Talk:Curtis Yarvin/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

WP:BLPGOSSIP This article is Defamatory and Places wikipedia in legal jeopardy.

Greetings. Some parts of this article are cited from secondary sources that do not themselves rely on primary sources. Many assertions are defamatory. I will remove these at once. sbelknap (talk) 05:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

This article defames Curtis Yarvin and is an existential threat to wikipedia. Interested editors can review the Hulk Hogan-Gawker-Peter Thiel events to understand the legal consequences of defamation to a media entity. The Curtis Yarvin article notes Yarvin's association with Peter Thiel. Being an anonymous wikipedia editor may protect that editor but that is not going to protect wikipedia itself from legal jeopardy. See also: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/02/hogan-thiel-gawker-trial/554132/

As one example, in one of his blog posts, Yarvin writes,

It should be obvious that, although I am not a white nationalist, I am not exactly allergic to the stuff (as should be the case with any intellectual—anyone who takes this as an endorsement of white nationalism is an idiot). Maybe this doesn’t need defending. But I feel the urge to defend it anyway.

This is grossly distorted by a journalist, and by the time it gets to this wikipedia page, it means precisely the opposite of what Yarvin intended. As wikipedia editors, we are obligated to protect wikipedia from defamatory comments, wp:blp. Please help remove this problem in this article. As a first approximation, I have deleted the most egregious section of the article. sbelknap (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:No legal threatss, this comment is inappropriate, as it misrepresents both Wikipedia's policies, and also reliable sources. Your personal interpretations of Yarvin's statements, which you directly acknowledge are accurately quoted, is at odds with Wikipedia's approach to WP:OR. As has been pointed out already on this article, we cannot know, nor do we care, how he "intended" readers to interpret his words, only the words themselves. I have already tried to explain this OR issue to you multiple times on this talk page.

This comment is also an attempt to use legal threats to to create a chilling effect, as shown by your habit of citing sources that are unrelated to either Yarvin or Wikipedia itself. I am therefor posting a comment about this at WP:ANI so that more experienced editors and admins can evaluate this situation. Grayfell (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legal threats at Talk:Curtis Yarvin#WP:BLPGOSSIP This article is Defamatory and Places wikipedia in legal jeopardy. Grayfell (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:No legal threats quoting from section on Defamation "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to delete libelous material as soon as it is identified." sbelknap (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Your opinion that the material is grossly distorted by a journalist is insufficient reason to remove it - the material has not been retracted, and appears to be a reasonable interpretation of the actual material in the post. That you (or Yarvin) disagrees with the interpretation is not relevant for our purposes, except insofar as we may wish to note that Yarvin disagrees. Yarvin is not entitled to remove from Wikipedia reliably-sourced interpretations of his writing that he disagrees with. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Both primary sources and secondary sources have a place in wikipedia. It is perfectly acceptable for wikipedia editors to compare the sources and identify instances where a journalist has misquoted, cherry-picked, or taken a quote out of context. When such unfair practices occur, that is relevant for wikipedia. sbelknap (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

You have done nothing more than baldly assert that the material is misquoted, cherry-picked, or taken out of context. The burden is on you to explain your objection, and then to gain consensus that your interpretation is correct. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

From WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD "Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources." sbelknap (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

