Talk:Gary Brecher

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

The eXile newspaper staff who have an obviously biased POV interest in not having their pranks exposed keep blanking any description of the controversy about Brecher's identity being a pseudonym or a character. There's speculation about who Brecher really is all over the web, just Google him, so it's a legitimate subject for a Wikipedia article (an article which was started initially by the eXile itself). Just because they wrote the initial War Nerd article means they're the only ones who get to say anything? Not fair!

For the record: the above has several inaccuracies. The Brecher article was not started by the eXile, but by Nat Krause. Moreover, I looked on the web as suggested, and found only one or two speculations, among literally hundreds of articles, so his assertion that this speculation is "all over the web" is also false. Indeed if you look at user 199.107.55.222's other entries they all appear to be focused on a vendetta against The eXile and its writers, including his attempt to get The eXile entry deleted, an attempt which was unaninously overruled and which led some wiki editors to ask if there was a way to "punish" user 199.107.55.222.

Look I've read the War Nerd and everyone else on the Exile very extensively and have no contact whatsoever with them as individuals. Brecher's denied being a character. A couple bloggers said "It's a character!" but they have no idea. Stylistically, there are definite differences between the major writers and there's no mistaking Brecher for Ames or Dolan. While Ames and Dolan are both clever they've also both been independently writing books and articles. In my mind there's no "controversy," and why does this need to be a "character"? Brecher's a former far-right, bored American who in his tedium has nourished hate and frustration for years, while studying war part-time, who never thought to write anything before. The whole "controversy" seems to be people who just sort of can't work it out, how you could set about writing something without respecting the judicious moral underpinnings everyone just kind of culturally takes for granted, underpinnings wrent most obviously asunder during wartimes.

"Q. Who are you? Are you really a fat guy in Fresno who works in data entry and lives in a duplex and can't stand the heat, or is that a literary character you made up?

A. I'm the normal one here. I'm a typical American and you won't see it. Here, do this, get a list of all the men in your company who don't get to go to cool places and write stories and pick 10 or so of them just at random and you will see they're all like me, exactly like me.

The only difference is I met this Mark Ames guy (the editor of The exile) and he thought it would be a funny idea to give me this column. So I can talk and people read it, but there are maybe 50 million guys like me out there, just like me, and you won't see it.

All of us are fat, everybody who isn't "a somebody" in America is fat, but you never let any of them on TV or The New York Times so it's like we don't exist.

This is the dumbest question because it's just like that stupid Kristof quote, it just PROVES YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE WHAT'S RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU, which is millions of guys like me waiting for the heart attack."


Where is it written that reasonable "speculation" is forbidden on Wikipedia, especially in widespread cases of skepticism like the issue of Brecher's identity? According to the NPOV rule, so long as the debate is described as a debate without arguing one side or the other, it's acceptable. If only things as provably true as 2 + 2 = 4 are appropriate for Wikipedia then this encyclopedia would be a lot shorter and less interesting than it is. Besides, the case for Brecher being a character is quite a bit better than idle speculation. One, the eXile has a confessed history of inventing characters - Matt Taibbi has admitted as much, at least concerning Dan Higgins. Two, the picture the eXile claims is Brecher turned out to be some stock nerd photo from a Scandinavian music site. Three, there is no Brecher listed in Fresno. Four, where has this guy been until his late 30's? All of a sudden he becomes a brilliant columnist at 37 but he never wrote one word before that? Five, how is it exactly that this nobody in Fresno pitched a column to the eXile, an alternative weekly in Moscow? Can anyone imagine Ames accepting a query from a never published data entry specialist from Fresno? No way. Ames and his buddies wouldn't have even read his emails. I'm not saying I'm sure Brecher's fake, but I am sure there's a lot of uncertainty and unanswered questions about this. It's legitimate. So stop censoring it.

I wrote the last objection. I haven't heard this thing about the stock photo? Evidence? I'm not saying it's fake I'm just curious. I got the impression Ames may have met him doing research for his book about American office slaves (which also suggests a genesis for a stock character, of course)...talking to this "War Nerd" in an office setting, as Brecher says, "Ames thought it would be funny to give me a column."

Anyway, I don't think it's strange at all someone with a certain kind of talent might be discovered in his late thirties... A huge number of people have literary talents they either don't use at all or never explored. Looking at Brecher's particular insight, no one generally would give him any kind of space. Which is why I was saying the need for a "fake" character is kind of disturbing in itself, since this generally intelligent, cynical person is fairly common, and unrepresented, in my experience.

