Jump to content

Talk:Mike Cernovich/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Notability

This page should be deleted due to lack of notability Pdmack (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

You are free to start an deletion discussion and make that argument. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

He is a thought criminal so the page must be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40B:8403:9958:7151:C6F8:C76E:7BCE (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

https://infogalactic.com/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Mike_Cernovich has a much better page on Cernovich, we could use that. Weaselkeeper (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

New source

TROLLS FOR TRUMP, Meet Mike Cernovich, the meme mastermind of the alt-right. By Andrew Marantz, New Yorker, 31 October 2016

By the way, the "controversy" section is too long. TweedVest (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a major article by journalist who spent a bunch of time with Cernovich. Have added a lot using it as a source. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2016


Mike Cernovich is not a men's right activist: https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/799710458907217921

204.169.81.47 (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The ref does not support "men's right advocate" Seems to be WP:OR or opinion. 2600:1008:B125:F41:9C5D:CB70:C4EB:34DA (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. This page is not protected or semi-protected. RudolfRed (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2016

Mike Cernovich is not alt-right.

https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/800843651672723456

http://www.dangerandplay.com/2016/08/31/is-mike-cernovich-part-of-the-alt-right/ Dasadidas (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Wikipedia favors independent sources, and the article already explains that Cernovich tepidly rejects the label. Any proposed changes using this template should have consensus first, and should be in the "change x to y" format. Grayfell (talk) 04:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2016

Please take out the alt-right social media context. Just because people follow him does not make his message alt-right only. 2605:A601:904:B900:C49D:8161:9CEB:FA75 (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Grayfell (talk) 23:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

AfD?

I did my best to clean up the sourcing here. The problem is much of the article relies on a single New Yorker opinion piece: Trolls for Trump. From WP:NEWSORG:

  • Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see junk food news).

When you eliminate that and the self-sourcing, there's not much meat here beyond two authors' opinions of Cernovich (New Yorker and Daily Beast.) Do others agree? Should ite be proposed for deletion? James J. Lambden (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I've nominated this article for deletion (link.) James J. Lambden (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Website param for infobox

@Somedifferentstuff: Why remove this? It's standard procedure to have a link to a subjects official website. It's not an endorsement, just an additional resource for the user. See {{Infobox person}}. — Strongjam (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I saw you changed the other article I mentioned so I self-reverted. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Alt-Right term in lede is Original Research

The references either mention Cernovich as alt-right in passing or show that he's alt-right, but he's not a racist. Yet the linked wikipedia page defines the alt-right as a type of white supremicist, etc., which is not consistent with sources obviously using the term alt-right very losely. Thus, this article is engaging in original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.215.124.15 (talk) 12 January 2017‎

Sources describe him as alt-right. Other sources describe the alt right as white supremacist. What are we supposed to do about that? Ignore reliable sources? That's definitely original research. I don't see a problem, here. Grayfell (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
It violates Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons by implying that Cernovich is a racist--anti-jewish (he stood up to anti-semites), anti-middle-eastern (his wife is persian/muslim)--when the sources say the opposite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.215.124.15 (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Nowhere does the article say those things. If it said he was a racist, that would have to be removed, but it doesn't. It reflects, correctly, that he's been closely linked to the alt-right by sources (including himself). The alt-right article, which isn't this article, correctly reflects sources which say the alt-right is closely (but not exclusively) linked to white supremacism and antisemitism. How his actions reflect on his political positions must also be supported by independent reliable source, otherwise it actually is WP:OR. Grayfell (talk) 11:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I think the main problem is that the term "alt-right" is not well defined. To some, it just means a youthful group of conservatives. While to others ( Richard_B._Spencer , etc.), it requires that one be a white supremecist. This is a huge range in meaning. Many articles are using the former meaning of "alt-right", yet many others are using the later meaning. Because of this confusion and flux in its meaning, the use of "alt-right" in wikipedia without a lot more care than is being shown in the Mike Cernovich lede, whether they[we] realize it or not, results in wikipedia's editors engaging in an ephemeral game that is far from timeless and true in the encyclopedic sense.

