Talk:Mark Steyn/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Fairness

It's not fair to include an angry ad hominem counterattack just after every one of Mr. Steyn's notable viewpoints. If we're going to do this to those on the right then we need to also do it to people who are left of center and center. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.157.245 (talk)

I added a signature to your comment. Always sign your posts with FOUR TILDES. Anyway, Steyn's notable viewpoints can be contradicted by other, equally notable viewpoints as long as the editor cites equally notable people. Also, I'm looking at your contributions and you seem to be under the impression that Wikipedia is some kind of leftist conspiracy. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for why this is conduct unbecoming an editor. Commissarusa (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It is absolutely contrary to Wikipedia policy to allow debate within a BLP of politics, cited or not. Wikipedia is not a bulletin board or blog and content of articles should not appear to make it appear so.--Paul (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

(I added the IP address to the {{unsignedIP}} template.)

Commissarusa (a particularly unfortunate name in this context), the anon is quite right. Some Steyn-haters have been inserting non-notable attacks on Steyn into this article, contrary to Wikipedia rules. Just because somebody is notable in some small part of academia or journalism or left-wing blogs does not mean we can include their attacks on Steyn in this article.

I've just gone through the article and removed several attacks, as required by WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH, WP:V, WP:BLP, etc. I also copyedited the subsection about Christopher Hitchen's 'review' of America Alone (which I called "an essay about" AA, because it is not really a review).

Cheers, CWC 13:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Problem

"In his book "America Alone", Steyn posits that Muslim population growth has already contributed to a modern European genocide"

The quote that follows this posits the complete opposite.

No it doesn't.--Norm, Vancouver, Canada (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

2009-06 What Are We Stimulating?

• Could be useful: "The gangster regime in Sacramento is an alliance between a corrupt and/or craven political class wholly owned by a public-sector union-bureaucracy extortion racket." in What Are We Stimulating?, National Review , 2009-05-23. 89.2.241.2 (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Steyn on President Carter

On 15 Nov 2009, the following was added under "Positions." It was removed the same day by Chris Chittleborough on the basis of "editorializing." In my opinion, this removal is not warranted, and the section should be restored.

On Friday, 6 Nov 2009 Mark Steyn substituted for Rush Limbaugh. During one segment Steyn berated President Jimmy Carter for having been a weak President, in contrast to the supposedly strong President Reagan. According to Steyn, Carter's weakness was responsible for, among other things, emboldening the Iranian government to occupy the American embassy in Teheran and to take the U.S. hostages. Steyn went on to say that not even in Moscow was the U.S. embassy ever occupied, nor was the U.S. interest section in Havana ever occupied. Steyn failed to mention that the Teheran embassy was occupied by university srudents and that all the hostages were eventually released. Moreover, Steyn conveniently ignored that, under Reagan, more than 60 people were killed when the U.S. embassy in Beirut was bombed on 18 April 1983. Subsequently, 241 American servicemen were killed in the 23 October 1983 Beirut barracks bombing. In addition, during the Lebanon hostage crisis many American and western hostages were taken, some of whom were murdered. Italus (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It is editorializing. It is also non-encyclopedic. Steyn is a pundit. It is his job to say things. If we report everything he says and then argue about it, this will shortly turn into a political BBS instead of an encyclopedia. In fact, the current article is full of this kind of junk that needs removing.--Paul (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Then why is it that only the Position "Steyn on President Carter," which is 100% factual, keeps being deleted, while the other junk is not removed? Italus (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't had the time to go through the article and remove the junk, but it is on my list of things to do. Please help if you'd like.--Paul (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Accent

Even though Mark Steyn was born in Toronto, Canada, he speaks with a decidedly un-Canadian accent, probably due to having spent time at King Edward's School in Birmingham, UK. It might be worth mentioning somewhere in the article. Steyn's accent sounds like a blend of KES and Toronto, with the greater emphasis on KES. He'd blend in well on UK radio, but in the U.S. he stands out. Anyone who has heard him as a guest host for Rush Limbaugh or elsewhere knows exactly what I mean. —Quicksilver^{T @} 19:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

He does, but I think the mention of his time at the school should be fine. The accent isn't really notable enough for inclusion (unless it's already noted in a source somewhere).—DMCer™ 20:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Human Rights Activist?

Should we describe Steyn as a "Human Rights Activist"? (The last few edits have removed that phrase from the lede or added it back.) Per Wikipedia rules, we should only put well-sourced claims in BLPs, and the claim was sourced to "Mark's Bio" at his own website. That is not really adequate sourcing, so I'd prefer to not use that phrase.

On the other hand, the article makes it fairly clear that Steyn sees his campaign against the "Human Rights" bureaucracies as a fight for free speech, which arguably does make him a "Human Rights Activist". (Quoting from the first paragraph of "Mark's Bio": "as for being a leading Canadian human rights activist, he is actively trying to destroy the Canadian 'Human Rights' Commission, for reasons he explains in his book Lights Out: Islam, Free Speech And The Twilight Of The West.") Calling him a "Human Rights Activist" based on that is probably Original Research, but it gives the claim some support — enough that I'm not particularly upset by having that phrase in the lede.

We could say something about him being a "Human Rights Activist" in the body of the article. I suspect it's not notable enough to need mentioning, but I could be persuaded otherwise.

What do other contributors think? CWC 08:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say leave it in, as free speech certainly is a "human right" and he regularly engages in battles for free speech. I think the reference to his own website is OK for a BLP about him (wouldn't be appropriate for other BLPs), but maybe someone could find an outside reference to replace it. Drrll (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Rights Activist

I don't see how we can deny the Steyn is a human rights activist, if that is how he describes himself, if he has gotten rewards for his activism, and if various sources have described him as such. There is no definition of human rights activist which excludes him, so far as I am aware. If there are sources which say he is not one they can be added or used to balance the description. μηδείς (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you agree to "He describes himself as a human rights activist." as an alternate phrasing? Btw, I emphatically do not agree that Mark Steyn would be a valid source for the statement, "Mark Steyn is a human rights activist," and I have yet to see this claim mentioned in any reliable source. CJCurrie (talk) 04:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I am going to make a minor edit for now for conciseness, without conceeding the point one way or the other. I'll have to look into it. The problem is that the qualification implies an editorial judgment. The definition provided in the article definitely applies to him. I will have to see how other so called human rights activists are treated. μηδείς (talk) 04:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Local newspaper describes Steyn as a "human rights activist": http://www.wickedlocal.com/stoughton/features/x454338786/Best-selling-author-to-talk-on-liberty-at-Ahavath-Torah#axzz1FnQW7ELg. I think that's enough to verify that he's not merely "self-described".--Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The "article" appears to be a press release, presumably reprinted verbatim from Steyn's press kit. One way or the other, I don't think a passing adjectival description in a local paper stands as proof positive of the matter. CJCurrie (talk) 06:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

We would need a better source to call him this. TFD (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

We are not entitled to second-guess newspaper editors because we fear that in this case (like millions of others) they might be using a press release as a source. The argument begins with the POV premise that Steyn is not a rights activist and seeks to deny the plain words of a verifiable source based on what we imagine went on in the editorial office. Using our imaginations to counter a printed source based on our preconceptions to the contrary is OR. μηδείς (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I am removing "self identified" as an inappropriate editorial comment. Steyn is specifically identified as a human rights activist in the Albany Times Union, the Newark Examiner, the removed Stoughton MA reference, by the Goldwater Institute, the Jewish World Review, Jewsih Boston, the Christian World View, and other sources, and as a free speech activist/advocate in many more. The link to the description in this article is justified by the verbiage: "Human rights defender is a term used to describe people who, individually or with others, act to promote or protect human rights" and the fact that the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights specifically mentions freedom of speech as a fundamental human right with articles 18, 19 and 20 expounding upon the theme.

