Talk:Mike Cernovich/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Alt-right redux

A number of (Personal attack removed) people here, appear to be fighting hard to libel Mike Cernovich by preventing other people from correcting the outdated information on his Wikipedia page, where it claims that he is associated with the alt-right, a group which he has repeatedly renounced many times since late 2016, despite the fact that several independent sources have repeatedly acknowledged this. As an example of how absurd it is to prevent updating this outdated information, please note that he appears as a prominent example on the Wikipedia article for the alt-lite, including quotes by him which even the far-left Anti-Defamation League acknowledge. His inclusion on the alt-lite page, which specifically delineates between the two groups, means that it makes no sense to keep incorrectly listing Mike Cernovich as alt-right. Again, there are several independent sources confirming he no longer associates with the alt-right and instead associates with the alt-lite. Please allow people to correct this outdated information, or else please hold consistent to this apparent standard that no one can ever change their ideology or association, by updating the Wikipedia articles for all former KKK members who later renounced the KKK, such as Robert Byrd, and remove all traces of words such as "former" which indicate such a change. 72.53.0.45 (talk) 08:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Your description of the ADL as "far-left" belies your inability to edit this material neutrally. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

This subject and I believe all the sources you've presented have been discussed ad nauseum. I suggest you review some of the discussions in the archive (links near the top). And can you please try to stay civil and avoid the personal attacks? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

"Your description of the ADL as "far-left" belies your inability to edit this material neutrally." You JUST said I should stay civil and avoid personal attacks, and then you attacked me. Mike Cernovich abandoned and categorically renounced the alt-right after it was taken over by the white supremacists. It should be obvious by the left-leaning sources I cited which acknowledge this change, the fact that he has repeatedly renounced the alt-right, and the fact that his wife is Persian, that he does not deserve to be associated with the alt-right after it was taken over by white supremacists and abandoned by everyone else. Either reverse your undo of my edit, or at least have the consistency to alter Robert Byrd's Wiki page to change it from saying that he is former KKK to current KKK, because the issue at hand here is the same. 72.53.0.45 (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

If it is important enough to libel Mike Cernovich by refusing to acknowledge his abandonment of the alt-right, then it should be important enough to refuse to acknowledge that Robert Byrd abandoned the KKK. If it is not important enough to accept my update, despite my inclusion of several sources, it should not be important enough to reverse it to its old and out of date state. Have some consistency here, or at least admit you guys are incredibly biased. 72.53.0.45 (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

As for your retaliatory personal attack claiming that me referring to the ADL as far-left somehow disqualifies me from updating an article on a right-leaning figure, have a look at the ADL's Wiki page and tell me if you really believe they're a far-right organization based on their public support for pro-choice legislation, the DREAM act, and other legislation which only 20 years ago would have been considered far-left, despite allegedly being an organization whose focus is supposed to be on defamation of Jewish people. 72.53.0.45 (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood something here. There isn't some monolithic entity or person that controls Wikipedia. We're people like you. I am not NorthBySouthBaranof, and the person who commented referring to your inability to edit neutrally isn't the same person who asked you to stay civil. Moreover I have never edited Robert Byrd or Anti-Defamation League and I have no interest in either. There are no consistency police here, though all articles are supposed to adhere to the same set of policies and guidelines. If you want the Byrd article changed, go to Talk:Robert Byrd and make a suggestion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Calgary, on your user talk you said that we don't have recent reliable sources describing Cernovich as alt-right. Here are some. [1] [2] [3] And here's a source explaining Cernovich's rebranding effort and why it hasn't been as effective as he hoped. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

(Re-aligning my repeated replies to aid readability, I'm new to Talk pages) Authors who are not familiar with Mike Cernovich are likely to not realize there is a difference between alt-right and alt-lite. That would explain why some authors continue to refer to him as alt-right despite the fact that he has denounced the alt-right repeatedly, directly denounced the more prominent figures of the the alt-right such as Richard Spencer, etc. These sources however appear to recognize the difference, which is why I included them: New York Observer Anti-Defamation League The New York Times The New Yorker Haaretz Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy. The reason that the one article you cited which you say talks about his re-branding not being as effective as he hoped just goes to prove my point that people are seemingly resisting very hard to acknowledge his very public split from the alt-right, it doesn't prove he never split or something like that. The split between the two groups started to become more solidified after Richard Spencer's "Hail Trump" speech and his use of the Nazi salute, which he claimed to be a joke, but which was clearly serious enough for several people like Cernovich to abandon the alt-right at that moment. Please see the Wiki page on alt-lite for more information regarding the difference between these two related but separate groups, and it should become immediately clear to you why there was a need for people who were formerly on the alt-right to create a new group they refer to as the alt-lite, and why such animosity has arisen between the two groups. 72.53.0.45 (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I think other editors (DrFleischman and NBSB) have addressed the issues sufficiently.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Calgary, so the sources that refer to the guy as alt-right were written by people who don't understand what happened to the alt-right, and the sources that talk about Cernovich's efforts to rebrand as alt-lite are prove that he's obviously no longer alt-right? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