The IP is correct. I have removed the description from the lead per WP:BLP. Wikipedia is calling the subject something that he himself refutes (that is sourced later in the article). Mr Ernie (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a press release platform, so we are not bound to only reflect what people say about themselves. Grayfell (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
This is an article by the source https://www.dangerandplay.com/2016/08/31/is-mike-cernovich-part-of-the-alt-right/ . Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
User:Grayfell please gain consensus to include this disputed material before you revert again. Numerous editors have now challenged its belonging. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
As already mentioned above, many, many sources strongly link Cernovich to the alt-right. Cernovich himself at one point embraced the label, also. His blog is not reliable, and could only be included as his own opinion, but it's such a teppid, half-hearted denial that it's hard to take seriously as a valid excuse to whitewash the article by overriding the many other more reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Re-reading the discussion above (Removed the lead calling him Alt-Right) I neither see consensus for "alt-right" nor the "many, many sources strongly link[ing]" him to it. In the last 24 hours it was removed by 2 (now 3) editors on good-faith BLP grounds. Please abide by process and make your argument here - with sources if possible - before restoring. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your confusion is, the sources are listed above. WP:CRYBLP doesn't invalidate multiple reliable sources. Several editors have already explained why your objections to them as "opinions", or vaguely claiming they are not RS, is a flawed approach outside of both WP:RS, and long-standing convention. Grayfell (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't see anyone edit-warring to remove the description while crying "BLP." I do see you edit-warring with multiple editors to restore it. Whether it's a BLP violation or simply UNDUE, consensus is still required. Establish it before restoring. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
So... what about all of those sources? If you ignore what I'm saying and revert anyway, consensus isn't served, and it's only delaying the inevitable. Grayfell (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
WP:RS is clear:
  • Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.
Assuming we all agree with policy, which non-opinion pieces are you counting towards the group of sources you say support "alt-right"? List them and we can examine/discuss individually. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
All of these sources are RS (Atlantic is iffy), none of them describe him as "alt-right" (incidentally two call him an author):
  • Independent: Mike Cernovich, a member of the ultra-conservative group MAGA3X
  • Atlantic: a “new right” blogger and Twitter personality.
  • Politico.eu: Trump supporter and author Mike Cernovich
  • Gizmodo: men’s rights self-help posterboy Mike Cernovich
  • CNBC: "New Right" blogger, self-described sometimes troll, and self-help author Mike Cernovich
James J. Lambden (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
The Independent source is a poor excuse to whitewash the article, since its substance strongly supports his connection to the alt-right. Likewise, a short Politico article which only mentions Cernovich once doesn't invalidate a much longer, much more substantial Politico article which expressly links him to the alt-right as its central point.
You appear very confused about what qualifies as an opinion piece, and you subjective description of reliable sources as such doesn't invalidate them. At no point did anyone suggest that every source called him alt-right, so these other sources only serve as a distraction. We are not trying to tally up an adjective score-card of every passing mention, that would be pointless at best, and blatantly manipulative at worst. The point of the lede is to contextualize who is he is and why he's notable. The current lede utterly fails to do that. Grayfell (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Twice now you've accused me of being "confused" - it would be better to focus your comments on content.
The lede of the Independent article which says: "an effort to distance themselves from extreme ‘alt-right’ groups", does not "strongly support" his connection to the alt-right, as you suggest.
The politico article you link (which I agree is more comprehensive) introduces him as "Blogger Mike Cernovich", then sequentially describes him as: "former lawyer, Cernovich", "an avid consumer and progenitor of conspiracy theories", "an early Trump supporter" The first connection in the article of Cernovich to the alt-right says he does not identify with it:
  • In the past, he had identified as a “fellow traveler” of the alt-right, but by the time I showed up at his tour bus—this was two weeks after Salutegate—things had changed. “The small contingent of distasteful people in the alt-right became so territorial about the expression that they scared off moderate right-wingers,” he said. “And that’s what they did to me.”
What we do is characterize him as most sources characterize him. To that end it makes sense to survey the sources. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
The phrase "fellow traveler" only makes literal sense if we accept the existence of a formal membership in the alt-right, which is false. Historically it was used pejoratively for people who belonged to the ideology but didn't want to burden of having that label applied to them. In other words, openly admitting to being a fellow traveler defeats the purpose, and is the same as admitting to belonging to the movement.
The title of the Politco article is "The Alt-Right Comes to Washington", and it focuses heavily on Cernovich because he is part of the alt-right. That's baked-in to the article. This hyper-granular focus on which words are adjacent to his name as the sole indicator of how to describe him is pedantic. The substance of the article, including the part you're quoting, says that he is distancing himself from the term specifically because it's so widely applied to him, and also because it's politically expedient to do so. The article also specifically talks about ...the new ambiguity about who is or isn’t part of the alt-right, or the alt-light, or new right. In context, Cernovich's comments are not a remotely compelling denial, even by Wikipedia's relatively accommodating standards. If you want to expand the article to explain his eventual refutation of the label, that's fine, but he was a defining figurehead of the alt-right when the term rose to prominence, as widely supported by many reliable sources. Those sources include some opinion, but also many reliable news sources. If you want to further expand the article to include that he's a pizzagate booster or whatever, that's also fine, but the conspiracy theories he pushed have been universally rejected by reliable sources, and we should not allow the article to even subtly imply otherwise. Grayfell (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Headlines aren't cite-able. The article doesn't say Cernovich rejects the label because it's "politically expedient" - the thrust is the internal battle for the label "alt right" and rejection of Spencer by the others profiled. Spencer says the others should use "alt-light" instead, the others either reject the label or want to boot Spencer and retain it.
I thought the "fellow traveler" quote was in reference to Cernovich - I was wrong; it referenced Yiannopoulos. Here's what the article says about Cernovich and the alt-right:
  • To that end, Cernovich has condemned Richard Spencer and disassociated himself from the “alt-right” label, even though he believes the Nazi saluters at his conference were leftist plants sent to make the alt-right look bad.
We need more than that to describe Cernovich as "alt-right." James J. Lambden (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
More than what? All the other reliable sources I've presented? Grayfell (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The best way to convince editors the label is due is with specifics: which sources and what text? James J. Lambden (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The NYMag, Politco, and Mother Jones articles to name three clear obvious ones. The sources are consistently including Cernovich in the Alt-Right, and the cycle of demanding everyone list the sources for you and then calling them all "opinion pieces" is beginning to veer into IDHT territory. Parabolist (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
The Politico source we just discussed does not say Cernovich is part of the alt-right - it says he's "disasocciated himself from the alt-right label."
It's impossible to rebut all possible arguments from all possible sources in advance, that's why it's important to present specific sources and specific text as I've done. That's a reasonable request and the most productive way to settle this definitively. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing that supports former alt-right description

