Talk:Mike Cernovich/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Lede fails to mention any positive news about Cernovich even though it exists from reliable sources

The entire introduction to Cernovich is sharply negative. It does not give multiple sides to a very complex public figure; only the side that condemns him. Many people think he should be condemned; that is not an excuse to only provide that side.

Therefore, I added an NPOV dispute.

The NPOV flag was removed and I was asked to contribute using reliable sources.

Therefore, I added sections from mainstream sources (Washington Post and the Hill) that provided other sides to Cernovich left of out of the sharply negative introduction.

Then I was told that the word "praised" was not necessarily accurate when the Washington Post said "Cernovich has in recent months broken several legitimate stories."

So I changed to "confirmed". User NBlund, you summarize as "Self described journalist publishes true story" and "he recently published some stories that weren't false"; neither is correct; in fact, they note the he broke true stories -- that is investigative journalism and deserves to be listed along with false things he has reported.

Either we need to add balance to the into discussion -- such as the Washington Post's reporting of the stories he broke -- or we need an NPOV flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaximumIdeas (talk • contribs) 02:40, 1 August 2019‎ (UTC)

Your proposal of "balance" seems like false balance. The Washington Post story's second sentence is this: "Cernovich — a controversial far-right figure who has promoted blatantly false conspiracy theories, such as the discredited "Pizzagate" hoax — was the source of a big BuzzFeed scoop Monday night."[1] From the beginning, the source strongly emphasizes that he is primarily known for fake news. The story also goes into detail about the many ethical problems with Cernovich's checkbook journalism. The issue is not just that broke stories, it's how he broke them. That's what the source is explaining.

Your edit also misrepresented the source in a more direct way, since it is not The Washington Post saying he's "broken several legitimate..." it's Buzzfeed editor Ben Smith being quoted by the Washington Post. Context matters, and he is being quoted because he is defending the use of a source which everyone involved recognizes as having a dubious reputation. The Washington Post story also links some other stories as context. One of those points out that Alex Jones also "scooped" the story, and that both Jones and Cernovich produce such a high volume of speculative material that they are almost guaranteed to occasionally get it right. Angry guessing isn't journalism, InfoWars isn't a reliable source, and Cernovich still isn't defined by reliable sources as a reputable journalist. Grayfell (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks you for the comments. I agree, the Washington Post leads by noting his checkered history; so does the Wikipedia article. The difference is that, without my added paragraph, the Wikipedia intro conveys no redeeming qualities; the Washington Post article, on the other hand, is more fair in providing this more complete picture.

You suggest that "angry guessing isn't journalism", but in this case it wasn't angry guessing, rather Cernovich obtained a primary source that was the story. This is why it's phrased as "several legitimate stories" not "angry guessing".

The Washington Post article notes that Ben Smith said that Cernovich has in recent months broken several legitimate stories, but the Post article's phrasing also takes that position itself. "As Smith notes, Cernovich has in recent months broken several legitimate stories" indicates agreement with Smith. Regardless, if you want to add the additional context you mention, that seems reasonable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaximumIdeas (talk • contribs) 03:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Per Greyfell; the additional context just makes the Stopped Clock argument, it's right twice a day, but that doesn't make it accurate and nobody is going to espouse it's benefits. Koncorde (talk) 06:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The Washington Post didn't say "Cernovich is like a stopped clock. Right twice a day." Rather they noted his checkered past, as Wikipedia already does as well, and then said "As Smith notes, Cernovich has in recent months broken several legitimate stories". This is simply bringing the balance of Wikipedia's description in line with outlets like the Washington Post.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MaximumIdeas (talk • contribs)

WP:SURPRISEME. Journalists are supposed to break true stories rather than false ones. Dan Rather's lead doesn't list the various times he was correct, it lists the one major instance where he was wrong. The Conyers story does not appear to come up in more recent coverage of him (1, 2), so I don't really think it's lead-worthy. Even if the Conyers story is mentioned, the edit I removed seemed to imply that there was some dispute as to whether or not he was actually a serious journalist. That is not consistent with any of the coverage - which is ultimately about the ethical questions of serious news organizations working with people who were well-known for publishing falsehoods. Nblund ^talk 15:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, journalists are supposed to break true stories rather than false ones. Cernovich has done both, according to the Washington Post. Right now the lede only says Cernovich broke false ones, and therefore is not balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaximumIdeas (talk • contribs) 23:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. See Help:Signatures

"Balance" doesn't mean false balance. This one quote from one source, taken out of context, doesn't belong in the lede just because it creates the impression of balance. Grayfell (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that "balance" doesn't mean "false balance". Balance means that if someone breaks stories -- some false and some true -- that you mention both; not just one or the other.

If you want to add the Washington Post's whole statement ("As Smith notes, Cernovich has in recent months broken several legitimate stories") to address your context concern, that seems reasonable. MaximumIdeas (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

It really doesn't mean that. If that were the case, then we would talk about any of the true stories Stephen Glass, or Jayson Blair wrote in the leads of those articles, and we would have to discuss the times Brian Williams shared anecdotes that weren't fabricated.

