Meet Christopher Johnson (CJ), cyberstalker, troll, journo?: A special investigative report

Who is Christopher Johnson aka @globaliteman? Well, if you like self-proffessed journalists who threaten to molest children and cyberstalk women, harass other journalists,  while producing little of nothing of value on their own–he should be your hero. 

“I will have to tell you that Tanaka-san and Iida-san are now well aware of your fucking bullshit. By all means, do go and tell your side of the story to them, motherfucker. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention, I heard that your daughter gives really good head… and so does your son.”

–Christopher Johnson (aka @globaliteman), threatening a colleague at NHK in 2007, on the man’s answering machine. He was later fired. It was never confirmed that the sounds of wet friction on the tape were Christopher Johnson masturbating. Chris claims the tape was doctored while also claiming that he was drunk and angry and perhaps may have said something slightly inappropriate.

Who is Christopher Johnson?

Christopher Johnson is a novelist, Wikipedia reject, author of Siamese Dreams, sometimes journalist, cyber bully, serial threat maker, with a 25 year reproachable history in journalism and a war reporter who’s covered so many wars he can’t remember them all. He allegedly also fought a war against Wikipedia—and lost.

Have you been defamed or harassed by former journalist Christopher Johnson? Congratulations, you’re an official Tokyo journalist. Christopher Johnson has been fired from almost every major news  agency in Japan. He spends his days harassing, undermining, cyberstalking any journalist or friend of a journalist who has ever called him out for the sociopath he appears to be.  He doesn’t seem to write much on his own. But he has a lot to say about anyone who does actually work as a journalist.

Fired from NHK after making implied threats to sexually molest a colleagues children in 2007, fired from France 24 in 2011, before or after threatening his replacement. He’s a stalker of Hiroko Tabuchi at the New York Times and Yuri Kageyama at AP and Jake Adelstein, who once called him “a pussy” and others  Devoted to attacking any succesfull journalist with 10 to 47 page seemingly plausible diatribes—he give journalism a bad name.

It’s hard to really capture his level of insanity but of of course, no one speaks better about Chris Johnson than Chris Johnson. He does not take rejection well. When a prominent female journalist told him, “Stop harassing my friends”—to his face, it did not go over well.

Christopher Johnson cyberstalking female journalist who told him,

Christopher Johnson cyberstalking female journalist who told him, “Stop harassing my friends.”

 Here are his threats to his replacement at France 24 after he was fired in 2011.

  • You aren’t the asshole Tom Faubert who smashed my brother’s head against the grocery store wall, and beat up my father in front of my mother and sister across the street from our house, and then laughed at my little brother in the court house. You aren’t the crackhead who shot my uncle Don in the head in Detroit. You aren’t the home invader who murdered my brother’s drummer in his house in Austin this Christmas. You aren’t the gang that strangled me and beat me unconscious and broke my nose and ribs and left me naked in a park to die in Nairobi, or the jerks who mugged me at knifepoint in Rio de Janeiro. You aren’t the Chetniks who severed the head of my roommate Christian Wurtenburg in Vukovar. You aren’t Khaled Sheikh Mohammed who cut up Daniel Pearl like a goat a few weeks after we had Thanksgiving dinner in Islamabad. You aren’t the Taliban motherfuckers who murdered Harry Burton and raped and killed the women in the van in Afghanistan. And you aren’t the gunmen who shot Nelson Rand three times last year when we were working for France 24 in Bangkok. You are a spineless sewer rat who sends a private confidential letter to my boss to shaft me out of a job worth perhaps 10,000 year or more, a job I earned while you were a driver with another network and writing an FCCJ article slagging off serious pro journalists who hired you. Where I come from, you don’t mess with a man’s car, a man’s woman, a man’s dog, or a man’s job. You go behind someone’s back, and they come knockin on your front, with a shotgun. And I suppose you’ll send this to your mommy to defend you, right?
 How crazy is Chris Johnson? Start here: 
NYT REPORTER to Chris Johnson: Please stop harassing my friends http://www.japanprobe.com/2012/01/20/christopher-johnson-under-fire-for-gaijin-gulag-article/http://www.japanprobe.com/2012/02/08/christopher-johnson-attempts-to-silence-criticism-of-his-gaijin-gulag-article-legal-threats/http://www.japanprobe.com/2012/04/16/asia-journalist-christopher-johnson-makes-threats-against-other-journalists/We’ve gathered five of his threat/rants here so that you, the gentle reader, can understand that he’s just not quite right in the head. He spins a good story because he probably has delusional disorder and in his mind he is: Christopher Johnson, warrior supreme.

Pop Quiz: Who’s Fired Chris and When?

Who fired him in 2007?

Answer: NHK. Why? He was fired for making threats to   molest the children of a co-worker.

Who fired him in 2011?

Answer: France 24. Why? For being incompetent, surly?    He then blamed his successor and threatened him.

See the pattern?     

He is: Tokyo-based freelance correspondent for the Washington Times, New York Times, Toronto Star, Globe and Mail Report on Business, CTV Canada, CBC Canada, DW-TV Berlin, France 24, Asia Times, Japan Times, CNNGO, CNN.com and others. He’s a guy who will tell you, “I did not survive 9 wars to allow anyone to defame me, my family, and my colleagues and employers. I will certainly not allow people to ruin my reputation after I have been wrongly expelled from Japan, where I have worked hard to build a life and successful career.”

He has almost 199 followers on twitter! The parody of his account @cjglobalite has almost 800! Unfortunately, he’s not as funny as his parody but he tries.

He almost once got his own entry on Wikipedia but then they rejected him. Someday, someday, maybe he will have his own entry. We can only hope.

Chris Johnson has worked for and been fired from some of the most reliable news outfits in the world. While he has usually been fired for threatening co-workers, sometimes it’s just been for shoddy journalism.  Places that have fired or refused to work with Chris, allegedly include The Christian Science Monitor (threatening an editor), NHK (threatening to sexually molest a co-worker’s children on a “nasty message”, CNN Go (unknown), The Number One Shinbun (threatening to sue the FCCJ), France 24 (threatening the person hired to replace him with violence), Metropolis (general unpleasant behavior) and possibly many others. Whether he was fired from Bloomberg or just rejected in the hiring process isn’t quite clear. He’s best known for his highly dubious “gaijin gulag” post which he has rewritten many times.

Who is the Chris Johnson expert?

That award would have to go to Japan Probe, which has done remarkable work on documenting Chris Johnson’s attempts to muzzle his critics, distort reality, lie, and threaten anyone who disses him.

JAPAN PROBE!

http://www.japanprobe.com/2012/01/20/christopher-johnson-under-fire-for-gaijin-gulag-article/

http://www.japanprobe.com/2012/02/08/christopher-johnson-attempts-to-silence-criticism-of-his-gaijin-gulag-article-legal-threats/

http://www.japanprobe.com/2012/04/16/asia-journalist-christopher-johnson-makes-threats-against-other-journalists/

But all that isn’t really enough to understand who Christopher Johnson is for a person like you. You just need to understand that you aren’t Christopher Johnson. We’ll let CJ set you straight in his own manly words:

  • You aren’t the asshole Tom Faubert who smashed my brother’s head against the grocery store wall, and beat up my father in front of my mother and sister across the street from our house, and then laughed at my little brother in the court house. You aren’t the crackhead who shot my uncle Don in the head in Detroit. You aren’t the home invader who murdered my brother’s drummer in his house in Austin this Christmas. You aren’t the gang that strangled me and beat me unconscious and broke my nose and ribs and left me naked in a park to die in Nairobi, or the jerks who mugged me at knifepoint in Rio de Janeiro. You aren’t the Chetniks who severed the head of my roommate Christian Wurtenburg in Vukovar. You aren’t Khaled Sheikh Mohammed who cut up Daniel Pearl like a goat a few weeks after we had Thanksgiving dinner in Islamabad. You aren’t the Taliban motherfuckers who murdered Harry Burton and raped and killed the women in the van in Afghanistan. And you aren’t the gunmen who shot Nelson Rand three times last year when we were working for France 24 in Bangkok. You are a spineless sewer rat who sends a private confidential letter to my boss to shaft me out of a job worth perhaps 10,000 year or more, a job I earned while you were a driver with another network and writing an FCCJ article slagging off serious pro journalists who hired you. Where I come from, you don’t mess with a man’s car, a man’s woman, a man’s dog, or a man’s job. You go behind someone’s back, and they come knockin on your front, with a shotgun. And I suppose you’ll send this to your mommy to defend you, right?

What are his hobbies?

His hobbies are drinking early in the morning, drinking on planes from Seoul to Tokyo, writing novels, and launching vicious attacks about anyone who dares to reproach him or disagree with him, or threatening to do so and then making up shit. He really likes stalking female journalists: Hiroko Tabuchi, Yuri Kageyama, Nathalie-Kyoko Stucky, and any other woman who dares to resist his manly charms.

Who are Christopher Johnson’s enemies aka “the haters”?

According to Chris, they are @Chibarooks @markmatsusaka @chibarooks @jamesjpn @fukumimi @shilkytouch @ourmaninabiko @shogganai. They also include David Schaufele at NHK, the editor of @japanprobe, Jake Adelstein @jakeadelstein  Gavin Blair (France 24) and Rick Martin. His current number one enemy is @shogganai, who Chris once cited as his ally. What a crazy world!

Who are his friends?

REPORTERS WITHOUT BORDERS and the Canadian Embassy! Yes, they went to bat for Chris Johnson and got him a visa back into Japan. This has been a great victory for press freedom. Chris has that REPORTERS WITHOUT BORDERS is working with him to unveil the haters behind posts like this one. We doubt it but he claims it.

What Is our goal?

Our goal is to get Christopher Johnson to apologize to all the journalists and people he’s bullied over the last six years, get medical help, rebuild his career, and stop trolling and dissing people. Probably unachievable so every time he gets out of line and pesky, we’ll just repost this to remind people that Chris has just enough journalism skills to write credible lies and be an asshole. If you’ve been hassled, harassed, bullied, or threatened by CJ—feel free to write in. We love CJ horror stories and there seem to be more of them all the time!

Chris Johnson’s 5 Greatest Threats!

  1. 1.       I might molest your kids!
  2. 2.       I’ll kick your ass!
  3. 3.       I’ll write nasty things about you!
  4. 4.       I’ll sue your ass!
  5. 5.       I’ll get you Wikipedia! I’ll sue you too!

Read for more.  

Chris Johnson is the most prolific threat writer out there. He’s practically the Stephen King of menacing prose. With so many threats to choose from, we carefully scoured the Internet for some of the best. Here are five of our favorites.

THREAT #2 is the longest but has some classic CJ lines you may want to incorporate into your own menacing missives, if you ever feel the need to give someone an ulcer. It’s a troll treasury of insults as well.

The first and worst of his threats comes with an audio file that has been circulating for years. It keeps getting taken off of YouTube because it’s so vile, that we put it up here so you can judge for yourself. Maybe it’s not really Christopher Johnson! You be the judge! Find an audio of Christopher Johnson on the Internet and play detective! It’s not hard.

