Biography Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

United States Stub‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

From my message to user:Volteer1: Hi. I believe my comments on my revisions for Curtis_Yarvin weren't clear enough so allow me to explain myself better. We could take this to the talk page. First off, Yarvin's comments on race, IQ and slavery are his own, and are in direct contradiction with the previous sentences from a reliable source. It makes very little sense to include them, because a person could call themselves whatever they want to. Including Yarvin's claim that "the notion that people who score higher on IQ tests are in some sense superior human beings is creepy." just reads as an attempt to whitewash his position. We don't refer to the anti-abortion movement as "pro-life", we don't refer to alt right pundits as "classical liberals", we should not include Yarvin's own attempts to gaslight people about his blatantly racist views.

Regarding the mention in the lede about "his and other Dark Enlightenment thinkers' efforts to distance themselves from (the alt right)", I removed it because it doesn't summarize anything that's in the article. The article has a very brief mention that Yarvin tried to distance himself from white nationalists, with the very crucial detail that this was a tactical move and nothing more. This detail isn't part of the lede, creating a false impression of Yarvin's ties to the alt right for anyone who doesn't go too deep into the article. This is straight up misleading. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably better suited to discuss on the talk page. Regarding the first thing, it doesn't really matter what you view to be making someone look good or look bad, Wikipedia is not a place to make sure the world knows who you think is naughty and who you think is nice, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that reflects published, reliable sources. Both of the sources cited [1] [2] describe both the characterization and Yarvin's response to the characterization, so we do too. It also isn't really ever a contradiction to say "Person X said Y" regardless of whether or not Y is true, the fact that they said it just needs to be verifiable. Regarding the lead, the section on the alt-right has (basically) two paragraphs, and the sentence summarises both of those paragraphs in the two sentence fragments, you might find MOS:LEAD to be helpful here.

If you still have substantive disagreements about the content of the article, it would be best to put them at Talk:Curtis Yarvin so other editors can weigh in as well. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the lede does not, as you claim, summarize the two paragraphs. The lede does accurately state that Yarvin and the dark enlightenment are associated with the alt right, but it also states that they made efforts to distance themselves from the alt right, while ommitting a crucial detail that this is a tactical move. The lede puts undue weight on Yarvin distancing himself from the alt right as if it was meaningful, but in reality, it's just an empty PR move and nothing more.

Regarding the comments on slavery and race, the article accurately summarizes Yarvin's views on race and slavery, without needing the direct quote. Yarvin's own words are very blatantly racist, so quoting his exact words saying "I'm not racist/white supremacist, BUT...", is dishonest, and only serves to muddy the waters around his actual views. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really do think the section on race is fine. I don't think any reader would come away from the section, after reading "whites have higher IQs than blacks for genetic reasons", "some races are more suited to slavery than others", and "although I am not a white nationalist, I am not exactly allergic to the stuff" and thinking there's muddy waters over whether or not he really believes in all the racist stuff because he thinks the notion "that people who score higher on IQ tests are in some sense superior human beings" is "creepy." or that he disputes being an "outspoken advocate for slavery". It seems clear enough to me where Yarvin stands and should be to everyone, we include his commentary on this matter because the sources do too, that both of the sources cited felt it important to mention Yarvin's commentary on these matters means that it's noteworthy, due information that makes sense to include in the article.

You probably have a more cogent point regarding the alt-right sentence in the lead. The first section documents his relation to Steve Bannon, Bronze Age Pervert, and Michael Anton, without mentioning anything to do with the alt-right explicitly (though I guess Bannon and BAP are alt-right in some very vague sense of the already fairly meaningless word), and then the second paragraph says the Dark Enlightenment has tried to distance themselves from the alt-right, though it is argued that "this may be a tactical move." The third paragraph seems of little importance. Honestly, this whole section just seems really quite bad, and neither of the sources cited document Yarvin specifically attempting to distance himself from the "alt-right", though it does quote Land saying “NRx was a prophetic warning about the rise of the Alt-Right,” said Nick Land, the English philosopher whose Dark Enlightenment series is considered a foundational neoreactionary text. “As a populist, and in significant ways anti-capitalist movement, the Alt-Right is a very different beast to NRx.” I think the solution in the mean time is just to remove the "despite his and other Dark Enlightenment thinkers' efforts to distance themselves from it" from the lead work on improving that terrible section later. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 04:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"It seems clear enough to me where Yarvin stands and should be to everyone, we include his commentary on this matter because the sources do too"

That may have been true before the trump era. You'd be surprised what the average internet user can get away with these days and still have people denying they're racist. Those two sentences are in the same mold as "I'm not racist but..." and "some of my best friends are black". They are unnecessary fluff text, and I wouldn't put it past editors of the sources to include them only for padding.

"I think the solution in the mean time is just to remove the "despite his and other Dark Enlightenment thinkers' efforts to distance themselves from it" from the lead"

So... exactly what I did earlier. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lead uses terms such as "alt-right". It is not immediately obvious how this term applies to Curtis Yarvin. None of the various meanings of "alt-right" appear to cover the worldview of Curtis Yarvin. He is a monarchist, according to him. His stated views indicate that 'monarchist' is an accurate description of his worldview. sbelknap (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC) I'm OK with leaving the second sentence in the lead as is. It is accurate to state that Yarvin and his views are often associated with the "alt-right."sbelknap (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yarvin is sometimes described as alt-right or fascist and these terms are often also applied to neonazis or antisemites. It therefore seems relevant that Yarvin's father was a Jewish U.S. Diplomat, as this weighs against the potential misunderstanding that Yarvin is antisemitic or a Nazi, which he clearly is not. I restored this info, but apparently one editor sees reason to disagree. Thoughts? sbelknap (talk) 04:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is that one editor me or User:Grayfell[3] And that's WP:NOR in any case. Doug Weller talk 12:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Including this as a preemptive defense against a hypothetical line of criticism would be inappropriate for multiple reasons.