All 3 of these of these sources support the former alt-right label [1] [2] [3] as well as this self description [4] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

See this source [5] and this edit [6] regarding "new right". -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 06:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

This Atlantic article (like the Politico article) examines the split in the alt right (between people like Spencer, and Cernovich.) The feud was a positive step in his mission to separate himself from the alt-right. Cernovich said he “for sure” sees himself as the leader of the “new right.” The more recent and in-depth sources suggest former so I think it's appropriate to use past tense in the lede. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Extremely biased article

This reads more like a hit-piece than an encyclopedic entry. it proclaims him a member of the alt-right despite no sources to back it up. At the bottom under "Media and Views", it says he admits to being a misogynist. The source given is a sarcastic tweet making fun of Canadian policies. I'm gonna go ahead and remove this unless someone gives a good reason not to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.23.76.56 (talk) 06:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC) The lead says other people call him a member of the alt-right, but is that really fair? Clearly the purpose of labeling him as such is to discredit him. I don't like other people's attacks on him being one of the first things people read when they come here. The page has definitely improved, and I'm not going to change it again, but I think it should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.23.76.56 (talk) 03:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Ethnicity and religion of wife

Parabolist Removed the sentence She comes from a secular Muslim Persian background. with this edit. I feel that considering the subject being called as alt-right, new-right, and conservative that this is useful information to put in. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I stand by the edit, what does that information tell the reader about the subject? Parabolist (talk) 23:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
It literally tells them the background of the wife. Nothing more, nothing less. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
And if she had her own page, it would go there. How does the ethnic and religious background of a different person enhance the reader's knowledge of the subject? Parabolist (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
It enhances knowledge of the subject, the same way it does in this talk-page discussion. It hammers down the fact that Cernovich is unlikely a white supremacist/radical Christian extremist-fundamentalist, which the alt-right label tends to imply. If the alt-right label is used in the lede as it is, facts that counter its implication, like his wife's ethnicity, definitely deserve inclusion.
 Done I have included it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

to the knob who wrote the article

Why don't you link to the "debunked" part of the pizzagate scandal, you ideological shill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3B98:E020:7D43:4E0C:A5F2:1590 (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

please change ((STD)) to ((Sexually transmitted infection|STD)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4305:C70:CD62:384B:46E2:BB7E (talk • contribs)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 15:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Secondary sources for views and opinions

This is regarding this edit. He is prolific in his social media and self-publishing output, but that isn't sufficient for including material. Yes, some of it might be scandalous or particularly offensive, or maybe some editors find the content removed to be brilliant, but either way, Wikipedia is not a platform to share his opinions. Without secondary, reliable sources, this should be kept to basic details per WP:BLPSPS. He isn't reliable for statements of fact, nor is he a recognized expert in sexuality or military history or politics or drugs, so his opinions on those things need outside context. Grayfell (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Extremely biased wording

The wording, especially in the intro paragraph is extremely biased. Not only should that info be reserved for the body of the article, but it should be rewritten to be less biased and editorialized. 

