Talk:Glenn Greenwald/Archive1

No
This article contains many ridiculous fallacies. GG has explicitly stated that he opposes Ron Paul at least on th grounds of RP's racism. This article is pretty darn explicit. This article needs serious cleaning in other areas as and I will do some of that cleaning in the very near future, as I do not have the time to do so now. Rand0 (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with complete rewrite. The article looks like it was written by some Democrat who wants to falsely paint Greenwald as right wing instead of progressive left.  Secret Squirrel (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest looking at the recent edit history of the article and some of the other contributions of the same editor, especially a certain discussion in the Saloon Bar...--ZooGuard (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, never mind, no rewrite needed. Reverted back to the last good version of March 10. Secret Squirrel (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Noted. That is a good thing to look for from now on. Thanks to both of you for teaching this newbie.Rand0 (talk) 08:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

In the very article linked to there, Greenwald gives Paul credibility by saying "He's the only candidate who looks at important issues". Opposing Paul's racism is irrelevent. Giving someone like Paul credibility only makes him more powerful, and brings his extreme views into the mainstream. Greenwald, as I pointed out, supported Citizen's United. Greenwald uses many of the same tactics that the right uses, such as cherrypicking evidence and smearing his opponents. Mr. Anon (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Giving someone like Paul credibility only makes him more powerful and brings his extreme views into the mainstream." First of all, articles written by some journalist about you do not make you credible. Only your own actions can make you credible. Second, if you think that Ron Paul now has credibility as a result of the article, why are you complaining about Paul in the first place? If you simply misspoke in that part of that sentence, then never mind those two points, and also note that I am not trying to scrutinize your rhetoric; I am just making those points in case you did not misspeak. Third, as far as I can tell, Greenwald does not make any false statements in that article as far as his list of issues in which Ron Paul takes a stance which is in line with what he estimates as the views and preferences of most liberals and lefties in the U.S. Fourth, such pointing out is not endorsement. Fifth, whether or not Greenwald pointing all of this out makes Paul "more powerful" is entirely irrelevant to whether or not Greenwald supports the dude. Sixth, I do not know what you mean by "brings ... his views into the mainstream," so please elaborate on that. Now, leaving that part of your comment behind, I will move onto other points. First, saying in that article that you don't support Ron Paul is pretty decent evidence that you don't support Ron Paul. Second, opposing Paul's racism in not irrelevant! It is on those grounds that Greenwald says he does not support the guy. Third, although many of the points brought up in the piece by Smith that is provided as a citation to the claim that Greenwald supports the Citizens United, the piece does not do enough to establish that Greenwald supports the decision. Although the title of this article is "What the Supreme Court got right," (and I am assuming it is this article to which Smith is alluding to since it was published only 3 days prior to Smith's piece) in it Greenwald explains not that he supports the Citizens United decision per se, but that he is "deeply ambivalent." So, before we say he supports the Citizens United ruling, I would like to hammer out the issue further. Fourth as to the point that Greenwald cherry-picks evidence, smears his opponents, and uses other (condemnable?) tactics that have been employed by persons on the right, I do not question your sincerity, but I would like some elaboration. Rand0 (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll address your concerns in the order that you bring them. Regarding Greenwald's opinion on Ron Paul.
 * Perhaps credibility was not the suitable word. Greenwald is bringing Ron Paul into the mainstream, and suggests that he is more to the left than most Democrats, which is ridiculous. He downplays Ron Paul's horrible views on fiscal policy, and his blatently racist, sexist, and homophobic social stances.
 * Obviously I can't change what Greenwald says on Salon; what I am contesting is RationalWiki's apparent support of him. An earlier version of the article said something along the lines of "he's one of the view good journalists out there". I do concede that parts of my version are biased, and I would be glad to help work out blatent biases or false statements.
 * Misleading and outright false are two different things; Greenwald misleads us by failing to mention Paul's extreme right wing views and seems to use the racist newsletter allegations as a strawman (in reality, Paul's racism is expressed throughout his actual policies, such as the repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and initial opposition to Martin Luther King day). I could go on about the misleading things he says about Obama, but that would get us off topic.
 * I concede that Greenwald does not outright support Paul; a more accurate statement would have been something like "is sympathetic towards Ron Paul".
 * While Greenwald may not outright support Paul, making him more powerful has a very similar effect. If the end result of Greenwald's work is a President who threatens to revert 100 years of progress, then that certainly says quite a bit about Greenwald and at least the effect of his statements.
 * By "bringing into the mainstream", I mean that if a supposedly progressive journalist is highlighting Ron Paul and making him seem like a moderate or a liberal based on a few individual issues, then that disregards his extreme views on other ones.
 * Regarding my other comments:
 * I concede this; I'll reword the statement.
 * Again, Greenwald fails to highlight other important views progressives might want to consider. In the same article, he seems to downplay the importance of Social Security, Medicare, and other domestic policies.
 * Greenwald does heavily imply that he agrees with the Supreme Court decision in his article. While he does say that corporate influence has negative effects, he seems to be repeating the same lines that many on the right do - that corporations are expressing "free speech" by running ads in favor of one political party. Effectively, it gives them the same rights that individuals have, even though corporations take money from individuals who do not necessarily agree with them.
 * There's many concerns I have with Greenwald. One main thing is that he spends much of his time telling fellow liberals whether or not they are being true progressives by supporting President Obama. He frequently uses scare quotes to get his message across, and this ends up as being misleading when he is actually responding to someone's statements. He also uses many misleading or even inflammatory statements, like "Obama is using drones to kill Muslim children" (implying an intent on the government to hurt civilians in Pakistan, when in reality the civilian death-per-drone attack count is not very large). As I said, I'm not going to go into much detail about this, but if you want, I can give more examples.
 * I apologize for my recent edits to this page which arguably made it even more biased, but I was frustrated with my edits being reverted without explanation. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmmm
This article reads like he wrote it himself.
 * Yeah. Where I come from Glenn Greenwald is best known as an extremist borderline conspiracy nut, not a respectable political commentator. 66.251.25.130 (talk) 03:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So, the New York Times editorial board?
 * Can you tell Bobo he is unserious? It would mean so much for me. A Real Libertarian (talk) 11:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Salon
I'm surprised we don't have an article about Salon on here. Goebbels would be proud of that fascist rag. This Greenwald guy sounds alright though. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Salon is fascistic? I wasn't aware of that. Well, I encourage you to start the Salon article. Rand0 (talk) 07:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The user LetThemEatCake is a centrist conservative of the more libertarian persuasion. Hence from that perspective while Greenwald's work on exposing the Government various misdeeds is commendable his work for Salon magazine is not. Salon magazine represents the New Left, this is as clear to conservatives as it is to other leftists. From the perspective of other liberals and leftists (such as myself for instance) Salon magazine represents both everything about the new left that was commendable, but it also represents everything that was wrong with the new left (for instance, from the perspective of other liberals and leftists their criticism of the US Federal Government while often justified, tends to bleed into either outright anti-Americanism, anarchism, or isolationism). From the perspective of a libertarian leaning conservative the only even remotely commendable part of the new left was their vocal distrust of authority. Hence by extension the sole position that both Salon magazine and LetThemEatCake would ever see eye to eye on is an overall distrust of the US Federal Government. Alsto003 (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC) Alex

