Jump to content

Talk:Mike Cernovich/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

RfC: Is Mike Cernovich a Journalist?

Is Mike Cernovich a Journalist? Eternal Father (talk) 06:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Mike Cernovich Sr’s death date

Is anyone able to change where it says 1920 to 2020? It says “1927-1920,” and he died this year lmao Moriyun (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Done. Koncorde (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Author in lead?

This is a controversial article, so I'm coming to get consensus here before I add "author" to the lead. He has written four books, and the Southern Poverty Law Center listed his first one as a "best seller" on Amazon. What are other editors' thoughts? --Kbabej (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

It would seem to be an oversight. I think there used to be something about him being an author in there. Koncorde (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Given he's written four books and no one has objected, I'm going to be bold and add it to the lead. --Kbabej (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Twitter Drama is Not Encyclopedic

The focus is all wrong. Sedar made a tweet. NBC fired Sedar. NBC changed it's mind. What Cernovich did or didn't do isn't noteworthy in an encyclopedia unless it's convenient to quickly mention this "filler" information in passing, which is the exact opposite of wasting the Reader's attention on a who-fricking-cares twitterstorm in the Lede and then beating this boring non-event to death in the body. Cernovich is an Alt-Right try-hard and it seems to me that this Article was edited by someone seeking to afford Cernovich more credibility than he deserves by elevating a mundane event about someone else as if it, and Cernovich, is the center of that (someone else's) universe. The object here is to invite the Reader to continue reading, not annoy them to the point where they complain about it in the "Talk" section.68.206.249.124 (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't just twitter drama Everything else you therefore say is moot. Koncorde (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

CNN type sources accepted?

The sources for the information in this article are institutions like CNN, which is completely disgraceful.

I’ve donated to Wikipedia for years because I thought this place was valuable. If this is the new standard for information, this place is worthless other than in the aim to participate fully in the same disinformation of mainstream media. Meaning Wikipedia under these standards isn’t worth two cents from any person of decency. Danielkitchen (talk) 06:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

If you have been reading wikipedia for any length of time then you should probably be made aware you have been reading a lot of CNN based information. Please check out our list of our Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources for a summary of a lot of sources used on wikipedia. You may find others you dislike. Koncorde (talk) 06:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

CNN type sources aren’t a reliable source of information unless your sole purpose is to spread hatred and ignorance. Is this the way every person that disagrees with “wokeness” will be recorded? This place will not be worth 2 cents if that’s the case, which is a shame because I used to find it valuable. Danielkitchen (talk) 06:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Can you pick out any CNN article we use and identify any element of the story that they have misrepresented and that we have duplicated. Thanks. Koncorde (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Military service

Can someone provide a source that Cerno served in the Army Reserves from 1995-2004? CozyandDozy (talk) 09:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Entire Article Tone

This entire article is a mean-spirted, diatribe on the subject.

There is no sign of good-faith reporting befitting the presentation of the topic as encyclopedic knowledge.

Shame.

Don't cancel this comment because you don't agree. The article is not fit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.20.83.145 (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view requires that we represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Can you please explain whether a) you feel that there are other significant views published by reliable sources that present a different viewpoint that needs to be represented in this page, or b) the article does not represent the current sources that are being used? If a), please provide links to the reliable sources that you have found, ensuring they meet the policy on reliable sourcing. If you are unsure, WP:RSP contains a long list of commonly-suggested sources along with the general consensus among the Wikipedia editing community on whether or not they are considered reliable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare, do I understand correctly that he never actually had a job? Drmies (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure, I don't know that much about the guy honestly. Presumably he was paid some amount for his books and documentary, but from reading the article it doesn't appear he's ever had a 9–5. This article needs a lot of work (though Philip Cross has certainly improved it recently!); I'll probably do some research and take a pass at it sometime today. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I see--his money came from his wife? Funny--when women get money from their male spouses in a divorce, there is a special word for it. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree, absolutely everything in this reads like a hit piece. It doesn't take a leveled and balanced approach, It reads like a smear attempt, right down to the verbiage. (98.228.230.125 (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC))

I do agree this article isn't quite as WP:IMPARTIAL as it possibly could be, I think the lead should summarize the things from the article, but seems like certain things were cherry picked to put at the forefront (aka the firing on Seder), to make a bias impression on readers. Even the bio-picture looks like it was cherry picked, is that really the best picture available? EliteArcher88 (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

McLeod

Cernovich reportedly followed the Twitter account of Lyndon McLeod, an author who wrote books filled with violent revenge fantasies that he eventually acted out in real life in the form of a killing spree. [1] I’m not sure if that’s notable enough to include in this article, although it’s certainly eyebrow-raising that he would be drawn to such reading material. 2604:2D80:6986:4000:0:0:0:9B5A (talk) 07:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