THREAT #1

To David Schaufele at NHK 2007 

Listen to the audio here. Here is the transcript. It is really sick shit but hey Chris is also a novelist, so let’s give him points for creativity.

101620007

CJ

I will have to tell you that Tanaka-san and Iida-san are now well aware of your fucking bullshit. By all means, do go and tell your side of the story to them, motherfucker.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention, I heard that your daughter gives really good head… and so does your son.

和訳:飯田さんと田中さんはあなたの嘘八百をよく知っているよと教えてやろうと思った。どうぞ、あなたの言い分を二人に言ってみな、この糞野郎。ところが、言い忘れたが、あなたの娘はフェラチオがうまいそうだね。。。あなたの息子も。

新しいメッセージ、10月16日、火曜日、(平成19年)

午後9時22分

Sounds of what may be masturbation

約20秒ジ彼が自慰している音が聞こえる

メッセージを保存しました。次の新しいメセージです。

10月17日、水曜日、午前、10時58分。

Hey, I wanted to hear if your children are getting a good sleep because… when you get fired, and I get fired, you’re going to have to put your kids out of international school and into Japanese school and I’ll be waiting for them.

子供はよく寝ているか。聞きたかったな。あなたと僕は首になったら、あなたは自分の子供をインターナショナルスクールから退学させなくちゃならない。そして子供を公立学校に入れると。。。(俺はそこで教えて待っていますよ)

Listen to CJ’s voice and try to decide where this tape was magically altered. Where we come from, threatening to force a man’s children to fellate you is usually not taken well but in Chris Johnson’s world, it’s just a nasty little joke.

Chris Johnson has said about the incident:

 I couldn’t take it anymore. Regrettably, I lost my temper. During a heated exchange of insults by email and phone, I left a nasty message on his phone. I responded to his insults. In effect, I said to him: “if you get me fired from NHK, I will have to get a job teaching English again, and I might end teaching your children.” Schaufele recorded it. He took comments out of context and tampered with the recording, using his skills at voice acting and video making. He made it sound like I was some kind of deviant, when in fact he was. He went around playing the alleged recording of my voice for my bosses and colleagues at NHK, and also at the FCCJ. (Five years later, Tokyo author and Atlantic Wire reporter Jake Adelstein would use this recording to blackmail me on a hateful blog posting, where he collaborated with Gavin Blair, a sleazy journalist who went behind my back to undermine my status during my negotiations with France 24 TV, one of my main employers the past five years. Youtube has removed this illegal video at least twice.)

Dave Schaufele on the incident. (Taken from Japansubculture.com)

It’s time to stand up to this bully.
I would have no hesitation beating the living crap out
of this sicko after his comments about my children, as
would any father in a similar position I suspect. So if he
ever sees me again he better turn the other way and run.

Friends at NHK who know CJ recommended
that I just ignore him because he’s mentally unstable.
But if his slanderous meltdown rant is starting to spread
I guess I need to reply and set the record straight.

I must admit I’m so short of time between work and
family that I haven’t even started a Facebook page,
let alone made 14,000 blog posts as “Greji” whose
slang and poor spelling might indicate that English
is not his first language. CJis simply delusional.

I suspect he knows I’m not Greji but was simply looking for a way
to use NHK’s name in the headline and fabricate a high profile
story that would make him seem like a victim instead of a predator.
CJ knows that his own actions resulted in his loss of work but
his alter ego is trying to find someone else to take responsibility.

The 911Eyewitness DVD makes absolutely no mention of who
was responsible for the events of 9.11. It focuses on facts and
science for use in a court of law. See YouTube or the website.
New York Film & TV Festival – Best Historical Documentary Prize
Seven Laws of Science Prove Treason, Fraud and Murder!

CJ pulled all the hateful slander completely out of his ass.
I have many Jewish friends and have never made any anti-Semitic
remarks nor written anything about Johnson’s girlfriend or family
and therefore he can provide no examples at all in his rant.

I made no phone calls to him period; another fabrication
to try and justify his pedophile phone messages left on my
keitai answering system. Playback is continuous once
activated and no alterations were made whatsoever.

I do sometimes get a sunburned neck when working outdoors
but have no neo-nazi contacts or own any guns. I guess
those were the most hurtful fabrications Johnson could come
up with in his appeal for sexual-predator sainthood.

He’s a mental case whose 2 sexual harassment complaints on file
at NHK got him fired in 1995 but he managed to sneak back
in years later. I was unaware of his past and when he first
started work I actually tried to help the guy out as a fellow
Canadian by giving him over $1,000 in extra work, which he
thanked me for by inviting me over to his XXXs place
for a beer. Seems like he’s been freeloading off her for years.
J
But as the old saying goes – no good deed goes unpunished.
XX left town on short notice and our NHK boss asked me to
cover a couple of his shifts. When he returned he went psycho
and tried to get me fired, which backfired because the bosses
remembered that he was the pervert they got rid of in ’95.
When he made disgusting sexual comments about my young
children I played his phone messages for my boss and it was
3 strikes you’re out – again – for that sicko.

I guess XX figured that if I hadn’t posted his phone messages in
5 years I have probably lost or erased the file so it’s safe to slander
me and headline NHK’s name to regain his Economist notoriety.
I did erase the file because I didn’t want to hear his voice again.
For the record I haven’t spent a minute thinking about the asshole
during the past five years and this is my first and only blog post
related to him in all that time.

Now you know – the rest of the story.

Threat #2 To Gavin Blair at France 24 (May-June 2010) who had the audacity to replace Christopher Johnson (without knowing it)

Note: Please send to legal.

Messages

Actions

20 May

Christopher Johnson

  • Dear XXXX,
I’m Christopher Johnson, a veteran Tokyo-based journalist who has covered almost every major story in Asia and around the world since 1987, including the wars in Yugoslavia, East Timor, Afghanistan and Iraq, for major media worldwide.
I’m going to cut straight to the point about this. I do not allow people to take freelance strings that I have cultivated over the years. For your information, Loick Berrou hired me in July 2007 as the France 24 Anglo reporter in Tokyo, and since that time I have done hundreds of live phoners and on-camera reports from Tokyo (often using the satellite feedpoints at Reuters and NHK), Tibet, China, Burma and Thailand (using feedpoints at Asiaworks).
I have taken great risks to build up the network. I was the only foreign journalist in Lhasa the week of the riots in March 2008, and I broke the story worldwide on France 24, beating BBC, CNN and everybody else. I also snuck inside Burma and reported on the crackdown on protesters, and Cyclone Nargis, for the network. Last year, I did a flurry of reports amid gunfire and explosions during the battle of Bangkok (working in the same battle-zone where France 24 cameraman Nelson Rand was shot several times.)
Immediately after the March 11 quake, I spent a great deal of time and effort trying to arrange logistics for●●●, one of the network’s top Francophone correspondents (you can see the work we did together on the documentary The Battle of Bangkok). I also did 60 live reports for France 24 the first four weeks after the quake, while you were working for somebody else, apparently.
I do not know what university training or professional qualifications you have in journalism, and I’m not familiar with the impact of your work. I’ve worked around most of the top journalists in Asia, and I don’t recall meeting you.

As for me, I have been through a weeding out process, of four years at Canada’s top journalism school at Carleton University in Ottawa, and then some of the leading networks and newspapers in Canada, before coming to work as a professional journalist in Asia. I learned to speak and read Japanese beginning in 1989, and covered the Kobe earthquake and sarin gas attack for CBC TV in Canada and others in 1995.
Like many other pros, I naturally have issues with amateurs who come to Japan, declare themselves journalists, hang around the FCCJ to pick up work, and then consider themselves experts in our field. Doctors and lawyers would not tolerate this in their fields either, and I think I have every right to call someone’s bluff on this.
While I was covering the TEPCO presser today, I found out from●●, ●●● and a senior person in Paris that you, somehow, have become the France 24 correspondent in Tokyo. I do not accept this, for any reason, and I will do whatever is necessary to protect a position that I have earned with the network, at great personal risk and sacrifice. It’s not personal, it’s professional, and I can assure you that I will stake my 25-year career on this. If I tried to steal someone’s string, which has earned them thousands of dollars over the years, I would expect them to fight me for it. I will tell you very frankly that I am a 6-foot, 200-pound guy from a rough part of the Detroit area, and I’ve been through too much – 9 wars, where I lost 7 friends – to let anyone disrespect me.

Christopher Johnson

21 May

Christopher Johnson

  • That is very sleazy to send a letter, which I sent to you and you alone, to my employers at France 24. If you have any manhood, you will meet me in person to settle this. And you can bring your pals XXX  and the other jerks who diss me on Facebook and at the FCCJ as well

 RESPONSE OF GAVIN BLAIR (Journalist) to CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON IMPLIED THREATS

21 May

Gavin Blair

  • Hostile-guy ,your unsolicited message appears to be a clear threat of violence towards me. Please clarify if I’m mistaken in this.For the record: I was approached in Feb to work with F24 and have done a few bits of work with them since. I have no interest in who has worked with them in the past, continues to work with them now, or will work with them in the future.
I have no idea what issues you have with F24, but please take them up with the organization.
Equally, I have no idea what issues you have with ‘jerks’ on FB or the FCCJ, but please take them up with the people involved.

RESPONSES OF CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON

Christopher Johnson

  • Who the hell are you talkin to me like this? You think your ass is powerful? You are a 5-foot 6, 150 lb dweek in shorts and sunglasses looking over your shoulder in a crowd. And I suppose you’ll send this to your mommy to protect you, right?

 22 May

Christopher Johnson

  • You aren’t the asshole ●● who smashed my brother’s head against the grocery store wall, and beat up my father in front of my mother and sister across the street from our house, and then laughed at my little brother in the court house. You aren’t the crackhead who shot my uncle ●● in the head in Detroit. You aren’t the home invader who murdered my brother’s drummer in his house in ●● this Christmas. You aren’t the gang that strangled me and beat me unconscious and broke my nose and ribs and left me naked in a park to die in Nairobi, or the jerks who mugged me at knifepoint in Rio de Janeiro. You aren’t the Chetniks who severed the head of my roommate ●●●in Vukovar. You aren’t Khaled Sheikh Mohammed who cut up Daniel Pearl like a goat a few weeks after we had Thanksgiving dinner in Islamabad. You aren’t the Taliban motherfuckers who murdered●● and raped and killed the women in the van in Afghanistan. And you aren’t the gunmen who shot ●●●●● three times last year when we were working for France 24 in Bangkok. You are a spineless sewer rat who sends a private confidential letter to my boss to shaft me out of a job worth perhaps 10,000 year or more, a job I earned while you were a driver with another network and writing an FCCJ article slagging off serious pro journalists who hired you. Where I come from, you don’t mess with a man’s car, a man’s woman, a man’s dog, or a man’s job. You go behind someone’s back, and they come knockin on your front, with a shotgun. And I suppose you’ll send this to your mommy to defend you, right?

