Talk:Mike Cernovich

Removed the lead calling him Alt-Right

If he doehttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogout&returnto=Talk%3AMike+Cernovich&returntoquery=action%3Deditsn't consider himself to be part of the alt-right, why does the lead describe him as Alt-right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pc Retro (talk • contribs) 20:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Really? CBS had an edited interview with him, and anyone who saw the whole transcript, can clearly see the distortions. It was edited in a very dishonest fashion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.147.9.232 (talk)
So why Put that in the lead? If I said I'm not alt-right, I wouldn't want the first sentence of my Wikipedia page calling me alt-right. Pc Retro (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Let's go through those sources:

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia defines alt-right as being a white nationalist movement. Is there a source for the claim that Mike Cernovich is a white nationalist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.75.254 (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2017‎

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update

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

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

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

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

what are the ethics of this? Surely 99 out of 100 people following Cernovich or of the alt-right, will say that Cernovich is not alt-right. Cernovich very strenuously repeats that he is not alt-right. He has multiple feuds with those genuinely on the alt-right as well. He also is married to a Persian-American, and has mixed race children. Wikipedia's own article for alt-right states that ... is a loosely defined group of people with far-right ideologies who reject mainstream conservatism in favor of white nationalism. White supremacist It is nonsensical to state Cernovich is a white nationalist, or more ridiculously, a white supremacist, but this is what a good faith reader that is unaware of particulars, may logically assume, just by following Wikipedia's own definitions. But it apparently must be made clear on wikipedia that he is "alt-right," because a very select sample of overtly politically biased and of out of touch sources state that he is of that label. "Reliable sources" or not, this declaration of alt-right is at a minimum a de facto falsehood. It would be as if one loudly declares that George H.W. Bush actively supports Trump, because he was a Republican president, even though in his recent memoir, Bush states that he despises him, and stated that he voted for Clinton in the 2016 election. I can understand why wikipedia has this policy concerning sources, and it probably must have this policy to have any stability, but it is purporting a falsehood. Modern media generally has a issue with stating bold things, but never keeping up with them with updates, or promptly or accurately issuing corrections. One may argue over what is "genuine" or what is "biased," but it is missing the forest for the trees, that in reality, Cernovich has no positive association with anybody that does don the label of alt-right. 2601:982:4200:A6C:9459:D3F9:E9FF:76D (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I don’t know how ethics come into this, but we’re merely following our community standards here. These require that our content conform to the reliable sources, and forbid us from engaging in this sort of original research. —Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of some of his strange behavior, I don't see how CNN can honestly label Cernovich alt-right. And is CNN really a reliable source? Will Wikipedia also say that it is illegal for people not affiliated with the media to read the Podesta emails? CNN claimed that and didn't, to the best of my knowledge, ever retract it. Are they a reliable source? I couldn't find anything on the reliability page specifically mentioning CNN. Is there some definitive way of deciding whether a source is reliable, or does Wikipedia have some strange rule that I haven't heard of. The definition I found used the word reliable in defining what was reliable, which is terribly circular. It's a little odd you will call out people for referencing The Daily Caller but not CNN or Mother Jones.BenjaminMan (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, CNN is generally reliable. You should be able to find something useful in the RSN archives. In any case CNN isn't the only reliable outlet to have called Cernovich alt-right. Look at the list of citations: it also includes CBS, Business Insider, SPLC, and New York magazine. And I'll be there are more. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Firstly let me say that I want to avoid getting too political here, and strictly discuss whether it is an accurate label. I don't agree with Mike on many things, but I still feel this description is a bit inaccurate if not slanderous. I'm reading through some more of the reliability section on here as I'm quite new. As for the fact that many places will call him alt-right, please be aware I have no doubt of this. I understand the general opinion of him among certain news outlets, but what you have provided are clearly politically biased and not very reliable. The SPLC? That counts as a reliable news source? Look, I understand he has many opponents, and more so the further left things go, but that does not tell us much. Why does this appear in a small box? Sorry, I don't know how to use these talk pages. BenjaminMan (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

No problem. It sounds like it's really a matter of familiarizing yourself with our community standards. Our verifiability policy requires that content be supported by at least one reliable source. In a nutshell, reliable sources are those that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, regardless of whatever bias they may have. There is general consensus at RSN that all of the outlets on the cited list meet that standard. If you don't like those sources for whatever reason, you're welcome to for additional sources that call him alt-right, and we can add them to the list provided they meet the same reliability standard. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this isn't an objective definition, not that it can be, but is entirely circular. They are reliable because they are reliable, which means they are reliable. I don't think you consciously think about why you trust the authorities you trust, which leads to this intuitive sense that certain sources MUST be trustworthy. It's quite obvious that the SPLC is interested in a political movement over fact-checking and accuracy. I will need to look for some specific examples, I suppose. And as best I can tell this is based on some official list of reliable sources. As long as you are aware that this isn't about honesty and truth and more about following a set of rules, I'm fine with that. It's just unfortunate there isn't a website interested primarily in the truth. BenjaminMan (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

