The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Glenn Greenwald article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
Glenn Greenwald was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
Glenn Greenwald is within the scope of WikiProject Mass surveillance, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of mass surveillance and mass surveillance-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.Mass surveillanceWikipedia:WikiProject Mass surveillanceTemplate:WikiProject Mass surveillanceMass surveillance
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of veganism and vegetarianism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Veganism and VegetarianismWikipedia:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismTemplate:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismVeganism and Vegetarianism
The article ought to make more mention of what Greenwald has been up to for the past two and a half years. For the past 2.5 years, Greenwald has spent his every waking moment attacking liberals, attacking leftists, and defending conservatives.
In every major left-vs.-right election of the past 2.5 years—2020 US presidential, 2022 French presidential, 2022 Brazil presidential, 2022 US midterms, to name just a few—he has worked tirelessly to tarnish, bring down, and defeat the left-of-center candidate, and to boost, promote, defend, and raise the electoral fortunes of the right-of-center candidate.
He has made nonstop obsequious, groveling appearances on Fox News, and has acted as Tucker Carlson’s de facto defense lawyer, PR rep, and one-man rapid response team. He recently partnered with far-right video platform Rumble to produce content there as well. His entire audience—on Substack, Twitter, Fox, and Rumble—is virtually 100% right-wing — as any of his remaining leftist Twitter followers have either unfollowed him, or been blocked by him for criticizing him (he makes a show of consistently blocking liberal and leftist Twitter users — and *only* liberal and leftist Twitter users).
Everyone who’s kept up with him over the past 2.5 years knows him full well as a man of the right. He has ripped to shreds, burned, and incinerated any and all of his former leftist allegiances. This article essentially does PR for him by refusing to mention this. We need to talk about this. Mcleanm302 (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Greenwald has spent his every waking moment attacking liberals, attacking leftists, and defending conservatives. In every major left-vs.-right election of the past 2.5 years—2020 US presidential, 2022 French presidential, 2022 Brazil presidential, 2022 US midterms — liberals sure, but leftists? Given his past praises of Lula and the fact that Bolsonaro almost had Greenwald jailed after he effectively saved Lula’s career, I wouldn’t really say this is true of Brazil. See e.g. Jacobin on the matter. In the US, from what I understand his criticism mainly focused on the centrist liberals; his main criticism of the leftists (i.e. Bernie and the squad, not sure there are any else?) AFAIK is that they don’t exert their influence forcefully enough and/or are still too accepting of US foreign policy compared to leftist politicians internationally.
Regardless though, sources I can find seem to describe his current politics as muddy, confusing, or hard to pin down, but do seem to describe him as focusing on criticising liberals, and frequently joining hands with the right to do so: [1][2][3]. I think something could be written on his recent ideological shift, but describing him crudely as a right-winger critical of left-wingers appears neither accurate nor reflective of the more muddy way recent reliable sources talk about him. Endwise (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're conflating liberal and left. And if GW is a hack, what words are there left to describe those journalists who traduce him? Shtove (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More significantly, does he matter? His erratic and apparently concocted narratives have long since cease to be taken seriously by mainstream media, scholars or public readers. Some of his stuff is fringe and illogical, but I don't see that he is taken seriously enough for his more recent statements to be getting much attention. SPECIFICOtalk19:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, mainstream coverage of him and his commentary is pretty scant nowadays, which is an issue. But the mainstream coverage that does exist of him takes a view more like "This guy's really bizarre now, wtf happened to him?" rather than a view that more describes him plainly as a right-wing hack. Endwise (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Holy necromancy, Batman! After three years of no activity, the thread walks and talks again!
As the entry in the Perennial Sources page indicates (WP:DAILYBEAST) there is no consensus regarding their reliability... of particular note is the line, "Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source." (emphasis mine). I don't think anyone who reads their work can seriously question their alignment, which is to be harsh and critical of anyone they perceive as having conservative views. This is a BLP, and impeccable sourcing is required when categorizing the views of a living (and controversial) person. Marcus Markup (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Endwise, your analysis of Greenwald is outdated by about three years. What you claim he does: “attack liberals, but do so exclusively from the left” and “attack leftists, but do so exclusively from the left” is *not* what he does anymore. Nowadays, he attacks both leftists *and* liberals, *and*, he does so from both the left *and* the right — but mostly from the right. Nowadays, he intentionally combines liberals and leftists into one group, and attacks them both — attacks them all together. And usually, he attacks liberals and leftists from the right nowadays. Not only that, but he also attacks liberal*ism* *and* left*ism*. Not just people who are liberals, or people who are on the left. But liberal and left *ideas* as well — and literally the *entire* liberal and left *philosophies* as well. He has made a full transition to the right, to the right-wing, and to the far-right. Look at his Twitter account and read his tweets ever since late 2020. Everything he says on Twitter—which is where he spends the vast majority of his time nowadays—is right-wing, designed to hurt the left and help the right. Mcleanm302 (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From the sources I linked in my response above (ordered by date):
Jan 2023 MSNBC opinion piece: Collectively, these and other lesser-known pundits push a political position that could be called “anti-lib populism.”... A skeptic of my schematic might say that I'm simply describing right-wing populists. Well, not exactly. First of all, these commentators don’t fit neatly into any conventional ideological box (and, complicating things further, never really did very neatly fit on the left). Greenwald’s stated normative views are decidedly not conventionally right-wing.
