Talk:Glenn Greenwald/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Incident logged

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)

• I don't understand. --AStanhope 04:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

Disambiguation

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)

Well, I just figured out that there are Greenwalds listed on the Grünwald (disambiguation) page. So I'm just adding Glenn Greenwald to it. That was simple!--BenA 16:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Friendly reminder

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)

Changes made 30-Sep-2006

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.[1] Sock puppetry of this kind is a minor offense in the blogosphere.[2] Greenwald confirmed that these posts were made from his household, but denied any suggestion that he wrote them himself.[3]

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)

And semi-protection has been granted! Thank you, Glen S, for doing that, and for warning 71.122.102.23 (talk · contribs). 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)

• Yes - thank you for the sprotect. Let's leave it on for awhile. --AStanhope 14:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• 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)

I think it should just be removed. For one, a careful reading of Greenwald's post indicates that he did not confirm that any particular post was made from his household. He simply explained how IP addresses work, and indicated that another person or persons left comments on other blogs, without indicating which comments or where. Meanwhile, he asserted that all comments he made were under his own name.

Secondly, it's a trivial incident, as Glenn Reynolds notes. I don't believe it's ever been mentioned outside the echo chamber of the blogosphere, and even on blogs discussion of this episode has basically stopped. I found no mentions of it on Technorati in the past month. The article should discuss the actual major criticisms of Greenwald, whatever those are, not an ephemeral dustup that has no conclusive outcome. --Michael Snow 05:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Reynolds quote

About that Reynolds quote. I've left in in, but let me just comment that Reynolds' view that sockpuppetry is a minor offense is his POV. Not everyone would agree. For instance, Lee Siegel (of "blogofascist" fame) was fired by The New Republic for sockpuppetry and John Lott is widely seen as discredited in no small part for his sockpuppetry. Then again, maybe Reynolds would argue that sockpuppetry in and of itself is a minor offense, but those two examples have other aggravating factors. Due to Reynolds' brevity it is impossible to say exactly what his view is. Anyway, my point isn't really about Reynolds here: it's just that any version that includes this quote should note it as a specific viewpoint, not necessarily generally accepted. Crust 16:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Reynolds is talking about the circumstances of this particular case, I would say. Note that the claim, whatever its merits, is simply that Greenwald used different names in leaving comments on various blogs. I haven't seen any argument that he used multiple identities on any single site to make it look like more than one person was participating. The Siegel case, or Michael Hiltzik, involved using fake identities to support themselves on their own blogs, which is very different. --Michael Snow 17:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Michael Snow, thanks for the response. I agree with you re what the details and significance of the allegation actually are. Whether that's what Reynolds is saying is hard to tell (read literally, I would say not). But really this is getting more into a standard criticism of Reynolds and his elliptical comments, not Greenwald.

I share your (and CWC's) wish that we move on. I am very tired of all this, especially the more aggressive versions that keep popping up that would be inappropriate even if this wasn't a biography of a living person. I feel there probably should be some mention of the sockpuppetry allegations, but no version is vastly preferrable to a bad version of this. By the way, what do you think of the recent version I created?Crust 18:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll chime in here: I think Crust's recent version is a great piece of work (especially because I did nome of that work!). Well done, Crust! And thank you. CWC(talk) 09:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, CWC.  ;) We'll see how long it lasts. And thanks for earlier putting some work into this. Crust 14:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

On reflection, I think it's better just to delete the Reynolds quote. After all, while he may think that (if the allegations are true) it is a minor offense, obviously other people (e.g. Ace or Patterico) no doubt think it is quite damning. So I think it's better to avoid the debate about how serious a matter the allegations are if true, and not comment on this which probably accounts for a relatively small part of the ink/pixels spilled on the story anyway. I have the sense, CWC and Michael Snow, that you disagree with me and you seem like quite reasonable folks. If either of you think it's better to put in back in, I'll respect that. Crust 13:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Patterico agrees with Insty. In his "Annotated Wuzzadem" post, he says:

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.

(I've quoted the whole paragraph to give the complete context.) I'd slightly prefer the article to say that this is a minor matter. Let's get another opinion before we do anything. Cheers, CWC(talk) 18:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

My preference is for the article not to mention the episode at all, since it's a "he-said-she-said" of little significance. If the episode is mentioned, I don't particularly care whether the Reynolds quote is included or it's otherwise described as "minor", but I do care that everything stated in the article is accurate. --Michael Snow 01:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Other Writing/Works by Greenwald

Greenwald has contributed a few featured opinion articles at Salon.com, as well as guest blogging for Tim Grieve (War Room) at same website [4]. He has also contributed to articles at crooksandliars.com [5]. 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)

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)

Removing sockpuppetry again

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)

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)

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)

"Liberal"

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)

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)

Sock puppetry

This search for "glenn greenwald" "sock puppet" shows that the issue is notable.

Those with a Google toolbar will note that searching for glenn greenwald, five suggestions are provided one of which is "sock puppet". So not only are people writing about it, people are searching for it too.

There are no fundamental BLP problems here as a sections could be composed simply of quotes from Greenwald himself.

