Talk:Jim Goad

cease fire

With all the editing that has been going on here I'm surprised to find that the talk page has never been used. The article is now locked down for three days, I suggest you all use this time to discuss these issues, although I have also had to block one of the primary combatants for making a legal threat. Note that WP:EDITWAR makes no distinctions about reverting anything that is not blatant vandalism, so when the protection expires everyone who had been edit warring can consider themselves on notice that it will not be tolerated. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

education & background

The article citation incorrectly states Jim Goad was accepted to NYU. It only says he WANTED to go to NYU. Machinegunetiq (talk) 23:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Prison time

This article in The Portland Tribune says Goad served 29 months of prison time for assault on Sky Ryan, and for attempted kidnapping of her. Anything written in this Wikipedia biography about the case should be published in reliable sources such as The Portland Tribune and the article "American Psycho" written by RJ Smith for SPIN magazine. Nothing written here can be supported solely by Goad's own website. The stringent requirements of WP:BLP apply to this biography of a living person. Binksternet (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The sources are very clear on the history here. I just restored a section removed on his arrest record removed by another editor; hopefully they will clarify their concerns here. VQuakr (talk) 02:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I found the section lacking, one sided, and quite amateurish for the standards that Wikipedia tries to set for itself. The fact that domestic violence occurred is a matter of public record, and therefore isn't up for debate. However, phrases like "he dumped her on the side of the road" are vague and amateurish. (What exactly is "the road" other than a generalizing phrase?) Also, since the SPIN article makes mention of the voicemails Ryan sent Goad, I would propose those recordings be linked here as well: MP3 Format NateTheHun (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

No freekin' way anything from jimgoad.net is going to be presented here as supposed evidence against his accuser in court. The word "dumped" is descriptive and graphic, but could possibly be replaced with something equivalent. Do you have any suggestions? Binksternet (talk) 03:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a courtroom, and it's not being proposed as any kind of evidence. However, since the point was brought up, and if I may say in a VERY biased fashion, the recordings are more than relevant, at least for archival purposes in the face of the issue. As for "dumped on the side of the road," I would suggest a more nominal, less venomous re-phrasing or rewrite, perhaps taking cues from other impartial sources on the event. NateTheHun (talk) 03:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I was looking for specific wording suggestions from you, and I am looking forward to seeing your version. Again, there is no possible way that files from jimgoad.net will be presented in this article, per WP:BLP where accusations against another living person must be extremely well sourced. Goad's website is not a reliable source, not an independent source. Binksternet (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps say that she was left on a Portland road/street/highway after the assault? NateTheHun (talk) 04:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I changed the word "dumped" to "left" as that seems less loaded and neither source uses the word "dumped" that I can see. VQuakr (talk) 05:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I also reversed the parties involved in the restraining order as whoever wrote the entry had it backwards. From page 106 of the SPIN article, last paragraph: "Goad had a restraining order issued against Ryan and still the couple would get back together." NateTheHun (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

They both obtained restraining orders against each other; Ryan's was the later one. Binksternet (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it was Debbie who issued the first one, then it was Goad against Ryan on the second one. I put this stuff in the article. Binksternet (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Italics.

Why are some of the quotations in italics? Not cool. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done I took out the italics. VQuakr (talk) 02:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Why are there quotes at all? That's not Wikipedia style. It shows a lot of promotional bias. TheNate (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Family

I'm wondering why Binksternet decided to re-add the family section when he himself deemed Goad's wife and son irrelevant in an edit. NateTheHun (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been consistent on the family, leaving that bit in place. I think it is interesting for the reader where he lives, etc. Binksternet (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That's an awfully shaky statement to make, there. Why would you think anyone would be interested in his family and residence? NateTheHun (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It's simple biographical information, common to Wikipedia articles about people who have families, and have information published about them. Binksternet (talk) 06:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

