Talk:Mike Cernovich

Removed the lead calling him Alt-Right

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

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

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

So why Put that in the lead? If I said I'm not alt-right, I wouldn't want the first sentence of my Wikipedia page calling me alt-right. Pc Retro (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Let's go through those sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These 2 reliable sources [1] [2] support the material. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC) --- and there's this [3] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Update

Cernovich in March 2017 tweeted[4] that he is not alt-right. This is a newer tweet that the sources used to call him alt-right, but I was reverted after adding this in. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

Section titled "Battery conviction"

Since this says it was expunged why is it included? Doesn't including an expunged conviction clearly violate the wikipedia BLP? This sort of thing is always removed from Hollywood-type stars' wikipedia pages. Seems like the editors here are saying that because he's perceived to be politically conservative that other rules or interpretations of wikipedia's rules should apply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.215.113.195 (talk) 04:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Grayfell: where does the source "Trolls for Trump" support the passage

"Cernovich was convicted of misdemeanor battery of the woman prosecutors had previously claimed he raped."?

I can only find

"Cernovich trained as a lawyer. In 2003, he was accused of raping a woman he knew; the charge was later dropped, but a judge ordered him to do community service for misdemeanor battery. (His record has since been expunged.)"

This doesn't say whom he assaulted, nor if it was connected to the alleged rape. Since the rape charge was dropped and the record expunged I see no reason why we should include that here, this seems more like smear gossip to me than encyclopedic material.

Can you cite the part that says that the battery was "of the woman prosecutors had previously claimed he raped"?

What is the reason to keep the alleged rape passage even though he was found not guilty and the records have been expunged?

--Yukterez (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The source clearly links the community service for battery to the dropped rape charges. The Politico article also supports a connection. The phrasing used here is, perhaps, verbose, but any other reading assumes that both NYMag and Politico are being duplicitous in connecting these two things. As for relevance, multiple sources (such as The Washington Post) specifically say that the rape accusation was important to the start of his blogging career. With that context in mind, the charges being dropped, community service, and the expunge five years later all seem reasonable. As always this could be phrased a bit better. Grayfell (talk) 06:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, this wikipedia article makes zero mention of how such a false accusation lead to his blogging career. In fact, the wording seems designed to attack and humiliate Mike Cernovich. Until such re-wording can be done it should be removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.215.113.195 (talk) 04:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Still zero explanation for why including an expunged charge is justifiable, except as an indirect attempt to smear the man. It's clearly listed in his "personal life" section, with absolutely zero link to his blogging career, simply stated for the sake of stating it. This entire page is clearly some leftie's fantasy. Y'all realize you look like disingenuous, dishonest cretins to everyone, right? Try separating your rabid personal opinions from Wikipedia sometime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.34.49 (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Please review our policies on verifiability and neutrality. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Cernovich himself has written an account of his rape case, initially published as being about an anonymous defendant but later confirmed by Cernovich to be a description of his own case. He wasn't trying to smear himself, or attacking himself because he's in the grip of a "lefty fantasy". He has made this case and its outcome a part of his own story.2601:401:503:62B0:D13:2E8D:1108:3A17 (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mike Cernovich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170405002553/http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/327144-trump-jr-praises-writer-who-pushed-pizzagate-conspiracy-theory to http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/327144-trump-jr-praises-writer-who-pushed-pizzagate-conspiracy-theory

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Page shows flagrant and pervasive bias