David Duke is known on Wikipedia as a former KKK member. Do people still call him a KKK member despite being a former KKK member? Yes. Are they accurate in saying that? No. Is he still a white supremacist? Yes. Is there a notable difference between KKK members and former KKK members? Yes. Was that merely a rebranding? Perhaps, perhaps it was more than that. But then why if you are reverting this page to say alt-right do you not revert David Duke's page to say he is a current KKK member? Or the deceased Robert Byrd, who renounced his KKK affiliations decades ago for that matter? The difference between the alt-lite and alt-right is at least as notable as the difference between a former and active KKK member, regardless of any change in their views. It's about accuracy. Unless these sources of mine are ALL wrong perhaps? New York Observer Anti-Defamation League The New York Times The New Yorker Haaretz Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy 72.53.0.45 (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Your Metro link actually acknowledges that Mike Cernovich rejects the alt-right label, and your Newsweek link at least acknowledges that there is a difference between the two. That's basically the meat of my argument here, that they're separate entities, and that Mike Cernovich is no longer with the alt-right and is now with the alt-lite. Not everyone is going to be aware of the difference, but that doesn't mean everyone else who is aware of the difference is automatically wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.0.45 (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you're missing a bigger point here. Just because someone self-identifies as X and not Y doesn't mean they are X and not Y. This is especially true when the self-identification is self-serving. To say that Cernovich is alt-lite, we need reliable sources to say in their own voice that he is in fact alt-lite. I don't believe we have that. We do, however, say in our opening paragraph that Cernovich denies being part of the alt-right and describes himself instead as new right. That seems pretty generous to me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

It does seem you didn't take my advice and read through the talk page archives. You're recycling arguments that have been made repeatedly. Of course consensus can change, but making the same old arguments is unlikely to yield a different result. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think YOU are getting the bigger point here. Either delete the alt-lite Wiki page in its entirety, or accept that due to its origin as a spliter group off from the alt-right formed after white nationalists and neo-Nazis co-opted the alt-right, and the majority of the alt-right who were not willing to associate with white nationalists and neo-Nazis abandoned it, becoming its own distinct group with clear differences between other groups. If the latter is true, then there necessarily must either be no alt-lite members, or some alt-lite members who were formerly alt-right. Given the many facts about Mike Cernovich's behavior such as his reluctance to misgender people or say racist things, his outright denouncement of the alt-right, his marriage to a non-white woman, the sources I provided which clearly no one here has even bothered to read, and many other reasons, it should be clear that he is no white nationalist or neo-Nazi or alt-right, as those are things which such people would not do without being exiled from such groups, in the same way that a progressive liberal donning a set of KKK robes would be exiled by their fellow progressive liberals, and given the many sources which both recognize the difference between the two groups, and Mike Cernovich's identity with one of them in the past, before it was had a strong affiliation with white nationalists, and the other in the present, which specifically came about to get away from the white nationalists, the logical thing to do would be to acknowledge that the most accurate political label to refer to Mike Cernovich with is now alt-lite rather than alt-right. There are many labels which one can use to refer to Mike Cernovich accurately. Classical liberal, right-leaning, alt-lite, former alt-right, etc. There are also some which are close but clearly inaccurate, if you actually look into his views and actually look into the definitions of those labels, such as conservative or libertarian. Or if one is an outright intellectually dishonest partisan, one could libel him by referring to him as such things as a neo-Nazi, a white nationalist, or alt-right, but those would not be accurate. Given that there are many labels of varying accuracy which can be assigned to someone, but no single label which is ever going to completely summarize someone's nuanced political views, the logical course of action is to pick the most accurate one, meaning the one which most closely matches their present views. With all that in mind, there are only three reasons why one who has done a reasonable amount of research on Mike Cernovich would refer to him as alt-right. One is that they are ignorant of Mike Cernovich and key developments in the political right in the US since 2016. Another is that they are willfully biased and are intentionally trying to degrade the accuracy of Wikipedia articles in disgraceful effort to boost their own political affiliation and/or ego by poisoning the well whenever people look up Mike Cernovich on Wikipedia. The other is that they have somehow gained the ability to read minds, and are able to somehow know that Mike Cernovich is constantly lying and faking that he's one way, but that he is actually another, despite the fact that claims of a mind-reading ability would never pass any reasonable requirements of burden of proof. So if one has researched Mike Cernovich and still believes he is alt-right, there's one question which remains for such a person to ask themselves: "What's your excuse for mislabeling him?" 72.53.0.45 (talk) 08:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