If you want to change the consensus on the SPLC, then you can start a discussion at WP:RSN. If you think the "rules" don't comport with honesty and truth, then you can voice your concerns at another forum such as WP:VPP. But this page is not the place for either of those issues. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

After reviewing past debates on Wikipedia over the authenticity of SPLC, I do not see a consensus. I see debate after debate in which half the group thinks SPLC is a reliable source and the other half does not. If there is no consensus on the authenticity of the SPLC I don't think it should be considered a reliable source. Other sources quoted for this include a CBS article going through tweets and referring to Cernovich as alt-right while listing off tweets about something Lady GaGa was wearing. Does anyone seriously believe that such an article was put through some sort of time tested fact checking? Did they perform some analysis to determine what his exact political views were? It wasn't even that central to the article, it was simply a descriptor added in, so I'd need some reason to believe CBS is reliable for political descriptors added on to lists of tweets. To act as if this was a factually researched news article is intellectually dishonest. It may as well be a blog post. If the CBS article and the SPLC article are not reliable in this situation, then you are basically relying on one article by CNN. This is small enough that you might as well say "CNN has referred to him as alt-right". BenjaminMan (talk) 02:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The SPLC is certainly "authentic", and is reliable in context. The CBS mention doesn't have to be substantial to be reliable, and if you have some specific reason to believe that it did not undergo the standard fact-checking common to major news outlets, you will need to explain that. Or you could save us all the hassle, since there are already several additional sources in the lede, and plenty more available where that came from. Grayfell (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

BenjaminMan, we only need a single reliable source calling Cernovich alt-right for us to call him that. And are you aware that there are plenty of other reliable sources beyond the few that are cited? For example: the New York Post, Newsweek, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, Vox, Daily Beast, Slate, and The New York Times. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, no, the SPLC is not a reliable source, and you cannot find me a place on this website where that has any consensus. You implied there was a consensus on this website that SPLC is a reliable source. Show me. As for the other sources, I will take a look at that. And I would like to ask you, do you think that CBS performed fact checking on the political labels used in the article listing tweets? BenjaminMan (talk) 08:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

SPLC for this specific WP:RSCONTEXT is a "reliable source", it is authoritative for the labels it uses as one of the singular most notable resources for that sort of information. WP:BIASED needs to be considered for attribution purposes. Koncorde (talk) 10:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I would like to ask you, do you think that CBS performed fact checking on the political labels used in the article listing tweets? Yes, absolutely. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Fine. I'm done with this. Our disagreements are too fundamental. I know Cernovich is a provocative figure, and that he goes too far in some areas, and I particularly think he has spent too much time in the wrong crowd, but if I were him I would sue CBS, and this site, for libel. Far too few people have sued for libel in the modern political landscape, probably because of the financial abilities of large news companies. A few lawsuits from authentic individuals of various left and right leaning political persuasions might force people to at least try to be intellectually honest. BenjaminMan (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, the SPLC also claims Cernovich only separated himself from the alt-right to save his brand image. Is it your opinion that this claim is ALSO fact checked? That is to say, Do you believe SPLC has the ability, or received some ability, to read Cernovich's mind? Would you say, that as a source that half of the people on this site insist everyone trusts, that they have some sort of mind reading machine? I'd appreciate a very serious answer to this question. You started ignoring my questions about the SPLC, presumably because you know you are wrong. BenjaminMan (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

SPLC do present a large number of sources of his changing stance. As a reliable source it would require another reliable source to counter their, and other reliable sources, opinions. Does one exist? Koncorde (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm a little perplexed as to why you ignored my mind reading question. Is the SPLC capable of reading minds, or are you suggesting they cite other sources which are capable of reading minds? BenjaminMan (talk) 06:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

