Talk:Roosh V/Archive 1

Archive 1

Is there evidence of COI?

This article went through Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Roosh. ‎ David FLXD moved page from Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Roosh to Roosh with edit summary "Created via Articles for Creation (you can help!) (AFCH)". Is it the article creator with the conflict of interest? User talk:Lapastillaroja? If so, what is the evidence that the article isn't neutral? Is there unreferenced material or POV issues? If so, that should be addressed rather than tagging the article without providing evidence. Star767 (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I suspect both User talk:Lapastillaroja and User:Ethicalv (note that "v") are very closely aligned with Daryush Valizadeh (pseudonym "Rush V"). Both are SPA's dedicated to this deeply unpleasant topic. As for the article, none of the "sources" deal with this person in any depth at all. It's just an overview of short outraged pieces in various languages about misogynistic self-published books by this fellow. That's one side. The other side is self-promotion. Dan Murphy (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

This article was up for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roosh. Someone complained the "this deeply unpleasant topic". The answer: "Does this wanne-be-famous Roosh deserve to be notable? Clearly, no. However, that's not the question. Wikipedia, within reasonable limits, does not take a judgemental position on content. The issue is, does Roosh meet GNG? Equally clearly, yes. Ekstrabladet in Denmark has nationwide circulation, and he managed to annoy the Danes enough to get coverage that makes him notable. "National" (or regional) coverage doesn't just apply to the U.S., it's equally so for any country. Getting to be famous by being outstandingly offensive is not a deserving tactic, but it does work."

Another editor said: "Well-referenced article showing significant coverage from numerous reliable sources. Don't discount them just because they're from parts of the world you don't care about."

So if we go by reliable sources, and stop worrying about "who" started the article, we don't have to let our value judgments or opinions affect our editing. Star767 (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Star767. There is no evidence of a conflict of interest, and even if there was, the article would have ended up substantially the same as it is now. I will remove the tag. – Smyth\^talk 15:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The evidence I found of potential COI that I referred to in the AfD talk is that there is a thread on Roosh's board, about this wikipedia article which coordinated edits are discussed. There also happens to be a username of LaPastillaRoja on Roosh's board. However, as noted already, the article's content is likely not affected by this potential COI as everything is sourced from external sources.PearlSt82 (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes I am a follower of his work, not unlike an editor updating the page of a musician he listens to. I stand by my edits and I offer you to point to ones you think were not neutral. In fact I think I've been overly critical of him. It seems from your emotional complaint that you are more angry with the subject of the article than the actual article. I think I've done an impartial continuance of User:Ethicalv's original stub, and enough interest has been brought to it where there are now multiple contributors trying to improve the page. Lapastillaroja (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Article should mention Roosh's lack of scientific credibility

Roosh is not a psychologist and has no training in the statistical methodologies (e.g., econometrics) which govern the social sciences. None of his claims are peer-reviewed. Yet such a transparent charlatan is allowed to have a Wikipedia page where his (empirical/psychological) claims about women's sexuality go unchallenged? Utterly preposterous. This needs to change quickly. Steeletrap (talk) 04:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I suppose you also write letters to Cosmopolitan complaining that their articles aren't peer-reviewed by scientists either. – Smyth\^talk 13:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Advice columns are distinct from systems which purport to be scientific/relating to female sexual psychology. Steeletrap (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

He doesn't write in a particularly scientific style. It's more a kind of of social commentary. Anyway, after I wrote the above I found that there actually is a section in Cosmopolitan (magazine) containing similar complaints about its pseudo-scientific claims. It's tagged citation needed, and the same would apply here. – Smyth\^talk 21:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The article doesn't make any claims that Roosh is a psychologist or social scientist, as Roosh is neither a psychologist nor social scientist, just a pick up artist and author (and charlatan), which the article does state. Most of the English-language critiques of his work, including several of Bang Iceland for his comments on rape, do not meet WP:RSPearlSt82 (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You guys are funny! Giovanni. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.114.248.7 (talk) 02:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Ethnicity, place of birth

Roosh's surname is Iranian and he has confirmed on his forum that he has Iranian heritage. Should this be added to the article? Also, any information regarding his place of birth could be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.123.40.185 (talk) 08:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

What a coincidence - just yesterday Roosh started a thread dealing with this specific subject. He is half Iranian and half Armenian.

http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-27445.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.123.40.185 (talk) 10:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

notability

Why is this page even up? He Self-published a bunch of books. That doesn't make him notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.64.249 (talk) 08:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The deletion discussion should answer your question. – Smyth\^talk 14:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Birth date

(Moved from User talk:Elmech])

Since you say his birth date is supported by "all the sources and reality", you will have no problem providing a citation for it. Thanks. – Smyth\^talk 21:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

hey man, there are tons of sources for that. bio page on rooshv.com, datingskills page, and so on. I don't want to advertise him, please try to be correct and balanced, and not show your love to Rooshv so much

You want Wikipedia to be correct? Wikipedia wants that too. That's why its policy states that you must provide a reliable source (or, in this case, a self-published one by the subject himself) which clearly supports the given date. Otherwise it must be removed. – Smyth\^talk 22:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

@Smyth: If you have a source that says a different birth date, please share it here. Otherwise, we will keep the current one. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

You're a bit behind. I was the one who found the only reliable source I've seen so far. – Smyth\^talk 10:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Tone of the article

I have seen mention of Roosh and Return of Kings in the general media, but almost all of it, if not all, has been negative. So, it's difficult to keep this article from looking like a hit piece. The only way to do so would be to reduce the article to about two paragraphs of neutral information. The problem then would be that its notability could then be questioned. Cla68 (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, 100% of the sources not from Roosh's personal site or ROK are negative. I dont think there is any RS out there that presents him in a positive light. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the first priority needs to be to bring this article in line with Wikipedia standards, as you say i.e. NPOV; and if that means reducing it down to about two paragraphs of neutral information, then so be it. We can cross the next bridge (regarding notability) when we get to it. Arthur Longshanks (talk) 10:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

This Article is not encyclopedic

Hi, new editor here, I just popped in here to say that this article does not read like an encyclopedia piece. It basically just reads like a hack job hit piece designed to discredit the man. Character assassination is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. A wikipedia article surely ought to have an introduction, different segments as relevant, and use credible sources. This article on the other hand is rambling, incoherent, and is largely sourced from the hysterical opinion website 'Jezebel', which is not deemed a quality source by Wikipedia standards as far as I know.

It is not appropriate to rant and rave about condoms and unprotected sex in the second sentence of a Wikipedia article. It is not appropriate to introduce personal bias into an article by phrasing sentences as like "Recent articles include the charming '5 Reasons to Date a Girl With an Eating Disorder,'". In this instance, the word "charming" is highly inappropriate, and it bells the cat as to the sort of biased POV with which this article was written. I will try to find the time to rewrite this article over the next few days if nobody has any objection to it being cleaned up.Arthur Longshanks (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Most of the content you object to was inserted by the user discussed in the section above, who is rapidly on their way to being banned. – Smyth\^talk 14:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Is Jezebel an appropriate source?

Negative commentary from blogs are generally forbidden in BLPs on Wikipedia. None of the Jezebel references are appropriate and I have removed them. Cla68 (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, Jezebel is not a blog. Those particular articles are blog-ish, but Jezebel does have editorial oversight. I do not see anything about Jezebel.com being non-RS on WP:RSN. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The first line on the WP article for Jezebel (website) is, "Jezebel is a blog aimed at women's interests, under the tagline "Celebrity, Sex, Fashion for Women. Without Airbrushing." It is one of several blogs owned by Gawker Media." I advise you not to edit war to insert negative information in BLP sourced to a blog. WP's administrators, for all their issues, have a short fuse when it comes to protecting BLP subjects. Talk it out here first before reading it to the article. Cla68 (talk) 05:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I think Jezebel is WP:RS for this. Its also used as a source in plenty of BLP, including Shigeo Tokuda, Joanna Angel, Tyra Banks, Todd Lamb (writer), Ani DiFranco, Madonna (entertainer), and many, many others. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence of Wikipedia:RS#Overview is "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." But the things that were sourced to Jezebel were not assertions of fact. They were the personal opinions (feelings, really) of individual Jezebel writers, who as far as I know, are not notable in their own right. And virtually all Jezebel content is like that. – Smyth\^talk 13:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

(@Cla68 as well) While the two cited articles were questionable, Jezebel itself cannot be written off as a blog. I do not see Jezebel call itself a blog. It does, however, have editorial staff ([5]). Its structure and functioning are quite similar to HuffPo. I won't re-add the quotes as I do not think that cited articles are the best sources and we have plenty of others. But it would be wrong to dismiss Jezebel writ large. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

We rightfully treat BLPs with kid gloves. The sources used for pejorative information have to be impeccable because of the real-world harm we can cause, and have caused in the past, to BLP subjects. Cla68 (talk) 11:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Views on Homosexuality

Considering Roosh has pretty... well.. unconventional views on homosexuality, would it be possible to make a section based on articles that he has written on the subject or would that be a repeat of the "sex tourist" thing? [6] [7] --80.193.191.143 (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Those articles shouldn't be brought in unless mentioned elsewhere in a third-party RS. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point, he would need to make a few more articles before they become definitive of his writing topics. Still, it is unusual to see heterophobia used and discussed legitimately, only within the MRM eh? --80.193.191.143 (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Sex tourist

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.

