Jump to content

Talk:Mark Steyn/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

human rights

At this time, the phrase should be excluded from the lead. Many of the arguments focus of whether it is or is not proper to call Steyn a "human rights activist" or "free speech activist" or similar. While this is a valid question, the more important question by lead policy is "is this an essential piece of information about the person". The argument that it is not based on the fact his activism is barely mentioned in the body of the article carries a lot of weight and ultimately is decisive. Thus, at this time the phrase does not belong in the lead. If the activism is an essential part of Steyn's career it should be properly explained in the body first, otherwise featuring it in the lead gives the activism undue weight and causes confusion when the reader finds very little about it in the body. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Steyn is a noted human rights activist. The terms "mark steyn" "human rights activist" get over 160,000 hits at google and over 300 at google books. The claim is referenced to others and he himself supports it. Of course, if one defines a human rights activist as necessarily not a conservative, there is another viewpoint. But that is exactly it, a POV. μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Responses:
(i) The fact that the terms "Mark Steyn" and "human rights activist" receive x-number of google hits means nothing in and of itself, considering that all instances of the phrase "Mark Steyn is not a human rights activist" would be included in any such search results. Quantity is no substitute for quality, in this instance. In practice, I suspect most of those google hits would simply be reprints of Steyn's press kit.
(ii) It's interesting that the terms "Mark Steyn" and "human rights activist" receive over 300 hits at google books, but could you please clarify if any of these are from reliable sources that can be used in this article?
(iii) You write: "The claim is referenced to others." My response: this is covered below. I actually have a certain grudging respect for Jonathan Kay (some of the time), but his editorial is only a reliable source for his opinion, not for an assertion of fact.
(iv) You write: "he himself supports it." My response: this is completely irrelevant for our purposes.
(v) I am not asserting that a human rights activist is necessarily not a conservative. Such an argument would indeed be POV, so it's a good thing I'm not making it.

You may well believe that Steyn is a "noted human rights activist," as may Steyn, but this isn't sufficient grounds for describing him as such in our article. I'm perfectly willing to accept some compromise wording ("so-and-so describes Steyn as this"), but the current wording is 100% unacceptable. CJCurrie (talk) 03:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Human Rights Activist (again)

Someone has modified the first sentence of Wikipedia's Mark Steyn article to read as follows:

'Mark Steyn (born December 8, 1959) is a Canadian-born writer, conservative-leaning political commentator, and human rights activist.refSteyn, Mark (July 2, 2009), Mark's bio, SteynOnline, retrieved March 5, 2011/ref'refJonathan Kay (June 27, 2013). "How 9/11 killed Canadians' appetite for human-rights speech codes". National Post. Retrieved June 30, 2013./ref

This is more than a bit disappointing, in that the question of whether or not Wikipedia's policies justify the description of Mark Steyn as a "human rights activist" was the subject of an extensive discussion in 2011. The general consensus was that Steyn should not be described in such terms, his self-identification notwithstanding.

For the present claim, it should be sufficient to state that:

  • Steyn's online biography is not a reliable source for any such claim, and
  • while Jonathan Kay's editorial may be worthy of reference elsewhere in the article, it cannot be regarded as a reliable source in the present context (please refer to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.")

I do hope that common sense will prevail and that this matter can be resolved without another RFC and extended discussion. CJCurrie (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I really do hope that this can be settled without a lot of condescension as well. We have plenty of sources describing Steyn in these terms, the fact that he calls himself the same is both relevant and citable. Let's see the neutral sources disputing the claim please. μηδείς (talk) 03:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
There really are not any neutral sources that describe Steyn in that manner. This has been discussed numerous times before, and the consensus had been to not describe him as such. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 03:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
You write: "Let's see the neutral sources disputing the claim please." My response: This is an inversion of Wikipedia's policies. Anyone wishing to describe Steyn as a "human rights activist" needs to present a reliable source to that effect. In the absence of such a source, anyone may remove the claim -- regardless of whether a "reliable counter-source" can be found.
The fact that Mark Steyn believes himself to be a human rights activist is sufficient proof of the statement, "Mark Steyn believes himself to be a human rights activist." It is not sufficient for the claim that Steyn *is* a human rights activist.
The fact that Jonathan Kay belives Steyn to be a human rights activist is sufficient proof of the statement, "Jonathan Kay believes Mark Steyn to be a human rights activist." It is not sufficient for the claim that he is (relevant policy cited above).

As the claim is not properly sourced, it may be removed at any time. I have no doubt that uninvolved reviewers will reach the same conclusion. CJCurrie (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Australian ABC describes him as such. Odd how self identification seems more than enough for some, but not others.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
That is not the Australian Broadcasting Company describing him as such, that is a copy and paste bio for a panelist show. Come on now. Or do you think that is a news story? Dave Dial (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I missed the bit in WP:RS that said only major national dailys are acceptable sources. And AFAIK, this never went to RFC, just some extended discussion a while ago that ended in a weak consensus to exclude. In that time, more sources have begun to describe Steyn as a human rights activist. The debate is perfectly valid.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 04:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Why exactly are the sources verifying Steyn to be a human rights activist "unreliable"? You have Steyn's stated self-identification, several minority groups with political leanings sympathetic to Steyn have described him as such, a regional newspaper has described him as such, and a national current affairs show in Australia has at the very least not objected to such a description in his bio. That's beginning to be quite a number of people's opinions. It looks like you're relying on WP:REDFLAG, which is a bit of a stretch, IMO. Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

He's not a human rights activist, and people should cut this out. So what if he calls himself that? Anybody else who calls him that is wrong. I would want several neutral AAA-level sources -- the LA Times, the Economist, the New Yorker, sources of that ilk -- calling him that (and not as "self-described" or "has been described as" or that sort of thing but flat-out categorizing him as such) before I'd accept it. Because he's not. Of course anyone can say "Well, a really basic human right is the right to associate with whom you wish, for you to allow whom you wish to enter your business establishment or join your private club, to allow whom you wish to enter your neighborhood" and so forth. So then George Wallace and Strom Thurmond and P. W. Botha and so on are "human rights activists", and then of course we're in Humpty-Dumpty land. This is the sort of thing where people want to categorize Charlize Theron as an African-American entertainer and its on the borderlines of trolling. For goodness sakes let's use words and phrases in their established meaning and not what we wish they meant. Steyn's very accomplished and has plenty to crow about without adding false labels. Herostratus (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, so major national news services are the only sources which we will believe. Glad we've established the ground rules. The Globe and Mail, the CBC and Sun News all describe him as a "free speech activist". And no, not the kind of absurd "free speech activist" you mention above. Please, no more flirting with Godwin's Law, I would rather settle this debate on merit, and amicably.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
"Free speech activist" is a whole nother kettle of fish from "human rights activist". That's something that we can discuss reasonably. We can look at those refs. We want to be careful in the lede to include characterizations that are pretty incontrovertible, as we usually do. He's a newspaper columnist/radio talking head with an emphasis on politics and coming from the right. I think most everyone would agree with that more or less, and that's a good way to introduce him to reader, rather than causing the reader (who, remember, has quite likely never heard of him) to confuse him with Nelson Mandela or Ghandi.
Whether he's a good guy or a bad guy I don't know, and that's probably best left to the reader. If we do a good job of outlining where he's coming from, I suppose the reader can make her own judgement. It's not really up to us to state "He's a good guy, a free speech activist, and that's what you really need to take away from this" or "He's a bad guy, a hate speech advocate, and that's what you really need to take away from this". For goodness sakes give the reader some credit. Now, down in the body, it'd be OK to say something like "Some have called him a free speech activist [ref ref ref] while others have called him a hate speech advocate [ref ref ref]". That'd be useful for the reader in getting a handle on the totality of who he is and how he's seen and by whome. Does that seem reasonable? Herostratus (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
This topic is not complex. If someone puts in the article that Steyn is a "self-described flying nun" or a "self-described martial arts champion" (it does not matter what the title is) is POV pushing. That word "self-described" needs to have a reliable source attached to it otherwise it is the opinion of the wiki editor.--NazariyKaminski (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
"Human rights activist" is an umbrella term under which "free speech activist" falls. You are right that the former carries an implicit "good guy" message while the latter, strangely, does not. Presently the refs for HRA are limited to Steyn and sources roughly aligned to Steyn, while FSA is more widespread, including national newspapers certainly not of the "right". The three sources I mention above are quite matter-of-fact about it. Indeed, since the Macleans affair, free speech has become something of a cause célèbre for Steyn, and I do think such a characterisation belongs in the lead. That does not contravene NPOV in my opinion, while I concede "human rights activist" could be seen to. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Any objections to modifying the lead to this effect? --Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

