Talk:Mark Steyn/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Mark Steyn half Belgian

http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110004717

Explains in C-Span interview linked below, that mother is Belgian Catholic, on his father's side Jewish background from Odessa some generations away and through Ireland.

and that means ... ? GuyInCT 03:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Information Required for this biography

Mark Steyn's bio also needs to include his date of birth and any military service he has performed.

Petty and ludicrous

This whole story about the alleged plagiarism of Mark Steyn -- of a single sentence ! -- mimicking the journalistic style of Dan Brown and using most of Dan Brown's word while using a rare word from a linguist is just ludicrous pettiness.

--

Should the quote style be changed to American? i.e., double-quotes rather than single-, and punctuation inside the quotation marks. Not sure if Wikipedia has a standard on this...

--24.103.207.38 11:01, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also, Steyn splits his time at the least between NH and Montreal, QC, and perhaps among those two and somewhere in England.

Can say 'is a resident of' instead of lives in NH, then. As for standards, all I know is that changes of style where there are different possibilities that are valid is discouraged. Charles Matthews 11:08, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is this accurate

"Detractors claim that he disregards both opposing arguments and events that contradict his earlier predictions, including his repeated claims that Osama Bin Laden was dead."

From what I recall Steyn was very forthright in admitting he was wrong on Bin Laden's demise. I wouldn't dispute that "Detractors claim" that he does, but they are wrong. If no one objects I will replace that with something else.

Your memory is at fault: see this from late 2004: [1]. Please sign your contributions. You cut a link from the page with a misleading edit summary. This is not appreciated. Charles Matthews 22:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Apologies for the cut link. I thought I had copied it rather than cut it. --Number 77 23:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I read somewhere Mark Steyn isn't his real name. Is this true, and if so what is his real name?

I recall a letters special on Steyn's website after the Bin Laden video, but as this is not archived anywhere online, I can't back my claim up, so I'll drop it.--Number 77 14:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Plea to use talk

Many edits at cross-purposes have been made recently. Please, everyone, come here to discuss the content. Charles Matthews 20:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Hari and other parts with sources not cited

To attribute quotes to Steyn or Hari without citing sources is against Wikipedia policy. You should reference with links (or due diligence references including where and date it was published, volume and page number) what quotes are attributed to Hari or Steyn. Erroneous quotes attributed to a person, not backed up by references, could be interpreted as libelous, and should be avoided. http://www.ifex.org/en/content/view/full/61063/ Large quotes attributed to Hari will be deleted as this is a post about Steyn, not about any single critic.

The following was deleted:

According to Hari, in November 2001, Steyn circulated a series of conspiracy theories that a huge number of Muslims in New York City had been forewarned of the terror attacks. A Muslim student at a Brooklyn high school, he claims, said to his teacher on 6 September 2001: "See those two buildings? They won't be standing there next week."

On 10 September 2001, Steyn further claimed, "a sixth-grade [NOTE: HOW COULD STEYN HAVE CLAIMED THIS ON 10 SEPT 2001? THIS STATEMENT MUST BE TOTALLY FALSE.] student of Middle Eastern origin at a Jersey City school warned his teacher to stay away from Lower Manhattan because "something bad was going to happen". Teachers at schools within sight of the World Trade Center in New York reported that, as the towers burned, many Muslim students were taking pictures: it seemed odd that so many of them happened to have brought their cameras to school on that particular day."

Hari commented:

"Almost no evidence has been offered in support of [this] claim. Steyn cites only the "evidence" of a disgraced and sacked journalist on a suburban New York paper, and even that is for just one of several "facts" that he cites. [...] Steyn seems to believe seriously that many American Muslims knew about the plan and did not warn anybody - not even the 300-plus Muslims who were murdered in the attack... "

Steyn himself wrote:

In The River War (1899), Winston Churchill's account of the Sudanese campaign, there's a memorable passage which I reproduce here while I'm still able to:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must . delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

Is that grossly offensive to Muslims? Almost certainly. Is it also a rather shrewd and pertinent analysis by one of Britain's most eminent leaders? I think so. [Not signed]

You know, it would be civil to request sources. Simply making large cuts from the page is the opposite of a confidence-building measure. Wikipedia policy is important; but its fulfilment in a given case shouldn't be used as a bludgeon. Where you say Large quotes attributed to Hari will be deleted as this is a post about Steyn, not about any single critic, I agree with the point (that extended quotes from Hari may not benefit the article). But you can't expect everyone to agree on exactly how that applies. And civility, which is also a key policy, suggests a less bald approach that saying what will happen. Since no one thinks the quotes

FROM THE HISTORY PAGE: 10:31, 9 September 2005 Charles Matthews (rm comment: 'Somebody keeps editing this next part out. Please STOP, I will simply keep posting it every day as it is totally legitimate comment' - use the talk page, please)

IN MY OPINION, IT IS HYPOCRITICAL TO CRITICIZE ME FOR USING THE WORD "WILL" AFTER YOU HAVE ALREADY DONE SO. FURTHERMORE, YOU WROTE (BELOW) THAT SOMETHING IS "OBVIOUS POV". ARE YOU SAYING YOUR CHANGE IS NOT POV, AND THEREFORE BETTER? YOU "REVERTED OVER" TO A PREVIOUS EDIT, WHICH IS NOTHING MORE THAN CHANGING TO AN EDIT YOU LIKED MORE (YOUR OPINION). IT IS FAIRER AND MORE ACCURATE TO SAY "PERCEIVED RELIANCE ON DISPARAGEMENT" BECAUSE THAT IS YOUR PERCEPTION, NOT EVERYONE FEELS AS YOU DO. THIS IS MEANT TO BE AN ENTRY ABOUT MARK STEYN, AND NOT ONE PERSON'S OPINION USING POORLY SOURCED, SELECTED QUOTES TO CREATE A NEGATIVE IMPRESSION ABOUT A WIDELY READ POLEMICIST. IT IS POSSIBLE TO INTRODUCE BIAS VIA SELECTION OF CERTAIN QUOTES TAKEN OUTSIDE OF THE CONTEXT OF AN ARTICLE. CHANGES WILL CONTINUE TO BE MADE IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT ONE PERSON'S OPINION IS NOT USED TO BIAS WHAT READERS SEE.

are fabricated, a short period of calm in which the originals can be cited would be of great benefit to the article. (Please sign talk page contributions.) Charles Matthews 06:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's one source: [2]Charles Matthews 06:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Source for the Hari quote [3] Charles Matthews 06:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Quotes now cited on the page. I found certain of the other recent edits (e.g. removing 'some' from 'some conservatives' in the Steyn polemics) to be obvious POV), and have reverted over them. Further discussions here please - no reason why points arising can't be settled. Charles Matthews

Please don't use upper case: it is the wiki equivalent of SHOUTING. Please append postings, and please sign with ~~~~. Please respect policy (Wikipedia:No personal attacks).

You haven't correctly parsed the edit comment - that was me removing an inappropriate posting. Everyone would agree that selective quotation can be misused. For this topic, the range of possible quotes and controversies is large. You cannot expect quick agreement on a selection that is both fair and reasonably complete. That's why we discuss. The article also needs much basic biographical data. Charles Matthews 17:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

"Conservative political punditry"

Is this really meant to refer to UK Conservative Party-related punditry, or would it be better with a lower-case "c"? Palmiro | Talk 22:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Two links to Anti Steyn blog - same ref

why do we have two external links to 'anti steyn blog'? I am removing one of them. Jezjezjez 12:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Churchill quotation

I have again removed a section that consisted almost entirely of a long and well-known quotation by Winston Churchill [[4]] on the subject of Islam. I did so because this article is about Mark Steyn. Steyn did not write the quotation; he only cites it in one of his articles [[5]], the point of which was to argue that Churchill's quotation would probably be illegal under the proposed Racial and Religious Hatred Bill, advocated primarily by Muslim groups but seen by many, including Steyn, as a draconian curtailment of freedom of speech.

Furthermore, Steyn has never said that Islam should be "stamped out"; this phrase appears nowhere in his writing and to imply that it does is polemical and highly misleading, not to mention not NPOV.

There are plenty of times Steyn has described problems related to Islam in his own words; if we are to fill this page with quotations, let them be Steyn's own. ProhibitOnions 22:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Commitment to Democracy - POV?

This quote - "Steyn's claimed commitment to democracy has also been called into question, by writers who point to statements like this..." - is almost certainly a mangling of context. Steyn (a man I've personally interviewed) is intensely committed to democracy and small-l liberalism; his comment referred to the odd standard by which one could judge Aristide "democratically elected". The intent of this sentence is to paint Steyn in an unfavorable (and undeserved) light, at least in this context. I'd like to change this sentence to account for the context. Any discussion? Mitchberg 01:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You mean, where he wrote in the same column, The problem in Haiti is that the necessary conditions for civil society don't exist, he is 'intensely committed to democracy', but only for countries that he judges have the correct institutions? Charles Matthews 07:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that is a great example. The conditions for civil society DON'T exist in Haiti; the country is not ruled by law, it's ruled by whomever has the most power, whomever can get the most thugs to back them up. There is no functional court system, law enforcement is far beyond corrupt, and the populace have only the most nodding expectation of equal protection and fairness under anything any of us would recognize as "rule of law". Taking that context, and plopping an election on top of it, does not create "democracy". That would be Steyn's point.

So for recognizing that, and saying it, one questions Steyn's "commitment to democracy?"

See what I'm getting at here? This is POV, and not even especially stealthy.

Mitchberg 23:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, so without any further discussion, I'm going to take a whack at some of what I perceive as POV-based observations on Steyn's politics, in the next day or so. Feel free to comment. Mitchberg 00:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. Keep an eye on the "Steyn on the USA and Islam" section while you're at it. Regards, ProhibitOnions 20:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I remove this bit here:

Steyn's claimed commitment to democracy has also been called into question, by writers who point to statements like this:

"Consider Haiti. John Kerry, in quite the most stupid observation of his campaign, insisted that Bush should have sent in the troops to Haiti to prop up President Aristide - or "Father Aristide", as Kerry likes to call him, defrocking notwithstanding - because the Holy Father was "democratically elected". After a fashion. But so what?" :[6]

I'm new to Wikipedia, and loth to remove things, but this section is:

• Unverifiable. "...called into question, by writers"? What significant writer has said any such thing?
• Out of context. Steyn is committed to democracy - but the cited article's point was that Haiti was not a "democracy" so much as a kleptocracy with elections.

Anecdotally, I've interviewed Mark Steyn. He is quite intensely committed to democracy - the real thing, not the 'lipstick on a pig' variety that Aristide represented. Mitchberg 07:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

If a respectable source can be found, of a critic of Steyn who says this, then it can be on the page. Charles Matthews 22:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Dictators

THe last set of links - to the personal website with a number of odd observations about the worst dictators, combined with a snarky comment about "Steyn believing Stalin killed more people than Hitler" (he did) is not only POV, but only tangentially related to Steyn - and the site linked is largely at odds with most historical analysis. I'm reverting. Feel free to comment.