Let's take these points in order: (i) my concern is not that the newspaper in question is using a press release as a source; my concern is that the newspaper is using a press release verbatim (i.e., that the "article" in question is simply a reposting of Steyn's press kit), (ii) leaving its character aside, the passing adjectival reference in the article in question is a very weak source and certainly not proof positive in the matter, (iii) I've seen no evidence that the local paper of Stoughton MA (population c. 27,000) is a credible source in the matter; if you have specific evidence from a more credible source, please identifiy it, (iv) in general, Wikipedia should not simply repeat a subject's preferred talking points as though they were verifiable facts.

For these reasons, I'm going to adjust the wording again. I will note that I've made an effort to come up with a neutral, compromise wording; I would appreciate some reciprocation on this front. CJCurrie (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, you have removed the profered source, leaving only the writer's bio. You should not remove a source unless you provide a better one. The Albany Times Union source is able to be found on a google search but the page doesn't seem to be archived, for that reason I didn't add it. Albany and Boston are hardly hick towns. Again, the source does not say that he "identifies as" a human rights activist. It says he is a human rights activist. The Goldwater Institute identifies him as a "leading human rights advocate". One doesn't self identify as a leading human rights activist - others declare you one.

The point of adding the source is to allow people to read it and judge for themselves. I myself would probably say free speech advocate rather than human rights activist, but I don't get my druthers. The underlying assumption in these qualifying edits is that the claim is not true, it is just something he says about himself. That is a POV. On an objective basis there is no such thing as a human rights activist license. He does, however, advocate for free speech which is certainly a human right according to the UN, and his advocacy fits the definition in the linked article on human rights defenders.

I am going to remove the qualification again as being an editorial comment not in the source. I would be happy with some other verbiage such as "free speech advocate" if someone could find a source to support it. μηδείς (talk) 05:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Once again, let's take these in order: (i) I removed the "profered source" because it was an extremely weak source for the claim that was being asserted, (ii) Steyn's promotional biography describes him as a human rights activist, and it is therefore accurate (and not at all "editorializing") to say that Steyn identifies as a human rights advocate, (iii) the Goldwater Institute can hardly be described as a disinterested party to the matter, (iv) the underlying assumption in these qualifying edits is, in fact, that the sources under consideration assert rather than prove Steyn's status as a human rights advocate, and (v) passing adjectival references in what are still fairly minor published sources do not resolve the matter.

I'm going to (i) change the wording again, and (ii) call for others to look into the matter. CJCurrie (talk) 05:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stop removing sources with the effect of making it look as if Steyn is the only one who uses this terminology, and please stop adding unsourced editorial comments. μηδείς (talk) 05:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Response: (i) I removed the source because it was an extremely weak source for the claim being made, (ii) it was never my intent to suggest that Steyn is the only one who uses this terminology, I disagree that this was the effect created, and in any event the newer wording has the effect of addressing this concern, (iii) my changes were neither "unsourced" nor "editorial comments." Once again, I would request that you reciprocate in my effects to find neutral, acceptable wording. CJCurrie (talk) 06:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't see anyone reading that last edit without seeing the heavy hand of the editor behind it. The wording is certainly not neutral. It is synthesis of the worst kind. You are not entitled to comment on the sources, just reflect them. Your concern that Steyn not simply be described according to the words of the sources strikes me as anti-Steyn POV. I have posted an rfc and a note at the conservative notice board. μηδείς (talk) 06:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I've already addressed your concerns, and suffice it to say that I strongly disagree with the conclusions you've drawn. By way of an addendum, I should note that the Goldwater Institute reference (like the Stoughton reference) is a modified press release. It might help your claim if you could demonstrate the existence of a news article or editorial from a credible journal that describes Steyn as a human rights advocate. CJCurrie (talk) 06:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Further addendum: I've raised the matter on the Canadian Wikipedians' Notice Board and the Islam notice board. CJCurrie (talk) 06:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not "my claim". Another editor added it, using the verbiage of the source. It is you who have continuously added these editorial comments not in the source. It is OR/synthesis, and adding unsourced claims is a BLP violation. If you want to argue that the statement should be removed, please do so. But unsourced editorial weasel words are not an appropriate solution. μηδείς (talk) 06:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to your claim that Steyn should be described as "a human rights activist." As to the rest, I will reiterate that I strongly disagree with the conclusions you've drawn. CJCurrie (talk) 06:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment- Looks like he is a self-described 'Human rights activist'. The sources listed use the same language as the subjects bio, but offer no examples. I think we would need reliable sourcing for this type of claim to be more than 'self described'. Or, if there is no real recognition by any Human Rights groups, we could say 'considers himself to be'. Dave Dial (talk) 06:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, its a difficult question. What does "human rights activist" really mean? Let me start with an example, using a different term. Is Charlize Theron an "African-American"? Well, on one level, of course she is. On another level, of course she isn't. She's from Africa, and she's American, so she's African-American. But the term "African-American" is an idiom - it means both more and less than the sum of its component words. And Theron would discover this if she tried to qualify as an African-American for some affirmative-action program that benefits African-Americans. "African-American" means "black person from America", notwithstanding that that is not what the words say.

Similarly with "human rights activist". On one level, of course Steyn is a human rights activist. He's an activist, and he's for human rights, or at least some human rights. On another level, of course he's not. Because "human rights activist" is an idiom. It means... well, something like "person who is part of a particular community, with a particular history, who shares the values of that community, and who is active in espousing and implementing those values"

It's quite complicated, but the historical background of "human rights" is things like opposition to slavery, then moving on to equal rights for women, equal rights for minorities, equal rights for gays, and so forth. It's Martin Luther King and people like that. The preamble to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states "Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world"; Article 1 states "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood".

And so forth and so forth, I can't necessarily define it but you get what I mean. Does Steyn fit into any of that? No, he doesn't, not really. He has a different focus altogether.

Charlize Theron could say "Well, I'm an African-American, so I am entitled to a job in the Fire Department even though my test score was lower than some other applicants, because a court ruling said that African-Americans are entitled X number of positions" (not that Theron needs or wants a job in a fire department, but you get what I mean). But if she did that, we would recognize this for what it was: being deliberately and disingenuously literal in defining an idiom by its component words for personal benefit.

Same deal with Steyn. He's not a human rights activist and doesn't care a fig for the thrust of the human rights agenda. He's just deliberately muddying the waters for his own benefit.

Jesus Christ, the head of the Aryan Brotherhood could claim he's just advocating for the simple human right of people to decide who they want to allow to shop in their store or whatever, and if we can get a few lackeys and mirrors and press releases and blogs and local papers to parrot this, are we going to call him a "human rights activist" too? Herostratus (talk) 08:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If you were at all familiar with Steyn, you'd be more than aware that he is most definitely in favour of all the human rights you mention above, and actively fighting for their protection. Just because he isn't also into whale-saving and multiculturalism doesn't mean the aforementioned facts are null and void. What it seems to come down to is whether or not a right winger can be a human rights activist. To argue not is a pretty bold line of reasoning to take.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Please provide sources for those groups recognizing Steyn for his work in "actively fighting" for their protection? Also, excuse me if I do a double-take anytime someone mentions "multiculturalism" is a disdainful fashion. It definitely reeks of William Pierce(1,2) and the National Alliance. Also, I don't see anyone making the straw man argument that excludes all right-wingers from being human rights activist. Examples please. Dave Dial (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would certainly say that if you're not "into multiculturalism", or at any rate if you're opposed to multiculturalism, that alone would create a very strong presumption that you're not a human rights activist. The human rights movement as it is constituted has a definite agenda that every person should have the right to fully live and express their cultural identity, notwithstanding that they might be a minority in the place where they happen to be living, that a person's cultural identity should come solely from within themselves, and that no person should ever be pressured, overtly or covertly, to take on or display cultural forms and behaviors that is are odds with their own belief or inner life.

