Talk:Curtis Yarvin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Neoreactionary

Does Yarvin describe himself as a neoreactionary? As he himself has noted, we should not describe people using terms they don't call themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.184.156.243 (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

There's buckets of third-party sources for the label, which is quite sufficient for Wikipedia; though if he hasn't self-labeled with it then we should note that too - David Gerard (talk) 10:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

He notes here:

If I had to choose one word and stick with it, I'd pick "restorationist." If I have to concede one pejorative which fair writers can fairly apply, I'll go with "reactionary." I'll even answer to any compound of the latter - "neoreactionary," "postreactionary," "ultrareactionary," etc.

so it's not a self-label, but not one he deeply objects to FWIW - David Gerard (talk) 10:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I doubt that he would accept any label that had already been applied to any other person, maybe not even one that was invented by any other person. If nothing else, he wants to be seen as unique. He might not disagree with the Frugonian neo-monarchists, but he wouldn't ever want to be identified as one. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

His blog gives the impression that he regards what is said there about politics and history as not so unique and more of an update of material by earlier writers (adding later ideas such as evolution of memes) together with some synthesis of American religious and political history (Puritan hypothesis, AIACC). 73.149.246.232 (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

"Main interests"

This section increasingly looks like ascribing views from his blog in a synthesized manner. Do we have a verifiable third-party reliable source on Yarvin's claimed views? If not, possibly that bit should go - David Gerard (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much my read too, TBQH. Ironholds (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The current additions are indeed references, but they're all primary and blog references, except one third-party blog reference. For a controversial figure, this is way below BLP standards - David Gerard (talk) 08:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah; honestly the actual coverage is so BLP1E that it's ridiculous. Like, there are basically two kinds of reference to Yarvin that I can find via say Google News; the fact that he's been banned from cons, and very brief namechecks in articles about the "Dark Enlightenment" overall. I'm going to do some research. Ironholds (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Being banned from LambdaConf was directly because of the neoreactionary fame, so is part of the same thing - David Gerard (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, banned from Strange Loop, he's been allowed into LambdaConf.

The amount of primary sourcing in this article is ridiculous for a BLP. I'll wait until after the AFD, if it survives, but it's due a massive, massive cull. (The editor has only one edit to any article other than this one, and that's adding Yarvin as a notable alumnus of his high school, but does seem to be trying to do a decent Wikipedian job here.) - David Gerard (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Word. Either the article goes away or it turns up some sources to something other than Yarvin's rambles. Ironholds (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I've tagged all the terrible sources in the article at present: all the self-sources, all the blog sources, and all the things that lack a third-party RS cite. Those "influences" lists in particular need third-party RSes, else this article is just a rewrite of the Moldbug blog, and that's not what Wikipedia is for. Also, the excessive WP:ELNO that keep showing up - David Gerard (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Carlylean: your sourcing has not been great, and all this stuff is going to need verifiable third-party sources that pass WP:RS. Also, other bad articles are not a justification for bad sourcing on a BLP. Please discuss more - David Gerard (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I modeled this page on the pages of other political philosophers like Karl Marx (good), Michel Foucalt, and Søren Kierkegaard (featured). On none of these pages do I see the extensive use of references that you are demanding of this article. The information in their biographical infoboxes go largely uncited. Where primary sources alone are cited, I don't see a trail of citation-needed tags behind them. Do you consider them all bad articles? I think their editors would dispute that characterization. Perhaps you should direct your energies towards flooding them with demands for citations, as they are much more highly trafficked. It appears to me that you are applying an unusual level of scrutiny to this article alone. You know very well that citing each and every item under "Main Interests" is not standard procedure. Carlylean (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Really? I see extensive citations in Kierkegaard, say. And citing main interests isn't done there because the main interests are covered (and cited!) in the body of the article. Where primary sources are cited there they're published books - you know, with an editorial and review process - not a blog.

I'm curious as to how you know what standard behaviour is having been here since 2 February. Ironholds (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

One, this is a BLP; two it's about a controversial person, so the rules are considerably tighter; three, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a robust argument, particularly for arguing against BLP considerations; four, they are ridiculously more famous and the third-party analysis reliable sources for all this sort of stuff for them exists and is lengthy - Yarvin's notability is marginal, and he is barely covered in verifiable third-party reliable sources at all. BLP is not optional at Wikipedia; primary sources and blog sources are simply not sufficient. Primary can be nice to cite an original, but you have to have the verifiable third-party reliable sources. Often to the phrase level in the case of controversial people. WP:BLP requires that anything less be removed, and if this wasn't mid-AFD I would have.

tl;dr bring verifiable third-party reliable sources to the high standards required by WP:BLP and our qualms will largely be satisfied - David Gerard (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

You win. Now delete this article. Carlylean (talk) 02:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Carlylean: So far the AFD is leaning to "keep", so we can assume the article will be around for a while. You seem to be a Yarvin fan, so would hopefully know what third-party RS coverage exists of Yarvin - David Gerard (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Article is kept, now what to do about the sourcing?

