Jump to content

Talk:Bronze Age Pervert

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Deletion proposal

[edit]

Having spectated months of debate on this page, I propose that it be deleted. As things currently stand, this page is little more than an advertisement for a pseudonymous twitter account. The inability to reach a consensus on producing a name behind the "Bronze Age Pervert" twitter account means this article is of no utility.

That an article so poorly-formatted and structured has protected status seems ridiculous. The reliance on obscure online magazines and Substack pages suggest that "Bronze Age Pervert" is undeserving of a Wikipedia article.

The sources addressing "Bronze Age Pervert" that possess some clout, such as Vox and The Daily Beast, merely cite an obscure podcast with no evidence for any of its claims about "Bronze Age Pervert". The Claremont Review of Books, the only reliable source drawing from a different source, merely describes a personal anecdote in which two obscure right-wing thinkers, Michael Anton and Curtis Yarvin, discussed the self-published "Bronze Age Mindset" book written by "Bronze Age Pervert" over a dinnertable. Few would say that the subject matter of every evening conversation between relatively unknown right-wing thinkers is deserving of a Wikipedia page.

Even without naming "Bronze Age Pervert", this article is potentially libelous and overall unnecessary. There are hundreds of pseudonymous twitter accounts that cover politics, many of them far more influential than "Bronze Age Pervert", yet few if any receive such attention from Wikipedia. I propose that this article be deleted and remain so until a verifiable source appears demonstrating a reason for "Bronze Age Pervert" to receive any Wikipedia coverage. --BSC-56 (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that instead we Move and Redirect the article to Bronze Age Mindset instead, with a primary focus on the book rather than its author or the minutiae of his Twitter activity.
The book has gotten quite a lot of coverage due to its outsized influence on a certain segment of right-wing youth. There was even a mass shooter who cited the book as an influence on his worldview. Thus, I would say the book Bronze Age Mindset is notable and worthy of an article, but the author (since his identity is not public) is not.
A close parallel is with the Might Is Right article, which focuses on the book itself, not its pseudonymous author “Ragnar Redbeard” (whose actual identity is also not known with certainty). Bronze Age Mindset and Might Is Right are very similar books in terms of their worldview, primary audience, and niche appeal, the only difference being that one is from the 1890s and the other is from the 2010s. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:BCC8 (talk) 03:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support this proposal. In decades as a WP reader (and now somewhat frequent editor?), honestly can't recall coming across a WP article that immediately screamed out as more of a waste of electrons & pixels than this one.
NO clue what the hell this...entity/person is up to, but seems they're mostly delighting in: being a flamethrower, and provocateur, and deliberately throwing chaff about themselves almost artistically (but not in a good way) - and not much else. I'd say: if THIS (expletive deleted) is notable? it's inviting (semi-)anonymous performative viciousness, b/c "hey, I've got a WP entry!". Let's look at, at least, "notability" -- but I'd encourage other eds to look at the simple principle/concept of "What WP Is Not". It is NOT this. 73.70.223.30 (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm completely against this proposal as it more certainly comes off as politically motivated (see WP:NPOV). These reasonings put forth are out of general distaste rather than legitimate Wikipedia guidelines. Also, since this proposal started, BAP has released a second book, under his real name, that has also seen significant success (see article). The only change that I could see being legitimate is to change the page's title to BAP's real name, especially if he continues to release significant literature. Секретное общество (talk) 02:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources

[edit]
I'm not sure how suitable anything from the Redneck Intellectual substack is, as it's self-published. Unless we take the position that the "Pajama Boys" essay means that Thompson is an established subject-matter expert? Standardorder (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, basically. I don't think that source should be used. After finding it, I tried to see if the author is generally notable or known for his commentary on this issue, and I don't think either is the case. Also unsure whether I want to use The American Mind or Claremont Review of Books, since they're rather fringe. Jlevi (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Since at least the Claremont Review of Books is non-fringe enough to have a wiki page, I've added a citation to Anton's review, as well as a link to BAP's response in The American Mind. However, actual information in the article about that material is still based solely on how the pieces are described in secondary sources. I think this is a good compromise that lets us direct readers to all relevant sources without actually opening the coverage to potential bias. Standardorder (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the list of potential sources with some academic articles: Standardorder (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-academic sources:

This article almost reads like an advertisement

[edit]

"highly ironic style" "highly popular book" "The pseudonym is often shortened to BAP by fans" "The book entered the top 150 bestsellers on Amazon after its release" "In October 2019, it was still ranked third in Ancient Greek History and #174 in Humour on the Amazon best-seller list" "BAP was mentioned alongside Anna Khachiyan and Niccolo Soldo as "the new anti-pundits" on Russia Today's list of "Top 10 Anti-Woke Media Heroes of 2020."" "The Spectator highlights the highly ironic nature of the podcast: "Listening to an episode of Caribbean Rhythms is a lot like being trapped in a radio version of The Manchurian Candidate: no one is who they seem."" "According to the conservative National Review, the podcast uses a narrative style of history that highlights the historical drama of great men. At the same time, NR underscores the deep irony of BAP's style."

Was this article written by a fan or something? Ericplais (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's a fan page. The irony stuff is ridiculous. I'm especially amused by "BAP was mentioned alongside Anna Khachiyan and Niccolo Soldo as "the new anti-pundits" on Russia Today's list of "Top 10 Anti-Woke Media Heroes of 2020."" Wow! I'll try to give it a little cleanup. Chisme (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the cleanup. I suppose I brought in too much of the tone of the cited articles alongside their concrete details. I agree with and appreciate all improvements. Jlevi (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that this is a ridiculous fan page. I'm also concerned about how whether this topic is sufficiently notable (c.f. WP:NOTE); it seems to me like BAP is merely yet another popular Twitter user whose sole notable achievement is publishing a giant manifesto expressing far-right sentiments. I might consider proposing this for deletion sometime if he doesn't do something much more noteworthy. Duckmather (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that much of Chisme's cleanup was overwritten by a recent addition of substantial new material. Editing that to bring it in line with bias standards would take a minute but be more suitable than deletion altogether, given the growing number of citations. Standardorder (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the editors of the page, most are fans promoting what is essentially propaganda to defend BAP. This page needs more neutrality and it needs to be cleaned up and written by neutral sources, totally revamped. Valdemarpeterson (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Real name

[edit]

The pseudonym of Bronze Age Pervert is used by an academic named (BLP violation removed). Verified journalists on twitter, such as Luke Turner, who have done research into BAP have discovered this, and the knowledge of this is not hidden. The name (BLP violation removed) should be included in the opening paragraph of the article mentioning the identity of BAP.

Any attempts to conceal this seem to be malicious, to maintain the market branding of BAP as a mysterms figure, and all attempts to change this fact have been done by accounts who are supporters of BAP, which is no maintaining neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valdemarpeterson (talk • contribs) 19:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Valdemarpeterson I’ve taken this to WP:BLPN to sort out. I have no opinion. Doug Weller talk 19:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Has Turner, or anyone else, published this in a reliable, secondary source? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note the mention about users who are supporters of BAP was made in regard to users calling BAP "based"(an online term for someone that holds the same views), as well as users acting very defensive of BAP using insulting language against those posting information about his real identity. This was not intended to sneakily insult anyone, and was not meant as an allegation to anyone acting in good faith. Valdemarpeterson (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Valdemarpeterson: repeating Firefangledfeathers said, where are the reliable secondary sources which discuss this alleged name? No reliable secondary sources then it does not belong in this article, simple as that. It doesn't matter what anyone has done on Twitter. Note that I am not a fan of Bronze Age Pervert. AFAIK I have never ever heard the name before. Nor have I checked out the article so I actually have zero idea what this person does other than what I may guess from the name and this discussion (and I haven't even read any other talk page discussions). Nil Einne (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bronze Age Pervert himself confirmed the identity of himself as (BLP violation removed) on his now deleted twitter account, it just seems arbitrary to maintain the secrecy of himself as author of the novel when it's well known. Valdemarpeterson (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk is cheap. If it's "well known" then you should be able to easily show use several reliable sevondary sources which make this link. If you can't then it clearly isn't as well known as you suggest. This isn't arbitrary but a cornerstone of BLP or really WP:Verifiability. Nil Einne (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify that I'm not intending to get into a debate about the general concept of whether something may be well known. I'm simply saying that from the Wikipedia article PoV something that is well known should have reliable secondary sources supporting it. Nil Einne (talk) 01:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers@Nil Einne Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Valdemarpeterson. I've suppressed the use of the name in the article. Doug Weller talk 11:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OP blocked for attempted outing and socking. Doug Weller talk 11:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability? Reliable sources? Own research?