---

Three reliable sources describe Roosh as a sex tourist in the title of their article, and 12 of the 14 books he's published deal with travelling to other countries, primarily third world, for the explicit purpose to sleep with women. This is the exact definition of what a sex tourist is and it is supposed by RS. PearlSt82 (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

No it isn't. The WP article states in its first sentence, "Sex tourism is travel to engage in sexual activity, particularly with prostitutes." Roosh V has been clear that he doesn't travel to sleep with prostitutes and those sources don't say that he travels to sleep with prostitutes. The label violates WP:BLP and I will continue to remove it. Remember, 3rr doesn't apply when protecting BLP subjects from attacks on their Wiki-bios. Cla68 (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It says "particularly with prostitutes", not always with prostitutes, and Roosh has admitted to purchasing prostitutes in his South American travel books. Where are you getting the idea that 3rr doesnt apply? PearlSt82 (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The term isn't pejorative enough to warrant violations of 3RR. It is sourced and has been in the article since its creation (literally). Please discuss it here. Start an RfC or a DRN if you feel the need. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course it is perjorative enough, the references need to be impeccable to make such a claim. To the point about what a "sex tourist" is, I suggest that Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to find a definition. My quick look suggests that overwhelmingly government organizations and the media are referring to paid sex, with a significant emphasis on child prostitution. To back up this claim you have a couple of articles using the term in the title. I think that might be enough to say "media outlet xxx describes Roosh V as a sex tourist", but nowhere near enough to make a straight out claim of fact in the lead. Kevin (talk) 03:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and that would need to go in the body of the article and not in the intro. From what I understand, "sex tourism" can be considered criminal activity by some governments, so putting something like that in a BLP could expose the subject to arrest while traveling. That has happened before to a WP BLP subject. Cla68 (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Also disagree that he should be labeled a sex tourist, when his work clearly and repeatedly discourages soliciting prostitution (http://www.rooshv.com/sex-tourists-vs-love-tourists). If he's a sex tourist then we are widening the definition to include anyone who travels and has casual sex without exchange of payment, which would be most of the Western traveling population. Lapastillaroja (talk) 10:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• not a sex tourist we should not use 'sex tourist' to describe him in wikipedia's voice, as if it were some sort of job, instead of a pejorative slur - it would be similar to saying X is a racist or X is an asshole or X is a sexist - this is especially important since he appears to eschew this label. Can you imagine Andrea Dworkin's lede reading 'she is a feminist author and feminazi' etc. in the relevant book review sections we could say 'in the review of his book on Iceland, noted book reviewer X noted that 'Roosh's book is written by a blatant sex tourist' I'm actuLly shocked that experienced Wikipedia editors believe this is good - reliable sources use all sorts of nasty terms about people, but even for Elliot Rodgers I seriously doubt we'd say 'Rodgers was a student and misogynist at San Diego state' etc. it's simply not done here; no matter how much we dislike the subject we should treat it neutrally and not go out of our way to put slurs in the lede. Pearl you should be ashamed of yourself for this ridiculous attempt. Also, the terminology 'third world' is a bit dated, and Latvia, Estonia, Iceland, Lithuania, Poland, and Denmark don't qualify (and never did) as third world in any case. (Fwiw, since you may not know this, third world came from the non-aligned movement of countries that were neither part of the 1st world dominated by the western powers nor the second world dominated by the soviets, it was originally meant to be a third way, another path. Over time the term came to take on somewhat pejorative and stereotypical aspects with images of starving kids and flies buzzing around their heads. This is not what you'll find in Estonia, Poland, or Iceland, nor will you find it on the bustling cosmopolitans streets of Bogotá.) but the bottom line is, totally inappropriate for a lede.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I concede third world was a poor choice of words. What I should have said is that aside from Iceland and Denmark (coincidentally where Roosh seems to have had the least success in his travels), he travels to countries which are economically disadvantaged and imbalanced compared to the United States. Sexual relationships pursued via tourism, especially when coupled with Roosh's methods, in such economically imbalanced scenarios are described as being sex tourism in the Cole/Morgan book I've posted. Comparing the label of Roosh as a "sex tourist" to Dworkin being a "feminazi" is a bit of a false equivalency for several reasons, namely that "feminazi" is an obvious slur coined by Rush Limbaugh to insult his political opponents, whereas sex tourism is actual phenomenon and exists outside of the context of being an insult. As for saying X is a racist, the lede in David Duke's article says "David Ernest Duke (born July 1, 1950) is an American White nationalist" (first words) and "His views are characterized by racism" (end of paragraph). I'm not ashamed of anything I've posted on this page, but may I point out that the term was in the article since its creation and this is not just my "attempt" to include it. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Promotion of sex tourism - even with adults - is illegal in at least 3 US states - it's a class-C felony in Washington state [8]. We simply don't use pejorative labels like this in wikipedia's voice, especially ones which have such a close association with criminal activity, unless the person has in fact been convicted of a crime. It's wildly inappropriate to say "Roosh is an author and sex tourist" - it's not his JOB, it's an IDENTITY he rejects, and it's pejorative to describe him in this way especially in unadorned language using wikipedia's voice. It would be much better to state that book review X called him a "sex tourist" in the title, and then link to Roosh's website where he lays out the differences and makes the claim that he isn't one.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Article locked

Right, I've locked the article - can the two sides please lay out their evidence supporting their assertions in a laid out version below. If any admin reading this really feels the need to lock the article on the other version, I am not opposed - I just locked it as I found it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Casliber but the article does not appear to be locked (?) EvergreenFir (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

For inlcusion - Roosh is described as a "sex tourist" in the title of three WP:RS (1, 2, 3). He's an author of 14 books, 11 of which (not 12 as I erroneously stated before) are about traveling to different countries for the purpose of sleeping with women. His only notability comes from the controversy that these books have generated - if he had not written these and just had written "Bang", "Day Bang: How To Casually Pick Up Girls During The Day", and "30 Bangs: The Shaping Of One Man's Game From Patient Mouse To Rabid Wolf", he would very likely not be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. While child prostitution and prostitution are issues associated with sex tourism, someone who travels to (primarily) the third world with the purpose of sleeping with women also falls under the definition of sex tourist. As the preponderance of the RS about him deal with his books, I think the description is appropriate. PearlSt82 (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

* Support * - He described as such in the reliable reference right below that term in the article. Therefore, it's not Syn, OR, but rather, what the reliable source calls him. He can be called that. Yes, I realize "sex tourist" describes a host of acts which sometimes goes into illegal territory too, but again, he's being referred to a such reliably, so we can, per BLP . Kosh Vorlon   16:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

When a reliable source talks about something objective, such as him writing a particular book, then we can use that to support a statement of fact in the article. When that source talks about something subjective, which "sex tourist" most definitely is, then we cannot make a statement of fact based on that source. What we can say is "source xxx says this". If every source you read says the same thing then you might write something like "widely described as a sex tourist". The next question is whether it ought to go in the lead. The lead is supposed to summarize the content, so it would only go there if there was substantial content in the body of the article. I don't see this substantial content at present. In my opinion, this stating something subjective as a fact, in the lead of the article, is a clear violation of the BLP policy. Kevin (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

PearlSt82, can you show me where your definition of "sex tourist" comes from? Kevin (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Noncommercial sex exploitation via traveling to South American and Eastern European countries is a part of sex tourism and is described in various sources such as Tourism and Sex: Culture, Commerce and Coercion (Stephen Clift, ‎Simon Carter, 2000) and by WorldVision. When Roosh's works are described by the RS only as negative things like a "rape guide" and "as wrong as possible", it should seem clear that his works advocate approaching for sex in an exploitative manner. But that doesn't seem to matter as much as the RS describing him as a "sex tourist" multiple times in the title. PearlSt82 (talk) 11:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on sex tourism is nearly 100% about prostitution. As such, including a link to that page would be misleading unless it was expanded. – Smyth\^talk 10:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT? EvergreenFir (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not me that should fix it, I think it's fine. It's those who want to use the term in a different way who have the burden of proof. PearlSt82 has not provided such proof. His link above is also 100% about prostitution, which simply is not Roosh's area. The fact that some opinion journalists have used the term means nothing. Taki's Magazine is not a reliable source, and the other two links are not in English, so the term may have subtly different implications. Quoting a pejorative term and attributing it to the person who used it is the best way to go in BLP articles, unless the truth of the term is unquestionable. – Smyth\^talk 10:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Non-commercial exploitation is mentioned in the very first paragraph of that link so I don't believe it is "100%" about prostitution. Takimag is used as RS in plenty of other areas of WP and I think its a stretch to suggest the term means something else in Estonian. PearlSt82 (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, please see Tourism and Inequality: Problems and Prospects (Stroma Cole, ‎Nigel Morgan - 2010) - from page 63, among other descriptions of examples of noncommercial sex tourism - "Because the relationship between tourism and sex is close but multifaceted, the term 'sex tourism' is not as easy to define as it may first appear, and the problem cannot be fully resolved by defining 'sex tourism' as 'prostitution tourism', because, as has been seen in this chapter, sexual-economic relationships between tourists and local/migrant persons range from brief and explicit cash-for-sex exchanges that both parties understand as 'prostitution', though more open-ended, diffuse exchanges, to relationships that are understood by both parties to be 'romantic' despite the asymmetry of economic power between them. It is actually very difficult to draw a sharp line between tourists' experience of commercial and non-commercial sex. It is also important to recognize that in some cases, local/migrant people pursue relationships with tourists for reasons that are simultaneously economic and sexual.". The graph on page 100 of Sex Tourism: Marginal People and Liminalities (Ryan and Robertson, 1997) neatly describes paradigms of sex tourism and includes non-commercial activities as well. Previous chapters in the book have further discussion on the issue. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The World Vision paper is on human trafficking for sexual exploitation. Do you think Roosh V is involved in this? And while the paper contains the phrases "non-commercial" and "sex tourism", every single mention of "sex tourism" is preceded by the word "child". This paper has no place whatsoever in defining non-commercial sex tourism. Kevin (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The Worldvision pamplet might not have the best definition, but what about the other three sources I've mentioned and quoted above? The Cole/Morgan book is pretty clear. I could certainly find and post several others too.PearlSt82 (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with what Kevin said. Just because Roosh is an asshole (which I have no argument with), it does not follow that he is guilty of every sexual crime and misdemeanour under the sun. And even though he is an asshole, we don't call him that in the voice of the encyclopedia. We quote it and attribute it.

And you might want to reread WP:RS. Taki's Magazine does not have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", because it consists entirely of opinion pieces. And even if it was a reliable source for questions of fact, WP:RS explains that "opinion pieces [...] are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact" (emphasis added).

As for non-English sources, it's completely plausible that in other languages, the cognate of "sex tourism" might simply mean "tourism for the purpose of finding sexual partners" (which Roosh does do), without any implication of an economic relationship between the partners (which Roosh claims not to do). – Smyth\^talk 09:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think he's guilty of every sexual crime, but his books seem pretty clearly about sex tourism, and he's described as such. Takimag appears to be referenced in 49 articles - if its not RS, would RSN be the place to have it removed? PearlSt82 (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

His books are clearly about tourism for the purpose of sex. But as shown above, the phrase "sex tourism" has additional implications in English which simply do not apply to him.