From your own words, it's also irrelevant. You said that his wife and son are unlikely to be of any importance on the edit history page, so what exactly do you get from putting them back on the main page? Also, what is the point in making the article subjectively interesting when it's supposed to be an encyclopedia entry?NateTheHun (talk) 07:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

My only thought was/is that family information is often included in Wikipedia biographies. It's not more complicated than that. Binksternet (talk) 07:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, the Family section is irrelevant. I'm reverting it, as there's really no published mention of them anywhere except Goad's own page. NateTheHun (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup/Rewrite/Formatting

I'm rewriting this article currently on my user space. All the information is developing as fully cited through reliable secondary sources and will follow in the footsteps of quality BLP's. Just giving you all an FYI. Rock on! :) SarahStierch (talk) 04:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Very good! And please make it shorter and have it take less on the extremely detailed personal subjects and put a bit more emphasis on the broader publicly relevant issues. This emphasis on Jim Goad's personal life is best suited on his personal website. As far as I can tell, most of this is not much more than a very personal and poorly disguised advertising campaign. Most of it is not relevant in a encyclopediatic way apart from a celebrity who-is-who, which Wikipedia is not. Shortening redundancies is generally a good thing! --85.181.47.102 (talk) 06:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for redeveloping the material. I would counter the IP's concern by pointing out that Goad's abusive relationships have been covered in widely seen periodicals, and that they form an important part of how the public sees him. Binksternet (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Blockquotes by Strausbaugh, Goad, Cho

How are those blockquotes insightful? They do nothing but promote Jim Goad by attaching his name to famous fans. Other authors on Wikipedia do not have this done for them, and I don't see why you feel Mr. Goad is special enough to warrant an exception. TheNate (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

As for my reasoning, I'll refer you to the Wikipedia style guide:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles

I am acting in accords with my understanding of these generally accepted policies when I remove these quotations. If I am in error, please show me where. TheNate (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The style guide in your link says about quotes, "If you wish to, or must refer to an opinion, first make sure someone who holds some standing in that subject gives it... Then say who holds the opinion being given, preferably with a source or a quote for it." There is no further advice on what quotes to include or to forbid. I think Margaret Cho is as much an expert on interpreting Shit Magnet as anybody else, and John Strausbaugh is a valid expert on Goad after interviewing him. The quotes seem to put the subject into context very succinctly.

Your tone strikes me as false; you appear to be in favor of deleting promotional quotes, but what I see are three quotes, one damning and yet complimentary from Strausbaugh, one self-incriminating from Goad himself, and one damning and praising quote from Cho. The net result of these quotes is not promotional, not at all. I would guess that the damning comments and the self-incriminating quote from Goad is the one you are actually aiming to remove. Binksternet (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you find my tone false, and I feel that's getting close to a personal attack without addressing your reasons or offering evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement1.svg). I have no doubt you are acting in good faith, but I disagree with your direction and I feel the guidelines support deleting the quotes - it's only a loose interpretation that validates their existence.

I understand there is some freedom on the use of quotes; however, authors such as Kurt Vonnegut, Stephen King, Herman Hess, or any other author I could readily find have block quotes in this style. I believe consistency is an important part of making Wikipedia the best it can be. If you can give me a reason why Mr. Goad deserves special treatment these other authors don't, I will back off.

Also, I'm genuinely curious why you feel Margaret Cho's analysis is so valuable. She's a comedian, not a recognized literary critic, PhD in literature, etc. She's never written any books on Goad, worked with him, or given any indication of being more than fan. Does that mean every author's blurb on a book cover should be taken as expert analysis? Can other authors get the benefit of fans quotes? Or should we go through all of Ms. Cho's interviews and only insert her quotes? Any of those would at least establish consistency.

Strausbaugh has more weight as a cultural commentator. I'm fine with including him in the body of the piece, but I don't see why he should be separated into a box quote. Again, show me other authors who receive this treatment and I will concede it's consistent Wikipedia style.