WP:DUE says we cover things in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources. That means that a single sentence in the 24th paragraph of a 30 paragraph news article shouldn't be accorded the same weight as facts that are consistently noted as defining incidents in someone's career. This is true even if the more widely covered facts give a bad impression of a person. Cernovich's accurate stories are really only noteworthy because of his long career of publishing blatant falsehoods. Highlighting them in the lead is sort of like talking about all the people Jeffrey Dahmer didn't eat. Nblund ^talk 15:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Wait, didn't I mention the stopped clock analogy already? The fact he is wrong 22 out of 24 claims doesn't mean we balance the 2 times he may have been right, especially if the sources do not treat his two successes as of a particular significance. That is quote mining. Koncorde (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

In the Williams, Glass, and Blair stories, it does effectively note that they covered things correctly as well. For instance, Blair is a former "American journalist". For Williams, "NBC News was awarded the Peabody Award for its coverage of Hurricane Katrina, and Williams accepted the award on behalf of the organization", etc. Nobody would come away from the Williams, Glass, and Blair stories thinking that they had never broken real stories too -- appropriately. On the other hand, as it stands now, pretty much everyone would come away with the sense that Cernovich does not break legitimate stories. When, as the Washington Post notes, he has. ("As Smith notes, Cernovich has in recent months broken several legitimate stories") That misimpression that people come away with is what makes the current page deeply in violation of Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines.MaximumIdeas (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC) Koncorde, not quote mining; the entire Washington Post article is about how Cernovich has broken real stories. MaximumIdeas (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Except it really isn't, is it? It's about him potentially paying for some documents, which is the antithesis of journalistic ethics, to provide them under agreement to BuzzFeed. And while he may have broken some stories, the article is not crediting them as journalism. "Legitimate stories" is what everybody is supposed to do. Doing it is meant to be the job. Now, getting an award for it may be significant per your samples you have, but by and large we do not discuss every thing a journalist does. Koncorde (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Is it? Again: "As Smith notes, Cernovich has in recent months broken several legitimate stories". It is unfair to this public figure, and to readers, to give the impression that he is only a fake news practitioner.

Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines state that articles "must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

The Washington Post quote is a significant view that has been published by reliable sources on this topic.MaximumIdeas (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

You said "entire" it clearly isn't. And picking out a single quote in a single article versus all other content on the same subject is not necessarily "proportionate" or "significant". No one disputes the WaPo reliability, or that the sentence exists. The question is context, and relevance. As stated, a stopped clock is right twice a day. The significance of the stopped clock is that it is stopped, not that it has been right at some time. Koncorde (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The Washington Post did not say "Cernovich, like a broken clock, has been right twice." It said "As Smith notes, Cernovich has in recent months broken several legitimate stories". The context within the Post story, about Cernovich's failures, is already in Wikipedia's intro. This is why I suggest adding the part that is not already in the Wikipedia page. Surely, the fact that he "has broken several legitimate stories" is a "significant view" that is critical to represent. MaximumIdeas (talk) 00:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, this is one brief paragraph plucked from a much longer article. Since I do not accept "balance" as a valid argument, I do not accept that this quote belongs in the lede. Grayfell (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Maximum, no, a significant view would be "Mike Cernovich is a pulitzer winning journalist", or something that he is actually notable for or becomes notable for. Assisting in the Buzzfeed article for instance may be notable to him, but it is one single instance in over 15 years to everybody else? Several "legitimate stories" equally might indicate a trend of improvement, but that should be recognised within the main narrative of the article. He is still not notable for the legitimate stories, and it is not a significant view (certainly not for the lede). At best you might get a sentence in the relevant section that "In an interview for the Washington Post, Cernovich emphasised he was making a greater effort to be accurate in the last year. //BuzzFeed editor// recognised he had broken several legitimate stories leading up to his contribution to the John Conyers article that was broken by the website in XXXX". Koncorde (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

There needs to be something -- doesn't need to be big -- in the lede saying he also breaks legitimate stories, to avoid the false impression that page currently gives that he is purely a con artist. Perhaps we can have a consensus around the wording that you give above, but in the lede?MaximumIdeas (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

When there is a significant view to that effect, it will be represented. At present there is a single sentence in a single article, in 2019, after over a fifteen years of other stuff. 1 marginally positive reference after 15 years is not balance, especially when the "stories" broken are not particularly notable (I mean, they aren't even listed), or in the Conyers case the notability is from how he ended up contributing, and how it is incongruous. Koncorde (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