"Far-right" in lead

Of the two sources given, one (the Guardian) only refers to Cernovich as "alt-right," while the New York Times piece calls him "right-wing." Neither label him as far-right. Given the contentious and controversial nature of the label "alt right," I would suggest "right wing" was a fairer term for the opening paragraph. At the very least, "far-right" does not seem appropriate and could arguably be considered as a weasel word. "Alt-right" could work based on the Guardian source. I have checked the talk archive and this specific point has never been raised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.219.77 (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The alt-right is a subgroup of "far-right", and as is already mentioned in the lead, Cernovich is generally considered to be a part of the alt-right (a statement supported by multiple citations). I could support a change to "alt-right" but not to "right-wing". GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Alt-right, then, is both supported by the sources and more specific and therefore useful for a reader of the introduction paragraph. (I am the above poster using a mobile connection which seems to change IP.) 109.144.223.217 (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and made the change. If anyone objects hopefully they'll leave a note here explaining way. As for your IP changing, that's pretty common (see dynamic IPs) and is a great reason to create an account. I'll leave a note on your latest IP's talk page with some more details, though who knows if it'll be reassigned before you see it GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Given the entire tone of the article, the fact that even the language used makes it sound like a smear piece, the use of "Alt-Right" and "Far Right" seems to mean that he's not on the far left, especially given most of the views he has expressed are center-left right down to supporting Gay Marriage and attacking White Supremacy and the KKK (both of which fall under the definition of ACTUAL alt-right), (98.228.230.125 (talk) 03:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC))

We leave interpretation of Cernovich's views, and whether they make him center-left or far-right or alt-right, up to reliable independent sources and don't do such interpretation ourselves. If you know of reliable sources that describe him as "center-left", feel free to provide them. As for the rest of your comment, do you have any specific changes you would suggest? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Y'all pick a picture of him scowling. It reveals your obvious bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.213.98.238 (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Invite him to supply a better one compliant with our rules on free use, and I have no doubt we'll use it. 82.20.240.157 (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Sam Seder

The intro to Cernovich's page states that MSNBC reinstated the reporter (in reference to Sam Seder). I love Sam but he is a commentator or contributor. Not a reporter Rileyaicher1 (talk) 04:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Another issue with the lead

The following was how the lead ended:

He succeeded in getting Sam Seder fired from MSNBC with such an allegation, but the reporter was reinstated when Cernovich's claim about him was revealed to be a lie.[2][3]

It's inaccurate and unsupported by sources. "such allegations" ties the Seder thing with Pizzagate, which it had nothing to do with. Cernovich merely quoted Seder's past tweets that trivialized or made jokes about pedophilia, which Seder later deleted; and Seder was reinstated after it was decided that the tweets weren't fireable. Saying that "Cernovich's claim about him was revealed to be a lie" is simply incorrect; again, all he did was make people aware of Seder's old tweets. I've removed the passage from the lead, since it's both inaccurate and undue. DFlhb (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

We have to reflect the sources, not your personal interpretation of what happened; and the sources largely back the current wording - they call Cernovich's claims a "smear campaign", and the core point is that he implied that Seder supported rape when he did not. I've changed "a lie" to "inaccurate", which I think paraphrases that aspect more clearly and is slightly more neutral wording, but I don't think it's undue given the fairly dramatic coverage it received - it's the most high-profile example of the sorts of things summarized in the previous sentence. We could also just use the term "smear campaign", perhaps attributed. --Aquillion (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
On second thought, I do agree it's due in the lead due to its wide coverage (I've just discovered a French news outlet also covered it); I moved it to the talk page because I felt it was misleading as-worded, and that such rewordings would require discussion and consensus. I should probably have just kept it and made premilinary edits to improve neutrality (I agree with those you proposed), while still starting a discussion here to see if further changes are warranted.
I do think the passage should be clearer that it was about Seder's tweets, and better reflect Sam_Seder#2017_MSNBC_controversy (which I've never edited). DFlhb (talk) 09:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/journalist
  2. ^ Stack, Liam (April 5, 2017). "Who Is Mike Cernovich? A Guide". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on April 6, 2017. Retrieved April 5, 2017.
  3. ^ Singal, Jesse. "How Mike Cernovich Is Pizzagating His Latest Victim". New York. Archived from the original on December 22, 2016.

