Talk:Steve Sailer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Texas

Putting WikiProject Texas here so the bot doesn't retag this article

Sailer's analysis of the Red and Blue states

Perhaps his tour de force was an extensive analysis of the factors that led to the red-blue divide in U.S. politics, which he published in the wake of the 2004 presidential election.

First, in a cover story in the December 20, 2004 edition of The American Conservative, he discovered a very strong correlation between a state's white fertility rate and its support for Bush in that election. (He included the District of Columbia in his analysis because it has electoral votes.) The state with the highest white fertility, Utah (2.45 children per woman of childbearing age), had the highest vote for Bush (71%). The District of Columbia, with both an overwhelmingly African-American population and the lowest white fertility of any jurisdiction in the country (1.11), gave only 9% of its vote to Bush. More tellingly, when each state's Bush share was plotted against its white fertility rate, the correlation coefficient for a straight line was 0.86. In the social sciences, a correlation coefficient of 0.6 is considered "high". [1]

Several weeks later, Sailer discovered a second demographic variable that correlated even more strongly to each state's vote for Bush than white fertility. By analyzing census data, he determined the average number of years that a white woman in each state could expect to be married during her normal childbearing years (ages 18 through 44). When each state's Bush share was plotted against this variable, the straight-line correlation coefficient was 0.91. As in the previous analysis, Utah and the District of Columbia were at the two extremes. [2]

Sailer recognized the possibility that including the District of Columbia could skew his results. He then looked at an Internet site known as the Laboratory of the States, which is devoted to analysis of statistical differences among U.S. states. Of the 377 variables included in the database, and excluding the District of Columbia, he discovered that the two variables he had already identified were first and third in strength of correlation with a state's 2004 Bush vote. (Years married for whites was first, and white fertility was third.) Ranking second among these variables was inflation in housing prices between 1980 and 2004. Here, states with lower housing inflation were more likely to vote for Bush. [3] In fact, Bush won the 26 states with the lowest housing inflation during that period. [4]

Finally, Sailer tied all of these trends into a phenomenon he called "The Dirt Gap," which he outlined in another American Conservative piece. [5] Examining the 50 largest metropolitan areas in the U.S., Sailer discovered a fundamental geographic divide between many Democratic-leaning and Republican-leaning areas:

• 73% of the population of the biggest blue-state metropolitan areas lives in cities where suburban growth is constrained by oceans or Great Lakes.
• By contrast, only 19% of the population of the biggest red-state metropolitan areas lives in cities that are so constrained.

Physical constraints to growth are a major factor that drives high housing inflation in many areas. This in turn makes housing less affordable for young families. Sailer argues that young adults who decide to flee expensive areas to find affordable housing are more likely to become Republican, while those who stay behind tend to vote Democratic.

• Steve Sailer's blog entries about The Baby Gap: Explaining Red and Blue (with charts and tables)

Astanhope's comments

This article has become a vanity page for Steve Sailer. I'm leaving the descriptive paragraph and link to his website, moving the rest here:

Examples of recent issues about which Sailer has made interesting observations:

• In 1999, he debated economist Steven Levitt on Slate.com and called into serious question Levitt's theory that legalized abortion played a key role in the reduction in crime rates in the U.S. during the 1990s. For references and more details, see legalized abortion and crime effect.
• He played a substantial role in debunking a hoax that had circulated among hundreds of liberal-leaning Internet sites, and was even picked up by The Economist magazine, that Democratic-leaning states had much higher average IQs than Republican-leaning states. [6]
• During the 2004 presidential election campaign, he analyzed scores on IQ-type military aptitude tests released by the George W. Bush and John Kerry campaigns, and concluded that contrary to many reports in the mainstream media, Bush was likely the more intelligent of the two. [7]
• As early as 2000, he concluded that the GOP's electoral future depended not on trying to reach out to minority voters, but rather on increasing its share of the white vote. [8] He argued that the GOP's successes in the 2002 midterm elections were mainly due to increased turnout among whites [9], and concluded that Bush's win in 2004 was largely due to increasing his share of the white vote from 54% in 2000 to 58%. [10]
• In the same article in which he noted Bush's improved performance among whites in 2004, he also called into serious question exit polling data that indicated that Bush received 44% of the Hispanic vote. In a later piece, he demonstrated that the numbers claimed in the exit poll were completely unrealistic. [11]
• In a series of three columns in 2000, he examined the racial hierarchy of Mexico, little-known in the United States, and its implications for American society. [12] [13] [14]
• In 2003, during the buildup to Annika Sörenstam's appearance in a PGA TOUR men's golf event, he analyzed her performances leading up to the event and the relative difficulty of courses on the PGA and LPGA tours, and concluded that she would miss the cut by four strokes. [15] His prediction came true down to the margin by which she missed the cut.