-=Eduardo=- (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
This information is already in the body, under the section titled "Media and views". It's mentioned in the lead because it's a big part of why Cernovich is notable. What exactly do you see as biased and editorialized? clpo13(talk) 00:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. It's an accurate description according to many sources and common sense. In plain language he promotes falsehoods (such as Pizzagate, which even InfoWars backed down from) and conspiracy theories (such as Clinton being at death's door). Calling it "biased" is empty and misleading. These are the main reasons reliable sources are talking about him at all. Wikipedia doesn't give credence to WP:BLP violating WP:FRINGE theories such as Pizzagate by implying, even tangentially, that they might be correct. The lead summarizes the body of the article. Grayfell (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Cernovich a best-selling author?

I agree that aspects of this article seem unencyclopedic and biased, however, finding credible information on Cernovich is difficult. For example, the Amazon.com page for his book Gorilla Mindset claims it is a 2015 best-seller, however, no 2015 best-seller list lists it as such. Also, what is the basis that it was the "most successful non-fiction book launch of 2015"?

"Gorilla Mindset was the most successful non-fiction book launch of 2015, immediately hitting best-seller status." Probablynoteworthy (talk) 05:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mike Cernovich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Page shows flagrant and pervasive bias

An apparent mixture of good faith soapboxing, venting, and vague complaints about editor behavior with some personal attacks thrown in for good measure. In other words, nothing actionable. Byrochemist, 81.191.115.125, and other editors are encouraged to raise their specific, actionable concerns about this article, provided they do so in a civil manner. Concerns about editor conduct should be raised on those editors' own talk pages. Actionable concerns about Wikipedia more generally should be raised at WP:VPP. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

I stumbled upon this page earlier and could not help myself from getting quite upset at the entirety of the content in this Page. My animosity grew after inspecting the talk page and history page. What is up with this? My faith in Wikipedia has been dealt a significant blow.. I would go into detail regarding my grievances but have decided to save that for another day- I am starting this thread to open a dialogue concerning my grievances about the Page and anything that may be related. I will end this post by adding a simple breakdown of the references currently used for this Page.. the lopsidedness of sourcing truly is a fallacy to everyone that has viewed this page in seeking accurate information about Mike Cernovich.

File:Breakdown Of Sources.png
Breakdown of Sources

--Bryochemist (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't about balancing biases, it's about reflecting reliable sources - and that includes proportioning as much time or weight to a particular stance as reliable sources do. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Byrochemist, the attitude of PetertheFourth is all too typical all over Wikipedia. All it takes is some schmuck who writes for a "reliable source" (basically, a handful of mainline corporate media outlets) to slander you and then it can be repeated on Wikipedia. The slander need not include ANY reliable sources itself - just because it is on CNN or written in Washington Post or Atlantic Monthly or whatever then it is "reliable", just like Hillary's "100% chance of victory" or WMDs in Iraq or all the lies that served as causes de guerre. If you defend yourself on a blog or Youtube video, and someone sources this to balance an article, this will be deleted by the same mafia because a blog and a video are not considered "reliable sources". Basically, this mafia are lying scumbags themselves, but for such comments one will be reprimanded for not trusting in the "good faith" of people who slander someone and lock an article. Funny enough, I came into the discussion not to point this out but because I would have changed the bizarre statement that Cernovich wrote something in October 2017 - but it can't easily be edited due to the lock. Good job, fascists! 81.191.115.125 (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Ya, I understand that. But Wikipedia states that articles should reflect a neutral point of view.. Judging by the talk page and history of revisions I think it is safe to say that this is a contentious Page. I have found numerous instances of erroneous or misleading statements made in this article due to unreliable sourcing and failure to remain objective. I believe that this issue is mostly a result of structural design flaws in the way Wikipedia articles are managed.. everyone holds inherent beliefs that may influence their writing, potentially voiding any sense of impartiality on the part of editors. Moreover, Mike Cernovich belongs to an interesting subset of persons as he is, more or less, engaged in confronting what pop-culture has ascribed the title of fake news to. Inarguably, his main competitors are the ones where most of this Page is deriving its references from- I see that as a monumental injustice, regardless of the topics contained in the Page. (Bryochemist (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC))