The "stock" photo detail is pretty suspicious. But I read Dolan's entire book, and he talks of being a "War Nerd," but frankly there's no trace of Brecher in his narrative.

That paper by Dolan proves nothing about Brecher's identity, but I put it at the bottom since it's so interesting independentently. Dolan does not claim to be Brecher, and speaks of Brecher as a separate, "brilliant" person, who is primarily responsible for the Exile's swelling in monthly hits and worth speaking about.

Anyway, where's this Swedish photo?

Knowing about "tenure" by the way doesn't make you an expert on academia. It makes you a person who has had some thoughts. Brecher is not necessarily a "brilliant intellectual," he is a bored person who has read books and net news and thought about things, an option available to everyone, even people who did not finish college. If anything, Dolan's articles constantly betray his academic heritage, whereas Brecher always comes off as not quite polished in this way, not even accidently. Again after reading Dolan's entire book it seems highly unlikely that he is the War Nerd, he has an absolutely different style.

Here's the photo the eXile is using for Brecher: http://www.ehem.no/bilder/nerd.jpg . . . OK, I agree the case for Dolan isn't that great, but not exactly on the grounds you cite. The styles are totally different, I agree. The difference is talent. Dolan is a vengeful literatary specialist who is trying to become like some kind of savage critical personality. Obviously he never bought into the academic system, but that doesn't make him a great writer. He's OK. I read the version of Pleasant Hell that was posted on the eXile's site before he (I guess?) got a book contract for it. I mean, an autobiography of a self-loathing lit nerd who couldn't hack California.... C'mon! Who even cares? Revenge of the Nerds by the Nerd who never even got revenge. Boring!

But Brecher. He's not brilliant? Are you kidding me? Every word is pure genius. Whoever is writing that column has more talent for writing in his pinky than Dolan's got in his whole family. He's better than Taibbi. Why do you think this is so controversial? Everybody is reading him. It's like the siblings in Ender's Game who take over the world with phony online Federalist Paper style debates.

We should all be aware of what we're dealing with when we're talking about anything relating to the eXile. Ames & Taibbi are classic cases of Antisocial Personality Disorder--301.7

"There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others since age 15 years as indicated by at least three of the following: 1) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest; 2) deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure; 5) reckless disregard for safety of self or others; 7) lack of remorse by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated or stolen from others."

Ames in particular is convinced he is a genius and he's a good enough writer to almost back it up, but you have to wonder whether a writer who hasn't published a book by age 40 can be considered a genius. Since according to Ames all the consensus rules and supposed ethical standards regulating mainstream journalism are really just weapons wielded by the establishment in defense of the status quo, not only does the eXile not conform to journalistic ethics, but Ames feels duty bound to defy all the rules. Fake characters, slander, lies - pretty much anything goes in his paper. Tricking the mainstream press, as the eXile did when the Sunday Times quoted Salnikov as though he is a real person, is not a scandal but a victory.

My point is, when we're talking about Brecher or any other eXile columnist, we should assume a prank until proven otherwise. From now on the burden is on them to prove their characters are real, not the reverse. I'll be watching!

Well that's "Brecher" all right. But it's very possible both the name and picture are fakes used, well, because "Brecher" wouldn't want his name or picture on the web. And if it's not Dolan or Ames, and I think intuitively (for people who've read all this stuff) these two options are almost impossible, it's a pretty considerable question who exactly is the War Nerd, and why the persona would even be created. It's a strong possibility, of course, but what the hell is it hiding?

Like Barbara Ehrenreich in "Nickel and Dimed," why couldn't a waitress could write a decent account of her own crippling desperation, and why must some special "New Yorker" writer status be required to compose decidedly not-supernatural insights into a pretty intuitively comprehensible real life (why the War Nerd is great)? Brecher doesn't show any special writerly status, and you can see his early columns, while fully engaging, exhaust a certain pent up energy--that's refined later into his maturish style, but are initially rather blunt and unpolished (like the article on the Columbians), which doesn't fit the idea of some previously known writer.

For instance, look at this paragraph from the War Nerd's first column: The best war is when you can hate both sides, and that's how it was with the WTC. I cheered those jets. I work in like a ten-story version of those towers, and I know for a fact that I'm not the only one who perks up every time a plane gets close to the building. Everybody cheers the planes now...