Criticism
So I see above that there have been unsuccessful efforts to rewrite this article in a more neutral manner before. Greenwald is quickly going from being an inverse stopped clock to just a regular stopped clock. He's a mini-Ron Paul who believes the federal government should have no power whatsoever, has been repeatedly documented making exaggerations about the nature of the leaks he possesses, and has been widely accused of insulting or belittling his opponents, including random people on Twitter. He's also a borderline conspiracy theorist who accuses everyone who disagrees with him of being part of a secretive military-industrial complex plot. He near-constantly uses words like "liberal" as a smear on anyone who supports any kind of government regulation, to the point that he makes some Fox News commentators look restrained. He also supported the Iraq War and gave talks at the Cato Institute, which this wiki has certified as a crank factory. This guy has totally gone off the deep end since the Snowden leaks and I'd be happy to provide citations in the event the article is rewritten. I suggest molding it in the manner of the Penn & Teller or Richard Dawkins articles, where we describe their positive viewpoints alongside their more crank-y opinions and behaviors. Right now the article is just a total whitewash that is not befitting this wiki. ShadowUltra (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * +1 on this, it's fine to plug Greenwald as an opinion columnist but I'm disappointed in how he seems to respond to any and all criticism with ad hominems. I added the new NSA info from 2013 and a Controversy section to the page and deleted the unqualified praise. Insert ad hominem below. Anoxia93 (talk) 11:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Drastic re-write August 2015
I have just arrived as an editor here wanting to work on entries where I happen to have a good deal of knowledge and expertise. As Greenwald's former law partner who has very closely tracked his online and journalism career, there is almost nothing about it I do not know and understand very well -- and can document. (I will be turning to other topics shortly and have already begun some edits on the "CAIR" topic -- I'm not here just for this one entry. RW is a great site and I have long used it.)

