Talk:Quillette/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Back to improving the lede

So, back to the lede... I propose the following changes (Changes in Bold), if you are in opposition I'd be very thankful if alternatives/suggestions were made, as the lede clearly needs improving:

Quillette is an online magazine founded by Australian journalist Claire Lehmann. The publication has a primary focus on science, technology, news, culture, and politics. The magazine also publishes two podcasts including the eponymous podcast Quilette and Wrongspeak. Its editorial line is generally conservative, right-wing and is associated with the "intellectual dark web".

In 2019 Quillette ran an editorial based on a fake study and later that same year published a hoax.

Citations for suggested improvements to lede as follows:

• Podcasts:

https://quillette.com/category/podcast/ https://quillette.com/2018/05/14/wrongspeak/

• Editorial line conservative, right-wing (Almost all articles I found in a google search and most the ones in the article refer to the magazine as either right or conservative or both - here's a shortlist):

https://www.salon.com/2019/08/28/right-wing-journalist-andy-ngo-outed-video-shows-him-hanging-out-with-far-right-hate-group/ https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/alt-right-antifa-death-threats-doxxing-quillette-a8966176.html https://www.villagevoice.com/2018/05/14/conservatives-cheer-the-latest-right-wing-supergroup-the-intellectual-dark-web/ https://www.thedailybeast.com/quillette-ben-shapiro-and-the-myth-of-conservative-facts https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/3/20677645/antifa-portland-andy-ngo-proud-boys https://www.cjr.org/analysis/quillette-antifa-journalist-smear-campaign.php https://www.thenation.com/article/quillette-fascist-creep/

• ran an editorial based on a fake study (Worth noting in the lead, it brings into question editorial standards and it is a big deal to get it this wrong):

https://www.cjr.org/analysis/quillette-antifa-journalist-smear-campaign.php https://arcdigital.media/antifa-quillette-and-media-bias-a6fa7652d38a https://newrepublic.com/article/154205/quillettes-antifa-journalists-list-couldve-gotten-killed https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/alt-right-antifa-death-threats-doxxing-quillette-a8966176.html

• later that same year published a hoax (Same as the fake study, getting it this wrong is no small deal):

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/alt-right-antifa-death-threats-doxxing-quillette-a8966176.html https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/08/archie-carter-quillette-dsa https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/quillette-dsa-and-hoax-wasnt

Obviously open to suggestions, these are just my thoughts on how to improve the lede. Let me know what you think. I believe the hoax and the fabrication are relevant as they bring the editorial standards of this publication into question. Bacondrum (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose but... This doesn't seem much different than what you proposed just a bit over a week back. I agree the lead could be improved. I'm good with the podcast material as it's dry fact and isn't in dispute. Oppose the hoax sentence as undue. I also oppose the part that says conservative, right-wing. When looking at the body of the article libertarian stands out, not right-wing or conservative. Finally, as a general rule we don't add citations to the lead. The lead follows the body. Thus if the body doesn't support what you want to add then we don't add citations to the lead to make it happen. Springee (talk) 02:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, what about this then?:

Quillette is an online magazine founded by Australian journalist Claire Lehmann. The publication has a primary focus on science, technology, news, culture, and politics. The magazine also publishes two podcasts including the eponymous podcast Quilette and Wrongspeak. Its editorial line is generally Libertarian and is associated with the "intellectual dark web".

Quillette's website was temporarily shut down by a DDoS attack following publication of a controversial memo authored by James Damore entitled Google's Ideological Echo Chamber

I believe that publishing falsified studies and a hoax is lede worthy, but I'm happy to address that separately once we've agreed on an improved lede (and yes, citations are not needed in the lede, I'm providing them here to show the claims i the lede are verifiable). The google echo chamber memo is probably what they're best known for anyways, so pop that in the lede rather than the hoax?. Cheers. Bacondrum (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm OK with the first paragraph. For "artistic" reasons I can see the wish for anther paragraph in the lead (I prefer an odd number, either 1 or 3 depending on article length... but that is pure personal POV). However, I'm not sure the Damore material should be in the lead. On one hand it was significant in bringing Quillette into the public eye but it still feels like we are just trying to find something to create a second paragraph. That Quillette suffered a DDoS attack after the Damore article is interesting but it might be more interesting if RSs (not just my personal experience) indicated this story resulted in some sort of significant increase in long term traffic. Anyway, I think this is an improvement in the first paragraph but I'm not sold on the second one. It doesn't feel high level enough for the lead. But this is forward progress. Springee (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The lead should summarize the body. If you want to call Quillette conservative, start by finding RS that say that and adding to the body. Then the lead can reflect the ideology attributed to them in the body. Similar points hold for the other proposed additions, except for the podcast stuff, which is in the body already. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I did provide a number of citations above that refer to the publication as conservative and right wing, but Libertarian is also used, so if we can agree on that, it seems like an improvement. See my response to Springee above. Bacondrum (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why you want to add information to the lead that is not in the body. But I'm fine with the bold material in your last reply to Springee. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Cool, I've added the podcasts and the libertarian lean, these are all mentioned in the body. Bacondrum (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