"human rights activist" or "free speech activist"?

An editor is wanting to change the opening of the lede from [Steyn is a] "self-described human rights activist" to "human rights activist" and, failing that, to "free speech activist".

This has been discussed many times before, for instance in the thread immediately above, and here and here in 2010, and probably other places and times in the archives. That doesn't mean we can't discuss it again, but:

  1. Editors are encouraged to use the talk page, per WP:BRD. Edit warring is not encouraged here, and edit summaries do not provide a good venue for reasoned discussion.
  2. And, when going to the talk page as we are here, editors are encouraged to scan the prior discussions. This prevents talking in circles and going over the same ground multiple times.

OK. Now to the merits. To my mind, "free speech activist" would tend to describe people such as Saad Eddin Ibrahim and Shi Tao and Li Zhi and Zwelakhe Sisulu and so forth. It basically tends to denote people working in places, often dictatorship or authoritarian regimes, where speech, in particular political speech, is severely limited and the rule of law is weak, and are often working in personal danger of state power being used against them. That doesn't sound like Steyn's situation, to me.

It is true that the English phrase "human rights activist" could be have a different meaning than it does, if we were living in an alternate history. It is true that the words "human" and "rights" and "activist" could be defined separately and we could pretend that "human rights activist" isn't a discrete phrase with a historical context and particular meaning, if we wanted to pretend that. It is true that Jefferson Davis could be described as "property rights advocate" and Hitler could be described as "gene-pool optimization activist" and Bull Conner could be described as a "freedom-of-association activist" and so on. But so what? What does any of that have to do with anything, really, unless we're here to deliberately obfuscate and confuse the reader, which I don't think we are.

Steyn is who he is. I don't know too much about him and I'm sure he has many good qualities. It's not a service to the reader to cause the reader to confuse him with Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela and so forth, though. So let's not do that.

Of course, refs have a lot to do with this. It's a contentious question, and so we're looking for multiple AAA-level refs here. If the editor can point to the New York Times and the Economist and so on describing Steyn in these terms, straight out, then we can look at those refs. Let's see them first. Herostratus (talk) 02:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah so Godwin's law is invoked in the first post of the thread and we are expected to take seriously comparisons of Steyn to slave holders and mass murderers? That's downright creepy. μηδείς (talk) 02:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
After this last edit it is clear that Herostratus believes that his edit is the only possible edit that is allowed. He has to have the term "self-described" in the article, BLP and POV be damned. He is refusing to allow a compromise. There is no doubt that Steyn is a "free speech activist" and in that situation there is no need for Hero's editorializing in the article with the phrase "self-described". No one is comparing Steyn to King or Mandela so that is clearly just a red herring. However, Steyn has been loudly and constantly pushing Canada and the UK and US to a lesser extent to be more open from a freedom of speech point of view. Also, Hero's comments make one believe that only Hero can decide who can be called what and only Hero can decide which publications can be accepted to support the either phrase "free speech activist" or "human rights activist." Also, Hero believes it is perfectly fine to say that Steyn is not in King or Mandela's league (which is to objectively true) but Hero has no problem with making the false comparison that Steyn is in the same category as Davis, Conner, etc. This is a false choice of course. There is no need for Steyn to be in the same category as Li Zhi, for example, to meet the category or title. The former lead singer of the the Dead Kennedys, Jello Biafra, is not in Li Zhi's league by any stretch of the imagination but that does not mean that Biafra has not earned the title of "human rights activist". Steyn has spent years and years in and out of courts in Canada and the UK fighting oppressive laws that attempt to stop freedom of speech. He is now in court in the U.S. Steyn is actually superior to Biafra in many ways but for the purposes of this discussion Steyn has way, way, way more influence and reach than Biafra. Hero is being stubborn and refusing to accept the compromise where we do not refer to Steyn as a HRA but rather a FSA, which is objectively true. It would seem that Hero merely wants to stick with the title HRA (which seems to have a higher standard than FSA) for the simple reason that Hero wants the article to have the POV term "self-described" jammed into the article. Based upon Steyn's extensive court cases and fights with free speech oppressing governments in North Am and Europe the FSA title is easily (unquestionably) appropriate and there will be no need for Hero's comment (not reliably sourced comment) jammed into the article.--NazariyKaminski (talk) 02:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not insisting on anything. I am saying that the article should stay in it's previous stable state until we have a chance to work this out, and you should stop reverting. For my own part, I'm happy with just "Canadian-born writer and conservative political commentator", period, end of sentence, for instance. I'm not going to negotiate while you're edit-warring, though. Calm down, relax, return the article to its previous stable state, let other editors join in and help us figure this out if any want to, and let's work this through together. Until you do that, we don't have a content dispute, we have a behavior problem, and that's handled differently. Herostratus (talk) 03:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I thought we worked out a stable compromise above. "Free speech activist" is extremely well sourced to national broadsheets. "Human rights activist" is generally limited to sources aligned with Steyn, or Steyn himself. Result: use the term used by the better sources. I'm a little annoyed that this issue has flared up again so soon after consensus was previously reached.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 08:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

So now we have a edit war

OK, so editors are determined to ignore the talk page and just revert. So now we have an edit war. Wheee!

I can't restore the original, previous-consensus-determined state of the the article again (that'd be WP:3RR! Blocky-blocky! Have to be careful about stuff like that! Better read up on all the WP:TLA's! I know -- let's have a contest: who can get the most people blocked first! It's kind of like Candyland, but without the chance of pulling a Lord Licorice card, I guess. Now this is how you build an encyclopedia, grasshopper!

