Talk:Bret Stephens

I would like to report that he sees the USA as a host country.

I am a Zionist,” the New York Times columnist Bret Stephens recently wrote, “because I see Israel as an insurance policy for every Jewish family, including mine, which has endured persecution and exile in the past and understands that we may not be safe forever in our host countries.”

Amercia is his host country?

Mr. Stephens' wife?

There seems to be a bit of confusion as to Mr. Stephens' wife's name. The NY Times carried a wedding announcement for Mr. Stephens and Pamela Paul, in their September 20, 1998 paper. The article may be found at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C00E0D71730F933A1575AC0A96E958260 68.236.120.112 (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is this confusing? He has been divorced and remarried. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.242.135 (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Basic facts about personal life

Bedbugs are small, oval, brownish insects that live on the blood of animals or humans. Adult bedbugs have flat bodies about the size of an apple seed. After feeding, however, their bodies swell and are a reddish color. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:280:4700:25F0:71D6:6462:D17F:6FB6 (talk) 08:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

There is a bedbug kerfuffle: https://www.mediaite.com/news/nytimes-columnist-and-free-speech-champion-bret-stephens-threatens-professor-and-emails-professors-boss-who-called-him-bedbug-on-twitter/ kencf0618 (talk) 09:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Full name: Bret Bedbug Stephens, an American bedbug — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.21.163.12 (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Little known fact: bedbugs are generally more shy during the day but at night the carbon dioxide we exhale often tempts them out of their hiding spots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.112.105 (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Stephens’ views on ‘the goyim’

Jayjg,

Regarding your blanking of Bret Stephens’ statement:

One must at least be a Jew to tell the goyim how they may or may not talk about Israel.

I don’t see how this quote violates WP:BLP: its sourced, verifiable, and best of all, in Stephens’ own words.

Colombo Man (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:BLP "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist". Please also review WP:UNDUE. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I’ve gone through WP:BLP and I can find nothing to support your view that this quote is in violation of it. It’s sourced, verifiable, neutral in tone and not original research. Its neither "tabloid nor sensationalist" - the source of the citation is a book by academics from Chicago and Harvard. The quotation is by Bret Stephens, it’s what he himself has publicly stated.

So I ask once again – what specifically does it violate with regard to BLP?

Colombo Man (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's quite sensationalist, and not even particularly clear. Which publications, aside from M&W's controversial work, have taken note of that statement? How important is it in relation to the rest of Stephens' biography? Again, see WP:UNDUE. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you go into exactly how it is sensationalist? Sensationalist and controversial are not synonyms. I would expect Stephens still stands by the statement, and he would say so if he didn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.48.120 (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Conlon Nancarrow

Tiny correction: Conlon Nancarrow is cited as an "artist" in the sentence about Stephens' grandmother's second husband. But, as the linked Wikipedia entry correctly shows, Nancarrow was a composer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.124.205 (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

That's right. Conlon Nancarrow just sounds like an artist's name. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Climate change again

I think it's important, for an opinion columnist, to note his most well-known and consistent opinions in the lead. One of those is climate change skepticism, call it what you will. I have tried to find the most neutral source I can for this (the physics today one, and I just found another book source that I intend to add) but there are tons of sources on the left [1] [2] and also sources on the right that are proud to call him what he is [3]. I don't see why so many editors want to keep whitewashing this from the article. I should add that it is not my intention to make any value judgement about his opinions on climate change here (I have opinions, but this is not the place for them); I merely want to state in neutral terms what his opinions are, since by all appearances that is one of the major recurring themes of his columns. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Previously two editors (Cobicharlton and I) objected to an edit which included the term "denial". David Eppstein has changed to say "He [Stephens] is known for being part of the right-wing opposition to Donald Trump,[4] and for his climate change skepticism.[5][6][7][8]". The four cited sources don't actually say that Stephens is either a denier or a skeptic, and Stephens has said there's been a "temperature rise of 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880" (though he claims that's imperceptible). However, "skepticism" is not a contentious word like "denial", so I withdraw my objection. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

If that's what it takes to get it to stick, I don't mind calling it skepticism rather than denial. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's call it what it is (and as it's defined in WP): denial = "unwarranted doubt". In fact, in this case, clearly (one need only read his first NYT opinion to see that it is in fact "unwarranted politically motivated doubt masquerading as reasoned epistemology". — Aldaron • T/C 20:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, "denial" (or actually "denier") is the word used in the Fox News source. And the Encyclopedia of Global Warming Science and Technology doesn't quite call him personally a denier but it does use the word "denial" in the same sentence as him. On the other hand, the Physics Today source says he "doesn't appear to reject outright" the evidence for global warming, and to me the word "denial" would imply that he does reject it. The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars doesn't call him any of these things but does say that he "promotes climate change disinformation", so I think it would be accurate to use that source to call him a "climate change disinformer", although to me that would be much more clearly pejorative than either "denier" or "skeptic". Do we have a source that uses the specific word "skepticism" or "skeptic"? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

He's clearly a denier (if anyone is) but I do like disinformer! — Aldaron • T/C 21:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC

He definitely does not reject the evidence for global warming. What he's actually said looks like this: ""Anyone who has read the 2014 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change knows that, while the modest (0.85 degrees Celsius) warming of the Northern Hemisphere since 1880 is indisputable, as is the human influence on that warming, much else that passes as accepted fact is really a matter of probabilities. ... None of this is to deny climate change or the possible severity of its consequences." I haven't seen that the name-callers have produced quotes showing the contrary. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Any sentence that includes the phrase "much else that passes as accepted fact is really" is clearly a denial of something. I'm not interested in calling names, and I think characterizing the discussion participants as "name-callers" is both inaccurate and an unwarranted personal attack, but we should clearly state that he is outspoken in his opposition to doing anything about climate change. Whether that makes him a denier, a skeptic, a disinformer, or the voice of reason may be a matter of opinion, but the fact of his opposition to climate change activism is clear and should be made clear in the article, stated as objectively as we can. And we should use reliable sources, rather than primary sources: when he says, after clearly denying climate change, that "None of this is to deny climate change", it doesn't make him not-a-denier, it merely makes him disingenuous. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