As I said, there's nothing wrong with Taki's Magazine being used as a source of statements of opinion, suitably attributed to their author, assuming the author is notable in the given context. But it's not reliable as a source of fact. – Smyth\^talk 09:50, 5 July 2014 (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.

RfC

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.

---

Question - Should the term "sex tourist" be used to describe Roosh V in the lead sentence (see here for current wording using term)? Please see Talk:Roosh V#Sex tourist for previous discussion including use of term by other sources and discussions of BLP policy. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• strong oppose Promotion of sex tourism - even with adults - is illegal in at least 3 US states - it's a class-C felony in Washington state [9]. We should not use pejorative labels like this in wikipedia's voice, especially ones which have such a close association with criminal activity, unless the person has in fact been convicted of a crime per WP:BLPCRIME. We should not use 'sex tourist' to describe him in wikipedia's voice, as if it were some sort of job - it would be similar to saying that X is a racist or X is an asshole or X is a sexist - this is especially important since Roosh appears to eschew this label - see [10] + interviews cited in article. Reliable sources use all sorts of nasty terms about people, but even for Elliot Rodgers I seriously doubt we'd say 'Rodgers was a student and misogynist at San Diego state' etc. It's simply not done here; no matter how much we dislike the subject we should treat it neutrally (BLP requires this) and not go out of our way to place pejorative slurs in the lede. Sex tourist is pejorative because it suggests an exploitative paid sex relationship with prostitutes - and in some countries these prostitutes are themselves victims of human trafficking, and sex tourism is often used to describe people going overseas to have sex with minors (something which is also illegal under several federal statutes in the US). None of this describes the actions that Roosh actually undertakes or what his books describe. Thus, it's wildly inappropriate to say "Roosh is an author and sex tourist" - it's not his JOB, it's an IDENTITY he rejects, and it's pejorative to describe him in this way especially in unadorned language using wikipedia's voice. Also, FWIW, I oppose the idea of holding an RFC on this matter - discussion was progressing above and consensus was leaning against its inclusion; seeing a losing battle, the framer of this RFC is attempting to bring fresh troops to the question. RFCs should normally be used when the talk page discussions aren't bearing fruit or consensus hasn't arisen, which wasn't the case here--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I did not draw the same conclusion from the above discussion given the protracted nature of this discussion (seems mixed to me) and thought an RfC appropriate. Thank you for your input though. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

There was certainly a majority against including the material, and no strong arguments given for why we should include such material in wikipedia's voice, especially given the pejorative nature of that descriptor.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

As you know, majority does not matter as much as the quality of the arguments. I see two strong arguments here and felt RfC was appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

"Promotion of sex tourism - even with adults - is illegal in at least 3 US states - it's a class-C felony in Washington state" - Not everyone on wikipedia lives in the United States, and, as a consequence, we are not bound by its laws. DJAMP4444 22:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

True, but Roosh does live in the US...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Prostitution is legal in several rural counties of Nevada. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Roosh is described as a sex tourist in three WP:RS (1, 2, 3). He's an author of 14 books, 11 of which are about traveling to different countries for the purpose of sleeping with women. Aside from Iceland and Denmark, they are all countries which are economically disadvantaged compared to the United States. Sex tourism is not limited to prostitution - Tourism and Inequality: Problems and Prospects (Stroma Cole, ‎Nigel Morgan - 2010) - from page 63, among other descriptions of examples of noncommercial sex tourism gives a definition of "Because the relationship between tourism and sex is close but multifaceted, the term 'sex tourism' is not as easy to define as it may first appear, and the problem cannot be fully resolved by defining 'sex tourism' as 'prostitution tourism', because, as has been seen in this chapter, sexual-economic relationships between tourists and local/migrant persons range from brief and explicit cash-for-sex exchanges that both parties understand as 'prostitution', though more open-ended, diffuse exchanges, to relationships that are understood by both parties to be 'romantic' despite the asymmetry of economic power between them. It is actually very difficult to draw a sharp line between tourists' experience of commercial and non-commercial sex. It is also important to recognize that in some cases, local/migrant people pursue relationships with tourists for reasons that are simultaneously economic and sexual.". The graph on page 100 of Sex Tourism: Marginal People and Liminalities (Ryan and Robertson, 1997) neatly describes paradigms of sex tourism and includes non-commercial activities as well. Previous chapters in the book have further discussion on the issue. Roosh's only notability comes from the controversy that these books have generated - if he had not written these and just had written "Bang", "Day Bang: How To Casually Pick Up Girls During The Day", and "30 Bangs: The Shaping Of One Man's Game From Patient Mouse To Rabid Wolf", he would very likely not be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. In regards to the legality, the Washingston State statue specifically defines the criminal element as dealing with prostitution which is not relevant in Roosh's case. However, it may be important to note that Roosh himself describes his activities in a legal grey area. From Bang Iceland: "While walking to my place, I realized how drunk she was. In America, having sex with her would have been rape, since she legally couldn’t give her consent. It didn’t help matters that I was relatively sober, but I can’t say I cared or even hesitated. I won’t rationalize my actions, but having sex is what I do." Similar sentiment is consistently expressed throughout his works. Roosh has noted he prefers the the term "Love tourist", but this seems to me like rationalization for his behavior as I'm not sure how anyone can extract "love" from that particular sentiment. PearlSt82 (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Notwithstanding, the term is pejorative, and he has been convicted of no crime. Just as we wouldn't say "He's a misogynist" even though sources claim he is, we should not say unadorned that he is a sex tourist. In the relevant book review sections, we can say "Source X called him a sex tourist", which is the state of the article right now, along with his response to same. Whether you personally like the term love tourist is rather irrelevant. Also, I question your purpose in pulling out a single quote from his work like that from his work - it's almost like you're trying to paint him in a negative light. Editors should edit from NPOV always.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. As Obiwankenobi states above, sex tourism is a crime in a number of places. Therefore, to say in the intro for this BLP that the subject is a sex tourist requires air-tight sourcing, which is not even close to the case here. Cla68 (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support but willing to compromise per PearlSt82 argument and the fact that "sex tourist" does not only refer to criminal behavior. I would not be opposed to adding a footnote explaining the use of the term or even using "love tourist" (with a footnote describing the behaviors) which is Roosh's preferred term. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose for intro, Support for body. The term is clearly used to describe Roosh; however the problem is that we don't have enough space in the intro to explain that the word as commonly used refers to travel for the purposes of sex with prostitutes, while the word as used to describe Roosh merely refers to travel for the purposes of sex. We do have enough space to explain that in the body, so should. --GRuban (talk) 03:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
• Alternative I have discussed with EvergreenFir and we may have a compromise position, which is:

1. Use the term "self-styled love tourist" in the intro, linking to Roosh's website where he delineates the difference between love and sex tourism, and give a brief explanation in a footnote that he travels overseas to meet women and sleep with them
2. In the book reviews from Lithuania, keep as it is, e.g. "The source X called him a "sex tourist", but Roosh responded that he was a love tourist.(ref) that way, sex tourist is mentioned, but in the body, contextualized in the context of the book review where it appeared, and with a chance for him to respond (as he did in an interview in Lithuania or Latvia.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• I support this alternative. Seems to solve all issues raised: (1) desire to describe his body of authorship about traveling for the purposes of having sex, (2) abiding by BLP guidelines and not using loaded/pejorative terms in Wikipedia's voice, and (3) keeps the criticism as "sex tourist" in the relevant section but not in Wikipedia's voice. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm also fine with this. Is there WP policy which specifically deals with the construction of footnotes in this context? WP:FOOTNOTE just deals with citations. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

FOOTNOTE says "Footnotes are used most commonly to provide:references (bibliographic citations) to reliable sources,explanatory information or..." This would fit under "explanatory information". I've removed the RFC tag since we seem to have consensus.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Kind of - it's inappropriate to use "Sex Tourist" in Wikipedia's voice. We should instead say that he was described as a sex tourist by whoever did that describing. Hipocrite (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support, though with attribution (and placement in the lead). "Love tourist" is not appropriate -- his books and actions are not about "love" in the way most people would understand that term, and given the sources that describe him as a sex tourist it would be a violation of NPOV to allow his own self-description to guide our edits in this respect. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with self-styled - I count at least 1,000 uses of this in ledes of other biographies.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

You counted at least 1000 uses of self-styled descriptions in ledes? Do you have some examples? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.191.143 (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose labelling him with the term in Wikipedia's voice anywhere in the article for the reasons I've already given above. Using the term but attributing it to a source, as Obinwankenobi suggests above or otherwise, is fine with me. – Smyth\^talk 21:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as it is too easy to take sex tourist to mean that the subject engages with prostitutes. Seemingly - and in the subject's own words - his preference is "love tourist". SueDonem (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, for reasons I have given in the 2 sections above. Kevin (talk) 02:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose RFC question and Support Alternative proposed by Obi-Wan Kenobi per above discussions. --Ca2james (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Easy Oppose The issue of whether or not "sex tourism" is a criminal activity is not relevant. If the subject of the article were primarily known as a "sex tourist", e.g. if he'd have been convicted for a "sex tourism"-related crime, Wikipedia should list him as such. Wikipedia is not a prude. But he's primarily known as a writer and a blogger. The criterion of notability trumps all else. -The Gnome (talk) 00:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose calling him a "sex tourist" in Wikipedia's voice, though I support mentioning that some reliable sources call him that. Worthy of note is that prostitution is legal in many areas, that some tourists travel to such areas to indulge, and that such tourism is not illegal. As for his "love tourist" claim, his relevant blog post states: " Sex tourists get freebies in the form of an extra 15 minutes from his whore. Love tourists get freebies in the form of a blowjob in the bushes by a girl who loves Americans." He has a far different definition of "love" than most people, and I think I will go wash my hands now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment – Let's be clear about the legality of "sex tourism". Traveling with the goal (or extra benefit) of sexual fulfillment is not illegal anywhere. Rather, the commercial promotion of travel "sex tourism", that is, to sell travel services with sex tourism as a commercial end, is illegal in some states. So, if he (or anyone) is a "sex tourist", that's fine. (E.g., perfectly legal.) If he engages in sex illegally, that's a crime. But he is not promoting illegal sexual tourism travel services if he simply says "Go to place X...you are sure to get laid." Having said this, I support the alternative posted above. – S. Rich (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2014 (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.

