Talk:Mike Cernovich/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Reorganization

I propose reorganizing the article as shown by this diff. This reorganization is chronological. It adds no new content and removes no existing content. Its purpose is to improve readability and render the narrative more understandable. KalHolmann (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

It absolutely did change content in a substantial way. Among other things, you specifically watered-down the changes I made to the paragraph on the white genocide conspiracy theory. Try a little harder, please. Grayfell (talk) 03:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Grayfell, as I explained in my edit summary, I deleted your redundant citation to CNN, which merely repeated what the already cited Haaretz source says about diversity being code for white genocide. This in no way "watered down" your contribution. KalHolmann (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

We have multiple reliable sources mentioning at least one of his several tweets supporting the white genocide conspiracy theory. You have twice changed it to be attributed to only one source. The source is not meaningfully "redundant". Re-framing a factual statement supported by many sources as the subjective opinion of only a single source is absolutely a form of watering-down. Grayfell (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Grayfell, you're failing to distinguish between a single tweet wherein Cernovich opined that "diversity is code for white genocide" and your broader, unsupported allegation that he promotes the white genocide conspiracy theory. Please cite at least one WP:RS in which Cernovich himself, rather than his accusers, declares his support for the white genocide theory. One isolated quotation on Twitter does not a philosophy make. KalHolmann (talk) 04:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

No, as I'm sure has already been mentioned on this talk page, if multiple reliable sources say something about him, than Wikipedia reflects those sources. The alternative would be asking editors to provide WP:OR. Cernovich is not a reliable source for statements of fact, and any opinions he may have, even about himself, need to be weighed for both due-weight and context, as judged by reliable sources. Again, even for his own opinions, Wikipedia favors independent reliable sources to provide context and weight. Cernovich made multiple tweets about white genocide spanning more than a year, both specifically about a South African subset of the conspiracy theory, and also in broad terms.[1][2] No reliable source I have seen is disputing this, while many are mentioning it. If he has disputed it himself, we can judge based on that source, but even than it wouldn't over-ride reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 05:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Grayfell, why didn't you cite those two sources instead of CNN? If you had, I wouldn't have challenged your insinuation that Cernovich supports the white genocide conspiracy theory. Thanks for belatedly providing the sources for that claim. KalHolmann (talk) 06:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The existing sources were already perfectly sufficient for that content, but yeah, you're welcome. Grayfell (talk) 06:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I do not understand your edit summary.
I certainly understood that when you moved Cernovich's garbage conspiracy theory into "views" you were legitimizing it. So again: WP is not Cernovich's PR agency. --Calton | Talk 05:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Calton, you are mistaken. As shown by this diff, all of the disputed content was already in the "Media and views" section. I simply segregated the conspiracy theories under a new subsection, arranged chronologically for greater focus. How does chronological order "legitimize" this content? KalHolmann (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• I think there's some arguing at cross-purposes here. I believe KalHoffman's main point is that he'd like to reorganize the article to make it chronological. Does anyone object? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, that is correct, and thank you for refocusing this thread. My discussion with Grayfell was tangential to my proposed reorganization, and stemmed from my deletion of what I felt was an inadequate citation to CNN. By presenting two other sources in his comment here dated 05:55, 23 November 2017, Grayfell has more than satisfied my concerns, and any reorganization should reflect Grayfell's original wording, supported by his two subsequent sources. As for Calton, I'm afraid he misunderstood what I did. Rearranging the "Media and views" section chronologically and segregating its conspiracy theories under a new subsection in no way advances Cernovich's beliefs. If there is any violation in this WP:BLP of WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:NOTPROMOTION or WP:NOTPROPAGANDA, it predates my involvement and should be identified for immediate removal. KalHolmann (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Like this edit? Where, by putting it in "Views", you were legitimizing it? I call bullshit. --Calton | Talk 00:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Calton, you can use all the vulgar language you want, but I did not originally add that content. It was already in the "Media and views" section when I consolidated it in chronological order. I am not responsible for the contributions of other editors. KalHolmann (talk) 00:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

If you think that's "vulgar language" you need to get out more. If you think using that as misdirection is an effective rhetorical strategy, you need to think again.

I am not responsible for the contributions of other editors.' You are responsible for your own edits -- did this point escape you? If you think you can avoid responsibility by claiming you only RESTORED garbage instead of adding it fresh, you also need to think again. Recycled or fresh, it's garbage that you put in. --Calton | Talk 01:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Calton, I'll repeat this one last time. I did not add or restore the content in question. It was already in the "Media and views" section when I consolidated it in chronological order. I then moved it out of the segregated subsection I had established for conspiracy theories because child sex rings in Washington D.C. do not strike me as a conspiracy theory. Now, having grown weary of your snarky condescension, I shall respond no further to you on this website. KalHolmann (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Calton, your conduct here is un-AGF and disruptive. I know you are capable of engaging in constructive discussion. Either do it, let others do it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I did not add or restore the content in question.. Really? You didn't make the edit you just cited? The one which did exactly what I said it did? --Calton | Talk 04:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