Six Degrees of Kevin Racism

I removed the following text as not being relevant to Steve Sailer.

VDARE, the organization Sailor publishes many of his writings through, is currently on the Southern Poverty Law Center hate-group watch list. This indirect connection, however, should be taken in the context of the Southern Poverty Law Center itself being engrossed in controversy regarding, among other things, mismanagement and its aggressive hate-group labeling (main article: Southern Poverty Law Center).

(For those interested in proving Steve Sailer racist, the six degrees goes something like this...

Steve Sailer publishes some of his work on VDARE, which has also carried articles by Jared Taylor, who edits American Renaissance (magazine), which is a White nationalist organization, just like the Ku Klux Klan.) --Rast

It does seem like the SPLC has so much baggage that it's unnecessary to discuss it here, especially since he's just a columnist for VDARE.--Nectar ^T 05:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to editors who moved that excessive praise off the main page. Though they are only one outlet making accusations, SPLC has written about Sailer's racist, anti-immigration, and heterosexist viewpoints. Jokestress 20:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Jokestress's hateful and inane comment keeps getting put back. What does "heterosexist" even mean, and why does a self appointed and controversial group that has been accused of institutionalized racism itself give Jokestress any right to parrot libelous comments? Insane.

There is nothing hateful or inane about the comment. Please do not remove it again. It is a discussion of Sailer's critics, the SPLC in particular, and listing some of the points of criticism which should be included in this article. If Sailer or his supporters have responded then their responses should be included as well. That is part of the WP:NPOV policy. Cheers, -Will Beback 07:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

From that first link: "Gregory Cochrane, a physicist who has suggested the existence of a genetic "gay germ."" -- I think they got that exactly wrong, no? See Pathogenic theory of homosexuality. --Rikurzhen 07:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You mean that they refer to it as a "genetic germ?" That article's denial of IQ variation between ethnic groups and preference for offensive language suggests they've chosen to not participate in productive discussion in this area.--Nectar 10:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks?

Regardless of whether or not they are extreme POVs, racism, anti-immigration, and heterosexism are legitimate criticisms, not personal attacks on other Wikipedia editors (which is what the policy officially refers to). That's the only justification needed, but beyond that, a reference is given to a notable source making the criticisms, which makes them eligible even to be considered for inclusion in the article. (We can leave the comment under discussion on this page until a conclusion is reached, as the burden of proof is on those who would remove comments.)--Nectar 16:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

No, the ANON poster that deletd these POV attacks is correct in doing so. Those are all ad hominem attacks in this context as the author Jokestress has backed these allegations by facts. It is strange that you keep putting this back up when a few keep taking the POV attacks down. Please desist as it is against Wiki guidelines Nectarflowed. -- Amanda Ravel

The racism criticism holds that Sailer's arguments malign ethnic groups because of innate characteristics (the definition of racism). That's a criticism of his arguments, not of him himself.--Nectar 19:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

No it does not. Please re-read the comments again. Sailer has used documentation to back up his opinions, so how can this be construed as "racist"? The "criticisms" are not even thinly veiled personal attacks. -- Amanda Ravel

The documentation Sailer cites, such as varying mean IQ scores between ethnic groups, are disputed by many, and even some who don't dispute that documentation consider his frank discussion of it to be racist.--Nectar 00:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This POV attack will keep being taken down by myself and others. Even Steven Pinker says there are differences between groups, and he is mainstream as you can get. http://www.isteve.com/ Go read Sailer's site.

Also, your last sentence was bizarre. How can his "frank discussion" of facts be considered anything -ist aside from realist? How can facts be "racist?" That doesn't make sense. -- Amanda Ravel

Well, it makes sense to those who make that argument. Most critics dispute the science. You need to acknowledge that the burden of proof here lies with those who would remove comments.--Nectar 07:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Libelous comments have no place on Wiki nor do ad hominem attacks. 2. Quoting a self appointed group like the SPLC that has been accused of racism itself does not justify those comments. 3. Why you feel the need for an editing war is beyond the people that keep taking those heinous remarks down. Amanda

1 & 2: Racism is of course a very common criticism in this area, made even by scientists. For example, see C. Loring Brace's Racialism, Racism, and the Bigot Brigade:Book Review of Jensen on Intelligence-g-Factor. 3. Insisting on removing comments when that action is disputed doesn't seem productive and may result in your being blocked.--Nectar 16:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You should be blocked by repeatedly placing ad hominem attacks up. It is against Wiki standards, so that threat should be directed towards you. Amanda

Rewrite, don't discard

One of the things that is lost in the discussion of the "controversy" of Sailer's work is how little publicity it has actually received. The accusation of "racism" by John Podhoretz was about 100 words long, published in a stream of comments on the NRO blog, and did not really deal with anything Sailer wrote. The mention of Sailer in the "Queer Science" book review on the SPLC website was under 200 words long. Note that this was a review of a book written by someone else. The mention of Sailer in the SPLC's criticism of VDARE.com is a paragraph under 44 words. I think for the people trying to edit this page, it is incorrect to say that Sailer has received meaningful or significant criticism.