There was never any consensus for purging the material from the artice, and the article must contain the material in some form. I agree that the text must contain his denials of the matter. David Spart 11:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not whether the allegation has been widely reported, it's whether the alleged actions have reliable sources. In this case they don't; it's essentially the word of a handful of partisan bloggers. BLP is adundantly clear on this. It's swiftboating and has no place on here. Chris Cunningham 12:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not the case. He responded to the allegations himself. Thus that can certainly be included since he is reliabel source on matters concerning himself. You should not have reverted that without discussion. David Spart 12:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If Glenn Reynolds had said he was a cat-murderer Greenwald would probably deny it as well. Please read BLP before re-inserting obviously contentious material with potential to cause personal damage to individuals. Also try reading the page history, where you'll see it wasn't me who just reverted. Chris Cunningham 12:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively above, and no consensus was reached to remove, it is in way swift-boating - and even if it was it would still be fine to have this mentioned briefly that there has been a controversy and that some have said that he has been swift boated. EG John Kerry's article presumably mentioned that he was swift boated!

That's correct: Kerry's article says he was swift-boated. It doesn't say that "an awful lot of bloggers think he shot himself to get out of the war". Chris Cunningham 13:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed you betray your own POV beautifully in that statement. YOU think he has been swift boated. Fine - others say he has been caught. HE claims that it is all lies. That's great and that is what the article says. I can assure you I have no opinions one way or the other - but i believe that the wiki must mention this. David Spart 12:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Cat metaphor: Yes but if dozens of people say that he killed the cat at 11.03pm EST and used the axe that was later found in his yard, and he concedes that it was indeed his axe that killed the cat - suddenly WP:V is satisfied and wiki can (must) make note of the issue in a NPOV fashion. David Spart 12:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite. I shall happily and enthusiastically eat crow if the claim that Greenwald posed under different user names to defend himself is found at some point to actually be true. For the time being, I'm not interested in having yet another argument about whether or not smears on blogs are notable based on how many hits they get on Google, and shall remove them on sight per BLP. My own point of view is irrelevant so long as it isn't refected in subjective edits of the article which impart it on the reader. Chris Cunningham 13:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The line I added to the article does not say whether it is true or not - indeed as you well know that has nothing to do with what gets added to wikipedia. Have multiple allegations been made? Yes. Has Greenwald denied the allegations? Yes. Should the article describe this sequence of verifiable events? Yes. It is immaterial whether or not you believe them or not - wikipedia is not a court of law, and we cannot judge what occurred. We merely record the events, that is the basis of NPOV. So whether or not you "eat crow" or not does not interest us. If you are not willing to have the argument then you have no right to remove the material. I (and many others above) dispute your interpretation of BLP which means you need to build consensus first - saying you wont debate is insufficient. David Spart 15:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, puppetry again! Not reliably sourced. violates BLP. My favorite part of BLP is "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion." R. Baley 06:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Er look it is not poorly sourced. If you think that you can add a source tag not delete outright. How would you phrase the issue better. It is just not good enough. There are 3 good sourced for 15 words! If you could explain why you are not happy with the line feel free to say so. David Spart 18:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Right OK. Chekcing your contributions I see that this is just another sockpuppet of User:Thumperward. This is getting daft. David Spart 18:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't give a damn what you check. If you think I'm a sock puppet you need to report me. This strikes me as ironic on so many levels. R. Baley 06:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The sockpuppet accusation is poorly sourced because it's only sourced to blogs. As for it being "swiftboating", OK, that's hyperbole, but if there hasn't been any reporting of the issue in non self-published sources, it's likely a non notable little blog-war sideshow. <<-armon->> 02:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It was mentioned in the mainstream press a few times. But even with only the blogs (some major blogs writen by notables by the way) and his own reaction there is plenty. I fully agree that prominence must be given to his reaction though. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 02:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well can you show us some cites from the mainstream press? <<-armon->> 02:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well there was this mention in Townhall which got me interested in this in the first place [6]. There is also this from Michael Barone in the US News and World Report - [7]. There is probably more if I looked. But the blogs and his denial are sufficient anyhow. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 02:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I know next to nothing about Greenwald and just stumbled upon this discussion, but based upon what I've read, I encourage David Spart to read Wikipedia's attribution policy due to your assertion that blogs are reliable sources. Only in very, very rare circumstances are they considered reliable sources (which you can read about there). The US News and World Report you linked is also a blog. WP:BLP (which you should also read, as it covers this situation word-for-word under the "Reliable sources" section) is non-negotiable policy, and lacking any reliable sources that I can see, it simply cannot be in the article at this time. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A significant event that occurs within the blogosphere is a perfectly good reason to cite blogs (carefully and in a NPOV fashion) and the fact that the article is published online under the title "blog" does not in any way detract from the fact the it was writen by a massive name in a major publication. And anyway "Reliable sources" are not even the issue here - these are primary sources. We are merely saying x said this, y said that z denied it. Thats all. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 03:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry — TownHall: partisan source. Michael Barone: opinion columnist, and not someone who even characterizes himself as an objective journalist. Me: reverting section again, as per WP:BLP. —GGreeneVa 16:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Look this is nonsence. Partisan source? Almost all sources are partisan. Are you objective? I have no political axe to grind here, but the situtiion must be noted for all the reasons I set out above. If you think that there is a BLP problem the way it is writen then I invite you to change it to your satisfaction but not to remove it. That just wont do. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 16:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources being partisan is not the point. The point is that the cites are all blogs and due to WP:BLP you can't include negative information which hasn't appeared in published reliable sources. <<-armon->> 01:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the new sources I added are not blogs - they are very very reliable sources. Indeed if you dont like it try to reword it to your satisfaction - using only his denial - which is perfectly possible. I asume that he is a reliable source. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 02:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)