Perhaps it would helpful if you think of "human rights activist" as a single word, "humanrightsactivist" which has a specific meaning.

Steyn is free to do either of these two things: 1) find a new term - let's say, "human development advocate" or "cultural co-gathering advocate" or whatever and use that, or 2) try to make the world accept a new and changed definition of "human rights" that might include things like "right of access to and participation an unfettered business market free of excessive state regulation" or whatever. Words do change their meaning, and it wouldn't be at all unheard of for something like that to happen. But the world needs to accept this changed definition first before we can use it.

By the same token I can't say "I'm a conservative, and by that I mean the state should seize the means of production and run them for the benefit of the workers" and expect to have my Wikipedia article say "Herostratus is a conservative activist and commentator...". Right?

Maybe in fifty or a hundred years "human rights" will be understood to mean "the basic right to live among whom you please, and serve whom you please, and have your children go to school with whom you please, even (or even especially) if that means excluding non-white people from your town or place of business or even your country". (I'm not saying Steyn believes anything like that, just giving an example of how words can change their meaning over time.) Who knows? But it doesn't mean that now and we need to use terms as they are currently understood. Otherwise we are participating in and actually advancing an untruth. Herostratus (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I agree that unless there is stronger sourcing, it should be kept as "self-described." Drrll (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

And yet his core argument is that fundamental human rights like freedom of speech are trampled in the name of multiculturalism. This thread is beginning to breach WP:NOTAFORUM. Let's bring it back to policy. While we're throwing straw man accusations about, "A nazi could call himself a human rights activist" is about as straw as it gets. Sure, he's free to call himself that, but he's not free to get reported in the local newspaper as actually being one. Steyn, however, has been. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that since the claim that he actually is a human rights activist is 1) highly contentious and 2) probably not true, that we'd want AAA-level refs - the NY Times, The Economist, the LA Times, sources like that. Local papers no good here. (I do recognize that we sometimes have to include statements that aren't true, if they are backed by good sources. But let's minimize that if we can, by using AAA-level sources here. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sasgan.) Herostratus (talk) 03:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think calling him a human rights activist is an extraordinary claim, and I'm satisfied that the sources establish that he is. But what is odd is that there is no content describing his "activism," and ironically a human rights group filed a complaint against him. Lionel (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that someone has returned the description of Steyn as a "human rights activist" to the article, notwithstanding that the discussion here was going in the other direction. This doesn't strike me as a particularly sound decision.

I've returned the reference to Steyn being a "self-describing human rights activist." In a previous compromise wording, I gave some weight to descriptions reprinted by the Goldwater Institute and a small Massachusetts paper. I now think this was an error; the sources aren't very notable, and they were just re-copies of Steyn's press kit in any case. The current wording is fair and accurate. CJCurrie (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

What press kit? The wording of the news articles is different to his website bio. @Lionelt, one of Steyn's core arguments is that the Canadian Human Rights Commission destroys real human rights like freedom of speech in its campaign to enforce vague "rights" like the right not to be offended. I think the article does describe this activity in some detail, although perhaps for context it should be made more explicit that this is where he "fights for human rights" or whatever. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That's absurd. That is like arguing a Neo-Nazi is a 'human rights activist' because he wants to fight for 'free speech' in order to propagate hateful propaganda about Jews and Blacks. There are no reliable sources that are going to support that type of definition. In my opinion, even adding the 'self-described' caveat is pushing it. Making the claim outright is absolutely wrong. Dave Dial (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

We've already had the Neo-Nazi argument. Nazis who fight for free speech generally also fight for the subjugation of various minority groups. Hardly fighting for human rights, and hardly applicable to Steyn, who advocates the elimination of both positive and negative discrimination. I guess your main problem is that Steyn has in fact been described by reliable sources as a "human rights activist". --Yeti Hunter (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

When Steyn was brought before the B.C. Human Rights Council, Fox News Channel invited the Canadian neo-nazi Paul Fromm to defend him, and described Fromm as a "free speech activist". See: (Paul Fromm (activist)#Fox News interview.) But the article on Fromm merely reports how he was described and does not assert it as a fact. TFD (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources

An editor has sourced a contentious statement to three refs.

First, his bio at his own website. While this is fine for some uncontentious info such as date of birth etc., I would say a person's own website would almost never be a good source for contentious and disputed assertions. Right? This seems something most people would agree on.

Second, a publication by the Goldwater Institute. But the article on that entity describes it as an advocacy group. So that is not a good ref. This is not a left-right issue but a Wikipedia issue - I would be extremely reluctant to use The Nation and so forth as a ref for anything contentious. In fact, jumping to The Nation website and grabbing the first quote that comes up, I get "In another blow to democracy, Governor Scott Walker's consigliere, Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, announces plan..."

It would OK to use this article as a ref for the statement "Scott Fitzgerald was called Scott Walker's 'consigliere' by The Nation..." But not for the statement "Scott Fitzgerald is Majority Leader of the Wisconsin Senate and consigliere to Governor Scott Walker..."

Do you see the what I'm saying? Does this make sense?

According to WP:RS, there are two types of sources that are presumed to be good: peer-reviewed academic journals, and journalistic entitities that are known to have a rigorous fact-checking operation. Everything else is up for discussion. The Goldwater Institute may be fine folks, but they have an agenda and are not neutral journalists or scholars, and we can't take their word for it on matters of disputed and contentious characterizations.

It would be an OK ref for the statement "Steyn has been called by some...". (Well, they would be OK if there were more "somes" than just them. Unless more are forthcoming, it would have to be more along the lines of "Steyn has been called by the Goldwater Institutee...".) But not as proof that a statement is objectively true (which, after all, is the point of refs).

The third ref is an article in the Stoughton Journal. What is the Stoughton Journal? Well, Stoughton, Massachusetts is a mid-size town in the middle of Massachusetts. There is no article for the Stoughton Journal, but it's a weekly community newspaper for the town and looks to be typical of type. It's hard to find much about them, but according to this it has a circulation of 1,750, and it "covers Stoughton and the surrounding communities of Norfolk County, Massachusetts". I think that's likely accurate and I would consider them to probably be a reliable source for news of Stoughton and the immediate area. I would not consider them a reliable source for covering contentious issues of national and international scope.

According to WP:RS, there are two types of sources that are presumed to be good: peer-reviewed academic journals, and journalistic entitities that are known to have a rigorous fact-checking operation. Everything else is up for discussion.

Now, if the material was in, let's say, the Los Angeles Times, that'd be different. Comparing the Stoughton Journal to the Los Angeles Times, we see that the Journal has a circulation of 1,750 weekly. The Times has a circulation of 600,000 daily (and 900,000 on Sunday). I don't see them as being in the same ballpark there.

We don't know what kind of editorial standards, fact-checking operation, and expertise in independent coverage of national and international political news the Journal has, but if it's typical of other community weeklies of the type it's not too high. Car crash on Central Street? Reliable. New principal at the local middle school? Reliable. Whether Mark Steyn is or is not actually a human rights activist? Not reliable.

I would say this is pretty clear. If we can't reach an agreement on this, we can take these sources to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources noticeboard or run an RfC, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Let me also make a comment on the Stoughton Journal article. It reads as a promotional ad from Ahavath_Torah, a very conservative, anti-Islamic synagogue that has been criticized by various outlets for it's activism. In the 'article', it has pricing for the event, contact information for Ahavath_Torah, and reads exactly like an promotional ad for the event. I would hardly consider that as a reliable source in this matter. Dave Dial (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

If this were a question of unsourced material, you'd simply be deleting the comment. Not one source has been adduced contradicting the claim. Rather it is a case of certain editors not thinking the claim is fair, correct, or accurate according to their own personal ideas of what a human rights activist "is" - the comparison of free speech advocacy to Neo-Nazism above makes the POV quite clear.