A reasonable reader will agree that Sailer's work is "controversial" by the nature of the subject he writes about, but to pretend that this means he has generated controversy is a little strong. By and large, major media outlets have responded by simply ignoring what he writes, and choosing to focus on "traditional" story lines about race, immigration, gender, culture, etc.

I agree that the cited criticisms are brief. However the SPLC seems to "address" Sailer's writing. It'd be speculation and original research for us to draw a conclusion of our own. -Will Beback 08:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sailer's writing has generated controversy and response, enough to warrant the removal of the qualifier "brief", I think. I have described further examples of this criticism.

I disagree with the notion implied elsewhere on this page and in the article at various times that a response to Sailer must contain point by point rebuttals before we can consider it "legitimate" criticism. For many journalists and academics (though certainly not all), views like Sailer's regarding the scientific "fact" of race were last fashionable in the 19th century. For them, "debating" Sailer would be a bit like debating the usefulness of physiognomy in predicting criminality--i.e., why bother, we've kinda already settled the question. There probably aren't enough common assumptions held by Sailer and this mainstream about how race works to engage in a meaningful debate. That doesn't mean people haven't been critical of Sailer.--Birdmessenger 12:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The added points under "controversy" help bolster the "controversial" argument, although I would note to the Wikipedia community that all one has to do to tar-and-feather an argument on taboo topics is (literally) to simply call the person "racist" or "bigoted" - that's it. That is an impressive level of censorship we have erected around certain ideas. Along these lines, that because John Podhoretz allocated 100 words on the NRO blog to say, effectively, "that guy is scum," that rises to the level of legitimate criticism. Birdmessenger: your logic as expressed above is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor, and I think you should recuse yourself from editing this wiki pages, and probably others. Here's why: if there were measurable, significant correlations for physiognomy, it would be a valid science. To lump anything on issues of race, gender, etc, in the same bucket, and to say that Sailer's ideas are so far from reality as to be effectively crazy and undebatable, then you should be out there trying to find more information, not editing. Editing a wiki page is about engaging with facts, and there are too many observable and testable correlations on the subjects Sailer writes about to dismiss them out of hand.

Actually, what I said was that "[f]or many journalists and academics (though certainly not all), views like Sailer's regarding the scientific "fact" of race were last fashionable in the 19th century." I don't believe you'll find that any of my edits to this page reflect partisan support for that perspective (although, since you bring it up, I do happen to think that Sailer's views on race are ridiculous in exactly the way that my analogy implied).

All Wikipedia editors come to the project with this kind of bias and non-neutral perspectives. Even you, I'd imagine. And the minute one of us rewrites an article to reflect those biases, someone else should intervene with an edit. That's how this thing works.

PS: on the race taboo--please note that in my last edit, I took pains to point out that Media Matters seemed to be more interested in Sailer's professional associations rather than in direct engagement with his specific arguments.--Birdmessenger 22:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If you're interested in a perhaps less one-sided view of the literature in this area, you might check out Steven Pinker's recent summary.[16]--Nectar 23:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

why no one debates Sailer--should we care?

I changed this edit: "Sailer's work is typically characterized by critics as racist, and as a result is rarely debated."

...to read: "Sailer's work is typically characterized by critics as fringe racism, and as a result is rarely debated."

(The original said, "Sailer's work is typically characterized by critics as racist.")

Although I think my version is closer to being accurate, I'm not sure a Wikipedia article should be speculating why Sailer's work doesn't attract much public debate. Perhaps Nectarflowed could comment? --Birdmessenger 12:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that last point. Unless someone has said, "I won't debate Sailer because his work is racist", we should not speculate that that is the cause. We may make both assertions without making them dependent: "Sailer's work is typically characterized by critics as fringe racism and his ideas are rarely debated or discussed." -Will Beback 19:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

His work doesn't get much debate because not only is it racist, but it's obviously flawed and inflammatory. For example, his nonsense about Katrina... I don't recall things going out of hand there as much as anywhere else. I saw REPORTS of looting after people had been trapped there for how long... over a week? What is amazing to me is his reliance on IQ as some kind of indicator of something. How be it then that the "more intellgent" white people (conservatives who share his views) are unable to respond to the clear and present situations like Katrina and instead provide excuses for the obvious, if racISM is not the cause? His arguments are not addressed because he does not consider the fact that racism and not racial biology(which is honestly his viewpoint) is the root cause. If I debated him, I would embarrass him in every venue, on TV, radio, on here, anywhere. But that won't happen. --Zaphnathpaaneah 19:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