Mitchberg 00:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Moved addition

I have removed the statement: "Steyn has been accused of prejudice against Muslims, notably by columnist Johann Hari[3], notably after he reported as fact urban myths that claimed American Muslim children had been extensively forewarned about the 9/11 attacks, warned their favourite teachers to avoid the World Trade Centre, and so on."

This is patently false, as can be seen by actually looking at the primary source, rather than relying on Hari's choice interpretation. The original article can be viewed at:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2002/09/14/do1402.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2002/09/14/ixopinion.html

As you can see, he does not claim veracity for the 'legends', but is highlighting what he perceives to be self-censorship by the media. Please look at primary sources, it doesn't take time.

Brian

Please add to the bottom of the page here.

Please sign with ~~~~

Please do not, as you have done, remove a link such as to Johann Hari, which provides the context, just because you do not like it. Charles Matthews 20:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remove it because I didn't like it, I removed it because it didn't support the claim 'reported as fact', nor did Hari's link accurately reflect the primary source. But hey, lets be realistic, I'm just a right wing nut, no?

Brian (still doesn't know how to sign)

Steyn and Irish Times

He's no longer syndicated in the Irish Times. Autarch 18:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Was he asked to leave or was he pushed due to the readers objecting to his particular brand of commentary?? He appears to have been replaced by Krauthammer. Is this a pattern internationally- a forced diet of neo-conservative rantings???

Pullum controversy

No coverage of the plagiarism controversy? It's a serious and well-documented allegation directly relevant to his chosen profession. — ciphergoth 10:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

There was a tendentious unsourced para about that, recently posted and (rightly) removed. Any coverage would have to conform rigorously to guidelines on living people, and be extremely careful about the defamatory potential (precisely because this is about his career). Gossip isn't welcome, as such. Charles Matthews 11:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've read the relevant guidelines and tried to write something that meets them. I don't think it's gossip; in the case of gossip, all that's verifiable is the fact that someone's gossiping about it, but in this instance all the relevant material is available online, so the curious may easily judge for themselves whether there's any substance to it. — ciphergoth 12:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Dishonest edit summaries

Edit of User:141.129.1.98 19:41, 11 August 2006 (edit), says it's 'grammar'. In fact it introduces an obviously slanted term, 'leftists', for Steyn's critics.

User:141.129.1.98, assuming you can hear me - this is not a smart way to act. Don't slant articles with claims you don't support by citations. Don't use edit summaries to mislead. Charles Matthews 15:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Steyn and Quebec separatism

The article used to say that Steyn "has long railed against the policies of the Liberal Party, which ... include ... concessions to Quebec separatists." It now says that those Grit policies include "opposition to Quebec separatists". I seem to recall more than one Steyn article in which he criticised the way the former government made deals with the Bloc Québécois, which fits the old version better than the new. Can someone with more knowledge help out, please? Thanks, CWC(talk) 16:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Johann Hari quote

We currently quote Johann Hari as calling Steyn "the court jester for the American far right", but I can't find anywhere he used that phrase. I did find this brief blog post about "the far-right's court jester, Mark Steyn". (The findarticles.com link above is broken, BTW.) Does anyone have a WP:RS for the first phrase? If not, we'll need to change to the second version (and perhaps say that linking Steyn to the far right — people like these — is a fanciful slur). Cheers, CWC(talk) 15:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you mistaking the court jester quote for something George Galloway said about Christopher Hitchens being the court jester to the Bush presidency?Kransky 13:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Mark Steyn is not far right. He is an opportunist and a good representation of his profession. He's everything certain types of journalism are now (1) appearance (2) willingness to suspend your disbelief (3) corporatism (3) shock (4) prejudice (5) US isolationism (I know Steyn is Canadian but polls have shown many of his compatriots are not in full agreement with him and his views. --The Three Jays 03:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree with your first sentence.

User Kitrus (talk · contribs) has found a source for "the court jester for the American far right". However, there's a problem: like other journos covering Steyn's recent visit to Australia, they got that quote from Wikipedia. We need a citation for the original article by Johann Hari, if any, containing that phrase. BTW, I've Googled for the full phrase and for "court jester site:johannhari.com" without finding anything.

Also, thanks to user Charles Matthews (talk · contribs) for so quickly finding sources for most of the criticisms of Steyn. Be advised, however, that "Ant" Lowenstein's coverage of the CIS event has been shown to be less than accurate: see [7] and [8].

Can anyone find a better link for "some view him as a prejudiced writer who uses poorly sourced facts"?

Cheers, CWC(talk) 05:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is seriously misleading as to how perceptions run. But it might be well to recast the section, which has been around for quite some time as the rest of the article has developed. Charles Matthews 14:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Not far-right

I've switched to the sourced version from Johann Hari's blog post, but there's still a problem: calling Steyn "far right" is untrue and violates WP:BLP. (I'm sure Johann Hari would not have used that term in a column.) Can anyone suggest a way to make it clear that Wikipedia is not saying Steyn is a right-wing extremist? I've tried and failed. CWC(talk) 00:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is untrue to call Steyn "far right". By European standards he is clearly on the far right; his language about Muslim immigrants, "Eurabia" etc is remarkably similar to Jean Marie Le Pen's. Of course wiki is not calling him far right by quoting somebody else as saying it. It is clearly simply saying that Johan Hari believes him to be so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.201.136 (talk • contribs)

Far right viewpoints are kept out of public discourse in most nations, which is a Good Thing™ but has the disadvantage that few people know much about the far right. Fortunately, there is a website that has pretty good coverage of the far right: Wikipedia. Our articles on White supremacy, White separatism, Political views of Lyndon LaRouche, etc provide a great starting point for anyone who wants to learn about the far right. See also our article on Chip Berlet, a noted expert on the American far right; Wikipedia's coverage of the far right has benefitted greatly from his contributions as User:Cberlet.

Comparison of the views of the real far right to Steyn's views will show very little in common. To call Steyn "far right" requires great ignorance, great carelessness or great malice. Wikipedia must not do that. I'm not sure that it's acceptable to quote a reputable columnist like Johann Hari as associating Steyn with the far right, especially when it was just a throwaway line in a blog post. More importantly, it's just not true: does anyone really claim that any of these people read Steyn, let alone chuckle at him?

I'm thinking of removing the genuine Hari quote from the article (having already removed the dubious one). Does anyone agree with removing it? Disagree? Comments, please. Thanks, CWC(talk) 10:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, 'far right' is not very informative about Steyn. Tell you what, since Hari calls him a 'deeply, profoundly disgusting person', that would be better? Actually both of these quotes show a problem with 'verifiability'. We can verify both, but the article as a whole should show NPOV. Charles Matthews 13:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten the section, putting Hari at the end and I hope clarifying that he and Steyn freely abuse each other. I hope this puts the emphasis more on the substance. Charles Matthews 13:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think "neoconservative" Canadian journalist should just be changed to "Conservative".

"Steyn polemics" section

I've changed the description of Peter Preston to "Former Guardian editor Peter Preston". Please note that the term liberal has quite different meaning(s) in Britain, and should not be applied to Preston.

I've also found and inserted a link to the Steyn column that Preston was responding to. Guess what? Steyn did not "label[...] Neil Kinnock and Chris Patten as on the 'lunatic fringe' in matters relating to the EU". The only use of the phrase "lunatic fringe" in Steyn's article is in a reference to Kinnock's and Patten's opponents, and he was being ironic. (Kinnock and Patten both were/are important politicians; only a delusionary extremist would call them "lunatic fringe".) Preston did not dishonestly slur Steyn in this way, only Wikipedia did. For more than two years.[9] Not good.

I've removed the lie. Given that Preston only makes a passing swipe at Steyn in an essay about how influential the British Press is (or isn't), I suspect that the whole paragraph should be deleted. Does anyone want to argue for retaining it?

Oh, and I also changed "some left-leaning readers" to "some (mostly left-leaning) readers", with a vague hope of stopping our current little edit warkerfuffle. I'm not particularly happy with my wording, but maybe we'll all be equally but mildly unhappy. (BRW, links to "right-leaning" readers making those criticisms would be useful right about now. Does anyone have any?)

As User:Charles Matthews suggested above, this section needs an update. I suggest renaming it to "Criticism and Controversy" (following Andrew Bolt and similar articles) and moving the "known for using humor" bit elsewhere. Comments?

Regards, CWC(talk) 23:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Fan Club Blog Link

I have provided a link at the bottom of the page to a Mark Steyn fan club. I do not add any details in the bulk of the text because it is of little direct value to any biography of Steyn - it merely shows for those who want to find out more on him that he does have something of a cult following. The founder of the blog - who i have contacted hopes it will be a source, eventually, of much information regarding his writings. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.111.171.44 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 2 December 2006.

I do not believe that this argument has merit. WP:EL tells us to consider linking to "[s]ites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to" a variety of reasons or "[s]ites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article". It further cautions us to avoid a number of types of links, but the ones that seem most relevant are "Links to blogs, except those written by a recognized authority" and "Links mainly intended to promote a website". As the site linked offers no information, it fails the main test for inclusion and should be removed. -- Saaber 18:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia

Under "Steyn on the USA and Islam", it is written that "Steyn has been accused of prejudice against Muslims, and indeed appears to relish being accused of Islamophobia." A "citation needed" has been added. If you visit Steyn's website [10] and look at the right-hand column titled "On the newsstand", you will find listed there an article titled "Fear of Islam can be treated, cured" to which Steyn has added the comment: "Truly a medical breakthrough". The article is a serious one by a DR. ADEL ELDIN but Steyn's reference to it is quite clearly tongue-in-cheek. It's not easy to give a simple citation in support of Steyn's "relish" but the evidence is there. OzArizona 20:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"Criticism" section just silly

I was thinking of changing the name of the Criticism section to something like "People Who Think Mark Steyn Is Rude". There are no actual criticisms or refutations of any of Steyn's arguments. Just a bunch of comments like "Mark Steyn yells at people too much" and stuff like that. In fact, unless someone is going to add some actual critiques (which I am sure there are) I think the entire section can be deleted as it adds nothing to the discussion and only takes up space. Any seconders? GuyInCT 02:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong second. Any public figure, especially a pundit, will have people who disagree with his/her style. It's hardly encyclopaedia material.