The "Everyone cheers the planes now" line is bad, awkward, and unclear, as is "Bring Martin Sheen over, like from the West Wing, and let him do it, he'd have the Afghans converting to Presbyterianism in a couple of days," which reveals a kind of a dynamic of a bad joke the War Nerd never indulges later.

"Somebody in the Pentagon (hey, can they call it a pentagon now when it's only got four sides? Don't they have to find a new high school geometry name for that?)"

This line, since this joke was spent on September 11, 2001, reveals someone in a context totally unaware that normal people all used this joke up the day of. Maybe this is some really sophisticated deception, but it's delivered with a certain delight of shattering taboos unaware of the "liberal" commonality of the jibe. "(sorry, the Quadragon!)"

Anyway, evaluate the early columns...nothing's for sure, but the evidence of the content strongly suggests a writer cutting his teeth, and doing damned well and happy to know the publication he's writing for to some extent shares his sensibilities.

Only Dolan is knowledgeable enough to be the War Nerd...and I think he's smart enough, and talented enough, but I don't think he is. So who is it? Someone who was probably prepared to be paid poorly, old enough to know a helluva lot about war and to have gone through a long stretch of being a hardliner conservative in the Soviet era, lonely and bored and excited enough to purchase new books from Amazon and read them just to do some piddling column in the Exile that probably was going to get canned within a few issues. Certainly no fellow writer...so who? Some guy exchanging funny-assed Emails with Ames or Dolan at some point...maybe a data-entry technician in Fresno, California?

[edit] I rewrote the page

First of all, to the posters above, I think it would aid the discussion if you were to please sign your posts and, if possible, register. We should get all opinions but it's just hard to read as it is. So:

  • I rewrote the page. I think quality and "encyclopedicness" is much better now, though I'm open to other opinions. I tried to reuse old text and ideas wherever possible.
  • I took a lot of onsourced claims
  • I tried to keep the POV at a minumum, both in my new material and by making changes. Let me know if I could have done better anywhere.
  • I took out the very long quote from one of the African wars articles. I don't think it's particularly essential, and it seems silly to focus so much on this one aspect of his writing. If someone thinks it must go in, I suggest putting it on wikiqoute and linking it from here, and maybe leaving a shorter version on the article page.
  • can we source the rumour of his book? If not let's take it out
  • Who has said the pic is a fake? what reasons have they given?
  • I think it's important to caption the picture, noting that it came from [[the eXile]'s website if people say it's a fake. I have it set to 65 pixels wide so it won't blur

Dsol 21:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your rewrite, Dsol. I'm glad to see this page has calmed down a little. I wrote the original version of this article, by the way—and, for the record, I would like to state that I am neither an agent or promoter of the the eXile (in fact, I never read anything from them other than War Nerd), nor am I out to defame Gary Brecher (in fact, I think he's a genius and probably basically a good person). Anyway, I do think the article should cover the question of Gary Brecher's identity, but we shouldn't overdo it; there has to be a balance (personally, I think the evidence is quite strong that there is no "Gary Brecher" per se; the real question, probably unanswerable, is whether Gary Brecher is the pen-name of some other author, or of some unknown anonymous newcomer). I think the current discussion of the identity is pretty good, although I might tweak it some later. I agree with you on removing the African wars quote; it was not necessary. The book rumour should probably be taken out for the time being, because I don't think it has a source outside of Wikipedia (although, considering the editor who added it to Wikipedia, I suppose there's an off-chance it might have been added by the same person who writes Brecher's columns!) As for the picture, I originally learned about it from Steve Sailer (basically America's #1 source for Gary Brecher coverage); it comes from http://www.ehem.no/bilder/nerd.jpg ，a Swedish site which apparently hasn't been updated for years. It supposdely was once one of the first things that came up when you did an image search for "nerd". This info used to be in the article, but it was edited out during one of the rounds of major revisions a while back.
As an aside, I sometimes wonder why no one suggests that Matt Taibbi might be the War Nerd? He's a better writer than the rest of those eXile people. Maybe it's a collaboration between him and Dolan. Or him and Ames. Or all three. I guess maybe that's a little far-fetched (hmmm, maybe those three plus Steve Sailer and La Griffe du Lion ...)? - Nat Krause 06:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Interesting, I didn't know a lot of that. I found some SIC columns from the eXile that indicate the book rumour is real (i.e. a real rumour, though not necessarily true). If you have an email or something from Sailer, could you host it somewhere or upload part of it to wikiquote, so we can cite it in the article?
BTW New EXILE ISSUE is up! Dsol 08:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Look what I found!