Wikipedia has a policy of neutral point of view. Adding random quotes without commentary under a title of "anti-black discrimination" has no purpose other than to try to make an article look bad.--Nectar 01:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

THE quotes are provided with the commentary above and below. You need more Ok fine, here's more. But commentary is not a form of original research so don't go into a loop. --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Secondly these quotes are not random. These quotes are important and purposeful. These are anti-black and the article itself looks better when the facts are shown. What I am seeing is pretend naivete and a desire to keep the hard core facts out of this article... lets call him "fringe" racist instead of just "racist". No, let's call it what it is. You read the quotes, they are indicitive of his character and his position. It is blatently racist. He does not need to say "I am a blatent racist" does he? --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That may be true, Zaph (or would you prefer Joseph?) but what definitely does not make an article better is putting quotes in place of prose. This is not wikiquote. If you can write something based on the quotes, (being sure to conform to NPOV) and reference them, then that should solve the whole problem. --tjstrf 05:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Stricter moral guidance

I don't think the brief blogosphere tempest over S.'s Katrina article is worthy of its own section. He's written a lot of controversial stuff over the years.Rast 04:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I think noting the controversy may be worthwhile because it did create a lot of attention in the blogging world that he is a part of, including being picked up on the National Review Online, and was one of the most emailed-out on VDARE, which posts original articles from some much bigger names. Additionally, it's a pretty representative snapshot of his writing and his approach to politics and to race.--Nectar ^T 23:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

His approach to politics and to race involve telling the truth. This makes people that wish to look at the world with rosy tinted glasses upset as it upsets their dogma driven beliefs.-Anon

IMO, his piece on Katrina is in line with his other sentiments; he just applied it to a controversial topical issue, thus multiplying the response to it. Put differently, if you say those lower in intelligence require moral guidance, and that the black average IQ is less than that of whites, you cannot avoid implying blacks (and inner-city ones at that) need more guidance than whites, on average. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.127.169.69 (talk) 03:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

VDARE

Is justa website run by a full-time loon. How can it possibly be a source? I think the information realted to VDARE should be removed. Any objections? JJJamal 02:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I object. Just because you don't like VDare's politics is no reason to censor it. Argyriou (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ironic things are not expected

It is stated that "ironically" his movie reviews often trail off into racial subject matter. In what sense is this ironic? He often writes about these issues outside of his film reviews and he states he states in an interview at http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0104/0104sailerinterview.htm that his reviews are not purely about the movies themselves but also about related issues in our world. In this sense it is rather predictable that his movie reviews will veer off onto such subjects. Since it cannot be objectively determined whether something is "ironic" or not, I have declined to alter the page, but I thought it should be noted. TGGP 04:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Fake link

Can someone remove the fake link to the "Human Biodiversity Institute"? As far as I know Sailer's HBI is a closed discussion group without a web page. The page linked to as such and appended to the article is a bizarre concoction featuring a link to "Black men f--ing White Men." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donvalle (talk • contribs)

Link updated. Jokestress 03:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• In addition to the external link, there was another copy, which I removed. --JWSchmidt 04:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The link is still no good. 70.18.198.249 (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Larry Siegel

Academic Background

I arrived here from the article on the SPLC (after reading the Harper's article). One question, is there any way we can list Sailer's educational background? That might give us some basis on where he is coming from or if he has any credibility at all. Lochdale 21:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could meet his actual claims to see if they're credible, but all right. Argumentum ad hominem ftl. 74.212.16.61 (talk) 08:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

yes, this article is short on biographical details. -Will Beback 22:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

He went to Rice University.

Biographical information

This article is in desperate need of biographical information. If anyone knows anything about Sailer's background, and can provide a credible source, please do. Bulldog123 04:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ditto...I'd specifically like to know more about Sailer's education - did he complete his studies at UCLA and Rice? What fields?? (good post Bulldog)....Engr105th (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you ask him directly? He's readily available online. 68.46.183.96 (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing all criticism, adding links to personal blogs as proof that Sailer has received praise

These are both just silly. I reverted them. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section removed (BLP)

I have removed the following under WP:BLP:

Sailer's article on Hurricane Katrina was followed by accusations of racism, with the highest profile critic being John Podhoretz, who posted a response on the National Review Online blog.

The progressive media watchdog group Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) published a report that criticized New York Times writers David Brooks and John Tierney for citing Sailer while failing to acknowledge him as "a leading promoter of racist pseudoscience". Similarly, Media Matters for America took NBC to task for citing Sailer as a conservative movie critic while omitting any mention of his racial and political beliefs.