What's the procedure for this? I'm a little rusty on this stuff. Are we supposed to go whine to WP:ANI or do we want to go straight to dispute resolution? Whose time to we most want to waste? Do I ask for another editor to restore the article's previous state per WP:BRD -- oh wait, that's tagteaming! Oh, snap! Do I just give up and make myself a sandwich maybe. Any ideas? Herostratus (talk) 03:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

There is long standing consensus to not describe Steyn as such. Also, the recent attempts on this Talk page have made no consensus to overturn the long standing consensus. So back to the way it was prior to recent attempts. No "rights" descriptions. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
There is no edit war. That is a figment of your imagination. What is going on here is that Hero wants the article stuck in its current state, for whatever reason (so he can make a comment with the phrase "self-described"). Also, the self-described wording has the support of those who refuse to call a Steyn an "rights" advocate of any kind. It is as simple as that.--NazariyKaminski (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I am curious whether Herostratus might be a sockmaster of User:MilesMoney. We just went through this exact behaviour at Talk:Ayn Rand for weeks. Contempt for the article subject, and insistence on a specific version of the lead, insulting comparisons, rudeness to other editors who couldn't possibly be editing in good faith, and the immediate creation of a new thread on the talk page to distract from embarrassing points like the Hitler comparison on the previous one. μηδείς (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Given we are collectively being accused of edit warring, it is entirely appropriate for participating editors to examine the behavior of the accuser, and for me to ask for comments here before I consider a formal report elsewhere. I am not going to conduct such a discussion in private or jump the gun with a premature SPI. At Ayn Rand over a period of less than a month we had 8 new talk page threads created by one user who mocked the subject, mocked and attacked the editors who worked on the page, constantly accused others of warring, and insisted on a specific description of the subject being removed from the first sentence. Here we have an editor comparing the subject to Hitler and slave holders, using childish, mocking language, creating two back-to-back threads in fewer days, and insisting that a specific sourced description not be used in the lead sentence. The behavior at question is happening here. The appearance of this here shortly after the imposition of 1rr at Ayn Rand is also interesting. I see Yeti Hunter has interacted with both editors. Perhaps he and others can comment on whether my suspicion bears further investigation. μηδείς (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I do not see much similarity between Hero's discussion style and the recent activity at Talk:Ayn Rand, certainly not enough to go flinging around accusations of sock puppetry. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 07:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Relax. I'm not a sockpuppet of anybody, I'm a long-time regular editor. I'm not comparing anybody to Hitler, OK? I was just showing examples of how words can be twisted in a general way. Sorry I got snarky. I dislike WP:BRD being pushed aside is all, and that makes me cross and nervous. I'm not insisting on "self-described" -- in fact, as I'll enlarge on below, I think it sucks. I just want order to prevail and the rules be followed. I'm not always a stickler for rules, but in this case it's appropriate I think. Let's just leave it as it was for now -- the world won't end if it stays for a few days, and things'll go easier if we take it easy. OK, now back to merits.

Returning to the merits of the case

Let me posit three possible openings for the lede. The boldings are just to highlight where the changes are.

  1. Mark Steyn (born December 8, 1959) is a Canadian-born writer and conservative political commentator and self-described human rights activist. He has written five books... [This is the current stable version, I think]
  2. Mark Steyn (born December 8, 1959) is a Canadian-born writer and conservative political commentator and free speech activist. He has written five books...
  3. Mark Steyn (born December 8, 1959) is a Canadian-born writer and conservative political commentator. He has written five books...

OK, the first one is pretty bad, because in this case the effect of "self-described" is too similar to "so-called", which is derogatory and egregiously so. After looking into Steyn's situation a bit more, I can see how this would set someone's hair on fire a bit, so I have a lot more sympathy for the original editors feeling strongly about removing it. It's flat-out not acceptable in my opinion, especially considering this is a WP:BLP.

IMO the second one is not good. I've looked into this and thought about it a bit, and I see the point. But... for the lede we want stuff to be fairly incontrovertible. If "free speech activist" is clearly and obviously true and not much disputed, to more or less the same extent that "Canadian-born" and "writer" are for instance, then it'd be OK. For good or ill, I don't see that. Here is good and long piece about Steyn about and his court case from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It's reasonably even-handed and sympathetic to his point, if not so much to Steyn himself. Still, it doesn't really present him a a free-speech activist in the classic sense.

And there are reasonably notable people who dispute Steyn being a free-speech activist. In my Google search I ran into a Glen Greenwald piece on Salon to the effect Steyn's posture is bogus and self-serving and not in the tradition of real free-speech activism, which by definition includes a strong element of supporting the speech rights of oppressed minorities and so on. Sure, Greenwald's an ideologue and maybe he's dead wrong, but the point he's famous and notable and Salon is a notable venue; it's not a post in some blog or a call to a radio show. Stuff like that is part of the discussion in the civic marketplace, and IMO is enough to cast doubt on any assertion that Steyn is, and is generally accepted as, a free-speech activist, hands down, no question.

(On the other hand, Category:Free speech activists. It includes Hugh Hefner and Christie Hefner and Larry Flynt and George Carlin, which suggests that the de facto Wikipedia definition of "free speech activist" in play is quite broad and does include bogus self-serving posers, which is a key argument against Steyn (not saying if it's true or not, just saying it's an argument used). Certainly if Larry Flynt is to remain in Category:Free speech activists then Steyn should be in it, hands down. And if he's in Category:Free speech activists then it could and perhaps should go in the lede. On the other hand: porno fans. Not sure we should defer to them too much in deciding how terms are defined here.)

Even so, I think that the minimalist #3 is best overall. It's a reasonable compromise and maybe we should all accept this and save much effort. This doesn't preclude a more detailed exposition on the matter, hopefully even-handed, in the body of the article. Let's go with #3. Somebody has already made this edit, and I support that. Herostratus (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

