Talk:Steve Sailer

"Very Jewish Style Brain"

Regarding this edit, there are several layers of problems. One is that I don't think a forum post about a different forum post is particularly reliable. Similarly, I don't think a forum post which decides to highlight one strange comment among many to make a passing point is due weight. While I know that someone's religious background is considered basic info, it's not automatically included in every article without regard to due weight or reliable sourcing, and this is a supremely obscure source. Third, this point really should be contextualized clearly, because what he's saying is unusual, and we shouldn't side-step extremely odd comments like this as though they were normal. We, as Wikipedia editors, are not particularly trustworthy to summarize these kinds of complicated, WP:FRINGE things. In this post he says he believed he was "half Jewish" because he had "a very Jewish style brain" as a teenager. He is not, apparently, being facetious or joking, he is explaining his "pro-semitism" because his hair was curly and he believed himself to be a genius. His passing comments about his wife's... geneology? are not particularly clear or weighty, but would have to be contextualized also. This is why I don't think this belongs without much better sources and some sort of context. Grayfell (talk) 09:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Sailer was raised Catholic by adoptive parents. One of his biological parents was (genetically) Ashkenazi Jewish. The ruminations about a "Jewish style" brain or something along those lines, that he deduced from all his favorite writers being Jewish (before he learned his ancestry), are in one of his pre-Unz blog posts. Not worth adding to the article. In general Sailer is a Judeophile with some criticism of American Jewish politics (e.g., neocon-ism, AIPAC, ADL; the SPLC scaring up donations from old Jewish ladies with hints of Cossacks riding anew). 73.149.246.232 (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Vdare description in lede

Seems WP:UNDUE and almost certainly in violation of WP:BLP to include a long description of VDARE (associations with white supremacy, white nationalism, alt right, etc.) in the lede, given that he was just a contributor and Sailer himself hasn't necessarily been accused by RS of those descriptors. It's guilt by association and while it's probably due in the body, the lede is a different story. My proposed version of the lede:

Steven Ernest Sailer (born December 20, 1958) is an American journalist, blogger, movie critic, a former correspondent for UPI and a columnist for Taki's Magazine and VDARE.com. He writes about race relations, gender issues, politics, immigration, IQ, genetics, movies, and sports. As of 2014, Sailer stopped publishing his personal blog on his own website and shifted it to the Unz Review, an online publication by Ron Unz that described itself as an "alternative media selection".

Thoughts? ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Your suggested wording is better. WP:BLP does say "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects." and VDARE is not the subject. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter Gulutzan. Per WP:BB, I'll go ahead and take it out. ModerateMike729 (talk) 03:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

If you would like to figure out a way to rephrase this which doesn't tip-over into whitewashing and euphemism, than go ahead, but do not remove both sources and important content supported by those sources. Many sources do link Sailer to the alt-right, and even to white nationalism, and his own writing has been obsequiously flattering to the alt-right, as well.[1][2] Grayfell (talk) 03:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

If you have reliable secondary sources which connect Sailer himself with white supremacy and the alt-right, that's fine and appropriate. But as Peter Gulutzan mentioned, we should be talking about the subject himself--Steve Sailer--and not VDARE. That goes doubly so for the lede. I'm fine with moving the well-sourced content on VDARE from the lede to the body, but it's certainly a BLP violation to keep it where it is now--and there's nothing euphemistic about that. ModerateMike729 (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Accurately describing his work is not a BLP violation, and summarizing the body in the lede will mean summarizing the many critical sources already cited. Rephrasing the lede to completely remove any critical commentary on someone so closely associated with the far-right is not neutral, nor is it particularly moderate. Grayfell (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Accurately describing his work does not mean including a laundry list of negative descriptors--even if accurate--of a publication where he's contributed, unless those descriptors actually apply to his work. At least you explicitly concede that the purpose of including those VDARE descriptors is to be "critical" of Sailer. Again, I am absolutely fine with describing Sailer in terms like "alt-right" or "white supremacist" but we need secondary sources to confirm that. Can't just rely on what's been said about VDARE, that's bordering on WP:SYNTH violation. Overall, my argument is pretty simple: If Sailer's a white supremacist, fine. But let's source it. If he's not, then it shouldn't be included. Either way, the VDARE commentary is blatantly undue.ModerateMike729 (talk) 03:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

If your goal isn't to whitewash the article, let's figure out how to summarize sources. As I said, and as a cursory search shows, there are plenty of reliable sources for this connection. Further Sailer isn't merely one writer among many, he is "an influential writer" for the outlet who is frequently cited in connection to it, specifically regarding racist statements[and so on, and so on, and so on]. These two things are not coincidence, so the lede needs to reflect all these easily-found sources which have spelled it out for us. Grayfell (talk) 03:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I have moved the info specific to VDARE away from the first paragraph, and have expanded the lede to more clearly explain Sailer's specific claim to notability, per sources. There is still plenty of room for improvement, of course. Grayfell (talk) 04:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

A little better but room for improvement. I'll circle back tomorrow, thanks ModerateMike729 (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a stab at this, Grayfell. I continue to believe the paragraph about VDARE (which you've now moved below the first paragraph) does not belong in the lede. The next sentence which says, "His writing for both VDARE and Unz Review have endorsed eugenics and scientific racism.[12]" sufficiently address the racist nature of his writings for the site without giving the laundry list of descriptors for the site itself without giving undue weight to individual instances. I'm fine with your phrasing but strongly believe that VDARE paragraph should be moved to the body. ModerateMike729 (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, but... why, though? VDARE is on the List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups. Being an active and prolific participant in a hate group is significant, and this is the kind of thing readers are likely to want to know, right? VDare isn't the New York Times, or even Breitbart. Very few general readers are going to know what VDare is. From what I have seen, most recent reliable sources about Sailer are specifically about things he's written for VDare. These sources then described it as "a white supremacist website" or "the racist, anti-immigrant website VDARE" or similar. Providing readers with context is foundationally important to an encyclopedia, so if we're going to rephrase this in the lede (which I'm not flatly opposed to) we should do it in a consistent way that doesn't downplay something that's treated by sources as a defining characteristic. Grayfell (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Re-upping this. From our prior discussion, it looks like two editors to one preferred my wording suggested above. Blatant WP:RACIST violations to rattle off all the guilt by assocation problems of vdare in the lede. And Sailer's notability comes from much more than what's in the lede. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 02:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Re-upping? This isn't 4chan. Wikipedia isn't a democracy, and 2:1 isn't consensus. He is notable for exactly what reliable, independent sources "note" about him. Nothing more, nothing less. If you know of additional sources, let's see them. Those sources would not cancel-out the many which link him to extremist politics and pseudoscience, however. Grayfell (talk) 02:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Let's drop the condescension toward female editors, it's tiresome. Even if he's notable for those things, they're already in the tighter version I suggested. The pseudoscience, the racism, Vdare. What's undue to the point of absurdity is two additional paragraphs with unnecessary information about VDARE and redundant mentions of the scientific racism. Most of it's in the body, where it belongs. And for what it's worth, the current version isn't even the long standing version--it's just what you jammed into the lede after the prior discussion. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