I really don't care about the net content of the quotes, even though I feel all of them establish a promotional tone in some way. I care about making a consistent style across Wikipedia.

I am going to delete the quotes again. I feel my case is strong enough to face dispute resolution with a third party. If you feel the same about your case, I suggest that's where we go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNate (talk • contribs) 13:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC) TheNate (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

For examples of the quotebox in use in biographies, see Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Rod Serling, Ina Coolbrith, Frank Zappa, David Lynch, Aleister Crowley, Gerald Gardner, Gil Scott-Heron, The Edge, Hank Azaria, Miles Davis, Jim Jarmusch, W. E. B. Du Bois, Joe Strummer, Howard Zinn, Neil Young, Brian Wilson, Terrence Malick, Ian Fleming, Woody Guthrie, William Shakespeare, Edward Abbey, Oscar Wilde, and John Updike. The quote boxes hold the person's own words or the words of other people making observations. J. R. R. Tolkien is a biography article that is filled with extensive quotes by and about Tolkien.

Regarding Margaret Cho, I don't see a problem with quoting her. Goad is a pop writer, she is a pop figure and clearly a member of the group of people Goad writes for. She works well enough here.

Again the bit about promotional tone. There is no such tone in the quotes. I don't see your actions as anything except protecting Goad from the negative implications of his violence about which he wrote and about which his biography hinges. This material is critical to the reader understanding Goad. Binksternet (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

+1 on the quote boxes. They're also a nice was for the reader to get a quick look into the personality and reception of Goad without having to read the article more in depth if time (or interest) doesn't allow it. Nice job! SarahStierch (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

There is also no promotional tone. SarahStierch (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

If they're going to be put off to the side like that, in accords with the way it's done with the authors you cited,I find that an acceptable compromise. My goal was to establish consistency in Wikipedia style. TheNate (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

My concern with the quotes

Hi everyone. I'm going to be expanding content related to Goad's career. The reason he's on Wikipedia is because of his career, not because of domestic abuse (or every abuser would have an article on Wikipedia). After re-reading the quotes: all three make mention of domestic abuse. I think that's undue weight towards that period of Goad's life. Even if they are somewhat sympathetic quotes, for lack of a better description. So while I generally like the block quotes - I'm going to play devil's advocate here: I say we remove at least two of the quotes and leave one, so that they don't focus on the fact that "oh he beat up his wife and girlfriend but he's got something great to say and he's one heck of a voice in America today, gosh darnit."

Thoughts? SarahStierch (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I actually decided to be bold and replace the Cho quote with a quote by Chuck Palahniuk, which I think, as another writer in the transgressive movement, provides more insight into Goad as a writer than Cho saying even though he beat someone up he's still a good writer that she likes. SarahStierch (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Goad's popularity as a writer is partly due to his violence in real life, and his willingness to discuss it in his books. It would be remiss of us to try and avoid that aspect altogether.

I wish to see your expansion through; this article could use an expert hand. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The Chuck Palahniuk quote was repeated twice on this page. Either remove the box quote or fix the formatting in the body paragraph on the page. Machinegunetiq (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Palahniuk is quoted twice but not the same quoted text—two different quotes are used. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I looked over at the page and the same quote was used twice. The block quote is simply an extension of the same quote used in the body paragraph crediting Jim Goad's writing. The Chuck Palahniuk quotes both use the same citation as well. If anything, can someone please fix the formatting of the quote that is used in the body paragraph?--Machinegunetiq (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Racism

Out of curiosity, why is no mention made of just how virulently racist a lot of what he's written for Taki's Mag is? http://takimag.com/article/the_day_i_left_the_left/print#ixzz1ZlHAHk8U is a great example, reading like something from a white power newsletter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.48.27 (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

There definitely needs to be mention of his racism , sexism, and transphobia . I feel like Jim Goad had a heavy hand in creating this page. vraydar 21:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanessafaith (talk • contribs)

The man is a well known bigot, Jew-hater, and white nationalist. Why there is no mention of this is beyond me. Lumpydog (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

References

While I agree that the racism of Goad's writing belongs in the article, be sure to have a reliable source documenting it. It is not our role to read his essays and add a judgment of their content to an encyclopedia. Msalt (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Jim Goad/CommentsTalk:Jim Goad/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I would rate this as medium to high on the quality scale, since nearly everything is linked to a verifiable citation.