DrFleishmann: "Just because someone self-identifies as X and not Y doesn't mean they are X and not Y. This is especially true when the self-identification is self-serving." I will keep that in mind and be sure to never speak to you on the topic of transgender or non-binary individuals then, as you have essentially rejected the validity of everyone who applies such labels to themselves. Some would immediately brand you as further right than Mike Cernovich for doing such a thing, but fortunately not everyone is that way. In my country, Canada, Bill C-16 makes it a hate crime to not refer to someone by their preferred pronoun, whether their association with those pronouns are proven, recognized, or otherwise. Anyway, could you specifically address my sources? I was generous enough to assume that your source articles were written by people who are merely unaware of the distinction between the alt-right and the alt-lite, rather than just declaring them all libelous liars as I could have done; therefore I think the least you could do in turn is put in a reasonable effort to evaluate my sources. 72.53.0.45 (talk) 08:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Wow, show respect for other people's time, please. Wikipedia isn't interested in your original research, and Wikipedia isn't interested in euphemisms. Gender identity and political ideology are not the same, and everyone knows that. Attempting to use trans people as tool to win a petty argument says far more about your tactical approach than it does about the substance of your arguments. Anyway, deleting alt-lite isn't a bad idea, honestly, but that's something that should be discussed elsewhere. Grayfell (talk) 08:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Way to fail yet again to address the sources I cited. The other sources cited as an attempt to counter my sources do not refute my sources because they do not claim that those who label him as alt-lite are incorrect, in fact they either do not contest that fact, or do not even mention it at all, as though they are not aware of the distinction (which I argued), so they cannot therefore be used as a sufficient reason to dismiss the articles I cited. And yet time and time again, commenters on here refuse to address the obvious inaccuracy of referring to Mike Cernovich as alt-right post-2016. I did not use trans people as a "tool", that's what the far-left does when they support anti free-speech legislation such as Canada's Bill C-16, by claiming it is about "being decent" when it is really about repealing free speech. My mention of them is only to point out that the (poor) argument being used by the person I was replying to could be considered hate speech at some future date, by the very sort of people who would want to continue mislabeling Mike Cernovich as "alt-right" for political purposes. What other purpose could there be for being this unreasonably reluctant to put accuracy above ideological expedience by mislabeling him, all while this very Talk page repeatedly claims that he, his Wiki page, and the inaccurate political label being applied to him on Wikipedia is of "C-class low-importance". 72.53.0.45 (talk) 06:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

There are plenty of other websites for grandstanding and conspiracy theories. This talk page is for discussing this article. This article already says, in the lede, he denies being part of the alt-right and instead calls himself a yadda yadda yadda. The sources you've proposed, from those I bothered to read, clearly explain how this is him trying to manage his brand. We don't need even more sources for his "optics" blather. We have recent sources specifically calling him alt-right, and additional recent sources specifically calling this a PR move. Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion. Grayfell (talk) 08:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Alt-Right isn't a "brand," it's an ideology with an article on Wikipedia clearly explaining what it means. If Wikipedia's editors are attributing beliefs to this person entirely on the basis of third-party attribution, in spite of the fact that he claims not to hold such beliefs, then either he is lying and other people know about his ideological views better than he personally does, or these sources are inaccurately describing him, either due to error or malice, or possibly a combination of both. Putting it in the lead of the title as a matter of fact is what I find to be libelous, personally. I wonder whether we ought to update Donald Trump's article to say "Donald Trump is a racist who is the President of the United States," since CNN, a "reliable source," has described him as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.231.175 (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

"Donald Trump is a racist, etc. etc." -- Donald Trump, Robert Byrd, or any other person not named Mike Cernovich is irrelevant to this -- With all due respect, you are repeating the same things, and when you aren't getting the desired results, have resorted to gaslighting. This isn't debating the merits of the topic in an earnest manner (good faith). M3g4d37h 00:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by M3g4d37h (talk • contribs)

Remove the "alt-right" label

I know that this topic has been discussed before but really it needs to be discussed again because the current situation—where Cernovich is uncritically labelled "alt-right" in the opening sentence—is totally unsatisfactory. It is clearly the case that many press sources refer to him as such, however this does not make it unequivocally true. (One can also find a broad range of press sources referring to individuals like Milo Yiannopoulos, Steve Bannon, and Alex Jones as "alt-right", reflecting a very washy-washy and broad brush use of the term). Problematically, not only does Cernovich reject this characterisation himself but—and much more importantly—major WP:Reliable sources written by academics and other commentators who have studied the alt-right in depth reject this categorisation, instead labelling him part of the Alt-lite, a slightly different phenomenon. I've made sure that the article body now reflects this, but User:Nomoskedasticity suggested that I leave "alt-right" in the lead until I could gain a consensus otherwise. I'm more than happy to see the lead state something like "press sources referred to Cernovich as alt-right" because such a statement is perfectly true, however to uncritically state that he is "alt-right" as if it were unequivocal fact is utterly misleading. We need to do better. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Can I please ask for clarity re your reading of the sources. Are you saying that some sources call him alt-right and others call him alt-lite? Or are there some sources that explicitly dispute the alt-right characterization? If the latter, then we'd need to look at those. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

George Hawley, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Alabama, says that Cernovich "might be properly labelled" as "alt-lite" in Making Sense of the Alt-Right (p. 82); Angela Nagle refers to Cernovich as a "major figure in the alt-light milieu" in her Kill All Normies: Online Culture wars from 4chan to Tumblr to Trump and the Alt-Right (p. 50). In both cases they are seeking to distinguish Cernovich and the alt-lite from the white nationalist alt-right movement, so yes they are effectively saying that he is not part of the alt-right proper. Part of the problem (and this is something Hawley discusses in his book) is that when the term "alt-right" came to public attention circa 2016, it was often used in a very broad-brush way by those outside of the movement, including those (like Bannon and Yiannopoulos) who wanted to capitalise on its transgressive chic for their own, more moderate, right-wing agenda. It is clear that the press sources cited (all of which are from 2016, I think) appear to use "alt-right" in this very broad-brush manner to characterise everything to the right of mainstream conservatism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