Sailer's views on race in Mexico have been described by Rodolfo Acuña, a Chicano Studies professor, as "a pretext and a negative justification for discriminating against US Latinos in the context of US history. Listing Latinos as non-white also gives Sailer and others the opportunity to divide Latinos into races, thus weakening the group by setting up a scenario where lighter-skinned Mexicans are accepted as Latinos or Hispanics and darker-skinned Latinos are relegated to an underclass."

References

My reasons are:

1. the first para is not supported by the sources. All we have is one blog criticism, and no evidence that it is an example of a load of accusations. Maybe it is, but you need a good source to infer that.
2. The second paragraph simply records that a partisan group criticised other people for (in their opinion) misrepresenting the subject. It is far to tangential to go on his bio. Why is it significant?
3. The third paragraph is just a critical quote by a professor. Is the quote significant? Why is it significant? We don't simply include indiscriminate critical comments. To be included we'd need some evidence the quote was either typical of a stream of criticism, or that this professor's assessment was notable in some way.

Anyway, please don't replace any of this stuff without either meeting my criticisms or getting a consensus that I'm wrong here. With BLPs we debate the content in the absence of the disputed material, and replace only once there's a consensus that it is fair and neutral wording.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I endorse Scott's removal, for the reasons given. I hope we can integrate some of this material into the article in a responsible fashion once we have more to say on the subject and his views. the skomorokh 18:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"According to his Wikipedia biography" (words likely to elicit a groan or a smirk), Rodolfo Acuña is "perhaps the foremost scholar of Chicano studies". The Harvard Educational Review is even stronger, calling him simply "the foremost historian on Chicanos today".[17] Here's a press release announcing the book:[18] Here it's described as "a good introduction to some of the salient contemporary questions regarding Latinos in the United States." [19] So both the author and the book are well-regarded. Given that background, I think that Acuña has a significant point of view. However the quotation that was in the article before was probably too long since the overall article is short. A one-sentence summary would be better. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Acuña's opinion's regarding Sailer's views on race in Mexico would merit a line or two, but only if the article had a line or two about what Sailer's views on race in Mexico are. the skomorokh 19:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

True. But given Acuña's comments, it appears that Sailer's views on race in Mexico are notable enough to mention. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

1. The first para claims two things: (1) There was more than one accusation (2) The highest profile critic was Podhoretz. "Load" is your term. We don't need it to support that para.
2. When Sailer makes national news, other news organizations are criticized for even using him as a source. He's considered tainted. That is of encyclopedic value.
3. Fine, add those views. The criticism of Sailer as a racist is relevant, and we don't have to blockquote every writing of his for it to be so.

Finally, you are the one who makes the change in the article. You can't demand that people who want to maintain the status quo reach consensus first, as you did in your edit comment. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid you are incorrect, WDIKF; the burden of argument is on those wishing to include information. That goes double for biographies of living persons. the skomorokh 19:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That's the burden of proper citation, not the burden of appropriateness. The material is certainly cited. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)"followed by accusations of racism" implies multiple accusations, one blog evidences one. And, yes I can demand you get consensus. The rule of thumb on a BLP is that if the accuracy or neutrality of material is disputed, then it stays out until there is a consensus that the problems are fixed. So far, those posting here have acknowledged that there were neutrality problems.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I added more criticism.

I haven't seen that rule of thumb before. The only one I've seen is people wishing to make a change must justify it.

Some posting here have said there are neutrality problems. Some have disagreed. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Reersion without discussion or edit comment,marked "minor"

is vandalism. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Rice University citation

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/michigan_case.htm JASpencer (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Race

Steve Sailer's views on race, and the reaction they caused should be covered, as the fact that he says things on this area that get some people very angry is a large part of his noability. However the deleted entries are probably not the best foundation. I'm British but I've only seen John Podhoretz name come up in relation to various smears of other political figures on the right. JASpencer (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with you about the importance of Sailer's views on race. However John Podhoretz is well-qualified to give opinions on American politics and is about to take over editing the neoconservative flagship Commentary. He may be the most notable person who has commented on Sailer. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Acuña

Links on what Sailer says about Mexico: [20] [21] [22] [23]WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you draft a one- or two-sentence summarizing those views? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

There are pages and pages of them. What we had before was a start, but that's not good enough for Sailer partisans. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 01:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sailer suggests that a problem with immigration from dark-skinned people is that white people in the US will end up as a master caste. He also notes that "for at least some purposes - race actually is a highly useful and reasonable classification." [24] This causes criticism from Acuna, who claims . . .