[edit]

Unlikely if this conforms to Wikipedia's general Notability requirement as well as the Notability guidelines for Biographies on authors (seems notable for only one event, little content Independent of the subject). Popularity in itself is not Notability.

In its current incarnation cites sources which may suffer from the same Notability and reliability issues: the section References is filled with niche sources (American Greatness? The American Interest? Eidolon? The New Atlantis? cbradleythompson.substack.com? Bend the Arc: Jewish Action?) and the remainder relies heavily on 2 writers including Anton, Michael (columnist, conservative essayist) and Lindqvist, Inga-Lina (columnist) and not really secondary sources, giving the impression of Original Research. 02:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xavdeman (talk • contribs)

Reading over WP:AUTHOR, I don't think notability is in doubt here, but I agree that many of these sources are deficient and should be trimmed down, maybe with more of a focus on this New York Times article and the pieces in Politico, Vox, Spectator, Reason, etc. I've gone ahead and removed the Substack link, to start. Standardorder (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Beast article with his (alleged) real name

[edit]

I wonder if this is a good enough source to use, and if that means it’s now okay to drop the policy of not naming him. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:7094 (talk) 07:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think an unverified op-ed from a source we describe as a "high-end tabloid" is particularly solid. Keep in mind we risk defamation here if we remove this policy. Remember "Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism;"RichardDWolff (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Surely it can at least be mentioned as possibility itself rather than as the absolute truth. StrongALPHA (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not really how it works, especially with tabloid journalism. RichardDWolff (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
His identity has also been cited in National Review and Tablet (albeit speculatively). I’m interested in what you think the legal issue could be here; it’s not defamation to simply say these credible-if-biased sources (which are widely cited throughout the Wiki) have made this unverified claim. Compare, for instance, Satoshi Nakamoto#Possible identities.
-A-M-B-1996- (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The NRO article is just commenting on the Daily Beast article (it's essentially blogspam). You mention the weakness of the Tablet article. As for issues, please see the above discussions on the issue. RichardDWolff (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As the above discussion does not adequately address the issue of speculative discussions of identity (cf. Nakamoto), I would support the proposed section's inclusion. Most of what I've heard about this man is speculation as to his identity, whereas this article is mostly built on attempts to advance his theories from sources which could equally be characterized as "blogspam." -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While it's interesting that most of what you have heard about is "speculation as to his (sic) identity" I'm not sure that is great evidence arguing that it is notable. Grasping at the one or two tabloid articles about it shows it's not been considered important.
I think you have a good point about the weaknesses of this article. It's been improved since it used to be rightly characterised as a "fan page," but it could certainly be made better. If anything, it's too detailed (with bad sourcing). That's why I removed sections about his "first run on twitter" and "second run on twitter" which read like he was a famous athlete having been on multiple teams or a politician serving under multiple administrations or something. Please do help de-blogspam it.
I know you are quite familiar with WP, but just in case, a refresher on the following topics might be helpful: WP:BLP, WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:GRAPEVINE and WP:V. RichardDWolff (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Daily Beast is a not a reliable publication and beyond my personal opinion, the rules of wikipedia on reliable sources state "Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons." [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources]] Friedbyrd (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You omitted the two sentences before that: "There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source."
I agree the Daily Beast is biased, but it is also reliable reporting (which is here corroborated by other biased but reliable sources). I'm not aware of them reporting factual errors or having to retract many stories. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Falling out with Nick Fuentes

[edit]