It is already a significant view. There are more such articles in reliable outlets -- a search turns them up. How many makes it "significant", to you? MaximumIdeas (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Just looking for general sources I have found three lengthy articles specifically saying that Cernovich likes to give out unsolicited and overly-fussy fashion advice. (All of them also mention his extreme political positions and conspiracy theories, by the way). Even with substantial sources, this still doesn't belong in the lede. Not every WP:FART belongs in the lede. Being verifiable isn't enough. It's also not enough to just vaguely assert that some reliable sources exist. All sources are judged in context, and we, as editors, don't have to play stupid to self-aggrandizement and naked media manipulation. Grayfell (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, that context is already given in the entire lede as is. Nobody is suggesting the fake stuff (the context) not be mentioned. All that is asked is that the significant view that has made contributions as well, be noted. How many general sources, in your view, would make that a significant view? MaximumIdeas (talk) 23:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

1,000? 1,000,000? 1? It would depend upon what in and of itself is noteworthy. You don't seem to be understanding this process, so if you think you have a wealth of sources saying he is a notable reliable journalist of significant repute - present them. Koncorde (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Let's be clear, nobody is saying he is a "notable reliable journalist of significant repute" -- I never suggested that, as you can see by reviewing our thread. What I do suggest is noting the significant viewpoint that the Washington Post notes, namely that "As Smith notes, Cernovich has in recent months broken several legitimate stories". Here's yet another Washington Post piece that says: "Cernovich broke some real news" ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/04/07/how-mike-cernovichs-influence-moved-from-the-internet-fringes-to-the-white-house/ ). And yes, this is in the context of fake news he has pushed; and again, that context already constitutes the majority of his Wikipedia lede; what's needed now is the add the significant viewpoint at the center of the context you note.

More on it being a significant viewpoint:

Here is a Daily Caller article linking to The Hill, The New Yorker and Buzzfeed News, saying that Cernovich has real sources and scoops: https://dailycaller.com/2017/05/15/media-starting-to-admit-60-minutes-was-wrong-to-call-mike-cernovich-fake-news/

Surely, if anything is a "significant view", this is. MaximumIdeas (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

What is significant about him occasionally being right? Koncorde (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, it is not about him being right (everyone is right sometimes) but rather about him breaking investigative stories (something very few people do.) The current lede portrays him as being a pure con-artist. This perception is not accurate, as multiple reliable news outlets have gone out of their way to note. Perhaps we can agree that is significant. I appreciate the dialogue here by the way, and you guys keeping crazy changes off the page, but maybe we can agree that this is a major view that should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaximumIdeas (talk • contribs) 17:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Then unfortunately at the moment I don't agree. Reliable sources are overwhelming in their analysis of his behaviour and conduct. His breaking of "legitimate stories" isn't particularly quantifiable, and is quickly outweighed by his moves against Gunn and Seder (amongst other things). Again, unfortunately your push for balance remains, as I stated originally, a push for a stopped clock. At present narratively I can see something, but it would be distinctively out of balance for the lede. Koncorde (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Seconded I don't think that is significant - as evidenced by the fact that the Washington Post begins an article by characterizing him as the poster boy for fake news, and waits until halfway down the page to acknowledge that one time he broke a story which, while still bullshit in a way, was not a complete fabrication. It's been 7 days of this argument, and I'm not remotely persuaded. It's probably time to drop it. Nblund ^talk 20:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

This article clearly and dramatically fails Wikipedia's NPOV standard.

There is demonstrably a significant view (backed up by multiple reliable sources) that Cernovich has broken legitimate stories -- as the Washington Post puts it: "As Smith notes, Cernovich has in recent months broken several legitimate stories". In addition, this Daily Caller article linking to The Hill, The New Yorker and Buzzfeed News, saying that Cernovich has real sources and scoops: https://dailycaller.com/2017/05/15/media-starting-to-admit-60-minutes-was-wrong-to-call-mike-cernovich-fake-news/

Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines state that articles "must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

This article clearly fails that standard, and even could be considered legally defamatory in many countries, especially given that we are all now aware of the multiple reliable sources covering his legitimate reporting.

You suggest it is "time to drop" the discussion, but we do not have consensus. I will raise this for dispute resolution. I'm honestly new to this process and interested to see how it plays out, but hopefully neutral outside opinions can help bring some NPOV to this lede! MaximumIdeas (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Please do. It is clear that you have a single opinion to push and do not understand that NPOV does not mean the article must be neutral, only that our representation of the articles should be neutral (i.e. without editorialising). We have asked for what is notable or significant about being right occasionally, and very infrequently, when even the articles themselves are often incredibly critical of his methods. Meanwhile the sources you claim reference all those news sources do so in very specific ways that actually do not make the argument you claim which is a form of synthesis (instead they are often discussing whether or not he could be considered anything other than a right wing troll / meme generating conspiracy theorist, or laughing at an amateur beating out a talking head journo to publish leaks). I am not even sure what reputational standard the DailyCaller has in terms of being an RS.