Mitchberg 21:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you say there are no actual criticisms? Why do you use "Mark Steyn yells at people too much" as an example when it has no connection with anything in that section? Charles Matthews 20:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Really? Here is a summation of the Criticism Section: "Detractors claim that Steyn disregards opposing arguments"; "Resorting to abuse when taxed with errors"; "Referred to as a neo-con ranter"; "Referred to as the far-right's court jester". No criticisms about his ideas or positions, and nothing that couldn't be said about most controversial figures by their detractors (substituting a word here and there). How does this add to the discussion? GuyInCT 18:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That's why I have been trying to add the factual criticisms by Johann Hari, only to be told bizarrely this is "spam". 86.149.161.55 14:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the Hari spam has crossed into simple vandalism: the removal of quotes by Mark Steyn (who, it should be noted, is the subject of this article) to "balance" his views with those of Hari (who, it should be noted, is not the subject of this article) is simply outrageous. It also seems to me that reversions have been coming in from anons more frequently than 4 times a day. I have therefore semi-protected this article. Nandesuka 15:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not about balancing Steyn against hari. It's about balancing pro-Steyn views (obviously represented by Steyn himself) with anti-Steyn views. The quote from hari was deleted, I was told, because it was "too long"; therefore I deleted the very long and unrepresentative passages from Steyn's columns that are quoted here.

It is offensive and absurd to describe this as vandalism, and an abuse of your position. I was quoting a critique of Steyn which Steyn himself, if you go to www.steynonline.com, describes as "the long awaited liberal takedown of 'America Alone'." How is that irrelevant to this article? How can you say that doesn't deserve to be quoted? - DavidR

What I am saying is that you are going to have to start seeking consensus for your changes. Part of that consensus is listening to what your fellow editors are trying to tell you. So far, you haven't been doing that. I suggest you begin. Nandesuka 21:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This is why I never use Wikipedia for anything that is remotely a controversial subject. The fact that it is becoming a reference for a growing portion of the population is truly unfortunate. GuyInCT 16:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There is far more neutral information on Wikipedia than in any other encyclopedia. But I suspect that the plutocrats do not like Wikipedia because, unlike - and this is truly unfortunate - most of the media, it is not under their control. Long live the free flow of information. If it's not correct, we can correct it. Conservapedia exists for the likes of the above editor. The rest of us can make up our own minds about what we use as a reference. Viewfinder 02:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Re the criticisms, these should be sourced: WP:BLP makes this clear. Viewfinder 02:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Re one of the criticisms, that he supported the invasion of Iraq, I seem to recall reading an article in The Spectator, at about the time of the invasion, in which Steyn advocated extending the invasion into Iraq's neighbours; I think that Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria were specifically mentioned. Unfortunately I do not have a precise reference. Viewfinder 03:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Is he aptly described as being a "Canadian"? He's in fact an Eastern European on his father's side

He's a Canadian national, spawned (sorry to use this term!) on Canadian territory, but his roots (hence his ethno-political obsessions) lie elsewhere. I just found out that his kin lived for centuries in the (now Ukrainian formerly Romanian) town of Cernauti detail exoticly relevant enough to be inserted in the article. He defends the "Western values" as if he owns their copyright but in fact he himself is of Eastern (European) stock. Apostolos Margaritis 12:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Umm... he was born and raised in Canada. If that doesn't make him Canadian then most people who think they are Canadian aren't (or American for that matter). He also seems to think with the independent spirit that Canadians used to have. GuyInCT 18:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

..."used to have?" Fuck you, arsehole.

David r from meth productions 23:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms of Steyn

I am keen to add more substantive and detailed criticisms of Steyn, since a user above has pointed out that the current criticisms consist predominantly of insults without the argumentsz to back them up.

To this end, I tried to add to a 3000 word article 270 words from teh review that Steyn himself has described as "the long awaited liberal takedown of America Alone".

A user called Nanesuka kept reversing this, and has even frozen the page. Her argument is as follows:

"Please read and understood this section of the WP:BLP policy: WP:BLP#Critics, and then read the material you were trying to insert in the light of it. Wikipedia has very strict policies on the biographies of living persons. While it's certainly appropriate to mention criticism (and link to it), it is never appropriate to overwhelm an article with extended quotes that "appear to side with" a critic. Frankly, that's how your Extended Dance Remix Hari Excerpts look to me, and apparently to other editors as well. Nandesuka 12:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)"

I replied:

"Thanks for honing your problem with my changes, but I'm afraid it is still based on erroneous assumptions.

In a 3000-word entry about Steyn that is overwhelmingly positive, I tried to insert 270 words of criticism from an article that Steyn himself has described as "the long-awaited liberal takedown of America Alone". I can't see how that fits your claim that I am "trying to overwhelm an article with extended quotes that "appear to side with" a critic". Can you explain how this is the case?"

So far, she has not answered. I have studied the BLP rules and believe that these criticisms, from an impeccable source (the New Statesman magazine) and described by Steyn himself as "the long awaited liberal takedown", conform entirely to the rules. They are well-sourced and provide clear facts.

I believe the case for quoting real, substantive criticism, in a piece that has lengthy and unrepresentative quotes from Steyn clearly selected to make him sound good, is now overwhelming. David r from meth productions 23:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The amount of vigor with which you pursue inserting as much Hari-centric material into Wikipedia makes me wonder what your affiliation is. Care to disclose it? Nandesuka 00:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

He's a friend of mine, as I've said elsewhere on wiki quite openly, and I think he's an excellent writer. What has that got to do with my argument? The fact you pick out this irrelevant fact makes me think, sadly, you don't have an answer to my key point. It's not like Hari is being plucked randomly and inserted into this entry: Mark Steyn calls his review "the long awaited liberal takedown of 'America Alone'". Can you answer my arguments please, Nandesuka, rather than trying to impugn my motives? - DavidR

Both I and several other people have answered your questions several times, but you don't seem to be willing to accept that fact that disinterested third parties thing that the amount of Hari material you are inserting into articles that are not about Johnathan Hari is inappropriate. In short, I thnk you have a conflict of interest, and you should accept that you are probably not the best judge of what amount of Hari material is "overwhelming." Nandesuka 12:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict; this was written before Nandesuka's last comment.)

It's a sad fact of life at Wikipedia that new contributors who strongly push certain content often want to use Wikipedia for personal ends. Classic examples: my great new band, my friend's great new website, why [local politician X] is corrupt/stupid/insane/evil. So editing here tends to induce lots of cynicism.

Steyn has been known to use humor from time to time. Sometimes he even uses irony. In fact, AFAIK everything he's written is full of jokes and irony, even his book about the end of the world as we know it. I don't think his description of Hari's review ("the long awaited liberal takedown of America Alone") is an exception. (See also: "ha ha only serious" in the Jargon file.)

In articles about living people, extended excerpts from critics are rarely appropriate. Instead we should summarize the criticism and link to the complete column or news item.

Cheers, CWC 13:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Nandesuka, I'm afraid you change your argument about why this quote shouldn't be included each time you write.

Initially, you claimed that I was "trying to overwhelm an article with extended quotes that "appear to side with" a critic". In reality, in a 3000-word entry about Steyn that is overwhelmingly positive, I tried to insert 270 words of criticism from an article that Steyn himself has described as "the long-awaited liberal takedown of America Alone".

When I asked you to explain your criticism, you changed the argument to say it breached the BLP rules. I explained I have studied the BLP rules and believe that these criticisms, from an impeccable source (the New Statesman magazine) and described by Steyn himself as "the long awaited liberal takedown", conform entirely to the rules. They are well-sourced and provide clear facts.

When I asked you for your counter-argument, you then claimed that I was too biased to comment because I happen to know the person who Steyn describes as writing "the long awaited liberal takedown" of his book. (And no, I don't accet this was sarcastic, the majority of his writing is not sarcastic.)

The fact that you keep shifting your argument suggests that you made an inital mistake (calling this edit "spam" and "vandalism", which is really offensive) and sadly are scrambling to justify it.

Do you now accept that your first two criticisms were incorrect? If not, please justify them, as you have repeatedly failed to do, I'm afraid. - DaveR

No, not at all. You showed up at Wikipedia and began shoehorning overly long, extended quotes from your buddy into multiple articles, using multiple IP addresses as well as logged in accounts: you were spamming. That your spam also violates BLP, and that you have a conflict of interest is simply icing on this very ugly tasting cake. Please don't mistake "I grow weary of arguing with someone who isn't listening to reason" with "I am changing my arguments." For the last time: you will conform to Wikipedia's content policies. You may not argue your way out of them. I suggest you learn to accept that, because it will not change. Nandesuka 12:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I find your tone insulting and inaccurate. I inserted Hari info into three entries, all of which have subjects he has commented on very prominently in national newspapers. I did not use multiple IP addresses; I used my work computer and my home computer, hardly proof of "spam".

You keep asserting that my entry about Steyn breaches BLP. If this is so obvious, surely you can give some evidence? I have gone through BLP and think the passage I proposed fits it very well.

I do not understand why you are being so insulting and rude, and refusing to answer any of my polite requests for you to back up your assertions with arguments. - DavidR

Slow down, David. Without my taking sides here, on the specifics, I hope we can agree that articles should be developed in line with a consensus. Charles Matthews 15:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree Charles. I'm afraid it's hard to build a consensus, or have a discussion, when another user won't back up their statements, and accuses you of being a "vandal" and inserting "spam" when you clearly aren't.

All I am asking, so we can make progress and find an accepable form of words, is Nandesuka to back up his/her statements that

(a) inserting 270 words into a 3000 word aricle, with no editorialising, just quotes, is "trying to overwhelm an article with extended quotes" that "appear to side with a critic".

(b) how the passage I was trying to insert breaches BLP, when it is very clearly from a reutable source and has been described by Steyn himself as "the long awaited liberal takedown" of his book.

I have only ever politely requested this so we can get the basis for a discussion and find a form of words acceptable to everyone. having lengthy and unrepresentative pro-Steyn quotes, and no quotes critical of Steyn, in contrary to wiki principles and unacceptable to me. Let's find a way to build a consensus around a better article that doesn't involve name-calling or abuse. - DavidR

The initial diff containing the extended Hari quoting is here. I think it's important to discuss this not simply in terms of the number of words in the entire article, but how much of the criticism section it makes up (Hari is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the most significant or notable critic of Steyn), and whether it makes the article better or worse. Put simply, the extended quote muddies the article rather than crystallizing it: it could be (and should be) boiled down to a single sentence to give the reader the gist of Hari's point. Nandesuka 13:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adopting a less abusive tone this time.

Users above have pointed out that the criticisms section at the moment offers conclusions, withoout the reasoning behind them, which makes it look simply like a list of insults directed at Steyn. I was trying to insert both a criticism and the reasoning behind it, to remedy this problem. I suggest inserting some more sentences of Hari's critique, although not as long as my original proposal, as a compromise position.