Last edited at 07:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 19:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

White Supremacist?

It's hard to ignore the words and actions that have been coming out of Jim Goad's mouth recently, particularly in his work Whiteness: The Original Sin which strongly resemble the writings of prior White Nationalist/White Supremacists. I've looked through his most recent works and listened to numerous interviews he's had within the recent years and it seems blatant that Goad embraces some form of white nationalism. S1d6arrett23 (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I know little about his guy, whether he's an identitarian, a white nationalist, white supremacist, or some kind of outsider skeptic supreme, his page should at least note his recent and very extensive associations with white nationalists and the alt-right:

Richard Spencer's podcast: 1/17/19, 5/11/19, 6/3/2019,

Red Ice TV: 1/16/2017, 5/18/2017, 12/12/2018

Ramzpaul: 12/29/2018

Luke Ford: 3/23/2018, 4/27/2018, 7/21/2018, 12/24/2018, 12/25/2018

Jean-Francois Gariépy: 6/8/2018

According to the most recent episode of his podcast (at 1:07:58):

— "I'm not a white supremacist, I'm a Bright Supremacist, I value intelligence"

— All the tests he's seen show Asians and Jews have a higher IQ than non-jewish Europeans.

— He frames this as an extension of his quarter-century conviction that people are not equal, contra mainstream egalitarian views.

He later directly disavows being a white supremacist or white nationalist, referring to the dictionary definition, and also disavows even identifying as right-wing. He says he isn't offended by Richard Spencer's beliefs but doesn't share them.

Going back to the beginning, starting around 26:15, he says America will be more functional if it breaks down into tribal enclaves based on language and race, because he thinks many groups are incompatible.

Anyway, plenty of material here for anyone who wants to trawl it.

Danwroy (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Goad's buddy Jared Taylor also tries to use the same model minority deflection, as one prominent example among many. The article really does need to be expanded to more properly explain his views and activities. Do we have any sources about this related to Goad specifically? Some mention his association with the alt-right, but not in very much detail:. Some are already cited, and the Willamette Week one includes a lot, but is hard to summarize. If any other sources specifically mention his willingness to chat with explicit racists, that would make this much easier. Grayfell (talk) 07:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Jim Goad is now writing twice a week for Counter Currents which seems pretty strong evidence of white supremacist views. (apologies for not adding signature previously.)Crouchback1941 (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crouchback1941 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I will ad something to mention his racist, but not necessarily white nationalist/supremacist views. StrongALPHA (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Unprotect this page

I am unaware as to why this page has suddenly been protected. Whether vandalism or otherwise, this page should be freely available to edit and correct, as Mr. Goad expounds upon his life and life happenings on a consistent basis, often adding new information or changing what he had said before.

Jim Goad is not free to "expound upon his life and life happenings" on his wikipedia page. That is an extreme conflict of interest. Msalt (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Self-promotion

Regardless of anyone's personal opinion of Mr. Goad, I'm not sure what the straight-up ad copy in the "Early life" section is doing in this article. The lone citation doesn't support the idea that he suffered violence from nuns, only that he endured "torturous boredom," and "learned to fight back" is a staggeringly friendly description of his admitted violence against women, including multiple sexual partners. 2601:285:302:7AA0:BDB0:AE8D:DE30:72D3 (talk) 10:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