Sailer also calls "Hispanic" a non-racial characterization [25] He says white non-Hispanic Americans are second-class citizens because of affirmative action, and warns about "anti-white pogroms" [26]

Sailer also claims that the best African American spokesmen have been so partially because of their white ancestry. [27] He claims that African-Americans with more white ancestry are likely to be more educated than ones with less [28]

WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

WDIKF, the Acuna material should only be included after that which Acuna is criticising is expounded in the article. the skomorokh 18:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, check the archives and you might spare yourself the effort. Either way, can you find some text that will cover this material? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Views and criticism

I welcome the effort to include Sailer's view along with the criticism, but this section currently consists of apparently controversial claims cherry-picked out of context with the effect of casting the subject in a poor light. The section does not give a balanced overview of Sailer's thought and it's reception. I realise it is a work in progress, but that should be developed outside of the article space until there is consensus among editors that it is a neutral and appropriately weighted presentation. the skomorokh 19:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I put up a draft here over a week ago. Nobody responded. Waiting until I finally add it to start complaining looks like a stall tactic to keep Sailer's views under wraps indefinitely. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The Political Cesspool

Looks like he was on the Political Cesspool show last night... rock8591 04:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock8591 (talk • contribs)

SPLC is a controversial organization

Obvious race baiters such as the SPLC should have a disclaimer such as, "a controversial civil rights group". Myself and others keep adding this important qualifier yet nectarflowed and others that may or may not work for the SPLC charlatan organization state that this group is not controversial! Oh really, then why does the wikipedia article on this shamster group have a huge category on SPLC critiques.

It's clear to anyone with a brain that the group tries to scaremonger old grandmothers into thinking the next genocide is around the corner in order to extract money. Of course this group is controversial as they need to witchunt people such as Steve Sailer. Any group that seeks to police and control people's thoughts are indeed controversial. That is, unless you work for them. Sandy Alamare

What's important here is that the SPLC isn't generally seen as being controversial. The authors of the pulitzer finalist investigation later discussed how they were surprised how well it's regarded. We're not here to decide if a group actually is good/bad, we just report mainstream views and any other notable views. You can see from my work on race and intelligence that I'm not a proponent of the SPSPLC.--Nectar 21:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

To say that SPLC isn't seen as controversial is either dishonest or willfully ignorant. The SPLC is famous for scamming old ladies out of their money by scaring them into thinking that the next genocide is just around the corner, and it is notorious for being one of the most profitable non-profit groups around. Ken Silverstein has covered the subject extensively. <a href="http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:w4q6za9d8MkJ:harpers.org/archive/2007/03/sb-this-week-in-1172847076+harpers+SPLC&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=20&gl=us&client=firefox-a/"></a> Every mainstream conservative group holds the SPLC in nothing but contempt. Virtually no one familiar with the group has any respect for it unless they come from the far-out "Ends Justify the Means" Left. Even the Wikipedia page for the SPLC takes great pains to make absolutely clear that the group is heavily criticized and not just by right-wingers. The SPLC is most assuredly not "mainstream opinion" and they engage in a libelous suppression of speech that is appalling, just as Nectar would apparently like to do.

Nectar has to admit that views aren't necessarily racist just because Nectar does not agree with them. Researching differences between the various races of the world is a perfectly legitimate enterprise in the service of advancing human knowledge, and knowledge is something you follow wherever it leads, regardless of how much it displeases Nectar. If scientists dispute the findings of Lynn, Charles Murray, et.al. it should be left up to the individual to determine whose argument is most convincing. In most subjects, disagreement does not imply that one side is silenced; it should not be the case with race either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackDBear41 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The SPLC is generally not controversial; it's use of "Hatewatch" is a source for the FBI and law enforcement nationwide, and is a very storied organization that goes back many decades in America. Much more so than a random internet blogger on race (though he holds no biology, psychology, or sociology credentials). -- Rock8591 08:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock8591 (talk • contribs)

Rewrite, don't discard

The "vanity" text has a strong POV tone, but the description of Sailer's work is accurate. It gives a far better picture of his views than the stub that was there before. It should be de-POVed and perhaps somewhat shortened, not deleted entirely. Rast 03:26, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Biographical articles tend to have some built-in favoritism attached to them, because human beings are usually sympathetic at an individual level (it is rare to find someone with no redeeming qualities). A "non-POV rewrite" would probably include greater attention paid to the criticisms of Sailer, which are covered pretty well by the article. Anyway, most of the criticism of Sailer can be summed up in one argument: "Racist!" (unsigned)

Sailer's a realist, not a racist. (Celtic1)

Dictionary.com: racism n. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. The Wikipedia definition is a little more forgiving: Racism refers to the beliefs and practices that assume inherent and significant differences exist between the genetics of various groups of human beings; that assume these differences can be measured on a scale of "superior" to "inferior"; and that result in the social, political and economic advantage of one group in relation to others. Sailer would probably argue for a definition of racism based on actions, not beliefs. Rast 03:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, he's a realist. Only the simpleminded PC thugs call people like him "racist" for merely providing the truth. Celtic1

He is a racist. Page updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.99.152.178 (talk • contribs)

Quite frankly, SPLC is a partisan and highly unreliable organization. It's not just right wing kooks who say so. <a href="http://harpers.org/archive/2000/11/0068709/">Harpers Magazine</a> lays it on the line.

