Talk:Charles C. Johnson

Sources

Why is Daily Caller being used? Isn't there something better? BTW Chuck has had at least half a dozen Twitter screennamess since his first suspension (this is suspehsion evasion). He currently tweets under the SN of news agency he made up. 148.163.176.170 (talk) 03:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)--

weSearchr

Charles C. Johnson is one of the CEOs of WeSearchr the crowdfunding platforms that supports neo nazi websites like the Daily Stormer. https://www.wesearchr.com/bounties/daily-stormer-vs-splc-legal-defense-fund

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.210.152.204 (talk) 02:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

NPOV: "He periodically makes false and unsubstantiated claims"

I have now reworded this twice in accordance with NPOV. However, user Grayfell decided to reverse it again. Stating:

(Undid revision 804084059 by Deleet (talk) Well-sourced. Direct is better. Weasel words do not make that much difference either way in this case.)

I don't agree. There is only a single source for the claim, an article from Politico, that is highly critical of Donald Trump ("How Trump gets his fake news"). This cannot be considered NPOV sourcing, and thus should use non-factual description. Politico is rated as a left-wing outlet according to Pew Research's study and left-center by Media bias factcheck, so one cannot just assume it is correct about some right-wing person, especially not considering BLP. As such, I agree it is worth mentioning, but disagree about the wording. My previous wording was:

He is alleged to periodically make false and unsubstantiated claims.

though one may want to change this to be more specific, e.g.:

According to Politico, he periodically makes false and unsubstantiated claims.

Deleet (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Being left-wing doesn't make a source unreliable. Politico is reliable in summarizing the many factual errors/hoaxes Johnson has pushed. These are explained in the body, so a summary in the lede is appropriate. Couching this in evasive, equivocating language is not neutral. A reliable source is reliable regardless of ideological affiliation, and couching this in those terms is false balance. False balance is the opposite of NPOV, as it is specifically downplaying a reliable source to favor an unreliable one, in this case Johnson himself, who is completely, fundamentally unreliable by Wikipedia's standards. Grayfell (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Complaint about POV

This article reads like it was written by a far left group designed specifically to attack and discredit the subject. Can't someone try to make this more NPOV. Its articles like this that give ammunition to critics of wikipedia that it is biased 216.178.109.81 (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Fortunately, most people know that wikipedia is useless for anything politically controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:C401:72D0:A44C:D76D:42D2:9D1C (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Holocaust denial and invitations by congressmen

The Anti-Defamation League calls Charles Johnson a holocaust denier. He said that the number of victims in the holocaust is inflated, wasn't caused by intentional killing and that the gas chambers in Auschwitz didn't exist in a Ask-Me-Anything session in the now banned altright subreddit. Here is an archived version. The claim that he is a holocaust denier was repeated by Forward. I stumbled over it when I read that Johnson was invited to the 2018 State of the Union Address by congressman and Trump supporter Matt Gaetz. He was also invited to discuss Wikileaks founder Julian Assange by California congressman Dana Rohrabacher. Holocaust denial is very serious thing and would make him a neonazi in my opinion. Which makes the two previous sections all the more ridiculous. This should definitely be included in this Wikipedia entry. Haage42 (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Status of GotNews and WeSearchr

As of June 2018, Johnson's websites GotNews and WeSearchr appear to be dormant. WeSearchr has had a "WeSearchr is undergoing scheduled maintenance" notice for some time. GotNews has a bunch of old news stories. Are these websites still going? Chisme (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Charles C. Johnson here

Hey guys,

I don't much mind that there are a lot of left-wingers here on the site trying to write things about me. I just ask that they be accurate.

Relying on someone who is obsessed with me like Little Green Footballs is a little much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesCJohnson (talk • contribs) 06:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@CharlesCJohnson: Read the information about editing with a conflict of interest on your talk page. You will need to make actionable proposals instead of editing the page yourself in most cases. You can post to WP:BLPN or WP:ANI if you need administrator attention. All proposed changes will need to be supported by reliable sources. We do not verify that you are who you say you are, so your own expertise is not considered reliable, and Wikipedia's policies require verifiability anyway. Grayfell (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I've replaces the Little Green Footballs blog post with something more reliable. Grayfell (talk) 06:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Rolling Stone section

@Grayfell: Would you mind changing the article to be fair to Johnson about the Rolling Stone matter? He correctly identified Jackie (Redacted) but had the wrong photo of her up. I think that's important to note that distinction. 23.241.185.80 (talk) 00:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

It is fair. Wikipedia isn't a platform for this kind of petty crap. You don't need my approval, nor are you likely to get it. You are looking for WP:CONSENSUS, not permission. First read WP:BLP, and then try to get consensus based on reliable sources, not original research or firsthand familiarity. Johnson isn't a reliable source. Do not ping me again without a good reason. Grayfell (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Charles C. Johnson in the past tense?

Next to "Years Active," the info box in this article says "2013 - present." However, Johnson hasn't been doing much in the present. He seems to have disappeared from the face of the earth. His website (http://charlescjohnson.com/) is down. His news and funding websites (GotNews, WeSearchr, Freestartr) are long gone. Joe Rogan removed his interviews with Johnson from his Spotify podcasts. A Google search for his name under News brings up, most recently, an article from 2019. Is it time to change the subject's "Years Active" to "2013 - 2019"? Should the intro sentence say, "Charles Carlisle Johnson (born October 22, 1988), an American far-right political activist, was a public figure in the years 2013 to 2019"? Chisme (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with these changes.

No objections, I see. I'm going to rewrite the intro sentence as described above. Chisme (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I changed it to "formerly public figure." If you object, please explain why the subject, who has not been in the public eye for a couple of years, doesn't deserve the adverb "formerly." Chisme (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: Johnson previously worked at the Wall Street Journal editorial page under Barry Weiss. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Structure of article

The structure of this article is terrible. First, WP style advises against Controversy sections. The article to be changed to a narrative style with any controversies put in chronologic order and included (or not) based on notability. At it stands it is just a random collection of outrageous things he has done and said. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information. Ashmoo (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)