The referenced sources, however, do not say that Steyn describes himself as a human rights activist - they merely refer to him as one.

These are the two issues. First, it's entirely inappropriate to argue that the only possible wording is that Steyn "describes himself" as a human rights activist while simultaneously deleting sources that describe him as such independently. Second, the words "describes himself" are not in the sources, they are editor's personal POV and synthesis. μηδείς (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Integrating influence on Anders Behring Breivik

Apparently, Steyn served as inspiration for the Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik (according to the Globe & Mail, anyway). Not the only inspiration, but one inspiration.

Is this something that should be worked into the article? Yes, without question. It's an important outgrowth of Steyn's work, sheds some light on his influence, and places his work in context. To ignore this would be uncalled for and would deprive the reader of important, useful, and germane information about Steyn and his corpus. The question is, how to work this into the article? I put it in the lede, and that was reverted; very well, but how should it be put in? A separate section, or in the lede but phrased differently, or in another section, or what? Herostratus (talk) 13:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Would you support adding to Al Gore's BLP that he was an influence on Ted Kaczynski? A copy of Gore's Earth in the Balance was found in Kaczynski's shack. Drrll (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about that, I'd have to know more. It's possible, but I'd tend to doubt it. I haven't read Gore's book, but I'd tend to doubt that it's a thinly-veiled incitement to violent armed resistance, which apparently does apply to Steyn. A couple of other instances are that Kaczynski was basically a lunatic while Breivik is basically a revolutionary terrorist (more like a Narodnik or Timothy McVeigh than Kaczynski) and more importantly, Breivik wrote a lengthy manifesto where he specifically cites Steyn and indicates that he is familiar with Steyn's ideas and that Steyn influence his development as a revolutionary terrorist. That's a whole nother level than simply having someone's book in one's library.

We obviously can't write Breivik's article without reference to Steyn, and it would be an unwarranted one-way street to not conversely include Breivik in Steyn's article. It's a connection that Steyn would probably prefer to downplay, but Breivik's activities are a logical denouement of Steyn's writing just as Lenin follows from Marx, and it'd be silly to pretend there's no connection. Herostratus (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"Obviously?" No. The fact that I mention you establishes no real fact about you. Breivik also quoted "Churchill, Gandhi, Orwell, Jefferson, John Locke, Edmund Burke, Bernard Shaw, Mark Twain, and the U.S. Declaration of Independence". μηδείς (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

What "thinly-veiled incitement to violent armed resistance" has Steyn made? Actually, Gore's book wasn't "simply having someone's book in one's library." Gore's book was the only book he had and it was dog-eared, underlined, marked, and well-worn. While Kacynski may have not directly referenced Gore in his manifesto, the influence of Gore's writings is likely easy to establish, as some have done. It would hardly be surprising given Gore's extreme rhetoric in the book:

• He called internal-combustion automobiles "a mortal threat...more deadly than that of any military."
• "Modern industrial civilization, as presently organized, is colliding violently with our planet's ecological system. The ferocity of its assault on the earth is breathtaking, and the horrific consequences are occurring so quickly as to defy our capacity to recognize them, comprehend their global implications, and organize an appropriate and timely response. Isolated pockets of resistance fighters who have experienced this juggernaut at first hand have begun to fight back in inspiring but, in the final analysis, woefully inadequate ways."
• "Now warnings of a different sort signal an environmental holocaust without precedent. But where is the moral alertness that might make us more sensitive to the new pattern of environmental change? Once again, world leaders waffle, hoping the danger will dissipate. Yet today the evidence of an ecological Kristallnacht is as clear as the sound of glass shattering in Berlin. We are still reluctant to believe that our worst nightmares of a global ecological collapse could come true; much depends on how quickly we can recognize the danger. How much more evidence is needed by the body politic to justify taking action?"
• Besides invoking Hitler, Gore also invoked the specter of Stalin and Mussolini.

My point is that it is at least as easy but unfair to paint Gore as somehow responsible for the writings and actions of Kacynski, just as it is in regards to Steyn. Drrll (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't take away that point from your argument, at all. Rather I'd say that if all you say is true then of course Gore should be referenced in Kacynski's article and it he's not it's a serious omission. If all that you say is true then why on earth wouldn't we do this? There are a couple of caveats:

• We'd need reliable refs for all this, of course. And no original research -- "Breivik quoted Steyn as saying such-and-such" is not parallel to "Kacynski used language that closely approximated Gore's, in the opinion of the person editing this Wikipedia article".
• Referencing Gore in Kacynski's article is one thing; referencing Kacynski in Gore's article might (I say might) be a different matter, since Gore is extremely notable. The notability differential between Gore (A United States vice-president and presidential candidate and Nobel Prize winner) and Kacynski (a random homicidal lunatic) is very very much greater than that between Steyn and Breivik. This is arguable, though.
• In my view, the important thing about Kacynski is that he was insane. IIRC he lived for many years utterly estranged from human company in a hole in the ground, for instance. To the extent that he was "influenced" it was more like the way Mark David Chapman was "influenced" by J. D. Salinger: Gore (and Salinger) were there, and if it hadn't have been Gore (or Salinger) it might have been, I don't know, secret thought transmissions from Ken Boyer or something. Breivik's a homicidal maniac but is no more a lunatic than (say) Mohammed Atta et al. This also is arguable, though.
• But bringing together the previous two points: Gore's extreme notability makes him, like any very famous person, a lightning rod for lunatic fixations, but so what. (For instance, some people -- yes, plural -- were convinced that Bob Hope was violently insane and was broadcasting evil thoughts to the populace during his TV programs, but this has little to do with Hope and tells us nothing useful about him.)

But anyway, all that is for the Kacynski and Gore articles, are which outside the normal scope of my interest. We don't generally hold the viewpoint "Article A is missing valuable data, therefore the corresponding data should be removed from Article B". I'm not seeing why the absence of material on the (arguably established and important) connection between Kacynski and Gore has anything to do with the absence of material on the (incontravertibly established and important) connection between Breivik and Steyn. Herostratus (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Steyn's appearence in the manifesto belongs, if anywhere, on the Breivik page in a long list of people quoted therein - it is NOT relevant to Steyn's biography, views or criticism thereof. If Steyn had advocated his actions, or personally corresponded with Breivik, that would be different. But we're not talking about that. To include mention of it here is a blatant BLPvio and its addition will continue to be reverted as such.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

A problematic paragraph

I recently removed the following paragraph from the "Criticism of multiculturalism" section:

After Steyn ridiculed Ayatollah Khomeni for giving advice on child abuse and bestiality,refSteyn, Mark (April 28, 2006). "Celebrate tolerance, or you're dead". Maclean's. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)/ref some Canadian leftists accused Steyn of concocting his facts, leading Steyn to pen a refutationrefSteyn, Mark (30 November 2008). "The Shagged Sheep". SteynOnline.com./ref which blogger Deborah Gyapong said made them a "worldwide laughingstock".refGyapong, Deborah (30 November 2008). "How to make yourself a laughingstock around the world"./ref Both his chief critics eventually apologized.refSteyn, Mark (4 December 2008). "The Doctor is In". SteynOnline.com./ref

There are several rather serious problems here. I'll focus on two for the time being:

(i) Deborah Gyapong's blog post on this matter would be more notable if Gyapong were herself a notable public figure. Since she isn't, I'm not certain it's encyclopedic to include her defense of Steyn in this context. More accurately, I'm certain it's not.