I understand what you say about Hari not being the most prominent critic, but since you have got his name wrong every time you've written it (his name is not 'Jonathan') I would ask you to question whether you have enough information about him to make that judgement, and also point out that Steyn himself says Hari is the author of "the long awaited liberal takedown " of his book. - DavidR

I waited a week, and since nobody objected here, I've done as I said I would, inserting a shorter quote/summary. I'm of course happy to debate it if people think the passage I've quoted can be improved - DavidR

Exactly how many editors are going to have to revert your overly long, wandering, and ridiculously padded treatise astroturfing your friend Hari's works before you accept that there is no consensus for such an egregiously out-of-place and overweight section? Inquiring minds want to know. Nandesuka 01:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop being so abusive, Nandesuka.

A wiki user posting above makes the point, which I think is reasonable, that at the moment the 'crticisms' section consists solely of the conclusions critics make about him without the reasoning behind them. Therefore it sounds like a string of insults. I was trying to rectify that by giving both a criticism and the reasoning behind it. Since Hari's review is described by Steyn himself as "the long-awaited liberal takedown" of his book, it seems a reasonable criticism to do this with. If the wording wasn't great, by all means improve it - but removing the criticism all together is not reasonable, nor I'm afraid is your consistently insulting tone. - DaveR

Since you don't seem to understand that Steyn's description of Hari's works may have been a joke, I don't think your description of my tone as "abusive" holds much water here. I am frustrated that you continue to try to push your agenda in spite of clear and widespread opposition, and in spite of your own acknowledged conflict of interest. Nandesuka 17:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You're saying Steyn linked to an article that accused him of "raw racism" in the most prominent place on his site as a joke? That seems to me implausible; even you say it only "may" be the case. I think your tone is, sadly, clearly abusive. I don't think anybody could interpret attacking a sincerely meant entry as an "overly long, wandering, and ridiculously padded treatise astroturfing your friend Hari's works" as anything other than abuse, I'm afraid. Please try to engage with my arguments politely.

As I say above: A wiki user posting above makes the point, which I think is reasonable, that at the moment the 'crticisms' section consists solely of the conclusions critics make about him without the reasoning behind them. Therefore it sounds like a string of insults. I was trying to rectify that by giving both a criticism and the reasoning behind it. Since Hari's review is described by Steyn himself as "the long-awaited liberal takedown" of his book, it seems a reasonable criticism to do this with. If the wording wasn't great, by all means improve it - but removing the criticism all together is not reasonable, nor I'm afraid is your consistently insulting tone.

To this end, I have offered a compromise alternative which I am receptive to comments on.

Please respond to this without abuse and without questioning my desire to achjieve the best entry we can. David r from meth productions 23:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

How many substantive edits have you made to Wikipedia articles that did not involve inserting references to your mate Hari? Seriously. How many? If this sort of questioning offends you, then please consider changing your behavior. Nandesuka 01:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Lots. Look, for example, at the Spiked Online entry, which has nothing at all to do with hari, or the Harry Mount entry, or plenty of others. I really wish you would stop breachign the clear wiki guidelines about impugning the motives of other editors - assume good faith. David r from meth productions 23:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Steyn did indeed link "to an article that accused him of 'raw racism' [...] as a joke". Many of Steyn's fans would have found Hari's review very amusing. OTOH, as an admirer of Hari's writing with a long-standing interest in the Racist Right, I was extremely disappointed by the review. (BTW, when I saw that link at Steyn's website it was not "in the most prominent place on his site".)

As I understand it, Steyn has been waiting for a substantive review of America Alone from 'the left' ever since it was published, and has complained more than once about being one of the few books on the NYT bestsellers list not reviewed by the NYT. In calling that review the "long-awaited liberal takedown", Steyn is mocking Hari in no gentle fashion.

I've just copyedited the stuff about Hari's criticisms of Steyn. (I also moved them together, and removed the bit about Jeffrey Scott Shapiro being fired.) I hope this edit moves us close to something that we can all live with. Cheers, CWC 08:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chris - I appreciate your point, and I'm grateful for your tone. I think your changes are reasonable compromises except for the removal of Shapiro being fired. The accusation against Steyn is that he repeated urban myths printed by a journalist who was fired for bad reporting. Steyn knew the guy had been fired - indeed, he refers to it in his article - but repeated the claims he made anyway. That's the point: not that he just repeated the words of another journalist (as the entry currently implies), but that he repeatd the claims of a discredited and fired journalist. It's a very important distinction; if we don't mention it, we are misleading readers about what the accusation against Steyn is. (Of course we mustn't endorse the accusation against Steyn, but we must accurately describe it). David r from meth productions 23:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I can live with this. However, I did make one change. The paragraph said that Hari noted that Steyn had called Muslims "beturbanned prophet monkeys." What Hari actually said was "He describes as "correct" a friend who talks about "beturbanned prophet-monkeys."", which is a somewhat different thing. Since I couldn't think of a way to rephrase this without being clumsy or running into WP:BLP issues, I removed it. Feel free to put it back if we can do it in a way that is both accurate and does not give Hari undue weight. Personally, I don't think it adds much, and it certainly is improper to say that Steyn "said" something that he did not. Nandesuka 13:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm grateful for you accepting these changes. I'll try to find a form of words in which we can put becak the reference to beturbanned prophet-monkeys, let me know what you think. David r from meth productions 23:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Peter Preston criticism removed

I don't believe it helps. Peter Preston is a 'senior' figure. Charles Matthews 19:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

We can put it back if you like, my only problem with it is that it is basically an insult rather than an argument, but now the criticisms section consists of sourced arguments it is stronger. - DavidR

VA Tech Male Students as "men"

Steyn has faced criticism for suggesting the males students are somehow unmanly, and such a charge is not out of context...he actually does the same to male Canadian students about halfway down in his article:

"Yet the defining image of contemporary Canadian maleness is not M Lepine/Gharbi but the professors and the men in that classroom, who, ordered to leave by the lone gunman, meekly did so, and abandoned their female classmates to their fate — an act of abdication that would have been unthinkable in almost any other culture throughout human history. The “men” stood outside in the corridor and, even as they heard the first shots, they did nothing. And, when it was over and Gharbi walked out of the room and past them, they still did nothing. Whatever its other defects, Canadian manhood does not suffer from an excess of testosterone."

Chris, you have claimed the quote to be taken out of context, but given the above I disagree. Moreover, you claimed that Steyn was "mocking" the infantilizers, but from where are you deriving that belif? I think given that he's *explicitiy* doing it later in the article to other young men, he's similarly suggesting the male students at VA Tech were unmanly. Jakerforever 14:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think he's making a broader point about infantilization. (It's one I happen to agree with, so I'm biased.) Here's a relevant excerpt:

On Monday night, Geraldo was all over Fox News saying we have to accept that, in this horrible world we live in, our “children” need to be “protected.”

Point one: They’re not “children.” The students at Virginia Tech were grown women and — if you’ll forgive the expression — men. They would be regarded as adults by any other society in the history of our planet. Granted, we live in a selectively infantilized culture where twentysomethings are “children” if they’re serving in the Third Infantry Division in Ramadi but grown-ups making rational choices if they drop to the broadloom in President Clinton’s Oval Office. Nonetheless, it’s deeply damaging to portray fit fully formed adults as children who need to be protected. We should be raising them to understand that there will be moments in life when you need to protect yourself — and, in a “horrible” world, there may come moments when you have to choose between protecting yourself or others. It is a poor reflection on us that, in those first critical seconds where one has to make a decision, only an elderly Holocaust survivor, Professor Librescu, understood instinctively the obligation to act.

Why would “men” be an expression that needs forgiveness? As a regular reader of Steyn, I understand him to believe that manhood (in the old-fashioned sense) is now politically incorrect. That's why I see him as mocking the infantilizers here.

But, yes, he did insult the manhood of those Canadians, and he can be read as insulting the male VA Tech students.

For what it's worth, he responded to criticism of this article in his next syndicated column[11] and linked to almost-literal infantilization of Yale students:

I've had some mail in recent days from people who claimed I'd insulted the dead of Virginia Tech. Obviously, I regret I didn't show the exquisite taste and sensitivity of Sen. Obama and compare getting shot in the head to an Imus one-liner. Does he mean it? I doubt whether even he knows. When something savage and unexpected happens, it's easiest to retreat to our tropes and bugbears or, in the senator's case, a speech on the previous week's "big news." Perhaps I'm guilty of the same. But then Yale University, one of the most prestigious institutes of learning on the planet, announces that it's no longer safe to expose twentysomething men and women to Henry V unless you cry God for Harry, England and St. George while brandishing a bright pink and purple plastic sword from the local kindergarten. Except, of course, that the local kindergarten long since banned plastic swords under its own "zero tolerance" policy.

If anyone can think of a concise way of putting "The students at Virginia Tech were grown women and — if you’ll forgive the expression — men" into context in the article, please do so.

I've asked for citation(s) for "Some regarded Steyn's statement as insulting." Strictly speaking, WP:BLP requires us to either remove that sentence or add links to notable people saying that Steyn's statement is insulting. Please supply links!

Cheers, CWC 14:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Liberal takedowns of America Alone

We've had a few mentions of Steyn's comment about the "long awaited liberal takedown" of America Alone on this discussion page. He commented on the lack of reviews by left-of-center folks here in January 2007. (Scroll down to "Where are all the hatchet jobs?".) I hope I'm not the only one who finds this interesting ... Cheers, CWC 11:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Alleged removal of sourced material

I don't know anything about this guy, but looking at the edit history it seems that User:Jayjg has recently removed a ton of valid, relevant, and sourced biographical material from this article, and I'm going to put it back. --Wassermann 00:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that you would follow me here, and make unsupported accusations. Which information that I removed do you think is "valid, relevant, and sourced"? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Neoconservative

Please can we delete the fact tag in the lead paragraph.

I have read Irving Kristol's "three pillars of neoconservatism" and many of Mark Steyn's articles in The Spectator, and there seems to me to be a close enough match with the material in Mark Steyn to justify the term without further citation. He was called a neocon by another conservative (but not neoconservative) columnist, Matthew Parris, although I cannot find the chapter and verse. The Kristol pillars, namely advocationg lower taxes and less welfare at home, and intervention abroad, is not an exclusively US standpoint. "Epithet" has a pejorative slant; I don't think neo-conservative should necessarily be a pejorative term, although neo-conservatism has many critics and has recently come under fire, particularly over its strong support for the Iraq war. This may have led to some of its supporters attempting to shrug off the term, and replace it with the more euphemistic but vague "U.S.-style movement conservative". I oppose this; neo-conservatives should stand up and be counted. Viewfinder 16:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Steyn certainly does have a lot in common with the neo-conservatives, but I think he is too socially conservative in domestic policy and too "Jacksonian" in foreign policy to be classed as a neo-conservative.