Stealing Drinks and living arrangement

First, where he is living is not mentioned in the source, as such is a BLP vio. Second, why do we care that he stole drinks? It's not encyclopedic, we don't need to know every little thing that he may have done wrong in his life. We're an encyclopedia, and this is most defininitely not encyclopedic. Actually, this just seems to be some WP: BLPGOSSIP. --Kyohyi (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE as well. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Roosh's reading list

While I don't see any BLP problems with the inclusion of this text, it might be WP:UNDUE. His literature preferences don't seem to be mentioned by any other sources other than his personal website. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it might be undue. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. – Smyth\^talk 08:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Real name

Several editors have inserted an alleged real name for this person. The only source so far provided is a domain name registration, which does not prove anything at all -- he could have provided a fake name, or gotten someone else to register the domain for him. Please do not reinsert this information without a reliable source. – Smyth\^talk 15:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Link 1 is dead. No evidence of this guys name whatsoever. If he chooses to remain anonymous and never show his face, the article should say that rather than giving him credibility as a legitimate "named" person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.200.188.142 (talk) 12:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The Doublethink Online piece seems to have vanished from the internet so I've updated it with a more recent piece on the Daily Dot. As far as never showing his face, this is clearly not the case, just google image (or youtube) search Roosh. PearlSt82 (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Why Organize Controversy by Country?

The article respects a neutral point of view by merely cataloging criticism across countries. But it conceals context: Roosh publishes hateful "trolling" articles that go viral and generate profitable traffic for his websites. http://jezebel.com/ladies-quit-paying-attention-to-this-vile-troll-websit-1469942571

The article omits the basis of the criticism. The biggest issue is misogyny (sexism, rape-apology, fat-shaming, slut-shaming, sex/love tourism). But there is distinct criticism that his pick-up methods are ineffective, and lesser issues of homophobia and racism.

I don't want to destroy anyone's work, and don't know how to document these issues in the current organization of the article. Should I just post the references on this talk page? 129.2.114.211 (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Isn't Jezebel a feminist blog? If so, then what you're really saying is that activists of a specific idealogy have a beef with Roosh for what they perceive he stands for. I believe this article already has a mention that feminists don't like him, but if you have a reliable source that says more about it, it can considered for inclusion. Blogs generally aren't allowed as sources in WP, especially in biographies of living persons (BLPs). Cla68 (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Roosh met Wikipedia notability guidelines by provoking newspaper articles in smaller countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roosh The article cites these secondary foreign language sources with passive tense Weasel Words (“was strongly criticized”) without explanation. The Iceland section cites reference #30 twice, and the article lacks a Ukraine section. I’ll find specific appropriate references. 129.2.114.211 (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Roosh is merely an internet phenomemon. His blog trolling generates outraged foreign press stories long after he has left a country. But his self-published travel "books" sell less than one per day (rank around #500K or #1MM on Amazon). To convey Roosh's impact with any understanding or balance, you will need to quote from his blog or books. 173.79.50.21 (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Elmech / EGirl90

This person is clearly not here to write an encyclopedia. They are here to discredit the subject of this article in every possible way. Nevertheless, policy says we have to give them a chance to discuss things, so please direct them to this talk page at every opportunity. – Smyth\^talk 12:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Does this violate WP:SOCK? PearlSt82 (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I would say no. They are obviously the same person, and have never claimed to be otherwise. – Smyth\^talk 17:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I helped start this page and it has recently devolved into a one-sided hit piece where mostly critics are given weight. It's hard to see it as neutral. It seems that any vocal feminist can have her opinion of him placed here. Lapastillaroja (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I am attempting to get this person blocked at WP:ANI#Roosh_V. I forgot to mention for the record that they previously deleted this whole section of the talk page and replaced it with the sentence "Laparistoja is here only to write ireeliatst good things about Roosh, despite all reality or truth". They also inserted a forged comment from Lapastillaroja to make them appear biased.[11] This is their only "contribution" to the talk page so far. – Smyth\^talk 02:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Is Jezebel "large" or "feminist"?

Nobody would dispute that it's "feminist", nor is that a slur on its reliability. But calling it "large" is meaningless and verges on peacocking. What is "large"? Is a website more reliable because it is "large"? Time Cube is large by some measures. – Smyth\^talk 10:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. They self-proclaim to be feminist. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Also agreed.PearlSt82 (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Where have the Jezebel publicly self-proclaimed the site to be feminist? Yes, they run a lot of articles about feminism and many of the writers/editors identify themselves as feminist. However, as a long-time member of the Jezebel commentariat, I can tell you that in the comments section, the site's head editor has explicitly disclaimed that the site itself is intended to be feminist. (This generally happens any time that commenters criticize the site for articles that are not feminist enough--problematic, as they say.) So, FWIW, the site itself is not meant to be a feminist blog the way a site like Feministing is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.138.105 (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

SPLC / Daily Dot

Elmech is using selective quotation to imply as strongly as possible that Roosh was accused by the SPLC of being a Nazi or a terrorist. [12] This is completely unacceptable. – Smyth\^talk 12:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect References

I have just been looking through the references listed for this article, and have found a couple of issues. Primarily, the Washington Times Communities Article link leads only to the Washington Times Communities homepage; the article does not seem to exist any more, through searching both via Google and the Washington Times Communities website itself. Also, reference number 7 does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for referencing. I am also slightly doubtful that the blog of "Roosh V", Facebook and comments on forums are suitable references and meet Wikipedia's guidelines. If there are no objections, I'll delete the information referenced by The Washington Times Communities article that cannot be located. Any thoughts of the other referencing issues that I've mentioned? U65945 (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It's just WP:LINKROT. I've added the archived version. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, attempted to do that but couldn't find it anywhere. U65945 (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Blogs, social media pages and forum posts are adequate sources for the words and opinions of their writer (which is not the same as saying that those opinions are true). As stated at WP:SELFPUB, they are also considered adequate sources for basic personal facts such as the writer's own birthday and ethnicity, unless there is some reason to doubt them. – Smyth\^talk 14:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

On that same note, having looked at reference [13] concerning university graduation, this source doesn't quite seem sufficient. The name "Daryush" in the document is misspelled, and the remainder of the document is riddled with similar errors. As the origins of this document also seem hazy, should this be considered a reputable source? U65945 (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

"The Perfect Woman"

Shall we mention this?

• The Perfect Woman: Heels
• The Perfect Woman: Hair
• The Perfect Woman: Lips

His preference in "The Perfect Woman" --88.104.132.1 (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Roosh himself. What he finds attractive is not notable unless some secondary reliable source talks about it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Removal of personal life section

@Smyth: Hi! I removed the personal life section because it was sourced entirely to a post in a forum. I don't think these things can be accurately used as sources in any context, nor should they be. WP:SELFPUB explicitly provides allowance for pages on social media sites, but I don't believe this allowance extends so far as to allowing individual posts on forums to be used as sources on the subject of an article. It might be necessary to ask for a broader range of opinion on this if you disagree. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 09:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree I think this is correct.--88.104.137.223 (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I won't get into the general question of forum posts, because this is a special case. Roosh OWNS the forum in question, so there is no practical difference between his posts there and his posts on his blog. – Smyth\^talk 11:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I think there is a fairly clear distinction between making a blog post and posting something on a forum, even if you are the owner of the forum. As an afterthought- there is the question of whether his ethnicity is important enough for the article, or whether WP:DUE would allow a section like this to be based on a single forum post. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 17:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the fact that he owns the forums is relevant, but we need to consider sarcasm,humour, and satire too.--88.104.142.226 (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I still disagree, but his ethnicity adds nothing important to the article, so I'm not going to pursue it. – Smyth\^talk 09:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Banner merge

Can we merge the banner into one shell?--88.104.132.1 (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Can we please?--88.104.137.223 (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Can someone please do this?--88.104.141.16 (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no clue what you're talking about. – Smyth\^talk 15:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Roosh World Tour

Refs.

• 1
• 2

--88.104.132.1 (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Can we mention that he's going on a world tour?--88.104.132.1 (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you have trouble understanding the phrase "secondary reliable source" in the previous section? – Smyth\^talk 00:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

If his speaking tour gets covered by any independent media sources, it might could be included. Since it's possible his engagements might generate some protests, there is a chance that some media coverage will result. I suspect that's the reason he chose Toronto as one of the locations. Cla68 (talk) 00:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

So leave it for now but add it later? Look like a source here >> http://voxday.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/brainstorm-roosh-v-june-2015.html--88.104.137.223 (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Blogspot is not a reliable source. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

In response to his world tour, people are petitioning on Change.org so that he cannot enter Canada because of his hateful speech. Maybe if it get enough attention we can add it to the controversies? Frederika Eilers (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

If it's picked up by multiple news outlets it would be notable enough. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Are any of the following reliable and notable enough? http://naughtynomadforum.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=2835 http://www.mgtowhq.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9234 https://mgtowrevolution.wordpress.com/2015/07/09/roosh-world-tour/ https://www.travel-talks.net/thread-48641.html http://www.travel-talks.net/thread-47398.html https://www.reddit.com/r/asktrp/comments/3djay8/have_any_of_you_gone_to_rooshs_world_tour_events/ http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2015/07/17/repellant-pickup-artist-roosh-v-is-giving-a-talk-in-new-york-tomorrow-heres-what-to-expect/ http://voxday.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/brainstorm-featuring-roosh-v.html http://www.happierabroad.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=26927 http://alphagameplan.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/brainstorm-roosh-v-june-2015.html Iady391 (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

No. None of those are reliable sources. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 12:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

British article

In the same vein as the German article mentioned above, someone who attended Roosh's speech in London also took exception to what was said. Cla68 (talk) 01:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking that perhaps the best way to incorporate this and the German Vice sources into this article is to create a section called Roosh World Tour 2015 and use these two articles, plus all the articles from the Montreal protest as sources instead of having a separate Canada section. Cla68 (talk) 04:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

See the above section about the tour first please. --Iady391 | Talk to me here 10:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Most hated man source reliable?