But Steyn has indeed been described as a free speech activist - regularly, by top quality sources, and more so recently. Forgive me if I'm confusing it with another site, but Salon does lean fairly hard to the left, does it not? If so, then its rebuttal of Steyn's status as a "free speech activist" would fail NPOV in the same way that the pro-Steyn sources' descriptions of him as "Human Rights Activist" do. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 07:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Yeti Hunter. Salon is a left-leaning site. Joan Walsh, one of Salon's main writers, recently criticized liberals for daring to be critical of the O-care website for example. Also, there is a bit of self-promotional posing in all free speech crusades, not just the porno activists. You think Jello Biafra would have spent as much time attacking PMRC if his musical career had been on Bono's level for example? For us to decide what is Wikipedia acceptable activism and what isn't Wikipedia acceptable activism put us in the position of being king makers. It is a highly subjective territory for an encyclopedia whose aim is to provide information. We have highly respected reliable sources that call him a free speech activist. I don't believe it is our job to ignore all of those reliable sources just because there is one reliable source, which published one article by one former writer, who has since moved to Brazil and is being supported by a billionaire, who says Steyn is engaging in self-promotion? I don't think that is our job. If self-promotion was the touchstone of Wikipedia then there would hardly be any articles about anyone.--NazariyKaminski (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Free speech activist makes perfect sense. It's supported by references, it applies to his work, it's they type of human rights activist he is. He in no small part got the Canadian hate speech code reversed. I am not quite sure what the reason was for removing this. HUman rights activist is supported, but less so, and isn't very specific--it could go in the text. μηδείς (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, there you have it. We fairly agree that free speech activist is the best route, but I know if I make the edit, Hero will state, incorrectly, that there is an "edit war" and revert and say that there is no consensus. Now, he does not have a good argument to support the phrase "self-identified" because that word is a weasel word of the first order and it is a comment by an editor that is not supported by a reliable source. I have not seen Hero provide a reliable source for the phrase. We have conceded the phrase "human rights activist" is too board based upon the work that Steyn has done. But he has been the leading person knocking down the Orwellian Canadian free speech laws. Now, the only argument is the that Steyn dares to promote himself. Now, of course, that is not a standard that Wikipedia supports. I guess the brightline rule comes from that argument is that no one can call oneself anything if they engage in self-promotion. Is a little self-promotion ok or does it have to be a whole lot of self-promotion. I don't think we should ever call Obama a "healthcare advocate" because he engages in self-promotion! Yeah, I know when Obama self-promotes he is running for office and he spent about $1 billion in 2008 and a little less than that in 2012--$2 billion USD worth of self-promotion so we can't call him a healthcare advocate--all because one former writer for Salon was critical of Steyn, we can't call Obama a healthcare advocate. I'm going to edit the article. There is zero consensus for the phrase "self-identified." Actually I guess we could call Obama a "self-described healthcare advocate", right? But of course we all know that would be POV pushing.--NazariyKaminski (talk) 22:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, I would say that, to be in the lede of any article, where you're laying out the basic bare bones introduction to the person, you want the statements to be both a key point about the person, and also to pretty much accepted as accurate. To the second point I remain unsure. Part of the problem is that he's apparently not really all that famous, so there hasn't really been a broad public discussion about him sufficient that the general gestalt has coalesced on an accepted view of what he's really about. To the second point, reading more about him, it seems to me that free speech activism isn't even his main deal at all. It's more something about Islam and stuff like that if I'm reading this correctly. If we're going to have free speech activism in the lede then maybe it'd be lying-by-omission to not put in something about that too, although I'm not sure how to word that in a short phrase.
Also, here's what I think, as a practical matter: If we leave the lede as "Mark Steyn (born December 8, 1959) is a Canadian-born writer and conservative political commentator. He has written five books..." we'll be good to go and can get home in time for dinner. If we change it to "Mark Steyn (born December 8, 1959) is a Canadian-born writer and conservative political commentator and free speech activist. He has written five books..." editors are going to come along and read that and be like da hell he is and take it out, or add "self-described" or change it to "whom some have described as" or whatever and this will be a constant bone of contention, which is boring and pointless IMO.
If editors feel that it's really really important to put up with that -- to have to be constantly spending time and resources talking about this, forever, for the good of the Wikipedia because otherwise the reader is being poorly served, they're entitled to that and they're possibly right, although I sure don't think so.
But in that case we need to have a RfC and really work through this with some fresh eyes. This'd also be helpful as a practical matter because if, later, someone comes along and wants to take out or adulterate "free speech activist" we can point to the RfC and say "Look, it was broadly discussed and the consensus was to have that, so let's keep it absent a new RfC or other indication of changed consensus". This makes sense to me, shall we do this? Herostratus (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know how we judge how famous some people are. Yes, there is agreement that Elvis is known the world over (we know that the person is not referring to a guy with a last name of Costello) and the person that played the goat herder in The Curse of the Werewolf is probably not well-known. However, I do know that Rush Limbaugh has a very high Q rating, whatever you think of his politics, and Steyn fills in for Limbaugh more than any other person. Considering that Limbaugh has 14 million weekly listeners it is hard to accept your premise that Steyn is not well-known. Also, his books have been NY Times best-sellers, which you really can't say that about Jello Biafra, for example. Also, if an editor does come along, as you say, and add the phrase "self-described" or "self-identified" or whatever then they are engaging in weaseldom and that is not acceptable. I do not see why we have to cater to that type of editing. If that phrase is re-inserted, then it gets removed. Problem solved. If they want to fight it out then just point them in the direction of this discussion we just had. That should clear things up quite nicely thank you. I don't see the need to engage in a long, protracted RfC just to appease a few folks that don't want to call him that title because, let's face the facts, they don't like his politics. That's not how it works. There are editors who don't think that Yasser Arafat should be called a peace activist, but the guy did win a Nobel Peace Prize. It is not the job of the editors to overrule the Nobel Committee's thinking (or lack of thinking). Wikipedia has gots the rules and we did follow them and this discussion is good enough for me.--NazariyKaminski (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Three-to-one in favor of restoring FSA seems reasonable enough to act on to me, H is free to start an RfC but in the meantime it is deleting the info that was the non-consensus move. μηδείς (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Hero has suggested a minimalist lead sentence, which has some merit. However I am a strong adherent to wikipedia's "assertion of notability" doctrine. An article should assert its reasons for notability in the lead, preferably in the opening sentence. I often use it in AFDs where an article is well sourced, but the subject is just not notable. Steyn is undoubtedly notable, but what is he notable for? Writing and political commentary certainly, but since the Macleans affair he has become extremely vocal and notable in his free speech activism. Indeed, the laws of a major nation have been changed largely on account of his activism. That's why I think it belongs in the lead sentence, not just in the body. -Yeti Hunter (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
First of all, it's not "three-to-one". Second of all, a quick 3-2 in favor is not enough to overturn prior consensus. I have not reverted NK(despite their obvious POV warrior behavior) because I do not wish to get into an edit war. So for now, I will just voice my objection and see what others have to say. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a talk page about the article. It is not a place to provide your opinion on my excellent behavior. Now, having said that, since you brought up the irrelevant topic, I must point out that you are the editor that made the inappropriate comment in the edit summary that said, "if not "self-described", then nothing". And yes consensus does change. Having the phrase "self-described" in the lede or anywhere in the article is weaseldom, violates WP:BLP, and reverting back to that phrase is not an option.--NazariyKaminski (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, it looks like the minimalist version is not flying, so let's get some more input. Herostratus (talk) 12:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)f


Request for Comment

The general issue is how to best introduce Steyn in the lede, and the specific question is whether the term "free speech activist" fits this purpose, e.g. Mark Steyn (born December 8, 1959) is a Canadian-born writer and conservative political commentator and free speech activist. He has written five books...". Do editors support including the term "free speech activist" in the lede? Herostratus (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

I think three things we want to look at here in determining if "free speech advocate" belongs in the lede are:

  1. Can it reasonably held to be be true, in the sense of, has it been reasonably advanced by a sufficient number of people with standing to do so?
  2. Even if so, is it generally accepted? Are there sufficient refutations by people with standing to do so to cast cast considerable doubt on the issue?
  3. Even if so, is it a key point about the subject fitting for the lede?

These are all hard questions. Here we have Rowan Dean in The Spectator opening with "Mark Steyn’s recent appearances in Australia remind us why he’s a world leader in defending free speech". The Spectator's a real paper with a real staff and not just some blog or something (I don't know who Dean is though), so "Mark Steyn == free speech activist" is certainly a proposition that reasonable people have advanced.

Regarding the second question, I'm not as sure. Here we have Glenn Greenwald at Salon lumping Steyn in with "faux free speech warriors" who are "opportunistically... justifying their anti-Islamic animus... demonstrated by how selectively self-interested is the application of their free speech “principles.”" So that's a counter-argument, but read the whole piece, which also says "[C]oncerns about the erosion of free speech rights in the Western world... are both legitimate and warranted" and so forth. By itself one swallow doesn't make a summer though. Finding truly even-handed treatment of Styen is difficult, and Greenwald's a polemicist (and he hates Steyn), but if enough polemicists who are notable dispute that Steyn is actually free-speech activist rather than a hate speech activist or whatever, that's a data point. (Speaking of even-handed treatment, here's the best example I could find, from the CBC.)