Basically: every source that is not a BLP-quality RS needs to go. Every claim needs citing, and citing with something non-primary and non-blog. Can this stuff be cited at all to a RS? - David Gerard (talk) 11:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

"every source that is not a BLP-quality RS needs to go" No it doesn't. There is a requirement that claims have RS to support them. There is no requirement that all sources are RS sources, where non-RS sources (and frequently that means the otherwise good but primary sources) can be used in addition. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Trouble is these sources aren't good either. They're largely synthesis from going over the Moldbug blog, a prima facie case of WP:SYNTH. Synthesis has no place in a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

? If they're primary, they're not synthesis. If they're independent RS, they're allowed to synth (we aren't, else OR) Andy Dingley (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYNTH, which I linked. Synthesis is taking primary sources and making claims from them, e.g. listing things as "areas of interest", that is claiming they are each individually relevant details for a BLP about a controversial person. We really can't do that on BLPs - David Gerard (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Please recognise that I might just already have some familiarity with SYNTH. Synthesis (in that sense) is not "taking primary sources and making claims from them", it is WP editors doing so. If other outside sources have done so, then that's an issue for RS (or possibly PRIMARY), not SYNTH. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

We need to get some decent autobiographical details. I want to know when he was born, if his family was Jewish or Christian or something else, if he is married, any children, whereabouts he lives, what year he graduated from what schools with what degrees, and so forth. I am having trouble finding these details even from NPOV or RS. I will continue searching.--FeralOink (talk) 13:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Afterthought... Please note that I am NOT implying that subject Curtis Yarvin is unworthy of his own BLP article in Wikipedia, just because I am having trouble finding his basic biographical details. The same can be said for many notable BLP subjects. I made my initial comment because I want to guide us away from including so many redundant articles about Yarvin's notoriety, and being distracted by his notoriety in general, and instead focus more on the substance of what a Wikipedia BLP article is supposed to be.--FeralOink (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Cutting the "controversy" section claims that don't have a WP:RS. If we really want them in, they're in the history, but they need a verifiable third-party source to demonstrate each detail's notability in itself - per WP:BLPREMOVE, which precisely addresses sections like this, "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: ... relies on self-published sources" - David Gerard (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Apart from the rest of it, why have you removed the Popehat source? This is nothing to do with controversies, but now there's nothing in this article to explain anything about Urbit. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Because it's a blog. And not even a technical blog, but a first amendment law blog. It's not even a good explanation of Urbit, and specifically Even as a blog it's a bad source. (He specifically writes about it for political reasons, not technical ones: "I was sure that it was technically plausible but practically idiotic ... So, anyway, having read Yarvin's political stuff and knowing that he has a habit of throwing away conventional thought in service of reaching deep truths, I gave Urbit more time.") Do we have anything - anything - else that is third-party RS coverage (as a blog isn't) of Urbit? I know of nothing, and I've been watching for the past three years as well.

Did the Patri Friedman stuff get covered anywhere else? Anywhere in an RS? I'd be very reluctant to cover it without third-party RS coverage.

Look, I know you know your stuff in this regard too. My objection to this article for the AFD was the serious lack of third-party RSes. I'm asking, can we actually bring this up to WP:BLP standard? Because at present it's still horribly skimpy - David Gerard (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

It's fecking Popehat. Where else is better suited to comment, to the standards of RS, on the technical output of a neo-batshit like Yarvin? They even have a song about it:

"If you come to Popehat because you think that it is a law blog, you are sorely mistaken. Popehat is a geek blog, and it's a matter of mere happenstance that most of the bloggers here are law geeks."

