Talk:Mark Steyn

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."[1]. 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 [2], [3] and [4],. 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 [5]) 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." [6] [7]. 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)