Jump to content

Talk:Baked Alaska (livestreamer)/Archive 1

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

Labeling him as "white nationalist"

There should be several sources if you're going to use the label "white nationalist" on this guy. All SPLC says is: "featuring such white nationalist figures as Richard Spencer, Nathan Damigo of Identity Evropa, far-right “neo-Pagan” Augustus Invictus, blogger Jason Kessler, and social-media celebrity Tim “Baked Alaska” Gionet." which doesn't substantially back up the claim, more an offhand reference. The Newsweek article calls several other people "white nationalist" but refers to Baked Alaska as "alt-right". In a businessinsider.com interview he explicitly rejects the label. --notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 15:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I second this, it seems like something people are doing to be inflammatory, it's not something he personally believes in as far as I can tell. The sources people are referring to don't actually include evidence or reason to believe he's a white nationalist, and certainly not neo-nazi. I haven't seen much of this guy's stuff so I can't chime in too much but a lot of what people are linking are either buzzfeed articles which are written to get clicks, not report news, or slightly more reputable sources which don't agree with them. For instance, this article (http://www.businessinsider.com/who-is-baked-alaska-milo-mike-cernovich-alt-right-trump-2017-4) certainly does not classify him as a nazi. It basically says he worked for buzzfeed for a while, met racist/crazy people, and realized the people warning the left was going too far were right. I mean the whole article only says "white-nationalist" three times, two of which are in a conversation about him saying he's not down with white-nationalism, and the other is saying someone else was a white-nationalist who was uninvited from an event. I think this article has some real bias issues which need to be addressed. Haxonek (talk) 03:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Guy, did you read ANYTHING posted below or the article itself? Your claim that a lot of what people are linking are either buzzfeed articles... is outright false, as a glance at the first paragraph's sources shows. --Calton | Talk 04:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Among the many excellent sources for referring to Baked Alaska as racist, Nazi, and white nationalist -- and equating the so-called “alt-right” with these sentiments, are the following
Many others can doubtless be found. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
"Excellent" far left sources are really not that neutral.
Chikicreamdaddy (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
All of those are considered reliable by Wikipedia, with possible exception of the last two (I don't know). See WP:RS and WP:RSN. The edits you keep on reverting are not "vandalism" and if you continue to refer to them as such you can be blocked for making personal attacks. You are edit warring here. You've broken the WP:3RR rule and need to undo your last edit. Volunteer Marek  16:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
"In October 2014, it was noted by the Pew Research Center that in the United States, BuzzFeed was viewed as an unreliable source by the majority of people, regardless of political affiliation."[1][2][3] Chikicreamdaddy (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
So what? We don't make decisions based on such surveys. We still call Creationism fringe no matter how many Americans believe in it. Anyway, that's three years ago. It's had a lot of money invested in it since with a lot of new hires, etc. Doug Weller talk 18:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Do i have to watch his 5 hour long streams and pin point all of the times he said he's not racist? Will that be good enough for you to stop libeling this man? It goes against the neutral point of view to include "white supremacist" as the main part of the summary, you can create a sub-section about his personal beliefs to fulfill your political quota. Chikicreamdaddy (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
@Chikicreamdaddy: One's self-identification as "not racist" does not outweigh how reliable sources describe that person. There is no WP:LIBEL occurring in stating what these sources say. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." However the information is ether taken out of context or is not neutral.Chikicreamdaddy (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
What exactly is out of context or not neutral? We have many sources calling him white nationalist and alt-right. We have sources describing his actions/tweets. Is the description of these WP:UNDUE somehow? EvergreenFir (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
This is a perfect example of biased sources. Aleccat 22:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Leah Finnegan (July 21, 2014). "No One Trusts BuzzFeed :-(". Gawker. Archived from the original on August 15, 2015. Retrieved July 27, 2015. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ "Where News Audiences Fit on the Political Spectrum". journalism.org. Pew Research Center. October 21, 2014. Retrieved July 27, 2015.
  3. ^ "Political Polarization & Media Habits". journalism.org. Pew Research Center. October 21, 2014. Retrieved July 27, 2014.
@Aleccatt: do you mean BuzzFeed? If you think it shouldn't be used, you or the other account can complain at WP:RSN with the specific text that you don't think should be used. Recent discussions there have been generally favorable. All sources discussing white supremacism have a bias/pov. Doug Weller talk 13:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing reliable sources that call him a white nationalist

A new article popped up citing Wikipedia as justification for calling this guy a white nationalist, so I come back here and find the claim re-added, even though the sourcing of this claim is still poor. I'm interested in any quotes that could be used to justify this claim. MarkBernstein posted a smorgasbord of articles in response to my previous solicitation, yet only one could even be quoted as backing up the "white nationalist" label. Whether a source is reliable enough to appear in any Wikipedia article is a different standard than WP:BLP and most of the ones Bernstein cited are one step above a blog in reliability. Besides which, I find it strange that you're citing articles that make no claim about him being a white nationalist. Although what matters is what's cited on the page and not the talk page, I'll address the articles Bernstein cited in case anyone thinks they'd make a good replacement citation.

Calls Gionet "one of the de-facto leaders of the alt-right meme army" but not white nationalist; cites him renouncing the label white nationalist. Calls other people white nationalist. Marginally reliable site.