Also please do not throw around legal terms. Koncorde (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you have asked that, and I answered: To be clear, it is not about him being right (everyone is right sometimes) but rather about him breaking investigative stories (something very few people do.) Re Daily Caller's RS, they cite multiple RS (New Yorker, Buzzfeed News, The Hill) saying the same thing.MaximumIdeas (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

They don't. Or at least not in the way you hope to portray them. Koncorde (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• Our article on Hitler also fails to point out that he was good to his mother. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, and Hitler's lede also notes: His first six years in power resulted in rapid economic recovery from the Great Depression ... just because we hate someone does not mean that the page cannot mention critically relevant positive things as well.MaximumIdeas (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

So Hitler has more to his credit than Cernovich does. Were you arguing that's good or something? Guy (Help!) 16:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The difference of course being that his work as Chancellor was exceptionally notable as part of his rise to power and the subject of both analysis and news reporting at that time, but also vast and widespread analysis since. It is both significant and notable. His treatment of his mother in contrast is likely only of fringe relevance, and covered by few sources, and not a significant viewpoint. Koncorde (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Many of the countless reliable sources about Hitler are independently noteworthy. Psychopathography of Adolf Hitler has ninety-one reference tags, and there are plenty of other relevant articles with useful sources. There are places where details like this belong, because they can be places in proportion to the many, many articles on Hitler Wikipedia has.

Cernovich, by comparison, has only a smattering of reliable stories for any reason at all, and the article's length should reflect that. Most of these sources were published in a relatively short time span clumped around 2017, and most are brief news articles. All of the reliable ones I have seen are skeptical of his legitimacy as a journalist. Per WP:RSP, Daily Caller is not generally reliable. We cannot use a source to imply he has legitimacy when multiple sources specifically cast doubt on that perspective.

Cernovich himself has heavily promoted himself as a journalist, as well, but Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations. Readers already know where to go if they want to hear or read him talking about himself. Grayfell (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

This ↑ exactly. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Guy, you say: "Hitler has more to his credit than Cernovich does. Were you arguing that's good or something?" No. I say it's completely irrelevant. What's relevant is that multiple reliable sources discuss his legitimate reporting, and Wiki's NPOV guidelines demand we include "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources", yet this lede ignores it. Reliable sources:

-- "As Smith notes, Cernovich has in recent months broken several legitimate stories" https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/why-buzzfeed-teamed-with-a-far-right-figure-to-break-the-john-conyers-scandal/2017/11/21/64688b2a-ceca-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html

-- "Cernovich now seems to have anonymous sources in the White House, or close to it" https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/can-mike-cernovich-a-pro-trump-meme-maker-get-a-real-news-scoop

-- "Major scoops by former trolls have short-circuited the bullshit detector of the mainstream media." https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/charliewarzel/what-happens-when-the-pro-trump-media-get-actual-scoops#.ixV7kyj4z

-- "Mike Cernovich continues to regularly scoop Bloomberg columnist Eli Lake, who appears to share at least one Trump administration source with the ‘Gorilla Mindset’ author," -- The Hill newsletter

This is what Wikipedia is ignoring, and it is sad if this is kept off just because you or anyone else see Cernovich as Hitler-like. MaximumIdeas (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Epstein lawsuit not mentioned

174.30.37.59 (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC) A major recent event involving Cernovich is not mentioned. He initiated and was joined by a team of others in a lawsuit to have court documents from Jeffrey Epstein's 2008 sex trafficking conviction unsealed. They won this lawsuit, the ruling was released 3 July 2019 and Epstein, after being left free for 11 years, was arrested 9 July 2019. https://s9503.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Epstein-case-unseal-cernovich.pdf Another link to the court decision: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/18-2868/18-2868-2019-07-03.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.30.37.59 (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done Please provide a reliable secondary source for the information you want to add.Nblund ^talk 18:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Unseal the Deals

174.30.37.59 (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Following his 2 July 2019 court victory to unseal Jeffrey Epstein documents from 2008 Cernovich, On 7 July 2019, initiated a fundraising effort, "Unseal the Deals" for a lawsuit to have sealed records from congressional sexual misconduct cases unsealed.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/07/fresh-off-epstein-case-win-mike-cernovich-launches-fundraiser-to-file-lawsuit-to-unseal-congressional-sexual-harassment-deals/ 174.30.37.59 (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done The Gateway Pundit is not a reliable source, please provide a reliable secondary source for the statement you want to add. Nblund ^talk 18:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Buzzfeed

Buzzfeed is a Reliable source, with an editorial staff and editors. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

RFC on Mentioning Cernovich's other reporting in lead

The consensus is to exclude the material from the lead paragraph.