On a related note, I removed a press-release type quote in the writing style section. The only source was unreliable -- "Counter-Currents" is an extremist publication of the neo-Nazi right wing, described by the SPLC as "an epicenter of 'academic' white nationalism." In fact, the author of the review that was used in the article, Matthew Parrott, founded an openly neo-Nazi political party (the Traditionalist Workers Party) that was involved in violence at several rallies including both Charlottesville rallies. Msalt (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

well-spotted! - David Gerard (talk) 08:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! On a related note, there was a quote box of Goad defending his crime as "defending his life." I removed that as both self-promotion (or excuses, whatever you want to call it) and also as an unverified claim against Ryan, a living person who also should not be accused of crimes without reliable sources backing that up. Msalt (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

1980s-1990s section

I'm trimming excessive detail here and a lot of text that serves no encyclopedic purpose but is clearly attempting to excuse or justify that crime that Goad was convicted of. It's important to remember that Ryan is also a living person and should also not have undocumented and arguably slanderous allegations made against her -- for example that she threatened Goad's life, "beat him up," etc.

Some of these allegations were sourced to the article in the New York Press, a defunct alternative weekly newspaper. I have no idea whether it is considered a reliable source, but even if it is, the article does not report these statements as facts -- it simply quotes Goad while making it clear in the article that he is not a reliable source on the facts of his life. Msalt (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The issue of his wife's restraining order is tricky. The previous article contained this sentence, sourced to the Spin article:

"In November 1997, Debbie filed a restraining order against Goad, claiming he was beating her on a daily basis, eventually withdrawing it, stating she was 'bullied into' filing it and was mad at Goad for having an affair with Ryan."

The restraining order and her motion to withdraw it are a matter of record. Spin magazine quotes her as saying that she made up the allegation, but it's not at all clear who would have "bullied" her into seeking a restraining order. She told a different story in her withdrawal motion to the judge, according to the Willamette Week newspaper, June 17, 1988, which quotes her motion as saying that:

"[He] has seeked counseling for three months and we are now friends after our legal divorce…. If I have a relapse from my ovarian cancer, [Jim] will take care of me and help me out."

Note that she is not denying any of the charges of beatings, just saying that he has received counseling since then, and that he promised to help her financially. Since her statements in court are under oath and interviews are not, her court statement seems to be a more reliable source. Furthermore, the Willamette Week reporter asked her directly if the original charges of beating were untrue:

"Debbie Goad now claims that the original restraining order was 'a misunderstanding.' When asked by WW whether she lied to the judge in order to obtain it, however, she said no."

So it appears that the most reliable source remains that he beat her, leading to the restraining order, while two journalistic sources of approximately equal reliability disagree with each other. I post this here because it's a tricky question, but I will prioritize the sworn statements in the article. Msalt (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection for a week under WP:BLP

I've semi-protected this article for a week under WP:BLP, because of the moving IP persistently messing with the article. If anyone objects, please say so. If the editor would like that change in, they need a reliable source to support it - David Gerard (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Took protection down and the IP came straight back - asking for longer - David Gerard (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

birth date

"June 12th, 1961" https://www.discogs.com/de/artist/434527-Jim-Goad

"Goad met Debbie Rosalie, who was eight years older" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Goad#1980s%E2%80%9390s

Correction: seven years older (she was born 1954, he 1961) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Goad 2A02:8109:25C0:6C8:395F:74A0:5B2C:28E1 (talk) 12:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Birth date here in this obituary:

https://counter-currents.com/2026/07/ode-to-jim-goad/ Blackmetalskinhead (talk) 03:20, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2022

I have credible sources stating Jim Goad's new residence. Can this be added? 2600:6C51:713F:9E00:8DE7:8854:43A9:478 (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

If you are referring to a specific address, almost certainly not. A city or state can be reasonable, depending on your sources. List your sources here and reopen the request then. Also see WP:BLPPRIVACY. Cannolis (talk) 08:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Peter Soto

Proposed addition to the article

In the "Publishing" or "Controversies" section there is currently no mention of Jim Goad's publication and positive endorsement of Peter Sotos' work.