Regarding the third question, not sure. I think it'd be OK if the lede also included his really more notable activity, which seems to be something along the lines of talking a lot about the dangers posed by Islam and especially the infiltration of Islamic ideas into the west, and multiculturalism in general, or something like that that (not sure how you'd state that exactly).

Steyn's not a very sympathetic figure of course, but neither is Chelsea Manning and so forth, and sometimes that happens. So I ask editors to examine their possible personal animus to Steyn and rise above that if they have it, and let's try to settle the question on its merits. You don't have to be cuddly, or welcome at Upper West Side cocktail parties, to be a free speech activist. Also, refs to what notable people think are more helpful than just stating what you think. Herostratus (talk) 13:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Exclude "Free speech advocate" is how he describes himself. Unless there is a consensus that that is what he is, then it should be omitted. Compare with "writer" and "commentator" - no one disputes that is what he is. TFD (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
It's a good point. It's more than just what he calls himself, though; other people have, also, and and with some justification. Still... I looked at several bios at random, and their ledes are all basically simple facts. A lot of those are footballers and whatnot, but one was a politician, Diane Denish. Her lede begins "is an American politician, who was the 28th Lieutenant Governor of New Mexico" and the rest is also just basically facts. Later in the article, it says stuff like "supported legislation to establish voluntary pre-kindergarten enrollment... and legislation to combat [drug] dealers who target children" and so on, but that's not leveraged to change the lede to "is an American politician and advocate for children's interests", even though people have probably called her stuff like that and maybe it's true. And I wouldn't support our ledes going down that path generally. Later in the article we can get into "some have called him... while others have said..." if we think that's helpful. Herostratus (talk) 02:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I would add: There is no WP page for 'Free Speech Activist' (as you may well know) and so the term is coded to link to Freedom of Speech. The two documenting references at the end of the sentence in question both use the term 'Human rights activist' for Mark Steyn. However, the term 'free speech activist' is the best compromise and I am rather sure Mark Steyn would agree. Yes, it is a more positive term as mentioned by many of you. We can agree to agree. I consider it  Done — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
(I took the liberty of refactoring your text just to the extent of removing what looked like double-"voting"). Well, of the two refs, one is by Steyn himself, so that's not really usable. The other one doesn't describe Steyn with the term "free-speech activist" nor really characterize him that way unless you squint pretty hard. The closest it come is "Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant convinced Canadians that confronting the human-rights industry (and it truly had become an industry) wasn’t just a matter of free-speech principle, but a matter of civilizational self-protection" which you could possibly read as to "Mark Steyn... convinced Canadians that confronting the human-rights industry... [was at least in part] a matter of free-speech principle", but there's no demonstration of this, and then "But the power of these commissions plainly has crested, thanks to the army of Canadian pundits, activists and bloggers who are ready to pounce on every fresh, new censorious outrage" and you can infer that Steyn likely was one of the army. It's a bit of a stretch. Herostratus (talk) 06:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I would answer the three questions as follows:
(1) He can reasonably be described as a free speech activist (which is a fairly vague term) and has been by various reasonable sources.
(2) This is the most difficult question. It is hard to assess how contentious describing him as a free speech activist is. It is often difficult to assess the contentiousness of a particular description, because those that disagree with it often won't explicit say that the person isn't a free speech activist or whatever - they'll just not use the term. So I would say that the evidence does not establish that describing him as a free speech activist is contentious, but nor does it establish that it isn't contentious. In case of doubt on a BLP, we should opt in favour of excluding the material in question.
(3) However, there is a clearer basis on which to decide the matter - his free speech activism is not sufficiently central to the article that it should be mentioned in the first sentence. The lead sentence should succinctly explain who the person is. There is an unfortunate tendency on many Wikipedia biographies to have the first sentence list a large number of descriptions of a person ("AB is an American X, Y, Z, D, and E."), which detracts from the key ones that the person is notable as. In this case, describing him as "a Canadian-born writer and conservative political commentator" is sufficient to convey what he is notable as. The particular causes, such as free speech, that he may champion in his writing and commentary do not need to mentioned in the first sentence. There also isn't really a great deal in the article about his free speech activism (for instance, what specifically has he done and what has been the response?), so that hardly suggests that it's a key aspect of the article that has to be referred to in the first sentence. If the material on his activism were to be expanded, I would not object to a mention later in the lead section of the HRC complaints and his subsequent activities on freedom of speech issues.
I would therefore exclude the description in question. Neljack (talk) 05:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Exclude. One reason is I think we want to be very cautions about going down the road where our article ledes change from "Worthington Throckmorton is an American politician, writer, and former United States senator..." to "Worthington Throckmorton is an American politician, writer, former United States senator, and advocate for government efficiency..." (or whatever). It just gets into needless contention. Second reason is that I'm not convinced that, to the extent that Steyn is a free-speech activist, it's central to understanding who he is. Yes he got caught up when something he wrote was subject to a complaint under Canada's censorship laws, and he was rightly upset about that and there was a kerfluffle about that. But the complaint was unsuccessful. And then they changed the law. So is he still advocating for more changes in the law? Or what? Is he active in PEN International or Freedom House or something? Is he in touch with Pu Zhiqiang? Is he active in raising funds for the Journalists in Distress Fund? Helping raise consciousness abot the Foundation for Press Freedom? He may be in favor of all these things, but is really putting his shoulder to the wheel and expending time and energy on advancing these causes? Being very focused on stuff like this is a marker of being a free-speech activist, and if that's his main thrust I'm not seeing it in the article. Herostratus (talk) 06:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
However, as a separate issue, the bar for membership in Category:Free speech activists is a lot lower, it appears, than for so describing the person in his lede. I mean, look who's in it: Hugh Heffner. Bill Maher. Howard Stern. Al Goldstein. Penn Jilette. Timothy Leary. Jesse Ventura. Mrs Pruddle from down the street. It looks like that category is pretty unfocused, but for now, if those folks are in it, there's no way Steyn doesn't get in to, and I've done that. Herostratus (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrarary break, let's look at where we are

Looking over this section here, and also Talk:Mark Steyn/Archive 2#Human Rights Activist? and Talk:Mark Steyn/Archive 2#Rights Activist, let's look at where we stand. It's complicated by the fact that "human rights activist" was on the table as an alternative to "free speech activist", but I think it's fair to say that "free speech activist" seems to be what's on the table now, and also that any earlier editor expressing favor for "human rights activist" could also be characterized as supporting "free speech activist" if that's the alternative to neither.

If that's granted, I get a headcount of 5-5-2. Of the two that are not entirely clear, it'd be reasonable to characterize them as one being tending to each side, so 6-6 would be also be a fair count. So then so far, kind of a draw, as regards headcount.

This's unfortunate since I believe the current stable version uses "self-described free speech activist" which nobody wants. (The current version as of this writing has "free speech activist", but that was only left in to avoid edit-warring and is not a legitimate stable version.)

So here's what I get so far. I threw in a quote or two, kind of at random and not saying that that is the only way or best way to summarize the person's arguments, but it's something.