They may do, but I am not here to second guess their mechanism for identifying someone who has self identified as Alt Right, then self identified as not Alt Right, when it suited them, with sources provided to demonstrate that change. Their interpretation is what sources do. It's not what we do. Koncorde (talk) 08:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we interpret. I'm suggesting that we leave their interpretation out. I'm suggesting they are stating this as mere speculation; that nobody could seriously believe that a statement of the private inner workings of another persons mind are a matter of verifiable fact. I'm allowed to put SOME effort into reading a source's page and using common sense to separate fact from opinion and speculation. The page on verifying reliable sources mentions avoiding feeling and opinion in favor of facts, even for a reputable source. This implies, necessarily SOME form of interpretation, short of a source saying "And THIS part is just an opinion" before every opinion. I'm suggesting it is self-evident that the SPLC was stating this things speculatively and without regard as to whether it was factual. Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that ANY reliable source could factually state the secret inner working's of a person's mind? I would still appreciate an answer to this question even if you disagree with my wish to remove SPLC as a source here. Don't act like any form of thinking= personal research. This talk page is filled with thought on every topic. Even paraphrasing and rewording things involves personal thought. Please just answer the question; Do you think that any source is capable of stating factually the private inner workings of another person's mind? BenjaminMan (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I understand that the SPLC has sources for him changing his stance, what is so mystifying is that they appear to claim certainty as to WHY he changed his stance. Now anyone can speculate that someone is merely faking a change in stance, but to claim it as a fact would require a mechanism for reading minds, or some sort of definitively leaked private communication. Is it your belief that the SPLC has access to either of those, or do you think they are merely speculating? And if they are merely speculating than why are they cited a source for anything other than their own speculation?BenjaminMan (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

You seem far too interested in WP:OR. We're not going down that path. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

No. I'm not suggesting WE interpret Cernovich's mind. I'm suggesting nobody can accurately interpret it, from any source, but himself. It doesn't require any personal research on our parts to realize that the SPLC does not have the ability to read minds. If they are simply editorializing a personal opinion, that would be different from a source stating something as a fact. See this, copied from Wikipedia's section on identifying reliable source, https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources "Newspapers such as The Wall Street Journal and The Daily Telegraph, but be careful to avoid articles which express the writer's feelings and opinions, not facts." This guideline implies that we DO have the ability to determine when someone is stating a fact and when they are merely sharing a personal feeling and opinion. What you must be arguing is that an article in which the inner workings of the mind are discussed is ACTUALLY A STATEMENT OF FACT. That is, you must be arguing that the SPLC has some sort of mind reading capabilities. Let's, for the sake of argument, indulge in the illusion that this site has consensus on the reliability of the SPLC, and that we would need to trust their facts without question. What I'm saying is, even with this certainty, it is SELF EVIDENT when a person argues what another is secretly thinking, that they are editorializing and NOT stating a fact. And once again, I'm not arguing we put another interpretation of his behavior up. I'm arguing that we leave the personal opinion of the writing of the SPLC article out, or quote it as opinion of the writer. Some basic level of interpretation is necessary just to paraphrase someone, as is done throughout this page. It is also necessary to separate opinion from fact. BenjaminMan (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

You are not going to obtain a consensus this way. If you wish to press this I suggest you pursue dispute resolution. I'd probably recommend posting something at WP:RSN. Please be sure to let us know if you do. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok. I realize this is long, it just really feels like deciding someone's political label and association for them is a bit silly, regardless of how crazy the person himself may be. If I have anything more to say, I will bring it up on another, more appropriate page, unless a new issue comes up. BenjaminMan (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

This is how wikipedia works. We go by the reliable sources. No single source reports only facts. Most sources rely upon some kind of human judgement about the information that they have uncovered or presented. The reliability of that investigative work, demonstration of their investigation and evidence, and their fact checking is what establishes the fundamental basis of what a reliable source is. Having a POV about the facts that they present does not invalidate their subject matter. The portion of the Reliable Sources section you quote is specifically references These often have a title of "editorial", "op-ed" or "opinion". which is typically were a comment is being provided by a named individual which is solely their opinion (and may therefore be devoid of the usual fact checking process, and subject to an admitted or obvious personal bias). These are avoided, but can still have value. There is no indication the SPLC is an "editorial" or "op-ed" or "opinion". Koncorde (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Per the subsection on "biased or opinionated sources,"'Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."' The labeling of Cernovich as "alt-right," sourced almost exclusively by left-leaning outlets that have not themselves substantiated a justification for such label, deserves, at the very least, an in-text attribution. The label has been repeatedly used out of sheer tenacity, as authors see other "reliable sources" doing the same and--whether out of bias, laziness, or a combination of both--simply repeat the label in their introductory paragraphs. I have changed the introductory paragraph in accordance with the guidance cited above. 163.251.239.3 (talk) 05:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Pure conjecture, and contrary to the consensus... might it be that these "almost exclusively...left-leaning outlets" like CBS and Business Insider made an informed judgment after a rigorous analysis? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the supposed "lean" of a source does not decide its reliability. Speculation about a nebulously defined group's tenacity/bias/laziness is totally unpersuasive. Grayfell (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Writer

Do we not feel that he should be called a writer? Perhaps you have a view on this DrFleischman. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