RFC The Nation

I'm interested in feedback from uninvolved editors. There's been some inconclusive discussion here about the use of a reliable source, The Nation in this article. The Author Donna Minkowitz is a respected journalist and writer. So, is The Nation and this article in particular a reliable source for this claim:

Quillette has repeatedly published pseudo-scientific claims that black people are Intellectually and morally inferior to white people. a number of contributors are proponents of theHuman Biodiversity Movement (HBD), including Vdare blogger Steve Sailer, Ben Winegard, Bo Winegard, Brian Boutwell, and John Paul Wright.

Thanks. Bacondrum (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

There's also a discussion at reliable sources noticeboard Bacondrum (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

This looks like a bit of forum shopping. Less than a month back quite a few editors weight in on including the article in question. Part of the concern was WEIGHT given the nature of the article in question. If just a few editors opined I can see the RfC to open the scope of the discussion. However, with so many this looks more like forum shopping. Springee (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not forum shopping and I've asked for feedback from uninvolved editors, please respect that.

• Starting an RFC to attract outside commentary and to achieve a more clear consensus following an inconclusive discussion (and I agree it looks inconclusive) isn't forum-shopping. It's part of the purpose of an RFC and is one of the most common ways RFCs end up getting started (in fact it's very rare for an RFC to start without a giant meandering discussion that goes nowhere first.) The previous discussion sort of had people drift into bolding their opinions in an RFC-ish way, but as far as I can see it was never tagged and therefore never got any outside input. --Aquillion (talk) 06:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Politico vs The Nation

Why is Politico deemed by editors here a RS, but The Nation not so? The Nation is the older and more respected of the two, it's listed as a RS here with a similar caveat to Politico https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The_Nation If The Nation analysis is not seen as reliable in this context then surely logic demands that the same applies to the politico editorial and almost every other source cited in the article as the citations are almost exclusively op-eds/analysis/opinion. Bacondrum (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I personally would regard the Nation as RS for attributed opinion, but it's generally an opinion journal, not a news organization. Politico, on the other hand, bills itself as a news organization, though most people seem to think--and I agree--that it tilts left and should be used with some caution. I think that this take reflects the statements about these sources on the perennial source list. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The politico piece is an opinions piece, so I can't see any difference at all, actually it's a lesser source. Logic dictates that if one is not an RS in this context both are not. Bacondrum (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The politico piece is a long profile of the site. There is opinion in it, I agree, but there's a good bit of reporting in it too, and I don't think it's too hard to see the difference. And while the politico piece isn't perfect, as it is not purely reporting, it seems to me that it (together with CHE and the SMH piece) are the best sources (really the only sources) we have for basic facts about Quillette. The Nation piece, on the other hand, is clearly opinion from first to last, and if there were consensus that it is due (which there isn't, despite receiving plenty of discussion above), then perhaps it would belong as RS attributed opinion, but in the reception section. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I've taken it to the reliable sources noticeboard Bacondrum (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight is correct. The Politico article isn't alarmist or trying to make inflamitory claims. We also need to look at how each is trying to be used in the Wikipedia article. The Politico article was being used to support basic, non-controversial claims. The material you are pushing looks to be at attack article written by someone who was "woke". Springee (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I am finding the obfuscation going on in this discussion rather annoying. The piece in The Nation is not "opinion from first to last" - it offers incisive, evidence-based analysis by an award-winning journalist, as one would expect from the publication and its reputation. A piece of analysis doesn't become "an attack article" just because a couple of editors DONTLIKEIT. Newimpartial (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Bacondrum (talk) 02:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Whether I like sources is not the issue. Yes, the nation piece gives an opinion about the race-related content of Quillette. It's an opinion. That's not to say it isn't reliable, but we can't present her opinion in wikivoice as if it were a fact and not an opinion. If it is deemed to be due, we can include it in the reception section, attributed to her. Shinealittlelight (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

No disagreement there. I agree it is usable, but now that you point it out I also agree it should be attributed. Thanks. Bacondrum (talk) 08:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I suspect, then, that there's consensus that the Nation piece is reliable as attributed opinion. If you want to move forward, I'd suggest an RfC about whether that piece is due in this article for inclusion in that way; there is no consensus about that at this time. We'll also need to gain consensus about where it belongs in the article. I myself think it is undue but that it belongs in reception if consensus goes against me on that. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify this comment, my view is that there is not currently consensus for inclusion; I don't believe anyone has ever argued that the piece is not RS as an attributed opinion source, but that isn't sufficient for inclusion'. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Human Bio-diversity

I propose we add this to the article: Quillette has repeatedly published pseudo-scientific claims that black people are Intellectually and morally inferior to white people. a number of contributors are proponents of theHuman Biodiversity Movement (HBD), including Vdare blogger Steve Sailer, Ben Winegard, Bo Winegard, Brian Boutwell, and John Paul Wright.

