also become a frequent guest on Tucker Carlson's talk show". One source used for this says Greenwald was "positioning himself as a frequent guest on Fox News". The other says "Greenwald has racked up at least 72 appearances on Fox since December 2017—40 of them on Tucker Carlson Tonight". If we are trying to inform readers about Greenwald's work, we should include both Fox News and Carlson's talk show as places where Greenwald has become a frequent guest. Is there a reason we have chosen only one location?
Burrobert (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. Both should be mentioned. -- Valjean (talk) 17:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

text: The original edit that introduced that line had "fox news" in it. (diff). When I re-added it I changed it to Tucker's show because I thought most of Glenn's participations were in that show. (I probably shouldn't have done that.) Mentioning both would be redundant since Tucker's show is on fox news.  - Daveout(talk) 18:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes Carlson's show is a subset of Fox News. Do you have a suggested wording that would include both while being both informative and not redundant? Or would it be preferable to only include the larger set - i.e. Fox News? Burrobert (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Both references at the end of the sentence support saying "Greenwald has also become a frequent guest on Fox News." Please, let's leave it at that. It is unnecessary in the lead to identify each host of the shows where he appears most often, especially since we do not specify it in the body of this BLP. Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right-ho. Burrobert (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

text: Either is ok with me, but I'd err toward brevity and omit Tucker. Inf-in MD (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

text: If 40 out of 70 are on Carlson, I think mentioning both would be preferable, especially if independent sources find mentioning Carlson noteworthy, so I'd just say something like "has also become a frequent guest on Fox News and in particular Tucker Carlson's talk show". (No need for more sources, but evidence of noteworthiness of Carlson: However, I wonder if this sentence is due for the lead given it is not in the body; should it be moved down? BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frequent guest on ... 

message: 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)
replies: text: That is an obvious misrepresentation of those sources, which do not support the content you are adding at all. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you... read the sources?  They directly confirm all three points. HairyDomBraz27 (talk) 06:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: They are Glenn Greenwald's own words on the subject.  Published in HX Magazine, a well respected gay culture magazine. HairyDomBraz27 (talk) 06:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Glenn Greenwald's pornography career to his biography 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Contradictory qualifiers 

message: 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)
replies: text: what? 2601:1C0:4500:BFD0:0:0:0:6C44 (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the edit which added the "far-right" bit to the article's lede:   It was reverted about 21 minutes afterwards, but apparently Google still has this as their cached version of the page - even though this was several days ago (12 January), and the vandalous edit was only left up for less than half an hour....I wonder if the vandal somehow knew the schedule of when Google would be making a new cache of the page. -2003:CA:8731:F02D:649E:A062:5D2A:71DF (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "far-right"??? 

message: The following sentence in the lede seems odd to me (as a non-native speaker).
*"His work contributed to The Guardian and The Washington Post won a Pulitzer Prize"
Is that right? Could somebody fix it?  - Daveout(talk) 03:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As a native English speaker, I would say that the wording is technically grammatically correct, but that it is a bit of an awkward construction which could potentially be confusing or unclear to some readers.  I would recommend replacing "contributed to" with "published in." -2003:A:502:E400:245F:D59:DC54:2C64 (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, alright then. Thank you.  - Daveout(talk) 14:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar checking needed 

message: A recent edit  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)
replies: text: Well spotted and thanks for pointing this out. I have removed it. Burrobert (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV/Synth in "political views" section. 

message: 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)
replies: text: What you suggest is dependent on the existence of reliable sources which, on this theme, seem to be scarce. I have added a further citation to the end of the Israel section which meets the necessary criteria. However, third-party reactions to his antipathy to the Jewish state are lacking and might be added to the passage. Philip Cross (talk) 10:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

text: Located and added further citations on this theme in the last few hours and expanded section heading to "Israel and accusations of antisemitism". On the grounds of sustaining a neutral point of view, the claims against Greenwald cannot be taken as having been proven. Philip Cross (talk) 14:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2022 

message: 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)
replies: text: We now have an article for this event, Libs of TikTok. This WaPo article mentions Greenwald and his twit. We should take into account that his twit contais his usual irony and that Greenwald is currently in a feud with WaPo and the writer of the article (Taylor Lorentz). In this YouTube video, Greenwald explains his opinions on the matter. - Daveout(talk) 13:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion to add Political Views subsections 'Support for Libs of TikTok' 