That in no way would justify removing secondary sources which discuss and interpret Yarvin's ideas. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The burden is on each wikipedia editor to avoid libel. I provided links to the primary source. It is important to be fair, particularly to heretics. sbelknap (talk) 04:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, simply declaring that something is true does not make it true. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, engaged editors have available both the secondary sources and the primary source for this particular assertion. The quoted text is "[i]t should be obvious that, although I am not a white nationalist, I am not exactly allergic to the stuff." Here's the primary source again, just for clarity. In the judgement of engaged editors, do the secondary sources accurately characterize the content of the primary source? sbelknap (talk) 05:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, a blogpost which basically says black people are subhuman violent criminals and responsible for most of America's ills (the not-even-thinly-veiled "Class A/Class B" thing) is pretty, you know, at the very least white nationalist-adjacent. The entire point of the thing essentially says "white nationalists have the right diagnosis but the wrong cure." Because, you know, even white nationalism is too democratic for Yarvin. There's literally nothing defamatory about accurately quoting him. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm. "subhuman violent criminals" you say? "at the very least white nationalist-adjacent" by your measure? "Basically" and "adjacent" and "essentially says", eh? Does wikipedia have wikitags for postmodernist edits?sbelknap (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps other engaged editors will weigh in on whether the secondary source accurately characterizes the primary source. sbelknap (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I think both reliable, secondary sources are appropriately characterizing Yarvin's view, and that our article is doing a decent job of summarizing the reliable, secondary, independent sources. Firefangledfeathers 04:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Firefangledfeathers. I think the article is fair-minded with secondary sources that accurately characterize Yarvin's views. Chisme (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

In the primary source, the full quote is this:

"It should be obvious that, although I am not a white nationalist, I am not exactly allergic to the stuff (as should be the case with any intellectual—anyone who takes this as an endorsement of white nationalism is an idiot). Maybe this doesn’t need defending. But I feel the urge to defend it anyway."

The partial quote in the secondary source (and in this article) omits the bolded text. This contextomy is egregious. From the cherry-picked partial quote, the reader may infer that "not exactly allergic to the stuff" constitutes grudging admiration for white supremacy. The full quote implies instead that intellectual inquiry is free to consider verboten ideas, which is a point made multiple times in the essay. How is this not defamatory? I edited the article to include the full quote, but it was reverted. I think we can all agree that Yarvin has heretical ideas. (I expect he would agree as well.) What purpose is served by *misrepresenting* his ideas? sbelknap (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sbelknap: I reverted the rfc tag as the statement is not a "brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue" as required by WP:RFCOPEN. Can I suggest

Should the article include the full quote of Yarvin's statement? Proposed additional content in bold:

"It should be obvious that, although I am not a white nationalist, I am not exactly allergic to the stuff (as should be the case with any intellectual—anyone who takes this as an endorsement of white nationalism is an idiot). Maybe this doesn’t need defending. But I feel the urge to defend it anyway."

Firefangledfeathers 19:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Good point. Would it be OK w/u to add the links to the secondary source and the primary source to the statement for the rfc tag? sbelknap (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure! How about

Should the article include the full quote of Yarvin's statement, cited to this primary source? The current version includes a partial quote, cited to two secondary sources (Atlantic article, a book on online extremists). Proposed additional content in bold:

"It should be obvious that, although I am not a white nationalist, I am not exactly allergic to the stuff (as should be the case with any intellectual—anyone who takes this as an endorsement of white nationalism is an idiot). Maybe this doesn’t need defending. But I feel the urge to defend it anyway."

Firefangledfeathers 20:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

LGTM. Thanks! sbelknap (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'd prefer not to have the RfC, as I support the status quo, so I'll leave it to you to start it. I'd recommend starting a section or subsection below. Firefangledfeathers 20:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I also support the status quo. (Noting that here in case I'm not around for any eventual RfC.) Adding lengthy direct quotes that secondary sources do not bother to include gives them undue weight; the essential points are those represented by the secondary sources ("not a white nationalist" yet "not exactly allergic"). The claim that the status-quo version misrepresents Yarvin's statements seems to be based on a tenuous extrapolation of how a hypothetical reader might react to it; one might as well say that an informed reader would expect that the essay from which the quote was taken would also include language about how "we must pursue unpopular ideas in the name of intellectual freedom", because it's 2022 and we've learned that all such essays say that. XOR'easter (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Scientific racists

Any evidence that Sailer is a scientific racist? He certainly is a race realist. COme on guys, don't let your biases show too much, at least give citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:2B54:EF00:E48E:CED9:2B93:A7F5 (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

"Scientific racists" vs "race realists" may be a distinction without a difference. Having some more citation support on a claim like that is probably worthwhile, though. - Conflatuman (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)