Talk:Mark Steyn

Mr Steyn is 64 - not 63.

Mr Steyn is 64 - not 63 (his birthday was on the 8th of December). I have tried clicking on "edit" - but the out-of-date age does not seem to appear on the screen in a way I can change it. 2A02:C7C:E183:AC00:710D:2A6E:4012:ABE8 (talk) 10:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

A Disgrace to the Profession

43arcsec added a section "A Disgrace to the profession" via 4 edits, the first one had edit summary = "With the international attention being engendered by the defamation suit trial, it was important to add to the book list the book that is the center of the suit." I reverted. Never mind that I don't believe this book is a central thing in the trial. One problem is that its source is Mr Steyn (book and testimony) which would be okay if it was clear why it's important e.g. someone noticed it, but that's lacking so far. Another problem is that the section ended with "On August 17, 2011 Steyn discussed the book ..." -- but the book was published in 2015. I'm not against giving the book more publicity, I'm only thinking this doesn't look appropriate in this form at this time, and if others feel it should be re-inserted, fine. Do they? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

My Gulutzan removed the last edit stating, among other things, "I'm not against giving the book more publicity." This appears to exhibit a pre-existing bias that should be avoided on Wiki, whose users expect it to be an impartial source. Currently, the trial is ongoing and capturing national attention. It is a case that spans 12 years, and this book was conceived in response to the defamation suit. The book has been reference several times in the case. The fact that Mr Gulutzan points out "the book was published in 2015" implying its old news is wrong on two counts: 1) that the case today dates back prior to the book 2) as a significant work of Steyn's it deserves to be included in the book list. The Wiki page deserves to have all the facts, no matter how unpleasant they may be. I have restored the edit. 43arcsec (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Re bias: everybody has biases, saying I'm "not against" would be a pretty weak way to express mine. Re "reference several times in the case": that's rather different from the original claim that the book is "the center of the suit", which as I understand matters is what's in the article section "Defamation lawsuit" which by the way will need updating after the trial is over. Re "implying its old news": no, the problem is that I find it implausible that Mr Steyn discussed the book four years before the book existed. Re "deserves to be included in the book list": it is already mentioned in the article's "Bibliography", this is about expansion not mere inclusion. I see that EasyAsPai reverted your reversion with edit summary = "Restored revision 1203284910 by Peter Gulutzan (talk): Reverting info back out. When someone starts a talkpage discussion about your edit, you need to discuss with them, not simply say they're wrong and put it back." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Mr Gulutzan and EasyAsPal, while I'm accused of reverting without talking, it's certainly untrue as evidenced by the very entry I made explaining the reversion that you replied to. And stating I need to talk before reverting, is hardly a protocol EasyAsPal can claim, as he offers no "talk" himself, other than the false claim I hadn't. I claim here, that this book, "Disgrace," is absolutely pivotal in aiding the Wiki readers in understanding the defamation suit that is taking place right now to international attention. It is in print, highly rated, embodies the work of notably scientific scholars, and is necessary addition to understanding the climate debate, the defamation suit, and Steyn's literary work. The fact that it was printed after the trial lawsuit was originally filed, does not reduce its relevance. It was written in direct response to the lawsuit, is an integral part of the lawsuit, and the climate debate. You have made yourself clear, you detest this book, and I believe that is clouding your judgement here. There is an enormous value to Wiki readers to see this book prominently displayed so they can draw their own conclusions. That's what Wiki is for. You offer facts from original sources whether you agree with them or not. 43arcsec (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@43arcsec I haven't used the talk page here because I have no real opinion on this, I just stepped in to encourage BRD, or Bold, Revert, Discuss. That means that if you make a bold edit and someone reverts you, you are expected to discuss the topic before you start putting it back in. I don't have to have to be part of the discussion to see that you skipped that last bit, 43arcsec. Discuss means a conversation, not, "You're wrong and I'm going to put it back," which is what your original talk page comment was.