RESPONSE OF GAVIN BLAIR TO CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON 

  • Gavin Blair

                                              It seems you got a rough deal off F24, which is a shame, but I really think your anger is directed in the wrong direction. To state the obvious, I don’t make the hiring decisions. I was asked to work with them in Feb and was surprised not to hear from them during the post-quake period. It seems they used someone else – that would be you. Now they’ve asked me to do the odd phoner.
I don’t know why they they’ve made that decision- it’s between you and them.
I was more than a little surprised to come in on Friday night to a long abusive threatening email from someone I’ve never met. I forwarded it to the people at F24 – ●● saying I had no idea what your history with them is and the situation needed clarifying .
If you wanted a respectful response, you should have a sent a respectful email. This will be my last response to any insulting/ threatening mails.

CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON EXPRESSING ANGER THAT HIS THREATS WERE MADE PUBLIC

23 May

Christopher Johnson

                                              Gavin Blair,This is a private, confidential message between you and me, and this is a street fight between you and me. I was working a lot for France 24 before you came along, and now I am not. The only thing that changed is your presence. You are responsible for this, and you can’t jam out of it like TEPCO. Firstly, you act like you are the only one in the world, and no other freelancer else matters. Like you can just rock into anybody’s yard and eat the fruit off their trees, and to hell with who was working for France 24 in the past or future. Reality is, you are the freelancer’s equivalent of a scab laborer crossing a picket line in Detroit, and you won’t last.I was clearly in line for the gig, (reporting for the network since July 2007) and was negotiating my status with top brass.. The producers and presenters have worked with me in the past, and they gave me 60 live hits in a month after 3/11. And then what happens? After I busted my butt working for them (and not for Al Jazeera or BBC or CNN), you weasel your way into a gig you do not deserve, rather than earning it based on your talent, training and proven dedication to the network. That’s shameful, and everybody knows it. You disgrace yourself, just as scab laborers do at a factory. Is that the reputation you want? You make it sound like I have some problem with France 24, and so they are turning to you to solve that problem. That’s BS. Things were going great, actually.I have no problem with any France 24 producers, period. They are excellent, and they are totally on top of the story, as I am. You, the greedy scab laborer who tries to take advantage of a fluid situation and messes up negotiations, are my problem with France 24, not them. Background: Loick Berrou, one of their best people, hired me (not you) as the Tokyo correspondent in July 2007. They liked my work and I did perhaps 40 hits – about half live on camera (a special skill, which I learned in college and honed over years of major network experience in Canada and elsewhere). During that time, Loick asked me to find a good French correspondent for the network, since my French isn’t broadcast fluent enough, though I have French Canadian ancestry (mixed with Mohawk blood). They tried a number of people who didn’t last more than a few months (surely you are next). So they sent sei-shaiin ●●● from Seoul to Tokyo. She wanted to do English reports as well (extra cash of course). She knew little about Japan coming in, and never did learn the language or culture of complicity here. But, she’s confident on camera, she’s a full-time staffer sent from Paris, and she’s loyal to the network – that means a lot to producers who sweat over finding someone they can trust to file a breaking story without flaw. As for me, I’m a freelancer in Tokyo. (You recognize that story?) So I had to wait for two years, though producers still called me sometimes in Tokyo, and I also did some heavy hits from Lhasa, Burma and Thailand (usually under dangerous conditions – and that means a lot to the producers too).Somehow, ●●● and ●● get sent to Tokyo and haven’t been told I’m here. (Perhaps ●●● didn’t communicate well with them, or didn’t like when the producers in Paris called the freelancer XX  in Tokyo instead of her). So, according to ●●●, she has to find an English journo quickly. Somehow, she ends up contacting XXXX. Even though you were supposedly the Tokyo correspondent for France 24 since February, when the quake hit on March 11, the producers and XXX in Bangkok immediately called me. They didn’t call you, did they? I wonder why. Didn’t you try calling them? It was your job to call them. That night, perhaps 3 or 4 am, after I had already done something like 8 reports that day, ●●● and ●●● called me, asking me to be exclusive to them, and go north with XX and ●●●, since I can speak and read Japanese and covered Kobe 95 (I was one of the first journos in, and stayed for 10 days). Thanks to XXX, I was already packed, and that day I had been arranging logistics for XXX (exchanging dozens of calls and emails between us). When most people were scared stiff, XXX had gone out to get food, water, maps and gear for the France 24 crew. I told XXX I wanted my status set in stone, since I had been supplying the network for four years. XXX offered me – this is no shit – a per diem of 200 dollars to work exclusively for France 24 up north. I laughed, stayed positive, and reminded her about what freelancers made during the Battle of Baghdad, and what I earned in Lhasa and Bangkok with Fr 24. I told her I was also getting calls non-stop from my longtime strings with CTV and others. We agreed that I could report for France 24 and the others, so long as I didn’t report for their direct competitors Al Jazeera, BBC and CNN, due to France 24 policy. I knew the excellent producers in Paris would call me, and they did, 60 times. I enjoy working with them more than anybody else in the world. I like them so much, I have risked arrest working illegally in Lhasa and Burma for them, and would do it again. So get this idea out of your mind that I somehow have “a problem” with France 24. I do not, and every producer will tell you that, I’m sure.

23 May

Christopher Johnson

                                              While I was doing 60 live hits, often in the middle of the night and in places like Kesennuma and Rikuzen-Takata, you were working for France 24’s main rival (a clear violation of company policy). Your name is on Al Jazeera’s blog that day – that doesn’t score well in Paris. Plus, you had to go bragging in FCCJ about your job as a driver for a TV crew – while you are supposed to be France 24 TV correspondent in Tokyo. Not only that, you publicly disparage the pro TV crew employing you – instead of investigating things like how many thousands of innocent people died following state evacuation orders, or how many people froze to death or died of treatable illnesses while red-tape held up by foreign and Japanese rescue crews, or how NHK and other criminally-negligent cash cows chronically covered up truths and failed to prepare Japanese for the realities of living on dangerous faults. No, you don’t care about that do you? You’re just a lazy-ass freelancer who hasn’t broken a single risky story in his life, but somehow you now DESERVE to report for the hottest TV network in the world?As far as I know, and I haven’t read every edition of the Hollywood Reporter, your ground-breaking coverage tends to propagate bullshit like “NHK World has a current potential worldwide audience of approximately 130 million, set to rise to 137 million by the end of the year.” You really think 130 million people will watch that crap? How about 137 thousand, not million. NHK pays a lot (of your taxpayer money) to propagate their Peter Pan version of events on satellite in various countries, but as Murray Johnson, one of the real pros there, once told me, his audience worldwide is “two cats and a dog.”(And not to mention that you basically pirated the “NHK saves lives” fallacy off Chico Harlan, a hardworking pro for the Washington Post.) As for your reports on France 24, I haven’t seen many. When Sarkozy came to visit Tokyo, the producers asked me if I could cover it. I told them I was on the coast in Iwate, and might be out of phone range at that time, and they should consider a back-up plan, just to be safe. They asked if I knew anyone in Tokyo. I said that many pros were either in Tohoku, Kansai, or out of Japan, or working for the competition. Turns out they got you to do one hit (I suppose because you had a deal with ●●● in February, which I knew nothing about). I heard your live hit wasn’t good, and why would it be, because you don’t have training and experience in TV, which is a special skill different than bullshitting in print. So they called me to take over for the rest of the day. Luckily I got into phone range and could do it. (And now you get the job as Fr 24 correspondent in Tokyo? Who you kidding?)Actually, I was hoping that over time this cat XXXX would somehow get better on TV, as my potential replacement, since I often go away from Japan to do other stories in Asia for my strings. But on the day that they raised Fukushima to level 7, I saw you on air saying “it’s an exaggeration”. (Didn’t you also do a story like that in CSM?) Are you such an expert on nuclear science and radiation hazards that your opinion counts more than, say, what various scientists and doctors are saying? Or are you too lazy to actually interview anybody before going on air? Nothing says “I’m an amateur” more than knee-jerk opinions like that. When we were sleeping under the mattresses in the fucking Palestine Hotel in fucking hellhole Baghdad, these sycophants embedded with the military would roll into town filing stories like “one week after Shock-and-Awe, life in Baghdad is going back to normal.” Every story for the next 7 years proved them wrong! When you say stuff on air like “comparing Fukushima with Chernobyl is an exaggeration”, you lose credibility, and every story after that, inevitably confirming the worsening reality of Fukushima, makes a fool out of you. In print, you can generally get away with substandard work, especially if Amelia and the editors in Boston or elsewhere are reworking your shit and adding from the wires. But on live TV, people can see through you and call your bluff. If you are not on top of the story, and you do not have all the facts and expert analysis balanced in your head, you end up spouting half-baked opinions that make a fool of you over time. Secondly, and this is the more important point for me. I come from a family of military types, and I’m all about sports and teamwork and out-working the competition. I cannot stand lazy, spineless, backstabbing males with no huevos and no sense of loyalty, duty and honour. They are the downfall of society, especially in Japan, where too many mother-con oyajis and scamming gaijin have no respect for bushido. I worked my ass off investigating how a school principal followed official policy rather than instinct and common sense, and evacuees ended up dieing in a flooded school gym rather than walking up the hill behind the school. It was a solid, balanced report. Though Japan was already out of the news cycle, it made front page in Washington, got picked up on USA Today as well.XXX, who was my editor at Number One Shimbun before some greedy amateurs ousted him there, posted it on his Facebook space. Instead of hustling to do their own investigative pieces, Justin McCurry, Martyn Wiliams, Rob Gilhoo…, Tony McNicol and other Brit journos, who have never hung out with us or been to parties at our house in Tokyo, slag me online to the point where ●● asks them to stop the personal attacks. What kind of journalistic attitude is that? I have nothing against any of those people, zero working relationship with them, and these lard-ass old rejects think they can diss me in public? If this is your journalism culture in the UK, I can understand why so many Brits queue up to immigrate to my countries. Personally, I got no time for jerks like that, and they aren’t even worth scuffing the heel of my cowboy boots. As for you, instead of dealing with me face-to-face like a man would where I come from, you go behind my back and send a private letter to my boss and tell her I’m physically threatening you. What kind of man does that? Since ●●● says she hired you in February, your duty after March 11 was to report for France 24. Instead, you fucked off and went for a fast-buck as a driver. And then, after a month, while I’ve been making the sacrifices, you consider yourself rightly in line for the job? Like hell you are.I did not blow off France 24 on March 11. I continued to serve all the same people I’ve been serving for years, and I did a lot of extra work – without pay – setting up gigs for my friends here too. I did probably more than a 100 print stories as well as the TV work, and I have donated my photos to fundraisers such as MTV and to charities doing exhibitions in Europe as well. My life is all about generosity and honest hard-work, and I am pushed right to the edge – but I was born for this and will DIE for it. But I’m also big on kicking ass for justice. Nothing infuriates me more than having some scab wannabe freelancer sneaking into my garden to harvest the vegetables I’ve been cultivating. You are a print freelancer for the Hollywood Reporter, CSM, Global Post and so on. That would be good enough for most people – and I know from long experience that greedy overstretched freelancers end up pissing off their employers and finding themselves with nothing. If you had a pair, you would focus on righteousness and dedication to what you had BEFORE the disasters, and start busting open the truth here, as I’m trying to do. Amelia in Boston worked in Japan before (with Yomiuri). If I were you, I would go to town on CSM and try to build a career from there. Or, if you’re really dedicated, make a blog like mine and push the window. Honestly, motherfucker, you are going nowhere in TV. You do not have a TV personality, and surely you know this yourself when you look in the mirror or watch yourself on the replays. It’s a mix of hardcore journalism and facile entertainment, and you don’t have it. Your FCCJ article disparaging TV journos is your way of telling yourself you don’t belong in TV-land. But don’t think I’m offering you kind advice here. I’m at war with you. You are fucking with my freight-forwarding business, and nobody gets away with that. You did not earn the job with France 24. I did, and everybody knows it. You can be stubborn and stick to your guns, and pretend that you are something that you are not. But you will be drinking from your own poison in the well, and it will ultimately taint what you’ve been cultivating with your other strings. You did not EARN the job with France 24. You took advantage of their organizational structure and confusion and tried to smear my rep with them to do yourself a favor. It won’t work. It never does. Just ask all the other scabs who are no longer in the business. xxxxx

