Jump to content

Talk:Larry C. Johnson: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
==Added to article Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity== As of March 2024, he is a member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. https://consortiumnews.com/2024/03/25/vips-memo-the-french-road-to-nuclear-war ~~~~
 
(352 intermediate revisions by 72 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=C|listas=Johnson, Larry C.|1=
==Anon user POV-pushing==
{{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=|attention=yes}}
Anonymous user [[User:65.87.105.2]] has been very active on the Plame-related articles pushing a certain POV defending Novak and the Administration. The material he inserted without comment is part of his POV-campaign. It is refuted
{{WikiProject Journalism|importance=Low|attention=yes}}
(or at least put into proper context) [http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/08/getting_it_righ.html here] and [http://lawnorder.blogspot.com/2005/07/daily-kos-pnac-head-attacks-larry.html here], among other places. I just wanted these links available to anyone who wants to deal with this, in case I don't get to it. :)--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 01:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Espionage |importance=Low}}
I want to add that he is a registered Republican and a Bush supporter until recently[http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/23/dems.radio/]; this is not just propaganda, as the anon user's edits imply.-[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 23:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
{{WikiProject United States |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Politics |importance=Low}}
}}
{{Archive box|search=yes|
* [[Talk:Larry C. Johnson/Archive 1|Archive 1]] <small>(2005–2008)</small>
}}
{{Clear}}


== There's probably overt libel here. This is serious. ==
==POV-pushing by Ombudsman==
{{adminhelp|answered=yes}}
This has been discussed already; please see above for the cite. The bullshit that Johnson only "claimed" he was a registered republican is a bogus attempt to poison the well.--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 19:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


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.
:Johnson said he supported Bush, but there is no evidence that he supported Bush other than his post-election statement. There was no pre-election endorsement for Bush even though Johnson could publish his columns in the NY Times and he appeared on numerous television news shows. Johnson gave no money to Bush, although Bush raised hundreds of millions of dollars from other donors. Johnson didn't volunteer for the Bush campaign, even though the Bush campaign headquarters was within a mile of his DC office. Of course we don't have a photo of him voting in the voting booth. So when Johnson says he previously supported Bush while presently denouncing him, we can only write that "he said he supported Bush." We have no 3rd party authentication for his claim of support, and his motive for lying is high: it gives him more credibility as a critic if he was a former suporter. I will now reinsert that line as previosly written. If you have a source to authenticate his claim, please add your cite. Good day! P.S. Who is ombudsman?--[[User:24.55.228.56|24.55.228.56]] 22:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
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/enwiki/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?
::What evidence do you have disputing that he voted for Bush? The article cited above says it quite clearly; it is not just "he says," and you offer no intelligent reason to doubt it. There is nobody on earth that has published anything suggesting that the facts are any different than this; your insertion of this is just to raise doubt where there is no reason for it. Should we say also that George W Bush only ''says'' he is a Republican? or a Christian? Come on. The source is right there, I will put it in since you are so anal about this ludicrous point. Happy new year.--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 22:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
::PS I want to add that your logic is internally contradictory. You claim that Johnson is lying about voting for Bush in order to enhance his credibility - yet it is clear throughout the article that he thinks Bush is absolutely wrong about the war -- why would he think it would enhance his credibility to admit that he used to support a President whom he thinks is wrong (and in fact, a liar and a traitor)? In any case, the speculation that Johnson might be lying about this is not supported in any published source; it is not up to wikipedia editors to publish such conjecture.--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 23:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


AAR the "troubling entry" should be looked at, seriously.[[Special:Contributions/24.27.72.99|24.27.72.99]] ([[User talk:24.27.72.99|talk]]) 00:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
:::You have got to be kidding. But because kids read these things, I will explain it to you anyway. If Johnson previously supported Bush, then he cannot be dismissed as just another left-wing anti-Bush wacko when he criticizes the Bush administration on the Plame matter. So when he says he was a supporter of Bush while criticizing the Bush administration in the same breath, it sounds suspicious. If Johnson truly supported Bush, where is the paper trail? Why didn't he donate to, volunteer for, or endorse the campaign? Apparently, when you write that Johnson supported Bush, you mean that he voted for Bush. Since Americans vote via secret ballot, it can never be proven how he voted. So that's why this article will say that he said he voted for President Bush in 2000. Good day! --[[User:24.55.228.56|24.55.228.56]] 01:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