An op-ed on a marginally reliable site. Does call Gionet a white nationalist.

Higher levels of reliable on their hard news articles (such as this) but by no means top tier. Calls Gionet alt-right. Uses "white nationalist" to refer to other people.

Roughly same level as Newsweek. Calls Gionet alt-right. Uses "white nationalist" elsewhere.

On the lower end of the spectrum for reliability. Is at least relevant in that it says Gionet "spent the past few years tweeting neo-Nazi slogans, advocating for white nationalism", although it does not call him a white nationalist.

Not too familiar with this site but it seems to be very decentralized. Calls Gionet alt-right, calls other people white nationalists.

So in summation one and a half sources low on the reliability spectrum as citation for a potentially libelous statement, and the more reliable sources call several people except Gionet a white nationalist. --notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 04:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

In your post titled 'I'm still not seeing reliable sources that call him a white nationalist', you describe sources that explicitly call him a white nationalist. I'm still not seeing how that header makes sense. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Your revision summary restoring this label referred to two articles not cited in the article itself. Even if you believe NYMag.com/SelectAll and Gizmodo qualify as reliable publications AND cite them, I don't think they're of the higher standard necessary for WP:BLP, especially potentially libelous claims. Also consider that WP:NEWSORG says "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." --notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 17:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The standard for not being “one step beyond a blog”in this context is, apparently, any publication that is neither storefront nor breitbart. New York Magazine, for example. Is among the world’s great periodicals. Newsweek is not what it was, but it’s a reliable source.so is business insider. So are the rest.this is merely a superficial attempt to make the KKK and the new National Socialism slightly more respectable.MarkBernstein (talk) 11:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

SelectAll isn't New York Magazine. NYMag.com/SelectAll is irrelevant anyways as long as it's uncited in the article. And any article that doesn't make the claim is irrelevant as well. The standard is not merely "reliable" but the sourcing has to be high-quality. Most of those publications are what I'd call content farms, with questionable editorial oversight. Additionally, WP:NEWSORG says "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." You should also review WP:NPA and WP:AGF. --notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 17:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


Maga Anthem

The article currently states:

After parting with Milo Yiannopoulos, Gionet returned to creating music and videos. In May 2016, Gionet released one of his most successful songs, "MAGA ANTHEM".[1][2]

  1. ^ Ma, Mike. [null.com "Baked Alaska Releases Donald Trump Theme Song: 'MAGA ANTHEM'"]. Breitbart. Retrieved June 27, 2017. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
  2. ^ Hoft, Jim. "BEST CAMPAIGN ANTHEM EVER=> 'Baked Alaska' Sings TRUMP MAGA Anthem 'Build the Wall It Just Got 10 Feet Higher'". TheGateWayPundit.
  1. This is simply untrue. Gionet is still extremely political on his Twitter and YouTube -- even his music is geared towards his political goals. The sentence has no citation, and factuality should therefore be preferred.
  2. There's no reason to mention "MAGA anthem" -- it doesn't inform the reader much about Gionet's political views or political activism, which are decidedly not focused on his musical career. Moreover, the references -- Breitbart and Gateway Pundit -- are notedly unreliable & highly-biased towards praising Gionet's work, even if it wasn't successful or good.

FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, I think it should be included, but without the puffery like "one of his most successful songs". It's relevant to his career in his idealogical promotion of Donald Trump. Plus, it's sourced. There's no need to remove information because you disagree with the political-leaning of the sources. While, yes, I agree with your points on how his views are how he is notable, it's totally wrong to delete something that is sourced and relevant. --Aleccat 18:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

These sources aren't reliable, so we shouldn't use them for statements of fact. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Breitbart has been recognized as a PUS, yes, but this is not regarding a political narrative, this is regarding a political song, in which case, it would be reliable. Aleccat 20:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Err, no, Breitbart has absolutely no basis as a reliable source for music. 0 history of music news or reviews- they're no Rolling Stones magazine. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not edit warring, have it your way. --Aleccat 21:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Yay! PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 17 November 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Baked Alaska (entertainer) → Baked Alaska (activist) – I don't see much in this article to suggest that 'entertainer' is his profession. He doesn't seem to be a professional musician or comedian. 'Activist' seems like the most accurate and neutral description. (Another possibility would be to simply move it to Anthime Gionet, but that would violate WP:COMMONNAME.) Robofish (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose as not known for activism, which seems here to border on a weasel word. Chiefly know for white supremacist or white nationalist efforts; Baked Alaska (white nationalist) might be better.MarkBernstein (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
@MarkBernstein: Edaham (talk · contribs), would support Baked Alaska (white nationalist); whatever this BLP is clearly not an entertainer in any shape or form In ictu oculi (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - never seen him referred to as an activist and not sure if his activities can be construed as activism WP:OR. I've seen him referred to in RS as an "alt right leader", "personality", "charismatic", "troll" <---actually a very very popular one, "uber-troll" more than once and a spray of things we probably wouldn't want to use. References to him as a white nationalist are oblique. I've seen him grouped as such in an article about twitter canceling the "verified" status of white nationalists, but rarely as a direct label. Having his common name (B.A.) followed by his real name in brackets might be a sufficient DAB for the auto-search function in the search bar, although I'd read the article title MOS policies carefully before suggesting that. Edaham (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose: "entertainer" is probably the nicest term we can give him. The most widely used adjectives are (troll) or (white nationalist). FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • For the record, I didn't suggest Baked Alaska (white nationalist) as I thought that might raise POV issues, but it would still probably be preferable to the current title. Robofish (talk) 18:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
@Robofish: we're still left with the problem. In these circumstances it is usually least controversial to duplicate one of the category names. Such as Alt-right writers. @FuzzyCatPotato: @Edaham: @MarkBernstein: Could you live with Baked Alaska (alt-right writer)? Or one of the other categories on the article foot? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
@In ictu oculi: He's not known for his writings -- he's known for Tweets and videos. Is "(internet persona)" valid? FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 00:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I've never seen that used as a Cat or a dab, which means even if moved it wouldn't sit long as a stable title. (blogger) is a dab, but this one doesn't blog. As to writings, tweets are writings in 2017, sadly. I think (alt-right writer) would be understood to be Tweets and trolling rather than essays. At this point we're just trying to find anything that doesn't suggest a vaudeville juggler or Korean boy band idol. :( In ictu oculi (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
@In ictu oculi: is (pundit) an option? or (livestreaming wingnut)? FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 16:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I think (Internet celebrity) might be the one to go with, since Category:Internet celebrities is well-established, and nothing else really fits. Robofish (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Internet troll