01 June

Christopher Johnson

◦                        Great report just now on our France 24. Even a journalist covering the story couldn’t understand your disjointed drivel, but you must be intelligent to use words like “methodologies” on a top story broadcast worldwide on a great network. Since shame, pride, loyalty, fairness are not issues for you, I suspect you’ll send this private confidential letter onto Paris. I’ll be at the FCCJ in coming days and will be looking for you mofo

END OF EXCHANGE 

#Threat 3 To The Editor of Japan Probe (2012) who had the audacity to question Christopher Johnson’s account of his torture at the Gaijin Gulag in Narita Airport by armed security guards, (Taken From JapanProbe)

Dear James and Editors of Japanprobe,

This is a cease and desist order. You are ordered to immediately remove posts defaming me from your website.

Cyber bullying and online slander is a crime in Japan and other countries. Recent court decisions in Japan have awarded millions of yen in damages for defamation. According to the “Provider Responsibility Guidelines Law” (provider sekinin kisei-ho), Article 2 Clause 1 (Electronic Mail Privacy), the defendants also had to reveal the IP addresses of the people who posted the damaging comments.

Your site is defaming the reputation I have built over 25 years as a foreign correspondent in Asia. I earned more than $100,000 US in 2011, and that salary is relevant in claims for compensation.

The evidence is overwhelming.

You took an online exchange between myself and my colleague, Jake Adelstein, out of context, to suit your agenda of slandering me. Mr. Adelstein, who covers legal and police issues in Japan, has every right to sue you as well.

There is no evidence to support your malicious claim that “Johnson has not been friendly towards people who have asked him about his visa status. His display of rude arrogance in a public Twitter conversation with Jake Adelstein and Tokyo Reporter has done little to inspire confidence in his story.” Jake Adelstein and Tokyo Reporter have made no such claims about my alleged “rude arrogance”, and we in fact often exchange messages on twitter.

There is no evidence to support your claim about “highly unlikely and possibly wrong parts of the article.” This tarnishes my reputation as a journalist, which has been beyond reproach for 25 years. Everything in my story, which cites more than a dozen sources, is supported by overwhelming evidence of facts.

This is another erroneous claim meant to slander: “The article seems full of exaggerations, like his complaint that he was forced “onto a flight to Canada without much winter clothing for minus 40 temperatures in Alberta”. In fact, temperatures often reach minus 40 C in Alberta. This is no exaggeration to anyone who lives here.

You fabricated this, again with no evidence:

((It now has a new passage (emphasis added):

Though I had work visas dating back to 1989, and papers saying the government had acknowledged the receipt of my application to renew my work visa, I was detained at Narita airport and expelled.

If this is correct, it seems to confirm what many people had suspected: Johnson did not have a valid work visa.))

To “support” your malicious claims, you cited a defamatory comment by [PERSONAL INFORMATION REDACTED], under a pseudonym “Wagyl”:

((One user on the FG forums responded to Johnson’s new claims with the following:

Or maybe it is a global world conspiracy by NHK, Serbians and the nuclear industry specifically targetting him. I wonder which is more likely.”))

This claim has no point or relevance, other than to tarnish my professional reputation:

((“However, while millions of us stayed at our homes and workplaces in Tokyo, Johnson joined the panic-stricken and got the got on a bullet train.” “I think everybody is…COUGH excuse me.” “But even…uh…Sony for example..uhm..normally has”. He only contributed to the English language news reports that exaggerated the exodus from Tokyo and encouraged others to flee. For his heroic service, he apparently deserves special treatment at immigration checkpoints.))

Furthermore, your articles make no attempt to balance your slanderous attacks against me with the facts of the case:

–Amnesty International reports about mistreatment of foreigners at Narita since at least 1995;

– a Tokyo District Court decision in 2004 awarding 2.2 million yen compensation for victims of assault and extortion at Narita;

– the death of a Tokyo expat in custody of immigration officers at Narita;

– Asiana Airlines claim that they are also a victim of a “third party” at Narita.

As you may have noticed, many of the slanderous attacks in the comments section of The Economist and other sites, including Japanprobe, have defamed me as well as my brother, my publisher and some of the media outlets that purchase my work.

I know the identities of some of the people behind pseudonyms. They have slandered me on other sites, including www.tepido.org, www.fuckedgaijin.com, www.boingboing.com, and others. None of these people are above the laws of Japan or any other country, which protect people from defamation, slander and cyber bullying.

I did not survive 9 wars to allow anyone to defame me, my family, and my colleagues and employers. I will certainly not allow people to ruin my reputation after I have been wrongly expelled from Japan, where I have worked hard to build a life and successful career.

You are ordered to immediately remove posts defaming me from your website.

Sincerely,

Christopher Johnson

Tokyo-based freelance correspondent for the Washington Times, New York Times, Toronto Star, Globe and Mail Report on Business, CTV Canada, CBC Canada, DW-TV Berlin, France 24, Asia Times, Japan Times, CNNGO, CNN.com and others

#Threat 4 To Jake Adelstein who had the audacity to not only question Christopher Johnson’s credibility but to refuse a Christopher Johnson assignment!

April 6th 2012

Dear  Mr. Adelstein,

 I have an assignment for you, if you are interested. 

After 3 months of emails and calls, authorities at XXXX  have only sent me the information below about companies accused of extorting millions of dollars, apparently with no legal basis, from hundreds of thousands of foreign detainees at XXXX since the XXXXX e 1970s. 

I’m interested in finding out about any underworld links of these companies, and where the money has gone. In other words, follow the money.

It would likely challenge your investigative reporting abilities. The information would contribute to reports that would assist groups such as Amnesty International, and influence the way the world sees Japan. It could improve the human rights situation in Japan, and save thousands of foreigners from future abuse. 

My previous blog posting on this issue received more than 25,000 views on my blog alone, and thousands of comments on at least a dozen websites, including that of The Economist. 

Please let me know your fees, and when you might be able to deliver during your busy schedule.

Best regards,

After no response, Christopher Johnson then allegedly sent the following letter.

Dear Jake,

Please read this carefully, and try to understand with your heart how I’m trying to help you.

A number of informed sources have compiled a long laundry list of accusations against you. In short, they are calling you “Jake the Fake”, and the evidence is overwhelming. That is a big problem for you.

I cannot prove your litany of stories are false, but I also can’t prove they are true. Only you can do that. You have to prove them with verifiable sources that other journalists can also confirm. Otherwise, your detractors are determined to make you the next Jayson Blair.

The facts and evidence I’ve seen are overwhelmingly against you, and in favour of detractors who call you Jake the Fake. I’m a decent human being who understands the real problems of working in Japan, and I am trying to show and explain your side of the story, even if you hate me. But others might not show you any mercy.  They will do fact-checks on you, call your bluff, and find you out. Just like they did Jayson Blair, Philip Glass, and so on.

You do not want to become the next Jayson Blair, and have the Atlantic, the New Yorker, the BBC and everybody else who hyped your book and your dubious claims turn against you for fooling them. Your high school mate XXXX, your friends like XXX and XXX  and so on, won’t be able to save you.

Best,

Christopher Johnson

Jake’s Reply:

Troll,

The next time I hear from you, I’m going to file charges of 威力業務妨害. You are not a journalist; you make threats under the guise of journalism and you are mentally ill. 

This is the last time I will address you directly. 

I have spoken to many people who have been threatened by you. 

Please explain them away as best you can.

Please sue me, if you’d like. 

You make a lot of enemies. Apparently, you’ve also generated a new one on twitter this morning. 

Good work. 

If you were a real man, you’d stop hiding behind the pretense of being a journalist and come punch me out–but you’re too much of a pussy. All talk and no walk.

Please have the decency not to threaten to attack my children. I will not be happy with this. 

..Why are you blocking me? L

As of this point in time, Christopher Johnson has not punched out Gavin Blair or Jake Adelstein or James at Japan Probe, but we can always hope that once in his life he’ll live up to his threats and then be put in jail. Hopefully, he’ll end up in a Japanese jail where he won’t have Internet access. So we don’t have to read his self-pitying rants (which alternate with sneaky attacks and temper tantrums). We’ll miss ya, mate.

BTW, does anyone know why the Japanese police keep calling Christopher Johnson’s girlfriend about him? Could it be that the Japanese police are actually enforcing the law? (In Japan, threatening people is a crime.) But that’s an unfair thing to say. Chris Johnson is capable of more than one crime: slander, stalking, there are others he could do if he tried. Let us know when you know!

If you would like Christopher Johnson to shut the fuck up, take down his trashy blog, and stop harassing people who work for a living, let him know at @goyamagazine or [redacted] or @globaliteman

He loves attention and he’ll write you back!

SPECIAL BONUS!

#5. Chris Johnson Takes On WIKIPEDIA!

Copyright and legal threats[edit]

I’ve been involved in an escalating dispute with Rollingwagon at the AfC help desk. The draft which is the basis for the dispute is at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christopher Johnson journalist; it was blanked by Kelly Marie 0812 because it was a word-for-word copy of Johnson’s biography at Amazon.com. It was a word-for-word copy, but apparently the Amazon biography changed within the last few hours. The old version of the draft as edited by Rollingwagon still cites the Amazon biography for claims such as Johnson’s “Thanksgiving dinner with Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in Pakistan a few weeks before his murder”, claims that are no longer supported by the current Amazon biography. I have no idea what should happen to the draft. Right now it does not look like a copyright violation, but I don’t think the change of the Amazon biography means we no longer violate copyright if we did so before.