Cunard (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the lead paragraph:

• include a mention that some of Cernovich's reports have been confirmed by other outlets (as seen in this diff)?
• exclude any mention of that reporting (as in the current version)

(note: I've changed the initial RFC description from the original for clarity) Nblund ^talk 23:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Responses

• exclude per the discussion above. Cernovich is best known for reporting falsehoods, and we should avoid whitewashing that fact. I could be persuaded that some specific story (like the Conyers story) might be worthy of inclusion in the lead, but it shouldn't be presented as if it mitigates the far more numerous and more prominent instances where he has pushed complete fabrications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nblund (talk • contribs) 23:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude - My loose summary of sources is that Cernovich practices cargo-cult journalism. Having a supposed "source inside the administration" doesn't make him a journalist, it just makes him a guy who knows a guy. He "breaks" many stories at a frantic pace, but most of those turn out to be nothing at all, baseless speculation, or just factually wrong. Sometimes he's correct, or sort-of correct, and sometimes other people notice because it is unusual. This shouldn't be mistaken for legitimacy. Journalism (especially responsible journalism) means holding back on gossip, speculation, and rumors until they can be verified or contextualized. Virtually all reliable sources (such as those cited for this issue) fundamentally dispute his ability to verify his own reports. He is not "breaking a story" in anything but the most casual sense of the term. He is passing-along gossip. Some of his gossip happens to be correct, but this is incidental to his notability, and should not be misrepresented as encyclopedically significant. Grayfell (talk) 01:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude - as per above and lengthy discussion previously. I have already suggested where such content may make an appearance within the main document narratively, but it is not significant enough to warrant inclusion in the lede. The context of the quotations is very much different to the way that Maximum hopes to present them. Koncorde (talk) 07:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude. Wikipedia is not for PR. And I suggest this should be your last kick at the can. Guy (Help!) 07:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude - The fact that a conspiracy clock is still right twice a day isn't really information that should be in the lead. If he did break some stories that turned out to be true before anyone else, than I guess that could be mentioned in the main body, but other than that, what would be the point? It's basically saying "hey, this guys says untrue stuff 95% of the time, but he get a good scoop every now and then so keep an eye out for that". There are journalists whose careers instantly ended over a single piece of fabricated information that they published, yet here we are trying to legitimize a guy who writes fake news for a living because he occasionally gets one right. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
• Include - Multiple reliable sources say that Cernovich has broken legitimate stories: 1) Washington Post: "As Smith notes, Cernovich has in recent months broken several legitimate stories" link 2) New Yorker: "Cernovich now seems to have anonymous sources in the White House, or close to it" link 3) Buzzfeed: "Major scoops by former trolls have short-circuited the bullshit detector of the mainstream media." link The Hill newsletter: "Mike Cernovich continues to regularly scoop Bloomberg columnist Eli Lake, who appears to share at least one Trump administration source with the ‘Gorilla Mindset’ author," ... Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines state that articles "must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." MaximumIdeas (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

See also: stopped clock. Guy (Help!) 09:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude. I definitely don't believe this belongs in the lead; that strikes me as assigning way too much importance to what is, ultimately, a minor detail. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
• Mixed. This detailed info does not need to be in the lead (I've removed it). But if we have a negative side about this person, then we have to have a positive side as well. But, as I said, we can leave the controversy for farther down in the article. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

No, we are not obliged to engage in false balance. If the sources about a person are overwhelmingly negative then it's really not our problem to fix, and dumpster diving to try to find positive things to say about them actually fails NPOV. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia's entry is more negative than the Washington Post, Buzzfeed News, and the New Yorker, all of which I cite in my "include" comment above. The different is that those outlets mention both positive and negative; Wiki's lede only has the negative. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

That's because we're an encyclopaedia and they are newspapers. Newspapers usually give the subject the right of reply, for example, but we don't. Guy (Help!) 13:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• Not as a full paragraph in the lead, but John Conyers should be included. It's clearly a legit and significant story, broken with Cernovich's help. It's already in the article and is lead-worthy. Adoring nanny (talk) 07:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional Discussion

Multiple reliable sources say that Cernovich has broken legitimate stories:

-- "As Smith notes, Cernovich has in recent months broken several legitimate stories" https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/why-buzzfeed-teamed-with-a-far-right-figure-to-break-the-john-conyers-scandal/2017/11/21/64688b2a-ceca-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html

-- "Cernovich now seems to have anonymous sources in the White House, or close to it" https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/can-mike-cernovich-a-pro-trump-meme-maker-get-a-real-news-scoop

-- "Major scoops by former trolls have short-circuited the bullshit detector of the mainstream media." https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/charliewarzel/what-happens-when-the-pro-trump-media-get-actual-scoops#.ixV7kyj4z

-- "Mike Cernovich continues to regularly scoop Bloomberg columnist Eli Lake, who appears to share at least one Trump administration source with the ‘Gorilla Mindset’ author," -- The Hill newsletter

Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines state that articles "must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

Would be great to have some more pairs of eyes on this discussion. Thank you!MaximumIdeas (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