a larger, more zoomed out version of the eXile site's picture appears, as pointed out by Nat Krause, at http://www.ehem.no/bilder/nerd.jpg. But GIS also turns up the picture in another context: this dutch forum post. translation anyone? Note that the war nerd's first column, dated 21 Apr 02, predates the forum post by almost a year. The post seems consistent with the idea of the photo being a stock nerd shot Dsol 09:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC) Update: this bio on the norwegian site hosting the picture shows a face matching the Brecher picture. it's Roger Edvardsen, manager of the Norwegian band "Ehem."Dsol 09:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC) Update 2: Roger Edvardsen: Supervisor. Selsbanesgt 13, 8514 Narvik. Tlf. 769 42535, Jobb 769/12276, 769/12272, 769/12273 eller 769/12270, Fax: 769/12271, Mobil: 907/67203 E-mail: Roger.Edvardsen@narvik.kommune.no Dsol 09:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC) The plot thickens.... Update 3

 From: Anders Øgsnes <REDACTED@funn.no>      Mailed-By: funn.no
 To: REDACTED <REDACTED@gmail.com>
 Cc: REDACTED@ehem.no
 Date: Sep 6, 2005 1:08 PM
 Subject: RE: /bilder/nerd.jpg ???
 
 Hahaha!!
 Roger is also reading REDACTED@ehem.no, and have probably read yor mail.
 I can imagine the authjor of this column was in need of a "nerd-like" photo,
 and googled "nerd" and photo. Rogers funny face gazing  at you through a pair
 of glasses we found, was an easy victim here...
 Can we claim them for a billion, do you think?

 Anders
 Ehem

Ok, so the picture is a now confirmed fake. I'm taking it down from the top of the article, explaining that it's a fake in more detail, discussing different versions of the picture, and who ehem are. I ented to quote the email I got from Anders. Not quite sure how best to host/cite the email, though. Dsol 15:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Update 4 Leaving the picture in till I can figure out how to make a table of the different versions. Leaving the email I got out until I can find a way to host/cite it external to wikipedia. Citing it now would be a violation of no original research. The other stuff I put in, however, is just a bunch of references and does not constitute research. More soon... Dsol 15:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

--[The nerd is also the FARK Sharp Knees Studman69 guy. http://img109.exs.cx/img109/398/standards4wn.jpg]

[edit] More Edits

I did a little pruning of wordiness and I might do a bit more. I tend to laziness in the way of sources, but I'll try. I didn't put it in, but the SIC! section of the Exile has said 3 or 4 times that the War Nerd is working on a book.

I've read the Exile comprehensively. Taibbi is not the war nerd...he doesn't know enough about war. I mean, this ain't proven, but I'm fairly sure. Ames has been writing a book and speeded out for the last couple years, which has shown in mediocre articles. Dolan has been writing a book too. However I'm prepared to say with almost total certainty, that neither Ames nor Taibbi are the War Nerd.

However Dolan, in his book I read, mentions studying war material while in school in the mid-seventies at UC Berkeley. Considering the incongruity of a 12 year old studying Jane's manuals in 1979 (not impossible) this seems to be the strongest indication that John Dolan is the war nerd. In conjunction with the fake photo, Dolan's total nerdiness, fatness, and familiarity with California, etc., it's suggested.

However my experience with Dolan's style totally contradicts this. In addition it's tough to imagine him penning the recent "American Nationalism," article, considering Dolan's ideological awareness.

--Urb

I like the change in style. I'm fixing a spot of grammar here and there, and putting back in the quote about how he surfs war news at work, I like that little bit of info. Dsol

Okay, so here's

http://www.exile.ru/2001-October-18/feature_story.html

a Dolan "war nerd" article. It's significant he hasn't contributed anything in this style since then. He calls himself a "war nerd," also asserts near the end "Turks are cool," and refers to a "lake of glass" (a book of revelation reference), both recently invoked by the War Nerd. He espouses the basic "politics" of the War Nerd, also, obviously.

Edit--I seem to be the War Nerd nerd, but it occurs to me the Dolan "war nerd"-reminiscent article was "helped" along by Mark Ames. That the two of them could be to some degree collaborating on these is possible. But I think it equally possible it's an independent author.

Let history judge.

