This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mike Cernovich article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
This article was nominated for deletion on 29 November 2016. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Why are un-cited claims being allowed in the introductory paragraph? Zero sources, the entire thing reads like a conspiracy theory from a blue haired weirdo. Why is it locked? To prevent accurate information from being added? Lefty295 (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Not everything in the lead needs to be cited. It summarizes the body and the body is cited. The article has many sources. Closhund/talk/19:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FMSky: Continuing on from wikidata:User talk:FMSky#Extremist individuals. Downplaying what extremists are known for/as is not what the guidelines for WP:SHORTDESCRIPTION are meant to enable. Descriptions can extend beyond a few words [40 chars], there is no hard rule for that limit, especially as it applies to deliberate controversialists. And of course when you are only notable for pioneering the alt right and conspiracies from its milieu, a banal description such as 'political commentator' simply cannot be justified (none of our sources do that). Gotitbro (talk) 05:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just removed 'lawyer' from the sd. Nowhere is that mentioned in our article nor is he notable for being one (merely graduating from law school isn't it [only mentioned in the body]). Gotitbro (talk) 05:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've already told you that WP:SDAVOID quite clearly says use universally accepted facts that will not be subject to rapid change, avoiding anything that could be understood as controversial, judgemental, or promotional. --FMSky (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you get the "reasonably" from. It says to avoid anything controversial. Just so you know I dont even how who tf Mike Cernovich is but I want Wikipedia to be as neutral as possible --FMSky (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not content to think about things in reasonable ways, then perhaps you're okay with editing on the basis of unreasonable ideas? Or perhaps not... I too want neutral articles -- but I'm keen to avoid pedantry and mindlessness in applying policies. Again: the idea that Cernovich isn't a conspiracy theorist would be an unreasonable idea, certainly in light of what the sources about him say. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cernovich's sole claim to fame is his baseless assertion of Pizzagate among a whole host of other extremist conspiracies and agitation. There is nothing controversial about calling him a conspiracy theorist, is Infowars (Cernovich has also dabbled here) merely a news outlet now and Alex Jones a journalist? To remove crucial info from the description actually renders it meaningless. If such was to be the application of the descriptions (it isn't), we shouldn't have bothered with them in the first place. Your interpretation of that policy is simply incorrect. Sorry. Gotitbro (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think "conspiracy theorist" is perfectly appropriate in the shortdesc. It's a major element of his notability - DFlhb (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Not everything in the lead needs to be cited. It summarizes the body and the body is cited. The article has many sources. Closhund/talk/ 19:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)