Andy Dingley (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Fan as I am, it remains a blog, and so generally not suitable as a source for a BLP about a controversial person - David Gerard (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I've added a note at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Curtis_Yarvin asking for more eyes and sourcing help, specifically noting I'm not asking for someone to go mad with an axe just yet - David Gerard (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

more mainstream RSes

There's few enough they're worth noting. These are new, don't offer much new for the article as yet but just in case:

• [1][2] - Status 451 and ClarkHat are not notable, but may become so
• [3] - the only somewhat RS coverage of Urbit I've found describing it, though it's David Auerbach saying in passing "To be sure, Urbit is perplexing—the intended use case seems to be for some postapocalyptic libertarian wasteland" which strikes me as not ideally informative technically. (Maybe I'm wrong and it should go in.)
• [4] (nothing new on Yarvin, though the first RS coverage I've seen of Vox Day's "SJW List" and Eric S. Raymond's support of it)

- David Gerard (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Linking to urbit.org [5] seems reasonable, and/or to the github for Urbit [6]. Are Reddit AMAs considered reliable? Yarvin did one [7], probably a good resource for clarifying his views. Carleas (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

urbit.org is already in external links. By RS I mean something fitting WP:RS, which basically means news coverage on any level. I'm actually surprised there appears to be zero of this for Urbit - David Gerard (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Dylan Matthews article useful as broader source?

[8] A Vox explainer on the wider alt-right, starting at neoreaction and taking in 4chan /pol/, Gamergate, Milo Yiannopoulous and Donald Trump. It's written in an understated and factual tone (citing its sources) and seems to include new Yarvin quotes. It would back a lot of claims that were previously made in this article with primary or blog sources. That said, it's a bit op-ed in tone, like many long-form Vox pieces. How do others feel about using it as a source for a controversial BLP? - David Gerard (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I hate Vox's op-ed tone (present for most of its explainers), but there are several paragraphs devoted entirely to Curtis Yarvin, explicit mention of Urbit, NRx, the Moldbug blog, neoreaction, 4chan and many of the themes of altright. I would use it as a source for now, certainly until (or if) anything better surfaces.--FeralOink (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I found an NPOV reference that covers Yarvin in detail!

Although the title and the first half of the article is focused on Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and the alternative right, the entire second half of this new article from Commentary Magazine focuses on Curtis Yarvin, Trump's Terrifying Online Brigades. Here is a sample, which specifically describes Yarvin, his blog, his ideology and so forth, so that we Wikipedia editors will not fall into the trap of WP:SYNTH:

"If the alt-right does have an intellectual forbear, it is a 43-year-old computer programmer named Curtis Yarvin. Along with fellow “neo-reactionary” thinker Nick Land (a former lecturer at the University of Warwick), Yarvin is the father of “The Dark Enlightenment.” This is a 21st-century, tech-friendly philosophy that, as its name implies, rejects democracy, egalitarianism, and the Whig interpretation of history. It is delineated in a 30,000-word pamphlet of the same name, written by Land and available for free on the Internet. Yarvin’s contribution to the Dark Enlightenment oeuvre began in 2008 when, writing under the pen name “Mencius Moldbug,” he produced a series of long blog posts that eventually congealed into two separate treatises: An Open Letter to Open-Minded Progressives and A Gentle Introduction to Unqualified Reservations. Along with “The Dark Enlightenment,” these works can be seen as the foundational texts of neo-reactionary ideology."

--FeralOink (talk) 06:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Source found on Urbit!

[9] Who here can read technical German? The Google translation was a mess - David Gerard (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I can't read German, but I did find another source about Curtis Yarvin, and it explicitly mentions Urbit! See Why Peter Thiel Wants to Topple Gawker and Elect Donald Trump via New York Magazine:

"Neoreaction has a number of different strains, but perhaps the most important is a form of post-libertarian futurism that, realizing that libertarians aren’t likely to win any elections, argues against democracy in favor of authoritarian forms of government. In this guise, it’s a heretical offshoot of Valley nerd culture, and has particular associations with Thiel. Mencius Moldbug (real name Curtis Yarvin), the “founder” of neoreaction, is a Bay Area programmer whose start-up, Urbit, is backed by Thiel; and reactionary blogger Michael Anissimov was formerly media director at the Thiel-funded Machine Intelligence Research Unit (MIRI). Even Nick Land, the major NRx figure after Moldbug (whom I’ve written about before), has no personal connections to the Valley but shares many of its peculiar cultural interests: Before his neoreactionary conversion, he spent much of the 1990s as a rogue academic writing philosophy-fiction about the Singularity, killer-AI, and time travel. So when it came out that Thiel was attacking a media company and supporting a candidate already perceived as a neo-fascist, it looked a little like some Pynchon-esque conspiracy coming to fruition."