If any of you guys happen to browse the more un-pc (or sure outright offensive), off limits part of the internet, you will know from places like Odysee (from where I heard of this) for example that Nick Fuentes has spoken about formerly being best buds with him, until falling out with him because of BAP´s supposed statement saying something to the effect that "Zionism was the greatest act of Anti-Semitism ever committed". I would really like to add this but I´m not sure that the source is permitted within wikipedia guidelines? StrongALPHA (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of that source, so I can't speak to that in particular, but in terms of using video sources in general here are guidelines to help you use such sources properly: WP:Video_links#As_references RichardDWolff (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I initially was confused by this, because I had no idea what BAP was even trying to say with such a (seemingly) nonsensical comment. For those of you who are curious, I looked it up, and apparently he was praising early Zionism as an example of Jews “overthrowing” their own culture (see: negation of the Diaspora) and therefore “Hellenizing” themselves. (He is less enamored of contemporary Israeli society, though). Keep in mind that the real person behind the BAP persona is (allegedly) a student of the neocon Leo Strauss, who was Jewish and held similar views of Zionism.
It’s often forgotten today, but early Zionist and proto-Zionist leaders such as Theodor Herzl and Max Nordau often wrote as though they had an inferiority complex. They often argued that Jews were persecuted because of their own weakness, that they had become a people of ineffectual, bookish, effeminate nebbishes. Hence the need for a new muscular Judaism, which could be achieved by Jews shedding their old culture and establishing their own state and army. Only this transformation, according to the Zionists, would force the outside world to start respecting the Jewish people. The whole idea sounds almost Nietzschean at times. A less charitable reviewer would describe this attitude behind the Zionist movement (at least in its secular manifestations), as a form of internalized antisemitism. Hence the alleged BAP comment—-he was praising the “muscular Judaism” idea, and Zionism, while deprecating the old Jewish culture of the diaspora. So there you have it—-the meaning behind BAP’s confusing remark, which I looked up so you don’t have to.
Of course Fuentes would hate someone who said such things, because he’s fervently against Zionism and Israel. I still find it surprising that he ever considered BAP a friend, though, considering Fuentes despises anything pagan.
I don’t think any of the above rises to the level of notability for inclusion in this article. It might, if reliable sources start covering it, but so far they haven’t (most of the sources where I found the above information were at mainstream conservative sites critical of both BAP and Fuentes—-these sites use BAP’s alleged real name and probably wouldn’t meet the reliability criteria). So far, BAP and Fuentes have both independently drawn media attention for their association with Trumpworld and GOP figures, and are therefore separately notable, but this alleged feud between the two will have to remain apocryphal for now. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 01:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this should definitely be included, as it's happening again. BAP is taking a beating from the actual far right as of late. Секретное общество (talk) 04:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nick Fuentes's personal article is much higher importance than this one, and it is very limited in coverage of Nick's feuds with other right-wing factions as of late. Your impulse to call the groypers "the actual far right" undermines your neutrality as an editor, as it is not our position to cast judgement on these conflicts, only to decide their relevance to Wikipedia. BSC-56 (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting Real Name

[edit]

Given that it’s within the interests of both BAP’s vision of their own political identity and zeitgeist, and the interests of his closest proponents and followers, who take every opportunity to obfuscate Costin’s identity at his own behest, I encourage revisiting the suppression of Costin’s identity. The subject was suppressed because of a supposed lack of secondary sources. In truth, there are a few good ones, all published within the last year/year and a half. Here’s one example.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/why-conservatives-must-reject-the-bronze-age-mindset-and-offer-something-better/

I propose that maintaining the suppression on Costin’s identity serves the specific interest of the anti-intellectual, anti-elite veil BAP’s brand relies on and casts a stark bias over the article. The aspect of Costin’s identity that he wants suppressed - the fact that he is/was a PhD student at a prestigious, elite American university, on funding supported by neocons, is not just publicly available information, but isn’t damaging in any way other than to the credibility of his online persona to his fans.


The decision to suppress aligns so well with BAP’s interests that it almost makes the article look like it was created with BAP’s guidance/consultation.