This idea that the alt-right and alt-light are somehow fundamentally different is giving both movements a lot more credit than they deserve. As The New Yorker points out, Cernovich chose "new right" specifically as a branding exercise, which he compared to 7-Up being the "un-cola". There is no fundamental difference between what the alt-right was, and what the alt-light was a bit later, because the core ideological foundations were built on sand. Saying that Bannon and Yiannopoulos were "more moderate" is reasonable on the surface, but it's editorializing, because that's assuming that they were somehow wrong when they applied the label to themselves. They were accurate when they used the term, and then the term arguably came to mean something else. Or maybe it didn't. Likewise when Cernovich de-facto accepted the label by refusing to properly distance himself from it until it was far too late. It's not Wikipedia's place to say they made a mistake when they embraced an ideology. If they had to rush to find a new euphemisms, that's not a problem Wikipedia can help them solve. We're not a platform for this kind of PR, and it's embarrassing to see how credulous some niche writers (like Nagle) are to this kind of naked manipulation. Regardless, individual sources may try and grapple with these terms, but Wikipedia shouldn't play stupid to the bigger picture. We should avoid being misused as a platform for far-right damage control. Grayfell (talk) 06:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

It would certainly be pertinent to state in the lead that Cernovich was associated (by others, at least) with the "alt-right" but was part of the "more moderate" wing which did not embrace explicit white nationalism and became what came to be known as the "alt lite". That all seems sensible enough. However, that still leaves the issue of uncritically calling Cernovich "alt-right" in the opening sentence. Whatever one thinks of it, the term is often associated with the explicit white nationalism of Spencer, Anglin etc. Cernovich isn't part of that; thus, using "alt-right" in this manner can give a false impression of Cernovich and his views, which isn't good for the reader. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The problem is he was Alt-right, until Alt-right became dominated by Spencer and his far right ilk, and then Alt-right was redefined to include white nationalists as a homogeneous whole (much to some peoples consternation). However it is still associated with all the other behaviour and stances taken. It hasn't stopped being Alt-right just because it has become associated with even more toxic behaviour. The Alt Right article itself explains this in its first main paragraph. Alt-lite, or any other term is just a sub-group at most of a pre-existing group. You could say that Alt-right maybe was some alternative fourth path between Right, Far Right, and Libertarian (modern US meaning), but the truth is it just adopted significant chunks of those prior definitions anyway in the same was NeoCons are still Conservatives, or for the UK New Labour was still Labour. Focusing on trying to stratify far right ideologies into nuanced layers of belief is a fools errand (same for much of any specific series of ideologies) and will just generate competing and contrasting sources using their own specific definition of the term. For instance I am sure Angela Nagle must have provided definitions for her use of the term Alt-lite. This may well in fact be similar to or identical to another persons definition of Alt-right (or some other bespoke grouping of ideology). Koncorde (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

"The problem is he was Alt-right, until Alt-right became dominated by Spencer and his far right ilk, and then Alt-right was redefined to include white nationalists as a homogeneous whole". I broadly agree, but I think that it's even more complicated than that. The term appears to have been coined in 2008 by Richard Spencer who for a number of years used it in reference to his white nationalist movement; at the same time it accrued various non-white nationalists who liked to use the term, but they were never really accepted as being part of the movement by Spencer and other white nationalists, and were eventually fobbed off as the "alt-lite". All of this should, of course, be covered in the article. But I wonder therefore if we might be best referring to Cernovich in the opening sentence only as "far-right" or "right-wing" (depending on what the reliable sources say) in order to avoid the issues of "alt-right". Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

"Gradually posted"

When it says "gradually posted", what type of commentary had Mike's blog posts had near the beginning of the 2016 election? The sentence is unclear as to what change gradually occurred, only its conclusion. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 20:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Quote from Cernovich

I noticed that the article includes the following quote from Cernovich,

"Next time, don’t settle for the make out. If possible, at least pull out your dick. If you can get her to touch it, even better. If not, just let her know that your cock is too swollen to go back into your jeans, and that, ‘either you’re taking care of this, or I am.’ Masturbating will set your anchor nearer the desired destination – pussy [s]port."