Furthermore, Rollingwagon apparently didn’t like my attempts at explaining Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines; he accused “a certain editor” (me) of hassling a newcomer and engaged in what might be seen as veiled legal threats in comments such as this one.

I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that Rollingwagon is himself Christopher Johnson and that he changed the author-submitted Amazon biography in order to circumvent the copyright problems. If so, I can understand his frustration, but I still think this needs some kind of intervention, and apparently I’m unable to interact with Rollingwagon without alienating him further. Any help would be appreciated. Huon (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

At the time I reviewed the article for the second time, the article in its entirety was word for word the same as the amazon.com biography cited numerous times in the article, that Huon linked above. However just now revisiting the site, the amazon.com biography has been changed and dramatically shortened since I last read it. I too wondered if Rollingwagon is actually Christopher Johnson, or someone close enough for a COI, if anything because the amazon biography states it is author submitted, and the coincidental timing of its change. In terms of the disagreement, Rollingwagon seems to have taken the comments about the reliability of the sources he used very personally, and as an attack on the subject of the article. While I have not read their lengthy discussion in detail, from what I’ve gathered it’s my opinion that Rollingwagon misinterpreted Huon’s comments and intentions. It’s clear Huon spent a lot of time helping him reformat the article and looking into the sources in depth, as well as attempting to explain Wikipedia’s policies. I don’t think there was any just cause for the insinuation of libel and cyber bullying. It seems that third party intervention would be helpful in showing Rollingwagon the policies on reliable sources are consensus here and not an attack on him personally. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 05:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I was able to dig up a gcached version of the bio: LINKY for ease of access. Ishdarian 06:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

We seem to have already accomplished one good thing: he (or his rpresentative) has replaced the ridiculously promotional bio at amazon (which we wouldn’t be able to use in any case, regardless of copyright) with something more reasonable. I wonder, though, if it instead represents his judgement that an extended WP bio is more essential advertising than one at Amazon. DGG ( talk ) 07:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I’m pretty sure it does represent that. Judging by the format of the cached version (October 13), it looks like he pasted his planned Wikipedia draft onto Amazon before creating it here (October 15). In any case, if it’s been previously published, even if taken down later, it’s still copyvio. We’ve removed plenty of copyvio under those circumstances. By the way, the book he’s touting is self-published. Voceditenore (talk) 08:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This was a heavy-handed response indeed considering the likelihood that the same author is behind both bits of text. Assuming that Rollingwagon is indeed Johnson, said bio also correctly identifies that he’s responsible for a good number of high-quality free images that we’ve grabbed from his Flickr account. Biting down hard on him here may result in him deciding to shut that particular stream down. Let’s not allow one overreaction (deletion of a page which, even if inappropriately fluffy and self-referenced, was only lacking a permission / attribution statement to get over the copyvio suggestion) lead to another (blocking over a deliberately-strict interpretation of NLT). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Response from Rollingwagon[edit]

Dear Members,

Thanks for your invitation to the club. I would like you to kindly consider this scenario.

Imagine if you walk into a country club for the first time. You would like to donate some of your art work to them. The club has a sign saying “Donations Welcome.” It seems promising. You have always liked this club, and dreamed of being a member.

However, nobody greets you, or lets you in, for a couple of weeks. You get frustrated. So you take your art work to another club, which is much more welcoming, and hang it on the walls there. So, you go back to the first country club. Finally, somebody, using a false name and a mask, takes a look at your art work, and tells you that you can’t come in. In fact, they have made a mistake, but they don’t admit it at first.

So you ask for help at the Help Desk. The guy at the Help Desk seems strange. You wonder if he is drunk, bellicose, belligerent, and illogical. He tells you, “your work is above-average quality”, and then, the next moment, hassles you over every little thing about you and your free art work, which you are offering as a charitable donation. He makes false accusations about you and your friends and colleagues – people he has never met. He spouts opinions, without verifiable evidence, that offend you and your friends. He reads out all these rules, basically as a way of keeping you out of the club, or making you submit to his superior authority. After a while, you begin to wonder if this person is a bigot, and he simply doesn’t trust your “kind.” You feel like the “Help Desk” is the “Hassle Desk”.

However, since you are new to the club, you try to be tolerant and calm. You are open, and eager to learn. You politely state your points, and ask for further advice. All you want to do is donate your art work, for free, since you care about the community. However, people at the club start ganging up on you, in support of the folks at the Help Desk, and other Desks, which all seem confusing. They take your art work and hide it from you. Perhaps they are tearing it up. Perhaps they are going to write graffiti all over it, and put it on the walls, without your approval. You get scared, anxious, suspicious. You carefully check over the rules of the club, and remind the members about these rules, which are supposed to protect newcomers to the club.

But club members, in defiance of their own rules, make more false accusations about you. They claim you are violating their rules — a hasty judgement on their part, without proof. They accuse you of breaking their rules by hanging your artwork in that other club, when in fact you brought it to them first, as a free donation to the community. They don’t know the full story, about how you came weeks earlier, and were ignored. They don’t seem to care about how much hard work you put into your art work. They only seem to care about preserving their status within the club.

So, you ask your friends to take down that artwork in that other club, in order to please the demanding members of this new elite club. But that causes a knee-jerk reaction from these club members, who adopt a lynch mob mentality, ready to burn you at the stake or throw you out the door, for defying their sacred policies, which they didn’t explain to you weeks ago. They start calling you names. They accuse you of being somebody else. They use rude, inflammatory language, disrespecting your friends and colleagues. They say you are making “deadly” mistakes and doing “ridiculously promotional” things, basically because they are envious of the work and achievements of you and your colleagues. It’s a form of schoolyard bullying, but these are adults who should know better, and some of them are paid club employees. They are right, because they are members of the club. You are wrong, because you are a newcomer. Logic, reason, common sense doesn’t matter. Might makes right.

In this case, what are you going to do? Are you going to defend yourself from these false accusations and hasty judgments, and continue to make your points based on logic and reason and verifiable information? Are you going to ask to speak to the manager of the club, or the founder of the club? Or do you walk away, abandoning your art work? Or do you take some kind of action, through courts or the media, to expose the mistreatment at the club and to assert your rights as a member of the community?

Please offer your wise and careful advice. Thanks Rollingwagon (talk) 10:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Please don’t assume that the actions of individual administrators is indicative of the consensus of the community. This discussion was raised precisely in order to assess what the appropriate action should be. Please do note, however, that as a matter of policy we do not permit editors to continue to contribute here while they are asserting the possibility of legal action; it would be best for you to retract that portion of your statement should you wish to continue debating this matter here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The amazon license seems compatible with CC license. Per Amazon’s terms, “You grant to us a license to use the Submitted Materials on the terms provided below, but you otherwise retain all of your rights in your Submitted Materials.” and “You grant to us a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free right and license to use ” Nobody Ent 7:26 am, Today (UTC−4)

If there’s a good reason to believe the guy who submitted it here also submitted it there, you can just ask for it to be undeleted; if there ain’t, the terms of the Amazon licence don’t mean much. WilyD 11:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC) moved from DRV Nobody Ent 11:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

We still require confirmation that the Amazon piece was by the same author as well (this appears likely, but it’s precisely that lack of confirmation which saw this deleted in the first place). But we don’t need to have this discussion in two places. It should continue on ANI at WP:ANI#Copyright and legal threats. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)moved from DRV Nobody Ent 11:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

What kind of confirmation is required? We accept photos/artwork all the time based on the simple assertion of the uploader. Nobody Ent 11:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Please note that if it is discovered that images have been previously published online or in books without a compatible license displayed, they are deleted, regardless of whether the uploader took the picture or not. Previous publication automatically confers copyright. The procedure is explained in Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Note also Amazon’s terms of use:

All content included in or made available through any Amazon Service, such as text, graphics, logos, button icons, images, audio clips, digital downloads, and data compilations is the property of Amazon or its content suppliers and protected by United States and international copyright laws. The compilation of all content included in or made available through any Amazon Service is the exclusive property of Amazon and protected by U.S. and international copyright laws.

In other words Amazon has the right to relicense contributors’ material royalty-free, if the want to, but that license has to be obtained first. We can only accept material released under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 License. Voceditenore (talk) 12:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I’m not so sure, from that text. It says the copyright is owned by Amazon ‘or its content suppliers — and the terms I liked above indicate submitting content to Amazon does not give them an exclusive license. I wonder if this has come up before, and whether WMF legal has opined an opinion? Nobody Ent 12:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Trust me, that is not a compatible license. Johnson can release the material under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 License, but he must explictly do so following the procedures I linked here. Until then it cannot appear on Wikipedia. And all of this is assuming that the editor in question actually is Johnson. This is complicated by the fact that the material also appears at Bangkok Books. Voceditenore (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Also the normal procedure when copyvio is in an article, but there is a credible claim to ownership of it by the editor in question, it is blanked and must remain blanked until that permission has been received via the procedures at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Until that happens, the material cannot be visible on Wikipedia. Voceditenore (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, discussions like this about copyright status of text like this amounts to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Wikipedia and Amazon are websites with different purposes and different standards of how text should be organized and written. The real problem with nearly all text published elsewhere first isn’t that it ends up being a copyvio, it’s that it is wholly inappropriate in content and tone for Wikipedia. Once we get past the point where the text could be legally donated to Wikipedia, it ends up being rejected or gutted to the point of unrecognizablity because it’s outlandishly promotional, lacks sources, makes ridiculous claims, presents an unbalanced or non-neutral viewpoint, etc. etc. So we spend all of this effort getting “permission” for a user to post text that, in the end, we exclude for other reasons anyways. That’s why we actively discourage users who don’t know Wikipedia rules and standards from posting WP:COI text: regardless of the copyright status, we can expect it to be next to impossible for the text they write about themselves, their employers, or their clients to have any resemblance to an encyclopedia article. —Jayron32 12:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I fully concur. Even if it is eventually released under a compatible license, the text is basically unusable. It is unencyclopedic, promotional, and lacks reliable independent sources both for verification of a biography of a living person and to establish notability. Huon explained all this very carefully, meticulously, and patiently, going through each of the references here. This article would almost certainly be deleted at an AfD discussion if those references where all that could be found. and I strongly urge Rollingwagon to take the time to read what Wikipedia means by notability (simplified at The answer to life, the universe, and everything)—not what it means to him or what he thinks it ought to mean. A careful reading of Wikipedia:Autobiography is also recommended. Voceditenore (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


Thanks for all your comments. I have read each one carefully. In order to build consensus, I’m going to offer a pragmatic solution that addresses the concerns of all parties.