Sorry I'm late to the party, but is there any reason we're not describing the guy as an "Internet troll" in the first sentence? That's how he appears to be described by the majority of reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm talking about the first sentence, not the title, but ok. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
"Troll" is not an occupation, I don't see this as viable for title or 1st line. For the article title, can't we just use Tim Gionet? He is referred to by real name all throughout the article, not as "Baked Alaska". ValarianB (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing in WP:LEAD or elsewhere suggesting that only occupations belong in first sentences. If a subject is known for being something, and can be verifiably and neutrally described as that, then that's what should go in the first sentence. (MOS:FIRST: "For topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence.") Famed composer Charles Ives' occupation was as an insurance executive and actuary, and composing was his hobby; but he is known as a composer, as reflected by his first sentence. We're talking about the first sentence here. I'm happy to discuss the title, but in a separate discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Is it violating our policies on biographies for living people to call this dude a neo-nazi?

Per title. I'd say we have the sources to support it, 'not jack horkheimer' says we don't. Discuss. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I need to go to bed but I had hoped the claim could stay out pending more discussion. The admin responding to my request to fully protect the page will decide the severity of the issue anyways and in what state it should be locked. I suppose since the "neo-Nazi" claim has been in the article since October the damage is already done, though it's clear to me the nature of the claim rises to the level that it doesn't belong unless there's high quality sourcing to substantiate it, at least in the form of an objective claim ("Baked Alaska is a neo-Nazi" vs. "Baked Alaska is a neo-Nazi according to..."). You mentioned WP:CRYBLP but the first thing that says is '"Contentious" should be narrowly construed--Looking at the history of WP:BLP, contentious material is primarily that, if untrue, would clearly cause harm to the subject.' The subject of the article has already received such repercussions due to related claims as evidenced by the sources themselves, so I fail to see how this can be dismissed as an insignificant claim.
As far as whether the claim is supported by reliable sources, this article clearly failed for the 3 months the claim's been in it, at least until Peter added additional sources, so I find it baffling and troubling looking through the edit history to see all the previous reversions when the claim was attempted to be removed. It took me maybe 10 minutes to check before I removed the claim today--open up all the sources, look for the word Nazi, look for Baked Alaska or Gionet, and see if there's any direct claim being made about Gionet being a neo-Nazi. Since it didn't meet this basic test it shouldn't have been in this article.
As far as Peter's additions go, it still doesn't pass muster of WP:BLP and WP:NEWSORG to me. As Newsorg says: "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Most newspapers also reprint items from news agencies such as BBC News, Reuters, Interfax, Agence France-Presse, United Press International or the Associated Press, which are responsible for accuracy. The agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it.
"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).[6]"
This pretty clearly excludes AV Club as being a definitive source with sound reasoning.
The only citation I've seen that I consider passing muster--being in a straight news article from a reputable, reliable source and clearly calling Baked Alaska a neo-Nazi--would be user:wumbolo's jpost link, although I don't know enough about jpost to say for sure their quality as a source. I still think relying on jpost alone, when reputable, established, high-tier reliable sources don't call him a neo-Nazi, would be WP:UNDUE. --notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 06:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Either he is a neo-Nazi himself or he is playing the Baked Alaska character, a neo-Nazi. Since many sources call him a "troll", it may well be the latter. See also [2]. wumbolo ^^^ 10:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
The Newsweek article is a citation for him being called an "alt-right" entertainer. You can say "either he is or he isn't" but that doesn't say anything about why that conclusion's justified to be stated as a fact on Wikipedia. --notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 14:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes it is. Sources are irrelevant. "Neo-nazi" is a slur without a clear meaning. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and has to be neutral POV, unlike the media which has a clear agenda and has no problem taking sides or attacking people. If there is some informational content that you want to get across then you need to phrase it in a neutral informational way that doesn't take sides or make value judgments. The goal is an article that Baked Alaska fans, Baked Alaska opponents, left-wingers, and right-wingers can all read and say "Yeah, that sounds like Baked Alaska. That's an accurate description of his work. Oh, I didn't know he did <whatever>, that's interesting." We need to keep removing slurs. Carl Kenner (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Good luck with that. Thing is, we need a lot of sources to be as neutral as possible. On the other hand, we merely summarize the relevant literature, so when most of it agrees on a label, we generally keep it (we don't make value judgements about the literature if it is reliable enough and doesn't belong to WP:MNA). For example, many pro-Iraq War people are called "neoconservative" (arguably a slur) on Wikipedia, slightly Zionist Jews are called Zionists, social democrats are called socialist, etc. wumbolo ^^^ 00:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
The mainstream media has no interest in being neutral (or even vaguely close to accurate) on this topic, so more mainstream media sources will not make it more neutral. We need to phrase things without slurs. Neoconservative, Zionist, and Socialist are not slurs, but "neo-nazi" obviously is. I don't know what neoconservatives call themselves, so perhaps that one is POV, but the others are terms people who believe in those things self-identify as. However, if there are articles using those terms as attacks, or using them vaguely, we should fix them to be neutral and more accurate. Carl Kenner (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
To address Calton's edit comment. If you think "neo-nazi" is not meaningless, then please replace the term with whatever you think it means. For example, instead of saying "Baked Alaska is a neo-nazi", you could say "Baked Alaska has a shaved head and swastika tattoos and goes around beating up non-white people". That's the closest thing to a meaning for "neo-nazi" as I can think of. I'm not going to do that myself though, because it's objectively untrue. If you had some other meaning in mind, then replace it with that. Otherwise we just have to delete the meaningless slur. Carl Kenner (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