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.
::::First off, the third party confirmation that Johnson supported Bush is in the article. But let's follow your logic -- where is Johnson's passport or photocopy of his driver's license? How do we know that is really his name? Shouldn't we change this article to [[The person who claims to go by the name Larry C. Johnson]]? You're making ludicrous charges. Lots of people who supported Bush did not contribute money. And your credibility argument is just ludicrous. If "it sounds suspicious" that he changed his impression of Bush after the war started, doesn't that hurt his credibility rather than help it? Again, you are totally contradicting yourself in your crusade to tarnish this person's credibility. Until you cite a source that actually questions his credibility on that issue, your questioning of it is [[WP:NOR|original research]].--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 01:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


The libelous or contentious nature of the page is still a risk though.[[Special:Contributions/24.27.72.99|24.27.72.99]] ([[User talk:24.27.72.99|talk]]) 00:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
==Why are you trying to smear Johnson?==
I have no objection to legitimate criticism of Johnson on this page, but the smears that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.55.228.56 this anon user] keeps posting simply do not belong here. This is not the place to speculate that he might be lying about facts that nobody else contests. There is no reason to add "he claims" to his support of Bush or to other claims that went uncontested during his sworn testimony. There is also no reason to give so much space to the whine that Johnson looked at the world with a pre-911 mindset -- before September 11th. Such claims are thrown in here only to impugn his credibility, and they do not add anything to the encyclopedia. They also don't make any sense - we've established above that there is no logic to the claim that Johnson would lie about formerly supporting Bush, and the whine about his pre-911 mindset is just idiotic, and he answers it clearly. There is no need for so many paragraphs on it at all, but if it's going to be put in here, it must be put in the context that it actually became an issue - that is, the context of a conservative smear campaign.--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 02:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


: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. [[User:Julia W|<b style="color:#4B0082;">Julia</b>]]\[[User_talk:Julia W|<sup style="color:#008080;">talk</sup>]] 11:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
On Hatch - Hatch reads the papers like everyone else. Such a significant claim would not go unnoticed by the conservative media if it were false. Even the Weekly Standard has not published anything challenging this claim. The only reason you keep doing this is because you want people to view Johnson as some kind of liar, yet you can't find a single source to back up your BS. Please knock it off; Wikipedia is not your personal soapbox. If you think Johnson is a liar, write an article about it, get it published, and maybe it will get picked up by the mainstream media -- in which case then there might be a reason for someone to include this silliness in wikipedia.--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 03:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
::Any allegations of "libel" need to be [[WP:RS|reliably sourced]]. [[User:Miniapolis|'''''<span style="color:navy">Mini</span>''''']][[User_talk:Miniapolis|'''''<span style="color:#8B4513">apolis</span>''''']] 13:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


== Please review. ==
::No one is smearing Johnson and I resent the accusation. I am simply trying to maintain NPOV in the article. Your suggestion that too much is being made of his pre-9/11 column downplaying the risk of terrorism is pure POV. He held himself out as an international expert on intelligence and security and yet he was 100% wrong on the threat the US faced. That's pretty significant. [[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]], you are a well-known POV pusher, esp. on issues related to Iraq (e.g., [[Iraqi insurgency]], [[Saddam Hussein]], and [[al Qaeda]]. Your m.o. is to accuse others of POV pushing while repeatedly reverting their edits.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Commodore_Sloat] I won't be pushed around by a POV bully.--[[User:24.55.228.56|24.55.228.56]] 03:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