(ii) Our only source for Steyn's critics apologizing is Steyn. Unless there's a general consensus that Steyn can be trusted to represent the views of his opponents, this isn't good practice.

User:Medeis has restored this paragraph, on the argument that "these comments are properly attributed." As regards the Gyapong quote, this is accurate but irrelevant (my concern has to do with notability, not the accuracy of the quotation). As regards the claim that "Both his chief critics eventually apologized," I'm not at all persuaded that sourcing this to Steyn is consistent with Wikipedia policy.

If this "controversy" was genuinely significant (which is another of my concerns ...), there should be credible secondary sources that we could use for our coverage.

I could add that the paragraph doesn't directly pertain to Steyn's criticisms of multiculturalism (read it again if you don't believe me), and shouldn't be included in that section. CJCurrie (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It was a wildly popular exchange among Steyn readers, but probably not encyclopaedic if the only good sources about it are Steyn himself and other bloggers. I also agree that it's more of a flame war than actual "criticism of multiculturalism". Keep it out until better sources are provided.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is best left out. TFD (talk) 04:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no problem with the current source so long as it is attributed. If this were a case of saying that some othe Scandal X deserved more weight that would be one thing, but there is no reason to doubt that he criticized the Ayatollah's Green Book, that he was criticised by multiculturalists, and that he responded to the controversy. This is not a problem of inadequate sources, it is a problem of wanting to delete material which is not at doubt. WP:ATTRIBUTE solves any problems here. μηδείς (talk) 04:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You need an independent source that explains this. "Multiculturalists"? Sorry, but we do not write articles using partisan jargon. TFD (talk) 04:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are objecting to here. μηδείς (talk) 05:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The relevance of this matter is certainly an issue. Unless there's compelling evidence from a reliable secondary source it was anything more than a quick internet flare-up, we should leave it out. (By the way, Khomenei wrote a Blue Book; Gaddafi wrote a Green Book.) CJCurrie (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought it was aoi like the Japanese. μηδείς (talk) 05:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

People declaring they don't find things "significant" establishes nothing about the subject, only about their POV opinion of the subject. The material is verifiable, can be neutrally attributed, and no one has explained how this article is running out of paper, or, most importantly for the article, how some other controversy has more weight than it. Until WP:SIGNIFICANCE becomes a real policy, personal opinions of "importance" by people who wish Steyn weren't a number one best seller versus actual sources are irrelevant in a comprehensive encyclopedia. What part of this is not unverifiable, unattributable, or outweighed do you have a problem with? μηδείς (talk) 05:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting interpretation of policy, and it also happens to be completely wrong. It's well established that Wikipedia articles should contain only noteworthy (i.e., encyclopedic) information (WP:NOTABILITY is a guideline) and not be weighed down with trivia or news/current events stories with no lasting significance. In this case, no evidence has even been presented for the matter's notability: the only sources we're using are a non-notable blog post and an online post from Steyn himself. If there are no reliable secondary sources that found this matter worthy of comment, we shouldn't include it. (This, btw, is before we get into the other problems with the current edit, some of which I've listed above.) CJCurrie (talk) 05:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:POLICYWISE Epic fail. WP:NOTABILITY is an article level policy, not a content level policy: [[1]]. You need to prove this material is squeezing out some more important material. Good night. μηδείς (talk) 05:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The same principle applies to events as to articles; if there are no reliable secondary sources attesting to the significance of an event, we shouldn't include it (even on a page about a notable public figure). In any event, you might have noticed that my comment about WP:NOTABILITY was parenthetical; I wasn't suggesting that the case against the problematic paragraph rests on this guideline, which is what you seem to have inferred. CJCurrie (talk) 04:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of policy fails, I might as well point out that the WP:BURDEN of evidence rests entirely with you. You need to prove that this material is well sourced enough to merit inclusion. Right now your argument boils down to the fact that it was picked up by some obscure blogger, and repeated by Steyn himself in several articles and/or blog posts. I find neither argument compelling. It's simply not an important event to include in a biography of the man.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing that the entire incident is as weak as its weakest source, which is not the case, nor is such an weakest link interpretation wikipedia policy. Steyn's comments are verifiable and were published in Maclean's, NRO, and his own website. Gyapong's blog is perfectly sufficient for what it does support, her own attributed words on the subject. There is no doubt that any of the attributed words came from the cited source. Wikipedia is a comprehensive encyclopedia. Were the article too long (for a multiple best-selling author active in several fields and with an international audience, it's actually somewhat small) the solution would be to split the information into a sub-article, not to delete it. The only other argument raised, undue weight, would apply if, for example, this article were to read in the lead: "Mark Steyn, who Deborah Gyapong says made fools of certain multiculturalists in the Ayatollah's Little Bluegreen Book incident, has also published some books and appeared on TV." That would be undue weight. But including the material with certain other matters in the appropriate subsection of the article without squeezing out something we find more important is not undue weight. We are beginning with the assumption that the comment should be deleted and then looking for policy to support that aim after the fact, but you can't get there from here. μηδείς (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually I'm arguing that the incident is just weak, period. It's a borderline violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:TRIVIA. Want to add that he refers to Law Is Cool bloggers as Law is Kool-aid? How about the well verified (by steyn and bloggers) incident about receiving the Sappho Award from two scandinavian babes who were not, in disappointing fact, lesbians? George Soros funds the transcripting of his regular stint on Rush? His site includes a list of news stories from around the world that demonstrate a particular point he is trying to make? Yes, bandwidth is plentiful, but this is just not encyclopaedic.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Update: I've posted this dispute on the Canadian Wikipedians' Notice Board. CJCurrie (talk) 04:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

If I may weigh in, I'd agree that we're probably better off without the paragraph. It's a small thing, really, and I'm not seeing how it's useful for an encyclopedia-level of understanding of the subject. The gist of Mark Steyn is that Steyn says such-and-such, and some people love him, and some people hate him, and that comes across well enough without the disputed paragraph. It's not worth fighting a huge battle over. Herostratus (talk) 12:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

To review...

Let's review the arguments that User:Medeis has made for retaining the disputed paragraph:

(i) "Steyn's comments are verifiable"

Not relevant. No-one disputes that Steyn made the remarks attributed to him; this discussion is about the encyclopedic merit of the section in question. Verifiability is a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition, for retaining content.

(ii) "Steyn's comments ... were published in Maclean's"

Not relevant. Steyn's original comments about Khomenei were published in a Maclean's article. The subsequent discussion, involving Gyapong and others, was not.

(iii) "Gyapong's blog is perfectly sufficient for what it does support, her own attributed words on the subject."

Not relevant. Again, no-one is disputing that Gyapong actually made the one-sentence comment attributed to her. The concern, as will be evident to anyone who has actually read the blog posting in question, pertains to its encyclopedic significance.

(iv) "Wikipedia is a comprehensive encyclopedia" without space issues and, therefore, there is no cause to delete this information.

Completely off the mark. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, at either the article level or the content level. Unless Medeis is seriously prepared to make a case that trivial events in the lives of notable people are inherently encyclopedic (which is preposterous on its face value) then this user needs to make a compelling case for retaining the specific information in the disputed paragraph. So far, no such case has been presented.

(v) There is no cause to remove the paragraph on the grounds of undue weight.

Not relevant. The section pertaining to Steyn's opposition to multiculturalism could certainly be expanded, and I suspect that enough material may be found in reliable secondary sources to permit us to do so. We needn't resort to padding the section with highlights from a non-notable exchange, let alone one that doesn't directly pertain to Steyn's views on multiculturalism (which, btw, is another point Medeis has still not engaged with).

(vi) Efforts to delete the paragraph reflect certain editors' "POV opinion of the subject."