Ref: https://www.thenation.com/article/quillette-fascist-creep/

It's no small deal that these views have been published repeatedly. I confirmed the claims by simply typing the authors names and quillette into google search. Easily verifiable facts from a respected masthead with a reputation for factual reporting and quality editorial oversight. Bacondrum (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

A Nation opinion piece should at most be attributed and placed in the reception section, not in wiki voice. If it is due, then so is the NYT opinion piece that was just removed. Moreover, the Nation piece is not accurate. It attributes the view that "genetics" explains "racial IQ differences" when in fact the piece in question makes no such claim. It's an incendiary opinion piece, and I don't think it's a reliable source. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

can easily verify all claims other than steve sailor:

https://quillette.com/author/john-paul-wright/ https://quillette.com/author/brian-boutwell/ https://quillette.com/author/bo-winegard/ https://quillette.com/author/bo-winegard-ben-winegard-and-brian-boutwell/ https://quillette.com/author/bo-winegard-and-ben-winegard/

@Newimpartial: I won't participate in an edit war; can you please self-revert that reintroduction and discuss the matter here and try to come to consensus first? I do not see support for the claims in question from these primary sources. Perhaps someone can provide specific quotes. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Obviously I was reverted before I could self-revert, but why are you asking for primary-source quotations? That smacks of OR, which is pretty broadly forbidden as an editing practice. What I restored is the analysis of a respected, award winning journalist. Newimpartial (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: you could also revert pending discussion since you added it in the first place. You don't want to edit war, do you? Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

No, am I? Can we please try and keep it civil. Bacondrum (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Not being uncivil, it's just contrary to policy to have that edit reintroduced without finishing the discussion here. Springee reverted, so the point is moot. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I didn't even come close to violating any guideline. Bacondrum (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The Minkowitz article was discussed less than a month ago [[1]]. With a number of editors weighing in there was no consensus on using it even as an op-ed source. The recent edit added content from that same disputed source in Wiki voice. Per NOCON based on the discussion above this article shouldn't be used for any claim of fact and probably not even as an opinion. Springee (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

So what about the articles that these Quillette has published by HBD advocates. They are there on the website making The Nations claims about HBD easily verifiable. Are we really going to pretend Quillette hasn't repeatedly published HBD race pseudoscience? I'm not here to fight about it, it just seems pretty obvious that is what they do. If no one else agrees I'll leave it there. Bacondrum (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Bacondrum, I think this falls under the category of things that are true but not yet ready for Wikipedia due to lack of RS sourcing. I assume that any published commentary will be linked from future versions of this. Guy (help!) 10:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, it does look that way. I guess we leave it off, until it's more widely discussed. Actually, I don't think this is the case. The Nation is a respected masthead and is listed by Wikipedia as a reliable source here. Given The Nation's reportage and analysis is held in high regard and they are known for reliability, unless someone has evidence the claims are false (they are actually easily verified by looking up the authors on the Quillette website) the source is 100% reliable for this claim. This may be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Bacondrum (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Why do you feel it's so important to include some type of specific negative information in the lead? You previously wanted to include information about publishing a hoax article and/or the controversial article typing journalists to antifa. Now you are pushing this content (and trying to strip Quillette references out of other articles). This comes across as a POV push rather than neutral presentation. Why do you think this is so critical to include in the lead? Springee (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I've made it clear why I believe they should be included. I'm following guidelines and the sources, don't accuse me of POV editing, this is becoming a pattern of accusations/personal attacks. Last warning, next stop ANI. Focus on the edits not me. Bacondrum (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Bacondrum, a single, inflammatory op ed is not something that should have its own section. While there is consensus that The Nation can be a RS for opinion, Weight still applies. Springee (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors unanimously disagree with your take on the analysis from The Nation. [2]. Shinealittlelight has agreed "that there's consensus that the Nation piece is reliable as attributed opinion" so you are currently standing alone on this WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY. Bacondrum (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

No, they only said it was a RS for an attribute claim. They did not say hire much weight was due that claim. The 18 editors who weighed in previously disagreed about inclusion. You don’t get to ignore their concerns. The RSN discussion only established WP:V, not how much WEIGHT should be given. Currently you are giving this opinion article entirely too much weight. Springee (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