In favor of including "free speech activist" in the lede
  • User:Medeis: "Steyn is a noted human rights activist. The terms "mark steyn" "human rights activist" get over 160,000 hits at google and over 300 at google books. The claim is referenced to others and he himself supports it. Of course, if one defines a human rights activist as necessarily not a conservative, there is another viewpoint. But that is exactly it, a POV."
  • User:Yeti Hunter: "For what it's worth, the Australian ABC describes him as such. Odd how self identification seems more than enough for some, but not others."
  • User:NazariyKaminski: "There is no doubt that Steyn is a 'free speech activist'... Steyn has spent years and years in and out of courts in Canada and the UK fighting oppressive laws that attempt to stop freedom of speech. He is now in court in the U.S...."
  • User:Charles Edwin Shipp: "It looks good as it stands now: 'Canadian-born writer and conservative political commentator and free speech activist'... The two documenting references at the end of the sentence in question both use the term 'Human rights activist' for Mark Steyn."
  • User:Drrll: "I'd say leave it in, as free speech certainly is a 'human right' and he regularly engages in battles for free speech. I think the reference to his own website is OK for a BLP about him..."
Opposed to including "free speech activist" in the lede
  • User:CJCurrie: "You may well believe that Steyn is a "noted human rights activist," as may Steyn, but this isn't sufficient grounds for describing him as such in our article. I'm perfectly willing to accept some compromise wording ("so-and-so describes Steyn as this"), but the current wording is 100% unacceptable"
  • User:DD2K: "There really are not any neutral sources that describe Steyn in that manner. This has been discussed numerous times before, and the consensus had been to not describe him as such."
  • User:The Four Deuces: "'Free speech advocate' is how he describes himself. Unless there is a consensus that that is what he is, then it should be omitted. Compare with 'writer' and 'commentator' - no one disputes that is what he is."
  • User:Neljack: "[H]is free speech activism is not sufficiently central to the article that it should be mentioned in the first sentence. The lead sentence should succinctly explain who the person is... There also isn't really a great deal in the article about his free speech activism (for instance, what specifically has he done and what has been the response?), so that hardly suggests that it's a key aspect of the article that has to be referred to in the first sentence."
  • User:Herostratus: "One reason is I think we want to be very cautions about going down the road where our article ledes change from "Worthington Throckmorton is an American politician, writer, and former United States senator..." to "Worthington Throckmorton is an American politician, writer, former United States senator, and advocate for government efficiency..." (or whatever). It just gets into needless contention. Second reason is that I'm not convinced that, to the extent that Steyn is a free-speech activist, it's central to understanding who he is."
Not entirely clear
  • User:Chris Chittleborough: "Should we describe Steyn as a 'Human Rights Activist'? (The last few edits have removed that phrase from the lede or added it back.) Per Wikipedia rules, we should only put well-sourced claims in BLPs, and the claim was sourced to 'Mark's Bio' at his own website. That is not really adequate sourcing, so I'd prefer to not use that phrase. On the other hand, the article makes it fairly clear that Steyn sees his campaign against the 'Human Rights' bureaucracies as a fight for free speech, which arguably does make him a 'Human Rights Activist'... We could say something about him being a "Human Rights Activist" in the body of the article. I suspect it's not notable enough to need mentioning, but I could be persuaded otherwise."
  • User:Lionelt: "I don't think calling him a human rights activist is an extraordinary claim, and I'm satisfied that the sources establish that he is. But what is odd is that there is no content describing his 'activism,' and ironically a human rights group filed a complaint against him."

(If you like, you could probably split these with User:Chris Chittleborough being of the mind "no, not in the lede" and User:Lionelt being of the mind "sure, in the lede".)

So, since we have a tie in headcount, and since the current stable version is not acceptable to anyone, we need to go with strength of argument. To do that we need to run a proper listed RfC where some person assesses the arguments and makes a decision, and I propose to that presently. Herostratus (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Questionable source

Material published by a mainline newspaper is usually considered reliable. However, if the material is published in a newspaper as an op-ed comment, it is no more reliable than the author of the material, and hence should be deleted. David F (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Which passage are you referring to? Op-eds are normally fine to use for quotations, or examples of the author's opinion; the question would be how relevant the passage is to the article.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 04:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
The editor may be referring to this edit, where another editor removed some material which I then restored. The removed material was
The National Post subsequently defended Steyn and sharply criticized Lynch, stating that Lynch has "no clear understanding of free speech or the value of protecting it" and that "No human right is more basic than freedom of expression, not even the 'right' to live one's life free from offence by remarks about one's ethnicity, gender, culture or orientation."[1]
where the ref is to what is clearly an opinion piece, in the National Post which I believe is a conservative paper. While I can certainly see various objections to including that passage, the problem is the passage is immediately preceded by this:
Soon afterwards, the head of the Canadian Human Rights Commission issued a public letter to the editor of Maclean's magazine. In it, Jennifer Lynch said, "Mr. Steyn would have us believe that words, however hateful, should be give free reign [sic]. History has shown us that hateful words sometimes lead to hurtful actions that undermine freedom and have led to unspeakable crimes. That is why Canada and most other democracies have enacted legislation to place reasonable limits on the expression of hatred."[2]}}
and there's other back-and-forth in the section, which is long (it's the "Canadian Islamic Congress human rights complaint" section, and apparently there's even a whole nother article, Human rights complaints against Maclean's magazine, about the issue, which I haven't read.)
The question of "reliable sources" is complicated and fraught, but we can dispense with most of that here, since we are not stating that (for instance) Ms Lynch has no clear understanding of free speech or the value of protecting it as a fact in the same way we might state that Ottawa is the capital of Canada. We are just stating that it is a person's opinion that Ms Lynch has no clear understanding of free speech or the value of protecting it. See the difference?
And the ref does support that. All publications are excellent references for their own contents. So when we say "Mr X said such-and-such" then pointing an article where Mr X did indeed say such-and-such is a good ref. The only objections would be if the article is a forgery (it was not actually written by Mr X) or the source is misrepresented (Mr X did not actually write what we said he did, or we cherry-picked from or misleadingly paraphrased what he said) or is not available to the general public (it was written in an unpublished private letter for instance) or something like that, none of which think the original poster is claiming.
Lots of time editors object on WP:RS grounds when their objection actually lies elsewhere (that's OK and perfectly understandable, since WP:RS is a very visible and well-known rule and often the first thing to come to mind). And the fact that a passage is reliable sourced certainly doesn't mean it's appropriate to include in an article. What the original poster may be thinking of is more along the lines WP:WEIGHT or something. We do want to be balanced. And it may be that the person writing the material does not have standing to be included. For instance, Ms Lynch is the the head of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, so what she has to say is probably worth noting. Is what the National Post have to say worth noting?
IMO probably yes, under the circumstances. The National Post op-ed is not signed, so it presumably represents the general opinions of Doug Kelly and Stephen Meurice and so on. The National Post has a Wikipedia article and is an actual dead-tree publication with a circulation of 140,000 and a real editorial staff and so forth, so it's not nothing. It's not just some guy's Wordpress blog.
My inclination would be to include the material to balance what Ms Lynch had to say, and that that gives the reader a better chance to see that there are two sides to this fraught issue and to see what they are. Herostratus (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for a considerate and reasonably comment on this issue. David F (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Fisk comment

Any thoughts on including this infamous comment: [3]? Gob Lofa (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It is generally not a good idea to use comments by journalists or other writers unless they attract attention in reliable sources. (Unless that happens it cannot be "infamous".) TFD (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Johann Hari comment

I removed reference to an article in the New Statesman saying Steyn was into racial fear-mongering and "invented conspiracies like the Protocols of the Elders of Mohammed". I could not find other independent sources about this Protocols business, and noticed that the sentences are due to an edit in February 2011. In June 2011 the author of the New Statesman article, Johann Hari, admitted to making up material about people he disliked. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Defamation lawsuit against Steyn by Michael E. Mann

We might want to add an independent section on this lawsuit, which has attracted a fair bit of media attention. For now, I've added a "See also" to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann#Defamation_lawsuit --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The lawsuit seems to be a run-of-the mill free-speech vs. defamation case, with substantial amounts of RS. The challenge is that the free speech and defamation involve global warming, and there may be a desire to avoid explanations of the alleged fraud that became part of the 2001 IPCC report. I think it is impossible to write about the case without being specific about the details, thus it may be hard to expose the details without treading on coatrack and fringe complaints. absent specific guidance, I will tread lightly, but try to fill a gaping hole.