SPLC's slanders are irrelevant because it simply smears everybody. I can't imagine the relevance of looking for a bunch of libelous screeds such as John Podhoretz's and posting them all as though that were a valuable contribution to knowing about Sailer's work. Podhoretz didn't even say that Sailer was "scum". He said he was "a...scum". It's about as relevant as including in an article about George Washington that Joe Blanton in Scranton wrote on his blog that he was "a wuss"--and leaving everything else out.

Sailer's writings are informed by esteemed--if controversial--academics such as George Borjas, Richard Lynn, and Arthur Jensen. What happens is that one of many things he writes about is the distinctions in IQ between different races, something that is universally agreed upon--though not often publicized--by the psychometric community. He cites separated twin tests as evidence that much of these differences are hereditary, which drives Liberals into moralistic snits. Liberals then dismiss any studies that reach conclusions that they don't like as bigoted and racist and illegitimate, not because the methodology was flawed, but because they don't like the conclusion. ---- JackDBear41

If we have a published source that labels him a racist, we can call him that and cite the source. Otherwise, it's a violation of WP:NOR and WP:BLP. Jokestress 18:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Cognitive dissonance. Anyhow, that's not the arguement. The arguement is that a criticism of Sailer is that he's racist. Vegasrebel29 06:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

If there is proof that he is a racist, it would only be fair to include that. Just as it is wrong to call someone a racist when they are not, it is equally wrong to insist that someone is not a racist when they truly are. It works both ways. Rock8591 (talk) 00:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

HBI obviously not a scientific institute

1st an "Institute" can not argue, people argue, so the previous version is simply ungrammatical.

2nd put a scientic sounding name on the "Human Biodiversity Institute" presents it as if it is an established scientific entity. It clearly is not, and in this version the simple facts from the website are reported.

82.141.187.170 10:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't claim to be a research organization, if that's what you mean. I've added specifications of it's activities so it won't interpreted as something it's not. It's discussion group is populated by scientists who are prominent in this field, according to the SPLC[29] and Sailer's writings. Sailer's paper being included in Pinker's The Best American Science and Nature Writing 2004 suggests Sailer's claims of correspondences with Pinker and other scientists are not fabricated. (e.g. see here - ctrl f " subscriber ")

It's common to attribute the official, unsigned, position of an organization to that organization, and we can only speculate that Sailer was the only author of that statement. --Nectar 11:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Careful people, when you decide to cite a source. Oftentimes, fringe organizations may have mainstream-sounding names. For example, the Institute for Historical Review. Rock8591 (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

But do fringe organizations boast such members as Paul Krugman, James Heckman, and Gary Becker—all three Nobel laureates? According [30], they all participated in the HBI discussion group at some point in the past at least.--Victor Chmara (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

What links here

There are all kinds of links feeding into this article... is this justified, or a little WP:SPAM?--Knulclunk (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? About a hundred pages seem to link here, many of them talk pages of various articles, while a lot are articles dealing with topics Sailer has discussed. There's nothing unusual about this.--Victor Chmara (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Racism statement should be removed

I believe the following sentence: He does not argue against immigration in the traditional form of simple racism against a new incoming group.

from paragraph 1.1 should be removed. A better phrase would be something along the lines of He argues against immigration using arguments that are substantially different from those habitually used to advance that position.

This would provide a more neutral POV that does not imply that immigration reduction is inherently racist.

However, that formulation doesn't provide any information, too euphemistic. The Sanity Inspector (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Attitude toward Jews

What is Steve Sailer's attitude toward Jewish people? I'm just curious.

• What is Steve Sailer's attitude toward Moldovan people? I'm just curious! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.63.64 (talk) 05:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Steve sailer is half jewish himself. I wouldn't call him anti-semitic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.223.4 (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a column he wrote on jews.

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2006/06/tendencies.html

• Steve Sailer also defended Kevin B. MacDonald, a known antisemite. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to Human Intelligence

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

accuracy of claims

No matter how much we disagree with the guy, it is improper to use claims which are not directly and substantively borne out by reliable sources. The "pseudonym" blog, for example should never have gotten into the article. We can use his words well enough -- putting others's words into his mouth does not serve WP. Collect (talk) 12:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

A comment was made that we should label racist views as racist. IMHO that is beyond the proper scope of using reliable sources. We must also be very careful not to put words into the mouths of objectionable folk - we must trust the reader to be able to understand what he is reading, we should not tell the reader what he ought to believe. Collect (talk) 12:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

And then we have this quote from the current article "He says that prosperity helped blacks close the IQ gap. He suggests that a problem with immigration of non-white Mestizo Mexicans into America is that Hispanic whites in the US will become a master caste,"

Both of which are, it seems, unsourced lies. I do not think that Wikipedia can do a decent job on someone as politically unpopular with the editing class as Sailer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demigord (talk • contribs) 05:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Info on Sailer's education

Taking an idea from an earlier section on this page, I emailed Sailer to ask about his education (and to ask permission to use his photo -- I'll put that up presently). Anyway, he wrote me back as follows:

I graduated from Rice (B.A.) in 1980, with three majors: economics, history, and management.