--FeralOink (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Lambdaconf

Any reasons to exclude mention that lambdaconf didn't exterminate all life on earth with his presence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.100.181 (talk) 13:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Because the article is about Yarvin, not LambdaConf, and your addition was completely unsourced. We've had a lot of problems already (per this talk page) finding sources that meet WP:RS, WP:V and WP:BLP - David Gerard (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Jewish

Recently the information that Yarvin is Jewish was removed from this article. I found quite a few sources, but am not satisfied as to their usability on Wikipedia: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. The last is probably the best. Debresser (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Yarvin himself claims Jewish descent in his blog, though I don't know a source (any source, let alone usable) for Scottish or specifically Scottish-Jewish descent. (I thought the Scottish ancestry was in the blog, but couldn't find it just now.) The Quora post is equivalent to a blog post at best, and Nick B. Steves is not a noted authority on Yarvin or similar. Vox is a mainstream source, others were satisfied as to its usability above - it links back to that blog post, but in general Yarvin's quite open about his Jewish descent - David Gerard (talk) 00:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The question is, how to add this to the article. To create a whole "Personal life" section with just one sentence "Yarvin's father is Jewish[1]", seems like overdoing it a bit. Suggestions. Debresser (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Basically the Vox article could do with digestion into this one. The basic details of Yarvin's bio aren't controversial (software engineer, married, kid, lives in SF, does Urbit) and could be reasonably self-cited - David Gerard (talk) 08:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Jewishness is determined by matrilineal descent. If Yarvin's father were Jewish, which I have read, but his mother is not, then Curtis Yarvin is not Jewish. Maybe his mother converted, I don't know. Was Curtis bar mitzvahed? That would be a good indicator of Jewishness.--FeralOink (talk) 00:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Urbit put ((( ))) around his name in a recent tweet ;-) "of Jewish descent" in the categories is true and uncontroversial - David Gerard (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Precisely. Debresser (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I am convinced. Thank you, David Gerard. You made me ;-) too!--FeralOink (talk) 05:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@David_Gerard, @FeralOink Today an editor removed many categories, because they are not mentioned in the article. Perhaps we can do some work on this? Debresser (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Yarvin Toots His Horn

It's plain that the subject of this article wrote much of it under the user name Carlylean. Almost all of Carlylean's edits were made to the Yarvin article. Carlylean knows things about Yarvin that only Yarvin's body double or Yarvin's wide-load ego would know. And Carlylean's contributions apart from this article promote Yarvin by way of injecting his name into notable high school alumni lists and the like. I had to put an Autobiography tag on top of Yarvin's Yarvin article. Chisme (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Removed the tag. Even if that user was Yarvin, the last time they edited it was nearly a year ago, and since then pretty much every word has been picked through by other editors, both during AfD and afterwards. If it was once an autobiography, it's no longer one in any meaningful sense. 2601:644:300:FDC4:0:0:0:A084 (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd say the tag should be removable by now. Carlylean's stuff got scoured because almost none of it was in RSes - David Gerard (talk) 22:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Just because Carlylean edits Moldbug articles, doesn't mean Carlylean is Moldbug. There's no other evidence.cagliost (talk) 10:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

lol. I joined Wikipedia to write about Moldbug because I'm a fan of his work. All the super secret personal information I'm privy to I found on his early blog posts, all of which I cited. If you'd look at the timing of my edits, you'd discover that I live on the other side of the Pacific Ocean. I'd start again editing if I weren't busy—this article has really gone to shit. Carlylean (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

If you can find third-party WP:RSes for any of the stuff you added before, it would be most welcomed. Primary-sourced stuff from his own blog will likely just get cleared out again - David Gerard (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

More sources

Actual coverage of Urbit; opinion, but from the Managing Editor of National Review; article Yarvin was interviewed for - David Gerard (talk) 11:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Curtis Yarvin/Stuff he claims to be or not be

This is just to make it easier to keep track. Smooth alligator (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Extended primary citations

We probably should avoid primary citations of Yarvin's fascinating opinions, because that's what got this article sent to AFD the first time, and there's been plenty of third-party coverage of which of his worldviews are actually notable. Just because Yarvin wrote something doesn't mean it's Wikipedia-notable - UR is somewhere north of a million words, and cherry-picking it is pretty much primary research - David Gerard (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Buzzfeed as legitimate source

Are you really gonna allow Buzzfeed article as source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.187.52 (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I am also confused by the inclusion of the Buzzfeed article. Isn't this the one where they just quote a supposed leaked email? Wasn't the source of the leaked email anonymous? Even if Buzzfeed were a reliable source, I'm pretty sure they didn't claim to be positive of the authenticity of the email. It does seem noteworthy, but only because he was part of a noteworthy article. Couldn't the section be rephrased to say "Buzzfeed claimed to receive a leaked E-mail where Yarvin told Yiannopoulos..." and then quote what he supposedly said? To leave it as a fact would be like taking something someone off camera in a James O'Keefe video said as a quote. I'll re-examine the Buzzfeed article, as I don't think I ever read through the whole thing to see if they had some other reliable source. BenjaminMan (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't find a source provided or any explanation of where the supposed emails came from. If Yarvin never said they were fake, then I suppose they could be real, but I'm not sure this is reliable enough to use as a source of verifiable quotes. BenjaminMan (talk) 01:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Buzzfeed News is entirely an RS for Wikipedia purposes, you can bet that passed Legal for sure - David Gerard (talk) 07:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Guilt by Association?