I see several problems here. The source is the Southern Poverty Law Center. I looked up their site on Cernovich. They use the website www.dangerandplay.com as a source for the quote, but the website was inaccessible when I tried to access it. So it seems that the original source of the quotation is unavailable and we are left having to rely entirely on the SPLC, which is unfortunate. I also question whether the quotation is worth including. Per WP:PROPORTION: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Unless that specific comment by Cernovich has received significant coverage, it looks like a good example of a "minor aspect" that Wikipedia does not need to include. The broader point that "Cernovich has promoted sexually coercive behaviors with women who are reluctant" may well be worth including, but is there really a need to include that quotation in order to illustrate the point? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I think it could be removed; SPLC is probably a reliable source, but we should be judicious in how we use it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The quote is also supported by The Wrap, but I agree that putting that entire quote in a block is somewhat undue. I trimmed and rewrote that sentence and quote. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The SPLC has a solid record of defamation and according to the Washington Post "has lost all credibility"Mikedelsol (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

...according to the Washington Post "has lost all credibility"

Utter garbage. You mean, "according to the opinion of an ex-Bush White House speechwriter published in the Opinion section of the Washington Post". Try to say things which are true. --Calton | Talk 20:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

If you have the full Danger And Play link you can try and see if it's been saved on the Wayback Machine. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 20:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The accessibility of the site currently is no factor in its continued use (Cernovich deleted the article I believe soon after). The only factor is the reliability of the source. The actual quote has since been used by several sources (in full) in talking about the James Gunn furore, and partially quoted by a few others. In any case, here is the article in full. Casting aspersions on SPLC meanwhile is an absolute joke. Koncorde (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Southern Poverty Law Center

The validity of SPLC assertions has been brought into question by recent journalism and scholarship. This article is about a living person. Due diligence must be paid so as to avoid including defamatory information in wikipedia. Including defamatory statements supported by citations from unreliable sources is not consistent with wikipedia policy. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP_problem — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbelknap (talk • contribs) 02:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

"Brought into question"... by who, now? Is this different from the countless other times this has been discussed at WP:RSN and elsewhere? Grayfell (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/16/us/a-southern-watchdog-under-siege.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/magazine/wp/2018/11/08/feature/is-the-southern-poverty-law-center-judging-hate-fairly/?utm_term=.df43ed143dba

https://www.wsj.com/articles/who-watches-the-hate-watchers-11553726030

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-reckoning-of-morris-dees-and-the-southern-poverty-law-center

https://rkeefe57.wordpress.com/montgomery-advertiser-series/

Twitter no longer uses SPLC for their Trust and Safety Council: https://about.twitter.com/en_us/safety/safety-partners.html

Q.E.D.

Sbelknap (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

So in other words: yes. This is the exact same waffle which has already been discussed dozens of times, and none of these sources mention Cernovich at all. Got it. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Southern Poverty Law Center, or search the archives or WP:RSN. Wordpress? Seriously? Grayfell (talk) 03:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Twitter dropped SPLC as a source only recently. The wordpress link is to the Montgomery Advertiser 8 part series, which is well-written and interesting throughout. The New York Times article is recent. The turnover of senior leadership at SPLC is quite recent. Recently, there has been both internal and external criticism of the reliability of SPLC designation of hate groups and radical individuals, and this recent criticism of SPLC is not just from the targets of SPLC or right-wing sources. In other words, no. This is new, has not been discussed dozens of times, as you assert. The issue is whether or not SPLC is a reliable source, and this issue is not specific to Cernovich.Sbelknap (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

"Twitter dropped SPLC as a source only recently. " What does this even mean? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Twitter has a "Trust and Safety Council" of organizations/individuals that they rely on for advice as to how Twitter assesses whether certain groups are hate groups and whether certain persons are extremists. Twitter bases decisions about access to their platform based (in part) on the recommendations from the members of this council. The link provided above shows that Twitter no longer includes SPLC as a partner for their Trust and Safety Council.Sbelknap (talk) 03:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Content

Hello,

I have taken the information already provided and cited previously and rearranged it into relevant categories. The controversies seem to fit better listed under Social Media > Controversies.

It is normal for a public figure to have a listing of their relevant work history. I listed his published books, blogs, podcasts, TV interviews and other writings. I included more details on his 'views' in order to flesh out the factual information based on his own quotes.

I think it should be as neutral as possible. I did not realize linking to the Amazon page and quoting the summary was 'promotion' lol. So instead I listed each book as a title and date with a brief description. I did link to IMDb for the films, but this can be easily undone if inappropriate.

I did my best to provide a clear and valid citation for every other statement.

The original was far too sparse and editorial. I would appreciate as much feedback as possible, but I would ask that we do not return it to the original and instead update sections and content as needed. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chadfelixgreene (talk • contribs) 18:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Per concerns I have reduced the bibliography of the subject to bullet points with no links or additional information. I have only added factual, objective and cited information to improve the content and organized it into a more standard layout. I would appreciate any feedback. I welcome any content edits, but reverting back to the universally agreed-upon inappropriate version seems unnecessary. Thank you Chadfelixgreene (talk) 3:15PM 28 May 2019