And your tone-policing is unwelcome and disruptive in its own. Since Jimbo Wales didn't die and leave you in charge of discourse, maybe you should give it a rest. --Calton | Talk 04:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Anyway... This is a good example of why WP:CSECTIONs rarely work. Pizzagate is definitely a conspiracy theory according to most reliable sources. Placing Pizzagate in a separate subsection from the D.C. sex ring issue implies that they're separate, when they are not, and this really, really does seem like an attempt to legitimizes it. Regardless, attempting to pick-and-choose which of his 'views' belong in a contentiously-named sub-section is making the problem worse. The arrangement of his views in chronological order was also confusing, since when he started espousing these views is not the most significant detail about them, nor is it even well-supported by reliable sources. This is not "just reorganizing" the content. Calling bullshit "bullshit" is sometimes necessary. Grayfell (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. I withdraw my proposal to chronologically reorganize the "Media and views" section. Obviously I handled it badly, and apologize for antagonizing other editors. It was never my intention to legitimize Mike Cernovich or his opinions. KalHolmann (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Seder section

Still way too long; that incident was precipitated by Cernovich, but most of the text is not about Cernovich. In relative terms, it now takes up too much of the article here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree, this needs to be cut down significantly to be in proportion to the rest of the article. We also shouldn't be citing anyone's tweets directly. We're not here to engage in a blow-by-blow chronicling of events. If a tweet wasn't covered by a reliable source then that's an indication that it wasn't sufficiently noteworthy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Accusation regarding assassination attempts

Article contains this Claim: "Cernovich has accused the Democratic Party of attempting to assassinate him." Claim is sourced from this Reference: http://www.salon.com/2016/08/10/from-fringe-to-mainstream-conspiracies-baseless-accusations-and-lunacy-is-the-new-normal-for-republicans/

Only support for Claim found in Reference is the following Sentence: "Cernovich has trafficked in conspiracy theories and his Twitter feed is a mass of rape apologia and paranoia that the Democratic Party is going to assassinate him."

Sentence supports assertion that "Writer Gary Legum [the author of Reference], writing at Salon, has claimed Cernovich's Twitter feed is a 'mass of [whatever]'", but the Claim as it presently appears in the Article is not substantiated in Legum's piece, which is clearly intended to be polemic in nature, rather than documentary.

My feeling is that Gary Legum's synopsis of the content of Cernovich's twitter feed is not notable. It might have been, had Legum documented his assertions. But Legum's piece merely asserts Legum's sense; it provides no evidence for the Claim. If Claim is supportable, then surely better references can be found. If any editors think this is an important data point to maintain in the Article, please go ahead and find better documentary evidence for the Claim. Otherwise, I recommend removal of Claim from Article.

TinkleBear (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by Legum's article being polemic rather than documentary. Is your explanation in the following sentence ("My feeling is...")? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Dr. Fleischman.

My concern is that the Legum reference entirely fails to document the particular claim it is cited in support of. If the reader of Legum's piece wishes to confirm Legum's claim, they must (apparently) search through Cernovich's Twitter feed themself, which is hardly the point when providing a citation that supposedly supports a claim of fact.

Regarding polemical vs documentary, a piece of journalism can indeed fit in both categories simultaneously. It is not difficult to find explicit opinion pieces which illustrate their claims with quotations from their subject. Here, just for example, is a polemic piece that substantiates/illustrates many of its claims with quotes and references: https://hackernoon.com/media/0bcf850252c32aa3894acf47d45645fb?postId=4278a753a3af

I did not mean to imply that the two categories are mutually exclusive (though I can now see how what I said is interpretable in that way). --TinkleBear (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I think you could benefit from reviewing our verifiability policy. Content is verifiable if it's supported by a reliable source. For a source to be reliable there's no requirement that it offer backup documentation for every statement. If that were our community standard then most of the encyclopedia would have to be deleted. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

There is however due weight. If one only obscure sources mention it in passing that was based off a tweet, would something be worth having a sentence in an article of this length? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not a very long article, and it certainly seems noteworthy to me... --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I hope it will be all right with my fellow editors if I begin here a fresh branch of this thread, in the interest of clarity, in order to significantly expand on the argument I originally presented above.

Let wikicont(ent) abbreviate the sentence in the article currently at issue, and let presscont(ent) abbreviate the sentence in the sole source presently cited in support of wikicont's inclusion:

wikicont

Cernovich has accused the Democratic Party of attempting to assassinate him.

presscont

Cernovich has trafficked in conspiracy theories and his Twitter feed is a mass of rape apologia and paranoia that the Democratic Party is going to assassinate him.

Wikicont is a rather extraordinary claim, presently found on a Wikipedia article about a living person. As such, it should be either (a) supported by relatively strong sourcing, or (b) it should be removed.

Consider its source, presscont, italicised for easy identification in its published context below:

It is equally likely that the Republican Party will stay intact after November, that it will still have enough of a power base in the House of Representatives and in the states to convince itself to limp along and rebuild. But it likely can’t be viable until it purges itself of all the racism and toxic waste it has spent the last 40-plus years cultivating. And as the confluence of several stories this week reminds us, disentangling a functional political party from the rot that has infected it at all levels is likely an impossible task.