When I referred to name-callers I was referring to the sources not discussion participants, and maybe you should have considered that obvious possibility before making vicious accusations against me, O decrier of personal attacks. Anyway, Stephens is the reliable source about the opinion of Stephens, rather than the sources who claim without any evidence that his opinion is secretly the opposite of what he says. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

As a climate change denier, Stephens is too biased to be reliable on the question of what constitutes climate change denial. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

A climate denier is "A person who rejects the proposition that climate change caused by human activity is occurring." Stephens says that climate change caused by human activity is occurring. Therefore Stephens is not a climate denier. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 03:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Stephens is a professional caster-of-doubt on climate change. The old old version of that was to deny that it was happening at all. The not-quite-as-old version was to agree that the climate was changing but to deny that people had anything to do with causing it to happen. The current thing to do is to agree that it's happening and that people cause it but to deny that trying to stop it is a good idea. But it's still denial all the way. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, as the WP definition states. We really ought not take objections to calling Stephens a denier seriously here. — Aldaron • T/C 13:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

David Eppstein and Aldaron have simply re-inserted "denial" after others removed it (e.g. here and here. ). I'll accept that is how consensus works on this particular BLP unless others chime in. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

By the way, this is a false and misleading summary of my edits and my position. After my "if that's what it takes" post, above, two weeks ago, I have remained agnostic in my article-space edits about whether it should be "denial" or "skepticism". I happen to think that "denial" is punchier and a more honest description of what he has been doing, but I am willing to see it as either of these, and I don't think I've made any changes from one to the other. (If I have, it was probably only as a side effect of something else.) I would also be willing to have any other more or less equivalent phrase making it clear in a neutral descriptive way rather than pejorative way that he is on the anti-science do-nothing side of the debate. (Unlike some others here I don't see "denier" as being pejorative in its wording — one could certainly infer pejorative things about the people who are paid to take this position as he is, but we shouldn't shy away from describing it on that basis, as it's his actions not the words we use to describe them that are the problem.) On the other hand I very strongly object to the removal of this topic from the article altogether, and the diff you linked to shows me reverting one such complete removal. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

here here here here here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

If you think that this constitutes evidence for your false and misleading summary, you are deluded. All of those edits are my reversions of people who completely removed the climate change issue from the article. None of them involve changing the wording between "denial" and "skepticism". —David Eppstein (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Here's something that Stephens wrote 2 days ago: "None of this is to deny climate change or the possible severity of its consequences. But ordinary citizens also have a right to be skeptical of an overweening scientism." ("Climate of Complete Certainty", The New York Times, April 28, 2017) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's exactly like when someone says "I'm not racist, but...": you know that whatever they say next will be deeply racist. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware of the unreliability of primary sources, but the 5 sources offered overleaf fail several tests to reliably support the statement they're attached to. OTOH, your evaluation of Stephens' statement reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, no? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps I phrased it non-neutrally with that example, but the point stands:: he is himself too non-neutral on this issue to be reliable as a judge of whether anyone (himself included) is a climate change denier or not. As a more neutral analogy: the fish doesn't know that water is wet. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I think there's more deliberate malice here than in the the fish's case. I expect that Stephens is well aware of what he is doing. — Aldaron • T/C 16:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

That's one possibility. I've been trying to have good faith that he is merely someone who has had it confirmed for him for a long time that his uninformed opinions are valuable and therefore out of ignorance continues to hold and contribute uninformed opinions, thinking they're shedding light and not merely heat. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

(My error reverting talk rather than the article. Apologies. — Aldaron • T/C 14:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC))

Michael Bednarek: So, do you think "He is known for ... his climate change denial" should be in the article? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Not based on the sources provided. One is a reference by Fox to an openly partisan blog, the others don't use that term. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Unless you are being so pedantic that you count "denier" and "denial" as different terms, this is false. The Encyclopedia of Global Warming Science and Technology also uses the term. And regardless of whether they have drunk the kool-aid, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 65 seems to constitute a consensus that Media Matters is reliable for analysis of news media (and this characterization of a major news media figure is clearly analysis of news media). So your characterization of them as a partisan blog is off-target as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to Fox's citation of a blog on ThinkProgress (why not cut out the middle man, Fox, and cite Jo Romm's blog directly?); where's Media Matters being cited overleaf? The Encyclopedia of Global Warming Science and Technology uses the term, but not to describe Stephens, nor do any of the other cited sources. They ought to be tagged with {{Failed verification}}, or more appropriately for a BLP, removed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Why? Because it conflicts with your politics? Anyway, Media Matters is here, and explicitly calls Stephens a climate change denier. Do we need to add a seventh footnote to that claim, because somehow the first six were not enough to get through to you? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Please don't attempt to ascribe any politics to me; just respond to my points.
I'm concerned with proper sourcing, and I voiced these above twice. The article doesn't need a 7th footnote for this claim – you pointed out that Media Matters is as regarded as a reputable and reliable source on Wikipedia, so that blog entry you mentioned is enough and the others ought to be removed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Michael_Bednarek Blogs are unacceptable for BLPs, see WP:BLPSPS. Joe Romm is therefore unacceptable, and so is the Media Matters for America page, which says at the top: " Blog ››› April 21, 2017 9:58 AM EDT ›››". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Self-published blogs are unacceptable. Columns published as blogs by a reputable publisher, with full editorial control of the content (rather than just handing off the keys to a blogger) are the same as any other published source. This is long standard and should not be misrepresented as a blanket ban on blogs. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I pointed to WP:BLPSPS, I'm guessing that David Eppstein is referring to it, but it doesn't have anything about a "reputable publisher", or "same as any other published source", etc. The relevant words are: "may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." My statement was too general (I was assuming that the person whom I was addressing understood the context of the discussion), but "unacceptable" is the right word for this sort of blog as a source for a claim of fact. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

That guideline is purely about self-published sources. The point is that a blog may or may not be self-published. Discussions at WP:RS have uniformly concluded that, for instance, blogs published by newspapers under editorial control of the newspapers are as reliably published as anything else at the newspaper. (They may still be opinion columns rather than factual but that's a different issue.) —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

You seem to have abandoned your earlier claims but the replacement isn't persuasive. It is not a guideline, it is a policy. It is not WP:RS, it is WP:BLP, and good enough for RS is not the same as good enough for BLP. It is not a newspaper, it is Media Matters. You gave no evidence about editorial control. Whether it's an opinion piece is of course relevant, it would make the issue "what is somebody's opinion of Stephens" and therefore even more unacceptable as a cite for "what is the opinion of Stephens". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

So much to read, but I don't see the people demanding he be called a climate change denialist providing strong evidence. His first column says the climate is changing, and changing due to human beings. That's not denial. It's a slur to say somebody is denying climate change when they don't. The question is whether "skeptic" is too strong, since at present he's only a skeptic on the politics. Danwroy (talk) 09:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to Danwroy and Michael Bednarek for pointing out problems with what's been done to the article lead. User:David_Eppstein, User:Aldaron: I believe that three editors (Peter Gulutzan, Michael Bednarek, Danwroy) disagree with you in this talk page discussion. I've removed the contentious material. Please read WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE now -- I believe it and other policies apply, so you have no right to revert to re-insert contentious material without consensus. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Restoring until this is resolved here. — Aldaron • T/C 14:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Aldaron In other words you immediately reverted to re-insert contentious material without consensus, again. I warned you about WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE and other policies (for example WP:NOCONSENSUS). Do you believe that these policies do not apply to you? Peter Gulutzan (talk)

No: content that has been removed (by you) without consensus (which appears not to apply to you) has been restored. That content will remain until the definition of "climate denial" here in WP undergoes substantive change. As it stands, that definition perfectly perfectly describes Stepehns's writing. — Aldaron • T/C 16:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC).

It puzzles me that people think "climate change denier" is a slur. If you believe that climate change is happening, caused by humans, and disastrous, and necessary to respond to, it seems that calling people who claim not to believe at least one of those things "deniers" is just an accurate description of what they believe rather than an attempt to insult them. And if you don't believe all of those things yourself, why not have the courage of your convictions and be open that you deny one or all of those things? To me, disbelieving in the need to respond to human-caused climate change but not wanting to be called a denier just comes off as craven. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Please spare us the puzzlement trolling. He believes all except perhaps one of the things you list, it's in the column. What puzzles me still is why you don't think it's necessary to establish that he's in fact a denialist as opposed to a skeptic. If you jump to denialist, your goal is smear, as punishment for his getting hired at the Times. I don't think anyone can doubt that his hiring has been controversial, and for that reason there is no question the language needs to be measured. Demands to push it to denialist ought to be either be proven beyond a doubt or removed for violating NPOV. Danwroy (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

My goal is to accurately describe someone whose professional career has been built around obfuscation, fud, doubt, denial, whateverism, and other ways of blocking action on climate change. It's not about punishing him nor punishing the Times for hiring him (if I wanted to punish the Times, I would probably be pushing to publish the issue of subscription cancellations, but see instead my comments suggesting we go slow on that). And I continue to be puzzled at how calling a denier a denier is in any way pejorative. Perhaps my good faith is missing, but the only explanation for this attitude that denial is a thing to be hidden that comes to my mind is as a way to sandbag, to allow Stephens continue to get away with writing unreasonable things while pretending to be one of the reasonable people. As the sources already make clear, he has been on the forefront of climate change denial (call it skepticism, call it what you will), his position on climate change was one of the two opinions highlighted in the Fox News piece about him and his move to the Times (the other was Never Trump) and it needs to be in the article, not hidden under a rock for nobody to ever see. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

So you're effectively an activist with an agenda (yes, lack of good faith is the problem here). I changed the term to "views on climate change". If you or your friend below want to win the case to slur this guy as a denialist, you can start by creating a section on his views on climate denialism which make it clear that the term is the only reasonable one. I just don't see the argument, I'm sorry, and I'm happy to keep reverting until this page is locked down from edit warring. It's the height of bad faith to say "I don't see why calling this guy a climate change denier is pejorative", I hope whoever ends up supervising this page takes that into account when they have to decide which version of that opening sentence to keep. Danwroy (talk) 07:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

What a steaming pile of bad faith. No, I don't want to slur him here; Wikipedia is the wrong place for that. I merely want it to be clear in the article that he is known as a participant on the "do nothing" side of the climate change debate. I genuinely do not understand how calling him a denier is pejorative; it makes no sense to me, other than as a way to hide his views. But I accept that you think it is pejorative, for reasons neither you nor anyone else here has adequately explained. You removed the link to climate change denial, though, and that is unacceptable because it doesn't let readers understand the context of his we-shouldn't-do-anything opinion pieces. Would "for his contrarian views on climate change" be acceptable? The direct link to the "climate change denial" here is not intended as a sneaky way to reintroduce the word "denial" here, by the way, it's merely the established title for our article on "contrarian views on climate change", with "contrarian" explicitly used in the lead of that article. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I made my case: Don't say somebody denies climate change when they don't. If you're unsatisfied with not being able to slur somebody in the intro, explain why he's called a denialist in the body of the article. Danwroy (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

You made no case, you merely assumed bad faith about me as a substitute for an argument. If you are unwilling to read or respond to reasoned discussion here (in particular that he is not called a denialist in the current version of the article, that's merely the name of the wikilink to the article about the contrarian views he holds, because there is no need for separate articles on "contrarian views", "skepticism", "denial", and "paid disinformation") and only wish to escalate the drama, then I see no point in treating you as a serious participant in this discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I made a very clear case. He says he doesn't deny the climate is changing, and humans are a factor. That means you can't call him a denier. Danwroy (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

He also doesn't deny that the sky is blue, I'm sure, and since the sky color is associated with climate I'm sure you would say this is evidence for him not being a denier. One can accept some parts of the story while denying others. Nevertheless, you are repeatedly and apparently deliberately distorting my position here, because I am not and have not been pushing the "denier" term into the article. I don't care what you call it as long as everyone knows what it is. It is you who are apparently trying to whitewash his position into the vaguest possible one (he has opinions on climate change, but not anything about what those opinions are). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Your link is to the Climate Change Denial page. How is that not calling him a denier? Danwroy (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It is to the article on climate change deniers, climate change contrarians, climate change shills, climate change disinformers, climate change dupes, climate change paid mouthpieces, etc. I changed the link to the "contrarians" one to make it clear that it was not specifically calling him a denier. However, we don't have separate articles on the contrarians, shills, deniers, disinformers, etc., because they all do the same thing in different ways: tell us there is no problem. That is what Stephens has been doing and the linked article describes very clearly what he has been doing. You, on the other hand, seem to want to hide what he is doing, calling only the very vague "views on climate change". It is hard to discern any reason for hiding the information about what his views actually are out of any motivation than wanting to keep people ignorant. That hardly seems like an encyclopedic purpose. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Well then it's settled, you have no business editing this page. You can outline the case against him in the article, but you insist on calling him a denier in the lede. That's the entire problem. Danwroy (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I suppose I should not be surprised that you insist on following Gulutzan in repeatedly lying about my contributions, even after being called on your lies, instead of actually attempting to have a reasoned discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

David Eppstein, calling me a repeated liar is not advancing the discussion with Danwroy about your edits. Take your accusations to a forum where behaviour issues are supposed to be discussed, and where you will be subject to scrutiny yourself. I suggest WP:ANI. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I suspect the link to climate change denial was removed because the definition there perfectly describes Stephens's NYT opinion piece, and thus goes a long way to establish that he is indeed a denier (as well as the content for reopening this as an issue after it was "settled"). Danwroy and Peter Gulutzan (who has tried to bully me into submitting by uneven application of an edit waring warning) are clearly not operating in intellectual good faith here. — Aldaron • T/C 17:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't bother responding to you because you're not listening to anybody. You're just changing the page of your own volition, and talking to others like you own it and are puzzled by the appearance of others on your property. I made a clear case why "denialist" is the wrong word - it's of course pejorative and it's not clear that it's warranted. At present it's the word of the Times against an aggressive editor on Wikipedia, on a contentious issue, and I'm confused why you think yours should be the final word here? Danwroy (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Danwroy: Please stop it with the ad hominem arguments. They aren't useful for persuasion, only for making things more argumentative. The rest of us are trying to ascertain the most accurate way to represent what reliable sources are calling him while you seem more focused on finding things to call the people here that you disagree with. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

He's not engaging with anybody, just reverting their changes. Danwroy (talk) 01:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm increasingly inclined do agree with David Eppstein that craven is indeed the right term. This determination to whitewash denialism as "skepticism" is almost sickening and the desire to prevent it from happening is far from violating NPOV. — Aldaron • T/C 22:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Craven is a good word! But I'm not sure we can see that deeply into the motives behind denying denial; I expect they are varied. But it's dissembling for sure, and I think most people who are doing it know exactly what they're up to (whatever their motives), as Stephens certainly does. His NYT piece is a brilliant and sophisticated piece of sophistry, building a "case" for his denial on resonances with general ignorance about the nature of credence, uncertainty, and risk management, to shape a broad visceral discomfort with liberal intellectual arrogance (and in passing to cleverly affirm Trump's electoral victory as far more solid that it was) and then turn that on not just climate science, but science in general. He's a textbook denier. This article will say so until the definition of denier is changed. — Aldaron • T/C 14:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Currently we seem to be locked into a disagreement over whether he is a climate change denier or a skeptic or whatever. Would it help resolve this if we instead turned this into a question of what people have called him rather than what he is? E.g. "for his views on climate change, which have been characterized by the political left as climate change denial"? It adds greater length and therefore prominence to the issue in the lead, but on the other hand it is clearly and unambiguously sourced to the Fox News piece, which doesn't outright call him a denier themselves but does point to left-leaning media calling him a denier. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

That may be a step in the right direction, though all the lead says is what he's "known for" and he's certainly (as is clearly sourced) knowledge for being a denier. I also think it goes to far: it's not just about objections from the left. It's that he clearly fits any reasonable definition of "denier". I think the solution lies along a slightly different axis: just extend the sentence with a clause stating "...however some object to the characterization" (and bring in sources objecting). — Aldaron • T/C 19:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

To me that seems to be getting too far into the weeds for the lead section. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:Lead:Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. Prevalence 22:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

We certainly have enough sources to add an actual section detailing his climate change views, supporting the brief mention in the lead. I suspect the same people who wish to keep the word "denial" out of the lead would also oppose such a significant expansion of this topic, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

By the way, two new sources explicitly using the D-word, from mainstream publishers, contradicting Stephens' claim in his new column that he is not being a denier: "Why the NYT hired a science denier", BoingBoing, and "Bret Stephens’ First Column for the New York Times Is Classic Climate Change Denialism", from Slate. And Newsweek writes that "many readers took the column—not entirely unfairly—to be nothing more than climate change denialism". But for contrast, here's another one that argues that "denier" is an insufficiently precise description of Stephens' position, and that "disinformer" would be more accurate: Callum Borchers in the Washington Post. The Atlantic agrees that "denier" is the wrong term: "his views are not even so coherent as to be ruled denial". And David Roberts of Vox uses "bullshitter" instead. "Disinformer" is unambiguously pejorative, though, unlike denier (which some people seem to think is pejorative but others disagree). So I'd want a stronger consensus of more sources than just Borchers before switching to that. And while "bullshitter" may make for entertaining headlines, I think it would be too colloquial to use even if it came from more than one source. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

"Bulshitter" is technically incorrect since the hallmark of bullshit is that the speaker is indifferent to and may not even know the truth, while Stephens's work is sophisticated disinformation that requires a fair sense of what's actually true. "Disinformer" would be accurate, but is unfamiliar (and indeed too disparaging for a WP bio). "Denier" remains by far the most technically correct term to describe him, but we seem to just keep dancing around that, though an even broader term may be necessary based on his NYT opinion piece and his response to critics letters: he's more of a general science denier. — Aldaron • T/C 19:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

To say Stevens holds "contrarian" views on climate change is to say flat earthers hold "contrarian" views on the shape of the Earth. I think climate change denial is a more precise AND more straightforward way of making the point. Fixed245 (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

That's certainly true, but Danwroy and Peter Gulutzan are adamant that such a characterization in violation of a whole thicket of WP policies. — Aldaron • T/C 20:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Danwroy and Gulutzan have had their chance to prove themselves reasonable. Maybe the rest of us can get back to working on how to describe Stephens. Now that we have both sources explicitly calling him a denier, and others explicitly saying that he is not a denier (albeit they call him a disinformer or bullshitter instead) I think that using that word in the lead may be too specific, and that "contrarian views" is a more encompassing phrase. (For instance, for all I know he's a devout Marxist who thinks that every thesis needs an antithesis and that it's his job to provide it.) But probably we need a section later in the article going into more detail about what reliable sources say about his views. My feeling is that it would make more sense to make this a subsection of a larger section on his opinions more broadly, also including material on his foreign-policy neoconservatism and his domestic-politics Never-Trumpism. Maybe those parts can be less contentious? (He says, full of wishful thinking.) At least, the domestic politics part is subject to 1RR, so that might calm it down a little. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I think we now have ample citations to support (minimally) a link from "contrarian views" to climate change denial. Moreover, since that page exactly describes the views that Stephens not only holds, but argues others should adopt (so he's more accurately a "climate change denial advocate"), it's hard to take any objection do doing so seriously. — Aldaron • T/C 17:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that Danwroy has objected, and I will add that the "sources" you're trying to depend on are, as before, either not directly supporting or not reliable for statements as fact. Could you please remove immediately the one that you added at 13:16 today, which is a citation to yet another blog? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

No. The case for doing so is weak, given the support the source has received in the press.[4] — Aldaron • T/C 18:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The case is WP:BLPSPS policy. I intend to delete WP:BLPSPS-violating sources added by David Eppstein and/or Aldaron, after other things stabilize. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I reported Aldaron on the edit-warring notice board. The report went stale, and an uninvolved administrator (EdJohnston) wrote "The article now describes him as holding 'contrarian views on climate change' which (to my eye) fits the sources better. If this problem restarts, you might want to consider an WP:RFC, but for the moment it appears settled." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Your two comments above read to me as (1) you intend to re-start the edit wars, and (2) your attempt to blame other people for the edit wars failed. I don't know, it just seems a little ironic to say those two things so close together. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly. Peter Gulutzan is clearly out of control here. I'm hoping that other editors with more patience for this kind of abuse and as much time on their hands as PG join in and scrape of some off the whitewash he's applied to this page (all the while blaming and bullying others). Fortunately I think PG is blind to how his behavior looks from outside his head, so we can predict how this will end for him. — Aldaron • T/C 21:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

You should take conduct accusations to an appropriate forum. Meanwhile, if you are both willing to accept the article as it stands now, me too. Of course I'm only one of the editors who opposed what you were doing, so it would also require Danwroy to agree that no other words need to be changed, and Michael Bednarek to agree that no sources need to be removed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not entirely satisfied with the article as it stands. I think it should link to climate change contrarianism, not simply to climate change. (Also, at some point we should actually support the claims of neoconservatism, never-Trumpism, and climate change contrarianism in the lead, which are all valid and sourced, by more detailed explanations of those opinions in the body of the article that can be more nuanced about exactly what he does and doesn't believe, but I'm skeptical that any progress on that front is possible with this group of editors.) —David Eppstein (talk) 04:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with David Eppstein. A link to climate change contrarianism would be satisfactory, and if we could do that I'd help defend the page against any fritter disruptions. — Aldaron • T/C 19:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not opposing linking to climate change contrarianism given what's been said above. Danwroy argued well but it's the price of peace. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I added a new section describing his views (in, I hope, neutral enough terms) and clarifying that although others have called him a denier he doesn't call himself that. I linked to climate change contrarianism there and left the link in the lead pointing only to climate change, as it was prior to my edit. But if enough people want it the other way around (the contrarianism link in the lead and the climate change link in the article body) we can swap them; I don't feel strongly about which link is placed where but I think both should be present somewhere. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Only a short time after I thought we might be reaching a reasonably peaceful outcome by giving in to your demands, you add more contentious edits. As usual I'll wait and see whether others oppose you, but will understand if they're exhausted or intimidated by now. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you have something specific to say about my edits, or just vague insinuations? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I've got no problem with the edits. They take things in the right direction. Also I'd suggest changing the title of the climate section to "Climate science", since Stephens's professes to accept the conclusions of climate science, but then takes the "far more dangerous" approach of arguing "that it is not the facts you should question, but the entire system that creates facts at all"[5]. I think this might objections that he's "not a climate denier", since really he's more of a science denier (when it suits his agenda). — Aldaron • T/C 12:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Throwing my voice in here one more time: you've done exactly the right thing with the new edit, except for one small but important change. Thank you David Eppstein for doing the right thing and taking any direct or implied accusation of "climate change denialism" out of the intro section. I'm going to make a small adjustment, which I hope you would agree is appropriate, and move the link on "climate change contrarianism" and just link the part a sentence later which says "climate change denier". As it stands, the link implies that having contrarian views on climate change is the same thing as being a denier. Better to leave "contrarianism" unlinked and just link the mention of denialism. In any case, a hearty thank you for the decisions you've made, not used to sanity prevailing in edit wars. Danwroy (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: I made the edit but I see I made an error in judgement there - contrarianism redirects to denialism. I think you mentioned it does this already, my mistake. It still seems more accurate to me to link the denialism charge itself. Danwroy (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@Danwroy:The link as it was connected his views to a description of them. That's better. Your edit makes it seem like the linked article describes views he is accused of holding, rather than views he actually clearly holds (as documented clearly in, for example, his NYT piece). I thought we'd settled this, please don't restart your edit warring. — Aldaron • T/C 13:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Aldaron who violated WP:3RR without consequences accuses Danwroy of edit warring. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is edit-warring; as I made clear in my post above I really appreciate Mr. Eppstein's edits. Between a redirecting link and a direct link - one which highlights within the article what we're really talking about here - I think it's clear the second one is much better. What I don't understand at all is why contrarianism redirects to denialism in the first place - highly suspicious IMO and I can only imagine what a fight it would take to challenge that. (And if you guys were in any way involved with that, well, please ignore that last sentence.) Danwroy (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Some of the problems with David Eppstein's contentious new Global Warming section: (1) indirectly quoting a blog, (2) not attributing by name the writers of opinion pieces that call Stephens a denier, (3) not quoting any of the opinion pieces that defend Stephens's statement, (4) not quoting Stephens's affirmation that human-caused climate change occurs as the IPCC says. (5) see WP:NOTNEWS, although I've accepted that already, I think we all have. I claim that this would be better:

Stephens gave this view regarding global warming in a column in May 2017: "Anyone who has read the 2014 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change knows that, while the modest (0.85 degrees Celsius, or about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) warming of the earth since 1880 is indisputable, as is the human influence on that warming, much else that passes as accepted fact is really a matter of probabilities." Susan Matthews of slate.com called the column "classic climate change denialism"; [a] and Matthew Rosza of salon.com said Stephens had acted to "[import his penchant for climate science denialism into the Times"; [b] Peter Hasson of thedailycaller.com called Stephens's column a "dissenting view from [the New York Times's] typical climate alarmism". [c] Jonah Goldbert in the Los Angeles Times wrote "When someone says that he is not denying climate change and concedes that it is real, that is “classic climate change denialism”? Huh." [d]

Does anybody think my version is better than David Eppstein's? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

What you are choosing to overlook is that Stephens is, in effect, lying about his views. He claims to accept that human-caused climate change is occurring, but then argues that we can't really know anything at all. This is a deep and insidious form of climate change denial designed to bamboozle people like Danwroy in particular (and it clearly works on him). But it isn't fooling a lot of people and shouldn't fool WP. — Aldaron • T/C 15:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not dumb, and I'm not caught up in the intense tribal animosities on this issue either. You're accusing somebody of denialism not because he disavows facts but because he focuses on different concerns. It's really awful for the public dialogue to call that denial. Danwroy (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Many people accuse him of denialism (not just me) and they do so because his views are — in the up-to-date, nuanced sense you seem unwilling (I'll take your word for it that it's not that you are unable) to grasp — frankly denialist (as defined here and elsewhere). There's nothing "tribal" about including the intellectual and philosophical facts of the case in the discussion. — Aldaron • T/C 15:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad the facts are now a part of the article. You can be right and still be tribalist. Danwroy (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

It would be good to have a direct quotation of the IPCC report part of the column, but I don't personally have any problem with the page as it is. In fact it seems to me extremely detailed and generous toward his views. I don't have a problem with "others have said" he is a denier, you don't need a higher authority than those news sources/blogs to establish that. Your suggested text is a bit long by comparison. It would work better perhaps in a paragraph on the outrage following his NYT hiring. Danwroy (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem with your move of the link from the redirect on contrarianism to the direct link on denial. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Great, I'm sorry if I was a bit belligerent earlier and I'm glad this all worked out. Danwroy (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Belligerent until you feel you've won is a good strategy. It's too bad the key issues here have been so watered down, and by just a few. Here's hoping that future interest in this page corrects some of the damage done by Danwroy and others. — Aldaron • T/C 17:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Look, Aldaron, you may have agreed with me more than you've disagreed in the recent round of discussions and changes, but this should not be a battleground: taking this as something with winners and losers is the wrong attitude. We should all be here to make sure that what the reliable sources say about Stephens' views is reported as neutrally and accurately as possible (and that when the plurality of mainstream sources disagree, the disagreement is reported rather than taking sides here on which side of the disagreement is correct). So I'm happy to accept Danwroy's apology for earlier belligerence and consider the matter settled for now. I think I've been overly testy myself in a few of these exchanges and for that I'll throw in my own apology. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Well I'm happy you guys are all getting along so well, and that's good (really), but compromise has a price and in this case its a page that glosses over the real issue with Stephens. I'm not interested in disrupting the equilibrium that's been achieved here to correct that. But if others find this page as bland as I do, I'll support them in changing it. (And for the record, I'm not the own who made a false report, nor the one who brought it again here it talk. That kind of underhandedness is really unnecessary, at least imv.) — Aldaron • T/C 20:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I acknowledge that my suggested version of the section lacks support. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

This whole discussion is misconceived because what deniers deny is climate science, not "climate change". Talking about "climate change denial" is nonsense; even the most ardent deniers say the climate changes; arch-denier James Inhofe endorsed an amendment saying "Climate change is real and not a hoax", and clarified by saying "Climate is changing and climate has always changed and always will", which is a common denier talking point. Like other deniers, Stephens has repeatedly denied and misrepresented established science (e.g., "much else that passes as accepted fact is really a matter of probabilities"). To call him a "contrarian", or a "skeptic" (according to other climate science deniers, that word is not "contentious", but it very much is among informed people; deniers readily swallow talking points and propaganda, as long as it aligns with their ideology) or "agnostic", is to pretend that climate science is mere opinion, and is very misleading--Stephens opposes the conclusions of science and propagandizes against them, for clearly ideological reasons. He presents a facade of reasonableness by acknowledging that ("a modest amount of") global warming has occurred, while dismissing the scientific models and projections--and thus conveniently denying that it warrants action. This has nothing to do with being "contrarian", it's about rejecting policy changes that the facts clearly call for. -- Jibal (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

NYT subscription cancellations

Something ought to be said here about the effect of Stephens' employment on NYT subscriptions. The publishers have stated they hope he will expand readership, but I personally know more than two dozen people who have already canceled their (sometimes life-long) subscriptions already. It would be useful to have numbers on how this is helping or hurting their bottom line. — Aldaron • T/C 13:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Only if we have reliable sources covering this. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Update: the new Guardian source does mention this, but only anecdotally and sourced to blogs. We still don't have much evidence that this is a significant effect. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

It may take a bit to settle, but I expect there are agencies that monitor this sort of thing, and eventually they will need to report to their investors. — Aldaron • T/C 18:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Another source, but I think still too anecdotal to be useful for much of anything: [6]. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Another, for the record: [7]. — Aldaron • T/C 15:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Another, probably too right-of-center-opinion-based to use as a source (and blatantly downplaying Stephens' denial) but saying that the Times has been "slammed" by subscription cancellations: The Daily Caller, [8]. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Whitewash?

To my eye this article clearly whitewashes Stephens's position on climate science, and on science in general (which he either does not understand, or wants us to mistrust). All of his (extremely well written and persuasive) writing is aimed at creating confusion about the state of our knowledge of climate science (in fact of knowledge in general). His "reasonableness" is a masquerade.

How this whitewash was arrived at isn't clear to me. A "consensus" has been claimed, but re-reading the discussion here, I just don't see it. He clearly has some defenders with an agenda, but the arguments against soft-pedaling his denialism (with made up terms like contrarinism) don't persuade.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Aldaron (talk • contribs) 20:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Please be aware that WP:BLP policy applies to talk pages as well, and that you've made several unsourced assertions on this BLPs. Absent strong sources supporting your view, this BLP article should not be changed. Icewhiz (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm unclear what you are talking about. Ample relevant sources are available right here in the article. The issue is that they are are being ignored. Asserting that BLP justifies a whitewash of Stephens's views on climate science and on science in general doesn't really address advance the discussion. — Aldaron • T/C

Indeed, Icewhiz's comments are rubbish. (BTW, he/she/it has been banned for egregious behavior.) On the substance: see my comment at the bottom of the "Climate change again" section. -- Jibal (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Question The bedbug controversy?

Don't understand the controversy. Is he saying he feels bedbugs were insulted? And the author should apologize to his wife? Or is he saying he is better than a bed bug and prefers to be referred to as some thing else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.216.151.125 (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

At this point - UNDUE recent twitterspat. Maybe due on the college professor's page - however it seems he isn't notable enough for an article.Icewhiz (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

It's getting national news coverage - it's a story on WaPo, NBC News, Vox, the Daily Beast, MSNBC, the AV Club, and the Daily Wire. I'm not sure what'd make it notable enough for inclusion if it's not already. Jokullmusic 18:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm also unsure how WP:UNDUE is relevant here - it's not a minority view, it's an event that's been widely reported on by reliable news publications. Jokullmusic 18:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Are we all five or what? Someone calls someone else a bedbug and we all go screaming to the teacher "He called Bret a BUG!!"? And then Bret starts crying and runs from the playground? This is a complete non-story and doesn't deserve to be mentioned at all, let alone in the gory detail some would like. It makes the left look even more juvenile than the right, a difficult feat these days, but that alone isn't a good reason to keep it in. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

At the very least it is a remarkably ham-handed example of the Streisand effect from a noted proponent of free speech, especially given that the initial tweet WAS NOT EVEN RETWEETED. kencf0618 (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Ham-handed? Stephens gets the left to look like content-free name-callers and you think it was a mistake? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I think it makes Stephens look like a coddled snowflake who can't handle complaints more tame than those I get on my own Talk page. I shudder to think how he'd handle the Twitter mentions of a woman who has opinions about video games. But I think the amount of (virtual) ink the incident has generated is probably amplified by the "media people like to talk about themselves" factor, so I am reluctant to give it much room here. Would it hurt to wait even until next week to see if anyone still cares? I kind of doubt it. XOR'easter (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm normally one for keeping petty Twitter spats out of biographies; but this one has received a surprising amount of coverage in reliable sources, and reportedly led to the subject of the article quitting Twitter, so I'd say on balance it is worth including. Not in any more detail than the current couple of lines, mind you. Robofish (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

This is my view as well - it's a silly thing, but it's resulted in enough coverage to warrant a few sentences on his article. Jokullmusic 00:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is entirely noteworthy. A single tweet on its own is not noteworthy but this tweet and the response its prompted is. Bangabandhu (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I concur, on all counts. kencf0618 (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Now Trump tweeted about the bed bug. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B002:2909:C140:FFF:F159:E7F9 (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, for reference here are President Trump's remarks in full: "“The infestation of bedbugs at The New York Times office” @OANN was perhaps brought in by lightweight journalist Bret Stephens, a Conservative who does anything that his bosses at the paper tell him to do! He is now quitting Twitter after being called a “bedbug.” Tough guy!" https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1166672386214772736 Measure for Measure (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I removed the sentence: "The bedbug affair was regarded The Guardian "as close to a perfect example of the Streisand effect as one could imagine" given that Stephens was not not tagged in the original tweet, which itself was liked seven times and not even retweeted before going viral.[17]" The cited article does not call it a "bedbug affair". The author of the cited article apparently is not a reporter employed by The Guardian so it should have been attributed to Luke O'Neil not The Guardian. There were nine likes not seven. The original tweet did not "go viral" the subsequent post about the original tweet did. I realize I could have cleaned up after whoever put this in, but of course whoever put this in could do so too. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I support this removal, and don't see a need to clean it up and reinsert it - it is a trivial affair. Here come the Suns (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I would note that the current version of the page mischaracterizes whether Jews were in fact referred to as Bedbugs by National Socialists. The source Bret cited in his column for this proposition actually suggests that the reference may have been meant literally to be about bedbugs, not jews.. Bret probably thought he remembered something about bed bugs and Nazis and thought he found evidence to support his implicit claim that he was the victim of an antisemitic slur. He went ahead with the assertion without checking his source. This page shouldn't amplify his sloppy and arguably false claim. Bartimaeus blue (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there's any serious dispute about the fact that the Nazis dehumanized Jews, and among other things, compared them to vermin or insects. And in fact , the Washington Post link provide in the article as a reference does include a direct reference to a comparison to bedbugs ("Another statement he cites from an anti-Semite watching a ghetto burn makes the implied connection to Karpf’s tweet more explicit: “The bedbugs are on fire. The Germans are doing a great job.”). furthermore, the NYT says the link was added by it sown editors (and later removed), not by Stephens, so it is incorrect to call this Stephens' "sloppy and arguably false claim". I think the recent edit is a good summary of the incident, and we can leave the paragraph as it is now. Here come the Suns (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi all. I am doing research on this subject and wrote some sentences that I think should replace what already exists. The "bedbug" story received major national news coverage on television and in the most widely read newspapers. This story should therefore not be buried in his biography. Below is what I have written:

On Monday, August 26, New York Times building operations staff sent an email to New York Times employees announcing that "evidence of bedbugs" was found on every floor of the newsroom. David Karpf, a professor at George Washington University, retweeted the news with the comment: "The bedbugs are a metaphor. The bedbugs are Bret Stephens." The tweet got nine like and zero retweets. A few hours later, Karpf received an email from Stephens. "I'm often amazed about the things supposedly decent people are prepared to say about other people – people they've never met – on Twitter," Stephens wrote. "I think you've set a new standard. I would welcome the opportunity for you to come to my home, meet my wife and kids, talk to us for a few minutes, and then call me a 'bedbug' to my face. That would take some genuine courage and intellectual integrity on your part." Stephens cc'ed George Washington University provost Forrest Malzmann on the email. Karpf posted the Stephens' email on Twitter and the exchange went viral.

The hashtag "#Bretbug" – a portmanteau of "Bret" and "bedbug" – started trending. In response, Stephens deactivated his Twitter account. Stephens then defended himself on MSNBC, saying that being compared to a bedbug was "dehumanizing" and "totally unacceptable." In his first New York Times column after the incident, Stephens, without naming Karpf, compared Twitter to radio technology that broadcast hate in the 1930s and highlighted language comparing Jews to dead insects, including bedbugs. The headline of Stephens' column was "World War II and the Ingredients of Slaughter." The accompanying photo was of Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels. Karpf said the implication that his tweet was antisemitic "doesn’t seem like a proportionate response."

JournalismResearch (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it to the talk page and seeking consensus. I believe that the above paragraphs are well written and adequately sourced. However, in your version] the "Bretbug" Controversy section is far larger than any other section of the article. You'll notice from this thread that two other editors were worrying that the bedbug coverage was too great, or at least should be left as is, even before your addition. I believe that the most relevant policy is WP:BLPBALANCE i.e. say it "conservatively" without giving "disproportionate space to particular viewpoints" ensuring the "overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral". This would be violated, I oppose the addition. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Revival of this 2019 thread. Miserlou expanded the bedbug description, I reverted with edit summary "See talk page = Question The bedbug controversy? where several editors said there's far too much on bedbugs, there's certainly no consensus for expanding." Miserlou re-inserted with edit summary "there is no consensus for not expanding either, there is no consensus at all, which falls in favor of inclusion. You can't just say that your opinion is the consensus. In fact, on the talk page, most of the voices are for inclusion. It becomes notable and historical once the president becomes involved, there is nothing gained from removing it other than whitewashing." First, "falls in favor of inclusion" is the opposite of Wikipedia BLP policy. Second, I never said that my opinion is the consensus. Third, it's not a matter of voices for "inclusion", it's already included, I objected that there's no consensus for "expanding". Previous participants: 65.216.151.125 Icewhiz Jokullmusic David Eppstein kencf0618 XOR'easterRobofish Bangabandhu 2600:1010:B002:2909:C140:FFF:F159:E7F9 Here come the Suns Bartimaeus blue JournalismResearch. Who supports/opposes Miserlou's statements and the expansion? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, the memories! We were all so much younger then. The expansion is not that large, and it does help illustrate how intensely that flare-up managed to flare, so I don't object to it in principle. I wonder if the second sentence might be better replaced with a mention of the planned debate between Stephens and Karpf that Stephens apparently cancelled on. XOR'easter (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2019

BEDBUG 71.94.139.253 (talk) 22:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not clear what change to the article you're requesting? Robofish (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Controversy section

I added this information from the Guardian: On December 28, the Guardian reported on New York Times columnist accused of eugenics over an article on superior intelligence of the Ashkenazim Jews where Stephens was criticized for writing a controversial piece in New York Times, "The Secrets of Jewish Genius"[citation needed] and then suddenly two users blocked me to continue and put citation tag. Now, this page is semi-protected (against the facts?) Here is the article for reference for those who have autoconfirmed status: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/dec/28/bret-stephens-new-york-times-jewish-intelligence-eugenics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanessa Mark Brooks (talk • contribs) 23:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Quote

The quote snippet "the disease of the Arab mind" is now discussed in two separate places in the article... AnonMoos (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

True. I suppose it would hurt nothing to remove the second occurrence: "He has caused controversy for his remarks referring to an Egyptian athlete's refusal to shake his Israeli Olympic opponent's hand as "the disease of the Arab mind".[51][52] Stephens claimed this incident exemplifies antisemitism in the Arab world.[53]" moving one of the cites (a Vox interview) up. Let's see whether anyone objects. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Views on Israel attacking Iran

Should we add the fact that Stephens has called for Israel to bomb Iran? Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/01/opinion/iran-israel-hezbollah.html 98.123.38.211 (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)