message: , regarding this recent removal and restoration , 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)
replies: text: First off, the edit summary for the removal was outright false. Second, the cited source is solid mainstream RS reporting of what he said (where and on what medium is irrelevant, except that we do have Verification of his own words). There's absolutely nothing unusual or problematic about this run-of-the-mill article content in a section that is tagged for needing more such content. Per BLP, his subsequent revision of his stated view is duly noted. Excellent article content that was reverted for no good reason. SPECIFICO talk 14:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

text: My removal was based on the unarguable and easily checked fact, regardless of , that the earlier source cited does not support the content. That source does not support the content. Evidently the 'Science & Tech' editorial staff of the Statesman took a dimmer view of Wilentz's thoughts about some people he dislikes than the Republic, and removed the section entirely when republishing part of Wilentz's piece. I know little to nothing of the Republic, it being a US publication, and it's not completely clear whether the source is an opinion article or news. However, there can be no doubt that the quote reproduced is accurate, as the blog post is still online. Pretty marginal in terms of weight; very little comment about Greenwald's views on immigration in RS. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , could you explain why the source doesn't support the claim.  To me it appears to.  I don't think this content is DUE (you didn't weigh in on that question) but I'm interested too understand the wp:V issue. Springee (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note that although Specifico has used the undo button and framed his edit as a revert in ES, in reality he deleted the source and inserted a new one in his edit. The source prior to that edit was the New Statesman which I indicate in my previous comment. Put simply, save a brief mention of his first amendment work, it makes no reference to Greenwald's specific views on any subject whatsoever. It does not include the quote reproduced in the article. I suspect the reason the NS article had been used rather than the New Republic is that, on examination, it is obvious the New Republic piece is published as an opinion piece. It is not a reliable source and does not demonstrate that the view expressed by Greenwald, in a single blogpost from before anyone outside his personal connections and client base had ever heard of him, is at all noteworthy. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

text: Greenwald doesn't really talk about immigration much at all. A robust and complete account of Greenwald's views would probably include a brief (like, one sentence) mention of his views in that 2005 blog post, and a brief (like, one sentence) update on his views. Being one of six subsections/headers on his views perhaps gives it too much emphasis, but I'm not sure there's any better way to organise that information. Endwise (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As part of a more significant section on imigration it might be worth something.  However, the phenomena of quoting a tweet and then using it as the basis for an opinion/commentary claim on the meaning of the tweet and what it indicates about Greenwald's bigger picture thinking is really questionable in my book.  Zooming out, why would we include this?  Does it tell us about his current views on immigration?  Not really other than we can assume he doesn't agree with the old tweet.  Do we care that much about what he used to think?  Not really if it doesn't tell us what he currently thinks.  There is also an issue that quotes like these often can mean what ever the reader/commentator wants them to mean.  Consider the "parade of evils" comment.  Does he mean it's evil because the people who come to the US trying to find work are evil?  Does he mean the organized crime and exploitation associated with trafficking's is an evil?  Certainly he might mean something else but consider how much different people might view his comments if his meaning was the second vs the first?  This, BTW, is why it's very problematic when the source that tells us how to interpret this comment is a source who's RSP entry notes it's comments/commentary are strongly opinionated.  Looking at those sources it's clear the comment got some traction but it's also worth noting each source seems to read it differently.  Current Affair seems to be taking the outrange angle (how dare this formerly reliable left leaning journalist support the right!).  Mronline seems to be more nuanced and doesn't mention the tweet that the New Republic says represents walking back the original claim.  I don't see where the New Republic article references this conversation  but I might have missed that.  Anyway, this seems like a mess and not very useful information.  It doesn't really tell us anything about his current views on illegal immigration (which seems to be the subject of the comment).  If the objective is to say Greenwald has changed his view on immigration then we should present it as that rather than as his view on immigration.  If the intent is, as CA is trying to show, that Greenwald is actually a far-right journalist who fooled the left for a while, well we should say that.  The way this reads now is someone was able to find a gotcha moment in his tweets and we will now use that to discredit him.  That's a very poor way to structure our BLPs (though it happens a lot).  Springee (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding "Do we care that much about what he used to think?" I mean, idk, I don't think that should be for us to decide. I think that's for RS to decide. Wikipedia biographies are biographies of people's entire lives, not just what they think as of [current date]. I agree with you that the relevance a lot of sources seem to find with it is something of the form of questioning his purity/commitment to the left (particularly after his departure from The Intercept and appearances on Tucker, etc.), but I don't think we need to frame it that way to include any mention of it. I think readers can make their own mind up about that, and explicitly mentioning the "is he really left-wing?" framing would only serve to give undue emphasis on his views on immigration (which, again, he almost never talks about). Minor point, but it was a post on his old blog, not a tweet: here is a link to the blog post. Endwise (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