CarlKenner, have you checked the sources for that claim? There are four of them, and they all refer to Baked Alaska as a neo-Nazi. We also have an article on that topic, and it has a fairly clear definition. Bradv🍁 02:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Only one article (AV Club) refers to him as a neo-Nazi. Vice and Gizmodo have "neo-Nazi" in the headline but that can be at best described as an implication and thus WP:OR, not a reference. The articles themselves specifically refer to him as "far right" and "alt-right". Forgive the commentary but it amazes me that these clickbait websites seem to be exercising more caution than Wikipedia in this case regarding their specific claims. Then the Daily Dot article is ambiguous over whether it's referring to the other protesters or Gionet. Altogether weak support for a contentious claim that is being stated as objective fact, and no attention seems to be paid to the WP:NEWSORG criteria:
"News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. [...]
"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)." --notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 17:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • PeterTheFourth, I don't agree with others' logic here, but I do believe the current sourcing is insufficient, so I'm removing the content until consensus can be achieved. None of these sources come out and expressly say in their own voice, in the body of the articles, that Gionet is a neo-Nazi. In addition, the gizmodo source reads like an opinion piece and avclub.com is of questionable reliability. Calling someone a neo-Nazi is an exceptional claim and requires exceptional sources; in this case I don't think the current sourcing meets that standard. R2 (bleep) 17:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Maybe it's best to escalate beyond the talk page at this point, because the words of some articles are apparently completely different for me and you. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
You shouldn't be restoring BLP content like this without consensus. Can you please point to a specific source that you feel supports the content? Many editors (myself included) take the position that headlines are generally unreliable. That's why I referred to "the body of the articles." I don't know why escalation would be necessary at this point, but suit yourself. R2 (bleep) 21:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the current sources are insufficient. There are more of them mentioned in this talk page above. FWIW, the A.V.Club article is garbage; its author called BA a "desperate shitheel" and a "shrill, bloviating baby" in another article at the AVC. Says more about him than BA. wumbolo ^^^ 22:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
There has been no substantive movement on this issue in 3 days, so I am going to remove the content at issue as we're required to do pursuant to our BLP policy. Please do not restore it without consensus, as doing so would be a BLP violation. If consensus forms to restore the content then I would not object. I might even join in if we can find better sources. R2 (bleep) 22:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
There are many sources on this talk page already. wumbolo ^^^ 22:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Of course I could have missed something, but I'm not seeing any that support the "neo-Nazi" label. This Newsweek source (which you provided, above) says that his YouTube account was frozen for posting neo-Nazi content. I'd support saying that, though probably not in the lead section as that would be undue. R2 (bleep) 22:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah there is this Jerusalem Post source, which you posted in a previous discussion. That's a good one. Is there any reason why we shouldn't restore "neo-Nazi" citing that source? R2 (bleep) 22:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
R2, I don't give a damn one way or the other, but I just note that you are seriously and irritatingly edit-warring. And if you want to add "neo-Nazi", go ahead--but why remove sources with a-holish edit summaries like "Undid revision 878455106 by Bradv (talk) that's a blp violation - do you need help accessing the sources?" So Ima do you a solid, and simply revert you, since your ping-ponging here in this discussion indicates you're not really sure what you're doing. I'm not arguing against User:PeterTheFourth--that is, I'm not saying the sources don't support "neo-Nazi" (which, BTW, is not a slur); I am saying that that one short mention in the Jpost doesn't establish that, and that I don't agree with your edit warring here, and that I think you should have solid sources and a solid case before you remove a whole bunch of content and their sources. Drmies (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
And let me add that like Bradv I don't understand what the grounds for your supposed BLP complaint are. Drmies (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Drmies, R2 initially removed the word "neo-Nazi", with its sources. I conceded the blp point while it was under discussion here, but restored the sources (without the neo-Nazi bit). R2 reverted me, presumably because they didn't read my edit, and now they appear to have changed their mind based on this new JPost source. I don't know why this source is better than the sources that were in the article - my preference would be to restore the term, with all 5 sources. Bradv🍁 05:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
My sole goal here was to make sure that the word "neo-Nazi" was supported by at least one reliable source that actually said in its own voice that the guy is a neo-Nazi, and as such, I was enforcing BLP. When I found that source I was satisfied. Clearly multiple editors don't like that approach and have taken to harassing me and accusing me of heaven knows what. If you can't be bothered to actually read my comments to understand why I believe there was a BLP problem then I can't help you with that. I have very little interest in this subject matter, certainly not enough to continue subjecting myself to this sort of abuse. Please do not ping me on this matter again. Best of luck. R2 (bleep) 06:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
You make a mistake, you get called out. Where's the "abuse"? Drmies (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Undue weight, old citations, bias, blog posts from bad sources, citation bloat, let alone just breaking common sense, whatever you think of the guy, (of which I think quite lowly), This article opener is atrocious. Literal ww2 nazi generals/field marshalls have more favorable openers. Actual neo-nazis such as David Duke and Richard Spencer aren't labeled so extremist. 2601:982:4200:A6C:C18A:CF65:3788:9945 (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Article needs more content