I have started a discussion on the Reliable Source Noticeboard regarding the use of Washington Post's Style Blog as a source for saying Roosh is the "most hated man on the internet". It can be found at WP:RSN#WaPo Style Blog for BLP statement. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI related to recent edits

I have filed an ANI related to recent edits on this page. It can be found here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#BLP_violations.2C_battlegound.2C_and_SPA_behavior_by_Plazat. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Nationality

Roosh calls himself an American. I am deeply offended as an American... from his website (here). It's unclear where he was born and there's no sources in the article about his parents' nationality. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I've found an interview on A Voice for Men where he mentions the ethnicities of his parents. I tried to add it, but apparently AVFM is on the spam blacklist. (http://www. avoiceformen.com/sexual-politics/game/bang-the-definitive-interview-with-rooshv-part-one/) Would anyone object to me asking for the link to be whitelisted for article use? There really should be an edit count limit on who spam blacklist links apply to. Brustopher (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't object, but I will note that there have been multiple attempts to whitelist AVFM. Though I think the attempts were to whitelist the entire site and not specific articles. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that was to whitelist the entire site - and from what I can tell no real formal attempts were made there either, just lots of complaining that the site was on the blacklist in the first place. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose asking for that one link to be whitelisted. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not against whitelisting the article, but I think he might mean a cultural American and not an American citizen. Roosh often comments on culture but rarely on legal matters. Iady391 | Talk to me here 14:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Roosh's parents and anti-defamation league

I've reverted the info about Roosh's parents, and the extra info from the anti-defamation league. While his parents origins may be relatively uncontroversial, his parents are completely unknown. As per BLP, we should not be including information about their origins. Regarding the Anti-defamation league, I don't think their blog counts as a reliable source, and it most definitely doesn't count as a mainstream source, so we shouldn't be using it as a source for information on a BLP. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I restored the ADL claim. The blog is by the ADL and is thus reliable source because it's about themselves. Their opinion is notable enough to warrant inclusion. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, per WP: BLPSPS ADL's blog is not a reliable source for BLP's. They are not a news organization, and there is no indication of editorial oversight. --Kyohyi (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kyohyi: You are misinterpreting BLPSPS. We're not using them as a source to say Roosh is antisemitic. We're using them as a source to say they claim he is. And their opinion is generally notable. Just like we do with the Southern Poverty Law Center on many pages. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Per my edit summary- the ADL's opinion on the antisemitism of individuals is incredibly noteworthy. While we wouldn't create articles out of it, we do well to include their opinion where relevant in already existing articles on individuals who are already notable. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

This falls into the gray area of our BLP policy. The ADL is a notable organization, but their opinion on this matter was posted on their website which is self-published. Has any publication which meets our reliable source guidelines mentioned this matter? If not, then I think we probably should do a content RfC to get more eyes on this. Posting the opinion in a BLP that someone thinks the subject is anti-semitic is very serious and can cause real harm in the real world. Cla68 (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

If we had a separate publication source on this subject then there would be no problem. I've removed the content again for the same reasons, and request that it stay removed pending a discussion I'm about to place on BLPN per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

This is no gray area. The fact being asserted is that the ADL held a certain opinion. The re-reporting of that opinion by a news organization is not a more reliable source than the ADL themselves.

As for WP:BLPSPS, it says: "Never use self-published sources [unless written or published by the subject] ... as sources of material about a living person". This is not information about him. This is information about what people have said about him. Self-published sources are always acceptable as evidence that the publisher said what they said, as long as there's no doubt of their authenticity. – Smyth\^talk 14:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

You should go further and follow the link in WP:BLPSPS to WP:BLPSELFPUB. Point 2 on that is, "it does not involve claims about third parties". And further you should look at WP:BLPREMOVE where it says "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards". The ADL is making a contentious statement about Roosh, BLP policy is very clear that we cannot use ADL as a source on itself in this context. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is a contentious statement when Roosh's article is "The Damaging Effects Of Jewish Intellectualism And Activism On Western Culture". PearlSt82 (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I think value laden labels are de-facto contentious, whether or not I agree with the label. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

For any of you here who were edit-warring to keep pejorative information in this article, you need to remember that we err on the side of caution in Wikipedia when it comes to BLPs. At least a couple of you who have been doing this here have been editing WP for awhile, so you should know better. Consider this a general warning, if you edit war to keep negative information in a BLP before consensus has been established for its inclusion, I will, or encourage others to do so, to take you to WP:ANI to have an administrator look into your conduct. Cheers. Cla68 (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't patronize. It's not a BLP violation, just questionable. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

No strawmen, please. I didn't say it was a BLP violation, I said it was pejorative/negative. Again, if you're edit warring to keep negative information in a BLP when consensus hasn't been established, then you really should know better if you've been editing here for awhile. That goes for me also. Cla68 (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I note that this content has still not been re-added to the article, and that discussion seems to have stalled both here and at BLPN. Where did we land here? My reading of both discussions suggests that the content should be re-inserted. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd wait until the BLPN discussion is closed first. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

We could make a post at AN asking an uninvolved admin to review and close. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree on asking for a closure of the BLPN. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Because we err on the side of caution with BLPs, if clear consensus does not emerge from a discussion on adding negative information to a BLP article, then the information does not get added. Cla68 (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The close didn't really help us any, the closer appears to have assumed that this discussion was about the same issue and redirected discussion there. As far as I can tell, though, those are 2 different issues, so it seems we're back where we started. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I've left a note on the closer's talk page to see if they'd be willing to review their close and actually assess consensus on the use of the ADL source. We'll see what happens I guess. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Religion

Recently, Roosh V's religion was posted as Islam, I don't see any sources going over his religious views so we shouldn't be ascribing any without that. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Without a source where Roosh states his own religious identity, we must remove any such content per WP:IDENTITY. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I really doubt he's a Muslim or follower of Islam. Iady391 | Talk to me here 19:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The United States Controversy subsection

Outside of the SPLC stuff, most of the controversy in this section seems to be more internet centered than United States centered. The Daily Mirror is cited despite being a UK publication. Is there a way we can restructure this? Brustopher (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I was planning, once the Canadian brouhaha is over, to restructure the article because we'll now have sufficient sources to give it a more coherent narrative. Rather than dividing it up by country, I was planning on making sections on different themes or topics related to Roosh's persona. Cla68 (talk) 00:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. – Smyth\^talk 12:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

TVQC

I do not think this source and this one are reliable sources for this content, or for any content in this article for that matter. They're in french, obviously, but they are obviously POV, tabloid-quality articles. I removed the content in the diff I just linked this morning but it was restored by Cla68. Posting to see what other editors think - personally I think these sources are too biased and too low-quality to be used in the article at all. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix:Lets wait for consensus before any further action. Iady391 | Talk to me here 21:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that was the idea of starting a discussion, I'm not about to edit war over this. Cla did at least remove the individual's name when they re-added the content, otherwise I would likely have removed it again as a clear BLP violation. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Petition to ban Roosh from Canada

Just as I predicted earlier on this page, Roosh's upcoming presentations in Canada are starting to produce some protests and negative publicity. A feminist has started a petition to bar him from entry into the country. I would say if it gets more publicity a mention should be included in this article. Cla68 (talk) 07:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Another link. Cla68 (talk) 07:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

And another. That's three sources. Enough for inclusion? Cla68 (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Roosh is relatively unknown so I don't think it takes much in the way of sources to be enough for inclusion, and I think the CBC in Canada is a reliable enough source for this. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. Hopefully this petition and the planned, related protests will produce some media coverage that we can use to add more information to this article. Cla68 (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@Amanda Walters: Hi! I don't believe that we should state in Wikipedia's voice that Roosh V had intention to commit a crime- regardless of the likelihood of him saying something incredibly hateful & hurtful, it's not in line with our policies on the biographies of living people to say that without reliable sources also reporting on his intention. Would you have a problem with self reverting (undoing your own edit)? PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I also think we should hold off on naming the petition starter until it's reported in reliable sources. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

She herself placed her name on the petition page (I looked as I'm considering signing the petition myself, even though I'm not Canadian). The petition page is linked to from the Vice article. It is, of course, possible that someone is using her name on the petition page without her permission. If that's the case, then it would, of course, be appropriate not to include her name in this article. Cla68 (talk) 05:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I just signed the petition to keep Roosh out of Canada and to thereby suppress his rhetoric. Cla68 (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't really see what that's worth in a Wikipedia editing context, but oh well. WRT to the petition starter, absolutely no press source has interviewed her or mentioned her by name (correct me if I'm wrong). I don't get why all the sources would avoid using her name unless there was a reason. The reason could just be laziness and interviewing the loudest campaigner, instead of bothering to look up who started this thing, but it just as easily could have been something completely different we don't know about: like a fake name, or some privacy issue. Either way nobody covering this seems to think the petition starter's name is important to understand the story, and it's probably a bad idea to automatically assume it was just the result of journalistic laziness. Although I must admit I wouldn't be surprised.Brustopher (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

And here we go with, as I hoped, an article that we can use to better source the content in this article. Great stuff. Cla68 (talk) 04:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Two more: [13] and [14]. Cla68 (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Another. BTW, this source confirms the name of the woman who started the petition. Cla68 (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Carole Poirier, a member of Quebec's governing assembly, has just issued a press release on the Quebec government's website calling for Roosh to be banned from Canada and for his message to be censored. Cla68 (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The Omni Hotel in Montreal, where Roosh was scheduled to give his presentation, has canceled his reservation. Things are heating up. Cla68 (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Article with some good quotes from Poirier and Roosh. Once everything is finished after this weekend, I think we'll have enough sources to dramatically improve this article. Cla68 (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