An apparent mixture of good faith soapboxing, venting, and vague complaints about editor behavior with some personal attacks thrown in for good measure. In other words, nothing actionable. Byrochemist, 81.191.115.125, and other editors are encouraged to raise their specific, actionable concerns about this article, provided they do so in a civil manner. Concerns about editor conduct should be raised on those editors' own talk pages. Actionable concerns about Wikipedia more generally should be raised at WP:VPP. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I stumbled upon this page earlier and could not help myself from getting quite upset at the entirety of the content in this Page. My animosity grew after inspecting the talk page and history page. What is up with this? My faith in Wikipedia has been dealt a significant blow.. I would go into detail regarding my grievances but have decided to save that for another day- I am starting this thread to open a dialogue concerning my grievances about the Page and anything that may be related. I will end this post by adding a simple breakdown of the references currently used for this Page.. the lopsidedness of sourcing truly is a fallacy to everyone that has viewed this page in seeking accurate information about Mike Cernovich. File:Breakdown Of Sources.png Breakdown of Sources --Bryochemist (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC) Wikipedia isn't about balancing biases, it's about reflecting reliable sources - and that includes proportioning as much time or weight to a particular stance as reliable sources do. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC) Hi Byrochemist, the attitude of PetertheFourth is all too typical all over Wikipedia. All it takes is some schmuck who writes for a "reliable source" (basically, a handful of mainline corporate media outlets) to slander you and then it can be repeated on Wikipedia. The slander need not include ANY reliable sources itself - just because it is on CNN or written in Washington Post or Atlantic Monthly or whatever then it is "reliable", just like Hillary's "100% chance of victory" or WMDs in Iraq or all the lies that served as causes de guerre. If you defend yourself on a blog or Youtube video, and someone sources this to balance an article, this will be deleted by the same mafia because a blog and a video are not considered "reliable sources". Basically, this mafia are lying scumbags themselves, but for such comments one will be reprimanded for not trusting in the "good faith" of people who slander someone and lock an article. Funny enough, I came into the discussion not to point this out but because I would have changed the bizarre statement that Cernovich wrote something in October 2017 - but it can't easily be edited due to the lock. Good job, fascists! 81.191.115.125 (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC) Ya, I understand that. But Wikipedia states that articles should reflect a neutral point of view.. Judging by the talk page and history of revisions I think it is safe to say that this is a contentious Page. I have found numerous instances of erroneous or misleading statements made in this article due to unreliable sourcing and failure to remain objective. I believe that this issue is mostly a result of structural design flaws in the way Wikipedia articles are managed.. everyone holds inherent beliefs that may influence their writing, potentially voiding any sense of impartiality on the part of editors. Moreover, Mike Cernovich belongs to an interesting subset of persons as he is, more or less, engaged in confronting what pop-culture has ascribed the title of fake news to. Inarguably, his main competitors are the ones where most of this Page is deriving its references from- I see that as a monumental injustice, regardless of the topics contained in the Page. (Bryochemist (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)) Okay, be specific. List some of the erroneous or misleading statements on the page that are due to unreliable sourcing or a failure to remain objective. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC) Byrochemist, beware that our neutrality policy is largely based on balancing reliable sources, that in general traditional, established news sources are reliable, and that sources published by Cernovich and many of his allies are for the most part not reliable. You might want to look specifically at WP:GEVAL, which is particularly relevant to this article. Call it a "structural design flaw" of Wikipedia if you wish, but it's based on community standards and it's what we have to work with. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC) The issue of political labels like labelling Cernović "alt-right" is NOT an issue that relates to any sort of academic research and it is a huge misreading of Wikipedia's policies to say that Cernović's denial of this or that charge or label is not worth citing just because he self-publishes it. All it takes for your kind is for some snot-nosed 30-year-old young "journalist" working for little money on a temp contract writing what he's told without questioning anything to write something for one of the big corporate media outlets and then it's gold even if it's unsourced itself. The tyranny implied in this is apparent to everyone and we know that editors who fill an article with considerable slander and then lock it do not have good intentions - and I'm not a particular fan of the man. In any case, any implication you cannot defend yourself unless you get your defence published in a major media outlet (which now have very low journalistic ethics) is outrageous! 81.191.115.125 (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC) A user named Grayfell has threatened me for these posts - is this a sock puppet of VolunteerMarek who first deleted this immediately after posting? Or just his buddy in an oppressive editing clique? VolunteerMarek is known for his hyper-activity on all subjects vaguely related to Russia's role in world affairs. There is considerable literature online about the "EEML cabal". Here is where Marek's former account was censured . Marek cited WP:SOAP, which is a prohibition against treating Wikipedia as a medium for propaganda, which is precisely what I'm complaining about and precisely what he is engaged in! In any case, the Talk page is to address concerns, and Byrochemist's concerns are not being addressed and you can threaten people all you want but that kind of bullying is an obvious violation of your privileges as an editor. 81.191.115.125 (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC) References 81.191.115.125, why do you insist on posting and re-posting and re-posting your comments here? Are you suggesting any specific changes to the article, or are you just venting? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC) Looks like the IP is venting somewhat, however it's (mainly) on-topic and you all shouldn't be edit warring trying to remove it. Cut it out -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 09:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC) "On topic" my ass. If they want to "vent" by casting aspersion, calling us "scumbags", and similar behavior, they should do it elsewhere. This is spinning wild conspiracies about named editors based on a superficial understanding of their edit histories and an even thinner understanding of Wikipedia peppered with trivial mentions of extremely vague, totally unactionable complaints about the article. Don't be credulous to that kind of trolling. Grayfell (talk) 10:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC) Nope, that wasn't directed at any editors - I'm not going to tolerate you or anyone else trying to shut up an IP editor, as we so often see here. Now, the out of place ranting is one thing (we're not a forum etc) but I dare say if you'd all just left them alone and not edit warred over their comments this wouldn't be anywhere near this much of an issue. IP, please consider this an official warning to cut out the soapboxing here -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 10:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC) What a tissue-thin technicality. If you're trying to encourage more new editors, letting them hurl insults and conspiracy theories everytime they don't get to steer the discussion seems like an extremely bad precedent to set. It's also an example of the kind of self-described trolling tactic Cernovich is known for. Grayfell (talk) 11:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC) It's hardly a technicality when you base your initial response on accusing them of calling us "scumbags" when in fact they did not. When you say it's the self-described trolling tactic Cernovich is known for, I assume you're referring to the IP? In which case, it's very likely I've been defending someone who is attempting to troll the discussion which obviously I don't want to do - what I do want to do though is make sure everyone gets an a fair crack of the whip. Now, we've all got better things to do than discuss this IP (if they are trolling they'll appreciate the attention) and we should instead get back to improving the project -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 11:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC) Yes, I meant the IP, who did refer to a vague-but-not-really-vague scumbag Wikipedia mafia. There is a real problem with letting this kind of behavior slide. Yeah, yeah, we all need thick skins, I get it. I'm not personally bothered by this kind of thing anymore. I'm guessing nobody who's already here is. There's more, though. If you're serious about creating a welcoming environment for editors with different viewpoints, this is a failure. The IP's behavior drives away far more than they contribute. This out-of-order, rambling mess lingers on the talk page, and who's going to want to contribute to a mess like this? What is this supposed to accomplish other than empowering trolling? Don't get heavy-handed with other experienced editors because we try to clean-up totally unproductive garbage. Who really needs more concern, here? The IP who has no hesitation in spilling their guts out on any page within reach? We all might wish they did a better job of it, but I think they're going to find a way to get their say-in no matter what we do. I think we need to be more concerned with the potential editors who see this kind of childish conspiracy theory attack-nonsense and uses that to decide they're not going to bother. Grayfell (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