This article is currently a stub that doesn't include most of what Baked Alaska is known for. I'm not the best writer, but since nobody else seems to be doing it, I'm going to be adding information about his career. If editors could refrain from deleting all my work, it would be appreciated. I know it's not perfect, but you can improve it rather than just removing all the information. I encourage anyone to go through the sources on Baked Alaska and add any information about his work, and the source of his fame, that is missing in the article.

Baked Alaska is a rapper, that's how he got his name. He is a livestreamer, formerly on periscope and now on youtube. He has written a book. Currently, he is known for his Tik Tok videos (and he used to be famous on Vine for a similar thing), which have gone viral recently (see Pewdiepie's latest video). This stuff needs to be written up in the article. Carl Kenner (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Please make sure that all of your additions are supported by reliable sources and do not rely excessively on material published by Gionet himself (or affiliated parties). Anything that doesn't meet these criteria will be deleted immediately. R2 (bleep) 22:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 14 January 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move the page to Baked Alaska (activist) at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 04:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Baked Alaska (entertainer) → Tim Gionet – There is no source for the current disambiguator, "entertainer", and the term isn't even found in the article. Instead the subject is referred to consistently as "Gionet" throughout the article, which implies that there is a consensus to use his real name. Bradv🍁 22:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

There was discussion of this in November 2017, see above. I don't like the "entertainer" parenthetical but I think the solution is to move the article to something like Baked Alaska (activist), not to Tim Gionet (per WP:COMMONNAME). R2 (bleep) 22:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I have no objection to changing (entertainer) to (activist). Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Post-Digital Cultures of the Far Right 3839446708 2018 "While movement leaders, like Richard Spencer and Tim Gionet (Baked Alaska), understand why Gab is important for organizing a social movement community online, they also recognize the need for staying on more established platforms, like ..." ... but Baked Alaska (activist), would be the fallback. The current title is ridiculous. Alt-right speaker isn't an "(entertainer)" in any source. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
To overcome WP:COMMONNAME you generally have to show that the name is used by a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources, not just one. R2 (bleep) 23:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

'Neo-nazi' and member of the 'alt-right'.

Based Baked Alaska has publicly left the alt-right and condemned any nazism or similar ideologies in the past year as his popularity dropped. Here is a recent video he made on it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFo1teqiuBs

Perhaps the lede should be updated to reflect his change of heart as opposed to outdated views from old sources that someone no longer holds. Everyone changes their views in life. How about former member of the alt-right?

206.45.24.97 (talk) 06:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2021

After complaining that he was unable to find a company willing to hire him, Gionet changed his name to Tim Furlong. Careyob (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

No citation provided for claim. ValarianB (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead makes little sense

It skips two changes of affiliation, claiming he went form alt-right tot alt-right. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC).

Where in the source does it say that?