18 editors previously disagreed? That's not true. Where'd you get that number from? The RSN question was for both article and claim and attribution was the only caveat. Bacondrum (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Please read more carefully. 18=number of editors who weighted in, not the number on one side or the other. Also, local consensus, when well attended as it was here, should not be ignored. That is especially true when the RSN and the local consensus aren't actually fundamentally disagreeing. Again, the difference between WEIGHT and V. Springee (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Springee, I wouldn't call it a rant. It's not just opinion either. To me, it is more analysis than anything else. Which, and I noticed this only after reading it, is how the Nation classifies it: Media Analysis. This source, considered in the context of our article in Quillette is reliable and its inclusion in the article is due. I see no reason to exclude it. Attributing it as opinion is not necessary, because it is analysis. Vexations (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Vexations:, see my subsection below. I do think this is a rant and while the author cites actual stories, the way it is done is very opinionated. She isn't just telling the reader what happened but how to feel about it. The analysis part becomes the opinion as it were. Also, even the RSN said attribution should be included. That said, if you look at what I posted last December (several sections up), I'm not opposed to inclusion in general but we need to be careful about WEIGHT. The recent addition was more than 50% of the ideology section. That's certainly UNDUE. Springee (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Springee, we seem to have different ideas about what constitutes a rant. I saw no extravagant, bombastic, or declamatory speech or utterance, nor angry or impassioned speech. A tirade perhaps? Also not. It's actually rather dispassionate, if you ask me. I'm aware, of course, that as I'm not a US citizen, my POV is quite different from that of (conservative) Americans. What passes for calm, rational debate among experts in other parts of the world is occasionally characterized as hysterical ravings of lunatics in the US. But just calling it that doesn't make it so. Vexations (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

For both opinion and analysis, it's safest to attribute them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

In addition to the issues of WEIGHT, your put the material in the ideology section. Why? That Quillette allows people to publish controversial topics is part of the ideology but rants from the writer in question aren't ideologies. This would be a claimed controversy. However, if its going to have any significant weight we need other sources to also complain about this issue. Else, it's just one rant. Springee (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The source is discussing ideology. Read the article. Bacondrum (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, no. You are including it as a controversy and nothing in that section actually talks about the ideology of the publication vs the ideology of some of the contributors... and even that is questionable since we are allowing a culture war opponent to summarize the views of someone they disagree with. Springee (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

10 Jan edits

I've undone the addition of this material pending resolution as to what should be added. Currently there is consensus that the article from The Nation passes WP:V. Where and how much weight still needs to be established. Unless other sources are concerned about the same topic I propose this material is added to the controversy section as one or two lines. The listing of every author is UNDUE in this case. Springee (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Bacondrum, your reintroduction of this material was edit war behavior, and your summary of my position in your edit summary was inaccurate. My view is and has been (I didn't "admit" anything) that the nation peice is RS opinion but undue. I recommended seeking consensus on whether it was due with an RfC, which you did not do. Instead, you're edit warring your material into the body of the article. Please self-revert immediately. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight I have not edit warred, end of story. False accusations are uncivil and make it hard to work collaboratively. I ask that you retract that false and uncivil accusation. Bacondrum (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Springee I'm open to the idea of adding it to controversies rather than ideology. Bacondrum (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

See my comment to the HBD topic at the bottom of the page. I hope it can been seen as an acceptable compromise. Springee (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Further the lede

So, the lede is still missing something according to guideline WP:LEAD "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic (tick, the topic is Quillette), establish context (tick, it's an Australian libertarian publication), explain why the topic is notable (Not done), and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies (Not done)" So, why is the topic notable? and what prominent controversies? Notability and controversies need to be included in the lede as per guidelines Bacondrum (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I personally think they are notable for their rapid rise in popularity, particularly in the USA, poor editorial standards, publishing racial pseudoscience and controversies like the Google memo, the Andy Ngo antifa article and the DSA hoax. I think the most prominent of these should be included in the lede. Either way the lede needs to establish why they are notable and include prominent controversies. Interested to hear how others think this can be achieved. Bacondrum (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bacondrum:, @Springee: I made an edit based on the very useful Politico piece, which was underutilized in the article in my view. Let me know what you think. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted that. Please see my edit summary. SPECIFICO talk 18:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, I second SPECIFICO in rejecting that edit. Guy (help!) 20:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the great feedback, guys. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution, I agree with SPECIFICO that it's undue, especially in the lede.

