Talk:Steve Sailer

message: I don't feel that the sourcing justifies the extremely prominent and repetitive implication that Sailor is a white supremacist.  The Southern Poverty Law Center and the Columbia Journalism Review are just trivial mentions, with no explanation as to what he has done that justifies that label.  We further have two "guilt by association", regarding VDARE and the Unz Review (I note  is detailed sourcing on Mr. Unz's writings).  I see the TabletMag reference which is worth something, but the weakly sourced guilt-by-implication needs to be removed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. That term is used loosely. Some say that all whites are white supremacists. Remove it. Roger (talk) 06:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What? Who says that? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Sailer is described as a "white supremacist figure" in a significant peer-reviewed academic journal, Theory, Culture & Society. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, I think it's appropriate how we currently state that Sailer writes for VDARE, "a website associated with white supremacy", which is well cited. But in order to flatly call Sailer himself a white supremacist we'd need a really solid source. And I'm afraid that, after taking a look at the article in Theory, Culture & Society, I'm not buying that it's solid enough. Simply being peer reviewed is not enough for the Rindermann piece to be considered reliable for the claims it purports to make, and I'd suggest the same goes for this piece here. That's not to say I don't personally think that Sailer's statements make him transparently a white supremacist, but in order for that assessment to make it into the article (i.e. to not be my WP:OR) there is rightly a pretty high bar we'd need to clear. Generalrelative (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is still just mindless name-calling. To give it some meaning, the article should give some examples of his white supremacist opinions, and explain why the term is appropriate. I don't think that there is any agreement on what the term means. Unless the term can be substantiated, remove it. Roger (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Someone recently tried to remove the "a website associated with white supremacy" parts, and that would be consistent with other biography articles. Other journalists and writers' pages don't usually have such descriptions attached to publications they've written for. Maybe in some instances a very short description ("newspaper", "scientific journal", "socialist") is added, but "website associated with" is very uncommon. Perhaps to keep ledes short and succinct, as the information is available on the publication's Wiki article, and (if important enough) in the biography body. If the issue is too complicated to be summarized succinctly...perhaps it doesn't belong in the lede? I can see how it's relevant here, but the same could be said for almost any writer. Ornilnas (talk) 06:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevant policy here is WP:DUE. It appears that reliable sources typically identify VDARE in this way whenever they mention it, so that's what we do too. Generalrelative (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just very uncommon for a biography lede. Newspapers and magazines are "typically identified" in all kinds of ways that do not get mentioned in the ledes of their writers. Why aren't UPI and Taki's Magazine given similar descriptions? Is the issue that he's known specifically for writing for a white supremacy-associated website, rather than writing for a magazine called "VDARE"? Ornilnas (talk) 06:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think so. We go out of our way to give VDARE a special tag because reliable sources go out of their way to give VDARE a special tag. They clearly believe that readers are best served by being informed that VDARE isn't just any magazine.  I don't know. Maybe you should fix that. But WP:OTHERSTUFF is not generally considered a persuasive argument.  I don't see why it would be. The issue is as I've stated it above. Generalrelative (talk) 12:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that actually makes sense. Perhaps what's bothering me is all the sources given in the lede, which normally belong in the body. But moving them might require a rewrite in both, so I won't attempt it now. Ornilnas (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, glad to hear. Generalrelative (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "White supremacy" in the lead 

message: Recently a large amount of content was deleted from this article, but that deletion was reverted to restore previous consensus language:
However, I see that another editor once again deleted the content contrary to the usual process of WP:BRD. This should not have been done, and when a new change is reverted, the next step is to discuss on the talk page here to develop a consensus, rather than just forcing a change. Hist9600 (talk) 04:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: From recent article history I guess the involved editors are Leonstojka, Generalrelative, Zacwill. I don't know what the "consensus" is and don't know what parts of the large edit are controversial, but do know that if there isn't really a consensus and it's controversial then WP:BLPUNDEL policy matters a lot, WP:BRD essay matters little. I also know that WP:EDITWAR applies when editors "repeatedly" override contributions of others, and I don't see that in the article history. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  June 2023 edit warring and recent content deletion 

message: I see that there is a BLP primary sources tag on this article that has been there since April 2021. However, it does not look like the editor who added it specified exactly what the problem was beyond "primary sources". I'm looking at the article references and not seeing a lot of primary sources. Is this currently an issue that requires the BLP primary sources template? And if so, what are the specific issues? Hist9600 (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not seeing the problem either and would support removing the tag. Generalrelative (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and removed it. Anyone who can justify it should feel free to revert and discuss here, but it really appears to be a hold-over from a previous version of the article. Generalrelative (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks for checking and removing the tag. Hist9600 (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP primary sources tag 

message: I don't understand this revision from Generalrelative here. Primary sources are not against the rules. The sources given are reputably published, there is no interpretation of the source given in the article, and they "give statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source". If I'm truly in the wrong here, I'll yield here, but I do not understand why an article on Mr. Sailer wouldn't include him being cited by major newspapers. You won't find a secondary source anywhere on these claims because nobody is exactly writing books about how Mr. Sailer was cited in a NYT article. Pepper-0 (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Without secondary coverage, it's just not clear that these fleeting mentions are notable enough to be WP:DUE for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Generalrelative (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

text: I guess this one can be argued either way, although I tend to agree with Generalrelative here. For example, on Richard Hanania there is mention of the outlets he has written for because these were explicitly covered in two secondary/independent sources. If an article in a reliable source has mentioned that Sailer has been cited by the NY Times et al, then it might be worthy of mention. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that seems to be the standard. Generalrelative (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Example, here in this NY mag source includes:  So yeah could probably make a more due mention of columnist citing him in the NYT and Times. Cheers. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Good find. This is precisely the sort of source I was referring to. Generalrelative (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and added content based on this source: . Thanks, Zenomonoz. Generalrelative (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Awesome. I probably should have narrowed it to the more notable papers regardless now that I think about it. Thanks, all Pepper-0 (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary sourcing