I'd better try to explain what I mean by "Jacksonian". It comes from a great essay by Walter Russell Mead named "The Jacksonian Tradition"(nice copy, free copy with ads). Mead's later book, Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How it Changed the World (ISBN 0375412301), covers the same topic in greater depth. Basically, Mead identifies four schools of U.S. foreign policy and names them after Presidents:

a "Hamiltonian" concern with U.S. economic well-being at home and abroad; a "Wilsonian" impulse to promulgate U.S. values throughout the world; a "Jeffersonian" focus on protecting American democracy in a perilous world; and a bellicose, populist "Jacksonian" commitment to preserving U.S. interests and honor in the world.

(Quoting a book review; emphasis added) Note that neo-conservatism is the modern form of Wilsonian thought. For more detail on Jacksonians, here's something Mead said in an interview:

Then finally, you've got a group called the Jacksonians, for Andrew Jackson. ... [The idea is]: "Don't bother with people abroad, unless they bother you. But if they attack you, then do everything you can."

So in the 1930s, Hitler takes over Paris; we don't move an inch. He starts exterminating the Jews; we don't move an inch. Japan is [carrying out aggression] all over Asia. And on December 6, 1941, any opinion poll in the country would have said that most Americans wanted to stay out of World War II. Then December 7th, Japan attacks Pearl Harbor and suddenly the polls change. Jacksonians: when somebody attacks the hive, you come swarming out of the hive and you sting them to death. And Jacksonians, when it comes to war, don't believe in limited wars. They don't believe, particularly, in the laws of war. War is about fighting, killing, and winning with as few casualties as possible on your side. But you don't worry about casualties on the other side. That's their problem. They shouldn't have started the war if they didn't want casualties.

There's a lot more to his concept of Jacksonians. I strongly recommend reading that essay. One important aspect is that Jacksonians tend to be conservative about domestic policy (and personal morality). Many, but not all, Jacksonians are social conservatives. Many, but not all, social conservatives are Jacksonians. Having read (almost?) all Steyn's syndicated columns for the last few years, I'd classify him as a social conservative and a Jacksonian.

Now let me explain my phrase "U.S.-style movement conservative". Many U.S. conservatives are part of a broad movement which is not really "conservative" in the dictionary meaning of the word: instead of disliking all change, they welcome some kinds of changes but reject others. (In contrast, U.S. paleoconservatives and, as I understand it, some of the British Conservative Party tend to dislike all change.) Like most National Review writers, Steyn is part of that broad movement.

I like your last point. As it happens, I was more worried about "neo-con" as an euphemism for Jew (used by the racist right) or Zionist (used by a large portion of the left).

Viewfinder, I hope this helps. I'm sorry it's so long. Looking forward to your response, CWC 18:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

We cannot (here on Wikipedia) come to any conclusions of our own. We can only cite what others say, from reliable sources. That is how Wikipedia works. Charles Matthews 18:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I thought that it was clear from cited material in the article and the Kristol pillars, that Mark Steyn is a neocon, and "Mark Steyn neocon" generates loads of Google hits. But given that he and his supporters deny being neocons, I am persuaded that the claim needs to be better cited or rephrased. I still think that there should be something more specific than "conservative". Something more NPOV like "His views have been described as neo-conservative (that is verifiable), but that is rejected by himself and his supporters" may be better. But you mention his "Jacksonian" "don't bother with people abroad, unless they bother you. But if they attack you, then do everything you can." But did Iraq attack America? I don't think so. America attacked Iraq because Iraq was seen as a threat to the Middle East. Surely Mark Steyn's vigorous support for the action against Iraq is more in line with Kristol's more interventionist neoconservatism than Andrew Jackson.

Incidentally, I did not know that neocon was used as a racist term. I thought it summarised the hawkish elements in the Bush administration; so evidently does the BBC [12]. These guys seem to me to be indistinguishable from Mark Steyn; they are now attempting to re-invent themselves as "US conservatives", although I am still not persuaded that there is a difference. Viewfinder 19:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey Scott Shapiro

The article mentions Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, a reporter who Steyn quoted in the column which Johan Hari said reproduced an urban myth. We're getting a 'steady trickle' of editors (mostly anons, IIRC) who say it's important to mention that Steyn knew that Shapiro was fired for writing that story. The problem is that no-one has ever said just what it was that got Shapiro fired. The best source I've found about that firing is this Dec 2001 item from Westword, which says:

At some point on the morning of October 11, Shapiro was fired by the Journal News management, according to an article Masterson wrote for the November 29 edition of the Fairfield County Weekly (which by then had merged with the Westchester County Weekly). For what reason, no one would tell Masterson on the record, although off-the-record sources agreed that "in a closed-door meeting at the Journal News, Shapiro was immediately fired and escorted from the building."

I guess the underlying allegation is that he wrote a false story and that Steyn should have known that. But there's no evidence for either of those points, AFAIK. Shapiro has hinted that his choice of topic offended the paper. Or maybe he was caught stealing staplers ... no-one knows. Personally, I believe the reason is irrelevant to this article.

So I've changed the article to "Steyn was quoting reporter Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, who was fired after writing that story for reasons that have never been made public." It's true, it's WP:BLP-compliant and it's way too long ... 2 out of 3 ain't bad. Cheers, CWC 20:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Steyn's blog

The article references that Mark Steyn does not have a blog. In fact,he has been actively blogging in support of Conrad Black at his recent trial. The blog is published by Macleans magazine.

See this reference: http://forums.macleans.ca/advansis/?mod=for&act=dis&eid=52&so=&ps=&sb

I will leave it to someone else to edit the actual page if there is an agreement to make the change. Perhaps his somewhat controversial remarks in favour of Black are worthy of reference as well.206.191.33.167 22:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Steyn's blog at Maclean's is relevant because his own words demonstrate continuing failure to exercise any degree of objectivity. No doubt, Mr. Steyn's admirers would prefer that embarrassing record is not readily available but I believe it accurately demonstrates his style of journalism. Interactbiz (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section

Generally there should not be a criticism section in an article as they are breeding grounds for people with axes to grind and original research. This section should be deleted, and any sourced content in it should be distributed to the relevant section the article. Judgesurreal777 03:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Self-Promotion of minor British hack

I deleted the section documenting British journalist Johann Hari's criticisms of Steyn, as having checked out his Wikipedia entry (to find out who the person was), discovered that it has been tagged for lack of neutrality, the reason being that a certain 'DaveR' had been transformed the entry into a hagiography - a complete Johann Hari fan club, which exaggerated his importance as a journalist and cited him as an authority on everything from the Enlightenment philosophy to global warming, from British imperialism to religion. This is the same DaveR that inserted the reference to Hari in the Steyn article, which refers to a little known book review he wrote. This was queried in the discussion above (see the 'Criticisms of Steyn' section above), by several people who asked, not unreasonably, what the relevance of this criticism and the purpose of citing it was. Having read the entry I can't see any justificaton apart from the promotion of Hari by 'DaveR' (who both above and in the discussion on the Hari page admits to being a friend of his). I don't think this sort of shameless promotion of one's friends or oneself (because, who knows, DaveR could be Hari) should be allowed to ruin otherwise good Wikipedia entries.

- YUou really need to check your facts. Steyn himself described this review as "the long-awaited liberal takedown of America Alone" on his website, linked to it, and it prompted a huge amount of discussion. The review was described as devestating by Andrew Sullivan, one of America's most high profile bloggers. Hardly "little known." Your representation of my work on the Hari entry is preposterous; indeed, it is considerably less hagiographic and much shorter than this Steyn entry, for example. It is highly significant to see that Steyn has been accused very plausbly of racism.David r from meth productions (talk) 13:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Complaint by law students

Page describes complainants as 5 Muslim law students. At least one of them is not. Muslim that is. But changes to reflect the accuracy of this statement appear to have been Steynwalled as well.

Somebody is inserting blatant POV into this entry

e.g. accusing Stehn's critics of verbal diarrhea etc. This must stop immediately —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.155.13 (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Still loaded with blatant POV, such that the subject is hardly recognizable from this entry! 76.98.9.241 (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What does this sentence mean?

Steyn repeatedly claimed that Osama Bin Laden following the US invasion of Afghanistan amongst other predictions or claims related to the American-led military action following 9-11.

This is a sentence fragment. What is it actually supposed to say? Thanks! Stanselmdoc (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, this article has a slight POV. Blogs and Media Matters are not NPOV or reliable sources for biographies of living persons. The entire Rush Limbaugh section doesn't belong in here at all, unless a reliable source can back up that the comments are relevant to Steyn himself. And the presentation of his positions and criticism of them are frequently placed in block quotes, when only a short summary is necessary. There are at least 8 block quotations in the article. The Western Civ and Islam section literally offers block quotations without any encyclopedic explanation for them. We should supplant the block quotations with commentary instead. Stanselmdoc (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As I've done a good-faith effort to find reliable sources for the Limbaugh section and have come up short, I'm removing it. It is not a notable enough controversy. Stanselmdoc (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Mark Steyn Image

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Mark_Steyn_CPAC.JPG

Human Rights Complaint Actions

Perhaps the information provided in the section on the human rights complaints now goes beyond what is appropriate for this entry on the writer Mark Steyn. That Macleans Magazine published a series of articles that may or may not exhibit a pattern of Islamophobia is worth mentioning here because of Steyn's involvement but the section should be short and not get into a full description of the issues. That might be better placed in the entry about Macleans or the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

Another point to consider is whether or not SteynOnline should be used to quote purported facts. Since this is Steyn's personal forum, we should seek other references instead.NRF - North Vancouver Canada (talk) 08:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

should trial updates be included? http://blog.macleans.ca/author/andrewcoyne/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.132.171 (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I revised the section about the complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, trying to shorten without losing the item's significance. That commission action is complete.

Someone asked if the BC Tribunal hearings should be updated but those proceedings continue against Macleans magazine, not Steyn. Inserting daily updates like a newspaper is not encyclopedic. We can update when a definitive action occurs. --Interactbiz (Norm, Vancouver Canada) (talk) 06:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Balance demands information about a subject whether positive, negative or in between

It is inappropriate to remove properly sourced material from respected main stream media simply because it paints the subject in a light different from that preferred by the editor. Mark Steyn is a polemecist who argues from his own point of view, often taking, with delight, positions that strongly oppose tenets of groups that he targets. Because he makes strong, perhaps extreme, statements such as those about the desirability of preserving white Judeo-Christian society, he is likely to draw strong responses from people who hold different views.