Okay, be specific. List some of the erroneous or misleading statements on the page that are due to unreliable sourcing or a failure to remain objective. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Byrochemist, beware that our neutrality policy is largely based on balancing reliable sources, that in general traditional, established news sources are reliable, and that sources published by Cernovich and many of his allies are for the most part not reliable. You might want to look specifically at WP:GEVAL, which is particularly relevant to this article. Call it a "structural design flaw" of Wikipedia if you wish, but it's based on community standards and it's what we have to work with. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The issue of political labels like labelling Cernović "alt-right" is NOT an issue that relates to any sort of academic research and it is a huge misreading of Wikipedia's policies to say that Cernović's denial of this or that charge or label is not worth citing just because he self-publishes it. All it takes for your kind is for some snot-nosed 30-year-old young "journalist" working for little money on a temp contract writing what he's told without questioning anything to write something for one of the big corporate media outlets and then it's gold even if it's unsourced itself. The tyranny implied in this is apparent to everyone and we know that editors who fill an article with considerable slander and then lock it do not have good intentions - and I'm not a particular fan of the man. In any case, any implication you cannot defend yourself unless you get your defence published in a major media outlet (which now have very low journalistic ethics) is outrageous! 81.191.115.125 (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
A user named Grayfell has threatened me for these posts - is this a sock puppet of VolunteerMarek who first deleted this immediately after posting? Or just his buddy in an oppressive editing clique? VolunteerMarek is known for his hyper-activity on all subjects vaguely related to Russia's role in world affairs. There is considerable literature online about the "EEML cabal". Here is where Marek's former account was censured [1]. Marek cited WP:SOAP, which is a prohibition against treating Wikipedia as a medium for propaganda, which is precisely what I'm complaining about and precisely what he is engaged in! In any case, the Talk page is to address concerns, and Byrochemist's concerns are not being addressed and you can threaten people all you want but that kind of bullying is an obvious violation of your privileges as an editor. 81.191.115.125 (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Radeksz
81.191.115.125, why do you insist on posting and re-posting and re-posting your comments here? Are you suggesting any specific changes to the article, or are you just venting? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Looks like the IP is venting somewhat, however it's (mainly) on-topic and you all shouldn't be edit warring trying to remove it. Cut it out -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 09:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

"On topic" my ass. If they want to "vent" by casting aspersion, calling us "scumbags", and similar behavior, they should do it elsewhere. This is spinning wild conspiracies about named editors based on a superficial understanding of their edit histories and an even thinner understanding of Wikipedia peppered with trivial mentions of extremely vague, totally unactionable complaints about the article. Don't be credulous to that kind of trolling. Grayfell (talk) 10:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Nope, that wasn't directed at any editors - I'm not going to tolerate you or anyone else trying to shut up an IP editor, as we so often see here. Now, the out of place ranting is one thing (we're not a forum etc) but I dare say if you'd all just left them alone and not edit warred over their comments this wouldn't be anywhere near this much of an issue. IP, please consider this an official warning to cut out the soapboxing here -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 10:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
What a tissue-thin technicality. If you're trying to encourage more new editors, letting them hurl insults and conspiracy theories everytime they don't get to steer the discussion seems like an extremely bad precedent to set. It's also an example of the kind of self-described trolling tactic Cernovich is known for. Grayfell (talk) 11:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
It's hardly a technicality when you base your initial response on accusing them of calling us "scumbags" when in fact they did not. When you say it's the self-described trolling tactic Cernovich is known for, I assume you're referring to the IP? In which case, it's very likely I've been defending someone who is attempting to troll the discussion which obviously I don't want to do - what I do want to do though is make sure everyone gets an a fair crack of the whip. Now, we've all got better things to do than discuss this IP (if they are trolling they'll appreciate the attention) and we should instead get back to improving the project -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 11:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I meant the IP, who did refer to a vague-but-not-really-vague scumbag Wikipedia mafia. There is a real problem with letting this kind of behavior slide. Yeah, yeah, we all need thick skins, I get it. I'm not personally bothered by this kind of thing anymore. I'm guessing nobody who's already here is. There's more, though. If you're serious about creating a welcoming environment for editors with different viewpoints, this is a failure. The IP's behavior drives away far more than they contribute. This out-of-order, rambling mess lingers on the talk page, and who's going to want to contribute to a mess like this? What is this supposed to accomplish other than empowering trolling? Don't get heavy-handed with other experienced editors because we try to clean-up totally unproductive garbage. Who really needs more concern, here? The IP who has no hesitation in spilling their guts out on any page within reach? We all might wish they did a better job of it, but I think they're going to find a way to get their say-in no matter what we do. I think we need to be more concerned with the potential editors who see this kind of childish conspiracy theory attack-nonsense and uses that to decide they're not going to bother. Grayfell (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Section titled "Battery conviction"

