Talk:George Ciccariello-Maher

POV?

Namiba, please explain? Savvyjack23 (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Ciccariello is quoted as saying "To clarify: when the whites were massacred during the Haitian Revolution, that was a good thing indeed" in all rendering sources. However in this article, it simply says in "follow-up tweet in defense of the Haitian Revolution". How does this inclusion explain the latter reasoning, "calling for the mass murder of all whites" (as written in article). Well what about the Haitian Revolution? The former is incomplete and doesn't justify the latter statement. It's too brief. Am I missing something here? Furthermore, please try to exhibit some good faith here. I wasn't created yesterday. Savvyjack23 (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

..."calling for the mass murder of all whites". Where is this in the breitbart source? WP:OR? Savvyjack23 (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

The Haitian Revolution, although remembered for the overthrowing of slavery by blacks, was a series of events that started with the insurgency of the unequal class system by Vincent Ogé, a wealthy gens de couleur of Saint-Domingue who wanted equal political rights as did Toussaint Louverture, wanting to establish some autonomy but still remain a part of France (like a commonwealth). So to just simply paraphrase one half of his quote, the Haitian Revolution, is entirely ambiguous failing to implicate the point of reference about what he was trying to make. In short, the Haitian Revolution doesn't automatically imply, a massacre of whites. This so-called "massacre" in fact comes after the revolution was over (see:1804 Haiti massacre; that included civilians). The former was a revolution for injustice, not a massacre. But the case here is that he implies them both together in his quote and that should be the focus here. (In actuality ironically, he is actually taking the oppressor's point of view in his quote of the Haitian Revolution). Savvyjack23 (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Coatrack

I came in from the BLP noticeboard. The entire controversy section is a coatrack. An effort should be made to eliminate the section entirely and incorporate a synopsis of statements made leading to his resignation, as it relates to his overall notability. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

"active on social media..." -- who isn't? He has the distinguished company of several billion others here.

Do we really, really, really need to have an exhaustive account of every subjectively spiky social media post and online temper tantrum that this identity politics guy has waged as he blazes his singular fiery trail down the tenure track? I was stickin' it to The Man on similar noteworthy terms with my rubber duck in a bathtub when I was six. Pantomime radicalism in safe spaces functions solely as an expression of the fact that there is no credible, real world opposition to capitalism in the contemporary United States. Charlie Lomax — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie Lomax (talk • contribs) 15:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

"henlo nyc" incident

I have been unable to find many high quality sources on the 2019 incident which caused Geo Maher to leave twitter, however, I believe that it has informative value for the article. It is common knowledge on twitter that Geo is "the henlo nyc guy"- and that he left twitter following targeted harrassment from the political left based on an apparent age gap in his relationship. I believe there must be a way to include this information that is not libelous, and which reflects the reality of the situation that caused him to leave twitter. 2001:569:7998:EC00:91DA:7E00:F789:BAC (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPRS, a reliable source is necessary for including this material. I have reverted it.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)