--Urb

Very cool find. I started on article on Dolan, and intend to work on it soon. This should definitely go into the is Gary Brecher Real section, though. Dsol 13:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Quotes

I like the quotes, but I don't think they should all be about the Iraq war. Dsol 21:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Is there any reason that Gary Brecher's history needs to have every fact explicitly linked to the article where it was derived? Basically, I think it's reasonable to say, as we do, that nearly everything we know about Brecher comes from his articles and then to simply use footnotes for the rest of the article.

[edit] shorter version of "Is Gary Brecher Real"

While I like the extra info (and just because it's circumstantial doesn't mean we can't put it in, this isn't a court of law), I agree that it has to be taken out for now, since its compilation and analysis constitutes original research. If we can find an in depth analysis on some website or even a weblog, though, it should go back in. Dsol 17:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Images

Am I missing something here? These are all promotional photos released for public consumption to spread awareness etc. etc., so I think this constitues fair use. We have a specific fair use tag for promophotos in fact. The only one that seems even slightly debatable to me as fair use is the zoomed out version of the eXile photo, but this appeared on a promotional bio page as well. I would further like to request that:

  • Anyone who has further reason to delete these not misalign the remaining images to their titles.
  • Anyone who wishes to delete theses images mentions something on the talk page about the fair use issue, and allows for some brief discussion before deleting.

Dsol 02:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I tagged logo for the War Nerd as "possibly infringing", because anon user 69.253.195.228 has suggested the Diet Coke can in the image may be a copyvio. --Fxer 00:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] removal of photos from ehem website

they seem to have been removed, either to reduce traffic (from this page perhaps?) or perhaps simply to cover up a vast conspiracy of some sort. in any case a google image search for "site:ehem.no Roger Edvardsen" still turns up a cached copy of roger1.fig i guess someone with the time should remove the links from the article, and metion that they used to exist.

[edit] Not notable

This article was absurd. I've deleted some of it; not sure it should even exist. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to nominate it for an AfD then. I think your edits were mostly positive, as a lot of this info was not necessary. See for example the version of the page before I started editing it. The page also took its current form due to debates as to whether it should be written in such a way as to imply that his identity is not invented. Some of the content could go back in, but that's a job for later, when someone can rework it in a better, less fanboy style. The only thing I'm putting back in now is the mention of his forthcoming book. Dsol 20:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Make sure you have a third-party source for all your edits from now on, please, including that he has a forthcoming book. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I replaced the article. Nearly the entire thing was axed because somebody decided it was "absurd" and "rediculous". I'm not sure what those criticisms mean. I am sure that Brecher's biography, writing, and fan base are relevant to this article. If you feel there are problems with this article, then I'd like you to work with me to change them. Ryan Utt


[edit] That Gary Brecher is Mark Ames

Here's a source. [1] The only problem is that we didn't, until recently, allow blogs to be used. There was a very recent change that I haven't checked the wording of yet, to allow blogs written by relevant professional people. This is the guy who interviewed Brecher/Ames for UPI, so that would be covered. I'll check it out tomorrow. There are several other similar sources, as I'm sure you know. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah this source came up before, but some people were against it. I'm fine with it. If you put it in, please also put back the table of pictures showing that the Brecher picture on the eXile website was actually of that the Norwegian musician.Dsol 10:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
What was the image of him you uploaded? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
There were several, they're in the edit history. They're all promo-phots from the eXile or the ehem website. Please leave me a message if you flag them for deletion due to lack of source, the link is easy enough to find but I don't have them on my watchlist. Dsol 19:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I take it back, this page was reverted and they're all in now. Also, it seems that Sailer doesn't say anything in that blog entry that he doesn't say in the interview. Another interesting tidbit is that bits of Brecher's intreview respondes seem to be cut and pasted from his articles. I put something in about this before, but it was (rightly I think) edited out as borderline OR. Dsol 19:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
What the photograph of Brecher that you deleted?
So Sailor says in the interview that there are rumors Brecher is Ames? Why did you delete it in that case? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
No I never deleted it. I put it in, and someone else took it out. It's in the history. Check out the linked sailor article too. Personally, I think it's Dolan. For one, he showed up a month or two before Brecher started having columns, for another, check out his lecture, linked from the eXile and his pages. Though I bet by now the different editors collaborate on it. In any case, Victor Davis Hanson seemed to have believed that he was "suspended without pay," which I can't help but find utterly funny. Dsol 21:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
This is getting really tiresome. I inserted into the intro that there is speculation that Brecher is Ames. You deleted it. Now you're saying it was in the Sailor interview and you didn't delete it. Please explain. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood me, or I misunderstood you previously. I mean that I never removed the images (which I just tagged with exile.ru and archive.org URLs btw). I didn't remove the specific speculation about who he might be the first time it showed up (in fact I cleaned it up and sourced it to sailor, see the history), but I did when you put it in again, unsourced. Between those events someone else had removed it as too speculative OR, and I consented. If you want to source it to Sailer, I recommend using the interview, though go ahead and use the blog too, I don't mind. I don't agree with your removing all the other info though, and two other recent editors seem to agree. If it's just a notability question maybe you should let it stand, or is there some policy reason not to put it in? Like I said, I don't care too terribly much. Dsol 21:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Please stop playing games. If you knew that Sailor was a source for that claim, then why did you remove it as unsourced, instead of simply adding the source?