Consider the following:

• “Red Eye,” the popular Fox News overnight show, had on as a guest one Mike Cernovich, a Men’s Rights Activist and well-known figure in the “alt-right,” the name with which society has rebranded the far-right collection of racists and white supremacists from which Trump draws a fair amount of his support. Cernovich has trafficked in conspiracy theories and his Twitter feed is a mass of rape apologia and paranoia that the Democratic Party is going to assassinate him.

Cernovich is so terrible that the producers of “Red Eye” felt compelled afterwards to say that they had made a mistake in booking him. But that doesn’t answer the question of how they found him in the first place. It’s simple, really: He swims in the same sewers as the rest of the eager up-and-coming right-wingers at Fox News.

The passage quoted above from Gary Legum's Salon article might be considered a strong source for certain assertions, a weak source for certain others, and an extremely thin source for still others. This variable strength, of the passage's supportive force, has nothing to do with mysterious quantum fluctuations in the journalistic credibility of the publication it appears in, or with its author's journalistic credentials.

1. Examples of assertions for which the passage is a strong source:
   • "Cernovich appeared on Red Eye, a Fox News program."
   • "The producers of Red Eye stated afterwards that booking him had been a mistake."
2. Examples of assertions for which the passage is a thin, or weak, source:
   • "Eager right-wing personalities at Fox News go swimming in public waste disposal channels (ie, in sewers)."
   • "Toxic waste is a constituent entity of the Republican party."

The first couple of example assertions above (1) are strongly supported by the passage in question because the sections of that passage to which they correspond are, in context, meant to be taken literally. Not figuratively. Not as hyperbole for the sake of some rhetorical purpose other than assertion of fact.

By contrast, the second couple of example assertions above (2) are, of course, hardly supported by the passage at all. Any support the passage provides to such assertions at all is so weak that to call it "support" is to strain the meaning of the term itself. Not because the author has transformed suddenly into a liar, or a non-journalist, or because the publication Salon suddenly underwent transubstantiation into The Onion, but because the rhetorical purpose, of the sections of the passage which "support" those assertions, does not not constitute a literal context.

Now, consider the sentence which is meant to support inclusion of wikicont, as it appears in its published context at Salon. I maintain that presscont falls in a category which lies at some point on a continuum that extends from the first set of examples above, which constitute facts claimed true by the passage, to the second set, which constitute rather whimsical exaggerations and hyperbole, and which are intended (among other purposes) to produce an certain entertaining frisson in the cooperative reader.

Presscont is clearly meant to serve multiple rhetorical purposes. One of those purposes is to suggest that there is some factual basis to the author's choice of terms, to be sure. But it is also meant to convey extra-factual content as well. And because of this dual purpose, the precise factual basis for presscont is rendered deliberately vague, not only by its author, but concurrently with the consent of the cooperative reader.

Do we say for example that Legum has lied if we examine the relevant period of Cernovich's Twitter feed and find that it is not, in fact, composed solely of "rape apologia and paranoia" about his own assassination at the hands of agents of the Democratic party? No, we do not. And the reason we would not call the author a liar on those grounds, is because we understand the rhetorical purpose for which Legum deploys presscont; presscont is deployed not purely for the conveyance of factual information.

In fact, the rhetorical convention to which presscont, as used in its context, belongs is one which admits a certain degree of hyperbole and exaggeration. Just how much hyperbole? Just how much exaggeration? This is not possible to answer. It is by design a blurred line. The convention is an explicitly vague one.

And, as a convention with such vaguely defined criteria for truth, such rhetoric is ill-suited to the conveyance of verifiable, or indeed falsifiable, factual information. Authors know this, as do cooperative readers. If an author writes a piece, by which they wish to convey unambiguously factual information, then they do not couch those facts in rhetorical devices that require the cooperative reader to suspend disbelief, they do not obscure those facts they wish to unambiguously convey with rhetorical devices that require the cooperative reader to admit a certain degree of hyperbole and exaggeration.

I maintain that the nature of its rhetorical context makes presscont a thin basis on which to base the assertion of wikicont.

Therefore, since it appears in an article about a living person, wikicont should be removed until such time as a stronger supporting source is found.

@DrFleischman and Emir of Wikipedia: I look forward to seeing your responses to the content of my argument above, as well as any others who might wish to join the deliberation. I hope we can improve the state of this article. --TinkleBear (talk) 07:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your analysis, though it was a bit too long and please, do not keep pinging me as I'm already watching this page. Without referencing it you've hit on an essential aspect of our verifiability policy, which is that in general, reliable sources are reliable for their factual content, not for their opinion content. There's a general consensus among the community that Salon is has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and is therefore reliable, for its factual content, which much be distinguished from its politically motivated opinions and rhetoric, which is often interlaced into its reliable factual reporting. Up to this point the community agrees with you.

Where we diverge is here: The content in question is actually factual, not opinion. Whether or not Cernovich has said the Democratic party is going to assassinate him is a simply yes/no reporting question; has he said it, or hasn't he? This doesn't lie on some sort of fact-opinion continuum. Therefore, the content is verifiable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Writer

Do we not feel that he should be called a writer? Perhaps you have a view on this DrFleischman. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

It depends on the sourcing. Before I removed it, the cited source (The Daily Caller) wasn't reliable and didn't call him a writer. I don't think that everyone who has a blog or who has written should be called a writer. If someone finds a reliable source calling him a writer then I have no issue with restoring it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The already used in this article reference Who Is Mike Cernovich? A Guide by The New York Times says Mr. Cernovich started out several years ago as a men’s self-help writer. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how helpful that particular tidbit is since it's not clear if he's still a self-help writer; moreover at this point he's known primarily for his political stuff rather than his self-help work. That said, the source is very helpful for the following: "Who is Mike Cernovich? Mr. Cernovich is a blogger, author of books, YouTube personality and filmmaker with a far-right social media following." I'd be comfortable with changing the first sentence to add that he's an "author." ("Blogger is already encapsulated by "social media personality.") That might sound like splitting hairs, but I believe it implies something slightly different about his writing activities, which don't appear particularly prolific nor what he's primarily known for. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

After some reflection I've self-reverted to restore "writer." The difference between "writer" and "author" is excessive hair-splitting, especially after I discovered that the guy has written more self-published books than I'd originally thought. That said, The Daily Caller is an unreliable source, and I don't think we can go so far as to identify his profession as "writer." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Removed the lead calling him Alt-Right

If he doesn't consider himself to be part of the alt-right, why does the lead describe him as Alt-right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pc Retro (talk • contribs) 20:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

As already mentioned above, Wikipedia favors independent sources. The article already explains that he has (half-heartedly) distanced himself from the label. Grayfell (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Without trying to count the angels dancing on the head of a pin, and recognizing that it probably won't stop this sort of objection, it is possible to say something like "Mike Cernovich... is an American social media personality, writer, and conspiracy theorist, associated with the alt-right."2601:401:503:62B0:D13:2E8D:1108:3A17 (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Really? CBS had an edited interview with him, and anyone who saw the whole transcript, can clearly see the distortions. It was edited in a very dishonest fashion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.147.9.232 (talk)
So why Put that in the lead? If I said I'm not alt-right, I wouldn't want the first sentence of my Wikipedia page calling me alt-right. Pc Retro (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

A mountain of reliable sources (CNN, The New Yorker, CBS, The New York Times, and many more) say he is alt-right. While his wishes should not be ignored, this is an encyclopedia article, not his blog, and the priority is to give a neutral summary of who he is and why he's significant. This is especially important for the lead. Wikipedia prioritizes independent sources over self-promotion for this. Grayfell (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's go through those sources:

• CNN: Usable
• New Yorker: Opinion piece, not suitable for statements of fact
• CBS: The news clip is unrelated to the written article. The article is mostly tweets and the author is listed as "an entertainment producer at CBSNews.com", not a journalist. This doesn't suggest editorial oversight.
• NY Times: Appears to be using the New Yorker article as a source for the alt-right claim. Regardless, it another opinion piece.

So we have one usable source (CNN) for a controversial claim disputed by the subject. That's not enough to feature it prominently in the lede. See my section below; Cernovich gets passing mention in a number of usable sources but the only in-depth sources are heavy on opinion. I don't think we can write a meaningful article within sourcing requirements. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I picked a handful that were convenient to simplify proving a point, but there are plenty more where that came from. If he's is notable at all, which is questionable, he's notable as an alt-right figure: Media Matters, Mother Jones, SPLC, Folha de S.Paulo, Motherboard, New York Magazine, Mic, NPR. I'm sure more could be found. Grayfell (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

With these 7 sources, I'm fairly sure the adjective is usable and well sourced- as such, I'll be reverting its removal until an alternate consensus can be established. Why do you feel it should be removed with how widely sourcable it is, James J. Lambden? (Edit: Somebody else beat me to it- I do support leaving the article as it is and 'alt-right' as an adjective there until consensus to change is established per WP:BRD.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia defines alt-right as being a white nationalist movement. Is there a source for the claim that Mike Cernovich is a white nationalist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.75.254 (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2017‎

• MediaMatters: Not RS
• Mother Jones: Doesn't identify Cernovich as alt-right
• SPLC: Not RS
• Motherboard: opinion piece
• NY Mag: opinion piece
• Mic: Not RS
• NPR: Opinion piece
• Folha de S.Paulo: Not RS (see our own article for evidence)

None of these are usable for the claim. If you're sure more (usable ones) could be found, find them, include them, then restore the claim. Reinserting it without additional sources without addressing the shortcomings of the existing sources is not productive. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

None of these is a reliable source to report as FACT who has what political ideology. And even if it might be worth citing as an OPINION, it is outlandish to not permit the subject in question to respond because his defence is not admitted to one of these "reliable sources". And by the way Mr Lambden, Grayfell threatened me with a block for pointing this out elsewhere on the Talk page. They're all too ready to censor you if you point out this hypocrisy. 81.191.115.125 (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Your link regarding SPLC is as inconclusive as all the past discussions about SPLC. Don't misrepresent the discussion as having a clear consensus. clpo13_(talk) 22:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