Last part of lead

@Aquillion I went for WP:Bold-refine and slightly adjusted the wording for the last part of the lead to be more precise. Would appreciate your thoughts. DFlhb (talk) 13:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Categories

My category removals were reverted with no justification in the edit summary. The relevant guidelines are WP:COP, WP:BLPCAT and WP:CATDEF. The following categories are inapplicable:

Category:InfoWars people
Category:Alt-right writers
Category:Pickup artists
Category:Male critics of feminism

Other categories, like Category:American nationalists and Category:American conspiracy theorists are fully justified by sources. DFlhb (talk) 07:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I can see the concern with Infowars people. Can't see the problem with the others. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't think they're defining characteristics (WP:COPDEF), since they don't meet the threshold of: [a characteristic] that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to (WP:CATDEF).
For alt-right: it's used by a minority of sources, and has been contested by scholarly sources (Hawley, Marantz, see above); falls short of the "consistently" criteria.
For pickup artists: he's not notable for being one; apparently his old blog contained pick-up advice among other things, but practically no source describes him like that.
"Male critics of feminism" is likely the strongest, but he's neither notable for that, nor commonly and consistently called that. DFlhb (talk) 08:24, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Alt-right, redux

I'd like to bounce off the above discussion from February 2022. The case of Cernovich being alt-right is more complicated than it seems. I make that case in the first collapsed section below:

My brief, well-sourced recap of the history of the alt-right, and the context within which Cernovich identified with it.

American paleoconservative Paul Gottfried coined "alternative right" to refer to right-wingers who dissent from GOP shibboleths.[1]: 51  Initially, the term alt-right "was applied to anyone that fell on the right of the political spectrum but had major problems with the conservative movement"; that included "libertarians, paleoconservatives, right-wing populists".[1]: 139  According to scholar of right-wing movements George Hawley, "not everyone who voiced sympathy for the Alt-Right in 2016 was secretly a white nationalist or a neo-Nazi".[1]: 141  With Trump's 2015 announcement, some populist conservative adopted the term "alt-right" to refer to anti-interventionism, anti-globalization right-wing populism, as a way to distance themselves from the free-trade, pro-war, pro-corporation GOP. Cernovich & others did label themselves as alt-right, but it was in that context. Concurrently, white nationalists adopted the same term, but to refer to blatant racism and white supremacy. The "populist faction" then abandoned the term in favor of "populist right", "nationalist", or "new right". The term "alt-lite" was never a self-description; it was exclusively coined and used by white nationalist as a pejorative (though the media did adopt the term "alt-lite" wholesale).[1]: 143 

According to scholar George Hawley, the core tenets of the alt-right are racism, and support for the mass expulsion of non-whites.[1]: 132,141  To say Cernovich belongs to that movement, in Wikivoice, is just misleading.

Here's a quick-survey of what WP:RS call Cernovich; the most common term seems to be right-wing or conservative. I included no right-wing WP:RS here, and note that several left-leaning sources like Vox also call him simply right-wing.

A non-comprehensive but representative survey of what other sources call Cernovich
"Right-wing/conservative"
"Alt-lite"
  • The ADL describes him as "alt-lite"
  • Alt-Lite personalities such as Mike Cernovich — The Alt-Right, a book by George Hawley, scholar of politican science.
Misc

I suggest the following wording for the lead:

Michael Cernovich (born November 17, 1977) is an American right-wing commentator, social media personality, and conspiracy theorist.

The next sentence is just fine as it is, and mentions alt-lite. DFlhb (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