Mark Steyn writes opinions and doesn't provide footnotes and supporting research. Some readers enjoy his content and agree uncritically with the sentiments. Some readers think that he plays fast and loose with the facts. Others read him because they enjoy his way with words, regardless of the content. The Wikipedia article should reflect all points of view about a subject. NRF - North Vancouver Canada (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely right. This entry as it currently stands is a disgrace.86.129.143.175 (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Media section

The paragraph beginning "In a July, 2005 column for..." is problematic. The referenced article by Mark Steyn, I found here http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,16034303-7583,00.html A quick read indicates the article is primarily a rant by MS against multiculturalism. As now written, the WP paragraph reports the article to be a criticism of media by Steyn and focuses on statements supposedly made by Andrew Jaspan, Editor-in-Chief of The Age. I cannot locate a quality link that provides the full context of Jaspan's statement although there are many references to his purported words in the blogosphere. Since this article is not about Jaspan, the Editor's statement may not be relevant anyway. If an editor wants to report on the particular column written by Steyn, it should better reflect the whole column and be in the section on multiculturalism.

I invite comments about removing the paragraph as it now reads for the reason that Jaspan's words are not reliably sourced and the paragraph does not fully represent Steyn's column. NRF - North Vancouver Canada (talk) 07:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"Zionist neocon Bush shill" - Is Steyn's self description appropriate content?

On his website, Steyn referred to himself as a ". . . Zionist neocon Bush shill . . ." <ref>Steyn, Mark: [http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/858/128/ "When barristers in short pants wet them"] SteynOnline.com, January 6, 2008</ref> That was reported here but an anonymous editor reverted the description.

I believe that it is appropriate content. Mark Steyn said it about himself and not ironically. The reverting editor perhaps thinks "Zionist neocon Bush shill" is derogatory but it is not.

Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel, a noble cause for many.

Look at National Review Online for a discussion of neocon <ref>Goldberg, Jonah: [http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg052103.asp "The End of Neoconservatism"] May 21, 2003</ref> This conservative publication does not use neocon as a term of derision.

A shill is one who praises and supports another for reason of loyalty. Mark Steyn has happily supported the George Bush administration throughout the past 7 years.

It is not Mark Steyn's nature to use timid euphemisms when he describes himself and others. His own words, describing himself, were not taken out of context and they were not written ironically. Therefore I undid the reversion and suggest any further change to this item should only come if a contrary consensus is reached here.--Interactbiz (Norm, Vancouver Canada) (talk) 06:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not relevant to the encyclopedic article. And shill is generally viewed with negative connotations. Definition from Dictionary.com "1. a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc. 2. a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty. –verb (used without object) 3. to work as a shill: He shills for a large casino. –verb (used with object) 4. to advertise or promote (a product) as or in the manner of a huckster; hustle: He was hired to shill a new TV show."

He did not say, "I am a Zionist neocon Bush shill." He was responding to another comment and rephrasing for the sake of argument what someone else said, "What's the point here? That a Zionist neocon Bush shill like me is somehow silent when an anti-Zionist anti-neocon anti-Bush nut in BC gets picked on by the thought police?"

Then you come along in a decidedly non-NPOV way and take it out of context and state that Steyn "referred to himself as" with ellipses around the rest of the quote. If you would like to take the whole blog post and summarize the argument and place the quote in context that would be fair to him but that doesn't really contribute to the article, does it? (unless of course you really just want to take the opportunity to refer to him as a "shill.")

I have reverted it back to the status quo and suggest that we not change it back until we come to some sort of consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.39.160 (talk) 11:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

70.188.39.160, may I suggest that you sign in and not post anonymously. I am willing to await discussion and abide by consensus. Please don't assume that I am trying to make this a non-NPOV article. That is precisely the opposite of my intention. As I wrote previously in the talk pages, a neutral point of view requires examination of all aspects of the subject. An encyclopedic biography will not read like a press release from a fan club nor will it be an unending series of criticisms without balance. If one reader believes an adjective to have "negative connotations", that does not mean it should be excluded from a biography. Is it accurate, fair comment and notable?

Steyn's self-description is not offensive to his style of not-pc conversation. He and other writers sympathetic to his views find it accurately descriptive. See for example that The Economist repeats the term when writing about Steyn in the January 10, 2008 article "Islam and phobias."<ref> http://www.economist.com/world/la/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10499144</ref> Steyn also calls himself the "Happy Warrior". Is that offensive and unmentionable?

Comments from others are most welcome. --Interactbiz (Norm, Vancouver Canada) (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I just don't see how adding the comment contributes to the article and it appears to be taken out of context as described previously. He does support Israel and Bush as is made clear in other parts of the article. I don't see the value of the quote and it does have appear to be non-NPOV with the negative connotations of the word 'shill.'

I would hardly call the left-wing Economist a Mark Steyn supporter. Please see The Corner note where Steyn himself compares 'racist homophobe mysogynist Bush shill' terminology to 'four-letter words and KKK slurs.' [13]

I don't find the words Happy Warrior offensive. IP7018839160 (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Pseudonym or Pen Name

Is Mark Steyn a pen name? What is his real name if so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.144.80 (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a polemicist

The article says that Mark Steyn describes himself as a "polemicist". I checked the footnote, and there is no evidence that he calls himself that derogatory term. He is a writer or a columnist, not a polemicist, which is a put-down term.

This shows the liberal slant of the biography and needs to be corrected. ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchflorida (talk • contribs) 12:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point: "polemicist" is the wrong word. I just reworded parts of the lede to fix this. (While I was there, I split it into two paragraphs.) Further copyedits welcome. Cheers, CWC 15:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Polemicist is not a put-down. It is perfectly descriptive of a writer like Steyn and is what makes his work so attractive to many. Countless mainstream media columnists engage in white bread arguments that stir nobody to react. If you think Mark Steyn is not a polemicist, you have not been reading him over the years. He enjoys stating and arguing positions that are opposite to politically correct wisdom. For example, his willingness to dispute policies of Canadian human rights tribunals demonstrates my point. Throughout the country, no columnist mounted an effective campaign focusing on the appropriateness of legislative or regulatory limits to free speech. Steyn, who doesn’t even live in Canada now, took on these agencies directly through his writing and personal appearances. Examine his statements about moslems in Europe. Does he make controversial arguments that most others don’t have nerve to do? Of course, he does. It is foolish to say that an accurate description of one of Steyn’s main attributes reflects a “liberal slant.” Would you not call Irving Kristol a neoconservative because for some that has a negative connotation?

The purpose of the Steyn article and every Wikipedia biography is to paint an accurate and fair picture of a subject. It should have a balance of views that originate from respectable and widely accepted sources. If an article is limited to complimentary statements or limited to derogatory statements, it would fail the test of balance. Mitchflorida, if you believe this article has a "liberal slant", why not identify the parts that lack balance and assist fair minded editors in correcting. Almost all of the regular contributors to Wikipedia believe in the concept of an open, accurate and accessible information resource. Obviously, some people are interested in adding biased views but, with fair minded cooperation of many editors, articles evolve in an appropriate manner. --Interactbiz (Norm, Vancouver Canada) (talk) 05:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Correcting a link

I don't seem to be able to edit the main page:

In the section 'External links' the link http://www.c-span.org/search/basic.asp?resultstart=1&resultcount=10&BasicQueryText=mark%20steyn

Should be http://www.c-span.org/search.aspx?For=mark%20steyn

some one with access please correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalimgates (talk • contribs) 04:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks, Kalimgates. CWC 14:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"Self-described" conservative

Lead sentence was "Mark Steyn, born in Canada in 1959, is a self-described conservative writer and commentator"
I've dropped the "self-described", as it could have the pejorative connotation that "although Steyn calls himself a conservative, others disagree".
I've added cites in the article text (in an in-line note) from four reputable sources with a variety of political viewpoints referring to Steyn as a conservative.
If other editors want to convert these to numbered references, please do so.
Cites are

http://www.newsweek.com/id/36126
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7273870.stm
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/sep/09/entertainment/et-rutten9
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magazine/29Birth-t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

-- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Sheep-Shagging

An unknown user is vandalizing the page regarding the sheep-shagging incident. I suggest they provide verifiable sources per Wikipedia standards to confirm the veracity of the quote in question. What would be even better is if someone would elaborate on the page, citing the original journal articles cited in the link provided. MrOakes (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You appear to have sourced a critique of Steyn to a blog, while removing a defense against that critique by Stein himself. Please review WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

And so you remove the discussion entirely? The "defense" is not really needed because it doesn't even address the primary sources. Someone should directly cite in the entry the primary sources listed in the blog, that would have been a more appropriate edit. I'll defer though to the judgment of more senior editors. MrOakes (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Funny that you call a cited addition 'vandalizing'. Stop using your liberal cabal to steer the tone of the article. If someone adds something and cites it, it has just as much grounds to be there as your lengthy and factually-incorrect quote about Steyn's supposed racism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.2.209.2 (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Added external links tag

Too many external links, about six of them to audio podcasts, a Column where Steyn calls the police officer who arrested Senator Craig "creepy.", a "quotable barbs" link, a sympathetic article by Linda Frum, and NO critical links whatsoever.--Kitrus (talk) 08:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Which policies are you concerned about, and which links do you think should be added or deleted? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External_links#Avoid_undue_weight_on_particular_points_of_view--Kitrus (talk) 05:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the listing of external links is not appropriate.

1. Steynonline.com is the writer's official site and it is already linked 3 times in the article. No need to repeat.

2. Quotable Barbs link is a personal website that does not qualify for inclusion. Shire Network News is questionable as well WP:EL (To be avoided) "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies).

3. Links to right wing sources (National Post, Washington Times, Shire Network News and Orange County Register) give unbalanced weight to part of Steyn's work. Shire Network News is a personal website of a few people and is not balanced. Quote WP:EL -- "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP or that are not fully compliant with this guideline."