Bold changes are one thing, but wholesale changes and removal of sourced content (or changing of it to whitewash) is not. Koncorde (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I did not make wholesale changes. I reorganized the information already in the article into standard categories and added information. I did not whitewash anything. In face I combined and added additional citation to the original content. The content itself was sparse and editorial. I added relevant content to the subject's work and quoted him directly provided multiple perspectives on each subject for balance. The original only provided negative information in a highly disorganized manner and left out relevant professional information on the subject. Please address the content. The original version, as everyone above has noted, is too sparse, biased on its own. I am following the stated protocols of *adding* balancing information. I did not remove information. I am attempting to create a framework for additional information to be placed. The subject is far more complex than the original content which merely cited his controversies. The current information I have added should be neutral enough to edit around. That is all I am asking for. Please consider editing the content around the structure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chadfelixgreene (talk • contribs) 19:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I also apologize for multiple reverts. This is my first article edit and I assumed the process required resubmitting the changes with further explanation in the content. I did not realize *this* was the appropriate forum. Please do not interpret my actions as aggressive. I was frustrated, but I did not mean to be too pushy. I really was just trying to set up a good layout to add or adjust information. The original did not have structure to make such edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chadfelixgreene (talk • contribs) 19:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure what information you Koncorde are requiring. But I will do my best. The information within the first three sentences resides within the article itself in appropriate categories. All I did was create a standard biographical layout, organize the original information into sections and then added additional sections with relevant professional information. The original post has multiple duplicate statements which I combined in appropriate sections.

I separated Early Life and Career. I moved all controversies into a section titled 'Controversies.' Under Career I added information regarding his written work and filmmaking. I organized his Views section and added several additional others relevant to the information in the original post and literally copy and pasted the original content into those categories. I did nothing whatsoever to the content of the 'sexual harassment' section content or the section already marked as needing another look as it was too dense for the subject.

I added: A list of his books. A list of his films. A list of his blogs. A list of his TV appearances with commentary already within the original article. I added a sentence of biographical information from his autobiographical book under his Early Life and a sentence updating his daughters on his personal life. I reserved the introductory paragraph for as neutral information as possible, adding to the list already present. It is factual that is he best known for his book and film. I added to the list of his views by citing his direct statements both pro and against for each one for balance as best as possible. The career introduction is an objective statement of the timeline of his career.

The current outline does not allow constructive edits and it is obvious the bias is to present only negative controversies where the information does not belong. I am attempting to add content and balance to the information already present without removing any of that information. Chadfelixgreene (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Read WP:NOTEVERYTHING: we don't need to add a list of everything he has ever produced. We need to look at what reliable secondary sources say about him. His tweets and self-published books are not reliable except for wholly uncontroversial information about himself. If he is 'best known' for his book and his film, please provide reliable sources that support that claim. Nblund ^talk 22:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Chad, your explanation does not explain why you classify him as "centre right" (something no reliable source has ever approached as a description of his politics) or why you have received Alt-Right, which is sourced and is entirely the reason he has any significant notability (along with well documented conspiracy theories). Just on those changes alone I have less than 0 time to consider any other amendments, but per Nblund above, his own opinion about himself can best be summed up as "self described" if there are reputable sources to say otherwise. Claims of "personal fulfilment" and "metaphysical philosophy" would require some quite special sourcing. Koncorde (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

These are not the standards provided for most authors or public figures or even controversial figures. See: Ann Coulter. The sources provided in the current version are by no means neutral or authoritative and several contradict themselves. They are simply biased. It seems completely unreasonable to argue that it is inappropriate to list the published books and films of a person listed as a writer and filmmaker in all other instances. The views section is commonly sourced by quoting the subject directly. You cannot reasonably look at the current version and contend it provides a neutral and educational account of the subject in question. Why would you be opposed to *balanced* information regarding the subject? That is the point of a biography, to provide information on all aspects of the individual in question. As has been contended previously, the 'alt-right' label is misused. As I provided sourcing for, the subject originally supported the ideals of the Alt-Right movement, became critical of it and then completely disavowed it. The biased media reports that continue to use that label for him use the word to describe Ben Shapiro too. It is not authoritative or reasonable as a title. The same for 'conspiracy theorist.' Some title him that. It is reasonable to state he is considered *by some* to be a conspiracy theorist. He did write for an established constitutional legal review. He is well-known in the health and fitness world. His book Gorilla Mindset is his best selling book and his documentary Hoaxed is his most notable film. These are facts. The current information in the profile are based on *opinions* others have written about him. I did not remove any information about his actions or statements. So why would you consider *opinions* written about him as solid sourcing but reject mundane factual information such as him having two daughters and being published in a reputable law review? I just don't think this all or nothing approach is rational. Finally, the **structure** of the current profile is not standard, poorly designed and agreed-upon by all voices in this thread as needing revised. I can understand why you would challenge certain statements about him such as being 'center-right' (how he describes himself and based on his actual actions politically) but I don't understand why you would oppose a logical breakdown of his actual early life, his actual career and then discuss the controversies surrounding him.70.33.136.178 (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Because, per WP:NPOV, we discuss viewpoints in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources. Cernovich is not a reliable source, and mainstream reliable sources describe him as a far right conspiracy theorist who is best known for advocating Pizzagate. Per WP:ABOUTSELF: we can use his self-published works as sources for wholly uncontroversial facts, but not for self-serving claims about how great his books are or how he's "actually center-right". We aren't his publicists. Nblund ^talk 18:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