131.94.186.11 (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with something like this is that at the end of the day wikipedia might be sued for libel when it comes to charged issues concerning "fringe politics" and real, living people. There are only credible rumors at best to claim that Costin is BAP, which just isnt enough to make a definitive statement.Friedbyrd (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is Ad Copy

[edit]

It’s very thinly-veiled ad copy written by the subject of the article or someone editing on his behalf. the subject of the article. The ‘criticisms’ section is transparently malinformation. 2601:240:8480:59E0:FCA4:C707:7759:CFED (talk) 07:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

POLITICO article

[edit]

Would this be considered a reliable source for this page? 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:8734 (talk) 03:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think so. Moreover, Yahoo News also picked up the article. Chisme (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic article

[edit]

With the publishing of this article by Wood in the Atlantic, I think the case against the wiki article lacking reliable sources is outdated. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 15:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish?

[edit]

Why is his Jewishness omitted from the article?

It's biographical. Any deletion of it is obvious omission to anyone who is familiar with his work.

Since this topic has been deleted. I can only see it as bad faith, unless given reason otherwise. 92.20.135.52 (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I've replied to you on my talkpage. It's policy, not bad faith, so feel free to stop making those kinds of accusations. Acroterion (talk) 00:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personal essay removed to talk page

[edit]

This is a personal essay if I've ever seen one, no matter the link density.

Bronze Age Pervert is very concerned with the aesthetics of the conventionally attractive, classical male physique, and elaborates in Bronze Age Mindset that "the universal body, the correct type discovered by ancient Greek science and art" is "not something you will develop by nurturing your own 'individual' quirks, doxies, and faggotries".[1] It seems BAP considers Greek thought as the kind of "science" that "can uncover for us ... the true hierarchy of biological types". He expresses admiration for Hippocleides for the latter's "display and use [of] his powers and excellences and biological superiority."

According to BAP the "Bronze Age Mindset" he advocates and "biological superiority" are inseparable and "the same!".[1] For these reasons Bronze Age Pervert encourages his readers to engage in active cultivation of the body via sports, bodybuilding, martial arts[2][3] – preferably in the nude like the old Greeks[1] and the early 20th century German Wandervogel[4] and Freikörperkultur movements – as well as nude sunbathing.[5] Something BAP refers to as a life of "sun and steel"[5] in reference to the Japanese author Yukio Mishima's Sun and Steel.[6] BAP urges his young disciples to disavow him rather than advocate for his ideas (in public), and instead to burrow into government and wait for the right time to rise up.[7], a bronze sculpture by Benvenuto Cellini featured in the banner of BAP's Twitter account]].

References

  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference :11 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Anton, Michael. "Are the Kids Al(t)right?". Claremont Review of Books (Summer 2019). Retrieved 7 August 2023.
  3. ^ "Bonus Episode: Bronze Age Decius?". Ricochet. October 13, 2019. Archived from the original on 2019-10-13. Retrieved 2021-04-11.
  4. ^ Khan, Rumi (6 July 2019). "The Alt-Right as Counterculture: Memes, Video Games and Violence". Harvard Politics. Archived from the original on February 2, 2023. Retrieved 7 August 2023.
  5. ^ a b Schreckinger, Ben (23 August 2019). "The alt-right manifesto that has Trumpworld talking". Politico.
  6. ^ Del Medigo, Elijah (5 November 2019). "Wat iz Bronze Age Mindset?". The American Mind. Archived from the original on 2020-11-11. Retrieved 2021-06-27.
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference Atlantic-9-23 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

— MaxEnt 18:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree with removal. Alyo (chat·edits) 21:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Ben Lorber?