Not relevant. An editor might consider Steyn to be (for instance) a pandering charlatan devoted to propagating insultingly simplistic caricatures of entire cultures, and yet have spot-on advice for ameliorating the quality of this article all the same. To put it another way, you cannot simply dismiss someone's arguments on the basis of their supposed real-life POV (however tempting it may be at times).

Have I left anything out? CJCurrie (talk) 05:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Another contributor has now made the following justification for including the disputed paragraph (which, btw, doesn't contain any actual reference to sheep-shagging, the edit summary notwithstanding): "Note that this is a very terse summary of a paradigmatic (of Steyn-vs-left) dispute; the value is in the refs rather than the body text."

My responses:

(i) The paragraph is not, in fact, a very terse summary of a paradigmatic (of Steyn-vs-left) dispute. It's rather a non-notable event from the history of that dispute, wherein two obscure writers made factually incorrect criticisms of Steyn and then got their comeuppance from two sources (Steyn's blog and an obscure pro-Steyn blog). The only reason I can imagine for someone wanting to include this paragraph on these grounds would be to suggest that these non-notable critics are representative of Steyn's opponents on issues pertaining to multiculturalism -- which position, of course, would be a violation of WP:NPOV.

As I mentioned two days ago, there is certainly room for expanding our article's section re: Steyn's views on multiculturalism and criticisms of the same (from the left, and from others). We can do much better than including a paragraph about a non-notable incident.

(ii) "The value is in the refs rather than the body text" is one of the more curious justifications I've come across for retaining article text. I am not, in any event, certain of how a non-notable pro-Steyn blog and an entry on Steyn's own website could be said to (i) provide a neutral assessment of this situation, (ii) attest to the situation's notability, or (iii) provide encyclopedic value in their own right.

I'm going to remove the paragraph again in a moment; I expect that anyone who wishes to return it will take the time to explain their actions on the talk page. CJCurrie (talk) 01:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that User:Medeis has once again restored the contentious paragraph without taking the time to explain this action on the talk page. This user's edit summary reads: "no actualy policy objection has been provided, the statements are all verified, their is no undue weight, and admonitions that we discuss what has been discussed are disingenuous"

Let's take this point-by-point:

(i) "no actualy policy objection has been provided"

As I understand it, this rests on User:Medeis's suggestion that there is no policy stipulating events mentioned in BLPs need to be notable. This strikes me as a very curious argument, and it fails on two accounts.

In the first instance, Medeis's claim is factually incorrect. WP:BURDEN (a sub-section of WP:VERIFIABILITY) clearly states, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. [An editor] may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it." In this instance, there are no reliable secondary sources attesting to the significance of this exchange. WP:BLP is even clearer:

Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and notable, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.

The paragraph in question is certainly contentious, and its sources (apart from the original Maclean's reference, which isn't the crux of the matter), are not reliable secondary ones. There shouldn't even be a debate about whether this paragraph is acceptable -- by this policy, it clearly is not.

In the second instance, "it doesn't violate policy" is not a sufficient reason for retaining a disputed paragraph. If there is consensus that the material is trivial, non-notable, or not worthy of inclusion, it may be deleted even if it may not technically violate policy. To put it another way, "not violating policy" is a necessary, not a sufficient cause for including material.

(ii) "the statements are all verified"

I'm not certain if Medeis read my post from, 05:35 16 August 2011, but I've already addressed this. To repeat myself:

(i) "Steyn's comments are verifiable"

Not relevant. No-one disputes that Steyn made the remarks attributed to him; this discussion is about the encyclopedic merit of the section in question. Verifiability is a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition, for retaining content.

(iii) "Gyapong's blog is perfectly sufficient for what it does support, her own attributed words on the subject."

Not relevant. Again, no-one is disputing that Gyapong actually made the one-sentence comment attributed to her. The concern, as will be evident to anyone who has actually read the blog posting in question, pertains to its encyclopedic significance.

(iii) "their is no undue weight"

Again, I've already addressed this:

(v) There is no cause to remove the paragraph on the grounds of undue weight.

Not relevant. The section pertaining to Steyn's opposition to multiculturalism could certainly be expanded, and I suspect that enough material may be found in reliable secondary sources to permit us to do so. We needn't resort to padding the section with highlights from a non-notable exchange, let alone one that doesn't directly pertain to Steyn's views on multiculturalism (which, btw, is another point Medeis has still not engaged with).

(iv) "admonitions that we discuss what has been discussed are disingenuous"

"Admonitions" that we discuss the significance and relevance of what has been discussed are consistent with good encyclopedic practice.

I would suggest that my interlocutor take a step back, look at the paragraph again, and honestly ask the question, "Is this a matter of encyclopedic significance?" I'm confident that any uninvolved party who reviews this matter will conclude that it is not (this is not a hypothetical statement, btw -- I plan to file a RFC very soon.) CJCurrie (talk) 04:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Creating a new section doesn't count as creating a new argument. The incident is notable, it has been addressed in Macleans and National Review. No one has asserted it is unverifiable. Undue weight is a relative, not an absolute criterion. The existence of this entry does no harm to other entries. If it were to much it could be removed to a sub article. It is not. Wikipedia is a comprehensive encyclopedia. Readers seeking information on this subject should be able to rely on us for presenting it. No other argument is given.

Given your concern for this article, I await you addition of material regarding Steyn's newest best seller, rather than continuation of this would-be-exorcise in censorship. μηδείς (talk) 04:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Response:

(i) No evidence has been presented in this forum that the incident under discussion was discussed in Maclean's or the National Review. Steyn's original article was published in Maclean's; this raises the original article to the level of encyclopedic significance (a necessary, but not sufficient condition for inclusion here), but it does not make the subsequent exchange a matter of encyclopedic significance.

(ii) If you're going to make arguments about verifiability and undue weight, you may wish to engage with the responses I've already provided on these points.

(iii) "The existence of this entry does no harm to other entries." No-one has argued that it does, and I'm not entirely certain what point you're trying to make.

(iv) "Given your concern for this article, I await you addition of material regarding Steyn's newest best seller, rather than continuation of this would-be-exorcise in censorship." WP:BURDEN indicates that it's your responsibility to justify the inclusion of this paragraph, not my responsibility to replace it with something better.

I would, once again, encourage you to take a step back and ask yourself if the paragraph in question is encyclopedic. CJCurrie (talk) 05:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not a regular contributor to this page, but I do come in occasionally. On this "sheep shagging" paragraph, I have not got around to studying the issue in detail and therefore offer no direct comment. But it would be of interest to know which if any of the belligerents are known to Mark Steyn personally. Viewfinder (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

On a perhaps-not-completely-unrelated note, I see that Chris Chittleborough has written the following: "A pile-up of hostile editors dodging issues on a talk page does not establish consensus. Will join in there when I have time."

Two questions follow from this:

(i) How exactly have I "dodged the issue"?

(ii) How are my presumed real-life opinions about Steyn relevant to this discussion?

And there's still the more fundamental question:

(iii) How exactly is the disputed paragraph "encyclopedic"? CJCurrie (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

"Hostile editors"? Well that's a persuasive argument. I, and the other editors, will continue to revert the addition of this paragraph until and unless a compelling argument for inclusion can be made. Attacking other editors and unsupported assertions of notability will not achieve that.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

That's better, but ...

