Talk:Larry C. Johnson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's probably overt libel here. This is serious.[edit]

1. On the revision page, 26 March 2017‎, someone stating that he is Larry Johnson has stated that the page is inaccurate and requests its removal. 2. I myself made corrections to the factually incorrect final paragraph on 25 March 2017. SOURCED corrections. It appears that someone deleted the changes and erased any record of the changes. Nothing appears on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Larry_C._Johnson&action=history except the troubling entry on 26 March 2017 that ought to make the entire wikipedia community VERY NERVOUS.

Assuming I didn't leave the page after only previewing without hitting submit (a slight possibility), then what the hell on the log? Was the log erased? Certainly I must have not saved changes?

AAR the "troubling entry" should be looked at, seriously.24.27.72.99 (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: WTH, seriously, I just reloaded the revision page and about 24 new entries instantly appeared, including the day-old log entry of my changes! I didn't clear cache or anything, just F5 of a page that I originally loaded 10 minutes ago (not yesterday). Sorry, I'm a competent and careful user; this was just something very strange about the revision history.

The libelous or contentious nature of the page is still a risk though.24.27.72.99 (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I presume your changes didn't make it through because the page has been protected. I encourage you to create an account so you can more productively engage with the community and, hopefully, correct the inaccuracies/unsourced claims you have pointed out. Julia\talk 11:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Any allegations of "libel" need to be reliably sourced. Miniapolis 13:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please review.[edit]

Please review the 03:53, 26 March 2017‎ action to this page by Joshua Scott. I contend that he replaced facts with conjectures.

Of note, in the process he also removed a link of Larry Johnson speaking himself. On CNN - a worldwide broadcast network - where Johnson gives a specific account of facts that the existing wiki text is inconsistent with. Is that proper?

I'm sure Joshua does fine work for the community but I request a second set of eyes to confirm the validity of that unwinding. If someone will do that, I'll accept the outcome without further comment. Thank you.24.27.72.99 (talk) 00:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone looking at this? There are FALSE STATEMENTS in the final paragraph. If you leave those in there you are just daring the subject individual to cause massive trouble for Wikipedia. Does no one care about that?24.27.72.99 (talk) 05:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

False claim in Napolitano section[edit]

Trump did NOT assert Napolitano's claim "as fact". Is thehill.com sufficient sourcing?

"Asked about Spicer repeating Napolitano’s claim, Trump called the Fox analyst a 'very talented legal mind' but added that the White House was just citing the report, not endorsing it."

That's not "asserting as fact." The existing text says "asserted as fact."

I'm not just trolling here. I'm reporting facts, pointing out falsehoods, and supplying unambiguous, mainstream sources - if that counts for anything. Frankly I'm upset that I've reported this twice - or you could say this is the third report - and the only action has been to lock out corrective changes.24.27.72.99 (talk) 05:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one has locked out "corrective changes" - I believe someone explained earlier that if you register an account it will negate this issue. As far as the time - Wikipedia is run almost entirely by volunteers, from editors to admins and there are more than 5 million articles - it takes time to get to some stuff. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I guess you want me to give you the link: http://thehill.com/homenews/media/325755-foxs-napolitano-claimed-trump-was-considering-him-for-supreme-court-report Is that source sufficiently credible to justify correcting a factual misstatement on a wikipedia article?

Primary source quotation follows: “We said nothing,” Trump said when asked about the former judge's claims regarding the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). "I didn’t make an opinion on it.”

“All we did was quote a certain very talented legal mind who was the one responsible for saying that on television,” Trump said.

Does anyone want to execute the correction now?24.27.72.99 (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Larry C. Johnson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Larry C. Johnson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should we link to LCJ's website?[edit]

An editor keeps edit-warring "Johnson himself has provided an extensive discussion of this situation, both the background for his original claim and the reaction to it." to a paragraph about LCJ's promotion of conspiracy theories about Obama allegedly wiretapping Trump.[1] This clearly does not belong on this Wikipedia page, as its simply sourced to LCJ himself and not a secondary reliable source. There's nothing to indicate WP:DUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This Biased, Partisan Article Illustrates Wikipedia's Unreliability[edit]

I have no opinion about Johnson. I saw his name somewhere in my feeds and came here (among other places) to see who he is. I found a highly opinioned article that trashes Wikipedia's claims regarding neutrality. It reads like something from MSNBC or Daily Kos. Wikipedia has gained a reputation for partisanship. This is an especially vivid example of why never to rely on Wikipedia for anything controversial. 2001:5B0:50C0:D3D8:95A6:F5A4:3942:F623 (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree. hillwalker (talk) 08:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea who Johnson is until five minutes ago but this wiki post on him turns into opinion and not sourced. Further it is probably wrong regarding the Ukranian/Russian war. One could easily find a dozen sources (heck NYT editorial board) that would agree with Johnson’s supposed statements about the war rather than the opinions here. WGyp (talk) 03:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree - another voice.
This is quite biased. Yes, he provides information that supports the Russian point of view - that does not mean it isn't true. At the same time $B are being paid to place articles in US mainstream corporate news - and much of that is misinformation. Saying he is biased points to the bias of this article. I don't see him as being pro Russian - more like hoping to provide balance to protect Americans from a war we can't win. (seems obvious that no one wins a war - just who loses the most). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.243.106.82 (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is stating what he wrote in his own words considered now biased? Larry Johnson has been ridiculously over the top with his praise of Vladimir Putin and the Russian war in Ukraine. He has made numerous misleading statements and generally parots whatever propaganda comes out from Moscow. He has a platform on noted far-right fake news conspiracy sites like The Gateway Pundit. I don't think presenting his very pro-Russian views and his own statements are somehow biased. And then providing a context of those views with actual sources. Given he is only noteworthy now because of his fervent pro-Russian views, they should be part of his page.

The people above seem to have a certain view of the Russian and Ukrainian war that jives with Larry Johnson's view. And that seems to be the issue here. --DeeFG (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DeeFG Yes, there are two views of the Russia/Ukraine war.
I see no reason for either the U.S. or Wikipedia to take sides in that war.
Describing Johnson's statements as "over the top" amounts to taking sides. KHarbaugh (talk) 14:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Larry_C._Johnson&oldid=1207843410"