First of all, let’s agree that Wikipedia’s core principals should supersede any attempt to use a narrow or strict interpretation of any one of the hundreds of countervailing or contradictory rules and policies governing Wikipedia. Wikipedia is, above all other things, a non-profit organization supported by volunteers and amateurs, not a hedge fund, academic institution, or religious cult where superiors or hardliners have authority over newcomers or outsiders. As you all know, Wikipedia is a “free-content encyclopedia”. Thus any unilateral or multilateral attempt to quash, delete, block, ban, prohibit, censor or restrict someone else’s right to enter verifiable, accurate content, in good faith, goes against this core principal. To quote the About section of Wikipedia’s main page: “Censorship or imposing “official” points of view is extremely difficult to achieve and usually fails after a time.” Furthermore, since Wikipedia has an estimated 77,000 active contributors and 22 million articles, Wikipedia’s ethos is based upon collaboration and cooperation across cultures, not a schoolyard bullying mentality where might makes right, or where one or two persons can interpret or manipulate rules to their advantage and conspire to quash someone else’s good faith contributions. Though Wikipedia has Five Pillars, and an array of policies and guidelines, “it is not a formal requirement to be familiar with them before contributing.” All of this is clearly stated on the “About” section of Wikipedia’s main page. “Wikipedia is written largely by amateurs. Those with expert credentials are given no additional weight.” This means that no editor, whether Huon, Kelly Marie 0812, DGG, Jayron, Vocenitedore or others, have more weight than the newcomer RollingWagon. The policies pertaining to this principal are clearly stated in the section titled “Don’t bite the newcomer.” Thus there is a better solution than making hasty judgements to quash or delete an article without cordial, open communications and consultations with the editor who donated the content to the Wikipedia community in the first place. In other words, it’s not in accordance with Wikipedia principles for editors to arbitrarily and swiftly delete my article without asking me directly for my input into the decision. RollingWagon will accept, in good faith, that this action may have been done in good faith, due to a misunderstanding or confusion about copyright and legal issues. RollingWagon will clear up these issues later in this statement. In future, if you have quibbles about RolingWagon’s work, please feel free to discuss it with him directly, on a basis of equality and transparency, rather than taking unilateral decisions based on knee-jerk reactions or hasty decisions.

With these core principals in mind, let’s build a consensus. Firstly, if you read RollingWagon’s entry in detail, without prejudice or preconceived notions, RollingWagon did in fact follow Wikipedia’s principals and policies by providing a neutral, dispassionate article with 53 references, containing hard, verifiable, well-established facts — not opinions or exaggerations or self-serving ads — that are truthful, accurate, and common knowledge, and widely available on multiple sites across the internet. There is no original research on the Wikipedia entry. There was no libel, vandalism, shameless self-promotion, advertising or any other infringement of Wikipedia’s core policies of free-content. Huon, who started this discussion, originally praised the article for it’s “above-average quality”, and reposted it with more than 40 references. So let’s all agree that Huon’s initial sentiment is a good basis to build a more detailed and well-supported article.

RollingWagon’s reliable sources include articles or mentions about Johnson in the New York Times, The Economist, TIME, Reuters, Associated Press, the Washington Post, the Committee for the Protection of Journalists, and many others. These sources are cited in millions of Wikipedia articles, without trouble. Any attempt to dispute the reliability of these sources, due to a personal bias or worldview, even if well-founded and well-articulated, will not serve to build a consensus in adherence to Wikipedia’s core principal of “free-content.” On the contrary, such arguments will only waste time, create friction, lead to censorship, and impede the flow of “free-content”.

As for questions about whether Johnson is a notable living person, Google results for “Christopher Johnson Japan journalist” turn up more than 10 pages of articles ABOUT Johnson, not BY JOHNSON or his associates. These articles, in The Economist and others, clearly pass the threshold stated in “The answer to life, the universe, and everything,” as pointed out by Vocenitedore. Johnson is not merely a passing reference in these articles. In fact, there are more than 50 articles devoted solely to discussing Johnson’s work and actions.

Kelly Marie 0812, Vocenitedore and others have raised valid concerns about copyright issues, which are an important issue for all editors. Even if they are not indeed intellectual property rights lawyers, or Supreme Court Justices ruling on constitutional issues concerning piracy and freedom of expression, let’s assume that these editors acted in good faith, based on what they knew at the time. Nobody Ent has also made valid points that “we accept photos/artwork all the time based on the simple assertion of the uploader.”

Johnson or his representatives, agents or publishers have resolved this issue by making a clear, unambiguous statement allowing unrestricted use of material in his author bio on Amazon.com. “The author has asserted his right to allow free and unrestricted usage of this material, in whole or in part, on all websites worldwide, including Wikipedia, Bangkok Books, Myspace, Reverbnation, Facebook and others. No other party has the right to censor, prohibit or block use of this material for any reason.” Indeed, Vocenitedore’s research efforts have found similar unrestricted usage of this material by Johnson’s publisher Bangkok Books. So, clearly, there is no longer any copyright issue, since the copyright holder has asserted his rights to allow everyone to use the material. This seems to be consistent with Johnson’s longtime policy of allowing Wikipedia editors free use of hundreds of his copyrighted photos, as correctly stated by Chris Cunningham.

Thus, if we can agree to move beyond issues of copyright violations, let’s discuss the issue of legal threats. Regardless of how some people might interpret various writings, nobody has made any overt legal threat on this issue. Having said that, we should all keep in mind that Wikipedia, though a prestigious non-profit with an estimated 470 million unique visitors per month, is not above libel laws designed to protect the reputations of persons. Disparaging, or disputing, or casting aspersion upon the reputations of Johnson, Cory Doctorow, Kenneth Cukier, Tom Standage, Urban Hamid, Daniel Pearl, or any other journalist or author does nothing to serve Wikipedia’s core principals, no matter what can be found in forums on Wikipedia or any other website. We should assume, in good faith, that these are all hard-working people supporting families, and they do not deserve to have their names sullied in online media such as Wikipedia. If somebody wants to go online to “out” people, or vent their bigotry, hate or frustration with Big Media, indy media, self-promoters, artists, musicians, advertisers, agents, publishers, or whoever, they should take that to another site, not Wikipedia. I’m sure we can all agree on this point.

Chris Cunningham made the salient point that Wikipedia has used “a good number of high quality free images that we’ve grabbed from his Flickr account.” Thus, a large number of Wikipedia editors have endorsed the credibility of Johnson as a world-class journalist and photographer. It seems that Wikipedia editors have used perhaps 100 or more of Johnson’s photos on entries across several languages. Thus it can be said that Johnson has been contributing to Wikipedia long before some of our fellow editors have. We won’t gain anything by a hostile, uppity, law enforcement attitude toward someone who has made significant donations, free of charge, to Wikipedia, and who may have a personal relation to the founders.

It also seems preposterous to suggest that Johnson’s bio on Amazon.com, Bangkok Books, Globalite Magazine and other sources is anything less than credible. It seems implausible that a veteran foreign correspondent with a 25-year career, who depends on credibility to sell his or her work, would concoct a massive collection of lies, including about his brothers and sisters, in order to promote a book, an album, a photo, a t-shirt of something else. There is nothing wrong with amassing a collection of notable achievements over one’s life, and listing those in a bio to reach mass audiences. Wikipedia editors should not misuse Wikipedia policies to vent their envy or jealousy at people who have worked hard to achieve some sort of notoriety or notability, whether in the media or other avenues. If you don’t like how millions of artists promote their own work, in order to achieve some sort of name or fame, then you should take up these issues on other sites, not Wikipedia. Editors should also note that there is clearly a difference between teenagers using Wikipedia to promote their local garage band, and veteran journalists whose verifiable works have reached millions over decades, as there is also a difference between an unheralded amateur blog about salamanders, and a blog on The Economist that has editorial oversight, hundreds of staffers, and millions of readers.

There’s also an issue about selective enforcement of Wikipedia policies. The fact is, Wikipedia.org editors have permitted the posting of thousands, perhaps millions, of entries about notable persons whose achievements are less than those of Johnson, and less supported with evidence and references. If overzealous editors were to enforce every rule, without regard for Wikipedia’s core principals, then myself and other editors would have justification to remove millions of entries. For example, one could start with Johnson’s peers in Asia. Alex Kerr, Christopher G. Moore, Richard Lloyd Parry, Jake Adelstein, Karl Greenfeld, and hundreds of others are all notable persons whose work spans the worlds of journalism and publishing. Their biographies on Wikipedia tend to cite their own blogs, or publishers, or their friends articles in newspapers or magazines, and little else. They cite fewer references than the entry about Johnson. The entry of Kerr, for example, derives information from Kerr’s two blogs, and a magazine he edits. As far as I can tell, there are no references or citations. The entries for Adelstein and Moore appear to be directly supplied by their publishers, or the authors themselves. They site, as references, stories about themselves in their own books. Yet nobody is suggesting we tear down their Wikipedia articles, since Kerr, Moore, Adelstein and others are well-established writers, not teenagers creating hobby pages on Myspace. Nobody is suggesting that we delete the names of Adelstein’s children, or Moore’s list of awards, since they have no references from reliable, independent sources. We have no reason to believe that they or their representatives would publish lies in order to promote themselves, and we should assume the same about Johnson’s life story as stated on his bio at Amazon.com, Bangkok Books, and other media. If anybody can successfully refute facts about the life stories of Johnson, Moore, Adelstein, Kerr, or others, I will stand corrected, and carefully consider their arguments, if based on evidence and logical reasoning.

Furthermore, if we did quash their sites, citing one of a large number of countervailing or contradictory rules or policies, it would clearly violate Wikipedia’s ethos and core principals. It would also defy common sense, and create an atmosphere of retribution, not cooperation. So there should not be a double-standard applied to Johnson or any other person who has notable achievements in terms of creating books, photos, albums, news articles, TV reports or other works reaching mass audiences for decades.

With the spirit of consensus and collaboration in mind, I think we can agree that the best solution is to undelete the RollingWagon entry about Johnson, or repost Huon’s well-formatted version, citing 43 references. Kelly Marie 0812 will surely agree this is appropriate, since she had originally apologized for rejecting the article in the first place, not for any questions about notability, copyright or other matters, but because of the formatting, which Huon has astutely corrected: “Sorry for any misunderstanding here. At the time I reviewed it, the repeated content, lack of section headers, and reference formatting combined led me to believe it was a test and not meant for submission.”

In attempt to avoid a further escalation with an editor refuting dozens of his points, Huon has wisely offered to bow out and focus his energies on other entries. I believe this is a positive approach, since he has already stated his views in thousands of words, and spent more than enough time and energy reformatting the original entry and explaining Wikipedia policies and practices to a newcomer. As for myself, RollingWagon will continue to work hard to fill any holes in terms of references or citations, since the article is likely to evolve over time, unless the subject dies or abandones his career. It’s a win-win situation for everyone. Thanks for your cooperation and understanding. Rollingwagon (talk) 02:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I have the attention span of a sand flee. How the hell am I suppose to read that? —Malerooster (talk) 02:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

See this. —Malerooster (talk) 02:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The essayist in question could be characterized as a megillah guerilla. ←Baseball Bugs What’s up, Doc? carrots→ 02:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that my first decline of the article was based on formatting alone and belief it was a test submission, and did not represent any opinion of mine either way on the article’s notability or copyright status. The second time I reviewed the article I noticed the text duplication. To my knowledge the standard policy is to immediately flag the article as a possible copyright issue, which blanks (not deletes) the page until an admin reviews and ultimately confirms/deletes or denies/restores.

Despite its WP:TLDR length, I have done my best to read through Rollingwagon’s comments. Quite simply it seems he disagrees with Wikipedia’s policies on both reliable sources and general procedures. He claims that there have not been overt legal threats, but also that Wikipedia is not above libel laws, and seems to be saying that the editors’ concerns with his article are defaming the subject.

There is a lot being discussed here; even if the copyright issues were resolved, there are still issues regarding reliability of sources and/or notability, as well as general procedures. It seems it might be best to focus on those issues, as noted above, the copyright would be a moot point if the article was not to be accepted anyway. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 03:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


Dear Kelly Marie 0812. Thanks for your comments, and for taking the time to read my statement. I would like to clarify some points. First, you decided to reject my article because you mistakenly thought it was for the sandbox, not for submission, when in fact I did intend it for submission. Together, we corrected that. Thanks for that. Secondly, you errantly, in good faith, flagged my article for deletion, and it was immediately deleted, without allowing me a chance to have any input or prior consultation. Now, we both agree that copyright is no longer an issue, so it would logically follow that you would reverse your decision, and undelete the article.

However, thirdly, it seems you are trying to find other reasons to reject my article. I question whether this is in accordance with Wikipedia’s core principals, which I have noted above. Thus, I would like to know: how long do you intend to continue to block my submission, despite my attempts at building consensus? Could this go on for days, weeks, months, years? Since I am a newcomer here, I would really like to know more about how you operate, and what is considered normal operating procedures on this site.

I would also like to point out that I believe you are mischaracterizing or misrepresenting my position. I do not, as you have falsely claimed, disagree with Wikipedia’s policies and procedures. In fact, my statement, above, goes to great length to quote directly from Wikipedia’s “ABOUT” page. I have carefully read all these pages. Where do I ever disagree with Wikipedia’s policies? If you are going to make that accusation, you should provide proof to support your claim. I have made no such accusations against you, and I do appreciate your assistance.

The length of my previous statement WP:TLDR is not relevant to the crux of the matter, which is the issue of copyright, biting down too hard on newcomers, and observance of Wikipedia’s core principles. There is no question that Wikipedia, and every other site on the internet, are not immune from libel laws. There are hundreds of cases of online defamation, cyber-bullying, harassment, and being disorderly in public, which is an offense in some states. Thus, this should not even be an issue for any law-abiding citizen. Follow the law, respect your fellow netizens, and there’s no problem.

Furthermore, though I have provided ample evidence, you continue to raise the issue of notability and reliability of sources. I will restate this: Google results for “Christopher Johnson Japan journalist” turn up more than 10 pages of articles ABOUT Johnson, not BY JOHNSON or his associates. These articles, in The Economist and others, clearly pass the threshold stated in “The answer to life, the universe, and everything,” as pointed out by Vocenitedore. Johnson is not merely a passing reference in these articles. In fact, there are more than 50 articles devoted solely to discussing Johnson’s work and actions.

As for your attempt to raise the issue about sources, my reliable sources include articles or mentions about Johnson in the New York Times, The Economist, TIME, Reuters, Associated Press, the Washington Post, the Committee for the Protection of Journalists, and many others. My article, which you rejected then flagged, had 53 links to verifiable online sources, far more than most Wikipedia entries. These sources are cited in millions of Wikipedia articles, without trouble. Any attempt to dispute the reliability of these sources, due to a personal bias or worldview, even if well-founded and well-articulated, will not serve to build a consensus in adherence to Wikipedia’s core principal of “free-content.” On the contrary, such arguments will only waste time, create friction, lead to censorship, and impede the flow of “free-content”.

If this is simply about winning an argument, Wikipedia has instructions about that. I have spent considerable time and energy calmly and carefully dealing with a number of editors on these issues. I have tried to build an atmosphere of collaboration and mutual understanding. Thus, I am somewhat perplexed that you are continuing to take me to task on a number of issues. The fact is, you flagged my article for deletion, and it was in fact deleted, which is a form of censorship. I had no recourse or prior consultation. I do not accept that, and I don’t think all Wikipedia editors will either, based on Wikipedia’s core policies. To quote the About section of Wikipedia’s main page: “Censorship or imposing “official” points of view is extremely difficult to achieve and usually fails after a time.”

So please state clearly your position. Are you going to continue to reject my article for a third time, for a new host of reasons, or are you going to collaborate in good faith with my earnest attempts to build consensus and make a donation to the Wikipedia community? Please do not be vague and indecisive. Please be clear about your decisions, and explain them in detail this time, with verifiable evidence to support your claims, in order to avoid further problems of communication and misunderstanding. Please do not misunderstand me. I really do appreciate your efforts. Thanks again for your attention to my article. Rollingwagon (talk) 04:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I would like to keep the discussion here and not at my talk page, especially with the claims you are making about my “censorship” of you. As I explained above, I flagged the article as a possible copyright violation, which blanks (not deletes) the page until an admin reviews. After which, an admin reviewed the article and deleted it, not me. An admin, not me, would have to reinstate your article, if it was approved for reinstatement. Whether or not the article was in fact a copyright violation (which I do not believe has been agreed upon in this discussion?), either way I believe my action of flagging it was correct, as any possibility of a copyright violation is to be flagged and reviewed by an admin. It is not standard policy to ask the editor’s permission first. It was comments such as these, about wishing to be contacted first, that led me to believe you are disagreeing with WP policies. In an attempt to not get this discussion any further off topic, I am striking out my comments regarding your position so that we can move on.

For what it is worth, it is my personal opinion that editors have worked hard to explain WP policies to Rollingwagon without success. It is also my opinion that the earlier comments about the reliability of some of the sources used would be an issue if the article were to be submitted again. If the article was to be submitted again, I would not choose to review it, as I think it best to remove myself from the situation at this point. I think more experienced editors would be better at handling this. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 05:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I don’t think anything else will come of this coversation remaining open. The AfC was nuked for word-for-word WP:COPYVIO. The current state of the bio on Amazon has the following notice at the bottom ”((The author has asserted his right to allow free and unrestricted usage of this material, in whole or in part, on all websites worldwide, including Wikipedia, Bangkok Books, Myspace, Reverbnation, Facebook and others. No other party has the right to censor, prohibit or block use of this material for any reason.))”; however, this disclaimer was not listed on the cached version from 13 October. I don’t think this would end up getting overturned at DRV.

Christopher Johnson has a very diverse career and notability may very well be proven, but at this point the best bet would be to start from scratch and work on a new article in your userspace. Ishdarian 04:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The latest lengthy screeds above indicate that Rollingwagon has either not read our policies, which have now been pointed out to him multiple times, or has chosen to ignore them. While previously published material can be re-released under a free license and potentially used here, the notice on Amazon is not sufficient in any way for Wikipedia’s purposes. It must specifically state that the material is released under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License which of course allows the re-user, i.e. Wikipedia’s editors, to “censor” it as much as they wish. They can and indeed must delete anything which is not verifiable and rewrite it so that it adheres to a neutral point of view. Those are two of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia and they are non-negotiable. Rollingwagon has to understand that if he eventually releases the text under the proper license, it will be changed beyond all recognition. The article should be re-written from scratch with references from reliable sources entirely independent of the subject which discuss him and his work in depth (if such references can be found). Those are our policies and there is little point in arguing them further here or continuing to give this editor a platform for his (not so thinly) veiled legal threats against any editor who criticises the quality of the article or the quality of the sourcing. Voceditenore (talk) 05:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Based on the Amazon biography, assuming the basic info checks out, I’d say Johnson is probably notable by Wikipedia standards, so Wikipedia practices support our having a biography of him. Per WP:AUTOBIO it’s best if the biography is written by people unconnected with the subject. The Amazon page has a lot of interesting material that’s a good starting point for research, but most of it can’t be used directly in Wikipedia since it doesn’t have RS citations. I tried Rollingwagon’s suggested google search “Christopher Johnson japan journalist” and did find a bunch of material, a lot of which is pretty contentious. [65] (from a blog hosted on economist.com) is an example. I’d be ok with our citing that piece for some point in the article per WP:NEWSBLOG, but for backing the main shape of a biography, I’d prefer regular economist.com editorial content (especially from the print edition of the magazine) to a blog on the site. Maybe something like that exists: I didn’t search extensively.

On another issue: Rollingwagon, I’m sure you know that all professional writers have had to learn how to express themselves concisely. Could you please be more concise here? Your posts are so long that it’s difficult to find the points they are making. Thanks. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 05:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Reading further in the Google results, I now have doubts about our ability to write a neutral article about Christopher Johnson that presents all relevant points of view while living up to our sourcing standards for biographies of living people. So I’d want to use a heightened notability standard (or anyway a rather strict interpretation of the usual standard) that is in my view appropriate for contentious BLP subjects. There might still be enough secondary sourcing to write an article and it may be better to look in news databases rather than Google. In principle I’m willing to help with this, but I have limited wiki-time over at least the next several days. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 06:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and advice. I will try to keep this more concise, as per your requests.

I have never made legal threats against anyone at Wikipedia. As a newcomer, I simply asked questions about policies regarding libel, harassment, bullying. This does not constitute direct or veiled legal threats, and should not be interpreted as such. I hope it’s evident that I’m trying to work with a spirit of collaboration and cooperation, despite the frustration and hassles of waiting for weeks for an article to clear the backlog, only to find it rejected and quickly deleted.

I have indeed read through Wikipedia policies, in addition to “Don’t bite the newcomer”, which seems particularly relevant in this case. Please note Pillars 4 and 5: “Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner,” and “Wikipedia does not have firm rules.” I did not find anywhere that says that rules or pillars are “non-negotiable.” Could Voceditenore or someone else kindly send me the reference?

I believe my new article is written with balance, the best and most authoritative sources available, an impartial tone, and a NPOV. Nearly every line is based on verifiable facts with multiple references, as per http://newikis.com/en/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view..html Thanks to your advice, I did not include references from unreliable blogs such as Japan Probe, which has done at least 7 articles about Johnson. The articles lack bylines, and the site is run by unnamed persons using pseudonyms only. A number of sites have criticized those Japan Probe articles as being libelous and malicious, distorting facts and fabricating passages. Google search results show removals of some of these Japan Probe articles in Canada, the UK, Japan and other territories. Also, articles by Jake Adelstein about Johnson have been removed due to defamation concerns. Thus I haven’t cited Japan Probe, Jake Adelstein or other potentially libelous articles. But, for balance, I have cited articles critical of Johnson by US-based lawyer Rick Gundlach, who uses his real name and writes reliable commentaries based on verifiable facts. There are a number of academic forums that write and discuss about Johnson, but I can’t seem to access them.