From the article:

Yarvin watched the results of the 2016 presidential election at the home of Peter Thiel, a Trump backer. "I watched the election at his house, I think my hangover lasted into Tuesday. He’s fully enlightened, just plays it very carefully", he told Milo Yiannopoulos.[24]

Seems to have no place here other than to impeach by association the subject of the article. I assume this is against WP? But I have no idea how to tag it if so.

----gejyspa (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Whose guilt by what association? - David Gerard (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

My edits

Odd changes? I am trying to make the focus of this article about Yarvin's ideas. There is a lot of repetition here. If you want to revert my edits, I would appreciate it if you'd explain why. Respectfully, Chisme (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

well, why did you entirely delete the TechCrunch ref? - David Gerard (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

though I see it's back in the new edition. If you check this talk page, you'll see that we've had to scour the article repeatedly of primary sources and unsourced claims - so please don't cite things to the blog itself for example, if Yarvin's notable then it'll be in an WP:RS and if it isn't in an RS it probably isn't a notable fact - David Gerard (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Blatant, easily verifiable misinformation

On April 22, the following passage:

"Yarvin himself maintains that he is not a racist because, while he doubts that "all races are equally smart," the notion "that people who score higher on IQ tests are in some sense superior human beings" is "creepy". He also disputes being an "outspoken advocate for slavery",[8][21] but has argued that some races are more suited to slavery than others.[22]"

Was edited to the following:

"Yarvin himself maintains that he is a racist because he doubts that "all races are equally smart," and supports the notion "that people who score higher on IQ tests are in some sense superior human beings". He also describes himself as being an "outspoken advocate for slavery",[8][21] and has argued that some races are more suited to slavery than others.[22]"

Spending 30 seconds looking at the citations will show you that the first passage is more or less accurate, although badly biased ("he disputes being an 'outspoken advocate of slavery'"? Has anybody credible ever tried to argue that he IS an outspoken advocate of slavery?). The second paragraph has changed each statement to its boolean opposite, making them verifiably and unequivocally untrue.

This edit has somehow survived one month and ten subsequent edits, which is embarrassing at best and suspicious at worst.

I'm leaving a talk entry instead of directly reverting the edit myself, because (a) this is either a freak oversight of the type that almost never happens on Wikipedia or a deliberate hit job, which is worth talking about, and (b) I'm curious to see if any Wikipedia regulars with usernames will have the integrity to deal with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.47.129.29 (talk) 10:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I undid the April 22 edit by 67.212.117.129. We can't change the fact that Wikipedia allows anyone to edit, but you are certainly right to point it out. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 12:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hitler

Someone added this section:

Yarvin, attacking the accepted "World War II mythology" in a speech to the 2012 BIL Conference, claimed that Hitler’s invasions were forgivable acts of self-defense, and that this historical fact was suppressed by America’s ruling communists, who invented political correctness as an "extremely elaborate mechanism for persecuting racists and fascists." "If Americans want to change their government," he said, "they’re going to have to get over their dictator phobia."

Someone else tried to delete it and it was reverted. In the talk, there is just a brief moment where he mentions hitler and that we dont know how much he knew about stalin's plan to invade Germany. In no way does he say his INVASIONS (plural) were forgivable acts of self defense. Also he doesn't specifically mention political correctness. He says a mechanism exists for ruining racists and fascists lives, that's beyond political correctness. His point is that communism killed more people than fascism in the 20th century so do we persecute communists or allow fascists? And then the quote about a dictator is a completely different point where he's talking about how the government is already a corporation and a national CEO is what's called a dictator.