[edit]

Ben Lorber is mentioned within the main article twice, but there is no supporting link for Lorber or his writings. - Surakmath (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The citation got removed in the most recent edit, I've readded it. Alyo (chat·edits) 13:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Jewishness

[edit]

Requesting some second opinions re this edit and others like it. I have no strong feelings either way, but this gets added and removed every so often, so I'd like to start a discussion so we can have some consensus to point to. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No discussion needed, as it has been already deemed unnecessary more than once in the past. "Jewish" isn't a nationality, but "Romanian-American" is. Секретное общество (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah buddy, that's not how consensus works. Alyo (chat·edits) 22:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not your buddy, but there is uniformity amongst the pages. I suggest you read WP:MoS, as it states that although there is no set formula, that we editors should strive to obtain a level of uniformity. There's no reason to include someone's religious background in the opening, unless you're attempting to conflate Jewishness with BAPs politics, which is more certainly not warranted. Секретное общество (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please refrain from preferential editing until others weigh in on this matter, once again. In the meantime, in reference to "buddy", please read WP:CIV. Секретное общество (talk) 23:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Buddy" isn't banned by CIV, accusing other editors of conflicts of interest absolutely is. Alyo (chat·edits) 13:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Targeted name-calling is covered under WP:BULLY, but let's just move on from this futility.
I'm hoping others will weigh in, but here are some examples of other Jewish Americans that are in a similar expertise and/or milieu as BAP, of whom do not have their ethnic/religious background included in their respective headers:
Michael Malice, Lex Fridman, Martin Abern, Laura Loomer, Ill Bill, and Adam Friedland. You can also go through the categorical list of other American people of Romanian-Jewish descent and see the same.
It doesn't make sense to include his ethnic background when others in podcasting, politics, and Jewish-Romanian Roots do not have it listed. I'm also worried that it opens up potential attacks on BAP, as the ACTUAL alt-right (including prominent figures Nick Fuentes and Milo Yiannopoulos) in their followers have been going after his Jewishness to the point where he is receiving death threats on X. (I'll provide something samples if you'd like, but it's all over his X/Twitter feed)
Please don't think that I'm accusing you of this, as I don't think that, but given the current state in the world, in the harassment that BAP has been subject to as of late, I feel that less is more in this case. Also, this page is already subject to WP:NPOV red flags, and given what I've already mentioned, I don't see any benefit in including it along with such labels as alt-right (which is definitely arguable with our subject at hand). Секретное общество (talk) 07:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jewish is both an ethnicity and a religion. BAP is not religiously a Jew, he is a pagan, he is ethnically half Jewish and half Romanian, which he showed on his Costin Alamariu twitter page with a 23andme. There is no reason to not include his ethnicity on his page, it is the norm to include on wikipedia pages. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Milo Yiannopoulos is ethnically Jewish himself. A couple unhinged tweets from low follower fringe accounts(neither Nick nor Milo have made death threats against him, nor have any accounts in their immediate circles) is not warranted to remove someone's ethnicity from being mentioned, especially when it is something BAP doesn't hide. He has tweeted on his main Bronze Age Pervert account that he is Jewish, and after it was revealed his name is Costin Alamariu, his Costin account posted the 23andme results showing he is half Jewish and half southern European. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tommygunn7886 please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Requesting_third_opinions_at_Bronze_Age_Pervert. I'm leaning towards removal unless you can demonstrate that the fact that he is Jewish is central to his notability, which I don't see. His ethnicity is still listed on the page, just not in the lede sentence. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused as to why him being Romanian is central to his notability but not him being Jewish? Tommygunn7886 (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that we're including "Romanian" because it's central to his notability--that is more a descriptor that just helps to place him for our readers. However, MOS:ETHNICITY specifically says that "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability." In this case, BAP isn't notable for being, e.g., a Jewish philosopher or historian. Look at the examples in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Nationality_examples -- Jewish ethnicity isn't included unless it's critical to define the topic. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS is clear that nationality is not usually notable. However, to the extent that BAP is either racist or obsessed with race, then his own ethnic and national origins are relevant. I wonder how much this way of framing it is what's actually behind the debate going on here. I can't speak to BAP's obsession with race, but it seems he is associated with people who are. DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a lot of it is due to the fact that he, and many in his circle, call themselves nazis openly(he has tweeted this many times without the use of irony) while at the same time not living up to nazi standards, such as him being of Jewish heritage. It may not belong in the heading, but it still belongs on the page, as it does for any public figure. I however do not believe the inclusion of his Romanian heritage belongs in the heading either, if his Jewish heritage does not. I would just say his name should suffice, and then his heritage and nationality can be mentioned lower in the page, as it already is. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have any citations for Jewish heritage other than the self-published source? Dumuzid (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say primary claims of it through a 23andme he posted directly himself on his Costin Alamariu page is good enough proof for the claim. Regardless, his father, who is the Jewish half of his ancestry, also regularly posts on social media regarding his Jewish heritage. Very unlikely to get a genealogist to do genealogical work on such an obscure online figure, so I'd say the primary source is enough. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would slightly differ per WP:SPS. I am not overly bothered, but we're relying so far as I can tell on social media (the subject's tweet and apparently his father) which gives me pause. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS is clear that nationality is not usually notable. can you quote something that says that? Everything in MOS:LEADBIO seems to indicate that including nationality/place of residence is the baseline, and the only time that info is excluded is when it's contested or the person is Indigenous. (See the last two examples here. At no other point in that page do I see anything suggesting that the heavier burden is on inclusion of nationality. Alyo (chat·edits) 03:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to add my voice to the consensus that we not include ethnicity in the first sentence. I don't mind having it in the body of the article, and I think self-published sources are fine for such a use. But the first sentence would need secondary sources that attest to the ethnicity being relevant to notability. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, and thank you. Секретное общество (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preferential editing?

[edit]

User User:Alyo is continuously removing the infobox from BAP's podcast from the page, as well as interwiki linking to said podcast and subjects notable book. Considering that almost every other Wikipedia pages of people in the same industry use both an infobox and respective linkage (ex: Kevin Brennan, Jimmy Dore, Lex Fridman), should this page not be treated in a similar manner? Given the controversy and, therefore, potential politically motivated editing that occurs on such pages, I find the unusual treatment interesting. Секретное общество (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of the three pages you linked actually has an infobox for a podcast, so that doesn't really support your case. And second, even if all three did, no, it does not mean that this page should be treated in a similar manner. You are adding an infobox that is 15+ lines long to a section that is two sentences long. This is unsourced, UNDUE, and also just looks bad. Stop re-adding it. Alyo (chat·edits) 22:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're not providing any reasoning as to why his podcast shouldn't have an infobox, well every other podcasters page does. Until this is settled by others, stop deleting it. I don't like reporting stuff, but I'm going to the next time you do it. If the consensus comes back that it doesn't need one, then so be it. In the meantime, stop warring. Секретное общество (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just listed three: you still have not added any independent sources; it remains UNDUE coverage given the amount that the article covers the podcast; it breaks up the page's formatting and pushes the Selective Breeding infobox all the way into the Criticism section. Alyo (chat·edits) 13:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Alyo here; having done a quick scan of news sources, I only came up with one that explicitly mentioned the podcast (that was in The Atlantic). As such, it does not seem like infobox material to me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Alyo, the other podcasts mentioned are some of the biggest in the world, while BAP's is fairly fringe with a strong cult following. It is not in the same category as a Lex Friedman podcast. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BAP has approximately 3500 paid subscribers, which is much more than a majority of podcasts that have Wikipedia infoboxes. Until someone can explain why they would get different treatment than this page at hand, then I don't think the discussion is closed as of yet. I still suspect preferential editing, especially based off of the edit history of those making an argument against an infobox, so I'm going to show this to some of our senior admins and see what they think. I may be wrong, but there's certainly a pattern here. Секретное общество (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are getting into conspiracy theory minded talk. I am not accusing you of being a conspiracy theorist, but BAP is one and I believe that is dangerous territory to dive into. It seems to me if anything that the BAP article has preferential treatment in his favor, because some of the editors seems to edit in to make him look better. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether that's the case or not, that doesn't play into how we treat our editing. Whether it's Mr. Rogers out Adolf Hitler, we need to treat all of the pages the same. But no, I wouldn't consider myself a conspiracy theorist, although I feel that it's equally as dangerous just to accept every single legacy and corporate narrative put out there without questioning it, as there are plenty that have turned out to be very true. Both ends are very tribalistic and dimwitted approaches, as truth is almost always in the gray area. Секретное общество (talk) 02:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, thanks for being civil. It seems to be a rarity amongst us editors. Секретное общество (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, where do you get your numbers of his paid subscriber count? Is there a source on that? or is that just something he claims? Tommygunn7886 (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can see it if you go to the Gumroad webpage. The mobile version doesn't show it, but as long as you put the www version in your browser, you can see it. It's about $35,000 a month purely and subscribers, and that's why I'm trying to make the case that it's not a small podcast. Секретное общество (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you find it? Секретное общество (talk) 02:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the removal of the boxes. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alyo, you need to be careful. I just warned the other user for edit warring, but maybe you need a reminder too. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Beware, Alyo, we're approaching the
⚠️ EDIT WARRING ZONE ☣️
Anyways, I accept that I've been overruled. I was more concerned about the other matter anyways. Секретное общество (talk) 02:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies, understood. I believed the multiple days of discussion and other users weighing in had indicated consensus, but that was clearly hasty, there was no reason to make another revert. I'll stay away from that edit. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is fine, but you're only one user. Plus, you seem to have a pattern with your politically-based editing as well. We as Wikipedia editors are here to provide maximum readability for those who are viewing, not to provide preferential treatment based on our individual biases. There's no reason that one page should be treated differently than another, regardless of the subject at hand. We never see any of this type of discussion on any pages from those who belong to the "left". Personally, I'm not a huge fan of many on the right either, but that doesn't mean any of us should treat any page with preferential treatment. Секретное общество (talk) 01:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Секретное общество, I think you need to be careful here. If you want to accuse me of politically biased editing, take it to ANI right now, or zip it. Also, "you're only one user"--that's you, the one user: Alyo, Dumuzid, Tommygunn7886, that adds up to three. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm already in the process of doing so, and don't tell me to zip it, or I'll report you per WP:HARASS. I haven't made anything personal, and there's no reason to get short. We're all just editors at the end of the day, and it means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things, and we all know it. I feel that many editors try to control others on here and control narratives as they likely don't have much control in their real lives, which is sad, but it's not the place to do it. We have plenty of opportunities here to come up with a closed conclusion on the matter at hand, so let's all try not to get all red-faced and triggered over nothingness. Секретное общество (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, good luck with that ANI thread. Make sure to explain to them what my supposed "pattern [in] politically-based editing" is--and yes, I consider that a personal attack. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is your talk page user protected? Секретное общество (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I see that you're up for a block evasion review. Now I see why you're reacting the way you are to all of us. I'm trying to issue a warning on harassment, as I'm not really the type that likes to go straight to reporting people, but it shouldn't your page be open for users to be able to do so? Секретное общество (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have trouble believing you have misapprehended so very much. Perhaps there's a language barrier here? Dumuzid (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how your question pertains to resolving the topic at hand but, for shits and giggles and some more potential 'intelligent' as hominem discourse, I'll entertain it. What ever do you mean? Секретное общество (talk) 03:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for instance, it is difficult for me to see how anyone could look at Drmies' talk page and come away with the impression that they are under investigation for block evasion. Dumuzid (talk) 03:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page? I didn't think I said anything in regards to a talk page. Perhaps it's you that is you that has 'misapprehended'? (Although 'misconstrued' would've been the correct verb to use, but hey, what do I know about English, right?) Секретное общество (talk) 03:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dumuzid, I'm wondering myself what this person is talking about. I don't even know what a "block evasion review" is, or who "all of us" is--but then this is from the editor who said "you're only one editor" when they were the only editor maintaining their position. Drmies (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are users supposed to block their talk pages? Секретное общество (talk) 02:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an unusual measure for active admins whose pages are subject to frequent vandalism. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would an active admins page be subject to frequent vandalism? Is it possible that they may have overreached and violated their privileges, hence attracting such attention?
Toodle-oo! Секретное общество (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dec 2024 update

[edit]

Секретное общество just tried to re-add the infobox. I removed it without realizing it was the same editor as from six months ago, came here to the talk page to find the old discussion, and realized it was the same person. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Секретное общество please read all of the above again. Alyo (chat·edits) 23:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
🐁 Секретное общество (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bronze_Age_Pervert&oldid=1262171250"