It is hard to imagine a claim that this lawsuit is not noteworthy, important and well sourced, or that it is not a significant issue in this biography. Bob the goodwin (talk) 07:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Need mention of Climate change skepticism or delete category

While working on Category:Climate change skeptics, I noticed that this article has been added to that category, yet there is no mention in the prose of this article that this article's subject is considered a climate change skeptic (complete with reliable sources). A quick online check showed that reliable sources do exist showing this to be the case. Please add this to the prose to this article or delete the category from this article. Prhartcom (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Critic of Islam

Editors have objected to the article on Mark Steyn being in the category critics of Islam. There is a section in the article Canadian Islamic Congress human rights complaint (and also a stand-alone article), which deal with the consequences of his writing an article that criticised Islam. Even if that was the only time he wrote or said anything about Islam, that would justify including him in the category critics of Islam.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

In his own website he mentions his "human rights campaign to restore free speech to Canada led to the repeal by Parliament of the notorious "Section 13" law, a battle he recounts in his book Lights Out: Islam, Free Speech And The Twilight Of The West.". The page of his website advertisng his book he "republishes all the essays Mohamed Elmasry, the Canadian Islamic Congress and their enablers in Canada's disgusting "human rights" regime attempted to criminalize, along with new material responding to his accusers. He also takes a stand against the erosion of free speech in Canada, Britain and elsewhere, and the advance of a creeping totalitarian "multiculturalism"; and he considers the broader tensions between Islam and the west in a time of unprecedented demographic transformation." This seems clear evidence that he is a "critic of Islam".-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Fill in for Rush Limbaugh

The article says:

"Steyn fills in regularly for Rush Limbaugh on The Rush Limbaugh Show.[10][11][12]"

Editors have objected to this. One editor's objection that citation [12] was a dead link. I have provided citations [10] and [11] that also justify the statement. Another editor reverted on the grounds that the citations do not say the word "regular". Citation [11]] does say the word "regular".-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

MMFA is a very poor source - especially since it is not on point for the claim. The Daily News cite does not remotely support any claims here. And dead links - especially dead video links - are a non-starter. Cheers. 107.203.216.85 (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry? Is the argument about the word "regularly"? His own website says "Mark is also a popular guest host of America's Number One radio show The Rush Limbaugh Program".-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
"Popular guest" != "regular." MMFA is rather noted as a source of opinions and not as a source for factual claims about living persons - and the example you chose is from a blog aimed specifically and absolutely at knocking Limbaugh, and is not a valid source for much of anything else at all. And the Daily News cite had absolutely nothing to do with the proverbial price of eggs. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Quite right, and a 2012 article in the National Post said Steyn is "occasional": http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/04/21/interview-happy-warrior-mark-steyn-dives-gleefully-into-darkness/. A smaller issue is that another editor user @No Source - No Valid Source: recently removed the category "Critics of Islam" and Toddy1's edit was effectively putting it back without explanation -- but I see above that Toddy1 is now doing so. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
But I deleted the word "regular" in response to your objections, and User:Collect still reverted saying that "MFA is not valid source, Daily News does not say anything of the sort, tand the Steyn SPS does not call him a "regular" at all -- all in all,, drop this stuff".
  • Daily News says "Conservatives are rallying around pundit Mark Steyn, a popular fill-in for bombastic radio host Rush Limbaugh, to run for Senate in New Hampshire".
  • Steyn Online says "Mark is also a popular guest host of America's Number One radio show The Rush Limbaugh Program"
-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

(od) MMFA's blog is still not RS for such a claim as "regular", and the Daily News makes no such claim of "regular" at all. In a BLP, non-RS sources and ones which do not actually support a claim are absolutely removable. And re-adding a dead video link which was not RS to begin with, remains verboten. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments on Mann

Well excuse me for adding more on Steyn on line campaign against Mann. I don't understand why "secondary sources" are required instead of primary courses. Aren't primary sources better than secondary ones? I realize I am relative newcomer to wikki editing but I don't understand this reversion. Thank you in advance for explaining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjorklund21 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your edit. But, we do need to be very careful when making claims about living people, particularly controversial claims, and our sourcing needs to be especially good. See WP:PRIMARY, which describes why primary sources are not preferred. WP:BLPSPS also discusses this issue with respect to BLPs (biographies of living people).   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh! and I did go read up on it and I see my error and apologize and thank you for the fast undo since I obviously made a serious mistake I will endeavour to not repeat. Bjorklund21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjorklund21 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Mark Steyn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mark Steyn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mark Steyn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mark Steyn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mark Steyn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mark Steyn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

UK career

The article mentions Steyn's role at the Spectator, but not the role that brought him to prominence, and for which he is still most remembered in the UK: he was one of the rotating presenters of BBC Radio 4's arts programme Kaleidoscope (UK radio series). This was during that blind spot before sources are regularly archived on the web, but can be seen in old Radio Times listings at [4]. This period seems to have been from April 1987 to 13 July 1994 during which he continued to broadcast about musicals and moved to New York. --Cedderstk 07:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Climate change viewpoints

As someone who's followed Steyn off and on for a while, I'm not exactly sure what his specific viewpoints are on global climate change. I'm inclined to think that he likely believes that warming is indeed occurring and has gotten altered due to human influences but that either the nature of that influence is exaggerated, that the warming isn't as dramatic as is being forecast, or the warming may actually be beneficial depending on the area (or, possibly, some combination of those three positions). Again, though, I'm not sure.