  • Though I removed "alt-right" from the first sentence of the lead, I'm working on adding an "Ideology" subsection within the Politics section that would mention it, but better-contextualized. Several outlets (though a minority) have called him alt-right, so it should be discussed. DFlhb (talk) 07:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. Cernovich is an extremely central figure in the alt-right, and this is core to his notability; it cannot be removed from the lead sentence under any circumstances. Even if some other sources exist that refer to him in other ways, there is extensive sourcing discussing him as a core, defining figure in the movement; see eg. [2][3][4][5]. Note that many of these don't just refer to him as alt-right but identify him as a key member of the early alt-right. There are also many sources supporting the centrality of the alt-right to Cernovich's biography already in the article, such as [2] - which you must be aware of, since your edits specifically trimmed a paraphrase from the precise sentence in that article that identifies him as an alt-right celebrity. Your own summary of the alt-right is WP:SYNTH at best; we need to describe Cernovich the way the sources do, and they consistently identify him as a core member of the alt-right. --Aquillion (talk) 07:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Nagle doesn't call him alt-right; please check the book. Summers does, but his analysis is significantly incomplete as it does not analyze the "alt-light"; I'll note it's a student paper. Zannettou et al. only calls him alt-right in passing; but doesn't include any analysis of the categorization. Passing mentions are not equivalent to in-depth analytical scholarship.
Have you read Hawley's Making Sense of the Alt-Right, and Marantz's Anti-Social? Both excellent pieces of scholarship, which cover the alt-right movement in detail (read them, and you'll see there's no SYNTH in my summary). "Key member of the early alt-right", as you say, is correct, but "core member of the alt-right", in present tense, is not. This should all be explained in the lead, since the break-up of the alt-right was largely caused by Cernovich himself; that was well-covered in WP:RS (e.g. here, by Marantz again). Here's my own review of sources, which IMO is more comprehensive than yours.
A survey of the scholarship, and credible sources, calling Cernovich "alt-lite"
  • The ADL in 2018 describes him as "alt-lite"
  • Alt Lite figure Mike Cernovich — from Ctrl-Alt-Delete, a report by antifascist writer Matthew Lyons for "Political Research Associates" (biased & opinionated, but they have an editorial & fact-checking process for published reports; Lyons has also been published in The Guardian among others). Ctrl-Alt-Delete was later turned into a published book.
  • Mike Cernovich is another major figure in the alt-light milieu. — Kill All Normies, by Angela Nagle, an academic who has been published by WP:RS.
  • Alt-Lite personalities such as Mike Cernovich — The Alt-Right, a book by George Hawley, scholar of politican science.
  • Ribeiro et al. 2020 lists Cernovich as an "alt-lite" YouTube channel. I don't count it as a mention in passing, since the entire article is about the alt-lite.
  • The SPLC notes that he called himself alt-right, but distanced himself from it after the movement became associated with white nationalists, agreeing with my summary.
  • A few names that could be classified as alt-lite are [...] Mike Cernovich (a pro-Trump blogger) — Making Sense of the Alt-Right by George Hawley again, political science scholar
  • Mike Cernovich, who might be properly labeled as part of the “Alt-Lite,” — same book & author, in a passage about the alt-right.
  • Alt-lite conservative Mike Cernovich — Trumping the Media, a book by Michael Mario Albrecht, a scholar who's also published peer-reviewed papers on politics.
  • Cernovich, 40, is probably the best-known alt-lite blogger — Shorestein Center, Harvard Kennedy School
  • Mike Cernovich, who is part of the so-called alt-lite (or "New Right") movement. Haaretz, July 20, 2017
  • The Daily Beast also covered the alt-right's breakup and radicalization.
  • Some of the most important personalities within the alt-light include: [...] social media figure Mike Cernovich Al Jazeera, October 13, 2017
  • From figures in the “alt-lite” like Jordan Peterson and Mike Cernovich — Sharpe, 2022
  • The Alt-Lite includes [...] [and] people as diverse as Mike Cernovich [...] — Hate in Precarious Times; Neal Curtis, a professor
  • the Gab community has not only become a haven for the more austere Alt-Right, but also the more mainstream right wing, conservative personalities, sometimes referred to as the “Alt-lite” (e.g. [...], Mike Cernovich, [...] — Reid, Valasik, and Bagavathi in Gangs in the Era of Internet and Social Media, published by Springer, eds. Melde and Weerman; another excellent piece of in-depth scholarship if you ever have the time
  • The Atlantic's Rosia Gray sets up a distinction between the alt-right and “new right” (or “alt light”), and identifies Cernovich as the latter.
  • Even the HuffPo, which can't be used for contentious labels, calls Cernovich a ringleader of the alt-lite.
As for the first sentence, "right-wing" is objectively used far, far more than either "alt-right" or "alt-lite" by sources (I'll note that alt-lite was only ever used as a pejorative by white nationalists, and later attributed to them by scholars discussing the people ostracized from the alt-right; I don't quite see that as these scholars endorsing the term alt-lite). My list of outlets calling him "conservative" was not meant to be complete; I found dozens more. As it is, the lead sentence is significantly inaccurate. DFlhb (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC); deleted my other "intermediary" comments to avoid the impression of bludgeoning, see the previous revision 20:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c d e Hawley, George (2017). Making Sense of the Alt-Right. Columbia University Press. doi:10.7312/hawl18512-004.
  2. ^ Zannettou, Savvas; Bradlyn, Barry; De Cristofaro, Emiliano; Kwak, Haewoon; Sirivianos, Michael; Stringini, Gianluca; Blackburn, Jeremy (23 April 2018). What is Gab: A Bastion of Free Speech or an Alt-Right Echo Chamber (Report). WWW '18. Republic and Canton of Geneva, CHE: International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee. pp. 1007–1014. doi:10.1145/3184558.3191531. ISBN 978-1-4503-5640-4.
  3. ^ Nagle, Angela (2017). Kill All Normies: Online Culture Wars From 4Chan And Tumblr To Trump And The Alt-Right. Alresford, GBR: Zero Books. ISBN 978-1-78535-543-1 – via ACM Digital Library.
  4. ^ Summers, Ryan (21 July 2017). "The Rise of the Alt-Right Movement". Media and Communication Studies Summer Fellows.
  5. ^ Greene, Viveca S. (1 April 2019). ""Deplorable" Satire: Alt-Right Memes, White Genocide Tweets, and Redpilling Normies". Studies in American Humor. 5 (1): 31–69. doi:10.5325/studamerhumor.5.1.0031. ISSN 0095-280X.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mike_Cernovich/Archive_5&oldid=1170470472"