Since this says it was expunged why is it included? Doesn't including an expunged conviction clearly violate the wikipedia BLP? This sort of thing is always removed from Hollywood-type stars' wikipedia pages. Seems like the editors here are saying that because he's perceived to be politically conservative that other rules or interpretations of wikipedia's rules should apply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.215.113.195 (talk) 04:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Grayfell: where does the source "Trolls for Trump" support the passage
"Cernovich was convicted of misdemeanor battery of the woman prosecutors had previously claimed he raped."?
I can only find
"Cernovich trained as a lawyer. In 2003, he was accused of raping a woman he knew; the charge was later dropped, but a judge ordered him to do community service for misdemeanor battery. (His record has since been expunged.)"
This doesn't say whom he assaulted, nor if it was connected to the alleged rape. Since the rape charge was dropped and the record expunged I see no reason why we should include that here, this seems more like smear gossip to me than encyclopedic material.
Can you cite the part that says that the battery was "of the woman prosecutors had previously claimed he raped"?
What is the reason to keep the alleged rape passage even though he was found not guilty and the records have been expunged?
--Yukterez (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
The source clearly links the community service for battery to the dropped rape charges. The Politico article also supports a connection. The phrasing used here is, perhaps, verbose, but any other reading assumes that both NYMag and Politico are being duplicitous in connecting these two things. As for relevance, multiple sources (such as The Washington Post) specifically say that the rape accusation was important to the start of his blogging career. With that context in mind, the charges being dropped, community service, and the expunge five years later all seem reasonable. As always this could be phrased a bit better. Grayfell (talk) 06:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, this wikipedia article makes zero mention of how such a false accusation lead to his blogging career. In fact, the wording seems designed to attack and humiliate Mike Cernovich. Until such re-wording can be done it should be removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.215.113.195 (talk) 04:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Still zero explanation for why including an expunged charge is justifiable, except as an indirect attempt to smear the man. It's clearly listed in his "personal life" section, with absolutely zero link to his blogging career, simply stated for the sake of stating it. This entire page is clearly some leftie's fantasy. Y'all realize you look like disingenuous, dishonest cretins to everyone, right? Try separating your rabid personal opinions from Wikipedia sometime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.34.49 (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Please review our policies on verifiability and neutrality. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Cernovich himself has written an account of his rape case, initially published as being about an anonymous defendant but later confirmed by Cernovich to be a description of his own case. He wasn't trying to smear himself, or attacking himself because he's in the grip of a "lefty fantasy". He has made this case and its outcome a part of his own story.2601:401:503:62B0:D13:2E8D:1108:3A17 (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

same ol' same ol'

This revert removes a ton of sources and some text which has already been discussed endlessly. It's also the fourth revert in a short period of time, thus violating 3RR. Please self-revert and seek consensus.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

If continually brought up as "same ol' same ol'" then it would lend credence to, in fact, being closer to the true consensus- more so than what was formerly present. (Bryochemist (talk) 08:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC))

Stop Do not remove reliably sourced content because you doubt its truth. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
At this juncture it would be best to make a written proposal on the talk page concerning the edits you wish to make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edaham (talk • contribs) 23:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2017

Can you put int the Media and Views part how Cernovich believes that Hillary Clinton's 2016 Campaign was Funded by the Rothschild Family, according to one of his own Tweets on Twitter[1] and believes George W Bush, Saudi Arabia and the Israeli Mossad orchestrated the 9/11 terror attacks[2] And was born in Kewanee, Illinois according to this website[3] 95.73.31.209 (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://twitter.com/cernovich/status/771988092681158656
  2. ^ https://wearechange.org/mike-cernovich-tweets-saudis-and-bush-did-911/
  3. ^ http://mimesislaw.com/fault-lines/cross-mike-cernovich-the-800-lb-gorilla-lawyer/7034
 Not done These things may be accurate, but in order to include them in our article they need to be supported by reliable sources. In the current events space this most typically means articles published by reputable news media outlets. Specifically regarding Cernovich's beliefs, we'd need a secondary source in order to establish the belief's noteworthiness and to keep the article from turning into a soapbox on Cernovich's views. If you can provide these sources then I or another editor will likely be willing to add the requested content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Writer infobox

I have switched the infobox to Template:infobox writer since his occupation title was already listed and sourced as 'writer'. This is infobox also supports all previous tabs, and add important ones such as 'subject', and 'genre'. VivaSlava (talk) 08:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Remove Gamergate description

"In 2014, Cernovich promoted Gamergate, the harassment campaign that targeted several women in the video game industry, goading opponents with tweets such as "Who cares about breast cancer and rape? Not me."

should be:

"In 2014, Cernovich promoted Gamergate, goading opponents with tweets such as "Who cares about breast cancer and rape? Not me."