So, I'd like to continue discussing the lede with anyone else interested in expanding it to include prominent controversies, especially seeing as these controversies are what make it notable. Bacondrum (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

No, according to RS (Politico) what makes Quillette notable is it is the site’s heterodox articles about politics, culture and the academy that have attracted broader attention, and the fact that the site has received backlash on social media and praise from a wide variety of public figures, including pop psychologist Jordan Peterson, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, psychology professors Steven Pinker of Harvard and Jonathan Haidt of New York University, and columnists like David Brooks, Meghan Daum and Andrew Sullivan. If you have RS stating that it is notable for the reasons you mention, I'd love to read that. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, shall we add "the fact that the site has received backlash on social media and praise from a wide variety of public figures, including pop psychologist Jordan Peterson, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, psychology professors Steven Pinker of Harvard and Jonathan Haidt of New York University, and columnists like David Brooks, Meghan Daum and Andrew Sullivan." to the lede? Also, I don't think we can leave out the controversies, the paper has been very controversial. Pretty much every citation used in the article mentions some kind of controversy, including the politico article you refer to which states "Quillette keeps appearing in roiling controversies about speech and identity, so much so that what started as a niche destination for evolutionary psychologists is now on the front lines of the culture wars." I accept that it may not be the main thing they are notable for, but type Quillette into google search and all that comes up are articles about controversies. Bacondrum (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The lead has to reflect the body, not just a single source. The body says that Quillette came to prominence after the James Damore controversy, while the reception section indicates (in broad summary) that mostly well-known as a fierce combatant in the culture wars, approaching them from a fairly dogmatic right-libertarian perspective. I also strenuously disagree with the list of people praising it - in the context of the source, that list (which is basically a who's-who of the ideology Quillette advances) is clearly intended to demonstrate where it stands ideologically. --Aquillion (talk) 23:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to add that portion I quoted about Peterson, Haidt, et. al. to the lead, but only after we add it to the body, which I tried to do and was reverted. It's clearly part of what makes the site notable. I don't know what Aquillon's source is for the claim that Politico included that list of notable "fans" only to indicate ideology, but I'd be interested to hear the sourcing on that claim about Politico's purpose in presenting that information. I agree that Quillette is notable for controversial content related to the culture war, and that more than one source would be good. But this is attested in both the Politico article and several other sources, so that should not be hard to do. It's the point I tried to add when I wrote Quillette was originally founded to focus on "heterodox" opinions on scientific topics, but has since attracted broader attention--in the form of both praise and criticism--as a result of controversial articles relating to politics and culture and was reverted. I'd welcome alternative wordings or additional sources for these points. I recognize that it is challenging to write about this sort of thing in a NPOV way; that's why I would welcome collaboration, and I think that the different perspectives among this group of editors can be an asset in getting it right. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I do think Aquillion is correct that the list of praise from the usual suspects would be tendentious if published in full. How about this as a proposal for a second para (obviously open to other ideas/proposals):

Quillette has drawn significant controversy, coming to prominence after publishing a number of controversial responses to James Damore's controversial memo Google's Ideological Echo Chamber. The publication drew further controversy in 2019 after publishing unsubstantiated claims that alleged nefarious connections between antifascist activists and national-level reporters who cover the far-right, and later that same year inadvertently published a hoax article titled "DSA is Doomed".

Quillette has received praise from a number of prominent conservative figures including Jordan Peterson, Steven Pinker and Jonathan Haidt.

Gives us a starting point to work from. Let me know what you think needs to be included/omitted/reworded. Cheers. Bacondrum (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Bacondrum, why would this "praise" be encyclopaedic? $WINGNUTWEBSITE is praised by $WINGNUTS is not useful. Guy (help!) 00:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Fair point. Bacondrum (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

That list of people published by RS Politico is not a bunch of "usual suspects" or "wingnuts". Since when is Dawkins a wingnut? Sullivan? Moreover, name calling them, especially without sourcing, is a violation of BLP, even on a talk page. The mention of these specific controversies is undue in the lead. Where is RS stating that the Damore controversy specifically was the spark that pushed them to prominence? Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Also: we are supposed to summarize what RS say even when they have a POV. So the fact that you think Politico expressed a POV when they published that list is beside the point if they are RS. We can attribute it to Politico if you like if you think that there's some question as to whether the list is in fact accurate. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that plenty of atheists have found Dawkins a facepalming embarrassment for at least five years [3][4] — I remember seeing The Dawkins Cycle as an exasperated visual commentary back in 2014.

