Talk:Johnny Harris (journalist)

Bright Trip

there are no secondary sources talking about his company. I think the whole section should be removed. Wikipedia is not a place to promote new things to the world. 1Veertje (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed; removed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Why is it still mentioned with a source written by the company itself and the promotional and redundant statement "to help people travel smarter"?89.204.135.69 (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Good question. And it still stands to this day. 2804:14C:6588:848B:65D6:E013:1A9:4C67 (talk) 03:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Criticism of youtube videos from historians missing

Criticism of youtube videos from historians missing 179.214.113.34 (talk) 04:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, if you can add a reliable source to it, feel free to add it to the article. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 06:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

In response to @CX Zoom's comment "Kyiv Post is not mentioned there", here is another source that is not the Kyiv Post.

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking-health-and-nutrition/many-mistakes-johnny-harris

However, I'll also point out that WP:RSPS is not an official policy page, and Kyiv Post not being included does not imply that it is not a reliable source. Ybllaw (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, RSPS is not a policy page, it is a summarisation of all discussions regarding a source and so if you add unreliable sources as per RSPS then it will likely be removed. Secondly, I did not say that Kyiv Post is unreliable. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 14:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Then I must have incorrectly assumed that is what you meant from ambiguity. I take that back then. Ybllaw (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Dum0bqWfiGw

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pAeoJVXrZo4

https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/american-journalist-filmmaker-presents-crimea-as-part-of-russia.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:6588:8151:C57E:40B:39E9:EA3C (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

YouTube videos are not reliable, but Kyiv Post appears to be reliable. Feel free to edit the article yourself. Just Be bold and write it in your own words, provided that it is supported by the Kyiv Post article. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 10:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Just a question here, obviously a newbie in here, but does this mean that objective critical youtube material is considered less reliable than a newspaper which relays war propaganda (understandably maybe). Is this viable considering the amount of quality material emanating on Youtube and the deterioration of the classical medias. Redriver999999 (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Redriver999999: WP:RSPS has a list of sources with their degree of reliability. Kyiv Post is not mentioned there, so you can open a thread at WP:RSN on discuss its reliability with the Wikipedia community. As for YouTube, videos can be produced by anyone, with any content, true or false. So, it is 'usually' not considered reliable, but YouTube videos uploaded on official channels of media are considered to inherit the degree of reliability of that media company. For example, NYT's YouTube videos will inherit the reliability of NYT newspaper/website, same for Fox, or France24, etc. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 09:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. I don't necessarily want to question the reliability of the Kyiv Independent. It is more a question about biases in media, a newspaper can be biased,propagandist (in times of war) or outright conspiracist and so can YouTube channels. I am thinking about how all the knowledge that is being accumulated on YouTube bu individuals can be passed on as sources in the future as it is slowly replacing a portion of traditional media especially when it comes to Wikipedia pages on YouTube personalities. Redriver999999 (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Please, anyone just do a thorough fact checking of his videos on history against scholarly sources. He gets way more credibility than he should and to the detriment of the public good. He just needs to be brought back to his senses to be a competent journalist. 2804:14C:6588:8151:2D9D:55A7:BABA:44CE (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Please, it is nearly one and a half years since I first raised the issue and there still is no mention of his numerous factual mistakes on his videos on history and economics. There are jokes going around about experts debunking Johnny Harris being a YouTube video genre by now. Could someone who knows the precise rules of wikipedia take a look on this issue and make appropriate additions to the article? 2804:14C:6588:848B:65D6:E013:1A9:4C67 (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Two and a half years and no mention of his gross mistakes on many of his videos. 71.61.104.174 (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

On December 15, 2024, Harris posted a video attributing the Russo-Ukrainian War largely to NATO expansion, a viewpoint that a Kyiv Independent reporter argued aligns with Kremlin propaganda and omits historical context. The author argues that this was a microcosm of Harris' tendency in "prioritizing sensationalism over facts and disregarding history," especially regarding NATO and Russia. Furthermore, Jonathan Jarry has criticized Harris' coverage of scientific, historical, and economic issues for oversimplifying or misrepresenting facts or omitting key details. Jarry had condemned Harris for a video that was written with the World Economic Forum for only disclosing the partnership at the end of the video, claiming that the purpose of the video was not for education nor journalism, but for advertising.

I added the above section to the article. While The Kyiv Independent is not listed on WP:RSP, it is a frequently used source on Russian invasion of Ukraine (11 times by my count), so I suspect it should be considered a reliable source on issues related to Russia and Ukraine.

I can see how under WP:UNDUE, having four sentences may seem to be too negatively biased against Harris, especially since it's based on two sources and there is, in general, not much content in this article. I am most skeptical of sentence 4 (regarding the World Economic Form) since it's an accusation that has not been reported on much. I would be fine with just reducing it to just the first and third sentence. John Kinslow (talk) 05:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Johnny harris.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Poor sources

Most sources are written by Johnny Harris himself (his YouTube videos, Vox articles, two NyTimes articles, and LinkedIn page). Some are pretty flimsy, such as a link to an "alumni celebration" article by Brigham Young University, an LDS-sponsored school. The article seems in a pretty poor state. Ybllaw (talk) 14:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

They're usable but you do have a point that the article in its current state vastly overuses primary sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, the Emmy he won in 2022 is mentioned here: 43rd News and Documentary Emmy Awards. Also cited here on Hollywood Reporter. The existing link goes to a statement by the New York Times itself which in this case, as you point out, could be regarded as a primary source, since they (with Harris) are the ones who won the award. Novellasyes (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2025 (UTC)