Please review the 03:53, 26 March 2017‎ action to this page by Joshua Scott. I contend that he replaced facts with conjectures.
:::You are smearing Johnson; there is no other reason to add qualifiers to sentences that are not contested by anyone in the world. Actually, when the article is read in context, he is not 100% wrong, but that is neither here nor there. The fact is I am not resisting this information being put in the article at all; I am simply stating that it is not that big a deal -- '''everyone''' had a pre-911 mindset before 911, and the few who didn't - like Clarke, Scheuer - were seen as paranoid. The only reason Johnson's pre-911 views have been made an issue is to make a nonsensical smear against him. I am not pushing you around; I am trying to keep the article useful and relevant and free of idiotic statements and right wing propaganda.
:::As far as his expertise goes, please point to a single source actually questioning his expertise. Something other than innuendo based on something he wrote before 911. There is no need for personal attacks; I am not a "bully." If you are not trying to smear Johnson, why is it you insist on implying that he is a liar by putting qualifiers in every statement, when those statements are not contested by anyone on earth?--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 03:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


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?
::BTW - If anyone doubts that you are a POV pusher, they can read your blog remarks on Larry C. Johnson and the Plame affair here: [http://www.shockandblog.com/blog/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=14 http://www.shockandblog.com/blog/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=14] After reading it, no one will be surprised by your repeated POV edits here.--[[User:24.55.228.56|24.55.228.56]] 03:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


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.[[Special:Contributions/24.27.72.99|24.27.72.99]] ([[User talk:24.27.72.99|talk]]) 00:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
:::I never claimed not to have a POV; but I am not interested in pushing it on Wikipedia. What I write on a blog and what I write in Wikipedia have different goals. I'm sure you are capable of understanding that.--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 03:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


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?[[Special:Contributions/24.27.72.99|24.27.72.99]] ([[User talk:24.27.72.99|talk]]) 05:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
::::Oh sure, it's just a coincidence that your Blog and your editing here have similar POV (anti-Bush, anti-Republican, anti-Iraq War, pro-Larry Johnson). LOL! (BTW - I love the Plamegate poll!)[http://www.shockandblog.com/blog/] If you have strong opinions about an issue or a person, it's probably best if you refrain from editing articles about them. --[[User:24.55.228.56|24.55.228.56]] 03:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


== False claim in Napolitano section ==
:::::That's advice I see you won't take. Of course, since you are afraid to get an account here and edit under a pseudonym, I can't call you out on your POV by pointing to a blog. But I can point to your edits, which have been relentlessly singleminded. Whereas anyone who looks at my edit history can see that I am not pushing a particular POV but putting in information that I have some knowledge or expertise about. As I said above, the goal of writing on a blog and the goal of editing an encyclopedia are two different ones.--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 04:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


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


"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."
I am reverting recent edits by anon ip because (1) he changed the pre-911 section to eliminate the context of why this became an issue. This is all garbage - part of a right-wing smear campaign led by the Weakly standard. I mean really, this whole point is that Johnson had a pre-9/11 mindset ... before 9/11. But I'm not deleting this section, even though I think it should be deleted; I am simply keeping it in context, which is that Johnson's pre-9/11 column was not a significant issue until he came out against the war and it was then brought up in the weakly standard. (2) I am deleting the added quote because it is totally misleading -- read the rest of the article it is from rather than cherry picking the one sentence that seems to support the opposite side. The very paragraph that your quote is from also says "According to Central Intelligence Agency data, there is no credible evidence implicating Iraq in any mass casualty terrorist attacks since 1991." He also concludes that any connections between Iraq and transnational terrorists (eg al Qaeda) were attempts to respond to the coming US invasion: "Nonetheless, it is important to understand that Iraqi entreaties to Al Qaeda, are most likely intended as a tactic to bolster Iraq’s ability to fight off a U.S. invasion rather than a deep-seated theological and ideological commitment to the terrorist agenda of Bin Laden." And of course the paper concludes that a US invasion will massively increase Iraqi terrorism (a prediction which turned out to be totally accurate). I think it is better to just delete the quote rather than add all this context.--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 19:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


That's not "asserting as fact." The existing text says "asserted as fact."
:Commodore Sloat, well known POV warrior and blogger, wants people to believe that Johnson's misguided column in the NYT was first criticized by conservatives in the Weekly Standard years after it was published. In fact, a liberal publication, Slate magazine, criticized the column two weeks after it was published. That reference goes back in. Also, Sloat has added voluminous quotes in the article in an illfated attempt to make Johnson more understandable. The quote I added goes back in and the other quotes will be trimmed back to normal size.--[[User:24.55.228.56|24.55.228.56]] 00:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