It depends on the sourcing. Before I removed it, the cited source (The Daily Caller) wasn't reliable and didn't call him a writer. I don't think that everyone who has a blog or who has written should be called a writer. If someone finds a reliable source calling him a writer then I have no issue with restoring it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The already used in this article reference Who Is Mike Cernovich? A Guide by The New York Times says Mr. Cernovich started out several years ago as a men’s self-help writer. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how helpful that particular tidbit is since it's not clear if he's still a self-help writer; moreover at this point he's known primarily for his political stuff rather than his self-help work. That said, the source is very helpful for the following: "Who is Mike Cernovich? Mr. Cernovich is a blogger, author of books, YouTube personality and filmmaker with a far-right social media following." I'd be comfortable with changing the first sentence to add that he's an "author." ("Blogger is already encapsulated by "social media personality.") That might sound like splitting hairs, but I believe it implies something slightly different about his writing activities, which don't appear particularly prolific nor what he's primarily known for. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

After some reflection I've self-reverted to restore "writer." The difference between "writer" and "author" is excessive hair-splitting, especially after I discovered that the guy has written more self-published books than I'd originally thought. That said, The Daily Caller is an unreliable source, and I don't think we can go so far as to identify his profession as "writer." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Alt-right

Emir of Wikipedia, please stop edit warring. Your re-revert is mildly disruptive. You and I both know that this edit is not supported by participants at this page. Cernovich is alt-right, period, without equivocation, unless/until a reliable source says otherwise. We call a spade a spade and we do not cast verifiable facts as opinions. Moreover your version creates a false equivalence between Cernovich's self-description and a legion of reliable sources. Clearly against policy in my view. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no false equivalence. It is merely putting the content near the relevant content instead of hiding it away, the fact that is was a self-description was clearly labelled. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Calton: What do you mean "Nfw"? You don't WP:OWN this article. If you have something to say then say it here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I thought it was clear: no fucking way. Do you need other tips on initialisms? --Calton | Talk 17:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

🤦 I know what the initialism means. I was asking if you had a valid reason for reverting my edit other than to swear at me. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I've been having a hard time taking you seriously lately, Emir. I can see what your goal was here but no. fucking. way. and for you to fail to anticipate that your edit would be vehemently opposed by the consensus for creating a serious neutrality problem really makes me question your competence. I don't mean this as a personal attack but come on, at some point you need to grow some awareness. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I am glad that you can see I what to improve Wikipedia and make it the best that it can be. My edit has not been vehemently opposed by the consensus, I have just been sworn at by an editor who has not given any reason to revert my edit other than to swear at me. There is no serious neutrality problem in my edit it clearly states the view of the sources and of Cernovich himself. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Except that it fails to reflect a very basic rule here: we follow the reliable sources. Cernovich isn't a reliable source, and the reliable sources unanimously describe Cernovich as alt-right. Content like, "Some say Cernovich is alt-right. Cernovich denies it," is therefore blatantly contrary to our policies. What part of this do you not understand? I can't speak for Calton, but my personal frustration is that You are an Experienced Editor(tm) and so you really should be comfortable with basic Wikipedia concepts by now. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I know what the initialism means. I was asking if you had a valid reason for reverting my edit other than to swear at me' I'm sorry, I thought your attempted end-run around consensus -- which is still on this page -- was so obvious that you couldn't possibly be talking about that. So you're saying you don't remember? It was only a few months ago. --Calton | Talk 13:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

You must be on about something else or someone else, I only made that edit yesterday. Their has not been any consensus against my version, just swearing at me. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Are these reliable enough sources for you to accept the fact that he WAS alt-right but then later renounced it? New York Observer Anti-Defamation League The New York Times The New Yorker 72.53.0.45 (talk) 08:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC) 72.53.0.45 (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC) 72.53.0.45 (talk) 09:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC) 72.53.0.45 (talk) 09:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Rewrite this article or delete it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alt-right redux

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

Calgary, on your user talk you said that we don't have recent reliable sources describing Cernovich as alt-right. Here are some. [5] [6] [7] And here's a source explaining Cernovich's rebranding effort and why it hasn't been as effective as he hoped. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He is of Croatian Ancestry from his Father's Side.

Mike’s paternal grandfather was Mike Cernovich (the son of John Cernovich and Anna/Anne Matušić). John and Anna were Croatian immigrants. Anna was born in Gromača, the daughter of Niko Matušić and Anica Bronzić.

I'm skeptical that ethniccelebs.com is a reliable source, and without a reliable sources for context this seems like trivia. Grayfell (talk) 01:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

It's also a privacy issue. We shouldn't be giving anyone's ethnicity until a reputable publisher has already done the same. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Alt-right and far-right

Although I certainly don't deny that the sources are reliable for both of these, isn't it a bit redundant to list both of them in the lead? It's like when people say "fascist neo-Nazi" or "racist white supremacist", it's already stated. Apart from a marginal case for the Alt-lite, I don't think any reliable source has denied the alt-right is already far right. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that I'm not aware of any authority saying that all alt-righters are far right. Without such an authority I think we have to assume that the two labels overlap partially but not completely. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)