As for your images, the links don't work, so these are copyright violations. Even if they are, as you say, promo photos for a band, and you've provided no evidence of that, they are not being used to promote the band, so we can't use them as promo pics. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Please calm down. I removed it instead of adding the source because I agreed with the earlier claim (before you got here) that such claims were too speculative, hard to source (sailer exception notwithstanding), and possibly original research. You don't need to become angry about this. The links to exile.ru and archive.org work fine for me, I'll double check them (I've had some trouble writing archive.org links before). The images come from a promotional website about the band: http://www.ehem.no . The links to the pictures on ehem.no are broken, but they're preserved at archive.org.
Regarding your comments on the image pages,
A)I don't see how you can say that there's no evidence about who the person is, have you even looked at the website they're from?
B)promophotos need not be used for promotional purposes to be fair use. note the text of the promophot tag: "It is believed that the use of this photograph to illustrate the person, product, or event in question...is fair use" nothing about it being used for promotional purposes. In fact, WP is never supposed to promote anyone, so if that were the case the tag would be useless. Dsol 21:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Regarding the picture hosted on the eXile site, I've left it flagged copyvio because it's such a wierd case. I will read up on the necessary issues during the one week before it's deleted. Dsol 22:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I am asking you once again to stop playing these childish games and try to focus:

  • 1. Stop removing copyvio tags from image pages.
  • 2. You cannot claim they've been released for promotional purposes and then not link to them.
  • 3. A link to a Google cache or other archive is no use. If the band wants them to be used, you have to provide evidence of that. A Google cache isn't evidence.
  • 4. If the band wants to be promoted via that photograph, it isnt helping them that it's on this page. We are not illustrating that person, product, or event, as you know very well, so you can't claim fair use.
  • 5. If you want to claim fair use for THIS page, you have to provide a rationale. You don't have one.
  • 6. Where in the Sailor article does it say that there is speculation that Brecher is Ames? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Please regfrain from accusing me of playing childish games. I find that, and your consistently aggressive tone, offensive. Please try to relax.
  1. I didn't realize how copyvio worked before. Thanks for explaining. I have commented at the appropriate place, and will leave all future copyvio tags intact.
  2. I did link to them. The links are now fixed, and accompanied by links to the ehem website.
  3. The archive is valid. It doesn't matter if the band doesn't want them used now; the archive of the picture and its context shows that they did at one time amd that is enough. There is nothing in fair use doctrine about the originator of the work being able to "recall" the fair use clause if they don't want the work shown anymore. I think this is obvious, but if you disagree, let's discuss it further at talk:copyvio.
  4. Promophoto fair use doesn't require that the page with the photo be used for illustrating the person, product or event specifically for promotional use. As I mentioned above, WP is not supposd to promote anyone at all. We, are, however, illustrating who he (Edvardson) is in this article, because that shows who Gary Brecher is not. A bold font does not really change this, so far as I can tell.
  5. As mentioned above, this page illustrates who Roger Edvardsen is. This is notable because it shows that the photo is not of Brecher. As for the photo from the eXile site, I agree that's not so simple, see my comments at the copyvio page.
  6. Sailer never proposed that Brecher was Ames, but he questioned the former's assumed identity: "Who are you? Are you really a fat guy in Fresno who works in data entry and lives in a duplex and can't stand the heat, or is that a literary character you made up?" This was in earlier version of the article. I don't really feel like explaining this anymore, so please see the history if the article's previous speculations on Brecher's true identity are not clear. Dsol 23:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I apologize if you feel my tone is too aggressive, but you really are wasting a lot of my time, although the more you try to waste it like this, the more I'm convinced that it's in fact time well spent. If you're a genuine WP editor, please try to coooperate by editing within our polices, and that involves learning what they are. If you're from eXile, perhaps you could ask the editor to e-mail me? Link on my user page.