I will remove the external links that are not in keeping with WP policies and guidelines. --Interactbiz (Norm, Vancouver Canada) (talk) 06:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

---

It does not matter how often

http://www.steynonline.com/

occurs in the text, it should occur at the bottom where I would expect it to. It doesn't yet. 58.175.25.86 (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

User 58.175.25.86 is quite right. I've added it to the External Links section. Cheers, CWC 11:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of referenced material

I restored properly referenced material. Please do not threaten to block me, I have not violated WP:3RR. Please take time to explain why the material violates WP:BLP, the author is reference is Steyn himself. Viewfinder (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Steyn has written millions of words in literally hundreds, perhaps thousands, of articles. Please explain what makes that particular statement notable in any way; in particular, please find reliable secondary sources that have discussed that statement and provided a context for it. Until then, do not re-insert that WP:BLP-violating original research. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi again Jayjg. Here is the disputed material: When fellow journalist Robert Fisk, a vocal critic of US foreign policy, was badly beaten up by Afghan refugees, Steyn remarked: "You'd have to have a heart of stone not to weep with laughter."[14]. This does not violate WP:BLP or WP:NOR; Steyn himself is the author of the reference. Therefore you are challenging the material on the grounds of notability and I therefore reject any claim that there were grounds for threatening to block me. The material sounds notable enough to me. Please direct me to the specific guideline clause that has been violated. Thanks. Viewfinder (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC) The statement also appears here. Viewfinder (talk) 04:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

And here. Is that enough? Viewfinder (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The material appears to have been inserted for the purpose of reflecting negatively on Steyn. Also, I have removed the material as original research, since it is mining primary sources for material that Wikipedia editors feel is significant. When I say the issue is original research, I mean original research. That it is not notable is a second issue. As for the two sources you found mentioning it, the first is marginal, and in any event only mentions it in passing. The second appears to be a blog/personal website of some sort, which, of course, is absolutely forbidden in a WP:BLP. Please find reliable secondary sources that discuss this statement. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The context is clear in the Steyn article, and you asked for sources that had discussed the incident so I gave them. From the context, the extent to which Steyn is laughing at the incident or Fisk's response is unclear and open to debate. But that he made the remark after the incident is clear. If there is a context issue then that would have been a more appropriate response from an eminent Wikipedian than threats to block. Viewfinder (talk) 05:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Your view regarding the context is quite interesting. I don't really have an opinion on it myself, but I do know that what WP:BLP requires for insertion of such material is reliable secondary sources that discuss this statement. Regarding your other concern, restoring material after it has been removed on WP:BLP grounds is a pretty serious matter. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It would have helped if an edit summary or talk page statement indicating why it was removed on BLP grounds had been supplied, given that the removed statement is both true and verifiable, even if it may be out of context. I think the statement has been written about in the Spectator, to which I subscribe, so I may be able to find specific chapters and verses. Viewfinder (talk) 06:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The material was inserted by me, for the purpose of highlighting an unusual attitude of a journalist to a colleague. As for secondary sources, Fisk refers to the statement in his The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East. See also [15], [16] and [17],. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The text inserted is maliciously deceptive, as anyone who reads Steyn's article will see immediately. It blatantly violates several core Wikipedia rules. Do not insert it again. CWC 12:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't explain why you think it's deceptive, nor which rules you believe it so blatantly violates. I've read the article and don't share your viewpoint. Please don't think you can come out with a bald "Do not insert it again" without even an attempt at backing it up. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks LP for the additional links. But the problem is that although the statement is true and referenced, anyone reading it is given the impression that he was laughing at the beating up incident rather than Fisk's response to that incident. This may be so but is not 100% clear from the article; the text as it stands can therefore be argued to be slanted against Steyn, which does breach at least the spirit of Wikipedia. I still think that the statement should be in the article, but I think it needs to be more carefully worded. Something like ...Mark Steyn wrote of Fisk's account of the incident, "You'd have to have a heart of stone not to weep with laughter." (from [18]) would be better. Any comments?

By the way, it would also be better if LP had continued the discussion, allowing time for responses, before re-inserting the material, per WP:BRD. Yes, I know I reinserted the text myself, because I did not think it should have been deleted without an edit summary or talk page explanation. Jayjg has now provided this. Viewfinder (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It would have been even better if those who had a problem with the quote had come here first instead of blanking and then firing off threats in edit summaries. I've no problem with your revision. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately for you, Chris reverted you. Otherwise I would have had to block you. Take WP:BLP seriously. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, Jayjg, I don't think you can use your clout to block another editor, with whom you are involved in a content dispute, without warning, in this manner. Nor is it clear that there have been breaches of BLP. Please do not tell another editor to "take BLP seriously" when no BLP clause has been cited. Steyn's article is headed "A self loathing multiculturalist gets his due". It seems clear enough to me that Steyn believes that what happened to Fisk served him right. Viewfinder (talk) 05:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not a content editor of this article; my actions on it are solely administrative. My "content dispute" is with all editors who insert WP:BLP-violating material into the article. To claim that removing BLP violating material suddenly creates a "content dispute" with the editor who inserted it is absurd; by that measure no admin could ever enforce BLP, because as soon as he did so, he would be involved in a "content dispute". Jayjg ^(talk) 06:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Removing content is editing content so this is a content dispute and you are a party. Except in the case of obvious vandalism or libel, you should file a report at WP:BLPN and leave some other administrator to be the judge. Viewfinder (talk) 08:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't be absurd. WP:BLP says "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." The admin who does that is not "in a content dispute", he is enforcing WP:BLP. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you really not see that I was referring not to the summary removal of inappropriate material, but to the use of your clout to summarily block other editors. The disputed material is unquestionably true and reliably sourced, so I don't think that you should invoke the above clause to deny that this is a content dispute. The questions are whether the presentation is neutral, the context is appropriate and the significance has been demonstrated. So I still see a content dispute, not the blatant BLP violation that you still seem to see. Viewfinder (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The material is "poorly sourced" and "contentious", because it is not based on a discussion in reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia:BLP#Blocking is quite clear that "Editors who repeatedly add or restore unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons may be blocked for disruption." Jayjg ^(talk) 05:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Please cite the BLP clause that supports your first sentence. The material is extracted directly from a primary and a secondary source. Viewfinder (talk) 05:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There having been no further comments, I propose to put this in the article: After fellow journalist Robert Fisk, a vocal critic of US foreign policy, was badly beaten up by Afghan refugees, Mark Steyn wrote of Fisk's account of the incident, "You'd have to have a heart of stone not to weep with laughter." [19] [20]. Are there any objections? Viewfinder (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Not from me. It maybe could use some more context, though. For example, that the refugees were fleeing the US bombardment when they rounded on Fisk, and that it was his forgiveness of his assailants that so amused Steyn. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Err, no. Still no context, nor any indication of significance, meaning, etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

We can insert "in which he forgave his assailants" but I can't see a source for the fleeing U.S. bombardment. Viewfinder (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I retract that. I can now see the claim that the refugees were fleeing US bombardment, it's [here. Viewfinder (talk) 08:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that more context is required, but when one journalist tells another that "he got his due" after he had been beaten up, and his remarks are reported by reliable secondary sources, I think that there are sufficient grounds for a Wikipedia biography mention. Viewfinder (talk) 05:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe I've been pretty clear: what WP:BLP requires for insertion of such material is reliable secondary sources that discuss this statement. This is the third time I've stated this. Is there anything about that that you find difficult to understand? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. What I find difficult to understand is why you fire off threats without citing even one specific BLP chapter and verse. What BLP clause demands "discussion" in "secondary sources"? Have I missed something? Please tell me. Viewfinder (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

"The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves." The material you are inserting did not come from secondary sources, and is not something the subject published about himself. Lapsed Pacifist inserted the material solely because, in his view, it made the subject look bad. I'm not beating around the bush, I'm not pretending, and I'm not playing games. If you want to criticize the subject, find reliable secondary sources that do so. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The material as I have amended it came from this secondary source, read it. I can't see any breach of WP:SELFPUB and I have removed the possible slant. I am not playing games either. I hope we can resolve this here but I am forming the impression that it may have to go to arbitration. By the way, LP's motives are irrelevant. It is the content that counts. Viewfinder (talk) 08:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what part of what I'm saying is unclear; the source you have managed to find on the internet doesn't discuss the statement, but merely mentions it in passing. In addition, in case you were not aware, arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution, not the first. I've raised this issue on the BLPN board. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the next step I had in mind was request for comment, but you have raised the matter at WP:BLPN which seems eminently sensible. Thanks, I will take my case there too. Viewfinder (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I find Jayjg's translation of "The material was inserted...for the purpose of highlighting an unusual attitude of a journalist to a colleague." to "Lapsed Pacifist inserted the material solely because, in his view, it made the subject look bad." a little strange. I didn't say it made Steyn look bad, but I maintain it is an unusual attitude. Jayjg, why do you continue to ask for sources I have already provided above? You write "If you want to criticize the subject, find reliable secondary sources that do so.", but neither I nor Viewfinder have written criticism of Steyn. After this, it's difficult to take your statement that you're "not playing games" seriously. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist, I am well aware of your POV and editing style; that fact that you "didn't say it made Steyn look bad" is irrelevant. As I said, I'm not playing games with you. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg, unless you can point to a specific problem with my edits here, please don't make vague comments about "POV and editing style"; it does absolutely nothing to clarify your stance. You write "that fact that you "didn't say it made Steyn look bad" is irrelevant."; so what do you believe is relevant? That you believe it makes Steyn look bad, and therefore should not be mentioned? You say again you're not playing games; that's not getting any easier to credit. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

[de-indenting]. Speaking in an administrative capacity, I concur with Jayjg. Of the cited sources, one appears to be a personal blog, and the other only mentions the quote in passing. Which raises the question of why, exactly, the quote is significant. What I'd want to see before something like this is included is a citation to reliable sources that use the quote and explain why it matters. Either the quote is significant for a reason, or it is not. I agree with Jayjg that the reason here seems to be to make some sort of implicit criticism. Perhaps it's not, but since the reliable sources don't explain why the quote is significant, we're left wondering why it's there at all. We're not really in the business of original research. Nandesuka (talk) 05:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nandesuka for your comments, which help to clarify what has to be found. This case may have wider implications and is probably best continued at WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Primary_sources_-_the_author_themselves. Viewfinder (talk) 07:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The larger issues can be discussed on that page, but the appropriate place to discuss this specific excerpt is here. I'm going to repeat something Jayjg said that bears repeating: Steyn has written millions of words in literally hundreds, perhaps thousands, of articles. When the reader sees a one-sentence excerpt from an author who has such a huge body of work, the presumption is that these words are significant for a reason. It's not the reader's job to play "guess the relevance," as Lapsed Pacifist proposes they should. The relevance needs to be clearly documented. In the instant case, it's clear that the intent is to implicitly impeach the article's subject. I'd appreciate it if those who want to use this quote to do this would at least discuss this issue head-on, and say why they think using a one-sentence excerpt to impeach an article's subject is acceptable, rather than pretending to be shocked, shocked, to find out that there is gambling going on in Rick's Cafe. Nandesuka (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

So quoting a journalist's own words that have been reported by other reliable sources is implicit impeachment? It has been agreed that it needs to be put in its proper context. And please clarify your comments about "shocking gambling at Rick's Cafe", I don't understand them. Viewfinder (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, the discussion continues here, so here is some transcription.