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.[[Special:Contributions/24.27.72.99|24.27.72.99]] ([[User talk:24.27.72.99|talk]]) 05:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
::Slate is not a partisan magazine that I know of. Please stop the name-calling and address the arguments; it is getting tedious to have to refute smears from an anonymous user who berates me until he loses the argument and then disappears beneath a stack of Weekly Standards until he can figure out a new way to smear Johnson on an encyclopedia. The Slate column was not notable until after it was revived by right wing pundits, and that is a fact. As far as the quotes go, you are selectively quoting in order to mischaracterize Johnson's views - I would rather delete them completely but since you insist on them, I will insist that they reflect his claims accurately - if that means extending them, that is what we will do. Taking things out of context in order to promote your POV is petty and has no place in an encyclopedia.-[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 00:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
: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. <span style=font-size:11px>[[User:Chrissymad|<span style="color:#614051">CHRISSY</span><span style="color:#301934;font-size:11px">'''MAD'''</span>]] <span style="color:#9090C0;letter-spacing:-2px;font-size:9px">❯❯❯</span>[[User talk:Chrissymad|<span style="color:#614051;font-size=11px">¯\_(ツ)_/¯</span>]]</span> 12:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


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
:::It is not "name calling" to speak the truth. You are, in fact, a left-wing POV bully and blogger with strong pro-Larry Johnson views on the Plame Affair. People can read your blog here and judge for themselves: [http://www.shockandblog.com/blog/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=14 here: http://www.shockandblog.com/blog/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=14] You have attempted to spin, twist, and cherry pick facts in Wikipedia so that it adheres to your POV. Regarding [[Slate Magazine]], it was founded by [[Michael Kinsley]], the liberal side of [[Crossfire]], published by the [[Washington Post]] and edited by [[Jacob Weisberg]]. That might not be liberal from your POV perspective, but it would be for the rest of America. As for being anonymous, I can find no listing in my phone directory for a "Commodore Sloat." Good day!--[[User:24.55.228.56|24.55.228.56]] 01:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Is that source sufficiently credible to justify correcting a factual misstatement on a wikipedia article?


Primary source quotation follows:
::::This is deja vu. I have responded to your name-calling about my blog already; it is just not relevant here. Slate is not a partisan source - it may have been founded by liberals but that is not the same as the Nation or the Weekly Standard which are openly partisan sources - my comment was not about how its founders vote, which is irrelevant. I don't care if you want to be anonymous - I am just getting tired of responding to your name-calling and such. Your edits are openly mendacious -- you take quotes out of context to make it appear as if he is saying something different. I don't mind anyone anonymously editing if they do so with truth as their goal; that does not seem to be the case with your edits. In any case, I see you are granting the rest of my points about these edits, so please stop reverting. I've tried to address your concerns by trimming the quote section and building the information there into the body of the page. Hopefully we can improve the article, not get in little fights about whose territory it is.--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 01:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
''“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.''
==Stop the POV Pushing==