WTF??? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

...condescension toward female editors Please explain what, exactly, that is supposed to mean. You cannot cast aspersions like that and expect them to slide.

The lede should explain why he's notable, and if you agree that the racism and pseudoscience are accurate, than you haven't explained the problem. You've said before that you're not trying to whitewash the article, but you are intentionally trying sourced, unflattering information. If Sailer's notability comes from much more than what's in the lede... what does it come from? "Guilt by association"... He's not a journalist who interviews racists, or lives next door to racists, he writes and publishes racist content in racist magazines. Grayfell (talk) 02:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey, MM555, who are these anon friends of yours that just showed up all of sudden? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea, they're not me, they have no relation to me. Please don't call them "friends of [mine]" unsubstantiated. And for what it's worth, I obviously agree they appear to be socks. Multiple IPs don't just show up at the same time randomly. But that said, they are not my socks, so I don't appreciate the accusation that we have a connection. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Struck comments from confirmed sockpuppet ModerateMikayla555/ModerateMike729. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darryl.jensen/Archive § 07 July 2019. — Newslinger talk 12:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

V-Dare in the lede

Why is VDARE in the lede? Also, why is VDARE describes as a “racist organization” in the lede? This does not belong in the lede in an article about Sailer. Can someone explain what exactly is going on? We had the same problem over at Linda Gottfredson and we were able to fix it. Perhaps we can do the same here..2600:1012:B055:1B10:C495:6949:53C7:FC76 (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

It's in the lede because he's strongly associated with it, and it is a racist organization. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough that makes sense. As an aside, my girlfriend used to tend bar at Cortinos where Sailer was a regular. According her he was an excellent (overly generous) tipper. My girlfriend is Guatemalan by the way - she was born there. So while I accept what you have written in good faith, I find it hard to reconcile with the Steve that she personally knows. And I doubt she is lying about this too 2600:1012:B055:1B10:C495:6949:53C7:FC76 (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

OK I’ve done some additional reading and I still don’t see any reason to mention VDARE, particularly unattributed criticism of VDARE in the lede of the article. It may belong in the body but certainly not in the lede. This article is about Sailer - telling our readers what some critics might say about VDARE in the lede is completely undue. On a related note, I realize the tipping anecdote is just hearsay at this time. However if I were to provide evidence (either a notarized statement by an employee OR a notarized copy of a credit card receipt showing a $22 tip on a $78 bill - is there a situation where we could use a primary source like this? 2600:1012:B044:4607:8C46:6157:13EF:F11C (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I see. No one wishes to answer. Once again, can someone please explain to me why UNATTRIBUTED criticism of VDARE belongs in the LEDE of an article about Steve Sailer? This is completely undue. Grayfell added this information WITHOUT consensus. First it makes no sense to have any mention of VDARE in the lede. Second, it makes even less sense to provide inaccurate and biased context about VDARE. Readers are not coming to this article for information about VDARE, if they want info about VDARE they can go to that article. Grayfell adding the information you did without consensus only paints Sailer as a bigot and downplays his accomplishments. Why?? To what end?? 23.114.214.45 (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

This you? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B04D:CDB9:F498:A975:863A:E340 (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Once again, why has unattributed, irrelevant, undue information been added to the lede without prior consensus? 2600:1012:B04D:CDB9:F498:A975:863A:E340 (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

user:ModerateMike729 user:Peter Gulutzan user:ModerateMikayla555 perhaps one of you can provide some insight as you are already working on improving the article. It appears there was undue information added to the lede without consensus. Additionally this information was unattributed, and in violation of WP policy regarding BLP. While I am personally no fan of Mr. Sailers, it would seem this entry is suffering from bias as it aims to disparage Mr. Sailer via criticism of an organization he has written for. That criticism may have a place on WP - the lede of an article about Me. Sailer is not that place. 104.244.2.226 (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I find it a little odd that there's been a sudden influx of IP edits. Is this being linked to from somewhere? Regardless, yeah, I thought a mention of VDARE's obvious white supremacist bias was due for the lede, but felt multiple sentences on it was undue. The sourcing also isn't particularly reliable, although I'd be more amenable to inclusion if we could find more RS. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Struck comment from confirmed sockpuppet ModerateMikayla555/ModerateMike729. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darryl.jensen/Archive § 07 July 2019. — Newslinger talk 12:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it has.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

"white supremacist" is an obvious strawman. VDARE is just an anti-immigration site, and one of several sites that publish Sailer's columns. VDARE just happens to have published writings by some other blacklisted thoughtcriminals. But playing six degrees of kevin bacon guilt-by-association in the lede is both ridiculous and completely undue.Jwray (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

"blacklisted thoughtcriminals" - you mean racist garbage, right? Racist garbage =/ "thoughtcrime", it's just racist garbage.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

A "strawman"? No, it's not a strawman, and VDARE is not "just an anti-immigration site," as our well-sourced article on the site clearly discusses (including literally a cite to a book published by Harvard University Press). NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Your description of the racist, anti-Semitic white supremacists published by VDARE as blacklisted thoughtcriminals also suggests you may wish to consider whether you can appropriately contribute to articles on this topic area. Wikipedia articles are written based upon mainstream reliable sources, and the viewpoints of fringe racist theories such as white supremacy and anti-Semitism need not be given any credence. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

We are all adults here and I believe we can all edit the article productively. It’s not like we are a bunch of infants who are still shitting their pants. I don’t see the point in insinuating that user:Jwray cannot edit effectively. His contributions are welcome. As is anyone else that can act like an adult and not an infant. 174.210.3.181 (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Sarah Silverman

“and falsely claimed that Jews control the media to demoralize and divide other groups.[11]” I am removing this. If you click through to the article Cathy Young references, it’s transparently obvious that Sailer was making a Sarah Silverman-style joke that went over Ms. Young’s head:

https://vdare.com/posts/here-s-the-gist-of-amy-chua-s-new-book-what-drives-success - see the other paragraphs about Sarah Silverman and Desi Arnaz. Or to really hammer the point home, see another Sailer article about Chua’s book here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170106041531/http://www.vdare.com/articles/amy-chua-tiger-mother-or-market-dominant-minority

In all of the other press coverage of Sailer (who is half-Jewish), has anyone else ever claimed that Sailer is a paranoid Protocols of Zion-style anti-Semite? Even the SPLC, which has been writing about Sailer for years, have not claimed that he is anti-Semitic.

Reminder of WP:EXCEPTIONAL: Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.[13] Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources; … reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character.

NPalgan2 (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

That does not look like "a joke" to me (and the excuse that some shitty thing or other is "just a joke" is long past expiration date now). Anyway, your "analysis" is just WP:OR, so no.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

VM, aren't you simultaneously arguing that a story that was the subject of entire articles in WashPo, Business Insider, Newsweek, was UNDUE to be mentioned in the body of Media_Matters_for_America but an exceptional claim sourced to a single sentence in the Daily Beast should be in the lead of this one? And you don't address my argument about WP:EXCEPTIONAL. NPalgan2 (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Is The Daily Beast really such an authoritative source that the most basic sanity check is WP:OR? Note that it’s listed as WP:MREL ’No consensus’ at Reliable sources/Perennial sources NPalgan2 (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

You know what? You're right. With just the DB in there it's probably undue for the lede. I still don't see why you think that he was just making a joke.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree it's unfunny and really poorly executed. But see lower down he makes another joke about how "Sarah Silverman's worst nightmare has come true and all those hard-charging Chinese have taken over the media." (And links to Silverman's joke about how the "president of an Asian-American watchdog group out here in Los Angeles, his name is Guy Aoki, and he was up in arms about it and he put my name in the papers calling me a racist, and it hurt. As a Jew—as a member of the Jewish community—I was really concerned that we were losing control of the media.") The media can't be simultaneously Chinese and Jewish controlled, right? NPalgan2 (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

There's a problem with this sentence

Tablet mag says about Sailer:

"In the aftermath of Katrina, he wrote on Vdare, a publication that describes itself as “the voice of the Historic American Nation,” of black Americans: “The plain fact is that they tend to possess poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups. Thus they need stricter moral guidance from society.”"

This article is used as a source for the second paragraph of this Wikipedia article, saying:

"Sailer's writing for VDARE has described black people as inherently lacking judgment."

There's a contradiction. Proposing to change this to:

"Sailer's writing for VDARE has described black people tending to inherently lack judgment."

--87.177.127.68 (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I removed that sentence entirely, which was reverted by NorthBySouthBaranof. I don't particularly have a preference of language between the two options above. Rather, I just don't think it's sufficiently sourced. Tablet has been discussed a few times on the WP:RS/N. It is not considered a perennially reliable source nor is there much evidence in either direction about its reliability. I don't think that we should be giving such prominent space in the lede to a single opinion article from Tablet Mag. If other reliable sources also describe Sailer using the same words, that's fine, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I'd be amenable to keeping that line in the body (I think even that's excessive but for the sake of compromise), but it seems extremely WP:UNDUE for the lede. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Pinging NorthBySouthBaranof, I'd appreciate your input. Thanks! ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Struck comments from confirmed sockpuppet ModerateMikayla555/ModerateMike729. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darryl.jensen/Archive § 07 July 2019. — Newslinger talk 12:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Having reviewed the issue, and given that there's not really any better sourcing, I'm fine with this removal. It's gratuitous anyway, the point has already been made about his racist viewpoints. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

"Human biodiversity" in the lede

The lede contains: "Sailer has been credited with coining the term "human biodiversity" in the 1990s, with the term later becoming popular among the alt-right as a euphemism for scientific racism.[11][12][13]"

This is what philosophers call an error in category. "Human biodiversity" denotes the matter about which one is debating or researching (and it denotes the matter in a most sober and non-prejudicing way, as far as is possible at any case). "Race science" or, more polemically, "scientific racism" denotes the theories which are formed about the matter. Rheinvolk (talk) 08:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

No. Simonm223 (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Removing inaccurately sourced material from lede

The lede of this BLP states "His writing for both VDARE and The Unz Review have endorsed eugenics and scientific racism." The cited source has one sentence devoted to Sailer, in which it states, "Steve Sailer, a well-known and prolific writer in white supremacist and human biodiversity circles, writes extensively about sociogenomics on “race realist” sites such as Unz Review and VDARE. To be clear: I am not saying that socio­genomicists are racists."

The source does not state that Sailer has endorsed eugenics or scientific racism; if he has indeed done so, that claim must be backed with a solid reference. And with respect to Sailer's articles on V-Dare and Unz Review, the MIT article states only that Sailer has written on those sites about sociogenomics, a topic which the writer specifically states is not inherently racist, much less that it (or Sailer) endorse eugenics.

The subject of this BLP understandably stirs strong emotions, and he is disliked by many editors. I'd ask editors to be especially conscientious about backing up strong assertions with solid sources. Babajobu (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Has preemptively insinuating that other editors are being swayed by their emotions ever been productive? Has this ever helped at all? Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor applies here.

Your quotation of the source is selectively edited. A context is established in the paragraph discussing Sailer's writing on human biodiversity. This context is clear that Sailer is writing about "human biodiversity" as a euphemism for scientific racism ("race realism" redirects to scientific racism). He is not mentioned in this paragraph because he writes about sociogenomics, he is mentioned because he writes in support of scientific racism. The paragraph explaining the author's views of sociogenomics is separate, and needs to be evaluated in that context. The author spends several paragraphs cautioning against sociogenomics being coopted by racists, of which Sailer was established as one of several examples.

As the article already explains, "Human biodiversity" has become a euphemism for scientific racism, and there are plenty more sources for this which tie it to Sailer.[3][etc.] This was much to the horror of the legitimate scientist who originally coined the term.[4] Grayfell (talk) 08:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Grayfell, my apologies for misspelling your name. But I think it's reasonable to suggest that all editors of this article take care to ensure their edits are faithful to the cited sources. Your analysis of the source is a stretch much too far for a contentious BLP. Most patently problematic is the assertion that Sailer has endorsed eugenics in VDARE and the Unz Review. In your source's one mention of Sailer, it states neither that he (1) endorses eugenics or (2) has done so in VDare or the Unz review. As you say, you have inferred this from the article's discussion elsewhere of eugenics and sociogenomics. Such an inference is incompatible with the requirements in BLP:

• "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is...an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see No Original Research)."
• "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say."
• In Arbcom's decision covering this article, they stated "In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles." This is not to say that your analyses/conclusions were incorrect, Grayfell; just that they don't have a place in an article on this topic. If Sailer did indeed write in Vdare, the Unz Review, or elsewhere, that he endorses scientific racism and/or eugenics, or if he is explicitly described as doing so in a reliable secondary source, it should be trivial enough to find sources stating so. In that case, you could simply return the statements to the article with the new sourcing. Is that not reasonable? Babajobu (talk) 11:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Babajobu there has been a continued effort by a small number of editors to insert defamatory, BLP-violating and undue information in the lede of articles like this one and Linda Gottfredson. Essentially anyone who does not subscribe to the environmentalist view of human development is wrongly painted as a racist. I’ve been watching this article and others and believe the issue should be escalated. My question is where/how does one go about presenting such evidence? The issue isn’t terribly serious - any layman reading the article can tell that it is slanted/biased. The fact remains however, that (in academia - particularly hard sciences) evidence and support for the hereditarian view has never been stronger and articles such as this do a disservice to project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:8:9:0:0:0:B1 (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome to open a request for comment if you believe this topic needs more opinions, or open a thread on the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard. However, don't be shocked when other editors tell you that it's neither "undue" nor a violation of BLP to discuss the fact that Sailer writes for a white supremacist website. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Source interpretation in lead section

Last sentence of lead section currently reads: "In his writing for VDARE, Sailer has described black people as inherently lacking judgment.[17]" Depending on what "inherently" is supposed to mean here, it's quite possible that Sailer in fact believes this, but the current source doesn't support that statement. I assume this is the sentence in the source referred to:

"In the aftermath of Katrina, he wrote on Vdare, a publication that describes itself as “the voice of the Historic American Nation,” of black Americans: 'The plain fact is that they tend to possess poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups. Thus they need stricter moral guidance from society.'"

He doesn't use the word "inherently", and he's clearly making an effort to avoid that interpretation by saying "tend to" instead. Now, perhaps he's being intentionally misleading, but that's not our business to speculate in. We would not be writing "he has said that modern buildings are inherently taller than older buildings" if he in fact claimed that "modern buildings tend to be taller than older buildings". Yes, that's one way to interpret "inherently", but there's a clear POV being pushed here. If there are good reasons for thinking that "inherently" is a better description here, use those sources instead.

Now, I wouldn't be explaining this in detail if I hadn't already been reverted twice, by User:Grayfell, who claims I am "whitewashing" Sailer. I propose either to 1) delete the indirect quote, 2) modify it, or 3) use a different source. If anyone thinks either of these proposals are unnecessary or destructive, please explain why. Ornilnas (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Would removing "inherently" make this any more accurate? I don't think it would, and your attempt at rephrasing this point presumed that Sailer's pseudo-scientific racialism was valid enough to refute. It wasn't a valid premise, so presenting it this way would be loaded and non-neutral.

The only way this quote makes any sense at all is if this "tendency" is based on race alone. He did not just say "judgement", he said "native judgement". He was claiming a connection between race as a "native" (essentialist) quality, and a "tendency" towards poor-judgement. Neither of these are supported, or even supportable. The quote only makes sense if Sailer accepts as a fact that black people share inherent, native qualities, and that poor judgement is one of those qualities. Any other interpretation would be a contortion.

If your intention is to explain that you are not whitewashing in defense of scientific racism, hopefully I don't have to explain why comparing groups of human beings to historical periods in architecture was a mistake.

So yes, sources do, in fact, tend to treat his comments as intentionally misleading, but we don't even need to dive into that. Here's an example, anyway:

Of course, saying that citizenism is not white nationalism is not to exonerate Sailer. His record contains ample reasons to question the rather innocent description of his politics. In his most infamous and widely condemned blog post, written during the unrest following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Sailer wrote that African Americans “possess poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups. Thus, they need stricter moral guidance from society.” And he regularly plays up a sort of white grievance politics — grousing about “black privilege” or complaining about Jordan Peele’s Get Out as “a remarkably racist kill-the-white-people horror movie.” Sailer usually dances around blatantly bigoted remarks in his writing, but if his ideal of citizenism is formally egalitarian, his view of people more generally is not.[5]

This quote is not only "infamous", it is specifically infamous because it is contrary to an "innocent description of his politics". If you are looking for a neutral discussion of race, you will not find it in Sailer's writings, and Wikipedia articles should not present a distorted view of this person's work. Grayfell (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what Sailer's racialism is or whether it is "valid enough to refute", but that sounds beside the point here. If you have a source that refutes his theories, write that they are refuted. Right now we're talking about an indirect quote of his.

My comparison to architecture was chosen intentionally to show that the current wording only makes sense if you're trying to do activism, rather than write an encyclopedia. I don't think it was a mistake.

Yes, the "tendency" would clearly be based on race, but "inherently lack judgment" strongly suggests something much more absolute than what he's trying to convey in that quote (just like "inherently taller buildings" suggests that the buildings are...inherently taller; not that there is a strong tendency for buildings in one group (modern buildings) to be taller than buildings in the other (older buildings)). If you can at the very least pull up a source that describes his quote with the word "inherent", that might be good enough; but right now, it looks like original research to me. The quote you gave suggests he's a "bigot", so feel free to add that to the lead; but it doesn't say that Sailer thinks blacks are inherently lacking in judgment (although it does imply it, but then we're interpreting interpretations). If the thing you're saying is so obvious, there should be a source saying so explicitly.

How about changing to "Sailer has described black people as tending to lack in judgment"? It's not that elegant, but it's obviously closer to what he wrote. If you don't care what he wrote, I don't see why we're mentioning it in the lead at all.

I'm not looking for a neutral discussion of race; I seek a less distorted view of his work by avoiding POV wording resulting from editors' personal interpretations. Ornilnas (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

No. Sailer's claims of a "poorer native judgment" of an entire race can be appropriately paraphrased as "inherently lacking judgement". Wikipedia goes by reliable, independent sources. I just cited a source which mentions that it was "infamous". We summarize this according to context provided by reliable, independent sources. Wikipedia is not an extension of Sailer's prolific social media activity. Grayfell (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

But I disagree that it's an appropriate paraphrase! We can debate whether it is or isn't, but that's not really what Wikipedia is for, and so the conventional solution here would be to write something that can be definitely backed up by sources. The current wording is your interpretation, not from the sources you've provided. If you want to write that Sailer's post was "infamous" and that he is "bigoted", then go ahead and do so. If you want to debate whether I have a poor understanding of the word "inherently", or whether you've misunderstood something, we can do that (I think you're probably misunderstanding me and maybe also Sailer, but I could be wrong). But if you want to do neither, then just let me change to a wording that's an objectively more accurate description of the current source. I wouldn't normally spend so much time on such a small point, but if any change in wording here is going to be wholesale reverted, the current (in my view inaccurate) wording is practically set in stone. That situation makes me uncomfortable. Ornilnas (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Can @Grayfell: elaborate on which "sources do, in fact, tend to treat his comments as intentionally misleading"? Sailer is not known for pulling his punches or being oblique about his opinions. That is why he is controversial. If there are any sources claiming he is dishonest or seeking to hide his true views that would be pretty surprising. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 06:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

"Pseudoscientific"

At issue in the most recent edits is whether the phrase "human biodiversity" can be described with an NPOV as "pseudoscientific." I do not believe that it can. I accept The Forward as a reliable secondary source, and indeed it published an article describing "Human Biodiversity" as "pseudoscientific." But it is an outlier in the published material on the subject. Among other examples, "Human Biodiversity" is the title of an anthropology textbook by Jonathan M. Marks. Privileging the Forward article above a preponderance of other RSSs is non-NPOV. Please leave "pseudoscientific" out until more RSSs describe it so. Thank you. Babajobu (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

That there is a textbook named something does not change the fact that the alt-right/white supremacist use of the phrase is, indeed, pseudoscientific. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The same sentence does state that the term is used to racist ends by the alt-right. The statement that the term itself is inherently pseudoscientific is a separate claim for which we need to proffer more support than one article in The Forward. Also, please review Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living persons. Particularly the stringent requirements with respect to Neutral point of view and Verifiability. Thanks again. Babajobu (talk) 15:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I have added a citation to The International Alt-Right: Fascism for the 21st Century?, published by Routledge, an indisputable reliable source, which discusses the matter in detail. In pertinent part: "The individual who has done more than any to advance the idea of HBD ... his pseudoscientific veneer barely covers a base and explicit racism." That you may personally disagree with this reliable source is irrelevant.

That there is some entirely different book titled "human biodiversity" by a professor who is clearly against scientific racism has no bearing on Sailer's use of the term, which reliable sources universally declare to be pseudoscientific or outright racist.

I quite well understand BLP - the material is clearly verifiable to reliable sources and there are no cited reliable sources which dispute the description, therefore the material is clearly permissible by policy.

If you have reliable sources which declare Sailer's use of the term to not be pseudoscientific, let's see them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Include: survey of experts - Sailer is the most accurate media source on intelligence

A 2014 survey of expert opinion on intelligence found that Sailer's blog was considered the most accurate media source for intelligence research.

This highly relevant information should be included. Intelligence_(journal) is a leading publication which reflects the existing scientific consensus. The referenced article was written by an international group of renown experts and is very well sourced. Please read the referenced article to express an informed opinion.

The article has a lot of criticism from left-wing sources, but not much describing his work in a neutral way. Yes, the article should include the above paragraph, as well as a neutral summary of what he has written. Roger (talk) 04:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Might be the most notable thing about him.

I have added a section on Grayfell's talk page in hopes of shifting the edit war onto this talk page rather than the main article. I was concerned that edits continued on the article rather than Grayfell responding here. It's possible that only monitoring the main page meant being unaware of this section here and thus that the edits were made in good faith, so that should serve as an alert to check the talk page. TGGP (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Heiner Rindermann's surveys have already been extensively discussed elsewhere. The most recent example I know if is here: Talk:Race and intelligence#RfC: Should this article by Professor Rindermann et al. be included, and if so in what context? where the OP was blocked as a sock puppet. There have, however, been many more discussions of Rindermann and cohort's academic's work, and sock puppetry excluded, consensus has been overwhelming that this falls under WP:FRINGE as pseudoscience. The supposed legitimacy of Intelligence is contested, and regardless, is not sufficient to overturn this consensus for any specific study. In addition to WP:FRINGE, using vague claims from a dubious source to imply the "accuracy" of a unqualified blogger's coverage of and academic field is a form of promotion, and violates WP:SOAP. It is also cherry-picking,a sit is barely even mentioned by the source. This survey a primary source which is poorly explained by the repeated addition. If this is significant, it should be possible to cite a reliable, independent source explaining why it is significant. There are also serious red flags over David Becker and Thomas R.Coyle publishing history. Since they all lack the reputation for accuracy and fact checking expected by WP:RS, this is not a reliable source.

A specific problem is that the n-102 is not a fair sample of actual experts in this field, as it is only a sample of those who would bother to respond to fringe figures like Rindermann. A walled garden is not a valid sample pool, which is something that should be painfully obvious to anyone outside of the "HBD" bubble. In addition to Sailer, the other blogger mentioned positively is Anatoly Karlin. I will leave it to you to figure out why that's extremely questionable. As the survey also cites OpenPsych and other blatantly unreliable pseudo-journals, this is not a credible source in the slightest. Grayfell (talk) 00:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I see the WP:UNDUE tag there, but not WP:FRINGE. Could you link where the consensus on the latter was established? TGGP (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Scroll up a section from the linked one, and from there you can see another discussion and a link to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 70#RfC on race and intelligence. There are many places this has come up, as well, but that one is an RFC with wide participation. Rindermann's surveys are extensively discussed there. That discussion is very long, which should help explain why patience for more debate is very thin. My understanding of these discussions is that Rindermann's work is seen as unreliable for any content on Wikipedia related to race and intelligence.

You are free to disagree of course, but due to extensive sock-puppetry, ArbCom sanctions (explained at the top of the talk page), and for other reasons, at this point any continuation of this should be held at either WP:RSN or WP:ANI. Grayfell (talk) 05:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I see in that link it opens with someone asking if "sources by Jensen, Rushton, Lynn, Piffer, and Gottfredson are fringe". Rindermann gets mentioned, but it wasn't clear if all Rindermann's publications are considered fringe or whether this specific survey is. The conclusion of the vote distinguishes between genetic & non-genetic theories, which is another matter from what news sources are considered reliable by researchers (the subject of the survey). I suppose the ideal would be if another researcher had done a similar survey to serve as an independent replication so that if there were some problem specific to Rindermann that could be avoided, but I don't know if any such survey exists. TGGP (talk) 07:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Intelligence is not just a mainstream scientific journal from a mainstream scientific publisher, it is a top journal in the field and it's published by Elsevier. It is in no way "fringe". If Wikipedia excludes every sentence from every publication that has been criticized by someone, then it would be a very small web site. The survey result is a notable fact about Sailer and you shouldn't delete it just because you don't want any thing positive about Sailer. KHirsch (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Welcome back to Wikipedia after, can we assume that you found this discussion from off-site? I don't think a neutral summary of this source would actually be all that "positive". As I have already explained, this tiny study is not mainstream, nor is it particularly good scholarship, and it therefore doesn't reflect positively on anyone involved. Grayfell (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, it is extremely likely that this edit was block evasion, as an editor with this IP range (Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40) and location has been indefinitely blocked from all topics related to race and intelligence, broadly construed. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1049#Race and intelligence block and ban issue explains this. Reverting this editor is exempt from WP:3RR. Grayfell (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

References

If you are part of some war against sock puppets, I don't know anything about that. There is a lot of criticism of Sailer in this article, and it is all from fringe sources with strong political views. Eg, Media Matters, SPLC, John Podhoretz, etc. If you really want to get rid of the questionable sources, get rid of them. They have been widely criticized. It would be much better for this article to focus on Sailer's work. Roger (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

"02:27, 21 February 2021‎ NorthBySouthBaranof talk contribs‎ 31,333 bytes −601‎ rv topic-banned IP"

This has nothing to do with me, but it looks as though a clique of Inner Party members is using some carte blanche ban on someone they hate (probably an honest, decent editor) to tar and ban as many people as possible with the broadest possible brush, and using tactics like tag-teaming to do it. Same old, same old. 2603:7000:B23E:3056:1920:48F:A553:49A1 (talk) 04:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It would be nice if these articles would just describe the subject's work, instead of playing guilt-by-association games. Yes, he writes about racial matters. That is appropriate for the article. I am sure he has been called a racist. Everyone who writes about racial matters has been called a racist. Saying that he has been called a racist is just useless name-calling. This article is obviously not neutral. Roger (talk) 07:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I can see how the survey might be inappropriate as a source on race and intelligence itself (as there are much more high-quality, non-fringe and better sourced research available), but how can it be inappropriate as a source on Steve Sailer's blog? The journal itself seems at least arguably reputable, so the issue would have to be with the survey itself. There's presumably no less-fringe science that contradicts its findings concerning the blog. Has the paper been retracted? Ornilnas (talk) 09:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I can't access the Intelligence article and have some concerns about its methodology (as well as why a 5-year old survey of 100 people was published at all, other than because the lead author is on the editorial board), but more importantly: we don't discuss his blog at all right now. Until there's some context of what was on the blog, just saying it's the "most accurate media source" according to a survey is inappropriate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

It is accessible alright, I just stored it with archive.is. tickle me 01:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The entire article is available at sci-hub if you enter the DOI "10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406". I'm surprised that anyone would vote on this issue without having read the article. There's nothing fringe about it. KHirsch (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support The article has criticisms from an assortment of dubious and partisan sources. And yet someone wants to exclude a notable mention from an academic journal? Why? I would like to see some explanation of why those bloggers and pundits are somehow more important than an academic journal. If not, then remove the over-opinionated critics, and put in the academic journal. Roger (talk) 08:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I concur with the points made by User:Grayfell and User:Power~enwiki. The position supported by this source and its author were held to be WP:FRINGE and not WP:RS by the rfc, and the survey is based on a small and biased sample of respondents. It is a questionable source at best. Skllagyook (talk) 09:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• If the rules of Wikipedia require exclusion of the "Intelligence" article, then something has gone wrong with the rules of Wikipedia. 24.46.151.135 (talk) 10:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support An extremely reliable source of experts in the field. "Fringe" is clearly being used as a dishonest excuse by biased editors to censor material they don't like. Spork Wielder (talk) 09:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC) (WP:SOCK)

• Oppose. The methodological flaws of this survey –– which are myriad and profound –– have already been discussed on other talk pages ad nauseam. Its inadmissibility as evidence for anything is already well established. Further, to anyone who is not aware: article talk pages are not an appropriate place to characterize the imagined motivations of other editors. It is considered whining and it persuades no one. Generalrelative (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• Not an argument. Spork Wielder (talk) 06:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose given the issues with this article which have been repeatedly discussed elsewhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

  Where? This? Spork Wielder (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

  Search for "Rindermann" in archives of Talk:Race and intelligence and you get lots of hits: [6]. Also, you should change your indenting by always copying the indenting from the contribution above, then adding a colon. Fixed it for you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Intelligence is a leading and respectable journal which reflects scientific consensus. The referenced article was written by an international group of renown experts. This article in Intelligence is the most notable piece of scientific research mentioning the subject. There must be a reference to it in order to provide factual information about the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guybas (talk • contribs)

• Oppose per Grayfell. Also wanted to note the appearance of all the likely-sockpuppet accounts in this survey. Volunteer Marek 22:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • It's not sock-puppetry, it's WP:MEAT - Sailer made multiple blog posts [7] [8] about including this specific piece of information in his Wikipedia page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Well, everybody needs a hobby, I guess. I just wish he'd pick one that would involve less wasting of our time. XOR'easter (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Obvious attempt to POV-push is obvious, and also comical. XOR'easter (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

  How is referencing experts in the field "POV pushing"? This is projection. Spork Wielder (talk) 10:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose See Talk:Race_and_intelligence/Archive_102 and search for "rindermann". --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:BE
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The journal Intelligence is fringe, because a handful of Wikipedia editors said so. Interesting. Spork Wielder (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC) You invented that conclusion. Interesting. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Clarification: The page I linked has discussions on the subject and links to other discussions on the subject. I linked it because it is not necessary to have the same discussion again and again and again and again and again and again and again. Those discussions contain something called "reasoning" and something called "sources". What those Wikipedia editors "said" was based on those reasons and those sources. If you were familiar with the concept of "what people say is occasionally based on reasons" and interested in exploring it, you could have looked at the reasoning and at the sources. Instead, you superficially condensed the whole discussion to the result. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC) All I see is a handful of Wikipedia editors calling them "fringe". Meanwhile here's the editorial board of Intelligence. Absurd. Spork Wielder (talk) 08:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC) All I see As I said, you should look closer. Those users linked to sources and a previous discussion: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_70#RfC_on_race_and_intelligence. Look at the stuff right at beginning, headed "Sources:", "From the largest professional organization of anthropologists:", "A similar statement", "From the textbook", and "From the prestigious journal". And read more than just the word "yes" from the contributions below that. editorial board What is that supposed to prove? Some people who work at universities! Wow! "Oooo, look, I got a degree! [beats chest]" Superficiality, omitting the look behind the surface, is one of the hallmarks of proponents of fringe ideas. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC) "It does not reflect a consensus of all members of the AAA, as individuals vary in their approaches to the study of "race."" I've no idea why you think your cherry picked sources are valid and Intelligence isn't. Is it because you like what they are saying more? This isn't a criterion for "fringe". Spork Wielder (talk) 09:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC) You think this is how discussions work? You find sentences on Wikipedia Talk pages and copy them here without saying where you got them, then I search for those sentences and copy the responses from those pages to here? Until you at least try to be coherent, this "discussion" makes no sense. EOD. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC) It's from the AAA statement on race, which you would know if you had any familiarity with the cherry picked sources you falsely claim represent some kind of global consensus. You also have a book by pop-sci journalist Saini, the widely disputed Gould. The idea that these represent a scientific consensus is frankly laughable. Spork Wielder (talk) 06:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC) The idea that these represent a scientific consensus is frankly laughable. This seems to imply that you reject the process by which we make determinations here, a process which Hob Gadling has been very patiently explaining to you. You are of course absolutely free to believe whatever you wish (about race & intelligence, or Bigfoot, or the shape of the Earth), but refusing to accept that the community has made this determination through reasoned and evidence-based discussion –– and then move on accordingly –– means that you are either unwilling or unable to contribute here, and should simply be ignored until such time as your disruption rises to the level of a sanctionable offense. Generalrelative (talk) 08:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC) Good idea. Thank you, I will do that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC) I absolutely accept that some segment of the Wikipedia community has made this determination. I do not accept that this determination is anything other than biased dishonest garbage based on cherry picking sources and ignoring others. I agree that should be taken to administrative review, to see whom is deserving of sanctions. Spork Wielder (talk) 13:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Include that Sailer himself considers the expert survey to be the most notable thing about him

Sailer has mentioned on numerous occasions that a survey of expert opinion on intelligence found that his blog was considered the most accurate media source for intelligence research. Most experts in that survey were Western and male, half were liberal, quarter were conservative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guybas (talk • contribs) 21:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Sailer's insistent, repeated opinion that this is the most notable thing about him is important. Many Wikipedia articles about writers and authors consistently include their own opinions on their work, recognition, contribution and influence. This is objective information about a writer's own evaluation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guybas (talk • contribs) 21:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Lol, this is quite the reach-around. I would suggest that we can all safely ignore this attempt to do over the previous discussion. There are plenty of people who insist all kinds of things –– and repeat them too –– but that doesn't make their statements inherently notable. Generalrelative (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support. He's not an especially notable figure, so this is more relatively notable for him than it might be for others. And I think including more information generally makes for better articles. This wouldn't really be clogging it up to make it unreadable. TGGP (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

This is not a vote. As has already been explained this is not a reliable source, and his own self-aggrandizing comments cannot be used to establish its significance. Further, an obscure and unreliable survey does not impart notability, and saying it's relatively more notable for him boils down to "it's better than nothing", which is very weak. Grayfell (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

References

• Support. Intelligence is a "peer-reviewed academic journal of psychology," published by Elsevier, an established scientific publisher – end of story. That the recent woke revolution and/or some WP editors deem some of the published information racist, racialist, and/or fringe doesn't make it so, it's irrelevant POV. The article may or may not be correct as most published scientific research, it's a relevant and wikipedic source anyway. tickle me 02:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Your speculation about other people's motives has no effect on the scientific consensus on race, nor is it relevant to this discussion for a variety of reasons. This is an encyclopedia, and as such, we reflect the scientific mainstream. We do not promote pseudoscience, nor would we accept a movie-critic and blogger's WP:PROFRINGE views as inherently significant based on a flimsy, primary source. Grayfell (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

This isn't to establish or reject the scientific consensus on anything or to reflect or not reflect the scientific mainstream, but about a reference to a peer-reviewed academic journal informing about a survey of experts on his publications. Whether WP editors think that his standing according to this survey is merited or not is irrelevant. tickle me 05:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The source in question does not establish what it claims to establish, per consensus among Wikipedia editors. Consensus can change, but only with new evidence or fresh arguments, which you have not provided. Absent that, there really is nothing left to debate. Generalrelative (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Are Wikipedia editors really supposed to vet the claims of sources like this? If it's clear what the source claims to establish, it seems unproblematic to me to inlcude it in the article (unless there are other, unrelated reasons to not include it, such as the source itself not being reliable, or the paper having been retracted). It could even be worded as "one survey claims that...", to make it clear that it's not a scientific consensus.Ornilnas (talk) 01:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

> The source in question does not establish what it claims to establish, per consensus among Wikipedia editors.

That is entirely irrelevant, what is relevant is that scientists in an established journal make that claim – merely by that virtue it is newsworthy. If other relevant scientific sources say otherwise, that can be included. This discussion is getting outright bizarre. tickle me 11:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

As I stated above, there really is nothing left to debate. So yes, it is bizarre that you're still debating it. If you think that WP:CONSENSUS is irrelevant then I can't imagine what you think you're doing here. Note that I will WP:DENY recognition to further arguments here unless I see that they have merit. There already is a clear consensus in the above thread not to include the source in question, so this subsidiary discussion is really just squirming. It is also a waste of time that we all could be using to improve the encyclopedia. Generalrelative (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this sub-discussion is a little absurd, but I'm still confused about what you said above. Are Wikipedia editors really supposed to vet the claims of sources like this? Isn't usually the issue whether the sources themselves (the journals, newspapers etc.) are reliable in general? Ornilnas (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The short answer is yes, we do indeed need to vet sources that touch on WP:FRINGE topics. We do not just indiscriminately describe everything that is published, even by sources that are otherwise considered reliable. This is stated very clearly in the policy Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. When there is disagreement among editors about which sources belong in the encyclopedia, we rely on the consensus process to sort it out, and in this case that process has reached a clear conclusion. Remember that Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision making. Generalrelative (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and the references, that makes sense. I find the "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" policy a little too vague and catch-all; while I wouldn't argue that the survey is absolutely necessary to the article, it seems obviously relevant, and I think similar surveys would have been included in less polarized articles. Then again, perhaps consensus is more important than consistency except in egregious circumstances, which I agree this isn't. I'll leave this one be. Ornilnas (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support inclusion (and Sailer's opinion about it). Heiner Rindermann is a renowned scholar with more than 150 published papers, many thousands of citations, an h-index of 40 and an i10-index of 86. Cambridge University published his most recent book and he is is a Fellow of the Association for Psychological Science (APS). Those slandering him as "fringe" and the like without citing RS are patently violating WP:BLP, which applies to Talk pages as well as articles. Rindermann is not politically correct and his research touches on controversial issues—but neither of those is an acceptable reason to exclude his research from Wikipedia. He's one of the only people researching the views of intelligence experts, an important and topical subject. It appears that "human biodiversity" and intelligence research are the main thrusts of Sailer's work—and it's hard to imagine what could be more worthy of inclusion than the views of actual experts on human intelligence. The SPLC is not a group with scientific expertise, and it's shambolic to include their evaluation of Sailer while excluding evaluations from experts in his field. As with all papers and surveys, Rindermann's has limitations—indeed, many if not all are clearly spelled out in the paper itself—and in no way does that mean it must be excluded. I'm aware of neither any scientific controversy about nor solid rebuttal to the paper—but if there is, it can and should be cited as well. As for those arguing that Intelligence is a fringe publication—that's obviously false, and the Wikipedia article on the journal explains the "controversy", which has nothing to do with Rindermann. This entire episode smacks of the worst sort of political censorship: a published paper by an expert in the field, important to understanding the biographical subject of the article, is banned because some editors simply don't like what it has to say. Elle Kpyros (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

"White supremacy" in the lead

I don't feel that the sourcing justifies the extremely prominent and repetitive implication that Sailor is a white supremacist. The Southern Poverty Law Center and the Columbia Journalism Review are just trivial mentions, with no explanation as to what he has done that justifies that label. We further have two "guilt by association", regarding VDARE and the Unz Review (I note [9] is detailed sourcing on Mr. Unz's writings). I see the TabletMag reference which is worth something, but the weakly sourced guilt-by-implication needs to be removed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. That term is used loosely. Some say that all whites are white supremacists. Remove it. Roger (talk) 06:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

What? Who says that? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Sailer is described as a "white supremacist figure" in a significant peer-reviewed academic journal, Theory, Culture & Society. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Hm, I think it's appropriate how we currently state that Sailer writes for VDARE, "a website associated with white supremacy", which is well cited. But in order to flatly call Sailer himself a white supremacist we'd need a really solid source. And I'm afraid that, after taking a look at the article in Theory, Culture & Society, I'm not buying that it's solid enough. Simply being peer reviewed is not enough for the Rindermann piece to be considered reliable for the claims it purports to make, and I'd suggest the same goes for this piece here. That's not to say I don't personally think that Sailer's statements make him transparently a white supremacist, but in order for that assessment to make it into the article (i.e. to not be my WP:OR) there is rightly a pretty high bar we'd need to clear. Generalrelative (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

It is still just mindless name-calling. To give it some meaning, the article should give some examples of his white supremacist opinions, and explain why the term is appropriate. I don't think that there is any agreement on what the term means. Unless the term can be substantiated, remove it. Roger (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit request: add an image

Sailer speaks at the Property and Freedom Society in 2009

Would an admin be so good as to drop this image in the upper right article corner? --GRuban (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

This is gonna make the list of bad Wikipedia photos for sure, lol (not an admin, or I'd do it). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 21:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Well... if that's what we can get, that's what we'll use.  Done, thanks. — The Earwig (talk) 07:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)