text: The NR is rated as mostly commentary with a strong liberal bend.  I'm not sure it's a good source to establish weight for this comment.  As the other sources make clear this comment doesn't really reflect his current views on illegal immigration and in general he doesn't say much about the subject and isn't known for his views on the subject.  As such I don't see this as DUE.  Springee (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that Greenwald has not amounted to a hill of beans for the last 5+ years. Do we just end his BLP when he was doing valid journalism? His recent life is not really of much widespread interest. He's one of thousands of pundit provocateurs on the internet. SPECIFICO talk 19:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Right or wrong, I think there are a number of sources that could be used to claim Greenwald shifted from left to right.  We may also find some that defend his view that he has stayed on track and it was the left that moved away.  That would be a good summary of where things are now.  Consider that the NR article was basically an early source saying, "this guy isn't a lefty, he's actually a righty!"  But that sort of content is different than just a random claim that "well he changed his view on illegal immigration".  If our intent is to write a good article we really should consider content as part of a bigger article structure rather than individual factoids that don't see to have much to do with one another.   Springee (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have sources for that shift, it would be a constructive addition to document his transition to the conservative orbit. SPECIFICO talk 20:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have good sources for it.  Reason did an interview with Greenwald and this was one of the discussion points but I don't think that would count as a RS since it was an interview and much of it is Greenwald's claims .  Springee (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Might be RS for his opinions. Maybe post for help at NPVON on the weight and sourcing question. The article's worth improving. SPECIFICO talk 22:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a RS for his statements but we would have to be careful when using them.  I'm not sure how much ABOUTSELF would apply.  It certainly applies if his comments directly reply to something said about him.  However, if we don't have a RS saying, "he said X" then we shouldn't post a reply to X.  It's kind of frustrating since there are a lot of sources that could be good if we didn't strictly follow wp:RS.  Of course the flood of not good sources is why we should avoid that.  Springee (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

text: His statementd about himself are RS -- not just if he's replying to someone else. SPECIFICO talk 22:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a lot of editors object that a statement made by an individual about themselves may not actually be true ("I always wash my hands after using the restroom").  Thus, we always treat it as a fact that they said it but not necessarily a true statement.  Springee (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

text: Yeh but for statement of opinion, it's usually OK, unless clearly disingenuous. And since he later renounced that view, he was confirming that it had formerly been his view. SPECIFICO talk 00:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

text: "On [date] Glennwald tweeted [X]" is not encyclopedic content, and Salon is not a great source. Far better to find RS that summarize what that says about his views than just parrot the reactionary news stories that inevitably pop up over meaningless things. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the thread and the cited sources, plural. If it were only Salon, that would be quite a different matter. But if you will please familiarize yourself with the discussion and sourcing, you will see why this is significant and appropriately sourced content. Immigration is not an a meaningless topic in the US. It's top tier. SPECIFICO talk 12:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Comments like these don't support your case. The thread links to New Republic and Reason, and the removed content is Salon and The Atlantic. Only one of those is considered a good source. It's far better if you link the sources yourself instead of hand waving and saying "top tier," because anyone reviewing will see through the smoke. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immigration section sourced to single source 

message: The initial removal of this content was based on the appearance that it was a cherrypicked primary sourced comment that failed WEIGHT. But after  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)
replies: text: "On [date] Glennwald tweeted [X]" is not encyclopedic content, and Salon is not a great source. Far better to find RS that summarize what that says about his views than just parrot the reactionary news stories that inevitably pop up over meaningless things. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the thread and the cited sources, plural. If it were only Salon, that would be quite a different matter. But if you will please familiarize yourself with the discussion and sourcing, you will see why this is significant and appropriately sourced content. Immigration is not an a meaningless topic in the US. It's top tier. SPECIFICO talk 12:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Comments like these don't support your case. The thread links to New Republic and Reason, and the removed content is Salon and The Atlantic. Only one of those is considered a good source. It's far better if you link the sources yourself instead of hand waving and saying "top tier," because anyone reviewing will see through the smoke. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Renewed edit warring

message: 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)
thread_title: More edit-warring

message: 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)
thread_title:  Russian intervention in Trump election 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, that is an odd and unjustified interpretation of the source. It should be changed until a source is found which is more specific. Burrobert (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Days after they met?"