@GorillaWarfare:, regarding this edit of yours, you wrote that the "source is clear that Gionet had said he tested positive for COVID on Jan 4". I don't see that in the Daily Dot source. (and the other source doesn't even mention COVID-19= Could you please point me to where in the source it does say that? --Distelfinck (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

"Soon after @davenewworld_2's video started making the rounds, people began sharing a Jan. 4 clip of Baked Alaska discussing his positive COVID test." To clarify my summary a bit, he said on January 4 that he was COVID-positive. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: You say that he said on January 4 that he was COVID-positive. But that's not what the source says. The source, as you quoted, says that the clip is from January 4th. The video it was clipped form can be older. --Distelfinck (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
My understanding of the source is that the clip was recorded on January 4. Furthermore, in the embedded video he is referencing an incident with a bouncer at a bar called Giligin's that happened on December 11, 2020, so we can rule out your hypothetical scenario in which it was a summer positive test. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: The clip seems to have been extracted from a longer video. The clip is included in the Daily Dot article, and you can see that it was posted by someone who is not Baked Alaska. You understand the difference between a video being recorded or streamed and a clipped part from that video being uploaded? I can upload a clip from a 90s TV show, that doesn't mean it was recorded in 2021... This is gettig ridiculous. I beg you to please just revert your edit and stop wasting both our time, I got other things to do seriously --Distelfinck (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I am familiar with how clipping works. However "people began sharing a Jan. 4 clip of Baked Alaska discussing his positive COVID test" seems sufficiently clear to me. If you can find contradictory evidence that the longer video was recorded some other time, feel free to share it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
"Jan. 4" in "Jan. 4 clip" seems to refer to the clip. Not to the video the clip was created from. Then it would probably say something like "video clipped from a Jan. 4 video". And indeed, the clip was posted on Jan. 4th, as you can see in the Twitter post included in the article. We don't know from the article when the original video was uploaded or streamed, the article doesn't say that. If you can find contradictory evidence that the longer video was recorded some other time, feel free to share it. The onus is on you to prove that the original video was uploaded or streamed by Baked Alaska on Jan. 4th, not the other way around... --Distelfinck (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Again, I think the source is saying both the clip and the video were recorded January 4. Other sources seem to agree with my interpretation: "Far-right streamer stormed Capitol while Covid positive" (The Independent). GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
You seem to interpret the "Jan. 4" in "Jan. 4 clip" to mean that the clip was created from a video streamed or uploaded on Jan. 4th. I would interpret it to say that it means that the clip was uploaded on that day. My interpretation also seems to be more in line with how such wordings are typically used. E.g. when I say that I attended a January 8th showing of a movie, you wouldn't think that the movie was created that day. You would interpret it in the way that the showing was on that day. --Distelfinck (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, it's clear we're interpreting it differently. However, as I mentioned, RS are interpreting it the same way I have. If you would like to seek additional opinions, be my guest. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
It's possible that the Independent made a mistake. That's one RS, not multiple, as you seem to have implied, by the way. We should err on the side of caution and not include this false information. Better to sometimes not include something that turns out to be true than to include something that turns out to be false. So please revert your edit. --Distelfinck (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Without any evidence that there was an error in reporting, we believe the reliable sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
The current wording "Despite having recently tested positive for COVID-19" is perfect. He didn't necessarily test positive on January 4 but the sources are clear that the diagnosis was recent (in this context meaning: he knew he could transmit the virus). — Bilorv (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 15 January 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close per ValerianB's comment, the nomination does not adhere to policy based reasoning. No prejudice against any future move request. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 15:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


Baked Alaska (activist) → Baked Alaska (white supremacist) – Tim Gionet is not known primarily for activism. He's a markedly unengaging figure who brings nothing to the discourse but a deliberately obnoxious personality so if he were a climate activist or a death penalty advocate, nobody would care. He's as visible as he is because he's openly a white supremacist, an antisemite, and in light of his actions on January 6th, a violent terrorist. If you are unfamiliar with him, this vote is out of your purview. If you know who he is, you know how this article got its absolutely disgraceful title. It was bestowed by someone who either (1) was not familiar with Gionet's social media presence, his hourslong streams, and his in-person protests and confrontations where he relentlessly expresses vitroilic hatred for Jews and people of color or (2) decided, out of sheer terror of WP:NPOV, that this article cannot have a title that accurately describes its subject because it might hurt feelings. Wikipedia's community is full of good people who strive to do the right thing. These people tend to have a lot of awareness of WP:OBVIOUS and WP:IAR. Wikipedia's community is also full of people who, acting in good faith, will never do the right thing if it runs up against what policy permits. Unfortunately for my prospects here, that second group tends to be a lot more active in discussions and they cannot be counted on to do something difficult when it's so much easier to defer to what they know is both compliant with policy and morally reprehensible. When morally reprehensible behavior is in accordance with policy, they deliberately choose not to do the right thing and antiseptically explain that their humanity is overruled by the rules. This constitutes a blatant violation of WP:IAR but when was the last time someone got sanctioned for doing as they're told when ignoring all rules was the right thing to do? I believe my edit will be reverted as a violation of WP:POINT because otherwise, it'll start a discussion that proves my previous two sentences right. 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:453E:34EF:5ECC:BC3E (talk) 05:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment This is a run-on tantrum against the subject, disguised as a move request. If a real editor wants to start a legitimate RM, where the rationale can be stated neutrally and calmly, feel free. But I see little value in trying to carry out a discussion under the auspices of this poisoned tree. ValarianB (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2021

Remove the designation of (activist) as he doesn't fit the definition of activist as per Wikipedia 'activist' page and referenced here:

Tarrow, Sidney (1998). Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781139076807. OCLC 727948411 Kutegizmo (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Gionet has been described as an activist in reliable sources, for example by USA Today and NPR. Please note that in general, we describe people how reliable sources describe them, not based on whether we think they meet a given definition of the term. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Birth date