Gamergate was not just about women getting harrassed. That's a one-sided viewpoint. Gamergate was also about male gamers revealing the bad journalism going on within the gaming community, falsely making the gaming community seem like it hated women. 174.117.121.225 (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Nope. A dead-and-buried excuse isn't going to alter what reliable sources have been saying about Gamergate. --Calton | Talk 01:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what is dead-and-buried about the fact that the gaming community was falsely made to look like it hated women. I also don't know what you consider a reliable source. I hope you don't expect me to take your word for it... 174.117.121.225 (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Repeating an evidence-free claim is not the winning rhetorical strategy you think it is. --Calton | Talk 03:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Wtf is wrong with these Gamergate freaks? Why do they have to infect Wikipedia (and the entire Internet, for that matter) with this kind of hateful bullcrap? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
@"Dr" Fleischman: First, I seriously doubt you're a doctor of anything besides trolling Wikipedia. Second, your profound ignorance amounts to hateful bullcrap. I suggest you educate yourself before embarrassing yourself for a second time. 174.117.121.225 (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I'll admit I probably don't know as much about Gamergate as you. Feel free to educate me at User talk:DrFleischman. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2017

The second sentence on the main page for Mike Cernovich is improper use of the English language. "Mike Cernovich (born November 17, 1977) is an American alt-right[6] social media personality, writer, and conspiracy theorist. His website "Danger & Play" started in 2012 and was originally known mainly for its content on men's empowerment. During the 2016 US presidential election campaign, it evolved into a largely pro-Donald Trump and anti-Hillary Clinton political blog.[7][8]"

The correct form would be either "known mainly for its content on men's empowerment but during the 2016 US presidential election campaign, it evolved." OR "During the 2016 US presidential election campaign his website [enter name here] evolved into a largely pro-Donald Trump and anti-Hillary Clinton political blog.[7][8]" 2603:3023:B06:DF00:4D29:1778:328B:8F12 (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

No. it's not "improper", since "His website 'Danger & Play'" of the first sentence is clearly the antecedent to the "it" of the second sentence. Simply swapping out "it" with "the website" would solve any ambiguity issues. --Calton | Talk 03:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Calton is correct (well, I didn't see any ambiguity to begin with). Drmies (talk) 03:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Rape apologist and date-rape denier

Some sources for Cernovich as a rape apologist and date-rape denier:

-- Softlavender (talk) 12:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

This is already mentioned and sourced in the "Media and views" section. The issue mentioned in the above discussion was about whether we should randomly mention it after we talk about his book. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Gorilla Mindset description