I see that Medeis has removed the most egregious part of the disputed paragraph. Credit where it's due, this is an improvement. But, (i) there's still nothing to attest to this incident's significance, (ii) it's still written in a way that reduces Steyn's interactions with his critics to a type of caricature, (iii) the section still doesn't directly pertain to Steyn's views on multiculturalism, (iv) ... oh, hell, just read what I've already written. CJCurrie (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: the most recent rationalisation of the paragraph's inclusion: Look, I'm as big a fan of masterful demolition of Canadian lefties as the next right wing hatemonger, but regardless, it's a bit of trivia not particularly notable in the context of his biography.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 13:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment re: disputed paragraph

Is it appropriate for this article to include the following paragraph:

After Steyn ridiculed Ayatollah Khomeni for giving advice on child abuse and bestiality,refSteyn, Mark (April 28, 2006). "Celebrate tolerance, or you're dead". Maclean's. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)/ref some Canadian leftists accused Steyn of concocting his facts, leading Steyn to pen a refutationrefSteyn, Mark (30 November 2008). "The Shagged Sheep". SteynOnline.com./ref which blogger Deborah Gyapong said made them a "worldwide laughingstock".refGyapong, Deborah (30 November 2008). "How to make yourself a laughingstock around the world"./ref Both his chief critics eventually apologized.refSteyn, Mark (4 December 2008). "The Doctor is In". SteynOnline.com./ref

This matter has been discussed by regular participants on this page in an exchange entitled A problematic paragraph, which interested contributors are encouraged to review. CJCurrie (talk) 04:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• No I don't think so. There are a number of problems with including this. It seems to basically be a pissing contest between Steyn and some bloggers. While Styen is notable, he's not highly notable -- he's not Walter Winchell or whatever -- and the bloggers even less so. So why are getting into this level of detail? To drill down in more detail:
  • There's some issue with reliability of sources. Blogs are reliable sources for their own contents. If we say "Joe Smith said 'OBAMA ONLY LISTENS TO RACOONS!'", then a link to Smith's blog with the supporting material is sufficient. However, it wouldn't be a reliable source for us to say "Racoons are a medium-size mammal native to North America who advise Barack Obama". You see the difference? When Styen writes in his blog "The other day I had an e-mail from M J Murphy, who blogs as Big City Lib, saying only this: I think you owe Dr. Miller an apology", this is not a reliable source for the statements that M J Murphy did indeed sent Steyn an email, that it said "I think you owe Dr. Miller an apology" or that M J Murphy does indeed blog as Big City Lib. (The latter statement is probably true but a blog is not a reliable source for proving that; the other statements may be true or not, who knows?). This applies to all statements of fact made in a blog including all quoted material. (Exceptions may be made; Steyn and Gyapong, as polemicists, don't get one.)
  • Beyond the question of reliability is the question of notability -- the "some commentors" test. We can say "Some commentors have advanced the notion that that the Obama cabinet is actually composed of racoons" when "some commentors" are Christopher Hitchens or George Will or people like that, but we can't say it when "some commentors" are random unnotable bloggers or internet forum posters and people like that. You see the difference? Who are the "some Canadian leftists" here? I don't know who Deborah Gyapong is but she doesn't have an article, which most notable public intellectuals do. She works for religious papers. She had a desk job at CBC. She wrote a suspense novel. So what? Everybody does something. Why do we care what she thinks?
  • We want the article on Steyn to be reasonably comprehensive, but there's a limit to how much we want to include. We don't want to get the point where we're having to break the article out into sub-articles and so forth. Steyn isn't that notable. So, given that, what material should we include? We want to know who he is, who his influences are, who he's influenced, what his impact has been in politics and the world of ideas, how other public intellectuals view him, and most of all we want to know what he says. (And I guess the article does a reasonable job of that, based on a fairly cursory runthrough.) We don't want to know what he eats for breakfast, who his favorite sports team is, what brand of cigarettes he smokes, and so forth. Well, this little kerfluffle seems solidly in the latter category. What does it tell us about him that that helps us get a handle on the man? How does it improve the article?
  • But if there were articles in Time (magazine) and the Los Angeles Times and similar venues with titles like "Steyn - Gyapong Rift Sends Shudders Throughout Intellectual World" or "World Awaits Next Step In Epic Steyn - Gyapong Battle" or something I'd think differently. But there aren't. So it's original research to give this incident weight that editors of actual journalistic enterprises haven't. Herostratus (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The lack of clue displayed by the anti-Steyn folks here is stunning. (The use of argument-via-tedious verbosity is also stunning.)

Bad News: to understand this incident well enough to comment on whether to mention it you will have to read several thousand words of essays, blogs and comments. Worse still, for many commenting here, a large fraction of the required reading was written by Steyn. At least one anti-Steyn editor has repeated demonstrated that he/she either never read the key articles (or retained no understanding of them) by writing incredibly ignorant/stupid things.

Hence my claim (in an edit summary) that the so-called consensus to delete this paragraph is false (like a bunch of Babylonian shepherds agreeing that the world is flat). And no, I don't have time to spell things out for you, except to say: read the links in the paragraph, and the non-trivial links in them. Then you will see why I am stunned by the cluelessness here.

The argument from MSM silence is also a dud. A similar incident these days would be covered by newspapers (at least on their websites, perhaps in print) but this took place when MSM people hated giving publicity to blogs, especially conservative blogs.

What really happened:
A Canadian lefty blogger, the "Journalism Doctor", seized on an aside in an essay Steyn wrote about Oriana Fallaci to claim that Steyn was dishonest or lying or something. (It's hard to say, because he kept changing his accusation and silently editing his blog posts.) The Law is Cool people used this in their attack on Macleans. The "Journalism Doctor" joined in this attack, on the side of censorship. A prominent lefty Canadian political blogger, BigCityLib, piled on. This was popular amongst left-wing Canadian bloggers and their readers; it was also picked up by many Steyn-hating lefty blogs in the US and elsewhere.
Then Steyn replied. His response was picked up by conservative bloggers in pretty much every English-speaking nation, as you would expect. (You have read it, haven't you? If not, go get some clue then come back and re-read this message).
A few months ago, the "Journalism Doctor" (whose only degree is actually a BA) attacked Steyn again, and around the same time some Canadian lefties came to this article and put an astounding amount of time into writing verbose but invalid arguments for deleting the embarrassing material.

Talking about embarrassing: Using the word "encyclopedic" in any connection with an article about Steyn that did not mention this incident should embarrass anybody. If anything, we should expand it. I'm busy with matters relating to my brother's recent death, but I'll try to make a start. In the meantime, you anti-Steyn editors should read the fricking source documents or fuck off (or both). Cheers, CWC 15:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

We took out the Gyapong reference but left the remainder as notable and verifiable. That is how it should have stayed. Neither deleting the material entirely nor expanding the material to a separate section on sheepfuckery is justifiable as the first censors comprehensive material but the latter gives it undue weight. μηδείς (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec)

I've done a quick-and-dirty expansion. Some of the stuff I put in is probably unnecessary (but which?); it needs more details and at least 2 more cites. I'm unlikely to be able to spend much time on this for at least a week.

Competence-to-comment-here test: which name in DG's post about Miller becoming a "worldwide laughingstock" has the most weight?