Does anyone want to execute the correction now?[[Special:Contributions/24.27.72.99|24.27.72.99]] ([[User talk:24.27.72.99|talk]]) 19:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Larry Johnson is an obscure anti-Iraq War activist known for two things:
:1. He wrote a column two months prior to the 9/11 attacks, in which he argued that the US had little to fear from terrorism, titled ''The Declining Terrorist Threat''. Since he holds himself out as a terrorism expert, this column is a significant embarrassment.
:2. He attempted to insert himself into the Valerie Plame scandal by asserting that Plame was an "undercover" CIA agent when named by Robert Novak in 2003."[http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340] However, since Johnson had himself left he CIA in 1989, there is no way he could know Plame's CIA status from 1990 to 2003. His assertion calls into question his credibility on other topics.
The attempt here to puff up Johnson as a hero, a victim, or as a someone who accurately predicted terrorist acts is pure POV. I will continue to correct it and revert it when appropriate. --[[User:24.55.228.56|24.55.228.56]] 03:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
:He was never known for #1 until after #2 when he testified to the Senate special committee. Plame's CIA status is obvious because as I said above the CIA is the only entity in a position to tell anyone her status, and the CIA made it clear. Nobody has puffed Johnson into a hero or victim - show me those words on the page please and we can deal with such issues. All I am doing is showing the contexts for the various quotes you pull out of context. You have not responded to my arguments about this above.--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 04:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
::What do you mean he wasn't known for no. 1 until after he testified before the democratic senators in 2005? He was criticized by Slate Magazine, a national news source, just 10 days after 9/11 on September 21, 2001.[http://www.slate.com/id/1008336] That was 3 1/2 years before his testimony! This is an example of your attempt to paint Johnson as a victim of a right-wing cabal. It is simply not true. As for the CIA making Plame's status clear, that is an outright lie. Cite that claim. The CIA has never discussed whether Plame was a covert agent when Robert Novak published his column. You are making up facts to suit your POV.--[[User:24.55.228.56|24.55.228.56]] 05:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
:::So? Should we have a wikipedia article about every article in Slate? Come on. Nobody else talked about that Slate article; this was simply not news - just an example of a former intel analyst that Slate thinks got things wrong. This was not an issue for anyone until 2005; this article was forgotten until then. Again, who cares about all this? Johnson made a reasonable argument in 2000; and as you can see from the rest of the quotes he was clear on the threat from al-Qaeda. Slate quoted only part of the article in order to make him sound completely surprised by 9/11 -- but really, so what if he was? A lot of people were, certainly most of the Bush Administration. Johnson is not a victim of anyone, but it is true that there are some right wing pundits who tried to use this article to smear him. Nothing new in the world of politics. The CIA did claim Plame was covert; see it yourself in my response to your talk page, or just use your brain. Do you expect us to believe Johnson is the one who said her cover was blown? You think the Justice Department will stop in its tracks for a former CIA employee's unfounded allegations? Of course not. They investigated because they got a call from the CIA. I can't believe anyone still holds the position you claim to hold - it makes it difficult to take you seriously.--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 06:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


I have just modified 2 external links on [[Larry C. Johnson]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/815804325|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
'''Note: The following discussion of the Larry C. Johnson article is being moved from my talk page to the Larry C. Johnson discussion page where it belongs.'''--[[User:24.55.228.56|24.55.228.56]] 02:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060510151934/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03%2F10%2F02%2F158200 to http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03%2F10%2F02%2F158200
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061113130037/http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/07/the_myth_of_ter.html to http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/07/the_myth_of_ter.html
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://play.rbn.com/?url=airam%2Fairam%2Fdemand%2FRandiRhodes%2F2007%2FMARCH%2FRandi_3-7.mp3


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
== Please stop the nonsense on [[Larry C. Johnson]] ==


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
Please do not make wholesale changes to the article without responding to discussion in talk. Name-calling and verbal abuse is not enough; you need to actually address the arguments. You are steamrolling reversions with no regard for the [[WP:3RR]] and without responding to specific arguments against these reverts. I see you engage in similar behavior on other articles according to what I see on this page. Your actions are destructive of wikipedia goals.--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 01:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 07:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
:My actions are constructive and in defense of wikipedia. I am drawn to articles where an editor with extreme POV on a given topic, such as [[User:Commodore Sloat|Commodore Sloat]], attempts to repeatedly insert POV into that topic and bully others. I will not be bullied. [[Larry C. Johnson]] is an obscure bit player in the [[Valerie Plame]] scandal. Johnson attempted to insert himself into the Plame story by asserting that Plame was a ''covert'' CIA agent when named by Robert Novak in 2003. However, since Johnson had himself left he CIA in 1989, there is no way he could know Plame's status. [[User:Commodore Sloat|Commodore Sloat]] is a well-known POV pusher, esp. on issues related to Iraq (e.g., [[Iraqi insurgency]], [[Saddam Hussein]], and [[al Qaeda]]. He writes an anti-Bush blog and has strong views on Larry C. Johnson and the Plame affair: [http://www.shockandblog.com/blog/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=14 http://www.shockandblog.com/blog/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=14] He even has a Plamegate poll![http://www.shockandblog.com/blog/] [[User:Commodore Sloat|Commodore Sloat]] should not be editing wikipedia articles when he has strong POV views on the subject. I will continue to fight efforts by POV bullies to force their views on others via wikipedia.--[[User:24.55.228.56|24.55.228.56]] 02:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
::The CIA, not Larry Johnson, asked the DoJ to look into the revealing of the identity of a covert agent. The CIA is the only entity who can tell us whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert, and they have made it clear that she was covert. Johnson never claimed to be revealing information that was not known or unique to him on this matter (and that is not even an issue on the article so it is really irrelevant anyway). I'm glad you are impressed by the Plame poll on my site, but it really has nothing to do with my contributions to wikipedia. I try to evidence every change I make with an edit summary or longer discussion in talk, as per wikipedia policy. The fact that this strategy is up front does not make me a "bully." I do not try to force my views; I show evidence for what I believe to be accurate. I do not make edits to push a POV and I back off when counter-evidence shows that I was wrong about something. In the case of the Johnson page, I made a number of edits that improve readability and explain context; I justified each change with a lengthy discussion on the talk page. You wholesale reverted all these changes without so much as a reasonable edit summary; in talk you just call me names and point to my blog but you don't respond to the substance of any of the issues raised.--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 02:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
:::In fact, you have only attempted to insert your POV in the article suggesting that Larry Johnson is a hero for taking on the Bush administration. Contrary to your comment above, the CIA has never taken a position on whether Plame was covert. Nor has the independent counsel who is investigating the matter. However, Larry C. Johnson has asserted "For starters, Valerie Plame was an undercover operations officer until outed in the press by Robert Novak."[http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340]. Johnson left the CIA in 1989 and there is no way he could know Plame's status from 1990 to 2003.--[[User:24.55.228.56|24.55.228.56]] 03:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


I have just modified 4 external links on [[Larry C. Johnson]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/820636115|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
::::The only reason the Justice Dept ever investigated the Valerie Wilson affair is because the CIA took a position on whether she was covert. The CIA brought this case to the Justice Department; Larry Johnson didn't. That is a basic fact that none of the right wing speculation about whether she travelled out of the country has ever refuted. That's a nice quote from Johnson but as you well know, you can find almost the exact same quote uttered by Patrick Fitzgerald. I am not sure why you are on a vendetta against Johnson regarding this point when it was a point made by the CIA and the Justice Department, and a point the Bush Administration has not publicly contested. Johnson has not claimed any special knowledge of Plame's post-1989 status; he has simply explained the same point that has been made in the New York Times, by Patrick Fitzgerald, and by the CIA (among others). This really isn't a controversial point outside of the world of right-wing bloggers and the OReilly Factor. --[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 04:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111005060526/http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2532/will-barack-throw-mama-from-the-train/ to http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2532/will-barack-throw-mama-from-the-train/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003172556/http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2847/michelle-obama-and-louis-farrakhan-take-on-whitey/ to http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2847/michelle-obama-and-louis-farrakhan-take-on-whitey/
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/10/21/whitey-tape-api-phil-berg-and-andy-martin
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130908030014/http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/76343/john-kerry-rapist-and-liar/ to http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/76343/john-kerry-rapist-and-liar/
*Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20080213202239/http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ to http://noquarterusa.net/blog/