same ol' same ol'

This revert removes a ton of sources and some text which has already been discussed endlessly. It's also the fourth revert in a short period of time, thus violating 3RR. Please self-revert and seek consensus.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

If continually brought up as "same ol' same ol'" then it would lend credence to, in fact, being closer to the true consensus- more so than what was formerly present. (Bryochemist (talk) 08:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC))

Do not remove reliably sourced content because you doubt its truth. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

At this juncture it would be best to make a written proposal on the talk page concerning the edits you wish to make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edaham (talk • contribs) 23:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2017

Can you put int the Media and Views part how Cernovich believes that Hillary Clinton's 2016 Campaign was Funded by the Rothschild Family, according to one of his own Tweets on Twitter and believes George W Bush, Saudi Arabia and the Israeli Mossad orchestrated the 9/11 terror attacks And was born in Kewanee, Illinois according to this website 95.73.31.209 (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

References

 Not done These things may be accurate, but in order to include them in our article they need to be supported by reliable sources. In the current events space this most typically means articles published by reputable news media outlets. Specifically regarding Cernovich's beliefs, we'd need a secondary source in order to establish the belief's noteworthiness and to keep the article from turning into a soapbox on Cernovich's views. If you can provide these sources then I or another editor will likely be willing to add the requested content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Writer infobox

I have switched the infobox to Template:infobox writer since his occupation title was already listed and sourced as 'writer'. This is infobox also supports all previous tabs, and add important ones such as 'subject', and 'genre'. VivaSlava (talk) 08:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Remove Gamergate description

"In 2014, Cernovich promoted Gamergate, the harassment campaign that targeted several women in the video game industry, goading opponents with tweets such as "Who cares about breast cancer and rape? Not me.""

should be:

"In 2014, Cernovich promoted Gamergate, goading opponents with tweets such as "Who cares about breast cancer and rape? Not me.""

Gamergate was not just about women getting harrassed. That's a one-sided viewpoint. Gamergate was also about male gamers revealing the bad journalism going on within the gaming community, falsely making the gaming community seem like it hated women. 174.117.121.225 (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)