Where did the birth date in the lede—November 16, 1987—come from? It's not in any of the cites in the first sentence, and I can't find it elsewhere. The Wikidata item just refers back to this article. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

AleatoryPonderings, it was always in the article, and is not mentioned in any of the sources used in the first version. Vexations (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Vexations, Thanks. Removed birth date and place for now; presumably court documents will confirm these in time. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Agreed that this is a good removal (and thanks for removing it from Wikidata too). I searched but can't find a source for it. — Bilorv (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Sheila1988 added it back, but I'm not convinced that "MEAWW" is reliable. What do others think? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

AleatoryPonderings, meaww.com copied almost all of the content from Oliver Darcy's article in businessinsider.com. They didn't do any original reporting. We have reason to think they're reliable. The author, Jyotsna Basotia has a bio that says: "Like everyone, I watch TV and lie down on my couch — I'm just clever enough to get paid for it!" That's a long way from a politics editor at Business Insider with a degree in political science. Vexations (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Removed accordingly. The BI article doesn't give a birth date, and there is no consensus on BI's reliability anyway. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Just seeing this section. Good call removing the uncited DOB. I've added a {{birth based on age as of date}} template because there are RS saying he's 33. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

For future reference, do not use court documents for birth date: Per WP:BLPPRIMARY Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.. A reliable source should indicate that this is public knowledge, otherwise it should not be included. Grayfell (talk) 08:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@Grayfell: Are you replying to me? I don't think I did use a court document; I avoid them for that very reason. I inserted the approximate year of birth based on an article in the Anchorage Daily News. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I think they were replying to me, since I said "presumably court documents will confirm these in time" above. But, of course, all this is conjectural at the moment. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, I was responding to AleatoryPonderings. This BLPPRIMARY issue is common on biographies, but I've been noticing a lot that it's especially common with social-media personalities, so I wanted to emphasis it. Grayfell (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Activist??

What is the wikipedia definition/classification for activist?? Isn't he a youtuber who got banned. Otherwise wikipedia would also need to classify nick fuentes differently.Chefs-kiss (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

He appears to be referred to as an activist, for example: Far-right activist is among the latest Capitol rioters to be arrested. (NYT). I don't know about Nick Fuentes, I guess he could be described (and gets referred to) as an activist too. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
@Chefs-kiss: What is the wikipedia definition/classification for activist?? It's a common misconception that there are some sets of criteria on Wikipedia for various descriptors, and we evaluate a person's behavior against them to determine which should be used. Instead, we look at the terms that reliable sources use for a person, and attempt to reflect the most widely-used. If you are seeing that reliable sources regularly use some other description for him, feel free to suggest it. While it's certainly true that some sources may have referred to Baked Alaska as a YouTuber, it seems unlikely that they do these days, given he was banned from the platform. For what it's worth, Nick Fuentes is also referred to as an activist in a few places, and reliable sources sometimes describe him as one as well; it's not in the lead primarily because sources more frequently refer to him as a "commentator", etc. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare:@Alalch Emis: Ah ok! Thnx for the clarification Chefs-kiss (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi

Hello, I would like to discuss the term "neo-Nazi" that is attributed to Baked Alaska in the very first sentence of the article. Two sources are cited to justify that term, The A.V. Club and The Times of Israel respectively. The former source does not seem to be reliable for this claim, as according to the perennial sources page it is only considered "generally reliable for film, music, and TV reviews", and so is clearly beyond its area of expertise. A film review website, which explicitly labels itself as "an entertainment website", should not be cited to claim that someone is a "neo-Nazi".

The Times of Israel has a similar issue. It is not listed anywhere on the reliable source page, as it is still somewhat controversial from what I've seen in the noticeboard archives. However, it does look mostly reliable at least with regards to Israeli affairs, and so again it seems that this source is beyond its area of expertise in claiming that an American live-streamer is a "neo-Nazi". But even if this publication is well within its area of expertise, there are still discrepancies with their use of the term towards Baked Alaska. The cited article - dated January 17 2021 - describes Baked Alaska's arrest and does label him as a "neo-Nazi". In their latest article about him though - dated November 20 2021 - they decided to suddenly drop "neo-Nazi" in favor of "far-right media personality" while reporting on his alleged vandalism of a Hanukkah display. This use of "far-right media personality" falls in line with the current media consensus on Baked Alaska, which can be seen in reports from reputable publications such as ABC, AP, and Reuters about his recent assault and vandalism charges. In these reports he is universally described as a far-right media personality, and very clearly not as a "neo-Nazi".

With all of this in mind, I suggest that the instance of "neo-Nazi" be removed and replaced with the generally agreed upon "far-right media personality".