This needs to be deleted. You mashed 3 different points together and added stuff as a very blatant smear. I just made a wiki account, dont really know how to use this thing. Think I might go ahead and do it, here is my reasoning. Hope it doesn't get reverted. Javelin272 (talk) 05:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, driveby user! I've restored the referenced material - David Gerard (talk) 09:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The source is Live Work Work Die: A Journey into the Savage Heart of Silicon Valley, by Corey Pein. You can go to page 216 of that book and see that this is how the author described Yarvin's speech to the 2012 BIL Conference. Chisme (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Does that make it less of a smear? There is obvious conjecture in there. I understand I'm not gonna get it taken off but can we at least take out the part about his invasions being justified acts of self defence? In the talk he is discussing obscure books he references in his blog and says this about one of them, "Here's your World War II mythology. There's still a lot of things we don't know about World War II. We don't know how much America knew about Stalin's plan to invade Germany in 1941." And then he moves on to another. That is it. I was actually incorrect in my original post, he is talking about America knowing not Hitler. Someone pulling out of this quote that he is attacking the WWII mythology and justifying Hitler's invasions seems dishonest to me. Javelin272 (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Your only edits to Wikipedia are to make a trivially disprovable claim about what a reference checkably says, then to claim it doesn't count anyway because you feel that literally Yarvin's own words make him look bad - David Gerard (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect, I did not say his own words look bad. In fact he makes multiple valid points. The way that the reference puts them together is specifically in a manner to make him look like he's justifying Hitlers invasions. Where if you actually watch the talk, his references to Hitler/fascism are more so in regards to how America treats fascism as opposed to communism, posing the question of how we approach that. The part where he is supposedly "attacking" WWII mythology is very minor, read the part I transcribed. Also, Yarvin (who need I mention is half Jewish) has a quote from his blog where he says the Nazi's were no prize. Javelin272 (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The speech being referenced is available on youtube here and doesn't make any of the claims this article says it does. I don't have access to Live Work Work Die: A Journey into the Savage Heart of Silicon Valley, by Corey Pein. but if it indeed claims these things first party video evidence exists to contradict it. 2601:646:C102:6BC0:3132:5DB2:93BA:454D (talk) 14:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Live Work Work Die is available on Google Books, but I don't think it's our place to judge whether the book is misleading or not. In any case, I'm rewriting the paragraph in question so it covers more of Yarvin's views as described in the book, rather than just this disputed point. (I'm also changing some other sections: adding a template to point out that Yarvin's wife's name isn't given in the listed reference; adding some ref names; and adding some information about his recent re-emergence.) Standardorder (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Content on Wikipedia about the book should be based on what is found in independent reliable sources rather than our own interpretations of the material. I am going to remove the information about the article subject's wife per WP:BLP since I cannot find that in any of the cited references. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

This section on Hitler is a composite of out-of-context quotes. The article right now has him referring to Hitler and then it is followed by a line that says “Americans need to get over their dictatorphobia”. However, this is from a speech he gave talking about converting the US government to a joint stock run by a CEO. The way it is pasted here makes it look like he is referring to Hitler, as though he is saying “Americans shouldn’t fear nazis”. Its completely misleading, and looks like it was constructed that way deliberately. Librairetal (talk) 06:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

From what I can gather, because this misleading composite was put together by an independent source, we have to include it, even if we have the original source material that demonstrates the original context. Doesn’t seem right. Librairetal (talk) 07:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Mencius Moldbug.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

He did not propose totalitarianism

WP:BE
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It would be more accurate to say he supported a monarchical, aristocratic, hypercapitalistic, neocameralist, and/or meritocratically oligarchical (i.e. putting power in the hands of those with pilot licenses) system. Yes, I know we are about verifiability here but that is supposed to be in the service of truth when at all possible. The purpose of his proposed system(s) of governance was to implement libertarian ideas, which are the opposite of totalitarian ideas. User:Greyfell, can you provide a direct quote and/or a statement by a secondary source (hopefully that isn't being sensationalistic) supporting the idea that he proposed totalitarianism? I was having trouble figuring out a good replacement for what you wrote; an undo of your edit might be for the best but let's discuss first. Thank you in advance, Cavalcadian (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC) A source is already cited: Marantz, Andrew (2019) Anti-Social: Online Extremists, Techno-Utopians, and the Hijacking of the American Conversation. Viking: New York. Page 156. "[Mike Cernovich] read a blog by an autodidact named Mencius Moldbug, who argued that American democracy was a failed experiment that should be replaced with totalitarianism." A multi-paragraph footnote of the source goes into further detail about Yarvin's views, as well as his lack of relevant expertise or formal training. You interpretation of Yarvin's views is a form of original research. Wikipedia isn't a platform for original research, we are mainly interested in reliable, independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 00:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

New source: Joshua Tait (2019)

Azerty82 over on Talk:Dark Enlightenment alerts us to "Mencius Moldbug and the Reactionary Enlightenment" by Joshua Tait, a chapter in Key Thinkers of the Radical Right: Behind the New Threat to Liberal Democracy, edited by Mark Sedgwick, ISBN 978-0190877590 - just out on OUP. It's a good chapter, is accurate as far as I can tell, is from an academic press, and would be good to scour for sources on Yarvin in his Moldbug phase - David Gerard (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• This article now seems *extremely* reliant on the Tait source? Feels a bit odd. Stellaproiectura (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Vox cite

This ref is used as a cite for the text "From 2007 to 2014 he authored a blog called "Unqualified Reservations" which argued that American democracy is a failed experiment that should be replaced by totalitarianism."