"Not RS" is too vague to be productive. The NPR, Mic, NY Mag, and Motherboard stories are not opinion pieces. Not every regular column or long-form article which includes the reporter's judgement can be brushed-off as an opinion. The Mother Jones article is about the alt-right, meaning that if he's not part if it his inclusion would make little sense. What, exactly, about Folha de S.Paulo indicates it's unreliable? It could be, but I'm not seeing it. Grayfell (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I concur that the "alt right" reference should be removed from the lead.Cllgbksr (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

These 2 reliable sources [3] [4] support the material. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC) --- and there's this [5] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

BTW: Putting aside whether he is alt-right or not, if there is a link, it should be to Alt-right and not White supremacy, so I've changed it. If you wish to revert, please make an argument here as to why it is better that the text "alt-right" misdirect to White supremacy. -Reagle (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, sorry if this has been address, but Cernovich has self-identified as alt-right in the past on Twitter (though he's since deleted the tweet). Is there some challenge to the deleted tweet's authenticity? There is also at least one tweet he hasn't deleted. Perhaps he no longer identifies as such (though this needs a source), but his past self-identification as a member of the alt-right would appear incontrovertible. guppyfinsoup (^talk/_contribs) 19:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Mike is New Right and everyone in the world knows that. He doesn't like Richard Spencer. To say that Mother Jones, NPR, CNN, Media Matters, and SPLC define him as such means that's what he is?? Is this banana-land? Mother Jones is an openly left-wing outlet. Same for Media Matters, same for SPLC. These outlets have a vested interest in defining him that way because they want to tie him to Richard Spencer. Clearly Wikipedia is frequented by far more left-wing people, which is why this lie still remains, but you're not fooling a single person. Cernovich is New Right and has said so countless times. Maybe I should just start calling all the political people I don't like "Stalinist" in Wikipedia articles? Link them to a mass murderer? I'm surprised the lefties who run Wikipedia haven't straight up called him a Nazi and pretended that's a "neutral" fact lololol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.34.49 (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Please review our verifiability policy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Update

Cernovich in March 2017 tweeted[6] that he is not alt-right. This is a newer tweet that the sources used to call him alt-right, but I was reverted after adding this in. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not automatic that we would allow self-definition to trump the way someone is described in high-quality sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

That is understandable. My edit was to move the information from the lead into the "Media and views" section clarifying that he was described as alt-right by the media, and that he tweeted that he doesn't not self define that way. Currently what we have is just the definition by the media in the lead. In the "Media and views" section we have a source which says ""I went from libertarian to alt-right after realizing tolerance only went one way and diversity is code for white genocide," her recounted in a tweet from 2015.". That predate the 2016 sources and his own self identification in 2017. Furthermore it has the typo her instead of he which I don't think is an indication of a "high-quality" source, and doesn't suggest an editor looked at it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

This is not a complete chronology. The March 2017 tweet merely referred back to a blog post he wrote in August 2016 denying that he was part of the alt-right movement. Most of the reliable sources we cite saying he's alt-right were published well after that post. A subject's self-description, denying something stated in multiple, highly reliable sources, is generally worthy of inclusion but it should generally not be used to impugn the weight of those reliable sources. (The back story to all of this is that Cernovich and others who don't like white supremacists are trying to re-brand themselves to create distance from the white nationalists. This is self-serving marketing. As long as reliable independent sources are calling Cernovich alt-right, then he's alt-right.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

what are the ethics of this? Surely 99 out of 100 people following Cernovich or of the alt-right, will say that Cernovich is not alt-right. Cernovich very strenuously repeats that he is not alt-right. He has multiple feuds with those genuinely on the alt-right as well. He also is married to a Persian-American, and has mixed race children. Wikipedia's own article for alt-right states that ... is a loosely defined group of people with far-right ideologies who reject mainstream conservatism in favor of white nationalism. White supremacist It is nonsensical to state Cernovich is a white nationalist, or more ridiculously, a white supremacist, but this is what a good faith reader that is unaware of particulars, may logically assume, just by following Wikipedia's own definitions. But it apparently must be made clear on wikipedia that he is "alt-right," because a very select sample of overtly politically biased and of out of touch sources state that he is of that label. "Reliable sources" or not, this declaration of alt-right is at a minimum a de facto falsehood. It would be as if one loudly declares that George H.W. Bush actively supports Trump, because he was a Republican president, even though in his recent memoir, Bush states that he despises him, and stated that he voted for Clinton in the 2016 election. I can understand why wikipedia has this policy concerning sources, and it probably must have this policy to have any stability, but it is purporting a falsehood. Modern media generally has a issue with stating bold things, but never keeping up with them with updates, or promptly or accurately issuing corrections. One may argue over what is "genuine" or what is "biased," but it is missing the forest for the trees, that in reality, Cernovich has no positive association with anybody that does don the label of alt-right. 2601:982:4200:A6C:9459:D3F9:E9FF:76D (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I don’t know how ethics come into this, but we’re merely following our community standards here. These require that our content conform to the reliable sources, and forbid us from engaging in this sort of original research. —Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of some of his strange behavior, I don't see how CNN can honestly label Cernovich alt-right. And is CNN really a reliable source? Will Wikipedia also say that it is illegal for people not affiliated with the media to read the Podesta emails? CNN claimed that and didn't, to the best of my knowledge, ever retract it. Are they a reliable source? I couldn't find anything on the reliability page specifically mentioning CNN. Is there some definitive way of deciding whether a source is reliable, or does Wikipedia have some strange rule that I haven't heard of. The definition I found used the word reliable in defining what was reliable, which is terribly circular. It's a little odd you will call out people for referencing The Daily Caller but not CNN or Mother Jones.BenjaminMan (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, CNN is generally reliable. You should be able to find something useful in the RSN archives. In any case CNN isn't the only reliable outlet to have called Cernovich alt-right. Look at the list of citations: it also includes CBS, Business Insider, SPLC, and New York magazine. And I'll be there are more. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Firstly let me say that I want to avoid getting too political here, and strictly discuss whether it is an accurate label. I don't agree with Mike on many things, but I still feel this description is a bit inaccurate if not slanderous. I'm reading through some more of the reliability section on here as I'm quite new. As for the fact that many places will call him alt-right, please be aware I have no doubt of this. I understand the general opinion of him among certain news outlets, but what you have provided are clearly politically biased and not very reliable. The SPLC? That counts as a reliable news source? Look, I understand he has many opponents, and more so the further left things go, but that does not tell us much. Why does this appear in a small box? Sorry, I don't know how to use these talk pages. BenjaminMan (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