Regarding fair use, you can only use it in limited circumstances, and if you're claiming fair use of a photo of X, it would almost always have to be used on an article related to X. This article is about someone who is misusing the photograph. We can't misuse it again to illustrate that misuse. This is like you wanting to repeat a libel in order to libel that person again.

If you have a photograph of whoever writes under the byline Brecher, by all means add it, so long as you know the copyright status. If you don't, then don't add one of someone else. Wikipedia isn't an extension of eXile. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the talk page of the eXile, I will not discuss speculations about my identity further. If you're interested in whether I'm a "genuine" editor, please look at my edit history. If you feel these discussions are a waste of your time, you're not obligated to have them, but you can't edit these pages without discussions and be surprised if your changes are reverted. Take your pick. I am not trolling or editing in bad faith, and my contributions bear this out.
There is nothing in wikipedia:fair use that says the image must be used in an article about Edvardsen. The closest things seems to be: "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." Clearly the images illustrate the relevant point that the photo of Brecher appearing in the eXile is of someone else.
I have never had any contact with eXile staff. Their email adresses are on their website, if you wish to get in email contact with them. Dsol 00:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
If you don't know who Brecher is, then how do you know he's not the person in the photograph? By all means argue your case on the copyright page. I'll be happy to abide by whatever decision is made there regarding whether they're allowed to stay on the site, but I'll resist them being used in this article. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
That's an interesting but slightly wierd point. We know from the photos, the website, and the above email correspondence with ehem that the photo is of Edvardsen. So unless Edvardsen is Brecher, the photo is not of Brecher. That theory seems relatively unlikely to me, i.e. that the War Nerd is actually a Norwegian blues musician who uses Brecher as a penname. Or did you mean something else?

I can definitely see some validity in your case for excluding the info, or at least the pictures. But this was reached after a fair amount of bickering about what info about Brecher's "realness" to put in, and I think it's a pretty good solution. I would have a much bigger problem with the removal of so much bio info, which is relevant to his writing in the same way Ames' is. Dsol 00:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed unsourced sections

I removed the following as unsourced opinion. If you want to add it, we'll need a credible third-party source who says this. "His columns show a comprehensive acquaintance with military history and combat technology. His writing eschews both compassion and ideology in favor of frank, visceral discussion of the reality of war, and does not hesitate to acknowledge an aesthetic or perhaps even fetishistic pleasure in the study, observation, and intimate knowledge of armed conflict."

I also removed the following because the links don't seem to bear it out. "The editors of the eXile have announced in their replies to readers' letters that Brecher is currently at work on his first book." [2],[3]

Can you say where exactly (quoting so I can search for it) in these links it says he is writing a book. Also, please note that embedded links aren't placed in round parentheses. One square bracket on either side, then place the link after the punctuation.

[edit] Inclusion/Exclusion of Bio info

here's a new section for comments and consensus building discussion on this topic. I for one think everything should go in, as it sheds light on the writing that makes Brecher notable. I am reverting back to a full version, and but removing the unsourcde opinion correctly noted by Slimvirgin. I don't see how the links fail to support the book claim, they make the specific claim that he's working on a book. It's cited as a claim in the article.

Slimvirgin, I'm glad your point of view is being heard here for the sake of balance, but I think you're removing too much info about a notable topic about which you haved professed no familiarity. I would urge you to think about how important reducing the amount of info here is before reverting a fourth time tonight. I do, however, see the need for a style change, and will try to incorporate the spirit of your edits without removing too much info Dsol 02:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Dsol, I'm asking you yet again to edit within our policies. Please don't add anything to the article that you don't have a credible source for. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Can you please quote what is said about the book exactly and say from which link? Second time of asking. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
No, this is not necessary. The quote is not required for the article, since the fact is easy to find in the linked source. Click on the article, and search for "book" in your browser window, hit find a few times. It's not a reasonable requirement for me to have to produce easy to find quotes that show my sources say what I say they do. If I weren't here, and had made these edits months ago, your not being able to find the quote in the source would not be justification to reject the source, and it's not now.
I will try to make sure everything is sourced well. Point out if I make any mistakes please. Please do not imply that our disagreements over what is mandated by policy is tantamount to a disregard for policy on my part. If that was not your intention, then please pardon my misunderstanding of your comment. Dsol 02:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Who worries about copyright violations of images on the INTERNET? Have you seen the Internet? Has any single lawsuit successfully been prosecuted with this violation? Sorry I'm not up to date on Wikipedia policy, but here we are. On the Internet. All this oculd possibly be is promotion of a pretty obscure musical group. If the law technically states this, it's more as a law of grammar.