Looking at the source, it says:

In 2007, a writer with the pen name Mencius Moldbug (née Curtis Yarvin) started a blog called Unqualified Reservations.

And the core contention of Moldbug and the other NRx thinkers is one that's been common in technolibertarian circles for a long time: Democracy is a failure.

It doesn't completely cite the sentence - but there's a second source that supplies the rest of it.

What makes the Vox source "fail verification"? - David Gerard (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

David Gerard, this is just a misunderstanding. I thought Vox was used to support the denomination "totalitarian". I have slightly tweaked the sentence to avoid confusion. Are you OK with the change? Alcaios (talk) 11:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

yes, that's fine :-) Basically your work here has been fantastic, I was just going "what" - David Gerard (talk) 12:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

sorry for the misunderstanding, but since "totalitarian" is a very strong word, I just wanted to make sure it was present in the sources as per WP:EXTRAORDINARY ;-) thank you! Alcaios (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Balaji S. Srinivasan

Does Balaji S. Srinivasan really have anything to do with Yarvin? Considering Balaji is mentioned here twice, I suspect he's been edited into this article with the intent that Yarvin's bad reputation might rub off on him.

Given current sourcing, I don't think the coverage is strong enough for Srinivasan to be placed in the lead. It would probably be worth thinking about how much we want to talk about Srinivasan. Right now, we cover him just as much as we cover Thiel, while the sources usually mention him a secondary figure related mostly in style. I don't think as clear a connection to Yarvin has been made with Srinivasan as with Thiel. However, I suggest increasing the coverage of Thiel, rather than decreasing the amount on Srinivasan. Jlevi (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Yep - apart from being friends, Thiel has long been Yarvin's main sponsor - David Gerard (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Classification as Alt-Right and lack of sources for the claim in line 51

The Alt-Right is an ideology which promotes the belief that nation-states should be organized on the basis of racial/ethnic background and with the goal of their preservation. Nowhere in his works does Yarvin mention similar intentions. What exactly is the justification for such labeling? Also, at line 51 the claim "identifying what he felt were flaws in the accepted "World War II mythology" and alluding to the idea that Hitler's invasions were acts of self-defense, assumedly triggered in response to the U.S. propaganda efforts in dehumanizing the Germans" has no source. The only mention of "World War II mythology" is in an interview with Justin Murphy, when he mentioned that a common misconception about the war was the idea that the Nazis wanted to conquer the entire world. Doggyeatdog (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Doggyeatdog, the article does not label Yarvin "alt-right" but rather "far-right," which is not controversial in the cited reliable sources and in my view is preferable to "neo-reactionary" (a term that is widely used only by Yarvin's followers and for which few academic sources exist).
• In regard to your second point, the content in question is cited to a secondary source, notwithstanding your repeated assertions to the contrary. Admittedly, I am confused by the reference to "U.S. propaganda efforts in dehumanizing the Germans" and I would need to review the source in order to determine if the summary is accurate or if it could be improved, but disingenuously pretending that it is unsourced does you no favors. Your edit summary did not suggest that any part of the text failed verification.

Neither your interpretation nor my interpretation of Yarvin's commentary will ultimately decide the latter issue because Wikipedia is based on secondary sources rather than original research. However, since OR is permitted on talk pages, I would like to bring a couple of excerpts from Yarvin's blog to the attention of page watchers as they tend to substantiate at least part of the disputed sentence:

• "Most responsible statesmen agreed that the confiscation of German territory by the French client states of the Little Entente, Czechoslovakia (which you may search for on a map today) and Poland, was unjust. Therefore, we may consult our Vattel and reason that Germany had every right, under classical international law, to go to war with Czechoslovakia, Poland, Russia, or anywhere else. The fact that Nazi Germany invaded Poland does not, believe it or not, imply that its next step would have been to invade Brazil. Frederick the Great invaded Silesia in the 18th century, and he made no claims whatsoever to Brazil."—Yarvin, Unqualified Reservations, April 2, 2009.