---

Exactly how in-depth of a discussion are you looking for, Jayjg, seeing as discussing it "in passing" does not meet your standard? As you've been told, Steyn's remarks are notable because they show a very unusual attitude for a journalist to have toward a colleague. You forgot this link I provided on the talk page: [21]. Fisk also referred to the statement in a lecture given at the Centre de Cultura Contemporània de Barcelona on 26 September 2002, and it's discussed on page 371 of David Wallis' Killed: Great Journalism Too Hot to Print. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The sources you've brought merely reproduce the quote, so they don't discuss it at all. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me about the above source. Here in an extract: When he was almost killed by an enraged mob of Afghan refugees during the American invasion, Fisk wrote a column saying if he had been in their shoes he too would have attacked any Westerner he saw, which led some readers to send him Christmas cards expressing their disappointment that the Afghans hadn't "finished the job." This sentiment was more or less echoed by the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, which ran an article bearing the subhead "A self-loathing multiculturalist gets his due." The right-wing columnist Mark Steyn wrote of Fisk's column, "You'd have to have a heart of stone not to weep with laughter." Is this merely a mention in passing? I see commentary on Steyn's remarks here. Viewfinder (talk) 07:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I am still unable to see a clause in WP:BLP which demands that secondary sources which "discuss" the statement must be found. If that is our position, I think that that needs stating on WP:BLP more specifically. Viewfinder (talk) 08:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

---

And here is a summary of the sources given to date.

• Mark Steyn
• Salon.com
• John Quiggin
• Robert Fisk
• The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East
• Lecture given at the Centre de Cultura Contemporània de Barcelona on 26 September 2002
• Page 371 of David Wallis' Killed: Great Journalism Too Hot to Print

So the subject has been talked about. Lapsed Pacifist, can you provide some suitable transcriptions from the non-web soutces? Viewfinder (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Excerpt from CCCB lecture:

"Almost every published and televised report mentioned the reasons behind the assault except for the British Mail on Sunday newspaper which used an agency story and carefully deleted my explanation. In the Mail, of course, a mob of angry Afghans attacked me, but apparently without reason. Readers might have been excused for thinking that the Afghans are always angry, primitive, generically violent and thus prone to beat up foreigners on a whim, the classic Islamophobic story, and the response of anyone reading the Mail newspaper article. Later reactions were even more interesting. Among a mass of letters that arrived from readers of The Independent, almost all of them expressing their horror at what had happened, came a few Christmas cards, all but one of them unsigned, expressing the writers' disappointment that the Afghans hadn't "finished the job". The Wall Street Journal carried an article which said more or less the same thing under the sub-head "A self-loathing multiculturalist gets his due". In it, Mark Steyn wrote of my reaction that "You'd have to have a heart of stone not to weep with laughter". The Fisk doctrine, he went on, taken to its logical conclusion, absolves of responsibility, not only the perpetrators of September 11th but also Taliban supporters who attacked several of Mr Fisk's fellow journalists in Afghanistan, all of whom, alas, died before being able to file a final column explaining why their murderers are blameless. Quite apart from the fact that most of my journalist colleagues who died in Afghanistan were killed by thieves who had taken advantage of the Talibans' defeat, Steyn's article was interesting for two reasons. It insinuated that, in some way, I approved of the crimes against humanity on September 11th or, at the least, would absolve the mass murderers. More importantly, Steyn's article would not have been written had I not explained the context of the assault that was made on me, tiny though it was on the scale of suffering visited upon Afghanistan. Had I merely reported an attack by a mob, the story, like the one in the Mail on Sunday, would have fitted perfectly into the general American media presentation of the Afghan war: no reference to civilian deaths from US B-52 bombers, no suggestion that the widespread casualties caused in the American raids would turn Afghans to fury against the West. We were, after all, supposed to be liberating these people, were we not? Not killing their families. Of course, my crime - the Journal gave its column the headline "Hate-Me Crimes" - my crime was to report the why as well as the what and where."

I don't have access to either of the books at present. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Oye. Who's the Dickhead

..what put [sic] after 'free reign'?

Considering that "words," the subject of the description, cannot "reign," the correct usage is "free rein." (That, in fact, is usually the correct usage; "free reign" is just ignorant.) So the editor who put the [sic] in there is perfectly correct. And to answer your foolish question, the dickhead here is yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.237.249.81 (talk) 05:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Review of "sources to date"

1. Mark Steyn: One of hundreds of thousands of statements made by Steyn. No indication of its significance or notability. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Salon.com: A salon.com book review by Gary Kamiya of Fisk's book. It mentions the statement only in passing.
3. John Quiggin. The personal website of John Quiggin. A self-published source.
4. Robert Fisk Another book review, this time by Phillip Knightley in The Independent. Also mentions the statement only in passing.
5. The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East. Fisk's own book.
6. Lecture given at the Centre de Cultura Contemporània de Barcelona on 26 September 2002: Lapsed Pacifist is quite coy in his description of this "lecture given". It was a speech made by Fisk himself. It obviously doesn't qualify as a reliable source.
7. Page 371 of David Wallis' Killed: Great Journalism Too Hot to Print: No description is given of the material here, since it was only found by googling Google Books. Relevance is unclear.

Again, to be clear, in order to establish that this is a notable and significant statement by Steyn, you'll need to provide multiple reliable sources that actually discuss the statement. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I have supplied my analysis of the general situation re WP:BLP at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Primary_sources_-_the_author_themselves. Regarding this discussion, despite several requests, Jayjg has still not supplied clauses from WP:BLP that state:

• that secondary sources must be found, which not only report, but also discuss the statement
• that discussion by the object of the statement, i.e. Fisk himself, is disqualified.

While he may argue that the above is implicit in BLP clauses, I still think the situation needs to be clarified - in which sections and clauses at BLP is the implication made? Viewfinder (talk) 07:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to give my opinion here; dispite the fact I havn't edited the article I've followed this discussion. I still havn't figured out why you guys are intent on placing this particular quote on the article over any other quote pertaining to mark Steyn - a decent reason why is this particular one significant over any other has not yet been given, and the only conclusion that I can come to given your persistance on the subject is that your sole intention is to bring disrepute on the the person in question. in my humble opinon there's been way too much discussion over such a little thing - it appears there are only two editors who want the quote in the article and more than two that dissagree with it being placed in the article. for what it's worth, I cannot agree with this random quote being placed in the wikipedia article, it adds nothing and is not significant. Whitehatnetizen (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, Whitehatnetizen, if it is your honest opinion that writing an article entitled "a self-loathing multiculturalist gets his due" about another journalist who has been beaten up is a "little thing" that is "not significant" and that quoting the article is a "random quote", then you are entitled to that opinion. But I think that there are more people out there who disagree with you, even if they do not want to come out against Jayjg. Viewfinder (talk) 11:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify my position further - the reason I honestly believe that it is insignificant in this particular case is the fact that the subject of the article seems to make a living out of writing controversial things - and the article you refer to, while it may be deplorably trivialising violence, is merely yet another article in thousands of other articles similarly designed to get a rise out of people. Whitehatnetizen (talk) 11:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Systemic bias in article supported by (an) admin(s), added to WikiProject CSBT

It is blatantly obvious that this article is supported by at least one administrator who pushes a right wing POV. Plain and simple. Steyn has so many detractors it's not even funny, and they are seldom quoted in the article. The lead section should at the very least reflect that Steyn is regularly met with accusations of racism. I've had to endure what I see as a torrent of abuse (now deleted) from longtime admin Jayjg after adding a single line to the lead, and writing on his talk page. I've added the article to WikiProject Counter Systemic Bias but half expect that Jayjg will exert pressure there too and no good will come of the nomination. Excuse me, Jayjg and Mark Steyn. Gregorik (talk) 11:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely right. This is shocking and unacceptable, and you are right to stand up to this bullyinf. - David —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.142.102 (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not see general bias in the article; there are references to criticism. Another editor and I tried to add another such reference, which we thought should be included but the above sections show that there was no consensus in support of its inclusion; its inclusion was opposed by several editors. If editors fell that there should be more criticism, they can help us to search for such criticism that has been reported and discussed in reliable sources. Viewfinder (talk) 08:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

A forum for criticism?

Very few of Steyn's quoted statements in this article are allowed to stand without immediate rebuke by quotations from his ideological opponents. The article seems to provide more a forum for their critiques than an explanation of Steyn. Is it really necessary, for example, to quote Glenn Greenwald calling Steyn a "faux warrior" who is “one of the most extremist warmongers in our country” ? I would suggest that critiques by other columnists be largely removed from the article and that Steyn's positions, right or wrong, simply be stated on their own.

The Doug Saunders critique is different because it is fact-based. But the source for Steyn claiming Muslims will account for 40% of Europe by 2020 is Saunders himself. Steyn may have said this, but a direct quote would be better. Komandorskiye (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Here here Komandorskiye, couldn't agree more. I'm new to participating in WP (though I of course reference it often), but after reading this page on Mr. Steyn, felt that I had to register and comment. It seems that in virtually the entire article, a controversial position of Steyn is noted, then 1 or several detractors' comments are added as response. That's not balanced, and certainly not fair. Shouldn't an equal number of comments agreeing with his positions be noted as well? I don't want to start a big battle, yes I'm a proud right winger, but I have no problem whatsoever protesting lopsided entries on popular leftist figures. Hope this can be ironed out! Thanks editors and contributors, we users appreciate your efforts!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayindubai (talk • contribs) 14:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This article is completely out of balance. Three quarters of the article is devoted to "Positions" and criticisms, and only one-quarter is devoted to actual biographical facts about the supposed subject of the article. Steyn is an opinion columnist, it is his job to express opinions and to be entertaining while doing so. He does so every week. If this article is going to quote Steyn every time he says something that someone disagrees with and then quotes the people who disagree, it will never end. And besides, that is not the goal of a biography. That is the goal of an op ed page or a blog. Most of the "positions" section should be deleted.--Paul (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If an opinion writer makes uncommon statements that are widely applauded, those are worth noting. Similarly, if that person makes assertions that are strongly criticized by legitimate commentators, those too should be noted. Steyn purposely offers strong opinions that are often unique. That is the essence of his journalism. To sanitize the article by withholding criticism in an effort to make him seem like a mainstream uncontroversial writer would make it inaccurate. Perhaps an editor would prefer only praise be included here but the aim is to be accurate and balanced.--Norm, Vancouver, Canada (talk) 05:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. So when I click over to the entry for Andrew Sullivan, for example, I will see countless examples of him being "strongly criticized by legitimate commentators", too? Let me check.... Nope, nothing. It seems to me that I have read lots of strong criticism of Sullivan's views, but since the aim of Wikipedia is to be "accurate and balanced" it must just be because none of his strong critics are "legitimate commentators". Thanks for clearing that up. Rickwodz (talk) 05:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This has really gone too far. This article has about 2,800 words in it. 2,100 of those words (75% of the article) are from the "Positions" section which is no more than a glorified criticism section dedicated to bashing the subject of this article. This is wildly out of line and a clear violation of the Wikipedia policy of undue weight. I intend to be bold and cut this junk back to a reasonable proportion for a biography of a living person in an encyclopedia.--Paul (talk) 03:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)