Cheers, CWC 16:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"Read the fricking source documents or fuck off" - is this your idea of civility? I have read the source documents, and just about everything else written by Steyn in the intervening three years, and there's a signed copy of his new book on my bedside table. But just because I am a fanboy doesn't mean I have to bloody well act like one on Wikipedia. We're trying to write an encyclopaedia, not trying to make a WP:POINT, fight a WP:BATTLE, right a great wrong, or any other of the things that Wikipedia is not. I appreciate that you've made a good effort of improving the section, and if it were a little less "out on its own" I might be tempted to agree with inclusion. However I just can't see this, as a single blogger-skirmish amongst many Steyn has been involved in, passing WP:UNDUE. That said, editors above who clearly haven't read the articles would do well to do so - it's well worth it.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't "have to read several thousand words of essays, blogs and comments" if they are not reliable or notable. My opinion of what is "well worth" my time may differ from others, and to be perfectly frank, "spend significant time on the internecine squabblings of obscure Canadian bloggers" is somewhere below "perform eye surgery on myself with a rusty soup can lid" on my must-do list. Please note that at WP:RS, the emphasis on "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person" is in the original. We kind of take this sort of seriously, in other words, and for this reason I have removed the material, as being shot through with too much poorly sourced negative BLP material. I'd suggest you rethink the whole section. I seriously doubt that any of this is notable, but if it is notable, we'd need better sources, and very neutral writing. And even if the "there are no reliable sources because there is conspiracy to ignore this" bit is true, you know what the Wikipedia does in such cases? We don't publish the material. Because there are no reliable sources. Herostratus (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

H states/insinuates that I believe that "there are no reliable sources because there is [a] conspiracy to ignore this" (my italics), which is dishonest, silly and insulting. Please retract and apologize.
As I know from reading Jeff Jarvis and Jay Rosen, back in 2004ff MSM journos and editors, faced with falling audiences, debated openly and vigorously whether to cover blogs. For many years, most preferred ignoring blogs; now, they report blogs (and hire bloggers) to build their online audience/revenue. This is not a conspiracy, just normal self-interest in a troubled industry. (Aside: the internet phenomenon which has really hurt newspapers is not a blog.)

@H: Of course no-one has to read this stuff. But anyone who doesn't has no business editing or making judgements about that part of the article, let alone censoring it, and would be wise to be much more circumspect about posting on this page. As I've said, there are sources for all this stuff, though some of my hurried writing needs reworking. Good-faith editors would improve my work. Blind reverts are a sign of bad-faith editing. Taking bad-faith editors seriously is a waste of effort.

One of the few things we all agree on here is that there are no secondary sources for this incident. One of the many reasons secondary sources are better than primary sources in Wikipedia is that the secondary sources are generally much easier to read, understand and cite than the primary sources. But there are important articles and sections of articles for which secondary sources do not exist. In those cases, anyone who has not read (and understood!) the primary sources is just not capable of good judgement about the article/section as a whole.

(When designing Wikipedia's rules, you have to trade-off between accepting input from subject experts and verifiability. Wikipedia quite rightly privileges verifiability, but this does create an unfortunate tendency for many/most editors to privilege knowledge of secondary sources over knowledge of the actual subject, which often pisses off subject experts. I became aware of this mainly by editing articles about Linux graphics software which have little/no secondary sources; no blame attaches to editors who have not suffered likewise.)

@Yeti Hunter: If you have read the primary sources, why did you get a basic fact blatantly wrong a few sentences later? Also, Read the fricking source documents or fuck off (or both) is perfectly civil in my culture, and an attempt (apparently successful!) to communicate something important to people who really Don't Want To Hear That. Furthermore, I'm not righting any wrongs, great or otherwise, here; I'm just trying to ensure that a major aspect of Steyn's reputation is addressed in the article. Rough analogy: not mentioning Ritchie Valens in Los Lobos.

My expanded version is a rough draft. I invite good-faith editors to improve it. I have not seen any valid arguments for deleting it entirely. I will be very busy until Thursday. Cheers, CWC 07:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

OMG. You know what? Fine. If you really feel that the idiotic sheep shagging thing is central to understanding Steyn, fine, maybe you're right. (You do realize I hope that adding blather about fluff like this not only detracts from communicating the thrust of Steyn's work but also makes Steyn look stupid and petty. But maybe he is, so whatever.) Also, you can't source stuff like "Miller and Murphy issued grudging apologies" to Steyn's blog, for crying out loud. At least source to their blogs where they issued the apologies, or wherever. Herostratus (talk) 09:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

What "basic fact" do I get wrong after explaining that I've read the documents in question? That Steyn's work is well worth reading? Or that you're editing in good faith? You're on the verge of frustrating me into a 3RR battle, for which you're outnumbered.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Possibly-useful link: Steyn on censorship

This NR cover story would probably be useful as a ref. Cheers, CWC 17:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC) who has just about finished clearing his browser tabs

Probably not. National Review is a poor a source for statements of fact (as is The Nation, for similar reasons). (Most of the material is not about Steyn; there is a reference to his being put on trial in British Columbia, but I think this is already covered in the article and properly sourced, so I'm not sure what this is supposed to be a source for.) Herostratus (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It might be a better source for Steyn's account of his trials in Canada. It probably should be used for new material about Steyn's views on censorship. CWC 07:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Nooooo, it can't be used for the description of the trials. It's by Steyn. Do you not get this? Have you read WP:RS? You need to at least scan WP:RS, please! It is a reliable source for Steyn's views, though. Herostratus (talk) 08:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

CJC Affair

The pronouns used in this paragraph are so vague as to make the various parties unidentifiable. By the second sentence it's already a complete mess. After reading the sources (which are much clearer and give much needed context) I'm going to re-write the paragraph based on the following series of events:

1. Ann Coulter intended to give a talk/speech at the University of Ottawa. 2. On the monday, a muslim student Fatima Al-Dhaher challenged Coulter about a joke Coulter had made about muslims taking magic carpets in lieu of airplanes. Coulter told Dhaher that, lacking a magic carpet, she could take a camel. The crowd "jeered" according to this NY Daily News article http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-03-24/news/27059900_1_muslim-student-ann-coulter-camel 3. The next night, her talk was prevented from going forward due to threats of violence against her. 4. The Mississauga News publishes an editorial expressing pride in the students for preventing Coulter from speaking. 5. The Canadian Jewish Congress republished the editorial on their website, with very minimal attribution as to its original source (according to a cache link from steyn, which is now broken. The original editorial appears to have been taken off the CJC website altogether.) 6. An independent blog discovered that Fatima Al-Dhaher was a member of a facebook called "It's Called Palestine Not Israel" which contained an enormous amount of anti-semitic rantings. 7. Mark Steyn publishes an editorial in Macleans detailing the events of Coulter's aborted speech, the protests against her, the CJC's posted editorial, and the full range of anti-semitic comments from al-Dhaher's facebook group. 8. The CJC corrects the attribution of the editorial. 9. Maclean's places an editors note under Steyn's editorial about the original source of the article reposted on the CJC. 10. Steyn writes a second editorial criticizing the editor's note because the corrected attribution was just that, a correction.

Phew. That was tough. Basically, as far as it is relevant to Steyn I think we really only need to be talking about points 3(for context), 5, 7, 8, 9, 10. Everything else requires a *lot* more context (i.e. "why is Steyn quoting anti-semitic remarks? Oh, it's because he is criticizing anti-semites." Without context they could easily be mistaken for *his* original comments, which they are not.)

If anyone disagrees with that course of events, or my edit, I'd love to see some sources and some justification. Cheers. --CptBuck (talk) 07:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

After making my edits I would actually question where this falls under wikipedia's policy of notability. The "Affair" in question occupied a few paragraphs a couple editorials. Most of the evidence and sources involved are dead links. It doesn't seem relevant to a wikipedia article that an editorial, which was admittedly misattributed, was in turn misattributed by a second author. Even if that author doesn't believe it was misattributed at all. It seems silly.

I would say the whole "affair" should be scrapped. --CptBuck (talk) 08:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Essentially no difference between this and the "sheep shagging" incident debated ad nauseam above. Removing it per WP:UNDUE.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

While we're at it, what about that lame "Criticism" section? I mean seriously, one bloke describing Steyn's rhetoric as "shrieking"? Is that the best they can do? There's been some decent criticism of Steyn, but this sure aint it. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

So I added a sourced comment from a respectable critic. However - seems to me that this section is superfluous and should be combined with the largely-adulatory "writing style" section to make one comprehensive presentation, pro and con, of Steyn's alleged virtues and faults as a writer/critic. Sensei48 (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)