You seem to feel very strongly about this book, and you seem to be taking this disagreement about personally. If Peter's judgement on the article is clouded because of his opinion on the book, I'd say yours is, too - the language you use (integral, prominent, enormous value) makes that clear.

It sounds like maybe some of Peter's concerns have to do with UNDUE, or how much space is given to the details of the book and it's reception relative to the rest of the article and the overall topic. Wikipedia does not give equal weight to every published book or opinion - it uses secondary sources to present information in a neutral way.

I have no dog in this fight, so to speak, and I have not read the book or even the whole article. So please believe me when I say that this is not an attack on you, the article subject, or even the book, but a sign that you need to work collaboratively with other editors (like Peter Gulutzan) to reach consensus. EasyAsPai (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Are there watchers of this page who have opinions? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

EasyAsPal, your comment is very informative and insightful, I thank you for it. Without using the strong adjectives, I say again here. right now there is a trial taking place in DC that is bringing international attention. There is a podcast covering the trial called "Climate on Trail" which is now among the top 5 science podcasts. There is enormous attention, wait, let me rephrase, there is evidence of significant interest in this issue. Steyn's book that is in question here, is, right now, surely the most relevant of all his books. A think that any dispassionate observer would agree, and a passionate observer would have a difficult case to argue the opposite. Let's present the information to the Wiki reader for them to draw their own conclusion. Steyn's book goes a very long way for Wiki readers to be able to understand Mark Steyn, it is his page, and the greater issues Mark Steyn is dealing with. Again, thank you for your reply. 43arcsec (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

From steynonline.com today: "Or shoot them a copy of Steyn's book about Mann - which Judge Irving has declined to admit into evidence." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

In response to the feedback in talk, especially the criticism of giving to much weight to an individual book, I added back the entry with just a skeleton description so at least this important work is given some visibility. 43arcsec (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Reverted.

• The book has received almost no coverage outside of climate change denial venues.
• Steyn's tweet (referenced above by Peter Gulutzan) complains that the book did not figure into the defamation trial. So the originally proferred rationale that the book is notable because of the defamation suit is dubious.
• I don't see any editors suggesting it is important to add the book back.
• Even the "skeleton description" gives undue weight to a fringe book, viz: Mann's work purporting a dramatic recent rise in global temperatures and notable scientists including Nobel Prize winner....

I am generally of the opinion it is a fine thing to briefly summarize an author's works. But the lack of engagement by the scientific community makes it hard to include this book's controversial claims. And also argues against the book's notability.

Further I note that the edit summary was a deception. The majority of the reverted edit was not about the book, but a change to the description of the suit. It moved the takeaway point of the section -- Steyn was sued and found guilty -- from the beginning down to the end. -- M.boli (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

$1 million punitive damages

Judge reduced punitive damages to $5k. 2600:6C4A:5F0:6D20:85B:CF5B:3DBD:2056 (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done, added to the article. The Volokh Conspiracy law blog covered this. It seems sufficiently reliable source to add this info to the article. Thank you for letting us know. -- M.boli (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Now the article says "In 2025 an appeal reduced the Steyn punitive damages payment to $5000 without disagreeing with the jury verdict." Quibble #1: the appeal didn't reduce, the judge reduced. Quibble #2: as I understood it, the jury awarded the punitive damages as part of its general verdict, so the judge disagreed with that part, so leaving out ", without disagreeing with the jury verdict" would I believe look less odd. Additional: if another source is desirable then Mr Steyn's blog post could work since it's about himself (though arguably it disparages a third party). No big deal though. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging that. That passage is awkward.

The main idea is that the judge accepted the jury's findings about Steyn's reprehensible conduct (yes, "reprehensible" was the word). But he decided that the punitive damages were out of line considering precedent and the quite small actual damages.

I didn't want to leave the article in a state where the million dollar award was the last word. But I also didn't want the leave the reader with the implicature that Steyn's conduct had been mostly exonerated. I didn't do a good job of that. I'll work on it tomorrow. -- M.boli (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC)