Talk:Greg Johnson (white nationalist)

Sources

If there is some specific reason these sources are not reliable, discuss it here, please. Grayfell (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Czarnykon: You will need to explain these aggressive attempts to remove/downplay reliably sourced content. Grayfell (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

A quick look, the first source [1] The Stranger (newspaper) is from their Slog section which is a blog. That should be sourced better. The second Stranger source seems fine, but a little odd to put emphasis on "worked hard to keep any images of him off the internet" when the source said "he is extremely good at keeping pictures of himself off the internet" and never really went back to that. The SPLC source I don't see anything wrong with. PackMecEng (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, The Slog is a WP:NEWSBLOG, not self-published content. While a Seattle alternative weekly would be more credible to say he's from Seattle than a random blog, it's still just a passing mention which mostly summarizes two other sources. Neither of those two sources say where Johnson is from, which could mean they made an assumption, or it could be a detail they knew and included because it is relevant to their readers.

The Hope not Hate source cited by other sources also mentions the lack of photographs of him, describing him as "never-before-photographed". Grayfell (talk) 04:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah but with Newsblog it should be attributed to the source. In this case it does not seem terribly controversial though.

Should we throw that source in as an extra to support the photo part? PackMecEng (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I've swapped the sources. The other Stranger source is a better source in general, and the journalist directly spoke with Johnson at an event. It's less direct about stating that he lives in Seattle than I would like, but it does clearly support it: While most white nationalists think Johnson keeps his identity secret because they think he is gay, he probably just doesn’t want to be recognized during intermission at the Seattle Symphony.[2]

I've adjusting the "secretive" the language to be simpler and added the HnH source. Grayfell (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me! PackMecEng (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

External Links

Added Counter-Currents home page24.47.1.165 (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Expansion of primary-sourced quotes

This is about this series of edits:

Please do not add extensive WP:PRIMARY quotes without any secondary support. This article is a summary of his notability, not a platform for disseminating an arbitrary selection of his ideas. If these ideas are not supported as significant by reliable sources, they should not be emphasized like this. Primary sources (which are otherwise unreliable) would only be usable for a brief, non-controversial overview of his works, not a rehash of his boutique definitions of controversial concepts. Antonio Gramsci most certainly never wrote about Johnson, so without a reliable source, including his name here is WP:OR. The use obscure works by others in the walled garden of far-right "ethnonationalists" is utterly insufficient for expanding this content. Grayfell (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The only reliable sources are primary sources or secondary sources that approach the subject in a truly scientific manner. Now that excludes academic activism per definition. --105.4.6.95 (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Please review WP:RS. Sources should be independent, and must have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. "Truly" scientific is a distraction, as it is not up to you or me to decide which are truly scientific and which are not. Reliable source for info about extremists are often those who oppose extremists, so 'activism' is also a distraction, because sources are allowed to come to conclusions based on their findings. Grayfell (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Bibliography

Since every one of his books is published by his own publishing house, these are self-published works. It is not up to us, or him, to decide which of his self-published books are "major" and which are not. Without some objective outside criteria, this bibliography is essentially a promotional list of some of the things he is selling. None of his books are in any way reliable as sources for factual statements, making this misleading as a resource for finding additional information. Grayfell (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

In the same way we don't include catalogues in our articles about toy stores, we shouldn't include self published book lists for 'authors'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)