This entry had been very incomplete and poorly sourced. That's now fixed.

Any criticism of Greenwald anyone would want to raise -- that I have not included in the entry already -- is almost certainly one I've seen before. In my view, only a few of them have significant merit, but I can certainly talk about any issues anyone has. -Mona- (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Avenger's rubbish
It's a bad comparison, and you should feel bad. The point about it being used as a fallacy is when it's used as whataboutery or to deflect criticism from actual bigotry rather than an explanation of less extreme position. Taken it to the talk page, so you should be happy now. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Imagine he had said something about Islam and this was his defense against the attack of Islamophobia. Clearly, we should apply equal standards. Or should we rewrite (entirely or in part) the Sam Harris article? Excuse me I am not convinced. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey hey, look who's trying to get his/her view of the world pushed through by censoring opposing viewpoints... But if the same happens in favor of the evvvvuuuullll Zionists, well, what would you expect. Gleenwald's views on Israel are probably the main reason why Mona so gushes over him... He may be right on other issues, but on Zionism he is quite out there... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Calling any mention of an Israel lobby "dog-whistle speech" is blatantly offensive and dishonest. It certainly shows none of your edits are in good faith. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:07, 25 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * "Israel-Lobby" is a dog whistle term... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To delusional people like you, maybe. Do you even know anything about US politics? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:17, 25 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * While the question is indeed irrelevant, I do know a fair bit about the US and her politics - in fact more thaen most other people not currently residing in the US. And you do know that RW has readers outside of the US, right? The term "Israel Lobby" is frequently involved by people who say that "you can't criticize Israel" because of said "Israel Lobby" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So is just antisemitic dog-whistle speech? Stop your bullshit already. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:27, 25 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * You do note that the "criticism" section of this article is almost as long as the article itself? If Jörg Haider speaks of The US East Coast it is a dog whistle, because he is right wing (yes I know he is dead). But if St. Glenn of house Greenwald, first of his name says "Israel Lobby" it is not? Be the fuck serious. And grow the fuck up. If Israel did have the kind of influence its enemies claim it does, Israel would have conquered all territory between Euphrates and Nile by now. After all, Arafat "proved" that this is totally for realz the only long term goal of Israeli politics... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Be the fuck serious. And grow the fuck up." followed by a straight up strawman? I've had it with your blatant trolling and as you suggest, I'll be the fuck serious about it. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:38, 25 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * Jeez, talk about touchy. Seems like AotBoN also needs a refresher in the burden of proof. Queexchthonic murmurings 16:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but since when is Arafat a strawman? Or did you mean the Antisemitic dog whistle employed by Mister Haider?Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's America. There's more than likely a fucking fried Oreo lobby, and generally speaking, I would not consider its invocation to be a dogwhistle of a redneck joke.  Although it has the makings of a truly epic one...    17:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well regardless of the term "Lobby" being employed in one sense or another in the US, in most of Europe the term "Israel Lobby" is clearly a dog whistle term. It is usually employed by the likes of Jörg Haider, Jean-Marie Le Pen and Greece's Golden Dawn. And unlike "US East Coast" it is actually quite a non-abstract term... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Like Zionism, it's a dog-whistle when applied outside its proper context. If you're talking about any aspect of Israeli government policy that's controversial on the world stage, it would be remiss of you if you didn't mention the lobby that presses for US support of Israeli policy. Which is not to say that the likes of Le Pen don't try and smuggle that use into legitimate contexts, but to claim that it is only a dog-whistle, even in appropriate discussions, is underpants-on-head territory. Queexchthonic murmurings 18:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's see if we can't calm this down by injecting more opinion. That always works.  There are very problematic things about Israel and its dysfunctional relationship with the US politics that are also very often used as anti-Semitic dog whistles.  These two things are inseparable.  You can't come up with a valid critical framework for the policies and situation of Israel that won't immediately be combined with anti-Semite conspiracy theories by racist fucks.   ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Except by that logic, "family values" isn't a dog whistle because the bible-thumper could actually be talking about actual family values instead of "teh gays are coming!" CorruptUser (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And I give him the benefit of the doubt until five seconds later (or earlier) when he (oh too often) makes clear what is meant. 18:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * For example: the Bern made a string of tweets about what he considered actual family values recently. I did not immediately presume he was ranting about the gays: I kept reading, and whaddya know. 18:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Family values' is more complicated because it's also a pretty well-entrenched euphemism. Queexchthonic murmurings 18:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Sanders' use of the term is in full acknowledgement of its dog whistle meaning and trying to turn it "from its head onto its feet". Just as if I were to say "the actual Israel Lobby" are people like User:-Mona- who hate Israel and are obsessed with said hatred. However, I admit Sanders' rhetoric works better, as "family values" is a more ambiguous term from the strict meaning of the words... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Greenwald has never endorsed Ron Paul
Not only do I know that as one who is friends with the man, I know it from his public record. Glenn praises Paul where appropriate -- for the same reasons Dennis Kucinich -- whom Glenn also writes nice things about -- worked with Paul on select legislation. Glenn wrote this:

There are very few political priorities, if there are any, more imperative than having an actual debate on issues of America’s imperialism; the suffocating secrecy of its government; the destruction of civil liberties which uniquely targets Muslims, including American Muslims; the corrupt role of the Fed; corporate control of government institutions by the nation’s oligarchs; its destructive blind support for Israel, and its failed and sadistic Drug War. More than anything, it’s crucial that choice be given to the electorate by subverting the two parties’ full-scale embrace of these hideous programs.

I wish there were someone who did not have Ron Paul’s substantial baggage to achieve this. Before Paul announced his candidacy, I expressed hope in an Out Magazine profile that Gary Johnson would run for President and be the standard-bearer for these views, in the process scrambling bipartisan stasis on these questions. I did that not because I was endorsing his candidacy (as some low-level Democratic Party operative dishonestly tried to claim), but because, as a popular two-term Governor of New Mexico free of Paul’s disturbing history and associations, he seemed to me well-suited to force these debates to be had. But alas, Paul decided to run again, and Johnson — for reasons still very unclear — was forcibly excluded from media debates and rendered a non-person.

He has never endorsed Ron Paul.---Mona- (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Writer in The Harvard Political Review: "Glenn Greenwald wrote a thought-provoking piece in Salon in which he noted that progressives disappointed with Obama’s policies have a viable alternative. While explicitly not endorsing Ron Paul, Greenwald declared...When Ron Paul’s libertarian interests align with progressive interests, he can certainly provide valuable support for liberal House members, as Greenwald referenced."---Mona- (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Ed Brayton cites Glenn's analysis of Ron Paul as "brilliant" and adopts Glenn's own words to exaplain the problem they both share:

So potent is this poison that no inoculation against it exists. No matter how expressly you repudiate the distortions in advance, they will freely flow. Hence: I’m about to discuss the candidacies of Barack Obama and Ron Paul, and no matter how many times I say that I am not “endorsing” or expressing support for anyone’s candidacy, the simple-minded Manicheans and the lying partisan enforcers will claim the opposite.

You can see all of those things occur in the comment threads on this blog anytime I have praised Ron Paul on specific issues. A perfect example is a comment by someone named Jim, who said that he had assumed that given my other positions “endorsing Paul would be anathema. Guess I misunderstand this blog.” But not only did I not endorse Ron Paul, I have explicitly said many times that I cannot vote for him despite applauding many of his positions. And I’ve posted about a dozen reasons why lately.

Indeed. Quite simple-minded. Both Ed and Glenn have to put up with the same bullshit accusation of "endorsing" Ron Paul, which neither has done, nor would do.---Mona- (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The first Slate article (on Bob Schiefffer) cited by CorruptUser (CU) was IMO pretty weak on the alleged Ron Paul (RP) support (little of it concerned RP or viewpoints espoused by him).
 * The second Greenwald article from Slate (RP & Progressives), however, seems much more pertinent to the point. Indeed, Greenwald seems to follow the odd fascination with RP while at the same time trying to reject him that I've seen/heard other self-styled iconoclasts, such as espouse. In that vein, it's hard to read Greenwald's second Slate article as anything but a sort of backhanded endorsement of RP by the way of an attack on progressives with a too partisan Democratic attitude, considering the proportion of space used to praise specific RP standpoints vs. the amount of hedging employed. However, claiming that this makes Greenwald a Paulbot is stretching the data and definition of Paulbot a bit (too) far (contrast with the unmitigated adoration espoused by actual Paulbots).
 * I've always found this fascination with RP among certain U.S. policy analysts/wonks/pundits/critics who certainly weren't in either the GOP or the libertarian Paulbot camps, well, fascinating. Although I've yet to formulate a clear notion of why RP came to occupy this position in the mental landscape of the "commentariat", I suppose it was due to his status as a sort of "inside outsider" and the way in which he was able downplay some of his more odious stances, combined with the tendency of people focussing mostly on the elements they agreed with and downplaying/ignoring the rest.
 * One point I can't help but ponder is why this positive attitude towards RP's foreign policy spiel and civil rights pantomime seemed to ignore that RP was basically getting a free ride and never really put anything at stake while beating his own drum (e.g. forsaking a Republican Party pursuing the exact opposite policy of that advocated by RP). To me, this and his history of playing several horses at various times (or simultaneously) made RP less of a principled insurgent within the GOP and more of a shameless opportunist playing the "Look at me, I'm a non-conformist and a rebel!"-shtick for all it was worth (I'm reminded of a sort of political parallel to the description of David Hatcher Childress given by Jason Colavito). The positive views of RP outside his hardcore fan base ignored this problem in favour of selective praise based on taking some of RP's sermons at face value, a kindness rarely extended to other Congress critters (or POTUSes for that matter). ScepticWombat (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "as anything but a sort of backhanded endorsement of RP by the way of an attack on progressives" Glenn is many things, but one who does anything "backhandedly" is most decidedly not among them. He has not endorsed, and would not endorse, Ron Paul. Off the top of my head, the only candidates I can recall him endorsing -- and working on their behalf-- are left-wing Democrats: Russ Feingold and Rush Holt. As for your puzzlement and musings over various people's interest in Ron Paul, that's interesting, but has nothing to do with the fact that Glenn Greenwald has never endorsed Ron Paul. ---Mona- (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If only McCain had won, Feingold would've been president in 2012. I honestly think 4 years of McCain (even with the eyecandy) and 4 years of Feingold would've been better than either 8 years of Obama or 8 of Hilldog.  Plus, we likely would have 4 more years of Feingold!  Feingold is just that awesome.  Fuck you for not reelecting him, Wisconsin. CorruptUser (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @CU, huh? What has that got to do with anything, least of all the topic of this thread?
 * @Mona, you seem to be carrying quite the torch for Greenwald and rather than seriously considering what Greenwald's RP & Progressives article actually contains (to wit: a long list of reasons to support RP) you'd rather categorically dismiss the thought that Greenwald could or would support RP and focus on whether Greenwald outright endorsed RP.
 * My point is that saying that you're not endorsing someone and then providing a long list of policies where you argue that the same candidate's policies are the most attractive at least sends a mixed message. It's also an odd way of dealing with a candidate you think has a "disturbing history" and "substantial baggage", as it only provides concrete examples of reasons to vote for RP, but is short and vague on reasons not to vote RP.
 * In addition, and as per my "musings", Greenwald seems to be taking RP's "principled internal GOP opposition"-brand at face value without at least wondering why a candidate, who proclaims to be so ardently at odds with the GOP on several substantial policy areas, never manages to put his GOP affiliation at risk. This perspective is all the more noticeable given that Greenwald is attacking examples of Manichaean partisanship favouring the party line over principles among progressives/Democrats.
 * However, given that Greenwald still hedges and doesn't use the hyperbolic pro-RP rhetoric of actual Paulbots, I don't think it fair to call him one. So, unless CU can dig up some substantial supporting material (again, I think the Schieffer article is useless in this regard) for the claim of Greenwald's alleged RP sympathies, I think that such accusations are far too tentative and speculative to warrant inclusion here based on one ambiguous article. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "given that Greenwald still hedges" Again, Glenn does not hedge. He absolutely does find multiple of Ron Paul's positions deeply and urgently correct. He says this for the same reason that Dennis Kucinich happily worked with Paul when the latter was also in the Congress. (To understate, Kucinich does not agree with many of Paul's much less attractive views.) The obscene War on Drugs is but one example of a critical issue where conventional politicians have utterly failed us. Paul has always seen this and railed against it. Anyone like Glenn -- or me -- who has a civil libertarian fire burning in their soul -- and understands the horror that is this "war" on people who use or sell drugs which the state doesn't like -- is going to be enthusiastic about a congressional voice shouting the evils of this war, loud and clear. We are issue-oriented, not party bots. But, Glenn does note that Paul has said some heinous things (elsewhere Glenn specifies these things are racist), and he does not endorse him. When Glenn does endorse a candidate, he says and does the things he did for Feingold and Holt. As for this idea you have that Paul never puts his GOP affiliation at risk, it isn't at risk from anything he really believes, any more than Kucinich was/is for the Dems. They tolerate him as some "crazy uncle," as the Dems did with Dennis.---Mona- (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Alleged Dawkins Quotation
Under Dawkins' Pettiness, the article gives the impression Richard Dawkins had coined the term “to greenwald”. A quotation seemingly from Dawkins is given, with a source to Twitter. But when I click on the source it leads to a Twitter account of someone named “Rastiv Zapsion” who tweets at Richard Dawkins. I have no idea who this Rastiv is; whether his opinions have status; whether he is the official spokesperson of Richard Dawkins; or whether the image with the definition embedded originates with Richard Dawkins. What I do know is that the source does not corroborate the assertion. Maybe it is a joke, since “to greenwald” is about misrepresenting someone. Well, played! ~ Aneris 19:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Dawkins is promoting it. If I recall the tweet chain that becomes clear.---Mona- (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Dawkins RTed that one, but to keep things clear I found Dawkins' own tweet.---Mona- (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * At this point I really don't know if you are just pulling my leg, or if you are being serious. None of the sources you provide so far have anything to do with Richard Dawkins, except that some dude tweeted this at him. The twitter conversation chain, at least when I view it, shows no Richard Dawkins. Twitter won't display the 270 people who retweeted it, nor the 584 who liked the tweet. It's conceiveable, even plausible, that Richard Dawkins did one these things -- after all, how did the tweet gather so many retweets and likes? But if that's the case, it's non-apparent at this point and the source is worthless at present. Even when this is entirely correct, you also assert that it was (quote) "Dawkins' definition", where you are clearly greenwalding him. In order to establish this, you would also need to show that the definition-screenshot originates with Richard Dawkins. I suggest you replace the source with Dawkins' retweet, and you write properly that Dawkins seemingly endorsed this message by retweeting it, not by having defined it (unless you can demonstrate that, too). You seem to be in the greenwalding business yourself. ~ Aneris 21:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Aneris, I am not the one who added this section. If you think I'm doing something nefarious you have the wrong target. Some BoN added it; I reverted. CorruptUser came back with a version linking to Twitter. Spew at him if you think a crime has been committed.---Mona- (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not important who edited it, and I did not accuse anyone. You replied, and I responded to your reply. ~ Aneris 22:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Whether it's a true quote or not, I don't think it belongs in the article. If I have an opinion on Ted Cruz (and I do) and Ted Cruz doesn't even know/care, does my quote about Ted Cruz belong in a Ted Cruz article? No. Similarly, I don't think this Dawkins quote (or re-tweet) belong in this article unless Greenwald somehow engages with it and makes something interesting about it. The Dawkins quote could be legit in the Dawkins article, but even then, it just seems silly and trivial. MarmotHead (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no strong opinion either way. I think CorruptUser added the section. My issue is solely with Sorte Slyngel's wording if the section is to remain.---Mona- (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Dawkins is practically the Patron Saint of this wiki. So yeah, if he's having a hissy fit it's worth mentioning, especially if something comes of it. CorruptUser (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The Saint Pope of this wiki is PZ Myers, and Richard Dawkins has become one of the demons, because PZ doesn't like him anymore. The purpose to include him here is transparently to throw another egg at him. I have nothing against adding things that are true, but the assertions in the article aren't supported by the provided evidence. I come to think that no sources are better than fake sources, at least it's obvious that someone just asserts something. ~ Aneris 22:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I never even thought the section was necessary. But reached an agreement with CorruptUser. Sorte seems intent on shit-stirring every time we reach an agreement., But MarmotHead is right, and my initial instinct to revert this section also was. You don't like it either, I take it, Aneris. So, I'll remove the whole thing, which just attracts trouble and is trivial in any event.---Mona- (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear me, no. Judging by reception, I mostly stir up apathy. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)