More generally, I think that including a list of celebrity endorsements is probably a bad move for the lede of any publication's article. Sure, X, Y, and Z have said good things about it, but is that among the most important things to know about it? Did their endorsements significantly and materially affect the course of the publication's history? Was securing their support a make-or-break moment? Or is the roll-call of names just boilerplate text of passing interest? XOR'easter (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Part of what makes the site notable is that it receives praise from all these people. That's why I added it to the lead. But we could summarize this fact more briefly without listing the names in the lead. I do think the list is of interest in the body. And yes, it's BLP violation (not to mention false) to call these people wingnuts, even if you don't like them and even if Dawkins has embarrassed atheists. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Shine's edit had some issues but I think it also has some potential. I'm not sure why Politico would be seen as any more problematic than any other source in this article. I think the new lead material was generally good. It briefly says how things started then talks about the growth and attention since. That attention is both good and bad. It seems generally rather neutral. The whole politico based paragraph did need some help. First, the Harvard Citation Template [[5]] allows multiple quotes and references to the same source. It looks like the Politico article was cited several times basically as a way to provide quotes in a balloon window. The Harv citations address this.

As for the content, I think the general background information was fine. We should make it clear that these are the claims of the founding editor but I don't see there is any reason to view these claims as either overly self serving or controversial.

I liked that the recently added paragraph spent some time talking about the origin and intent of the publication. The text was perhaps a bit too promotional sounding but only a bit. I think the long direct quote could be left out. The part about praise and criticism could be moved to the reception section where it serves as a bit of an introduction. The list of "praise" could be integrated into a quote and would thus show as something like a footnote. If we have access to specific sources where the praise occurred we could add that as a citation. The negative material in the politico article can also be added into the reception section. I suspect it will support some of the other sections. I think most of the material is good but it needs to be better integrated. Springee (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I accept the points about citation templates. I would like to note that my attempt was a WP:BOLD edit and meant to elicit collaboration and tweaking on the wording. Nevertheless, I do continue to think that the wording I proposed very closely reflects what was in the Politico article (as shown by the quotes provided in the cites). It is our job to summarize what they say, even if some of us regard their statements as POV. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Find another half dozen mainstream RS for that content and we can consider including some of it. SPECIFICO talk 14:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Why? Which content do you feel is not DUE based on the Politico article? The Politico article is a summary article about the subject of this Wikipedia article. Your concerns thus far aren't articulated in a way that is actionable nor than can be rationally refuted. Springee (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect. Seven sources is not a wikipedia requirement for inclusion. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Please review WP:DUE -- we are not going to have Politico write the lead of a Wikipedia article for us. SPECIFICO talk 15:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I think we are all in agreement there. Fortunately no one is proposing that. The recently reverted edit added only a single sentence to the lead. It's not at all clear what your concerns are and just telling people to refer to WP:DUE isn't helpful. That said, any changes to the lead should probably follow agree changes to the body of the article. Springee (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the feedback all. I agree the list of notables that endorse Quillette should not be included. I felt that way from the outset but endeavored to include some in the spirit of compromise, but seeing there is general opposition maybe we just leave it out? Hows about this for a proposed second para:

Quillette has drawn significant controversy, coming to prominence after publishing a number of controversial responses to James Damore's controversial memo Google's Ideological Echo Chamber. The publication drew further controversy in 2019 after publishing unsubstantiated claims that alleged nefarious connections between antifascist activists and national-level reporters who cover the far-right, and later that same year inadvertently published a hoax article titled "DSA is Doomed". Quillette has repeatedly published racial pseudoscience relating to the human biodiversity movement.

If you have the time I'd appreciate suggestions for improvements. Let me know what you think needs to be included/omitted/reworded. Best regards. (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2020

Please point to the source supporting the claim that Quillette came to prominence after the Damore affair. Please point to some evidence that the controversies you are proposing to mention in the lead were "prominent controversies". Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

In the body of the article. Bacondrum (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

No, it isn't. No source says that the Damore controversy was what brought Quillette to prominence. And in fact I see that Lehmann says that their traffic sharply increased in January 2017, long before the Damore affair. Like I said, let me know when you have sources for these claims you're proposing. I have a source (Politico) for the claim that they came to prominence when they branched out from science to culture and politics. I don't have a source providing a date for when that is supposed to have happened. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, what about this:

Quillette has drawn significant controversy, in 2017 they published a number of controversial responses to James Damore's controversial memo Google's Ideological Echo Chamber. The publication drew further controversy in 2019 after publishing unsubstantiated claims that alleged nefarious connections between antifascist activists and national-level reporters who cover the far-right, and later that same year inadvertently published a hoax article titled "DSA is Doomed". Quillette has repeatedly published racial pseudoscience relating to the human biodiversity movement.

