Talk:Steve Sailer

Primary sourcing

I don't understand this revision from Generalrelative here. Primary sources are not against the rules. The sources given are reputably published, there is no interpretation of the source given in the article, and they "give statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source". If I'm truly in the wrong here, I'll yield here, but I do not understand why an article on Mr. Sailer wouldn't include him being cited by major newspapers. You won't find a secondary source anywhere on these claims because nobody is exactly writing books about how Mr. Sailer was cited in a NYT article. Pepper-0 (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Without secondary coverage, it's just not clear that these fleeting mentions are notable enough to be WP:DUE for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Generalrelative (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I guess this one can be argued either way, although I tend to agree with Generalrelative here. For example, on Richard Hanania there is mention of the outlets he has written for because these were explicitly covered in two secondary/independent sources. If an article in a reliable source has mentioned that Sailer has been cited by the NY Times et al, then it might be worthy of mention. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems to be the standard. Generalrelative (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Example, here in this NY mag source includes: Sailer has exerted “a kind of subliminal influence across much of the right … even in the places where his controversial writing on race was decidedly unwelcome.” Sometimes that influence has not even been subliminal — David Brooks has cited Sailer in The New York Times on the correlation between white fertility rates and voting patterns, Times columnist Ross Douthat has referenced Sailer’s analogy between Breitbart-style conservatism and punk rock, and the economist Tyler Cowen has described him as “the most significant neo-reaction thinker today.” So yeah could probably make a more due mention of columnist citing him in the NYT and Times. Cheers. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Good find. This is precisely the sort of source I was referring to. Generalrelative (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and added content based on this source: . Thanks, Zenomonoz. Generalrelative (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Awesome. I probably should have narrowed it to the more notable papers regardless now that I think about it. Thanks, all Pepper-0 (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2024

Steve Sailer is not extremeist, which is implied by the term far right. It implies knowledge of a person's philosophy and therefore is not factual.

This definition is also misleading about his occupation. 159.196.171.164 (talk) 12:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Edit request policy states: This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". You may submit a new request in the appropriate WP:ER format. Please also include relevant sources. GordonGlottal (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Some people consider Sailer a white supremacist

The sources given, all secondary, cite people who called him a racist or some version of one. I don't disagree but I wonder if we need long sections devoted to how many experts called him a racist and in what way. It seems more encylopedic to provide links to his work and let readers draw that conclusion. It's a generally accepted that primary sources are preferred over secondary sources and yet none are of Steve Sailer's writings are linked to. Here is the that should be linked in the article.

https://vdare.com/articles/racial-reality-and-the-new-orleans-nightmare

His argument is based on studies demonstrating a disparity in mean IQs between races. Maybe it's a bad argument but it should be included if the article is about Steve Sailer and not people who don't like Steve Sailer. One excerpt that could be mentioned is: "Judging from their economic and educational statistics, New Orleans' blacks are not even an above-average group of African-Americans, such as you find in Atlanta or Seattle, but more like Miami's or Milwaukee's. About half are below the poverty line. With the national black average IQ around 85, New Orleans' mean black IQ would probably be in the lower 80s or upper 70s."

If the above paragraph is too controversial to print, perhaps there is no reason to have the article in the first place.

71.164.90.93 (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

On English Wikipedia it is not true that "primary sources are preferred over secondary sources". WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:RSPRIMARY tell us explicitly that articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible and although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Hope that clarifies things. Specific edit requests can be submitted through the WP:ER format. Happy editing! GordonGlottal (talk) 00:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Motion to delete the page

Sailers only credential is having a blog. Writing opinions does not grant enough relevance to have a personal Wikipedia page, or we could create a page for virtually every person in the world. 31.21.180.146 (talk) 06:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

What matters is he's had a whole lot of people talk about him, which means he passes the WP:GNG. Credentials mean nothing for the purpose of having an article. Sure anyone can have a blog, but a vanishingly small portion of people have ideas that are given at length criticisms in established magazines and academic works, which Sailer has. So no. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:03, 24 March 2025 (UTC)