@Drmies: The New Yorker sources call it a gender studies book. The New York Times source doesn't call it a book on dating, it only uses the word date when mentioning Cernovichs blog post not book content. It also doesn't mention this claim about his book saying women should submit to dominant alpha males. Furthermore what does the thing in brackets have to do with the book? You can say that he holds this view, which is already mentioned in the "Media and views section", but that has nothing to do with book, and putting it next your claim about him saying that the book is about women submitting to dominant alpha males seems like WP:SYNTH to me as the article mentions it in relation to Cernovich not his book. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The New Yorker does not call it a gender studies book... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
His self-published 2015 book, “Gorilla Mindset,” is a manual for men who want to “unleash the animal” within them. The book is filed under Gender Studies in the Amazon Kindle store. Until recently, it was the top seller in that category, ahead of “We Should All Be Feminists,” by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. I have clarified that it is listed as that on the Amazon Kindle store. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
And I have made it clear that this is not an interesting factoid. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: You can choose to remove the "factoid", but as I said in my edit summary one being incorrect doesn't mean another is correct. Please read the source (The New York Time not The New Yorker) that now supports the information and tell me if you agree that is supports the given information, keeping in mind mt comments above. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: I would prefer that we write the New Yorker says it is listed under Gender Studies in the Kindle, which is a fact confirmed by the RS's, rather that the unsubstantiated claim of it being a dating book. I accept that the Gender Studies classification may not be the most accurate, and I am willing to accept that being removed. What is unacceptable is lying about it being a dating book. You can even look at the contents by with the look inside feature. Even if we do call it a dating book that does not explain the bit about women submitting to dominate alpha males, nor the bit about date rape. That is not how paragraphs work. Softlavender Please look at the source and compare it to what the article says. We can call it a non-scientific help book, as that is clearly supported by the article at Salon. I don't care about the friendliness of the paraphrasing, as long as it complies with WP:NPOV, but rather the accuracy. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, if you care about accuracy, I hope the comments below will make it clear that the reported categorization means nothing at all, and that reporting on the report about the categorization is an exercise in futility. Please read Softlavender's comment below re:Seduction community, which actually gives me pause in arguing for "dating book"--"rape manual" might be more appropriate. Perhaps Softlavender can tweak the article text in a more appropriate manner? Softlavender, I'm sorry--I was probably thinking of someone else, but your answers reveal that you are indeed a good person to call on; thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I searched the "WP reference" Google Custom Search under the title, and the National Review simply calls it a self-published self-help book, which is exactly what it is, so I don't know that there's a need for a specific descriptor for it before the title, as publications may disagree.... Anyway I've re-worded the text as such. We can always add RS reviews/opinions of it, if they meet the usual Wikipedia standards. Softlavender (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Edited to add: Or we could call it a self-published how-to book, which is the wording he uses. Softlavender (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with the others that (i) saying the book is a gender studies book is not verifiable; and (ii) saying that it is listed under "Gender Studies" in the Amazon Kindle store is not sufficiently noteworthy. My guess is that that tidbit was included in the New Yorker article to add color and poke a little fun at Amazon. I support calling it a self-help book. Tacking on the word "non-scientific" seems a bit gratuitous (most self-help books are non-scientific), so personally I would leave it out, but I could also live with it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi Drmies, Emir of Wikipedia, I've actually never taken a gender studies class; I'm not sure who you're thinking of Drmies, but don't we have several groups/boards here who are more likely to have this experience? Like Gender Gap, Women in Red, etc.? People like Keilana? I'm an utter non-fan of Cernovich so I'm not really interested in looking into this further, but I hope you get the feedback you need ..... Softlavender (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, having read this thread in toto and observed the dispute, it's quite clear that the book is not a gender studies book, nor does any RS citation state that it is. The random grouping one online marketplace lists it under is completely irrelevant, just as the often incongruous categories Amazon sellers list physical wares under is completely irrelevant – and often completely divorced from reality or logic. Softlavender (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • It's hard to imagine a less informative classification than Amazon's categories. If Cernovich wanted, he could've thrown in some chapters on Serbo-croatian, dental assisting, and colo-rectal surgery and rocketed to the top of multiple lists almost by default. Amazon has made a milquetoast attempt to address this problem with their "Charts" scheme, but this was well after Cernovich's book was released. Yes it's verifiable, but this categorization is misleading and arbitrary, making its inclusion non-neutral and distracting. Grayfell (talk) 23:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Nope, not a gender-studies book, and the New Yorker reference merely notes Amazon's filing. Given that it's a self-published book through their CreateSpace subsidiary, I doubt Amazon even had anything to do with that categorization in the first place. --Calton | Talk 02:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Contents of Gorilla Mindset

  • Now that we have agreed on the classification of the book as a self-help book, could we please discuss the claim that says in which he talked about how women should submit to "dominant alpha males" (he believes "date rape is a liberal fiction"). ? The source says nothing about submission. What has been included in brackets is not relevant to the book, the paragraph where that view is mentioned literally says In a blog post. I propose we changed the part where it says {tq|in which he talked about how women should submit to "dominant alpha males" (he believes "date rape is a liberal fiction").}} to {tq|in which he talked about how men should be "dominant alpha males"}} The bit in the brackets has nothing to do with the book and should only be mentioned in the "Media and views" section. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Source The source in question is https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/us/politics/mike-cernovich-bio-who.html --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
All of that is in the source, INCLUDING two tweets from Cernovich, your normal misreading notwithstanding. The only thing I might change is that the one of tweets seems to say not that men should dominate women, but "alpha males" already do and always will. --Calton | Talk 12:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
What you you mean my normal misreading? My issue is not with saying that he doesn't believe in date rape, but randomly putting it in brackets after his book which it has nothing to do with. The two tweets are about his personal views, not the contents of his book. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Can someone please provide links to the relevant sources so other editors don't have to track them down? And Calton, can we please try to avoid unnecessarily personalizing these discussions? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Texas Church Shooting

Should we use the redirect Texas Church Shooting, or should we bypass the redirect and link to Sutherland Springs church shooting? The source we are using refers to the incident as the Texas Church Shooting, but this was changed by the now blocked sock HastyBriar321. As noted on their talkpage at User_talk:HastyBriar321#Redirects, they have been going around and doing similar changes on other pages. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

This was noticed by Gaia Octavia Agrippa as indicated by their signature in the conversation. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Generally in these situations I try to use the article title if it makes sense and isn't too wordy, as it reads more harmoniously and generally reflects the current consensus on that article's talk page. There's no requirement that we use identical language to what the cited source uses, especially when there's no dispute over over what it was referring to. So in this case I prefer using "Sutherland Springs church shooting." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mike_Cernovich/Archive_1&oldid=847553171"