In 1996, Goad published through his imprint Goad to Hell Enterprises the book Total Abuse: Collected Writings 1984–1995 – a collection of the extreme zines PURE, Tool and Parasite, which contain detailed depictions of sadistic sexual violence, child sexual abuse and serial killer fantasies. Goad wrote a laudatory introduction and conducted an extensive interview with Sotos. In addition, Goad had already printed Sotos’ extremely graphic short story “Quality Time” (written from the first-person perspective of child abuse) in the “Rape Issue” of ANSWER Me! #4 in 1994.

This connection is already documented in secondary literature and on the Peter Sotos Wikipedia page, Answer Me! Wikipedia page and should be included in the Goad article.

Suggested sources: • Total Abuse (Goad to Hell Enterprises, 1996) – Introduction & Interview • Peter Sotos Wikipedia article • Contemporary reports on the publication (e.g. Sunday Oregonian) DatenTreu (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Death

Jim Goad has passed July 16th 2026 DarkArt65 (talk) 00:48, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Obituary here states he died on June 22, 2026:

https://counter-currents.com/2026/07/ode-to-jim-goad/ Blackmetalskinhead (talk) 03:21, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Jim Goad died on June 22, 2026, in Albuquerque, New Mexico of long-term health problems. He had just turned 65. He was famous for the nonfiction Redneck Manifesto. My favorite book of his was Whiteness, the Original Sin. Introduced to him through Gavin McInnis podcast, Censored.TV, starting back in 2016. He was a regular content creator on McInnis' podcast. His bit was called Hardballs with Jim Goad. Watched most of his videos. I was a huge fan. The guy was a funny tough guy literati. God Bless.

~2026-40548-94 (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Gee. That's a shame.Dan Murphy (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. jolielover♥talk 03:53, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Death

Today is 20 July 2026.

Someone with more knowledge than I needs to update the article that the subject apparently died on 22 June 2026.

I'm sure if I tried to edit the article, most of my edits would be reverted because I don't know the preferred Wiki formats or merely changing verbs to the past tense, and missing some. Alpine Joy (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Sourcing

He's almost certainly dead, but none of the sources that mention it are reliable.

However, imo the Counter-Currents obituary might be ok situationally. While Counter-Currents is I would say generally unreliable, generally is not always, and given he was employed by Counter-Currents, that is probably a reliable source for something so basic as his passing. I reverted someone using it as a source (in combination with another, even more unreliable source, a substack blog with no history or personal involvement with Goad) but I think in this case, it would be OK. We should discuss it first. @Magnetic Chutney, you added it, thoughts?

I doubt it will be picked up by a reliable source any time soon. For some notable people in this sphere the media never reports their passing and the only reliable sourcing is an academic book like 20 years later. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I think the Counter-Currents source is fine at the moment, I will keep an eye out for a better source to replace it with. Magnetic Chutney talk! 02:25, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok, yeah, I think in context this is fine. I will add it back (but remove the substack) with a note. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but per WP:BDP this won't work. Take it to WP:BLPN if you want, but it's Greg Johnson (white nationalist)'s racist conspiracy theory blog, so that's an uphill battle. For now I've added this from The Critic. It's also poor as a source, but it's miles ahead of Counter-Currents. Reliable sources are not optional.

Incidentally, the same issue has come up at Roger Pearson (anthropologist) who has been dead for quite a while longer. Grayfell (talk) 06:00, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@Grayfell Anyone's employer is a valid source to say they died. It is WP:RS for that. Pearson did not work for the periodicals in question; different case. But I'm sure the two decades of complaints that we're wrong will be entertaining so I'm content to watch them.

The Critic is an opinion piece sourcing it from Counter-Currents (also, it doesn't even really say that he died) so why would that be any better? That's much worse. We'll just have to say he's still alive if that is your objection. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

The Critic source says The writer Jim Goad has been reported to have died as the very first line. While it's safe to say it got this from Johnson's blog, it doesn't say this or link to it. That outlet has editorial oversight, which is more than can be said of Johnson's blog. But, I agree it's not a good source, so fair enough.