As has already been explained, this is misleading and disproportionate. This RFC therefore loaded and needlessly confusing. Per WP:RFCST, you should "include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue." I would like to emphasize neutral here, as your above comment is not that. RFCs are intended to attract new editors to a discussion, and it is unreasonable to expect them to re-read this entire thing just to make a brief comment. Your summary of the issue ignores multiple other editors' responses and just repeats the same quotes which have been carefully carved from their surrounding context. We evaluate all sources in context. This context does not support cherry-picking a handful of brief, gossipy news sources from years ago to whitewash the article. Grayfell (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and refactored the RFC. Someone can revert me if this is out of line, but I didn't really think this would get fixed without some hand-holding. Nblund ^talk 23:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Nblund, I do appreciate the formatting fixes. Thank you. Grayfell, I believe that my summary is neutral; all it does is list the reliable sources involved, and quote Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Tweaked the above just to list the reliable sources directly rather than ask people to go through the Daily Caller link. Thank you. MaximumIdeas (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV issue -- Lede wrongly says Cernovich

Intro currently reads:

Cernovich has falsely accused various people of being pedophiles or supporting pedophilia, and briefly succeeded in getting Sam Seder fired from MSNBC over such an allegation, before it was revealed to be a falsehood. This violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy by declaring one side right and another wrong on a disputed issue.

Specifically, whether Seder was "supporting pedophilia" is in the eye of the beholder, with many, including MSNBC thinking he was for some time. MSNBC then changed its mind, but we cannot assume an employer's word is the truth.

Should read something like:

Cernovich accused various people of supporting pedophilia, and briefly succeeded in getting Sam Seder fired from MSNBC over such an allegation, before MSNBC reversed its decision Can we can get consensus on fixing that POV issue? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaximumIdeas (talk • contribs) 01:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources do not say that Seder was supporting pedophilia, and neither the article, nor this talk page is an appropriate place to cast aspersion about someone. Implying that he might have been supporting pedophilia is a WP:BLP violation. Grayfell (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@MaximumIdeas: Again, your proposed change would absolutely violate WP:BLP by implying, without any evidence, that a serious allegation had merit. If this is the reason for the tag, the POV tag is pointless and disruptive. These templates are not intended to be "someone doesn't like the article" badges, they are intended to facilitate discussion. If you want to respond, respond. The burden is now on you to explain exactly what the problem is, and propose some way to fix it. If we cannot come to an agreement the tag might be an appropriate way to eventually improve the article, but you have to do the actual work here. They are not a free pass to disrupt Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Grayfell Thank you for the dialogue. I don't think my proposed text as it stands implies it has merit. Rather it just says what happened. Says MSNBC changed mind, which is what happened. Maybe you could change it to say that MSNBC changed mind and decided Seder had not in fact supported pedophilia. That would be accurate. Just shouldn't be in the "voice of god" so to speak. MaximumIdeas (talk) 03:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia cannot imply this had merit, and that's exactly what this proposal does whether you see it or not. MSNBC did not "decide" that it had no merit. It had no merit from the beginning, the middle and the end. There is no benefit to pretending otherwise. Grayfell (talk) 03:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

^Agree. Reliable sources note that Cernovich has falsely accused people of pedophilia, including Seder. No reliable source indicates that his accusations about Seder or anyone else were true. Suggesting otherwise would create a WP:FALSEBALANCE. I also agree with others here that your tagging of the article over this discussion is unwarranted. Merely raising a complaint doesn't really warrant a cleanup tag. Nblund ^talk 13:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

There are many other complaints that this page lacks balance; not just me. MSNBC first decided that it had merit -- https://www.thewrap.com/msnbc-will-not-renew-contract-with-contributor-after-roman-polanski-rape-joke/ -- as did many others. Then they decided it didn't. These are the facts. That it did not have merit is not a fact -- that's just your personal opinion about Seder's tweet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaximumIdeas (talk • contribs) 16:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Maximum, to quote NPOV: "Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." Please cease edit warring the removal of your tags when you have presented no legitimate concerns to be addressed.

There is nothing POV about declaring one side right or wrong when the case presents clear outcomes. Cernovich's claims were wrong, intentionally misleading and described variously by Seder and others as obviously maliciously motivated. MSNBC's decision to fire Seder was "because we don't consider rape to be a funny topic to be joked about" and at no point is there any suggestion that they believed that he was supporting paedophilia, and in fact contacted him prior to his firing for his side on the subject where the "satire" was explained. His firing ultimately was because of the controversial nature of the statement, not about its truthiness.

Your argument is utterly flawed. Koncorde (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Just to also make one thing clear regarding the Tagging: "The NPOV-dispute tag is not a consolation prize for editors whose position has been rejected by a consensus of other editors, nor is it a substitute for pursuing appropriate dispute resolution. If your sole contribution to an article is to repeatedly add or remove the tag, chances are high that you are abusing your "right" to use the tag." Your arguments have been heard. They have been considered not to hold water on more than one occasion. Koncorde (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Simmer down; let's not get personal. If the WP:Lead is flawed, it is best simply to agree on the bare minimum of the facts, and then spell out the various facets, using proper sources, in the body of the article. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Telling people to calm down is rarely, if ever, productive. MaximumIdeas's behavior is starting to become disruptive, and they should be made aware that patience is wearing thin before this escalates. We're not trying to surprise anyone, here.