March 2022 Slate article: The situation is also a challenge to navigate for a tougher-to-categorize but increasingly popular type of writer often described as anti-anti-Trump. These journalists are exemplified by former Guardian and Intercept reporter Glenn Greenwald, whose stance one might define as … contrarian anti-woke civil libertarianism?... So is it unprecedented trans-ideological consensus or a gripping battle of opposed positions so high-stakes that the outcome could change the course of human history? Who knows! Check back in tomorrow for a just-as-passionate-and-accusatory take on … something! (I included the second part here is just to exemplify the confused nature with which the writer discusses Greenwald)
March 2021 New York Magazine article: Greenwald comes out of a tradition of progressive journalism that focused primarily on attacking liberals and the Democratic Party from the left... Greenwald took this impulse even further by positioning himself as a frequent guest on Fox News, where he would reliably bash the Democrats from the standpoint of the “good progressive.” The distinction between Greenwald’s attacks on the Democratic Party from the left and the Fox News attacks on Democrats from the right has grown increasingly difficult to discern... Greenwald’s primary focus is on foreign policy and national security, where the ideological lines really are blurry enough to construct a halfway-plausible case that Trump is to the left of the Democratic Party.
You might find it obvious that he's now a "right-wing hack", but sources really don't appear to be. They seem to present an above all confusing mishmash of reasons he attacks liberals (or "the left"). Endwise (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Glenn Greenwald abandoned that distinction a long time ago. On Twitter he now criticizes liberals and leftists on the same breath. I make Mcleanm302's position on Greenwald's trajectory mine. For all of Greenwald's denial, it's obvious he's undergone an ideological transformation, one of the weirdest elements of which is his odd decision to operate as Tucker Carlson's "one-man rapid response team", as Mcleanm302 put it. He even bothered to recently trying to downplay Carlson's leaked racist comments about "how white men fight" when Carlson himself hasn't bothered to discuss the issue in public. A role usually usually played by one's lawyer or PR agent.
In the past few years Greenwald's few remaining non-right-wing fans have tried to salvage him from being seen as a reactionary by bringing attention to his Brazilian work, but this isn't even possible anymore. It was obvious throughout 2021 and 2022 that Greenwald decided to aim his fire at Lula and forget his previous criticism of Bolsonaro's authoritarianism, which included falsely portraying Bolsonaro as a victim of social media censorship in Brazil. Brazilian left-wing voices are widely hostile to Greenwald these days. There's simply no single issue Greenwald has paid attention to in the last two years where his views aligns with the left. He's much closer in rhetoric and in praxis to the MAGA right. And it's about time this entry reflect this fact. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Add to American conspiracy theorists for promotion of Ukrainian Biolabs conspiracy?
Last time I added someone to conspiracy theorist categories I was told it wasn't applicable, so just want to be sure this time. Unless only promoting one conspiracy theory is not enough to justify the addition. JPHC2003 (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:LABEL applies: "Value-laden labels ... may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution ". "Conspiracy theory" is mentioned once on the page. Neither source calls him a conspiracy theorist. The most that they say is that he said that Ukraine may have biological weapons labs (e.g. "Glenn Greenwald, a journalist critical of American military power and security agencies, has said the theory could be true"). In summary, no we should not add that label. Burrobert (talk) 05:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reliable source currently on this page stating that Ukraine's security agency has added Greenwald to its list of public figures supporting Russian propaganda.Msalt (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Substack is going to be viewed as self published. I suspect we could find other self published sources that say Greenwald hasn't shifted, rather he feels politics have shifted and he is focusing on the same things as always. Springee (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If the issue is sourcing, there will be no trouble finding reliable mainstream sources about Greenwald's change of political view. In general this article seems outdated in a way that -- perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not -- serves to "glow up" Greenwald by avoiding recent controversies and focusing on his "glory days" in the late 2000s and early 2010s. For example, it's very misleading to say that he is listed on numerous "top 50" journalism lists when none of those lists was published in the last 14 years. Is there some reason that Greenwald does not have a "Controversies" section? He is one of the more controversial figures in modern life.Msalt (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One reason there isn't a "controversies" section is that such a structure is directly contrary to the central policy governing content on Wikipedia: WP:NPOV. At WP:STRUCTURE it's clear that editors are not to separate material based solely on the apparent POV of the content. Cambial — foliar❧22:06, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please point me to where in the WP:NPOV or WP:STRUCTURE discussions you find support for the idea that there should not be a controversies section? I read both and found nothing to that effect, but maybe I missed it. There are many biographies of living people with controversies sections, and logically they are not separating material on the POV of the content, because controversies by definition have multiple points of view. A controversy is rather a newsworthy event in the life of the person that the article is about. Of course, there need to be reliable sources documenting that. But your logic is not specific to Glenn Greenwald. If what you suggest is true, no controversy section would ever be appropriate.Msalt (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the part that I quoted. You write “logically they are not separating material on the POV of the content, because controversies by definition have multiple points of view” - that isn’t logical. They all have the POV that something is controversial. And your conclusion “no controversies section would be appropriate” is why WP:CRITS exists. Cambial — foliar❧08:29, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
