Talk:Claire Lehmann

Rebel media edit war

Please attempt to reach consensus about the rebel media links and phrasing on this here talk page instead of continuing the edit war. 2A02:1811:2C0B:1500:6995:7359:8D1C:3F91 (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Misleading Section: is Ms. Lehmann, or is she not, a psychologist?

I'm not from Australia (do undergrad degrees give you a professional title?) and so far everything I've read has indicated that she dropped out of graduate school to focus on her family (lit).

Before that was reverted I thought that my "citation needed" explained itself what with it saying

According to Ms. Lehmann, she dropped out of graduate school and thus wouldn't be a forensic psychologist. Did she go back and complete her education?

but I guess I was supposed to add to the talk page here. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ My mistake. 24.21.215.155 (talk) 08:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• Take a look at my revision I just made. Basically, she dropped out but then later completed a B Psych in University of Adelaide. That's from her bio at https://clairelehmann.net/bio/ and her linkedin at https://www.linkedin.com/in/claire-lehmann-59520889/. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! 24.21.215.155 (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

A section of her views and critical comments on her views would be good

That's it

1.152.107.102 (talk) 23:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

yes

  1.136.110.162 (talk) 06:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Articles

A list of everywhere she has been published is not inherently notable, regardless of sourcing.Bledwith (talk) 05:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bledwith: in a bio article for a journalist, it's pretty standard to mention at least some of the notable publications for which the subject has written, no? Jweiss11 (talk) 05:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not acutally clear that she's a journailst. She's certainly a writer, and has contributed extensive opinion pieces but thats' not the same thing. This list however iappaears to be everything she's ever had published outside of Quilette. At the very least it needs cleanup and editing for notability. - Bledwith (talk) 05:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Writer or journalist

Lehman is generally referred to in sources as a writer not a journalist. The is a distinction between these terms and her writing is generously opinion pieces.2001:8F8:1D2D:7F06:0:0:C131:CB01 (talk) 12:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

First, opinion pieces are a type of journalism. See op-ed and editorial, both types of opinion journalism. More generally, Lehmann writes and edits articles that report on recent events and topics of timely interest. This makes her a journalist, which is an amoral distinction. She doesn't write or edit novels, poetry, or book-length non-fiction, thus "writer" is unnecessarily general to describe her work. "Journalist" is sufficiently precise. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Both terms seem incorrect to me. I'm not sure the is a midway term though Jazi Zilber (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that "journalist" is the appropriate description here. Also, the (recent) sources do not refer to her merely as "writer" but rather "writer and editor". —Srid^🍁 20:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

She's a polemicist (like Sean Hannity) and a publisher (like Rupert Murdoch). -- Jibal (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

extreme violations of NPOV

"founded Quillette in October 2015,[5][6] with the goal of publishing intellectually rigorous material that makes arguments or presents data not in keeping with the contemporary intellectual consensus"

That's press release language, not encyclopedic. The sources are cherry picked from right wing ideologues and not at all representative of the general view of Quillette--which is that it's a platform for climate science denial, race "science", and other right wing pseudoscience. The "contemporary intellectual consensus" was arrived at through the rigors of the scientific method. A publication devoted solely to contrary views is an invitation to crackpots, the opposite of intellectual rigor. -- Jibal (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Jibal, the above sentence you pulled from the article is not well-written, that's for sure. The "general view "of Quillette you've offered is the hard-to-far left view, not a balanced, neutral view. Quillette is hardly a platform for climate science denial. Lehmann herself has written a piece for it acknowledging climate change [1] and has published a number of pieces by Michael Shellenberger, who clearly acknowledges anthropogenic climate change here. As for the crackpots claim, Quillette has published articles by well-regarded mainstream academics like Steven Pinker, Jerry Coyne, and Lee Jussim, well-respected journalists/writers like Cathy Young and Coleman Hughes, and Democratic Party presidential candidate Andrew Yang. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Jweiss11, No, Jibal's assessment is essentially correct and in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. This is not a place for you to be defending Quillette. This is an encyclopedia, not a press release––not a resume. The point here is not whether an editor's perception of related material is correct, but if their assessment of inappropriate content is. I didn't even know what Quillette was until a few minutes ago after stumbling on this article from another route. I thought it read rather oddly and was overpacked with sources for how little content there actually is. This is a classic issue with pages being interfered with or wholly run by parties involved with the subject of the article or parties wishing to promote or critique the subject (beyond encyclopedic intentions). Based on a cursory web search of Claire Lehmann, I could easily include every controversy or criticism about her from many reputable, Wikipedia-appropriate sources. But I'm not going to do that. I am going to consider flagging this page as the language used, does––many times––have a promotional and press-release tone and a generally biased presentation of facts––and unnecessary facts. Compared with other pages of people of similar encyclopedic import, this one should be only a few sentences long––and not with 25+ sources. For instance, qualifying the nature of her publication is unnecessary. The language under discussion here should rightly be entirely removed and a link to the "Quillette" article embedded in a simple sentence which says how she is involved in Quillette. There should be no statement of what Quillette is all about––not its intents, aspirations, or motivations. Leave that to information provided on the Quillette page, where readers can come to their own conclusions based on that information. If you would like to work on this article to bring it in line with Wikipedia's standards, I highly encourage you to do so. Bus68 (talk) 03:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Jweiss11, Sorry, I'm justing going to dive in on that language. One, its says things it doesn't need to. We can assume that she has had other similar jobs, but is it important to mention that? Not at this time. Also, we don't need to know what her motivations are. It makes for messy language, non-encyclopedic information, and questionable POV. Plus, its reads like borderline independent research. Two, what exactly it IS saying is a tough nut to crack. I can't imagine someone with more limited English language skills being able to make heads or tales of it. Bus68 (talk) 03:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)