In response to the call from Poirier to ban Roosh, Stéphanie Vallée condemned Roosh's message, but declined to censor his speech. Cla68 (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything about censorship in any of these sources. Lets be careful with how we interpret these, especially if we're dealing with French language material. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Cla68: but declined to censor his speech That's a misrepresentation of what the source says, which is that Vallée's spokesperson said that Vallée had no further comment. That is, she didn't say that she declined to cancel ("censor") his speech, she said that she declined to comment regarding whether he should be allowed to speak in Montreal. --SonicY (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Naming people involved in protests and the petition

Should we include the names of the people who were involved in the protests and the petition, especially in light of the news reports that they have been receiving rape and death threats? Why not state briefly that a petition was launched on Change.org and protests were organized instead of naming some of the involved individuals and mentioning their place of residence and where they go to school. I'm also concerned about some of the wording which isn't supported by the sources: "publicized the petition and was interviewed by the media following her efforts". The sources do not say if the person gave one interview or twenty and what the "publicizing" looked like (Twitter, Facebook?). The newsworthy message seems to be that some Canadians objected to Valizadeh's plans to give speeches on his uncommon view of women, a petition was launched, thousands of people signed it, protests were planned. I'm not seeing how mentioning the names, residence and schools of the three individuals improves the article. --SonicY (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I saw we remove the names. They're not that notable really and BLP recommends erring on the side of exclusion when notability isn't clear. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Both people are now actively talking to the press to publicise and spread their campaign. As one source mentions, the so called "opposition research" is occuring on Roosh's forums. The people who would be harassing and threatening them, already have access to their names through these forums, and the named campaigners seem to be fighting back against the intimidation. In such a situation I don't see why their names should be removed.Brustopher (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The people mentioned in the article have been very vocal and have used their names in reliable sources. The thing is, when you name real people, supported by sources, it gives more credibility to the protests, which I think is what they want. I don't have any problem using their names, especially since they haven't requested anonymity. Cla68 (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The names should be used so long as they can be verified through reliable sources. I'm convinced by the screencaps off twitter but Wikipedia's standards may be higher. Wikipedia should not censor criminals just because they make claims they were threatened to silence coverage of their crimes. 64.228.91.73 (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Noone has been convicted of anything per WP:BLPCRIME, so I dont think we can describe the people involved using their real names as criminals. Likewise I highly doubt Roosh will get anywhere claiming a beer thrown on him is aggravated assault. PearlSt82 (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Concur, these are exactly the sort of situations where we should take our cue from BLPCRIME. I'm ok with naming them in the context of the petition (it's covered in many reliable sources, and they have obviously "put themselves out there"), but if we are discussing any accusations of criminality we should not be naming anyone (and maybe even not making the accusation). No one's even been charged with anything, let alone convicted, and the only people alleging wrongdoing are supporters of Roosh V. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Journal de Montreal

Came across http://www.journaldemontreal.com/2015/08/10/roosh-v-deux-enquetes-policieres-en-cours and was wondering if people thought this would be a good reference or not regarding the recent drinks-throwing assault case. 64.228.91.73 (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

This basically just says that police are looking for a woman who is alleged to have thrown beer at Roosh V. It doesn't even allege (or confirm that the police are investigating) an assault as such. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

That source is already used in the article. Cla68 (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

His name is Persian and his parents are from Iran

Daryush is a Persian name and so his last name "Valizadeh". His father is Iranian and according to Iranian laws, you automatically gain Iranian nationality if your father is Iranian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.67.141 (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It could have been renounced. Iady391 | Talk to me here 19:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

According to this, he has self-declared himself to be of half Armenian and half Iranian descent. Therefore, I no longer have any problem with including those cats in this article. Cla68 (talk) 01:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

An article this controversial shouldn't be in categories which aren't supported by references in the body. I argued that the forum source was good enough for that, but others disagreed. – Smyth\^talk 09:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Those only describe ethnicity and not nationality though. Iady391 | Talk to me here 10:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

That makes no difference. A category, whether of nationality or ethnicity, is a factual assertion and as such must be supported by references in the body. – Smyth\^talk 10:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

German article

Here is an article (in German) giving a negative review of Roosh's recent presentation in Berlin. After reading it in Google Translate, I can't tell if it really has any information that could be added to this article. It seems to be more of a political rant taking exception with Roosh and his followers' philosophies on society and relationships. If anyone else has an idea on how this can be used as a source in the article, I'm all ears. Perhaps to add a section on Germany and say, "In July 2015, Vice reporter Mia Walther attended and took exception to the content of a presentation by Roosh in Berlin." Cla68 (talk) 01:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Cla68: I think we should verify what it actually says from someone who reads German first, but it does sound like a good idea. Iady391 | Talk to me here 21:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, AFAICS the article doesn't really bring much information about Roosh himself, and - together with the issue of notability etc. - may be of little value to this particular article. It might possibly be relevant in an article about the "Manosphere" or PUA's in general, if there are articles on this. However, what is presented are mainly personal reflections, and less facts or numbers that indicate any research, even though her reflections are interesting.

But the article _is_ of course a report on how the meeting went, if that in itself has any interest. As her presentation is both nuanced, critical and thought-provoking, I can't see that including the article could be wrong (other than ecyclopedia-technical reasons) as long as no one gets to cherry pick quotes to produce a biased summary.

T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 06:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Undue tag

Iady391 if you're gonna add a tag, you need to explain why you added it on the talk page. What exactly do you think is undue? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I Iady391 think that that this is article is undue. I think that this is because it is mainly devoted to criticism of Roosh and lack little other information

Iady391 | Talk to me here 17:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is about representing what reliable sources say about the subject, not how critical the article is. If the sources are overwhelmingly critical, so is the article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Taki's mag

[15] Someone revert-warred my attempt to improve this article. I know Taki's Magazine is a politically oriented magazine, but it does meet our definition of a reliable source. Also, the editorial in the magazine is similar to the criticism of the feminist protestors by the commentators in the National Post and Toronto Star and, more importantly, was written by a woman. I believe removing this source in favor of sources written by men is sexist, which is especially ironic given the recurring theme of this article. I think we here at Wikipedia should take a stand against sexism whenever it rears it's ugly head. Cla68 (talk) 10:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Reverting something once isn't a 'revert-war', and if you're going to mention somebody you should at least ping them. @Fyddlestix:. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree I totally agree with User:PeterTheFourth. Iady391 | Talk to me here 14:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Peter. I stand by the revert: Cla68's edit added a link to a site which is often described as a "paleoconservative" blog, and describes people involved in the current controversy as "bitches" and "SJW's, " completely seriously. It is a completely unacceptable source and citing it in the same sentence as the Toronto Star and the National Post gives it massively undue weight. It should not be in the article, period, and I'm pretty puzzled as to how an editor as experienced as Cla could think that the source is acceptable. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm also puzzled as to how Cla thinks the gender of the article writer is in any way relevant, or that the edit was "sexist." That makes no sense at all and may be a sign that they are not thinking clearly about this topic. Note that they also reinserted the QCTV source discussed above (which is also inappropriate, though to a lesser degree) and reverted me when I pointed out that his characterization of the Star and the National Post editorials was misleading. I encourage others to take a close look at these sources and weigh in here as to whether they're being used appropriately. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has been accused of denigrating the contributions of women and so, when I see revert-warring to remove an article written by a woman as a source for this page, the hair on the back of my neck stands on end, especially since I assume that this article is being watched by Roosh and men's rights advocates. As I said before, it's really ironic in this article, of all articles, to see a source written by a woman being censored. Cla68 (talk) 00:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The gender of the article-writer is completely and utterly irrelevant to the question of whether or not it's a reliable source. It's not an unacceptable source because the writer's a woman, it's unacceptable because it's obviously POV, and very obviously has next-to-no weight. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Over the past couple of weeks, I've also used two articles from Huffington Post and from Vice which also have fairly strong liberal political opinions. No one revert warred with me over those. As soon as I introduced, however, an article from a conservative magazine, the revert-warring began. The only thing I can think of for the sudden edit warring is because the author's gender. Cla68 (talk) 02:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a false equivalence. I don't believe 'Taki's Mag' and 'Vice' hold the same weight in terms of being reliable sources, and I don't believe 'Vice' is anywhere near as openly politically slanted. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Completely agreed. PearlSt82 (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

"Neomasculinist" versus "Pickup artist" label

There are two recent sources that use the "neomasculinist" label to define Roosh: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/11/in-canada-roosh-vs-crackpot-critics-have-got-it-all-wrong/ and http://news.nationalpost.com/life/food-drink/get-back-in-the-kitchen-restaurants-are-notorious-for-a-culture-of-sexism-but-with-events-like-jen-aggs-kitchen-bitches-the-backlash-is-well-underway. He also has stated he identifies as neomasculinist and not pick-up artist: https://twitter.com/rooshv/status/633111954102616064. Lapastillaroja (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Briebart isn't a RS for something like this. And there's way more coverage out there that refers to him as PUA than refers to him as a "neomasculinist." We go by what most RS say, so to me it seems pretty clear that we should refer to him as a PUA (although I guess it's OK to note his self-definition as a "neomasculinist" too). Fyddlestix (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Didn't Roosh claim he'd dropped the PUA life a while back on his website or something, and is trying something slightly different? I have a vague fuzzy memory of this happening, but I may be mistaken. However if this is the case, us referring to him as a pick up artist could be out of date, and this would be a suitable situation to use primary sources to clarify his situation. Brustopher (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Could be - but if that's the case someone forgot to tell the Canadian media on his recent visit: [16][17][18][19][20]. Other sources sometimes use "anti-feminist blogger" [21]. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, the theme of his recent speech tour was the promotion of the neomasculine philosophy. I just googled "neomasculinity" to see if there were enough RS to support starting an article on it, but most of the URLs talking about are blogs. Looks like the media is still focusing on the PUA term instead of this new term for what he represents for the moment. Cla68 (talk) 08:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Include that he admits to having sex with a women without her consent?

I think the fact that Roosh V admitted to raping a woman - or as he puts it, had sex with her without her consent - should be in the article. I'm not going to add it without discussion, but it seems relevant, and I'm a bit surprised to not see anything in the article or the talk pages about it.

Source:

A passage from the book reads:

"While walking to my place, I realized how drunk she was. "In America, having sex with her would have been rape, since she legally couldn’t give her consent. "It didn't help matters that I was sober, but I can't say I cared or even hesitate.

"I won't rationalize my actions, but having sex is what I do."

— Anna Dubuis, http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/roosh-v-thousands-sign-petition-6275308

See also here, here and here.

--Zukorrom (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

His denial: http://www.rooshv.com/the-accusation-that-im-a-rapist-is-a-malicious-lie

If you're going to quote it, use the full context instead an edited snippet.

Lapastillaroja (talk) 10:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Muslim

He says he is Muslim in one Youtube video. [22] This is not mentioned in the article, but maybe it should. I think a lot of his supporters would turn against him if they found out he's Muslim because his supporters are probably wrongly assuming he is Christian or something. 69.159.18.152 (talk) 05:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

"his supporters would turn against him if they found out he's Muslim" is at least the wrong basis to add that or similar(?) Anyway, seems untrue (even if religion info very true, not saying it where in Bill Gates' case it was taken out there and elsewhere): http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2015/08/13/roosh-v-prepares-for-toronto-by-pretending-to-be-muslim-urging-followers-to-have-sex-with-feminists/

I'm not sure where you would find a WP:RS source, I assume it would have to be his site, just googling and scanning, seems he's at least against: http://www.rooshv.com/cultural-collapse-theory comp.arch (talk) 11:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

If his father was actually Iranian, which we have no reason to doubt, then given the demographics of Iran it is highly plausible that he was in fact a Muslim, and therefore Roosh would by default be considered one as well. Self-published sources are normally considered adequate for basic personal information such as this. However, given the likely sarcastic intent of that video, I don't think it's a good enough reference on its own. – Smyth\^talk 17:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Allegations of Anti-Semitism

I added specific context to the previously existing sentence in/re allegations of anti-Semitism, which originally read:

"In 2015, an Anti-Defamation League blog post stated that Roosh had "fully embraced anti-Semitism" by posting a positive review of The Culture Of Critique by Kevin B. MacDonald.[34]"

My addition was for two reasons. One, it may possibly be unclear to readers not be familiar with MacDonald why "posting a positive review" of his book would be tantamount to "fully [embracing] anti-Semitism." Two, beyond simply positively reviewing the book, Roosh posted material that many readers may consider to be anti-Semitic on its own merits, first a questionable image superimposing Stars of David over the faces of Jewish feminists, and second a first-person conclusion of his own about the way he believes Jews behave drawn from his experiences encountering Jews in the Washington DC networking community.

For readers who do not know the history of the MacDonald controversies, or perhaps are not even clear or convinced of the authority of the Anti-Defamation League to determine who is or isn't an anti-Semite, this primary material makes it easier for them to derive their own conclusions.

My initial edit was reversed, so I have made the edit again, as follows:

That review, titled "The Damaging Effects Of Jewish Intellectualism And Activism On Western Culture," included an image of a series of prominent Jewish feminists with Stars of David superimposed over their pictures and the legend "Feminism: A Jewish War on Women." In the course of the review, Roosh concluded from in his experiences networking professionally in Washington DC, that "[Jews'] actions, lives, and ideology are dominated by their race. While I don’t have a problem with that, I do find their subversive movements against gentiles hypocritical in that they would in no way advise or enact those ideas for Israel. Their morality, fairness, and justice is limited to whether they are dealing with fellow Jews or gentiles, and they will not push any idea or notion that may paint Jewish actions in a critical light."

Querenciazine (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The MacDonald material was taken to the BLP noticeboard several months ago and consensus did not emerge to include it, so it was left out. Cla68 (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The BLPN discussion is here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive226#Roosh_V. Unless I'm misreading it, the conclusion was "If there are no 'antisemitism' claims except in self-published sources outside Roosh V's own blog, then this shouldn't go in the Roosh V article." Normally I would discuss here first but since this is a BLP I have removed the paragraph. I hope I haven't misrepresented the BLPN discussion. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

More previous discussion: Talk:Roosh_V/Archive_1#Roosh.27s_parents_and_anti-defamation_league – Smyth\^talk 10:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I see the material has been re-added, with two new references. The first is the personal opinion of a writer at The Good Men Project. While ADL is well known, I've never heard of GMP or this writer, so I'm not sure this belongs; if it does, the opinion should be attributed to the writer. The second reference says "Valizadeh has also been accused of writing anti-Semitic ... blog posts" but doesn't say who is doing the accusing. The Times Colonist does seem to be a reliable source. I'm pretty sure Andrew Anglin's opinion doesn't belong here. I don't think the new paragraph should be put in to the article until we have consensus, considering this is a BLP. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed it until consensus to add it is established. Cla68 (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

References

February 2016 worldwide meetup kerfluffle

As you may be aware, over the past three days or so Roosh's plans to have meetups by his followers around the world exploded into massive media coverage with a number of protests planned in response, remarks by government leaders, and even a debate in British (or was it Scottish?) parliament, leading to the event's cancellation. After another day or so after the reactions to the episode have shaken out, I suggest adding a paragraph or two on it to the article. Cla68 (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It looks like all the events have been cancelled, not just in the UK. Despite the fact that this stunt got a lot media coverage, I'm not sure if there is enough of a story to include here. Application of WP:CRYSTALBALL maybe? PearlSt82 (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Why don't we list some sources and go from there? Cla68 (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

1. BBC Australia
2. CBSDFW
3. The Guardian
4. Calgary Sun
5. International Business Times (Good background article)
6. ITV
7. Evening Times
8. Daily Mail
9. LA Times
10. The Independent
11. Sydney Morning Herald
12. CBC
13. AU News
14. Mirror
15. UK Parliament
16. Local Fox affiliates: defines "neomasculinity" [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]
17. Washington Post- this is one of the best and most detailed articles so far
18. Mom's house doxxed by Daily Mail

"Doxxed" isn't the right word to use here. The addresses and license plates are clearly blurred. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Technically, no, but I assume if you put his real last name into Google Maps for that town (which is named) and switch to street view you could find the house fairly easy. From what I hear, his Mom has been receiving deliveries over the last couple of days of some very nasty objects. Cla68 (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

1. Washington Post Caitlin Dewey column
2. Dallas Observer
3. Vox Excellent, detailed column
4. Washington Times
5. Reason
6. Washingtonian
7. Caitlin Dewey again

These were all canceled, so maybe it's a non-issue? But it's getting a lot of press, and he apparently held a press conference. Maybe too recent to add anything now but it bears watching. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm thinking of using these articles as sources to write a better background section on the guy, then maybe mention the meetup incident in one or two sentences. Cla68 (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Bibliography

He does have a bestseller, and a book about his adventures in south america, but he is not an established writer of note, and his books are published through createspace, which is not an independent publisher: its a division of amazon that allows self publishing. i think we should not list "all" of his books (is this all of them?), but i would recommend "bang" and his odd travelogue. people can seek out the rest on their own. we are not a directory of all books in print or for sale, and we definitely dont need to list all"how to" books, which are usually never notable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Per WP:NOT I don't think we need an exhaustive list. I would retain any that are mentioned in the article, maybe others if any are top sellers, get rid of the rest. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

"Seduce" vs "Have sex with"

[28] The reason I think "seduce" is a better word is because Roosh is an outspoken critic of using prostitution services in other countries. "Have sex with" could include sexual intercourse with a prostitute as a business transaction. However, the word "seduce" implies that it is not a strictly business proposition, therefore more in line with what Roosh advocates. Cla68 (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think its a reasonable interpretation that the phrasing "have sex with" implies prostitution. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

That's not what Cla68 said. Clearly sex with a prostitute is included in having sex, which is what Cla68 said. -- 184.189.216.159 (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

He says his book is "a textbook for picking up girls and getting laid." I think adding "picking up" to our description makes it clear he is seducing, not hiring, and has the benefit of being his own description. I'm not crazy about the clinical term "coitus." Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

"Coitus" is technically accurate but I agree that the wording is awkward. PearlSt82 (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Coitus is far too obscure. Wikipedia:Use plain English. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Roosh V is not a Men's Right Activists

Besides media is attempting link him to MRA, to give one or another a bad name, Roosh has stated in various occasions his despise for them, sometimes echoing others detractors' arguments. He called them "sexual losers"

I’m not against Men’s Rights, but a lot of these blogs are written by guys who have no game and can’t get laid, and serve as just an outlet for being a lifelong sexual loser(....) I suspect they are anti-social, bitter virgins who simply don’t have anything else to do with their bountiful free time, too fearful of putting their fragile ego on the line to be a man and actually get laid.

Implied them victimsts

Only now do I now foresee what my prediction entailed. First, it’s important to understand that the mainstream cannot publish dangerous ideas. They must be sanitized beforehand. Men’s rights victims—I mean activists—are getting some mainstream exposure right now. Do you know why? Because their movement is impotent. It’s safe.

He has declared their movement as dead for their lack of action

There was no action, no “movement” to speak of (...) The biggest problem with MRAs is that they are not activists. They are pamphleteers(...) I looked in the dictionary for the definition of activist: "the policy or action of using vigorous campaigning to bring about political or social change." What political or social change have the men’s rights pamphleteers brought? Say MRP in one syllable(...)

And has explicitly declared he want to stay apart of this group

I want to say I’m saddened that MRAs and myself are unable to co-exist, but really I’m not. They add no value to my life and give me no answers on how to navigate the modern world.

Even in a more recent attempt to call a truce, he re-insures they are two distinct things

For this year I would like to establish common ground with the men’s rights movement and maintain a civil dialogue, though I don’t see myself using their methods of petitioning the state for changes or adopting the tactic of painting men as victims who desperately need government help. We will likely never be best friends, but I hope at least we won’t be bitter enemies.

189.27.53.198 (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Only one mention of MRA/MRM is made and that is in a quote. What are you proposing we do with this info? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I wish Roosh would get rid of that annoying popup asking you to sign up for his newsletter. Should we put in something after the quote? As it stands now, with this being the only mention of MRA, the reader might come away with the impression that he is an MRA. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir and Kendall-K1: As Kendall said, the reader may leave thinking he is a MRA. Maybe after the quote a note may be added, but I think is better add a subsection (sorry if I don't get the correct terminology since it's my first time editing Wikipedia) in the Controversy section about the quarrel he has with the MRA/MRM community. This will subsidize the removal of his name in the article about Men's Right Movement, most exactly in the section that says:

Other sites dedicated to men's rights issues are Roosh V's Return of Kings (...)