I earned an MBA from UCLA in 1982 with two concentrations: Finance and Marketing

I will add this info to the page. However, I am unsure how I should reference it. Any help on that would be appreciated.-Leonard (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think a personal communication cannot be a reliable source in Wikipedia.--Victor Chmara (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Steve Sailer.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Steve Sailer.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Source list of possible use for editing this article

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Anthropology and Human Biology Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human genetics and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library system at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to other academic libraries in the same large metropolitan area) and have been researching these issues sporadically since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human genetics to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Steve Sailer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-sailer052202.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nationalreview.com/11oct99/osullivan101199.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/108787/most-disgusting-sentence-yet-written-about-katrina-john-podhoretz

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120222232315/http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/guestlist.php to http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/guestlist.php

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center Blog

I have suggested that splcenter.org/hatewatch, which is used for this article among others, sould not be used. See WP:BLPN "Southern Poverty Center Blog". Please comment there not here. Peter Gulutzan (talk)

The suggestion was not accepted and the discussion is now archived. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

White Ethnocentrism

The second sentence should likely be removed. Sailer, in the past, has demonstrated examples of white ethnocentrism in the United States: *http://www.vdare.com/sailer/061210_diversity.htm. In that article, he even mentioned it could make a comeback. I think his preference for citizenism stems far more from his own personal morals than some form of 'pragmatism.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.35.10 (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, after reading Sailer's review of Charles Murray's book, Human Accomplishment, I have a suspicion that Sailer may be ethnocentric: "In the sciences, 97 percent of the significant figures and events turned out to be Western. Is this merely Eurocentric bias? Of the 36 science reference books he drew upon, 28 were published after 1980, by which time historians were desperately searching for non-Westerners to praise. Only in this decade has the most advanced non-Western country, Japan, begun to win science Nobels regularly."

Really? If historians after 1980 were so desperate to find non-Westerners to praise, then why does Human Accomplishment doesn't mention Charaka or Sushruta at all, while Hippocrates and Galen are so high in the Medicine list, despite the fact that we now know that eminent Greek intellectuals like Pythagoras and Democritus traveled to the Indus Valley Civilization (modern day India) to learn from Indian physicians (Perceiving In Depth, Volume 1: Basic Mechanisms by Ian P. Howard and Brian J. Rogers)? - Friendship & Rainbows (talk) 06:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Friendship & Rainbows: That's an interesting point, but keep in mind a couple of things: First, talk pages are for discussing how to improve Wikipedia articles, not for discussing the topics themselves. Second, the comment you are replying to is from 2008 about a specific sentence which is no longer in the article, so it's very unlikely you're going to get a response from this IP. If you would like to propose any changes to the article, you should probably start a new talk page section to discuss them. You should also review WP:SYNTH: we should not combine sources to support statements not explicitly made by those sources. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Spelling

There's no "e" in "judgment." Several times in article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4a:8002:261a:cdff:5789:f0cf:106 (talk) 02:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, yes, actually there can be an e in "judgement". Per WP:ENGVAR I have changed the spelling to the variation which is more common in the US, since this article is about an American. See also Wikt:judgment#English. Grayfell (talk) 02:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Book

He recently published a book called "Barack Obama: America's Half-Blood Prince" (an obvious Harry Potter reference in the book's title). Perhaps there should be some information about that; he appears to be following in the footsteps of Corsi and Freddoso by releasing a negative biography of Obama, though I doubt he's going to get as much success as those guys did.

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)

"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)

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.[31][32] 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)

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)

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.[33][etc.] This was much to the horror of the legitimate scientist who originally coined the term.[34] 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.[35]

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)

"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)

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)

"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)

@Babajobu: I think you're correct—and, in fact, Jonathan Marks and Sailer discussed the term, then Marks joined and participated in Sailer's email group on the topic in the late 90's. Sailer wrote about it here. It seems Sailer independently came up with the term, but then discussed it at some length with Marks—so I'm not sure "pseudoscientific" is the correct word here, regardless of sources. It would be worth seeing not just whether some source has called Sailer or HBD "pseudoscientific", but what the actual claims are in terms of it being scientifically fraudulent. Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)