Who even needs to source the Brecher book notions? I've read it several times in the letters portion of eXile.

The ugly "merge with John Dolan" thing needs to go. Nobody knows that for sure. This might be some literary persona and it might not.

Evidence for fakery: Suspension of War Nerd "without pay" for one issue sounds like some joke. Brecher's reply, next issue, "way to stand by your writers" sounds weird. But it's weird anyway, maybe Ames pussied out.

Also, Ames and Dolan were remarkably tepid in their reply to Hanson's claim that some left-wing ideology is remarkably similar to far right ideology (which Brecher espouses). Obviously they might have wanted to stand by Brecher, however they might have been stung, identifying themselves consciously and unconsciously with the now-popular "war-nerd" view, which they (once?) shared to some extent. A deliberate attempt to create inflaming schizophrenia and identification in readers boomerangs to inflamed schizophrenia and identification and confusion in the writers?

Against: A certain war-nerd bluntness seems hard to reconcile still with Ames and Dolan and their liberalness. You can still almost imagine Brecher raving about Michael Moore or something. Which may be the point of the persona...

[edit] Adding fuel to the fire...

John Dolan: Feb 06: "First, a public confession: as several readers pointed out, I made a disgraceful error in my article "Frey's Fall" (eXile #230), when I mis-identified Ralph Wiggum as "Ralph Wiggins." There is, of course, no "Wiggins" in the Simpsons. There can be no excuse for this sort of failure. The only question is deciding my punishment."

Gary Brecher, Aug 05: "I got a lot of flak for my last column, some of it justified. I made a lame, amateur mistake about the size of a Roman legion, adding a zero, and got called on it by a lot of alert readers. A Roman legion of Julius Caesar's time had 5,000 men, not 50,000. ... The only issue now is what my punishment ought to be."

definitely quite convincing. there has been no doubt in my mind for quite a while that dolan is the main if not only author of the brecher columns. However, this is both unverifiably and original (if admittedly quite good) research, and cannot go in according to WP's rules. Dsol 16:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I wasn't planning to add research to the article, although I think it's tolerated on talk pages ;)
But what do people think about adding War Nerd article links to other pages? (e.g. RPG to this) - it definitely provides more insight into various aspects of war that wikipedia might otherwise miss.
I suppose he'd count Wikipedians as "Equipment Geeks" with our lists of weapon specifications from DOD publications and official websites, and nothing to say "well actually, the M1 Abrams might have fancy hi-tech armour that can beat a T-55, but the Iraqi teenagers are quite capable of defeating it using a stack of old landmines under the road". Ojw 18:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trim for encyclopedic tone

I've removed a fair bit of self-referntial and scyophantic material from the article. Heading like "The legend" and extensive lists of quotes are not encyclopedic in tone. I've also removed most of the material that can only be verified from the exile website itself, as we're required to only reproduce material from primary sources that can also be confirmed via secondary sources. - brenneman{L} 23:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] War Nerd published by The American Conservative?

The guy he [Mark Greuter] was looking to work for was Pat Buchanan. The same guy whose magazine publishes the War Nerd.

--Sic in The eXile (2006 June 29 issue) http://www.exile.ru/2006-June-29/your_letters.html

I think they are being facetious. zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


I decided not to care anymore. Brecher's identity matters to me as much as deepthroat's did, i.e. not at all.

[edit] Dolan theory

Is anyone reminded of Joe Bob Briggs? 67.117.130.181 10:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brecher Real

Brecher's Real, man! He just remains obscure so the ex-hippies he works with won't try to get him fired. (and VDH won't try to get a restraining order against him) --71.141.102.54 06:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That is unreferenced and rings untrue, as Brecher has stated repeatedly that he has argued with his coworkers about war a lot, even if he always gave up in disgust. MadMaxDog 07:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/a/r/Talk%7EGary_Brecher_903e.html"