P.S. I'm a newer user, so please tell me if I've broken some etiquette. I made this suggestion in good faith and tried to be as objective as possible. Thank you. Sevner (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Saying that he is a far-right personality seems sufficient and accurate. While he has seemed content, on occasions, to associate himself with actual neo-nazis, to my knowledge he has never claimed to be one himself. My impression is that his ideology, while definitely far-right, is not precise and coherent enough to warrant that label. One may even say that calling him a neo-nazi is giving him too much credit. Psychloppos (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Agree wholeheartedly, I'd tried to make this change several times, explaining that AV Club wasn't sufficiently authoritative to make the claim per WP:BLP, but got brigaded every time. There was a ton of mainstream coverage of him too after Jan. 6 2021 and none of them dubbed him a Neo-Nazi. --notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 16:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Not sure why this is removed when he is described as a neo-nazi in numerous reliable sources, not just the two mentioned above. E.G. The Independent (1), Raw Story (2), the Guardian (3), Sky News (4), etc.
Please reread my initial post and refer to the perennial sources page. The first source you referenced, The Independent, is only considered a reliable source for non-specialist information, and it's also noted that some editors have advised caution for their articles as well. Not only that, but the particular article you referenced is clearly outdated, as their most recent one about Baked Alaska completely leaves out the term 'neo-Nazi'. Your second source (Raw Story) is generally unreliable, your third source's article (The Guardian) no longer exists, and your fourth source (Sky News) does not appear on the reliable sources page. I have cited up-to-date articles from reputable sources like AP and Reuters, and they describe Baked Alaska not as 'neo-Nazi', but as a 'far-right media personality'. This current general media consensus is the reason why the term has been removed and replaced with 'far-right media personality'. Sevner (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
This is a tangent, but I think we can safely assume that Sky News would be regarded as a reliable (and somewhat authoritative) source, despite its association with Murdoch. It's the second leading purveyor of news in Britain, after the BBC. Something only goes to RSN if there's a reason to question its reliability, which is likely why it's never been brought up. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
That's a pretty fair correction. I agree that Sky News seems like a mostly reliable source, and I should have pointed out what the particular article itself said (that Baked Alaska is an "online personality" who happens to be "known for holding neo-Nazi and white supremacist views"), instead of just saying it's not on the RS page. However, it's not true that a source only goes to the RS page if there's been a reason to question its reliability. It's a page that reflects the community consensus on widely discussed sources. Just because a source doesn't show up on there doesn't mean it's universally accepted, that only applies to sources like universally verifiable academic journals. It's more likely that it just hasn't been discussed enough yet and formally put on the RS page. Sevner (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
There is really no discussion to be had here; numerous reliable sources call Baked a neo-nazi. I would also note that Sevner is a one-purpose account that has only made edits to this page. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 10:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
I have tried to add a compromise version, mentioning the (completely uncontroversial) fact that he has been referred to as a neo-nazi in the press, rather than calling him one with Wikipedia's voice. By the way I have one point on which I want to correct Sevner - the "Times of Israel" Link actually contains a reprint of an Associated Press article in which Baked is called a neo-nazi. See - https://www.timesofisrael.com/neo-nazi-baked-alaska-arrested-over-us-capitol-riot/ LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 10:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC).
There is very clearly a discussion to be had here. I have cited the most up-to-date articles from ABC, AP, and Reuters to show that the current general media consensus on Baked Alaska is that he is not a "neo-Nazi", but a far-right media personality. You, on the other hand, seem to have gone out of your way to find any source that has accused him of being a 'neo-Nazi' - the first article you cited was from Raw Story, an infamous clickbait tabloid website. Your other two sources, The Independent and The Guardian, are somewhat contentious sources on the Reliable Sources list, with some editors advising caution and warning about their bias in politics. However, even if you grant both sources the benefit of the doubt, their most recent articles about Baked Alaska have left out the term "neo-Nazi" entirely. Here are The Independent's three most recent articles about him [1][2][3] and The Guardian's three most recent articles [1][2][3]. All of these articles were published after the ones you cited, and none of them label Baked Alaska a "neo-Nazi". You haven't directly addressed any of my previous concerns about the reliability of your sources, you've just discouraged discussion and appealed vaguely to "numerous reliable sources" instead of citing them.
Also, your "correction" about the Times of Israel link makes it seem like you just haven't read what I've written. I already acknowledged in my orginal post that in that particular article he was indeed labelled a "neo-Nazi" by the AP/TOI staff. However, the point was that their latest articles had the term "neo-Nazi" retracted and replaced with "far-right media personality". That was the point, that they called him a 'neo-Nazi' in an older article and have replaced it with "far-right media personality" in their newer ones, which shows that the current general media consensus has changed to describe Baked Alaska more accurately.
Please also stop making significant edits before discussing and justifying your claims. It should be noted that you have many warnings on your talk page about edit warring/personal commentary for several different pages. I have engaged in good faith, with proper citations and justifications, and am more than willing to discuss this more if you would do the same. Sevner (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2022

Add this page to the category "Category:Protesters in or near the January 6 United States Capitol attack" Tristanthebard (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

 Already done Article is already in Category:People criminally charged for acts during the January 6 United States Capitol attack, which is a WP:DIFFUSED subcategory. Grayfell (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Breach, not breech

A "breech" is an item of clothing, or the end of a gun barrel that's closer to the wielder. "Breach" means to break into or out of. 73.15.179.68 (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 01:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Should opening paragraph mention that he is a convicted criminal?

Just thought I should suggest this. 109.155.16.178 (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

His convictions are mentioned in the lead. I don't think "convicted criminal" should be added to the initial sentence, if that is what you are suggesting. We sometimes include that for felons whose felonies are relevant to their notability, but for someone convicted of misdemeanors it seems a bit sensationalist. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baked_Alaska_(livestreamer)/Archive_1&oldid=1258221435"