--189.27.53.198 (talk) 01:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Is there really a controversy over whether Roosh is a MRA? So far we've got one quote implying he's an MRA, and his denial. Doesn't seem worth a whole section to me. As for the MRM article, you should bring that up on that article's talk page. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kendall-K1: Kind of, in that milieu at last. He is not but there are a lot of people trying to make he looks one. Here is some examples of news sites implying he is one:

• http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/20/the-masculine-mystique-inside-the-men-s-rights-movement-mrm.html
• http://chicagoist.com/2016/02/02/mens_rights_activists_will_meet_fur.php
• http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/roosh-mens-rights-activsts-meetups/
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3427647/The-seedy-code-followers-pro-rape-pick-artist-Daryush-Valizadeh-known-Roosh-V-use-accepted-Australian-meetings.html
• http://www.salon.com/2016/02/04/let_the_ironic_male_tears_fall_the_make_rape_legal_guys_cancel_meetups_because_they_dont_feel_safe/

A Google search with the terms Roosh and MRA shows a lot more.

I also don't know if a whole subsection is necessary, be it in Controversy or another. If you editors don't think it is, I'll be OK with it. Just though it was necessary record all what I exposed above and his article was the best place for it. About bringing that to the MRM article's, can I copy and paste what I put here? It won't be a bad practice? Edit: I really don't know what I did that broke the references list :( (ashamed) 189.27.53.198 (talk) 02:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Not broken, just put your comment after the previous comment and before the ref-talk template. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Split request

Can someone please move the split request to the main page? 84.13.122.6 (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the template. First you need to start the discussion. See WP:PROSPLIT. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Roosh V is of Iranian and Armenian ancestry.--Johnny Heidnik (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Needs sources. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The article says, "His parents were immigrants from Armenia and Iran." I don't think we need say more, do we? Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources and categories are already present, so I don't know what OP's point is. – Smyth\^talk 22:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

It says so on Kings Wiki, which belongs to Roosh. Edit suggested (talk) 03:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It does, but it neither is a reliable source nor cites one, so there's nothing we can add to this article based on that. —C.Fred (talk) 03:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Kings Wiki is certainly not RS, and again I don't see the point. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's the best source we have, so it'll have to do. As you know, you go to wiki with the source you have, not the source you might want or wish to have at a later time. Edit suggested (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Someone just changed this again, so I checked the source. It says, "My parents are Middle Eastern immigrants so racially I’m not American but Iranian and Armenian." It's quoting Roosh, and I'm willing to accept this as RS for that quote. Note this is different from what we had before, "immigrants from Armenia and Iran." Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Parents again

Why do we keep changing this? The source says, "My parents are Middle Eastern immigrants so racially I’m not American but Iranian and Armenian." We could say "His parents are Middle Eastern immigrants" or we could say "Racially he is Iranian and Armenian." I'd rather not say "His parents are Iranian and Armenian" because that's not what the source says, and I don't want to think about whether it's true. Why can't we just say what the source says? That's what WP policy would have us do. Changing the wording is just wrong. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say he's saying his parents are Iranian and Armenian. I'd rather have that specificity since Roosh incorrectly calls them Middle Eastern (Iran and Armenia are Asian countries, not Middle Eastern). EvergreenFir (talk) 01:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not our job to interpret what Roosh says or to infer that he is mistaken. You're assuming Roosh is mistaken but that's not necessarily the case. His parents may be racially Iranian and Armenian and have immigrated from the Middle East. It's this sort of subtlety that makes me want to just say what the source says. My preference would be to not include anything about his ancestry, since it seems irrelevant to what he's notable for. But since it seems important to some editors to include this, I'd like to get it right. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hm... I see your point. Perhaps we might want to look for more sources too. At this point I'm think a direct quote from him might be best though so that we don't give possible inaccurate info about the geographic region of those two countries in Wikipedia's voice. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I took a stab at this, although I didn't use a direct quote. Let me know what you think. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Daily Dot quote

Do we really need the extended Daily Dot quote? I'm not familiar with this publication, but the entire previous paragraph is about the SPLC listing. That paragraph seems nicely balanced. The first sentence says Roosh was listed; the next two list criticisms of the listing; the last one is the SPLC response to the criticism. SPLC already denied that it considers Roosh a member of a hate movement, so why do we need the Dot's opinion that the listing implies he's a terrorist? Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Rape satire quote

I added this quote, which has since been removed: "Legalizing rape is a notion so insanely absurd I never imagined that people would take it 100% seriously, including politicians." This seems important to me, as it explains his reasoning better than just saying "Roosh has since said that the post was meant as satire." Without the quote it sounds like "haha just kidding." Is there some reason to remove this? Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The article is already a bit WP:QUOTEFARMy, so I can definitely see the rationale of summing it up rather than including some of his words verbatim. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Links to RooshVs' guides

Links to his guides would breach WP:LINKSPAM and WP:LINKNO. Autarch (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Would that be the same WP:LINKNO that starts with "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject"?

I am concerned that, because the subject of this page holds views that many (including me) find distasteful, that the article might end up violating WP:NPOV. Compare this page to our page on Kim Jong-un, who I find even more distasteful (as far as I know, Roosh V hasn't engaged in public executions, set up prison camps or starved millions of people[29]). Yet we still link to Kim Jong-un's works. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Improper weight?

Per WP:WEIGHT, I would like to question the following statements in the article:

• "He has expressed qualified support for Donald Trump."

• "He has also said The Daily Beast is run by the CIA."

I don't think that these opinions are particularly notable or NPOV. Does anyone disagree with removing them? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I was initially opposed to including Trump, as it seemed irrelevant to his role as PUA. But several politicians have called for banning him, for example from Canada, so maybe it's important. I would not be opposed to removing it. I would certainly favor removing Beast/CIA. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

They are views expressed by the subject of the article and they were reliably sourced. (I added them.) Given that each of the items consisted of one sentence each, I doubt that they breach WP:WEIGHT as they neither go into great depth of detail, quantity of text, were not particularly prominent, nor were they juxtaposed with anything else (apart from each other).Autarch (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Did you add similar material to any of the thousands of other individuals who have expressed support for Trump or Clinton but are not otherwise involved in politics? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Telesur

Is Telesur a reliable source? Their story has quite a few mistakes in it, like "Admittedly a serial rapist." Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

It appears to be a large news organisation with editorial control. The WP:RS section on news orgs says "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article should be assessed on a case-by-case basis", so that might be how we'd want to focus the discussion on this particular piece. I think it might help placing it in context to rewrite the "Controversy" section and have it not broken down by geographical area, so it doesn't look like a bunch of disparate news reports from random countries. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, the geographic structure of this section seems arbitrary, except maybe for the Toronto stuff. Also we're starting to get some overlap between Personal views and Controversy. Almost all his personal views seem to be controversial so maybe that is inevitable. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I checked WP:RSN and found three discussions about Telesur.[30] It's been called a propaganda outlet and a sensationalist tabloid, but it's also been called a reliable source at least for some things. I can't find anything on their web site about editorial control. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Newsweek story

Roosh has been out of the news for a while. Here is a new story and interview that could be useful. [31] Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Revert of cn tag

I just reverted the addition of a cn tag to this: "His advice, his videos and his writings have received widespread criticism, including accusations of misogyny and promotion of rape." Accusations of misogyny are sourced at the end of the first paragraph of the "United States" subsection, with a quote. Accusations of rape promotion are sourced at the end of that same section, again with a quote. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

What Roosh is known for

This has been added to the lead: "known for his posts about how women should have all of their actions and choices controlled by men ... and posts in which he says women should be viewed purely as sexual commodities." This is not supported by anything in the article so is contrary to WP:LEAD. But the bigger problem is that these statements are not supported by the cited sources. Nowhere in those sources does it say that Roosh is known for these things. Even if it did, these are blog posts written by the subject of this article; they are reliable for statements made by Roosh, but not for statements of fact. Per our BLP policy, "Contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced ... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." I am therefore going to remove these statements. Please discuss here before re-adding. Kendall-K1 (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Alison: can you please respond here? Kendall-K1 (talk) 06:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I see this material has now been moved out of the lead and attributed. That's an improvement, but I still don't think it belongs here. Roosh says a lot of wacky things. He's got hundreds of blog posts and probably thousands of forum posts. We can't include them all here. Unless something he said has been covered in RS, or is in response to something in RS, or there is some other compelling reason, I don't think it belongs in this article. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

And now that's been reverted. @Jytdog: can you please comment? Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

was this your dif? Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

No, I have not edited this content. If we have consensus to include this, ok, but I object because I don't see how it's supported by the source. Can you point to a quote in the cited source that states that these two posts are what he is known for? And if you can, how do you justify including this as a statement of fact given that these are blog posts authored by Roosh? Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I reverted because the edit note was invalid. Jytdog (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

You called this content "well-sourced". I disagree, for the reasons I stated above. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion is moot. Pay attention to what is actually happening in the article. Jytdog (talk) 02:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why this discussion is moot. I have objected to inclusion of this material, and rather than edit war over it, I prefer to discuss it on the talk page. No one seems to want to discuss it. Since no one has defended this material, I am going to remove it. Please discuss here before restoring it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I see that back in 2016 there was a two-editor consensus not to have a bibliography

If he’s not a writer of note, then from what does his notability spring?

Anyway, one of the advantages of a chronological bibliography is that it shows the progression and sequence of his work, beginning with South America, moving on to Scandinavia, then Eastern Europe and the Baltics, and then branching out from game to political topics. 2600:1003:B105:21B3:69CD:2F1D:EA20:725B (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Roosh denied access to UK?

Found this on the web: Theresa May Officially Bans Roosh From The UK - is this true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.163.141 (talk) 06:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Found this on the web: Theresa May Officially Bans Roosh From The UK - is this true? 88.70.163.141 (talk) 06:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

That's self-published.[32] We would need an independent reliable source. Also this is old news from 2016. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

In a more recent post he states that he had been denied entry in summer 2018, the London-bound flight had turned back and he was briefly detained by local police in the airport. [33] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.167.123.104 (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)