Does that allay your concerns? We can't very well pretend the publication hasn't been controversial, it's been extremely controversial and is generally known for this. Bacondrum (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

It allays one concern: you are no longer making the unsourced claim about the Damore story being the spark to prominence. So good, that's some progress. And I agree with the general claim that it is known for controversy and would be happy to add that to the article lead. The challenge is in identifying the prominent controversies that have been most influential. There's serious danger here that we might cherry pick the ones that paint Quillette in either a negative or favorable light according to our personal biases. E.g., I might want to highlight the "Sokal Squared" material, which also got a lot of attention. But I am not going to suggest doing that, because I have no good evidence that it was among the most notable controversies that they have been involved in. More evidence is needed to identify most notable controversies in an objective way. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Here's a potentially helpful profile in CHE. (Sorry, but it's behind a paywall.) Here are some useful quotes, though you should read the whole thing:

It’s been praised by the likes of Sam Harris, Cass Sunstein, and Christina Hoff Sommers...

Founded in 2015 by Claire Lehmann, an Australian writer and former graduate student in psychology, Quillette initially maintained a more straightforwardly scientific focus but later morphed into a vehicle for a distinctive brand of cultural critique. Its three most popular articles as of this writing are a story on a scholar drummed out of the University of Cambridge for writing about race and IQ, a think piece on the decline of elites, and an essay headlined "How Anti-Humanism Conquered the Left."

The author seems to agree that the site is notable in part by praise it has received from these people, but lists different people. (Slate also has a still different list: "Jordan Peterson, Steven Pinker, and Sam Harris.") The author is also critical of Quillette for sometimes being predictable both in terms of topics covered and positions taken on those topics, but states that "more recently" (this was written May 2019) Quillette has begun to publish pieces that are critical of some of the figures that are most associated with them: Dave Rubin, Jordan Peterson, and so on. It's an even-handed piece, it seems to me, and the information about "most popular articles" should help to identify the most notable controversies. I think that this source together with the Politico source should guide us in our approach. And, on reflection, I think these sources both support something like the language I wrote before: the site started as science-focused, but moved into politics and culture, which gained it more notoriety becuase of the sorts of pieces mentioned in this CHE article. This, together with praise and criticism from various prominent people (and on social media) have led to a higher profile. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Also: this Slate piece profiling the site has a different take: this author hardly mentions race in his discussion, but seems to think that Quillette is focused on self-pity, and says nothing about "pseudoscience". Three profiles from left-leaning RS, none of which identify "racist pseudoscience" as notable about Quillette. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, unfortunately I can't read the CHE piece, it looks interesting. I think there's consensus that lists of people who like the publication are undue, at least in the lede, if not undue altogether. In terms of popular articles, they are completely different to controversial articles. The lede is informed by the body and the body notes three prominant controversies: the google memo, the Antifa claims and the DSA hoax. So how about this:

Quillette has drawn significant controversy, in 2017 they published a number of controversial responses to James Damore's controversial memo Google's Ideological Echo Chamber. The publication drew further controversy in 2019 after publishing unsubstantiated claims that alleged nefarious connections between antifascist activists and national-level reporters who cover the far-right, and later that same year inadvertently published a hoax article titled "DSA is Doomed".

That removes the HBD articles and the "coming to prominence" claim while covering significant controversies covered in the body of the article as per WP:LEAD. Bacondrum (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Having given this some more thought, I agree that our sources pretty uniformly present the Damore controversy as important. CHE, Politico, and SMH all mention several of the stories covered by Quillette, and the Damore story is the only one that they all three mention. So I'd agree with that in the Lead as a prominent controversy. I don't agree with including the antifa and DSA controversies, which have received very little coverage in our sources. Some further evidence is needed to count those as prominent controversies. I'd be in favor of mentioning the Damore controversy, and then pointing in general to controversial coverage of political and cultural issues concerning speech and identity politics--a general point made in all three of CHE, Politico, and SMH. I also think we should include something about the history of the site, and how it started as science-focused but branched out into politics and culture. That too can be supported by several of our sources. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that the hoax is not prominent, I've seen plenty of coverage (Here's a 5 second google search):

• https://www.vox.com/2019/8/9/20794325/quillette-dsa-hoax-archie-carter
• https://www.thedailybeast.com/quillette-duped-by-left-wing-hoaxer-posing-as-communist-construction-worker
• https://jacobinmag.com/2019/08/archie-carter-quillette-dsa
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/08/16/how-right-wing-fell-its-own-fables-about-working-class/
• https://theoutline.com/post/7759/quillette-archie-carter-hoax?zd=1&zi=hk5vya5q

And a retraction by Quillette https://quillette.com/2019/08/08/retraction-notice/. As any editor or journo will tell you, getting it this wrong is a big deal, something other people in the field pay a lot of attention to. You can't single out three articles because you like what they say about the subject (CHE, Politico, and SMH). Same for the Antifa falshoods (took all of 5 seconds to google search these too, I'm sure there's plenty more):