At any rate, the article presently labels him as a "climate change denier", which is a specific charge that ought to be sourced by at least one ironclad news article if not multiple ones (this is a biography of a living person, after all)... right? Has anyone run across particular news stories that detail what he actually thinks is happening with climate change? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps Wiki5537821 who changed "skeptic" to "denier" on January 24 can explain? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
See Climate change denial and the types of denial listed there. The term clearly includes Steyn, as he is a conspiracy nut who levels baseless accusations of fraud at scientists who did nothing wrong, such as Michael E. Mann. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
CoffeeWithMarkets: So far there is no reply from Wiki5537821. JungerMan_Chips_Ahoy! has removed the offending line. Okay now? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm personally not interested in what arbitrary labels Steyn could get labeled by random people. The questions are a)what have reliable sources said and b)what, in depth, does he actually believe about climate change. That's the issue. I'm 100% fine with including material that would make Steyn look clueless in the article if that's what's been actually stated by reliable commentators (hell, let's not forget that in 2011 he forecast that the U.S. would face an imminent debt crisis and widespread collapse... been like a freaking decade and no such apocalypse has occurred). That's it.
As the saying goes: "Replace the symbol with the substance." CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Will you look the definition in the article climate change denial or will you not? Yes, Steyn is a denier, even if he "just" believes that "the warming isn't as dramatic as is being forecast". He is a layman who thinks he is smarter than the experts. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
And of course, there are sources: the National Center for Science Education, for example: [5]. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
You've been active on this project long enough to know better. We can't use Wikipedia's voice to present the personal opinion of Josh Rosenau as if it was fact. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
The National Center for Science Education is a reliable source. The article was written by a person, so what? All articles are. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
What you linked to is an opinion piece by Josh Rosenau. But even if it was the official position of NCSE, the opinion of that advocacy group needs to be attributed and presented as such, not stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice. I suspect you already know that. Even opinions that we really really like are still opinions. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Hob Gadling's "is a denier" comment was one of several "BLP issues" that caught the attention of an administrator, who eventually concluded "I'm convinced this is no longer needed and HG has committed to turning over a new leaf." So I believe this discussion can end. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
You wish it were that simple. You know about the "quacks like a duck" thing? Steyn defamed an innocent climatologist, claimed that a perfectly ordinary scientific result is a fraud, and is not a climate change denier? Dream on. The only reason that there are not many sources is that Steyn is relatively unimportant, compared to all those heavyweight deniers with actual political influence. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
And of course there is this resource documenting what reliable sources say about him. The picture is very clear. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The section now reads:

  • "In early 2015, Steyn together with the Institute of Public Affairs published Climate Change: The Facts, a collection of twenty-two essays by what Steyn describes as "some of the most eminent scientists and some of the most rollicking commentators" on the economics, politics, and science of global climate change. In a blog posting about the book, Steyn asserted that the world temperature record has been stuck on a "pause" for the past eighteen years and gave his opposition to the predictions of mainstream climate models.[6] The argument that global warming stopped in the late 1990s has been debunked by science journalists and scholars in the field as based on invalid reasoning."

I'm not exactly happy with this because it's not quite clear how to source the last sentence and also word it. I'm not saying that any of the current wording is false. Just that it may need tweaking. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a BLP. If it is not clear to you how to source the last sentence, it needs to stay out. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Don't put words into my mouth. There's nothing false about the statement. It's the exact choice of words that's the matter. I would rather not say something like "Steyn is known as a liar and advocate for pseudoscience" or something like that in this context because it's stretching and distorting what's actually been said. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)\
I didn't put any words in your mouth, but you appear to be putting some in mine, I didn't say your statement is false - I said that you can;t put a disputed sentence into a BLP without a source. The sentence you just added comes from an article that does not mention Steyn or his book, as far as I can tell. It does not belong in an article about him. This is WP:SYNTH-violation, in a BLP.JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
The claim is pretty obvious bullshit. The sources can be found in our article Global warming hiatus. I Wikilinked that article. Maybe that helps: I see no point in sourcing the same stuff here again. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm aware that his claim is false. Even a small child with little understanding of climate science would be able to look at the 1980-2020 temperature record and see a straight-ish line going up. I just don't see the reason to be so insistent on labeling his falsehood with pejoratives from "bullshit" to "denier" and so on in the official voice of Wikipedia when we can just grab the sources and phrase things how they do. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I've removed the section as based on self-published puffery for a book which seems to have gone unnoticed by any mainstream sources. The attempt to put in some balance about the "hiatus" doesn't go far enough to debunk Steyn's claim, which seems to be based on his blog comment about other living people. If good quality reliable secondary sources can be found which discuss the book and how it's been received by the mainstream, the section can be rewritten and added. . . dave souza, talk 18:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The subsection under discussion was Climate Change: The Facts and didn't actually cover Steyn's views of climate change. Found a couple of sources:

  • Steyn was one of many speakers at the libertarian Heartland Institute's 10th “International Conference on Climate Change,” a major event for climate science contrarians. [and] "simply made fun of" Mann and Pachauri.
  • Mark Steyn’s testimony focused on his accusations that climate science is fraudulent and oppresses contrarians. Steyn’s claim to climate fame is that he’s being sued for defamation by Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann, whom Steyn has repeatedly accused of fraud.

That probably covers all that's needed about Steyn's views. . . dave souza, talk 21:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

This whole discussion is getting off the rails. But back to the point, though, neither of those sources appear appropriate to me. Both simply state that Steyn has mocked climate scientists and insulted their work both generally and also specifically, in Mann's case, and that's it. Empty commentary by Steyn presented without context. There's no discussion of what Steyn actually thinks in depth and/or why he believes that. Just that he's been... I'm not sure how to phrase this politely, well, so I'll just say it glibly: that he's been a bit of a troll on the issue. (This isn't a criticism of the journalists per se, since it's very possible Steyn did indeed do nothing but that and didn't speak precisely as to the science.)
It's honestly killing me a bit since for a writer as well known as Steyn there likely exists some reliable source out there that does in depth and says essentially "in contradiction to scientists who have found X, Steyn has argued for Y based on fringe science". I've just yet to see it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
CoffeeWithMarkets, he's a conservative. In today's environment that requires that he denigrate climate science, because it is inconvenient to the agenda of those who fund the movement. Guy (help!) 20:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
What Mr Steyn actually said doesn't resemble the Ars Technica summary. The presentation in full does not have anything like "climate science is fraudulent", he said that the hockey stick is fraudulent. Also, almost all of it was about bullying scientists or lethargic judges or politics. Out of 5683 words (I count with wc -w), the two sentences about a "pause" plus "climate science needs to acknowledge its own failings" are 62 words i.e. 1%. It's undue to seek out "Steyn's views" on climate when sources show that he's overwhelmingly more concerned with other matters. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Struck comments by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 17:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Claim that Steyn left school at 16

In support of the edit that I made today, which contradicts the claim that Steyn was a "school dropout" who left school at 16. Of course, it's not possible to determine solely from reading the article in The Age whether this was a claim made by Steyn himself, or just embellishment by the interviewer.

KES yearbook 1977-78 page 25

STeamTraen (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

But it seems to me that Mr Steyn does not vehemently dispute that he left at some point. In response to Ellen who mentioned that The Age mentions that, he wrote: "Yes, I'm working so hard at covering that up that Ellen's hyperlink is to an Australian interview with me that mentions it. I'm so embarrassed by the revelation that on page 149 of my bestselling book After America there's a whole little section about "the unlettered Mark Steyn" ..." It's trivial though. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

"Unfettered Muslim immigration"

The line about "unfettered Muslim immigration" is a bit problematic. It makes sound Steyn's view on the issue is a fact. That is true that there people from Muslim nations do immigrate to the United States, but the line about "unfettered Muslim immigration" makes it sound that anybody from any Muslim nation can just go the United States whenever he or she wants, which is definitely not true. Would it not be more accurate just to say that Steyn opposes immigration in general, and Muslim immigration in particular? --A.S. Brown (talk) 02:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Steyn, a Canadian living in the United States, opposes immigration in general? And it would be "more accurate" to attribute statements to him without showing where he said them? No. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mark_Steyn/Archive_3&oldid=1189311469"