As for "bare minimum", who gets to make that call? In this case, omitting important context would violate BLP, so leaving this out would fail to meet that bare minimum. Grayfell (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing I can see that needs simmering down. And per the response below from Maximum, it is clear that he cannot even read a neutral paragraph without leaping to the conclusion that somehow it must be agreeing with his personal opinion of how a source is to be interpreted. Maximums suggested change suggests through omission that the claim against Seder was valid. It wasnt. The full body of the article (and reality) makes that clear. I am done assuming good faith at this stage. Koncorde (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with BeenAroundAWhile. We don't have consensus here yet. The NPOV flag is designed specifically for this case of ongoing discussion, to help achieve a consensus that is acceptable to editors generally -- not just a couple who frequently check the page. The flag is critical to get more diverse voices opining on this and hopefully improving the page more generally, too. MaximumIdeas (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

No, the NPOV flag is not for this purpose. It is especially not a tool for signal boosting. It is the last resort. You should utilise the many other alternate dispute resolution steps prior to slapping on an NPOV tag.

And yes, consensus is against you. It has always been against you. Opening a new section every two months to nitpick and hope that fewer and fewer people will respond as a war of attrition is one of the most tried and tested (and tedious) of techniques. Koncorde (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

NPOV flag description specifically says its purpose is to attract diverse viewpoints to talk point discussion. That's not "signal boosting"! It attracts people from all viewpoints to make sure a page doesn't get taken over by a few editors who think alike. BeenAroundAWhile seems to agree that this page could be improved, so I am not sure "the consensus is against" me fully. We need to discuss this out and improve the page. MaximumIdeas (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Signal Boosting is the act of trying to over emphasise the significance of your claims in order to justify further claims and / or steps to be undertaken under the guise of a neutrality dispute (particularly if you can cause drama in the process). You have repeatedly used it, and have been repeatedly reverted. Your suggestions, and edits, have been universally reverted across not only this article but pretty much all that I can see, usually due to a fundamental misreading of sources, the subject matter (or straight lack of understanding of what NPOV is). If BeenAroundAWhile has a contribution to make, he should do so, but he has not expressed anything regarding consensus for you to agree with. To quote "If the WP:Lead is flawed" is a question, and subsequently a suggested course of action to minimise disputes over the lede content by reducing it to the bare minimum of disputable facts. it does not indicate any support of your edit, or confirm that he feels that there even is an issue.

Also...why do you assume that all editors here are not of diverse viewpoints? Because they disagree with you? Koncorde (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Certainly my impression is that the couple editors who have marked this page does not fully reflect the diversity of viewpoints needed to have a fair NPOV page. I would be pleasantly surprised if you guys, for instance, run the range of the cultural/political spectrum, but I am doubtful. That is why the page needs a NPOV flag. Certainly I don't speak for BeenAroundAWhile and I don't know if he agrees with this proposal -- but perhaps we can all agree that this page need better balance and improvement. MaximumIdeas (talk) 18:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The sources are, as far as I can see, unanimous in saying that Cernovich relies on false allegations to get his political opponents fired. We're required to reflect that - WP:NPOV is about reporting the truth according to reliable sources, not about ignoring it in order to create a WP:FALSEBALANCE or to avoid offending people who disagree with what the reliable sources say. --Aquillion (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

conflict There's not an ongoing discussion as far as I can tell. Instead, multiple editors have said "no" and one editor just doesn't like that answer. If you want to open a discussion over at the NPOV noticeboard, then you should do that to seek outside input. But the tag should be reserved for cases where there is actually a meaningful disagreement involving multiple editors. Nblund ^talk 15:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

More importantly the complainant should be able to explain what isn't NPOV about the statements. I personally feel "before it was revealed to be a falsehood." Is clunky, but it isn't inaccurate although it doesn't sum up the actual issue. The paragraph might be improved for readability, but the issue is not one of any NPOV issue. Koncorde (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

This article comes across as a clear attempt to smear him. I don't like the guy and there is plenty of provocative content around, but this article lacks neutrality.

For example, for career it should cover his projects Hoaxed, Silenced, Gorilla Mindset. Instead it is "On sexual harassment and pedophilia", "Evolving attitudes towards Donald Trump" and "Conflict with Sam Seder." Those aren't his career, and all of which are likely deliberate attempts to paint a negative image of him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nexus000 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest reliable independent secondary sources on which such material might be based. Guy (help!) 14:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hitler has a more flattering page than Mike Cernovich. You'd think that Cernovich is the worst person in history after reading this article which of course, isn't biased at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.191.121.57 (talk) 11:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