No problem. It sounds like it's really a matter of familiarizing yourself with our community standards. Our verifiability policy requires that content be supported by at least one reliable source. In a nutshell, reliable sources are those that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, regardless of whatever bias they may have. There is general consensus at RSN that all of the outlets on the cited list meet that standard. If you don't like those sources for whatever reason, you're welcome to for additional sources that call him alt-right, and we can add them to the list provided they meet the same reliability standard. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this isn't an objective definition, not that it can be, but is entirely circular. They are reliable because they are reliable, which means they are reliable. I don't think you consciously think about why you trust the authorities you trust, which leads to this intuitive sense that certain sources MUST be trustworthy. It's quite obvious that the SPLC is interested in a political movement over fact-checking and accuracy. I will need to look for some specific examples, I suppose. And as best I can tell this is based on some official list of reliable sources. As long as you are aware that this isn't about honesty and truth and more about following a set of rules, I'm fine with that. It's just unfortunate there isn't a website interested primarily in the truth. BenjaminMan (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

If you want to change the consensus on the SPLC, then you can start a discussion at WP:RSN. If you think the "rules" don't comport with honesty and truth, then you can voice your concerns at another forum such as WP:VPP. But this page is not the place for either of those issues. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

After reviewing past debates on Wikipedia over the authenticity of SPLC, I do not see a consensus. I see debate after debate in which half the group thinks SPLC is a reliable source and the other half does not. If there is no consensus on the authenticity of the SPLC I don't think it should be considered a reliable source. Other sources quoted for this include a CBS article going through tweets and referring to Cernovich as alt-right while listing off tweets about something Lady GaGa was wearing. Does anyone seriously believe that such an article was put through some sort of time tested fact checking? Did they perform some analysis to determine what his exact political views were? It wasn't even that central to the article, it was simply a descriptor added in, so I'd need some reason to believe CBS is reliable for political descriptors added on to lists of tweets. To act as if this was a factually researched news article is intellectually dishonest. It may as well be a blog post. If the CBS article and the SPLC article are not reliable in this situation, then you are basically relying on one article by CNN. This is small enough that you might as well say "CNN has referred to him as alt-right". BenjaminMan (talk) 02:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The SPLC is certainly "authentic", and is reliable in context. The CBS mention doesn't have to be substantial to be reliable, and if you have some specific reason to believe that it did not undergo the standard fact-checking common to major news outlets, you will need to explain that. Or you could save us all the hassle, since there are already several additional sources in the lede, and plenty more available where that came from. Grayfell (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

BenjaminMan, we only need a single reliable source calling Cernovich alt-right for us to call him that. And are you aware that there are plenty of other reliable sources beyond the few that are cited? For example: the New York Post, Newsweek, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, Vox, Daily Beast, Slate, and The New York Times. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, no, the SPLC is not a reliable source, and you cannot find me a place on this website where that has any consensus. You implied there was a consensus on this website that SPLC is a reliable source. Show me. As for the other sources, I will take a look at that. And I would like to ask you, do you think that CBS performed fact checking on the political labels used in the article listing tweets? BenjaminMan (talk) 08:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

SPLC for this specific WP:RSCONTEXT is a "reliable source", it is authoritative for the labels it uses as one of the singular most notable resources for that sort of information. WP:BIASED needs to be considered for attribution purposes. Koncorde (talk) 10:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I would like to ask you, do you think that CBS performed fact checking on the political labels used in the article listing tweets? Yes, absolutely. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Fine. I'm done with this. Our disagreements are too fundamental. I know Cernovich is a provocative figure, and that he goes too far in some areas, and I particularly think he has spent too much time in the wrong crowd, but if I were him I would sue CBS, and this site, for libel. Far too few people have sued for libel in the modern political landscape, probably because of the financial abilities of large news companies. A few lawsuits from authentic individuals of various left and right leaning political persuasions might force people to at least try to be intellectually honest. BenjaminMan (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, the SPLC also claims Cernovich only separated himself from the alt-right to save his brand image. Is it your opinion that this claim is ALSO fact checked? That is to say, Do you believe SPLC has the ability, or received some ability, to read Cernovich's mind? Would you say, that as a source that half of the people on this site insist everyone trusts, that they have some sort of mind reading machine? I'd appreciate a very serious answer to this question. You started ignoring my questions about the SPLC, presumably because you know you are wrong. BenjaminMan (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

SPLC do present a large number of sources of his changing stance. As a reliable source it would require another reliable source to counter their, and other reliable sources, opinions. Does one exist? Koncorde (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm a little perplexed as to why you ignored my mind reading question. Is the SPLC capable of reading minds, or are you suggesting they cite other sources which are capable of reading minds? BenjaminMan (talk) 06:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

They may do, but I am not here to second guess their mechanism for identifying someone who has self identified as Alt Right, then self identified as not Alt Right, when it suited them, with sources provided to demonstrate that change. Their interpretation is what sources do. It's not what we do. Koncorde (talk) 08:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we interpret. I'm suggesting that we leave their interpretation out. I'm suggesting they are stating this as mere speculation; that nobody could seriously believe that a statement of the private inner workings of another persons mind are a matter of verifiable fact. I'm allowed to put SOME effort into reading a source's page and using common sense to separate fact from opinion and speculation. The page on verifying reliable sources mentions avoiding feeling and opinion in favor of facts, even for a reputable source. This implies, necessarily SOME form of interpretation, short of a source saying "And THIS part is just an opinion" before every opinion. I'm suggesting it is self-evident that the SPLC was stating this things speculatively and without regard as to whether it was factual. Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that ANY reliable source could factually state the secret inner working's of a person's mind? I would still appreciate an answer to this question even if you disagree with my wish to remove SPLC as a source here. Don't act like any form of thinking= personal research. This talk page is filled with thought on every topic. Even paraphrasing and rewording things involves personal thought. Please just answer the question; Do you think that any source is capable of stating factually the private inner workings of another person's mind? BenjaminMan (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I understand that the SPLC has sources for him changing his stance, what is so mystifying is that they appear to claim certainty as to WHY he changed his stance. Now anyone can speculate that someone is merely faking a change in stance, but to claim it as a fact would require a mechanism for reading minds, or some sort of definitively leaked private communication. Is it your belief that the SPLC has access to either of those, or do you think they are merely speculating? And if they are merely speculating than why are they cited a source for anything other than their own speculation?BenjaminMan (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

You seem far too interested in WP:OR. We're not going down that path. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

No. I'm not suggesting WE interpret Cernovich's mind. I'm suggesting nobody can accurately interpret it, from any source, but himself. It doesn't require any personal research on our parts to realize that the SPLC does not have the ability to read minds. If they are simply editorializing a personal opinion, that would be different from a source stating something as a fact. See this, copied from Wikipedia's section on identifying reliable source, https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources "Newspapers such as The Wall Street Journal and The Daily Telegraph, but be careful to avoid articles which express the writer's feelings and opinions, not facts." This guideline implies that we DO have the ability to determine when someone is stating a fact and when they are merely sharing a personal feeling and opinion. What you must be arguing is that an article in which the inner workings of the mind are discussed is ACTUALLY A STATEMENT OF FACT. That is, you must be arguing that the SPLC has some sort of mind reading capabilities. Let's, for the sake of argument, indulge in the illusion that this site has consensus on the reliability of the SPLC, and that we would need to trust their facts without question. What I'm saying is, even with this certainty, it is SELF EVIDENT when a person argues what another is secretly thinking, that they are editorializing and NOT stating a fact. And once again, I'm not arguing we put another interpretation of his behavior up. I'm arguing that we leave the personal opinion of the writing of the SPLC article out, or quote it as opinion of the writer. Some basic level of interpretation is necessary just to paraphrase someone, as is done throughout this page. It is also necessary to separate opinion from fact. BenjaminMan (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

You are not going to obtain a consensus this way. If you wish to press this I suggest you pursue dispute resolution. I'd probably recommend posting something at WP:RSN. Please be sure to let us know if you do. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok. I realize this is long, it just really feels like deciding someone's political label and association for them is a bit silly, regardless of how crazy the person himself may be. If I have anything more to say, I will bring it up on another, more appropriate page, unless a new issue comes up. BenjaminMan (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

This is how wikipedia works. We go by the reliable sources. No single source reports only facts. Most sources rely upon some kind of human judgement about the information that they have uncovered or presented. The reliability of that investigative work, demonstration of their investigation and evidence, and their fact checking is what establishes the fundamental basis of what a reliable source is. Having a POV about the facts that they present does not invalidate their subject matter. The portion of the Reliable Sources section you quote is specifically references These often have a title of "editorial", "op-ed" or "opinion". which is typically were a comment is being provided by a named individual which is solely their opinion (and may therefore be devoid of the usual fact checking process, and subject to an admitted or obvious personal bias). These are avoided, but can still have value. There is no indication the SPLC is an "editorial" or "op-ed" or "opinion". Koncorde (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Per the subsection on "biased or opinionated sources,"'Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."' The labeling of Cernovich as "alt-right," sourced almost exclusively by left-leaning outlets that have not themselves substantiated a justification for such label, deserves, at the very least, an in-text attribution. The label has been repeatedly used out of sheer tenacity, as authors see other "reliable sources" doing the same and--whether out of bias, laziness, or a combination of both--simply repeat the label in their introductory paragraphs. I have changed the introductory paragraph in accordance with the guidance cited above. 163.251.239.3 (talk) 05:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Pure conjecture, and contrary to the consensus... might it be that these "almost exclusively...left-leaning outlets" like CBS and Business Insider made an informed judgment after a rigorous analysis? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the supposed "lean" of a source does not decide its reliability. Speculation about a nebulously defined group's tenacity/bias/laziness is totally unpersuasive. Grayfell (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Alt-right

Emir of Wikipedia, please stop edit warring. Your re-revert is mildly disruptive. You and I both know that this edit is not supported by participants at this page. Cernovich is alt-right, period, without equivocation, unless/until a reliable source says otherwise. We call a spade a spade and we do not cast verifiable facts as opinions. Moreover your version creates a false equivalence between Cernovich's self-description and a legion of reliable sources. Clearly against policy in my view. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no false equivalence. It is merely putting the content near the relevant content instead of hiding it away, the fact that is was a self-description was clearly labelled. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Calton: What do you mean "Nfw"? You don't WP:OWN this article. If you have something to say then say it here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I thought it was clear: no fucking way. Do you need other tips on initialisms? --Calton | Talk 17:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

🤦 I know what the initialism means. I was asking if you had a valid reason for reverting my edit other than to swear at me. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I've been having a hard time taking you seriously lately, Emir. I can see what your goal was here but no. fucking. way. and for you to fail to anticipate that your edit would be vehemently opposed by the consensus for creating a serious neutrality problem really makes me question your competence. I don't mean this as a personal attack but come on, at some point you need to grow some awareness. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I am glad that you can see I what to improve Wikipedia and make it the best that it can be. My edit has not been vehemently opposed by the consensus, I have just been sworn at by an editor who has not given any reason to revert my edit other than to swear at me. There is no serious neutrality problem in my edit it clearly states the view of the sources and of Cernovich himself. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Except that it fails to reflect a very basic rule here: we follow the reliable sources. Cernovich isn't a reliable source, and the reliable sources unanimously describe Cernovich as alt-right. Content like, "Some say Cernovich is alt-right. Cernovich denies it," is therefore blatantly contrary to our policies. What part of this do you not understand? I can't speak for Calton, but my personal frustration is that You are an Experienced Editor(tm) and so you really should be comfortable with basic Wikipedia concepts by now. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I know what the initialism means. I was asking if you had a valid reason for reverting my edit other than to swear at me' I'm sorry, I thought your attempted end-run around consensus -- which is still on this page -- was so obvious that you couldn't possibly be talking about that. So you're saying you don't remember? It was only a few months ago. --Calton | Talk 13:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

You must be on about something else or someone else, I only made that edit yesterday. Their has not been any consensus against my version, just swearing at me. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Are these reliable enough sources for you to accept the fact that he WAS alt-right but then later renounced it? New York Observer Anti-Defamation League The New York Times The New Yorker 72.53.0.45 (talk) 08:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC) 72.53.0.45 (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC) 72.53.0.45 (talk) 09:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC) 72.53.0.45 (talk) 09:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Why are people even entertaining smearing people with labels, "alt right" or whatever? It's not encyclopedic. It's just mob mentality dressed up in 3rd rate academics. It's pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.121.122 (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2018‎

He is of Croatian Ancestry from his Father's Side.

Mike’s paternal grandfather was Mike Cernovich (the son of John Cernovich and Anna/Anne Matušić). John and Anna were Croatian immigrants. Anna was born in Gromača, the daughter of Niko Matušić and Anica Bronzić.

I'm skeptical that ethniccelebs.com is a reliable source, and without a reliable sources for context this seems like trivia. Grayfell (talk) 01:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

It's also a privacy issue. We shouldn't be giving anyone's ethnicity until a reputable publisher has already done the same. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Alt-right and far-right

Although I certainly don't deny that the sources are reliable for both of these, isn't it a bit redundant to list both of them in the lead? It's like when people say "fascist neo-Nazi" or "racist white supremacist", it's already stated. Apart from a marginal case for the Alt-lite, I don't think any reliable source has denied the alt-right is already far right. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that I'm not aware of any authority saying that all alt-righters are far right. Without such an authority I think we have to assume that the two labels overlap partially but not completely. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I spoke too soon. Alt-right has some good sources saying that the movement is a subset of far right. I think this is one of those instances where we prefer the specific over the broad (like calling a white supremacist both a white supremacist and a white nationalist). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)