OK, where would you suggest adding discussion of GG's shift to the right (provided that they are supported by reliable sources)? Msalt (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Greenwald's awards were duplicated in the Reception and Recognition sections. I moved them (eg the Polk Awards and top 25/50 awards) into the Recognition section, and merged the duplications. The photo of people cheering for Greenwald certainly seems to be POV celebrating him, but for now I moved it into the Recognition section as well, pending discussion. Msalt (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are two photos from the same awards ceremony illustrating the Reception section - one of Greenwald at a podium receiving the award, and a second photo of the crowd clapping. The latter seem unencyclopedic, POV and unnecessary. Anty objections to removing it? Msalt (talk) 23:28, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem with it. Regarding POV issues... what are we supposed to do? Find another picture where people hate Greenwald to balance things? Wikipedia routinely includes notable audience reactions (e.g., standing ovations in sports, film festivals, and political settings) when they are well-sourced and contextually relevant. Marcus Markup (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is common courtesy to clap for anyone who receives an award, and in fact to clap for anyone gives a talk before any crowd. It is not notable or encyclopedic to observe that a normal, expected thing happened.
In this particular case, there is already an image of Greenwald receiving the award, which is the fact being reported here. I fail to see why the article needs a second photo of people applauding. Would you also like to add the sentence "The audience cheered for his success?" You say that Wikipedia routinely adds photos of people applauding but I can't think of any other examples of that, and if there are, they should be scrutinized for POV as well. The clear effect is that Wikipedia itself is cheering for the person, which is precisely what we should not do.
What we *are* supposed to do is avoid POV content, both words and images. That's what I'm suggesting -- that we stick with the factual photo and remove the unnecessary, second POV one.Msalt (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Him objectively receiving a standing O, and our saying so, is not "POV". They are of course not as common as simply "clapping". It is an excellent, visually appealing picture, and I think it improves the article. Marcus Markup (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing that example to our attention. Upon inspection, that image on the Stevie Wonder page was also non-encyclopedic. I posted on the talk page to that effect, and suggested changing it to an image of Wonder receiving an award. There was no disagreement, and I just now made that change.
I continue to believe that the photo of the crowd applauding is non-encyclopedic. In addition to the POV issue, having two photos for a single award is clearly WP:UNDUE weight. Do you agree? Do any other editors have an opinion? Msalt (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In the Stevie Wonder article, you substituted a rather stunning and beautifully composed photograph of many people appreciating Stevie Wonder for a less visually interesting pic of just him and Obama, out of what I consider a misguided application of POV. It was not an improvement and I regret sharing it with you. Marcus Markup (talk) 10:46, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do you agree? No. This article will not be improved by removing the rather excellent photograph of Greenwald receiving an ovation, out of your insistence that a performer receiving praise is a POV violation. Marcus Markup (talk) 10:49, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do you care to reply to the concern over WP:UNDUE? Why does the article need an image of people clapping for an award, when there is already an image of the person receiving the same award?
Also, your value judgment that the images are "beautiful" is an aesthetic and emotional reaction to an image, which seems inseparable from the depicted cheering for the recipient, which is certainly POV, as opposed to the factual content of the encyclopedia, which is that a given award was received. The message of the applause shot is "People love this person!" as opposed to "This person received an award", which is the fact being depicted. Msalt (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do you care to reply to the concern over WP:UNDUE? I'll be glad to. I don't believe WP:UNDUE applies in this case. WP:UNDUE begins with Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. "Recognition" means "acknowledgment, honors, praise, awards." and therefore that subsection can only include positive things. There IS no other viewpoint possible in a "Recognition" subsection, other than positive things. That's all there is in the subsection is him being praised... not just by two pics, but by all the text in the subsection. And why not object to all that text there which is praising him, with nothing in that subsection to obtain a balance that WP:UNDUE would require, were it to apply? Marcus Markup (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia, which states facts in an NPOV, including facts about recognition. Noting an honor once is encyclopedic. Adding two images to some text about a single honor from 12 years ago is WP:UNDUE because it is out of proportion to facts discussed, and crosses the line from stating a fact about an honor to being a celebration by Wikipedia, which is not acceptable. Why would a second photo be necessary, much less proportional? Why is even the first image necessary? Msalt (talk) 04:47, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=link}