That's because people have written multiple articles and books about Hitler to understand his motivations. Also, I don't think you are being entirely accurate. Hitler in the first paragraph alone is described as a Dictator, described as basically the architect of The Holocaust, and summarises his actions and ideology as "universally regarded as evil". I mean Cernovich is at best described as a bit of a pick up artist and conspiracy theorist. I don't think anyone comparing the two could possibly draw the conclusion Cernovich is the "worst person in history". Koncorde (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I find this argument on Wikipedia really lacking in self-awareness and sort of bureaucratic. Rather than balancing the page even a tiny bit, the editors here let intersectionalists wild on pages like this, with plenty of blog sources sliming Cernovich to work with, then when an objection is raised, the response is, oh, well, not much we can do, there is a lack of more positive secondary sources, guess it is what it is. Yet, if it were the other way around, they would absolutely take down much of the slime and balance it. One, this shouldn't be an excuse to have assassination pages tolerated. Two, just because an existing policy is what it is, does not mean things are written in stone. You just need your own sense of natural justice to read this article, as someone who doesn't know much about him or likes or dislikes him (came here to see who he is after a YouTube video with him as a guest started) to glean quickly that the article is unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D08:4682:2100:89D:F99C:B3DD:2AD6 (talk) 08:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

My argument? I didn't mention any bureaucratic, and not sure what "self-awareness" you are looking for. 1. The sources for the article are largely mainstream news sources or himself. 2. The idea that we might use blogs to "slime" Cernovich would be an effort in redundancy - why would we bother when we have the NYT, Guardian and others all doing it? 3. If you are watching videos with Cernovich as a guest, congratulations. You have found the sort of place that uses "intersectionalist" as an unironic slur. Perhaps you should read the sources provided instead. Koncorde (talk) 11:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

It's my opinion that some editors are playing fast and loose with the facts, by using the words "many" and "often" to refer to some of the stuff that this person does but which are not in the sources cited. (I've made some edits trying to clean it up, but there sure are a lot of them.) I suggest everybody read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Controversial people like this and their antics & activities are well-documented by the sources, they can't run away from them, and should not expect the Wikipedia to wrote about them with glowing prose. ValarianB (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Nevertheless, we shouldn't call somebody's opinion article a "source" for a fact, except the fact that the writer of the article might have an opinion one way or another. But, whatever, we also should not go beyond whatever facts might be in the article cited. Anyway, for living people, there are certain guidelines to follow. But I'm sure you all know that. Best wishes, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Rape apologia?

This sentence in the intro: "[...] and espoused rape apologia such as claiming date rape "does not exist".

The two articles linked only refer to him saying date rape "does not exist", and other statements to the same effect.

But saying "espoused rape apologia" (in this particular wording) implies that he thinks that rape in total is ok, which is a very strong and calumnious implication. But there is no supporting citations for this bigger claim in the linked articles.

So I think this statement should just be reduced to: "and has claimed date rape "does not exist"" 101.187.172.114 (talk) 08:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Adding Filmography Section - Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2020

Request to add a section on Films produced by Mike Cernovich

His IMDb profile: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm8337341/

Hoaxed (2019) - Producer https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8991264/?ref_=nm_flmg_prd_2 Mike invested $50,000 into the film Hoaxed, and appears in a few segments as bother an interviewer and interviewee.

Hoaxed reached the top 10 independent movies (US) chart on the iTunes store for the week ending April 12th. https://apnews.com/7f15196822e69a7879d4ae62bc276656 Eternal Father (talk) 02:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done: ​IMDb profile is in the external links section. Your request to add a section on films produced is not specific. Please make it specific so we know exactly know what you want added. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 17:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Bland lists are not appropriate in this situation, as they imply importance without providing any context. The appropriate way to handle this is to use reliable, independent sources (meaning independent of Cernovich) to summarize to readers why these films are significant for an understanding of Cernoch. A list of two films, one of which doesn't appear to be noteworthy, is not just puffery. Grayfell (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

He needs a whole media section for his Films and Books; similar to the section of Alex Jones.

He also filed a motion in the Roger Stone trial concerning alleged Jury Bias, and the unsealing of Jeffrey Epstein.

I'm a bit perplexed as to your intentions, and you appear to constantly attempting to undo a lot of contributions on here, which is making it difficult to perceive you as acting in good faith. Eternal Father (talk) 05:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Court cases

Court Cases

Roger Stone Trial

Cernovich filed a motion to intervene, seeking access to juror questionnaires used during the jury selection process after the neutrality of Tomeka Hart, the jury foreperson of the trial, was questioned by Donald Trump..

Jeffrey Epstein

Cernovich and The Miami Herald joined Alan Dershowitz (who filed for exoneration) in filing, on journalistic grounds, to have the documents about the 2017 defamation settlement of Giuffre v. Maxwell unsealed. After the judge dismissed their request, the matter was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which vacated that order July 2 and ordered the summary judgment papers unsealed.

References

Comments

Cernovich is a cable media conspiracy theorist and social media gadfly, there is no sound rationale to including his opinion on any legal proceeding that he is not directly included in or affected by. ValarianB (talk) 12:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

ValarianB, absolutely. "Mike Cernovich says thing" might be relevant here but anywhere else it's almost certainly going to be WP:UNDUE, especially give that his goal is always just to create drama. Guy (help!) 14:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)