As per Nblund, but also I don't believe anyone would object to refactoring this article, but what was approached by Chad was not a subtle refactoring of content but a clear ideological sanitising of reliably sourced information and insertion of vanity items. In and of themselves, mentioning of his published media etc and early life is fine and should and could be composed - but it should be sourced from independent sources, oabd reliable ones at that. It is unfortunately, as with the issue with Philip Roth a few years back, that weight of sources is often more significant than primary sourcing (which should only be used for limited factual uncontroversial content). Koncorde (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, going to point out that Greene is really good friends with Cernovich. The fact he's trying to whitewash the man's page as a biased editor needs to be heavily scrutinized. I do not think the man has any intent of editing WP in good faith whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:9620:1108:4A7:59B1:4539:347 (talk) 11:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Motives or not, please don't cast aspersions or make personal attacks. I am sure a lot of people are friends of subjects on Wikipedia, but providing they use reliable sources I don't think we have anything to worry about. Koncorde (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Greene is very clearly promoting Cernovich's work and whitewashing the article. I understand it's bad form to lodge such accusations, but there's no way his actions can be seen as being in good faith.

While we're on the subject of proposed content, however, Cernovich himself has publicly stated himself to be "alt-right." Would it not be more accurate to characterize him as "alt-right," rather than simply "right wing?" His entire notoriety comes entirely from his activities in the political fringe (ie Pizzagate). I'm right wing, this dude's very clearly an extremist: "I went from libertarian to alt-right after realizing tolerance only went one way and diversity is code for white genocide." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:9620:1108:4A7:59B1:4539:347 (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC) There is no evidence I attempted 'whitewash' anything. As I stated many time previously, I included all original content in more logical categories and added *balance*

I do not know Mike Cernovich personally. But it seems there is a very strong bias towards rejecting *neutral* relevant information in favor of pure negative storytelling. The detractors here have not provided any substantial complaint. They have only refused to allow neutral and common wiki bio info added in favor of negative editorializing.

Its fine.

I am working with wikipedia currently to address this.

However it should be noted by anyone who recognizes why the current version is deeply flawed, disorganized and designed to portray an image rather than give basic bio details that neutral additions or even changes to structure will be blocked by biased bullies intent on political nonsense.LGBTWikiguy 23:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chadfelixgreene (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately you have misrepresented your edits, so I cannot agree. Nobody would object to improvements, but your changes under the guise of "balance" are anything but, and I believe you are completely aware of this. I would suggest if you have structural changes and biographical information to add that you do so in piecemeal. Koncorde (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Rewrite this article or delete it

This article looks like a halfassed rush job written two years ago that nobody has bothered to update since. If you want a good example of why Wikipedia generally isn't considered a reliable source, this article is perfect. Pretty much any weakness or drawback that Wikipedia has, or is accused of having, this article has in spades,

·It's outdated (Its literally a 2016 time capsule) ·It's very sparse information wise, much of the content and information you usually see in BLP is either lacking or completely missing. ·Bizarre weight/cherry picked. If you're here to read about stuff nobody cares about from 2 or 3 years ago, this article is perfect. If you want to read about things usually found in a BLP, you're sorely out of luck. Same goes if you're interested in anything more recent than 2016. ·Bizarre weight 2: Whipping the dead horse. So much of the article revolves around the 16 election. Seriously WHO CARES? (I'm sure whoever wrote this atrocity believes it was the biggest deal ever, though!) A third of Americans didn't give a sh*t back In 16' since they didnt bother to vote, and guess what: They care even less now.

Anyways, Inoriginally came here because I've seen the guys movie and wanted to know a little more. I noticed that the information about the movie was missing, and tried to fix it by adding it. But was immediately reverted. Why? Something about the sources, blah blah. Well no wonder the reliable sources don't call him a filmmaker, they're all from years ago, whereas Silenced just came out.

I can now see why it's such a shit tier article. Whoever is responsible apparently believes that the reputable source from 2016 knows better than the 2018 Reputable Source that is IMDB.

(This seems like a violation of wikipedias own policy on reputable sources: Age matters. Or if not a straight out violation, then definetely ignoring it because "nobody can add stuff to MY article but me" or something like that. Whatever.)

TLDR Please rewrite or delete it. It's awful and the internet deserves better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.72.43 (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2018‎

K. Find reliable sources. IMDB isn't a reliable source for this kind of thing, per WP:ELPEREN and Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. He's produced documentaries, but he's also produced protein shake recipes. Who cares? Reliable sources need to explain why it's important. Grayfell (talk) 00:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is more of a hit piece than an article. I didn't know who Cernovich was, which was why I came here, and with such prior ignorance, I can say it was obviously written by people who don't care much for him. Objectivity means the reader shouldn't be able to discern the opinions or biases of the author. --AdamSmith343 (talk) 13:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

“it was obviously written by people who don't care much for him” - In a way; you could say that I suppose. When a person makes it their life’s goal to make sure people who write things in mainstream sources write crappy things about them, the existence of a compendium of info taken from mainstream sources probably doesn’t do them much credit. The article isn’t authored by Wikipedia editors, it’s compiled. If you think the material lacks proper attribution, do feel free to add it. Edaham (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I have attempted to introduce relevant and neutral information to organize and balance the information in the post but the other users keep reverting it back. Despite my many adjustments I just cannot seem to get interactive feedback or compromise.Chadfelixgreene (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