In addition, I have added references from the BBC, CNN, UNHCR, Gulf News and others. I’ve been unable to find several important articles by or about Johnson from the 1980s and 1990s, perhaps due to lack of archives then. Could somebody kindly offer advice on how to find these? For example, archived reports in the BBC, AP, Ottawa Citizen, Globe and Mail, New York Times and others would be most helpful. Please note that due to my inexperience with formatting, a number of formatting errors still exist, such as red lines under references. Could 67.119.3.105 or somebody else kindly help me with this?

In the Wikipedia spirit of collaboration, I’m wondering if Voceditenore could kindly help me work on the Wikipedia entries about Alex Kerr, Jake Adelstein and others authors and journalists, whose entries seem to fall below the standards you mentioned, such as NPOV, reliable sources and other issues. Am I allowed to do this, or do newcomers have to wait for a longer period? Thanks Rollingwagon (talk) 08:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Everyone is allowed to edit articles here apart from a few articles which are sometimes protected or semi-protected for brief periods, usually due to persistent vandalism, copyright violation, edit-warring, etc. However, I strongly suggest that you not edit articles on living people with whom you are in dispute or ones who are friends of yours. WP:COI and WP:BLP has further guidance on these issues. If you have serious concerns that an article here may be violating our policies on biographies of living persons, you can bring them to the attention of the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard. My intervention here was to elucidate the copyright issues, stress to you that you will not be able to control the use of your text once it is published here, clarify what sorts of requirements will need to be met to establish notability of the subject and to verify claims made in the article. That’s where my involvement with you will end. Voceditenore (talk) 09:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I looked through the submission and as it stands I don’t think it meets our standards. Most of the sources either do not mention Johnson directly (much of the article goes off at tangents, which those sources support, it’s a sort of history of journalism as experienced by Johnson rather than a biography) mention him only in passing or are written by him (none of which helps establish notability). A number of sources are blogs or otherwise unreliable. Of the content; much is, unfortunately, uncited or synthesised from sources – a lot of it relies on the Amazon biography which is not a reliable source (because it is submitted by the author or his publisher). So even licensing issues aside this article needs significant improvement to be moved to article space. —Errant (chat!) 10:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments.

As may know, my entry has today been rejected for a third time. Is there some type of policy about this? Can this go on for weeks, months, years, until there are no editors left to block it, and all 77,000 editors have no quibbles? Can editors, adhering to WP:5P, continue to block my entry without supplying evidence to support their claims and assumptions about my entry?

The editor who rejected it today mentioned it should be written from a NPOV (which I’ve done, after several revisions, additions, removals) and should refer to a “range of independent, reliable, published sources.” In fact, my entry contains a plethora of reliable sources, independent of Johnson, who do mention Johnson directly, in stories about Johnson, thus satisfying WP:BLP and WP:COI. These sources include: The Economist, UNHCR, Gulf News, the BBC, CPJ.org (Committee for the Protection of Journalists), RSF (Reporters Without Borders), Straight Goods, Debito Arudou, Cory Doctorow, Japan Probe and at least 20 sites based in the US, France, Japan, South Korea, China, the Philippines, Thailand and other countries.

In fact, Wikipedia has entries on almost all of these reliable, independent sources, who seemingly had no demonstrable personal or financial connection to Johnson when they wrote their articles about Johnson. I think we can assume that going forward, anyone claiming these sources are insufficient or not reliable is in fact being tendentious, and ignoring the Wikipedia policy “Please do not bite the newcomers.” A key point of this is: “acknowledge differing principals and be willing to reach a consensus.” Another is, to quote the About section of Wikipedia’s main page: “Censorship or imposing “official” points of view is extremely difficult to achieve and usually fails after a time.”

Therefore, I hereby move that we at least form a consensus that Johnson is a notable person, and the entry has more than enough independent, reliable sources which have published articles about Johnson.

As for Errant’s statement, one should expect that a biography of a journalist covering historical events (such as wars) would indeed seem like “a sort of history of journalism as experienced” by a journalist. This doesn’t mean that the story is “self-promotional” or “fluffery”. It’s a statement of fact. Johnson was clearly there, from Yugoslavia to Iraq, and it’s an integral part of his WP:BLP. Any dispute of this fact would defy logic, common sense, and overwhelming evidence. If a subject has indeed garnered a number of achievements, and has been involved in historical events, this shouldn’t be omitted because an editor is envious, or has a bias or prejudice against artists or journalists being part of well-known events or working alongside famous persons.

Thus, I move that we all agree that it’s correct to include Johnson’s personal history as part of these historical events.

As per the licensing and copyright issue, it seem preposterous that Johnson would somehow block Wikipedia usage of his bio, or make a copyright claim against Wikipedia, when CC-By-SA has allowed Wikipedia to use perhaps 100 of his high quality photos for Wikipedia entries over the past few years. The Amazon bio does already seem to satisfy WP:DCM. Thus, I move that we form a consensus that WP:COPYVIO is no longer an issue.

As per Errant’s concerns about my entry not yet meeting the loftiest standards, I’m wondering if we could possibly collaborate on a project to apply these same standards to thousands of other articles, starting with the entries I’ve mentioned previously: Alex Kerr, Jake Adelstein, Richard Lloyd Parry and others? Thanks again for your help, and I look forward to your replies Rollingwagon (talk) 05:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Rollingwagon,

  • Some parts of the Amazon biography really are quite fluffy, particularly the book blurb stuff near the end (book blurbs are promotional by nature). I generally agree with Errant’s assessment of the page. If we chop those fluffy bits out and can source some of the other stuff though, there’s still potentially good info in there that we can use. (We can’t use the Amazon page itself as a source as the article currently tries to do: we need sources that are published through editorial processes independent of the biography subject). I do think some of the other sources listed are likely usable already, but there is still work to do.
  • I think any remaining license issues about the Amazon page can be fixed if someone like Moonriddengirl (MRG) suggests license wording that Johnson can put into the page, and Johnson uses MRG’s exact wording. MRG is very knowledgable about this stuff so the rest of us tend to defer to her about it.
  • I want to re-iterate MLauba’s advice. There are some quite unflattering allegations about Johnson in some of those Google hits, that currently aren’t reliably sourced but that haven’t been discredited. Therefore it’s at least possible that at some point, if Johnson gathers more public attention, those statements will find their way into reliable sources. And if that happens, the info probably will be added to Johnson’s Wikipedia biography. MLauba warns of a possible situation where Johnson then tries to get the info removed from the article, and is refused, and there’s a lot of anger and sad faces. Or similarly, Johnson tries to get the biography deleted and is again refused, so the high-visibility page that you’re requesting about Johnson is left forever beaming this nasty stuff all over the world. I personally don’t understand why anyone wants to be the subject of a Wikipedia biography. If someone were trying to write a WP biography about me, I’d do everything I could to get them to stop. Please ask Johnson, does he really, really want a WP biography? I’m generally supportive of deletion requests by biography subjects, but I’m in a minority. Some people have fought for years to get their biographies deleted.
  • Anyway, once the license issues are sorted, if you really want to proceed, I think the next step is to put the page into the WP:Article incubator and ask for help from some uninvolved editors who are willing to do a bit of additional research. (ANI isn’t the place for that). I have access to a few library databases like Proquest and Ebsco (unfortunately not Lexis/Nexis). I’ll probably be away for a few days but can do a few lookups when I get back, if that helps.
  • I get the impression that you’re at least in contact with Johnson. I’d advise when you ask for editing help, that you say exactly what your connection with him is. It’s ok if you have a WP:COI as long as you let us know what it is, and defer to independent editors about the article content when appropriate. It’s better to avoid having an undisclosed COI, since an awful lot of the time, it leads to unexpected situations with more anger and unhappiness as above (I’ve seen this more than once).
  • Under the circumstances I think it’s best to concentrate on Johnson, and not get involved for now with the articles about Adelstein or others who Johnson is having disputes with or is connected to.

Well, now I’m the one going TL;DR. I better stop. Also I’m sorry if I sound grouchy but it’s late and I should be sleeping.

Regards, 67.119.3.105 (talk) 06:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, which contain helpful points indeed. Please note that my current submission, after several additions and removals today, now looks significantly different and more developed than the Amazon bio. Since the Amazon bio (found on multiple sites) was the root problem causing this discussion to land here, it’s probably best if we focus on the new material on the current updated version. Perhaps you haven’t had time to peruse the new version. After some online research, I’ve added several reliable sources with articles about Johnson, and subtracted the “critical acclaim” section, leaving just the essentials about the published novels, and fattening up the journalism career section. Please see the main body of the text, not the long reference list at the bottom, which hasn’t been updated. (Unfortunately, this misled Ishdarian. Mea culpa.)

I concur with your advice about Moonriddengirl (MRG).

As per the nasty and unflattering comments about Johnson found on Google searches, I suppose libel laws and Wikipedia policies about source reliability would ultimately shield a Wikipedia entry from vandalism. One can assume that Johnson, like other authors, war correspondents or controversial figures, is conditioned to withstand or outfox attackers. Johnson’s own writings, and other reliable sources have generally discredited the malicious claims, and Google and Youtube have removed some links due to policies about defamation, harassment, bullying. Online bullying/vandalism is indeed becoming a larger issue worldwide, and people are indeed likely to continue attacking Johnson or other figures if they gather more public attention, as you say. Fortunately for Johnson and other targets, the haters tend to get bored and move onto newer targets to attract attention. But I defer to your advanced knowledge of previous attacks on the sanctity of Wikipedia.

Yes, please do sleep, and don’t worry about TL;DR. It’s worth reading. Thanks Rollingwagon (talk) 07:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I see that MRG did suggest some license release wording from WP:DCM, below. I hope you’ll read WP:DCM as it explains a little more what you’re getting into. I think a bunch of us are uncomfortable because some of your posts (especially the earlier ones but also the more recent ones) give the impression that you expect to control the article contents more than you’ll actually be able to. WP is fairly good about keeping malicious attacks out of BLP’s, but if something is reliably sourced and deemed relevant and is presented neutrally, it tends to go in and stay permanently whether the subject likes it or not. I hope you’re ok with that. Anyway, goodnight for now. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 08:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

         …..Why are you blocking me? L

As of this point in time, Christopher Johnson has not punched out Gavin Blair or Jake Adelstein or James at Japan Probe, but we can always hope that once in his life he’ll live up to his threats and then be put in jail. Hopefully, he’ll end up in a Japanese jail where he won’t have Internet access. So we don’t have to read his self-pitying rants (which alternate with sneaky attacks and temper tantrums). We’ll miss ya, mate.

BTW, does anyone know why the Japanese police keep calling Christopher Johnson’s girlfriend about him? Could it be that the Japanese police are actually enforcing the law? (In Japan, threatening people is a crime.) But that’s an unfair thing to say. Chris Johnson is capable of more than one crime: slander, stalking, there are others he could do if he tried. Let us know when you know!

If you would like Christopher Johnson to shut the fuck up, take down his trashy blog, and stop harassing people who work for a living, let him know at @goyamagazine or [redacted] @globalitemen!

He loves attention and he’ll write you back.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s