Anything beyond very basic biographical facts would need context from a reliable independent source. In general, a person's paternal or maternal background is not automatically important. We already mention that he grew up in a secular house, and that's plenty.

I recall a similar issue over at Talk:Stefan Molyneux a few years ago. His partly Jewish heritage was too trivial based on the proposed sources. There are a thousand factoids we could list about someone's background, and we really don't want to try and include them all, so we need a specific reason to mention this one.

So why, exactly, is this source mentioning that he is "paternally Jewish"? If this is just a passing mention, it doesn't belong. If there is some reason to mention this, let's discuss that reason based on this or other reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yarvin has spoken himself of his Jewish ancestry and this is mentioned in secondary sources. This isn't WP:OR. From ^[1] we have this: "Being a Jewish, culturally liberal man, it helps that Yarvin is no one’s idea of the stereotypical far-Right demagogue. In fact, his ideal state is looks more like Singapore than Nazi Germany. Unlike others on the “dissident Right” he argues that progressive power is not reducible to an elite race or class. This is by no means to claim that his ideas are not radical and controversial — only that they are in unexpected ways."

This article could be improved by describing the actual facts as to his viewpoint, particularly those considered relevant by Yarvin and by secondary sources. He is notable not because he is racist or alt-right (whatever that means). He has an informed and wildly contrary view of politics and history. His Jewish ancestry is at least as relevant as that of Werner Goldberg, which you may notice mentions his Jewish parent. sbelknap (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you have a reliable, secondary source explaining why this is significant, feel free to present it for discussion. A blog post musing about a Tucker Carlson blurb posted to Unherd is not reliable, and it also fails to demonstrate encyclopedic significance, especially as a bland fact presented without any context. If that source were more reliable, it would still need attribution to Ben Sixsmith with some indication given to the reader why his opinion is relevant.

The comparison to Werner Goldberg is so far off base it's pointless at best and pointed at worst. Assuming good faith, that article has reliable independent sources (one arbitrary example is ISBN 0-7006-1358-7) which allows the article to contextualize why this info is biographically relevant. That article's references are messy, but they exist and appear reliable.

As for Yarvin's opinion of his own views, he is an infamously prolific blogger who is encyclopedically significant mainly because of his fringe views. We cannot rely on editors to interpret his own writing to determine what is relevant. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion, so our goal is to summarize reliable independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with Yarvin's opinions of his own views. Instead, it is about Yarvin's assertion that his father was Jewish. What is the reason that the comparison to Werner Goldberg is off-base? Or pointed? What is this nonsense about platform for promotion? Is having a Jewish parent a promotional assertion? What?? sbelknap (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He "asserts" many things. We obviously cannot and should not include every trivial detail he has "asserted", regardless of whether or not we happen to think it's factual. Your personal assumption that it is important is irrelevant, and yes, that assumption is a form of original research. Wikipedia goes by sources, not your personal opinions. This is very basic stuff that you should already know. Your reasons for including this particular "assertion" is therefore, at best, misguided.

The Goldberg comparison is absurd for many reasons, and listing all of them would be a waste of time. One reason, which should be plenty, is that Goldberg is notable largely because multiple reliable sources discuss his Jewish father. If you don't understand why this kind of context is important, you should not be editing Wikipedia. So yet again: if you have a reliable, secondary source explaining why this is significant, feel free to present it for discussion.. Grayfell (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of confusion as to the proper use of primary and secondary sources on wikipedia. The guidance is more nuanced than this "only secondary sources" position that you apparently espouse. Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources Many (perhaps most) editors would agree with you, but that just constitutes mob editing, which is widespread here. For that reason, wikipedia is less useful than it could be. It seems to me that Yarvin's own words have relevance as to the "alt-right" tag that is being applied to him in this article. ^[2] However, that is not permitted by editors who (in my view) profoundly misunderstand the mission of wikipedia. The term alt-right is used to refer to almost anything that does not align with the progressive POV. Perhaps you are unaware that the term "alt-right" carries implications of antisemitism, Fascism, racism, white supremacy, etc. However, alt-right does imply these things for many wikipedia readers. We are here to inform the readers, not to advance a political agenda of one sort or another. This article on Curtis Yarvin is egregious, citing secondary sources that make heinous accusations but that do not themselves cite relevant primary sources disputing these accusations. This is fundamentally unfair and inconsistent with the mission of wikipedia. I note that one of the founders of wikipedia disagrees with this mob consensus that the progressive POV is a neutral POV.^[3] I consider your POV on use of primary and secondary sources to be as wrong-headed as you apparently consider mine. AFAIK, we are both editors in good standing and ought to hash out our differences specifically w/r/t the articles we are editing, and not cast aspersions as to the others competence, as you do.sbelknap (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the assertion, "Yarvin has written in support of slavery…" supported in the cited sources? sbelknap (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. It has come to my attention that large parts of this article are cited from primary sources and are essentially fancruft. I will begin deleting them at once. Boromeliad (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]