No one cares about your "neutral" attempt at "correcting" your close friend's Wikipedia page. (Personal attack removed) You are not a journalist either, stop claiming you are. 2607:FEA8:9620:1108:4A7:59B1:4539:347 (talk) 11:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

This is why Wikipedia has cultivated a reputation for bias. I don't know much about Cernovich, but the article in question is a great example of how not to write an unbiased encyclopedic entry. And when someone points out the obvious hack job of an entry, someone responds with "No one cares about your "neutral" attempt at "correcting" your close friend's Wikipedia page. Simply put, fuck off". I will use this page, and others on Wikipedia, to demonstrate to others why this site is not a reliable source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1b0:ae90:1092:273b:3736:9648 (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Culture war

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I heard that Wikipedia is now so biased that teachers are starting to find it unfit for use in school. Bias is great, but the individuals running Wikipedia have now been revealed, and so it is time to either decide to kick out biased people, or for Wikipedia to embrace a new official image of not pretending to be neutral in matters of views and values. --109.189.97.240 (talk) 07:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC) To quote one of the greatest minds of the last century; "Yeah, well that's just, like, your opinion, man." The only people that would think Wikipedia is bias are those who don't agree with reliable sources. If you believe all media and authoritative sources other than the ones you favour are bias or "fake news" then it doesn't really matter what Wikipedia does. In the end teachers would not use Wikipedia, and they would not recommend Wikipedia other than for factual information in practical subjects and warn students not to rely upon it. They should use the reliable and authoritative sources that Wikipedia only reflects. Students should not rely upon it, but it can be a great gateway to other sources. Koncorde (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC wikipedia is biased trash, use it only for science/tech articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.103.207.36 (talk) 07:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC) Because science can't be skewed by politics amirite? If there are no actual suggestions to improve this article, I take it this soapbox can be hatted? Koncorde (talk) 08:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

This article

This is not a forum for discussing Wikipedia in general. This is the talk page for this specific article. Since there are no specific proposals for this article, this is not productive. Grayfell (talk) 02:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Articles like this (smears) are exactly why I will NEVER contribute to Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.234.62.15 (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC) Cernovich may or may not deserve a bad reputation, but you're right in that this page is a clear attempt to smear the person's character. This is a poor example at an encyclopedic article. But, this appears to be a trend on Wikipedia. This site is NOT a reliable source and people should stop treating it as such. It's beyond salvaging at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1B0:AE90:1092:273B:3736:9648 (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC) Instead of complaining, why don't you suggest specific problems you have with this article and ways that it can be improved? Liz Read! Talk! 04:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC) The problem isn't specific to this article. The problem is the site at large. The types of sources that the site deems reliable includes sources that really shouldn't be considered as trustworthy, like opinion pieces and sources that have an obvious political bias. Many of the sources that are deemed reliable have pushed numerous stories that were demonstrably false and misleading. This article claims Cernovich is known for pushing fake news, and this may very well be true, but the very sources that Wikepedia seems to favor do this regularly. But, that's the current state of our culture. No one is interested in truth; everyone seems determined to push a narrative. And as a result, you have articles like this. I do not like or support Cernovich, but it is clearly written as a smear piece and not as a neutral encyclopedic entry. And there are dozens and dozens and dozens of articles like this on Wikipedia. The idea of an open-source encyclopedia seems like a good idea in theory, until you actually see how it plays out in practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1b0:ae90:2de6:6c41:f136:6b2b (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Changes should be made to fix the neutrality of the article

This article seems heavily focused to degrade the subject's reputation, especially with the way it's written to highlight the negative aspects of the subject. Changes should be made to make the article more neutral in tone and less biased against the subject. andritolion (talk) 05:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The subjects only notability is his reputation afforded to him in reliable sources. Koncorde (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

There seem to be few if any reliable sources cited here. Someone literally cited Buzzfeed, a site best known for making "top 10" lists, as evidence for "misinformation" he's allegedly spread. What was the misinformation? Editor doesn't say. This isn't an article. It's a political smear piece, and we should all be ashamed.Ceran (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

In the future, please post new comments at the bottom of the section. Buzzfeed News is reliable, per many past discussions. This is summarized at WP:RSP. Since Wikipedia isn't a platform for spreading misinformation, the specific details of Cernovich's misinformation don't belong here in this article unless we are willing to expand this with a lot more context. Grayfell (talk) 07:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Now that I have researched more heavily, I now understand why the article is written in this way. Tons of sources support the claims made in this article. I'm sorry for causing a disruption with adding POV tag before researching the subject. At first glance, the article seemed to smell of bias, but when I looked into it, I saw that most of the supposed bias could be supported by several sources. Again, I profusely apologize for wasting everyone's time and energy for a fault on my part (not researching the subject enough). andritolion (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The subject is highly controversial, however the controversy can be put into the context of his work and direct quotes. The content needs more detail and more background surrounding it and I attempted to add more objective factual biographical information rather than commentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chadfelixgreene (talk • contribs) 18:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

"In context" sounds suspiciously like synthesis. We use reliable sources. If there is no context in the reliable sources it is unlikely to be represented in this article. Koncorde (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)