• "To non-Anglophile Germans, the reality of 1941 was that Hitler, who had always argued against a two-front war, invaded the Soviet Union as a desperate act of self-defense against the Bolshevik hordes. Who, when they got into Europe, behaved almost precisely as Hitler predicted. Could it be true? My magic 8-ball says: more likely than not. ... The most interesting question about the hypothetical Soviet invasion of Europe, one I have never seen broached, is what FDR knew. Certainly, he would have welcomed such an attack. If one was scheduled, did Harry Hopkins know about it? Was it planned, even, in Washington? Was the entire Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact a gambit to set up this endgame? Certainly, FDR had no qualms about his sponsorship of Stalin in any other context. ... In fact, such an arrangement might never have been committed to paper—much as Hitler never put an order for the Holocaust on paper."—Yarvin, Unqualified Reservations, September 30, 2010.

It seems that while Yarvin has accurately debunked World War II mythology to the effect that Hitler wanted to conquer the entire world, he has also defended Hitler's invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland as supposedly correcting injustices of the Treaty of Versailles and has favorably cited Viktor Suvorov's widely-debunked theories regarding the Soviet offensive plans controversy, even speculating (with, by his own admission, no evidence) that the imminent Soviet invasion of Germany may have been secretly planned in Washington, D.C., by the Roosevelt administration. That these claims would be considered laughable to any trained historian should be self-evident, and is not (I presume) in dispute here, but hopefully this adds relevant context to a discussion of Yarvin's views.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Potential Bias Issues

I want it to be known I know very little about Curtis Yarvin, which is why I was on this page, but the page overall seems to be very inconsistent. Was he a libertarian, or was he pro-authoritarian, because it can't be both. Was he a far right blogger (which implies some sort of fascist/national socialist ideology), or was he connected with Thiel and Brietbart, a mainstream conservative outlet and a gay tech billionaire with libertarian leanings? And if he was just a blogger, why would he have a Wikipedia page? I mean his last name is Yarvin, he's clearly Jewish, and not exactly the type of person we should be implying is a nazi. I haven't heard about Mike Wendling before today but briefly looking him up he seems like a very controversial opinion writer, someone who gets critiqued for lying in their publications, and not someone who should be in the header of a wikipedia page about someone else. From what I can tell, most of these sources are disputed, and exclusively from left-wing pundits. I haven't seen one source from someone I would consider a conservative, and every source I've looked at was written by someone on the left. Lastly, was he known for his blog, or was he known for UrBit? Because I learned about him from Urbit, as I suspect many other people have, however by reading this article you'd think he was exclusively a political pundit. The only two UrBit sentences I see are saying he created the software in 2002 and resigned in 2019; did nothing happen in those 17 years? This whole article feels like a hit piece against Yarvin, and likely a violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, especially NPOV and V, since many of the references are from low-quality opinion pieces which, although helpful for context, are just the opinion of someone else. Now I don't think it's possibly to remove all bias from an article, especially a potentially political figure, however we should at least be trying to make the page more consistent within itself.

Was he libertarian, or authoritarian? Was he a nazi or jewish? And extraordinarily bold claims, such as "Yarvin's opinions have been described as racist, with his writings interpreted as supportive of slavery, including the belief that whites have higher IQs than blacks for genetic reasons" cannot be left unsourced, and should be sourced clearly and repeatedly, with direct, in-context quotes. Saying someone supports slavery and believes "whites have higher IQ's than blacks for genetic reasons" is not something that should exist as a single sentence with no support. It's important we don't slander people, since Wikipedia is often the first place someone learns about someone, and this article suggests he's either one of the most disgusting people in recent American history, or this article is an opinionated hit piece. I know we all have strong opinions about certain topics, but Wikipedia is not the place for speculation or for larger political debate. 23.127.226.201 (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

This so-called encyclopedic article is laughable in its palpable bias. Just listened to an interview with Yarvin (had never heard of him before) and he is a perfectly reasonable intellectual (yes a conservative but so what?) with a lot of original ideas (unlike the innumerable pseudo-intellectuals that have found a home scribbling nonsense on Wikipedia). Christian B Martin (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Misleading summary in lede

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)

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 [18] [19] 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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

Jewish father

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)

Is that one editor me or User:Grayfell[20] And that's WP:NOR in any case. Doug Weller talk 12:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

Yarvin has spoken himself of his Jewish ancestry and this is mentioned in secondary sources. This isn't WP:OR. From 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)

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)

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)

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)

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. 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. 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)

References

WP:BLP Problems

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

Fancruft WP:BLPSELFPUB

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)