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]

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bronze_Age_Pervert&oldid=1216331978"