Talk:The Intercept

For later addition

Steal these or I'll add them as time permits:

• Greenwald debuts Omidyar-backed The Intercept
• Defying Threats to Journalism, Jeremy Scahill & Glenn Greenwald Launch New Venture, The Intercept petrarchan47tc 02:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

"American"

I have reverted an anon edit twice now that describes the publication as "American" in the lead. The edit is uncited, and given that two of the three most prominent people associated with the publication report from outside the US I'm not sure what it means or what it adds in context. I'm going to remove it one more time, but I'm not really sure how to proceed. ParkerHiggins ( talk contribs ) 19:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

US Govt

Defense contractors also required to block this site from internal networks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.198.230 (talk) 14:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Separate Juan Thompson article?

Now that he's done (or allegedly done, anyway) something else that would make him notable whether he had ever worked at The Intercept or not, perhaps we could take all this stuff on him I wrote a year ago and make it the basis of a separate article? Daniel Case (talk) 07:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that makes sense. He's gone from BLP1E to BLP2E, and the section on him here does take up a rather inordinate amount of article space. -- Irn (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll split it off in a week or so. Daniel Case (talk) 04:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, looks like someone's not only created it, it's reached that usual Wikipedia rite of passage—getting nominated for deletion. Seems like it's going to be kept, though. Daniel Case (talk) 04:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Incompetence

Someone should add the fact that they basically handed the NSA the name of whoever their document leaker was. How can an organization with such topical knowledge of govt spying be so careless? Only an idiot would give documents to the intercept now. 199.18.157.82 (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• Agree http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-intercept-leak-20170606-story.html jrun (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Post-2016 election thoughts?

I'm pretty shocked to see that Benjamin Wittes's warning, from January 2015 (cited in a paragraph under "Criticism"), that The Intercept was basically inviting hacking of US intelligence documents, has gone unanswered to this day (writing in October 2017, nearly 1 year into the Trumpocalypse). No one has any thoughts at all??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rousse (talk • contribs) 01:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Rousse: I'm not exactly sure what you're looking for. We don't just put opinions in articles. We have to both maintain neutrality and stick with verifiable information that is published by reliable sources. -- irn (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Rousse Your concern, and Witte's warning, are suddenly very pertinent again with The Intercept Brasil's sensational accusations against (then) judge Sergio Moro. The files have not been made available to law enforcement, or any other independent party, but whatever The Intercept Brasil has in its possession would have been acquired through the criminal actions of a hacker, or, more likely, a hacker group. Either way, criminal. Yet, there appears to be no widespread concern here about, not only The Intercept's encouragement of crime, but its use of the supposed materials to destabilize an entire nation. The section "Operation Car Wash leakage" on this page should be edited to reflect a neutral stance on whether Moro actually did anything out of line, but instead, it states matter of factly that The Intercept Brasil has shown his guilt. I attempted to make that edit yesterday, but it was my first ever edit on Wikipedia and was reverted. I'm not sure why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceteris Paribus 1 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The_Intercept#Aims_and_content

I'm thinking that this entire section could go. Three long paras of mission statements distract from the subject, in my opinion. Any feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Delete. Primary sourced self-aggrandizing bs. SPECIFICO talk 02:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Removed per K.e.coffman and SPECIFICO.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Far-left designation

The Intercept is known in all quarters - including mainstream liberal ones - to be [1] far to the left. Is it forbidden for the website to be designated as such? 38.101.158.253 (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, 38.101.158.253 thanks for creating a discussion. The main reference, allsides.com, does not appear to be a reliable source. A discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_235#Allsides.com. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that allsides.com is not a reliable source. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The source doesn't say "far left", it ranks media organisations as left/left leaning/centre/... -J Jay Hodec (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Kacziey I'm not sure there's a consensus for the designation "far-left"; I'm not sure where the line is drawn between left, progressive, and far-left and I'm struggling to find RSs that describe The Intercept as "far-left". I agree they are left of the mainstream, centrist parts of the Democratic party, but they're broadly sympathetic to the progressive AOC/Sanders/Warren wing and its goals. This includes strident criticism of the Israeli government. (I tend to avoid editing on topics pertaining to Israeli & Middle East politics etc. because I'm not emotionally invested in the issue.) Reviewing the supporting sources listed in this diff I'd say:

• The Politico piece paints The Intercept as attacking the mainstream Democratic party, in particular its pro-business and influence peddling, but describes it as progressive, lefty, and similar terms.
• The New Yorker piece focuses on Greenwald, "[a] leftist journalistÄs bruising crusade against establishment Democrats". It describes his attacks on the centrist parts of the Democratic party, and his skepticism of the Mueller investigations which has made him welcome on right-leaning publications. He is described as a "Sanders admirer".
• The JTA source highlights the site's criticism of Israel's "right-wing government" and AIPAC, and quotes the Politico piece about "attacking Democrats from the left."
• JCPA doesn't mention the Intercept, but describes Greenwald as an "anti Israel liberal". (Wikipedia describes JCPA as neo-conservative and funded by Sheldon Adelson.)
• City Journal doesn't mention the Intercept but describes Scahill (an Intercept employee) as a radical and an ideologue.
• The Dodds book doesn't mention the Intercept but desribes Scahill as a radical for his leftist criticisms of Obama-era drone strikes.

None of these sources use "far-left" to describe The Intercept. I get that the site launches plenty of progressive-wing attacks on centrist and centre-left Democrats but without a single source saying "far-left", I hesitate to use that term. (I can't really speak to the Israel-specific stuff.).-Ich (talk) 11:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ich. Re JCPA if we are going to dismiss this, are we then going to dismiss any group hacked by George Soros? Would term “radical left” or “anti Israel” suffice? Scahill and Greenwald are the main guys.Kacziey (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Just added from noted author Ronald Radosh re Greenwald ”radical” and moved it’s ref re IsraelKacziey (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Added re Scahill, book ref. Describes him as such. BTW. It was ‘’’when’’’ talking about Obama’s war in terror. Not necessarily “because” of it. But it doesn’t even matter in the definition.Kacziey (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

 Disagree with the far-left designation. I also oppose labeling greenwald and scahill "radicals". you need to provide a fair number of good sources claiming that, a single one does not suffice, per WP: WEIGHT. - Daveout(talk) 20:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Why did you remove the reference

https://quillette.com/2019/01/18/glenn-greenwalds-bad-history from: Ronald Radosh is a noted author quote from him: “In a January 14 featured article at the Intercept, co-founder and radical journalist Glenn Greenwald”.

Here is more ref. clearly “radical journalist Glenn Greenwald” https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/july-august-2020/the-man-who-exposed-the-watchers/

And more: https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/insight-lauri-love-making-hacker-1554327 again the terminology “radical journalist Glenn Greenwald”.

The next one I didn’t include, but it’s just to show the wider range of view of Greenwald as such (there is also criticism of Bolsonaro on that same site):

“Greenwald se enxerga como jornalista que combate corrupção, mas não passa de um ativista radical” https://www.gazetadopovo.com.br/rodrigo-constantino/artigos/greenwald-se-enxerga-como-jornalista-que-combate-corrupcao-mas-nao-passa-de-um-ativista-radical/

Obrigado.Kacziey (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Describing Greenwald and Scahill in that way would also require attribution which would make the sentence rather complex. The descriptions could not be given in Wikipedia's voice. There is also the issue of synthesis since you are adding a descriptor to journalists that would carry an implication for The Intercept that was not contained in the source. If you were to include that description of Greenwald and Scahill it would need to be separated from any connection to the Intercept. Burrobert (talk) 03:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Kacziey:The Quillette is a deprecated source and should not be used, there's still the WP: WEIGHT problem. Just because 2 sources casually called him that, it doesn't mean that he is widely and mostly regarded as such by the majority of the media\public. One of the sources that you used (the new republic) actually say that his views appeal to both far-left and far-right sympathizers. Also, the lede should be a summary of the article's body.