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
:::::''"The only reason the Justice Dept ever investigated the Valerie Wilson affair is because the CIA took a position on whether she was covert."'' This statement is a lie. Cite it. You can't because it never occurred. This is exactly the POV nonsense you have been spewing in the Johnson and Plame articles. When asked whether Plame was covert, Patrick Fitzgerald said, ''"I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward."'' Fitzgerald has never said Plame was covert. Johnson was the first to make the covert claim on July 13, 2003. Elisabeth Bumiller's NYT article did not come out until Oct 5, 2003, and no source is cited for her outrageous allegation.--[[User:24.55.228.56|24.55.228.56]] 05:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
::::::Read the freaking indictment yourself, or just use your brain. Who do you theorize asked the Justice Dept to investigate? Johnson? The Democrats? This is not POV nonsense; these are the facts -- you can read about it yourself in any newspaper account. Fitzgerald was not asked whether Plame was covert before saying that; read the transcript yourself. Fitzgerald said she had a cover that was blown. Johnson was not the first to make the covert claim; the Justice Dept was already investigating the issue by then. Please show me the article by Johnson on July 13 -- I have not seen it. A quick search shows me that [http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4190.htm this] is likely the first mention of her status, and it is pretty clearly confirmed by intelligence officials. Her "allegation" is not "outrageous"; it is the clear conclusion of intelligence officials, likely the CIA. Seriously, what is your theory on who asked the Dept of Justice to investigate this crime? You think they would just do so on Larry Johnson's word if the CIA did not indicate she was covert? It doesn't matter of course since that is not our dispute here - you have taken this far afield of the topic at hand. --[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 06:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 19:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
:::::::This thread will be moved to the [[Larry C. Johnson]] talk page so please respond there. I don't want to clutter my page with this silliness. Of course, I have read the indictment. [http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf] It does not say that the CIA asked the DOJ to investigate the matter. Nor does it say the CIA took a position on whether Plame was covert. In fact, the DOJ initiated the investigation on its own. The DOJ did not need the CIA, the Democrats, or anyone else to ask it to initiate the investigation. And that's what every news account said.[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10651154/] Again, on July 13, 2003, [[Larry C. Johnson]] was the first to allege that "For starters, Valerie Plame was an undercover operations officer until outed in the press by Robert Novak."[http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340]. (Click on the footnote preceding this sentence to read his words as he published them.) Never mind that Johnson left the CIA in 1989 and there is no way he could know Plame's status from 1990 to 2003. He is a fraud who purports to know things he cannot know. All other articles that say Plame was undercover either cite Larry C. Johnson or no source at all. Please respond only to the Larry C. Johnson talk page. Thank you!--[[User:24.55.228.56|24.55.228.56]] 02:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


== Should we link to LCJ's website? ==
::::::::Do not make changes to the article based on information on your talk page. I am reverting your changes wholesale as you have not addressed the issues. The fact that the CIA asked the DOJ to investigate is in every news account that tells you the history. Look at factcheck.org's timeline or look at the July 22 article I linked in response to this silliness. Your claims about the CIA are ludicrous. Look, the CIA and DOJ are in the same town. They have each others' numbers in their Rolodexes. They make room on each others' calendars for meetings when they need to, and they certainly would have done so before spending who knows how many taxpayer dollars on an investigation that could have been settled with a five minute phone call. If Plame was not covert there would have been no investigation. But that's not the issue at issue on this page at all, which makes this conversation ludicrous. This page is about Larry Johnson. If you have evidence that he is a "fraud," please cite it -- not your own speculation, but show me published verification that someone in their right mind believes your theory. You are simply misinformed about the articles that say she is undercover - there is a Newsday article that I linked you to before that says intelligence officials (not former hacks who haven't worked their in 20 years, which seems to be your view of Johnson) confirmed she was undercover at the time of the outing. Besides, do you really believe the DOJ would initiate an investigation at Larry Johnson's urging?--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 04:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


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.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Larry_C._Johnson&curid=3013309&diff=894271333&oldid=894269903] 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]]. [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] ([[User talk:Snooganssnoogans|talk]]) 19:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
::::::::One more thing - you seem to think that Johnson's 7/13 TPMCafe article is a big deal because it seems to be the first to identify her as undercover -- but the issue is not who was the first to use the word "undercover" at all. Johnson, obviously, is not under investigation here, and nobody (except you, to my knowledge) has accused Johnson of being the one who "outed" her. If you think he should be, it is simply not wikipedia's job to put something like that on the national agenda. You may wish to send a copy of Johnson's article to Fitzpatrick with a note attached. If you think this article should mention that article, I don't have a problem with it - there is already a quote from it on the page anyway. But I cannot understand what you're suggesting with all this - do you think Johnson was lying when he said Novak outed an undercover agent? Do you think he just misspoke? Then why did intelligence officials confirm that she was undercover a few days later? And do you think that the DOJ investigation started in motion because Johnson used the word "undercover"? Or do you think he is the one who outed her? (as if that could somehow blow her cover further?) This argument is just nonsense, literally. And, finally, it has no relevance to the recent changes whatsoever, so please do not revert everything again based on a snippy response to all this stuff.--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 05:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