Being his employer doesn't make it a reliable source, but maybe others disagree. As I said, you can take it to BLPN if you want this to be more than just WP:LOCALCON. For now the article should presume he's alive until a reliable source comments on this. Grayfell (talk) 06:48, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@Grayfell "has been reported to" is not "he has" (and the fact that it doesn't say where it was reported is actually much worse).

Generally, I would be rather insistent on anyone's employer being an RS for very basic facts about them, for the same reason we frequently cite author blurbs by websites/periodicals/magazines/publishers people write for for information on the authors. What makes an RS is situational and context dependent and employing someone is a direct working relationship that enables that. However, in this case, I think the future complaints will be funny, and I'm sure the whole conversation will be exhausting whichever way it goes, so I am not going to take it to RSN even though I think there is a decent chance of getting consensus for it.

I know of at least 2 notable (may or may not have articles yet) far-righters who died 20+ years ago and for whom this was never reported by non-far righters, even this long in the future. There might be one from the 1990s. One of the more notorious neo-Nazis in America (has multiple full encyclopedia entries by different authors about him) died 15+ years ago and it was also never reported (in that case not even by the far righters). Do not hold your breath on this being sourced! PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:58, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Hey, do me a favor. If you're going to ping me, don't edit your own comments afterword, it just makes edit conflicts.

We disagree on this being a reliable source. I've cited blurbs too, reluctantly. A blurb still has to be a reliable source, and this isn't even a blurb, it's a blog post which is pretentiously labeled an ode instead of an obituary. That's another indication that this isn't a good source for a BLP.

Goad is now completely irreverent outside of the far-right, but his work and legacy historically extended outside of that. Library science sometimes covers zine culture, where Goad was very influential (unfortunately) and Goad's friendship with Patton Oswald is unusual, as well. Who knows, but I'm slightly more optimistic about this than I am about Pearson. Grayfell (talk) 07:21, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry!

The author description on a publication or an author blurb is only a reliable source because of its association with the subject, not because the blurb underwent any meaningful checking. It's not like they do editorial review on author descriptions. For the same reason, if a record label issued a press release stating that one of their musicians had died, and this was never picked up anywhere else, I would be fine using it as a source for the musician dying, even though a record label is not a reliable source. If pretentiousness impacts reliability I believe all of academia is now out.

I presume you meant irrelevant? Well, it's not like they've covered anything he's done recently. And if they do, there's no guarantee they'll cover his death; plenty of reliable sources continue to cover people who have long since died, but simply do not mention that they have died as it is long after the period relevant to the work. The neo-Nazi who I mentioned who died many years ago still gets large amounts of sigcov in academic books yearly - but all stuff from decades prior to his death, so they just don't bother mentioning it. Or they'll just cite Counter-Currents and then we still cannot use that by the same token. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:32, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I did mean irrelevant, yeah.

Since reliability is a continuum, we often have to draw lines that feel arbitrary. I usually cite press releases as a last resort. I don't view Johnson's blog as directly comparable to a press release from a record label. Counter-Currents has a documented history of misinformation via pseudoscience and similar. Being pretentious isn't a crime (fortunately) but being pseudo-intellectual does harm credibility, IMO. I don't think the blog post is a lie or part of some grand deception, but my opinion isn't enough. Since it's been part of other lies and grand deceptions, I think we need better for BLP/BDP claims.

Regardless, I agree that future sources are unlikely, but the Critic source is more attention than Pearson got, even if only barely, so we'll see. Grayfell (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

IMO the only relevant part here is that there is a direct relationship. If some tabloid published a release about one of its journalists dying, I would say that is RS for the death, even if they were a tabloid. I don't see why what they publish is relevant when the reason for reliability / source of knowledge is the direct connection. RS is always contextual. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

But more generally - we'll see, I suppose. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2026 (UTC)