( É bom ver um lusófono se aventurando pela wiki-inglesa, mas vai com calma aí meu. Aqui não é casa da mãe Joana. 😆✌️ ) - Daveout(talk) 10:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Ronald Radosh who wrote that piece (Jan.18.2019) is a noted author. What you said re The New Republic does not take away from their own description of Glenn Greenwald as a far left = Their terminology. Reminding you, TNR is a progressive site in and of itself.. and is pro Glenn Greenwald https://newrepublic.com/article/156279/brazilian-conservatives-really-hate-glenn-greenwald . I noted that it is ‘they’ who used this term re him which is true. I’m not sure why you object to it, most probably Glenn himself would be proud of it.Kacziey (talk)

This is the article that I was referring to (the one you included in glenn's article). The article you linked above doesn't use the terms "far-left" nor "radical". Radosh is a conservative, so it's no surprise that he considers glenn a radical leftist. Still, if properly attributed, it's probably ok to mention Radosh's view in the body of glenn's article (although I can't see how that is particularly relevant). - Daveout(talk) 13:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to point to your error, of course TNR https://newrepublic.com/article/116253/edward-snowden-glenn-greenwald-julian-assange-what-they-believe mentions this:

By this point, Greenwald had come to reside in a peculiar corner of the political forest, where the far left meets the far right...

Kacziey (talk)

Greenwald had come to reside in a peculiar corner of the political forest, where the far left meets the far right, often but not always under the rubric of libertarianism. He held positions that appealed to either end of the political spectrum

and this is a 2014 article, can't u find anything more recent? - Daveout(talk) 15:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Before I search, I can date the TNR article. Which I’m doing.

Summary of some of sources on Glenn Greenwald as FAR LEFT:

1. The New Republic "Would You Feel Differently About Snowden, Greenwald, and Assange If You Knew What They Really Thought?" Greenwald had come to reside in a peculiar corner of the political forest, where the far left meets the far right. . Jan 2014

2. "Why Is the Far Left Defending Tulsi Gabbard?" Nancy leTourneau, Washington Monthly, 2019

3. Fascism and the Far Left: A Grim Global Love Affair. There was shock when far-right U.S. provocateur Steve Bannon and leftist UK firebrand George Galloway shared an intimate moment in Kazakhstan recently. But the 'red-brown' alliance's roots run deep, and their mutual attraction shows no sign of waning." Haaretz, 27.05.2019.

4.

1. 4

Washington Post, February 13, 2019: Max Boot: “Democrats need to beware their loony left”. “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.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-need-to-beware-their-loony-left/2019/02/13/fb98354a-2fae-11e9-8ad3-9a5b113ecd3c_story.htmlKacziey (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Left and far left, just like right and far right, are two different animals. Gandydancer (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I’m saying that it has been described as such by others.

All 5 sources state “far left” not “just” left.

Here is source number 5:

The National Interest. "Why Are So Many Leftists Skeptical of the Russia Investigation?". "The purest form of this sentiment on the far left is a vein of attacks that are almost indistinguishable from Republican rhetoric about the investigation. The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald has gone from insisting evidence of Russian interference should be discounted until Robert Mueller produced some indictments to now saying indictments themselves should also be discounted." NY Magazine July 29, 2018Kacziey (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Notability bomb

This article had already been tagged as "too many primary sources". In particular, the section "Major stories and reaction" uses 12 out of 39 citations pointing to its own website. It seems more like a violation of WP:Citation overkill#Notability bomb. I worked on just ONE paragraph. I'm not sure that the section is acceptable for inclusion in a Wikipedia article; it should be something that other secondary sources are discussing, which is glaringly missing in this section. Normal Op (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

You just reverted my reaaddition of a reliable source (politico.com) which you removed from the article earlier without a reasonable explanation for it. I think perhaps you don't understand what a notability bomb is. Here's a quote:

The deceptive goal here is to boost the number of footnotes present in the article as high as possible, in the hope that it will fool other editors into accepting the topic's notability.

There isn't the slightest question in the world that The Intercept is a notable topic. You can maybe object to it on other grounds, such as that the source you removed (politico.com) is not a reliable source. You could try taking that to the Reliable sources noticeboard, but I think you'd be wasting your time; see our article Politico.

Also, per WP:BRD, you should not have removed it again, after another editor objected. I've restored this reliable source again. If you wish to have the source removed, please provide an argument for it based on policy; n the meantime, please leave the stable status quo ante while discussing. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with removal of notability tag. It is preposterous to assert that this article would get deleted at AFD. If you really think so, try it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: Read the section below. This isn't about trying to declare TI as not-notable. Normal Op (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

A more thorough explanation

The Politico story contained merely a brief mention of The Intercept's article and does not fit as "and reaction" (for a section titled "Major stories and reaction") and as such is WP:UNDUE — especially since the article wrote "Zuckerberg did not make direct reference to the report in The Intercept," compared to the wiki article which said "According to Politico, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg later complained to President Obama about NSA's surveillance," basically hinting to the wiki reader that TI had something to do with it (which is not stated anywhere)... hence it is WP:SYNTH.