== This Biased, Partisan Article Illustrates Wikipedia's Unreliability ==
:[[User:Commodore Sloat|Commodore Sloat]] wrote: ''Fitzgerald was not asked whether Plame was covert before saying that; read the transcript yourself.''' People can read the transcript [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html here]. The following is the question and answer word for word:


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. [[Special:Contributions/2001:5B0:50C0:D3D8:95A6:F5A4:3942:F623|2001:5B0:50C0:D3D8:95A6:F5A4:3942:F623]] ([[User talk:2001:5B0:50C0:D3D8:95A6:F5A4:3942:F623|talk]]) 19:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
:''QUESTION: Can you say whether or not you know whether Mr. Libby knew that Valerie Wilson's identity was covert and whether or not that was pivotal at all in your inability or your decision not to charge under the Intelligence Identity Protection Act?''


:Fully agree. [[User:Erwin Franzen|hillwalker]] ([[User talk:Erwin Franzen|talk]]) 08:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
:''FITZGERALD: Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward.''
::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. [[User:WGyp|WGyp]] ([[User talk:WGyp|talk]]) 03:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


:Fully agree - another voice.
:''I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent.''


:: 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). <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/108.243.106.82|108.243.106.82]] ([[User talk:108.243.106.82#top|talk]]) 21:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Contrary to [[User:Commodore Sloat|Commodore Sloat]]'s lie, it is clear the covert question was asked and answered by the special prosecutor exactly as I stated. POV warriors are destroying wikipedia.--[[User:24.55.228.56|24.55.228.56]] 02:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


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.
::First, Sir, I must ask you to stop the personal attacks. I have never lied about this. Frankly you are the one who is wrong here - read the question again yourself. "Can you say whether or not you know whether Mr. Libby knew that Valerie Wilson's identity was covert" Not "Can you say whether Valerie Wilson's identity was covert" - it is clear, in fact, that the questioner is aware it was covert. Please attempt to employ basic reading comprehension before calling other people liars.--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 04:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


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.
==changes to the page==
--[[User:DeeFG|DeeFG]] ([[User talk:DeeFG|talk]]) 19:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
The argument above may be interesting for people interested in trivia about the Plame affair, but it has nothing to do with any of the edits that have been reverted. These edits revert edits by me that were carefully explained one by one. The argument above is not responsive at all to those explanations. Therefore I am reverting.--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 04:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


:[[User:DeeFG|@DeeFG]] Yes, there are two views of the Russia/Ukraine war.
:How absurd. You repeatedly attempt to create the impression that the criticism of Johnson's article was a right wing attempt to discredit him. It wasn't. And it is documented on this talk page. Also, as discussed here, the quotes you have added are excessive and will be trimmed back. I will also begin editing those other sections discussed here to restore NPOV.--[[User:24.55.228.56|24.55.228.56]] 11:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
: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. [[User:KHarbaugh|KHarbaugh]] ([[User talk:KHarbaugh|talk]]) 14:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

==Added to article [[Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity]]==

As of March 2024, he is a member of [[Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity]]. https://consortiumnews.com/2024/03/25/vips-memo-the-french-road-to-nuclear-war

[[User:Ironcurtain2|Ironcurtain2]] ([[User talk:Ironcurtain2|talk]]) 07:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 07:45, 15 June 2024

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/enwiki/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]

[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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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]

[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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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]

[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]

Added to article Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

[edit]

As of March 2024, he is a member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. https://consortiumnews.com/2024/03/25/vips-memo-the-french-road-to-nuclear-war

Ironcurtain2 (talk) 07:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Larry_C._Johnson&oldid=1229169236"