My evaluation of the entire section is that it is SYNTH for the purpose of Wikipedia:Wikipuffery or cite bomb or whatever. I'm not going to bother getting inside the head of the wiki authors of this content, but I know this entire section (as currently written) fails to follow wiki guidelines on so many levels.

For a section named "Major stories and reaction", I would expect other sources (secondary sources, independent of the subject... aka NOT The Intercept) to be talking about the subject (TI) and discussing "reactions" to TI's "major stories". There is no such content in this section.

It is not appropriate to cite TI's own articles in a section comprised of a "list" of TI's own articles. Every single one of the "major stories" in this list cites the actual story.

I'm not sufficiently "up" on these sorts of topics to wade through each one and "fix" this section one article at a time. I did one as a sample and it took a lot of work for just one. My evaluation of the entire section is that it should be nuked. If there are independent reliable secondary sources that ARE discussing the topic of "Major stories by The Intercept, and reaction to the stories", then someone could rewrite the section.

The article should be about The Intercept, and does not need 17 [self-published/primary-source] citations published by The Intercept to support this article. There should be maybe one or two primary source citations which support non-contentious content, such as when the organization started, or who started it, or what city and state do they operate in. There should be no need for 17 citations to articles published by The Intercept (such as there currently is).

The "primary sources tag" has been at the top of this article FOR THREE YEARS! It's about time someone addressed it.

— Normal Op (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Understand it now, thanks for the ping. Yes agree with you, the article is WP:NOTDIR of news article that the article subject considers to be noteworthy :-) Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: Would you agree that the entire section "Major stories and reaction" needs to be nuked as a violation of WP:NOTDIR? Someone can always create a similar section IF they can find independent reliable secondary sources discussing the (sub-)topic. Normal Op (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me and please feel free to continue to do so. I looked at the section just now for a short time (I am not an expert on this subject). I do see some other sources, plenty of them, such as washington post, etc. But do these sources refer to these as major stories? I think this section could be summarized, if it is WP:DUE. Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: To answer your question directly and succinctly... NO, not major and not "about The Intercept". I looked closer at paragraphs/stories #1 and #3.

Let's take the first story in the section. There are seven citations. Let's see what they cover:

• 7 is the TI article itself. It focuses on photographs of the NSA, NRO and NGA taken by some independent photographer.
• 8 has one brief mention of TI; focuses on the photographer
• 9 is also a brief mention of TI, focuses on the photographer, and has a small blurb about TI.
• 10 doesn't even mention TI.
• 4 is a TI article time stamped 1 minute after TI's first article (citation 7) that covers the subject of NSA
• 5 has two quotes from TI article #2 (cite 4) but is not about TI.
• 6 is an interview with the two authors of TI's articles #1 & #2 (cites 7 and 4) who are also the co-founders of The Intercept

So in all, the only citation of note is cite 6 which is an interview with those who wrote the article and includes discussion about The Intercept. Though, since it's an interview with the founders of TI, most of the content is categorized a "primary source".

Interestingly, since the wiki article mentions which of the TI articles is first and second, and gets it wrong if the time stamps are any indicator, then I hazard the guess that whoever wrote this section works for The Intercept or has a very close connection with it.

I'll skip the second paragraph since I already edited in it, and move on to the third paragraph of the section. It has four citations 13-16.

• 13 The TI article itself. (July 23)
• 14 Also a TI article. (August 5, 13 days later)
• 15 (August 5) is about the furor over TI's Aug 5 publication of a graphic
• 16 Requires a subscription to read it, and even Wayback Machine is no use. But the headline indicates that this news story is NOT about The Intercept. If TI is mentioned, it would only be a brief mention.

In other words, the "content" that is in the wiki article, section "Major stories and reaction", paragraphs 1 & 3... is original research because there is no secondary-source reliable-source independent-of-the-topic citation to support any of the content for paragraphs 1 or 3. I posit that all the remaining paragraphs in that section are similar. And it is likely that whichever editor(s) made this section has probably also written similar content throughout the wiki article.

Using tool "Who Wrote That?", there are two main editors of this section:

• Rosethursday, who was the author of 27.0% of the current page (remaining from their edits in 2017)
• Ideastation, who was the author of 14.3% of the current page (remaining from their edits in 2017)

BOTH of these editors are single purpose accounts that edited only in 2017, and only on this article.

The version of the article just prior to the earliest edit of the "Major stories and reactions" (by rose_ and idea_) shows a similar section, though more skimpy. The editor of the first paragraph was SPA editor Theta00 whose predominant edited article was Barrett Brown, followed by Ahmed Ghappour, Brown's defense counsel. Brown was a journalist for TI and was sentenced to Federal prison for... well, read the article.

There are other bit players that were very interested in editing this article due to the NSA/Snowden/etc. hot topics, but still...

I can conclude that much of the article IS flawed in some way by having had much of its content created by SPA newbies, and I'm not surprised that the article has been tagged as relying too much on primary sources for THREE YEARS! My evaluation report above should be sufficient evidence that deleting the entire section "Major stories and reaction" is warranted (without the prerequisite of reading every single one of the remaining citations). If someone wants to research the topic and present it newly with RS secondary sources, then I would not object to it. What I object to is the massive use of TI's own articles as citations in the wiki article, with tangential citations that only support the OR written about TI and are not actually discussing/covering TI itself. That is a WP:CITEBOMB.

— Normal Op (talk) 04:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Your explanation is certainly logical and thorough. I think that the interview with the founders if publised in an RS would not be primary. If NYT is quoting someone as saying something, then we can cite it saying that x person said it. But certainly it also wouldnt be a source to justify that these are big scoops on the part of TI. Seems you should just ax it as you have mentioned, and maybe keep the sources to anchor one or two sentences of summary. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I just deleted the section. There's no way I'm going to read the entire section and 41 more citations in the hopes of 'saving' one or two citations. Normal Op (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Poitras firing

I'm going to remove the part that says she was fired. Poitras says she was fired, but the company denies it. The WaPo source says: "In a statement early Thursday afternoon, First Look described Poitras’s parting from the company as a 'natural' decision to not renew her contract after she 'decided to step away from her role at the company to pursue her own projects.' The company denied that its decision was based on Poitras talking to the media." The Praxis source is self published, so it's reliable for statements about what Poitras says, but not for statements of fact. GA-RT-22 (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Your change seems appropriate to me based on the WaPo source. Someone not having their contract removed is usually not considered being fired. In some situations it might be considered such from a practical point of view, but we'd go by what the sources say in those cases, and in this case WaPo is careful to put things behind "Poitras says..." and quotes First Look as saying she just didn't have her contract renewed without saying she was fired. @Bueller 007: Do you have a source we can use for statements of fact saying she was fired in the article voice (ie. unattributed)? I'm definitely not seeing it in the WaPo source, and as GA-RT-22 says, we can't use an open letter she posted on her personal website for unattributed statements of fact. --Aquillion (talk) 05:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Anybody have a source for The Intercept's country or headquarters?

I'd like to get this info into the lead once we can source it. I think it's reasonable to include (at a minimum) a country or demonym for articles like companies, towns, people. Need to know where the heck this is. Normally I'd slap a link to the company website's "about" page and call it a day, but The Intercept doesn't appear to publish their address on their website. The closest I could find in RS is this article that mentions a Washington bureau chief. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Uncontroversial Controversy.

The article has a note saying:

Politico notes that The Intercept has a tendency to write articles that speak negatively of Democrats.

I'd like to remove it, since this doesn't really seem like a controversy.

-Solid Reign (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

It is an assessment rather than a controversy. Perhaps put it in an Assessment section. Burrobert (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I think I was the one that wrote that sentence. Feel free to move it around. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I've removed it until we find a place for it. Assessment is a good place DesertShadow (talk) 07:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Carlos Latuff

I believe Greenwald praises his 'work'. That should tell every right-thinking person just exactly what Greenwald is. Do search for Latuff's 'work' about Jews and Israel, and then ponder which Central European publication it comes closest to.

Your belife is not enough, do you have any RS for this? If not it may well violate [[wp:blp].Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Lee Fang missing from this article

How come ? He wrote there. — Jerome Potts (talk) 11:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)