• https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/alt-right-antifa-death-threats-doxxing-quillette-a8966176.html
• https://newrepublic.com/article/154205/quillettes-antifa-journalists-list-couldve-gotten-killed
• https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/08/andy-ngo-right-wing-antifa-protest-portland-bigotry
• http://idavox.com/index.php/2019/08/28/ngo-had-to-go-the-curious-resignation-of-a-neo-fascist-propagandist/
• https://www.thenation.com/article/quillette-fascist-creep/

This claim has even been published in a book, unlike others in this article:

• https://books.google.com.au/books?id=D3mHDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT279&lpg=PT279&dq=Quillette++Eoin+Lenihan+antifa&source=bl&ots=HuHkSrCj0f&sig=ACfU3U0tGHhVm_P53bfmQiyssyrn63g35Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi0mv2p-_LmAhV9zjgGHZ47C2s4HhDoATABegQIChAB#v=onepage&q=Eoin%20Lenihan&f=false

And this list excludes the far-right articles that republished the claims.

So given there's plenty of coverage of both and publishing false claims is more than a bit of a big deal in journalism (enough to get Quillette all but depreciated as a source here) how about this for a compromise:

Quillette published a number of controversial responses to James Damore's controversial memo Google's Ideological Echo Chamber. The publication drew further controversy in 2019 after publishing unsubstantiated claims that alleged nefarious connections between antifascist activists and national-level reporters who cover the far-right, and later that same year inadvertently published a hoax article titled "DSA is Doomed".

Initially focused on science politics and culture, Quillette is known for controversial coverage of political and cultural issues concerning speech and identity politics.

Bacondrum (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh, is that how we're doing it? I guess we also need to add the "Sokal squared" thing to the body and the lead as well, then, since five seconds on that also gives a stack of sources. Do you therefore think this should also be added to the body and lead? Do you see that there's a concern about cherry picking what we'll put in the lead? There's too much coverage of too many different things, so we need a way to objectively arrive at an idea aobut which ones are most notable. If you don't like my idea, then propose another. But a big wall of links is not helpful, since I could do the same thing for controversies related to free speech, the Hill affair, the Sokal squared thing, and so on. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

You don't seem to get how this works. Quillette never published the Grievance studies affair hoax and they didn't break the story, they are not mentioned at all on the Sokal article - they published a couple of stories about it, as did most mastheads. Did Quillette get criticised for poor editing standards by publishing a hoax relating to Katie Hill? I don't get your point. The two fabricated stories I speak of were controversial because a masthead that claims to be a legitimate news outlet failed to pick up fake stories in it's editorial process (believe it or not, this is very rare in quality outlets and frowned upon in an industry where accurate reporting is the basis for your reputation). Bacondrum (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Please do not talk about me, I'm not the topic here. The CHE connects Quillette to the Grievance Studies Hoax in the same breath as they connect Quillette to Damore. Here's the quote: It published multiple pieces by and about James Damore, author of the infamous "Google memo" that questioned the company’s diversity policies, and came down squarely on the side of the so-called grievance-studies hoax, in which three scholars punked humanities journals by submitting creative nonsense cloaked in social-justice buzzwords. It would be a good idea for anyone who actually wants to contribute to this article to read this piece, since it is one of the few high-quality general profiles we have about the site.

Politico also connects Quillette to the hoax: It was also a big story for Quillette, the online magazine Lehmann runs and the unofficial digest of the IDW. Lehmann had known about the prank before the Wall Street Journal broke the news, and she had some time to formulate a response that would fan the flames. “I wanted the public to be aware that there are many people within the academy who are fed up with grievance studies scholarship,” says Lehmann, who went on to publish responses from five like-minded academics—one of whom called the incident “a Cultural Revolution in our own backyard.”

So yeah, they're prominently connected. As for the Hill controversy, I'm referring to Ted Hill, who is again mentioned in several of our sources. I would recommend reading our sources.

Problem is you still just don't get it, no disrespect intended - publishing a hoax is very different to reporting the publishing of a hoax by others/discussing a hoax. You really can't see how they're different? Bacondrum (talk) 10:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Please stop talking about me (second time asking). Sure, I see that there's a difference there. In one case, they screwed up and that caused controversy. In another case, they were involved in planning a controversy, before it happened, in a way that would fan the flames. So the cases are different in that the former controversy is one they're involved in that reflects negatively on them, and the latter is a controversy that reflects more positively on them. So yep, that's a difference. I am proposing that instead of letting our opinions of what's important about Quillette inform our inclusion of material in the lead, we let our three RS profiles of Quillette determine what's notable.

We need to come up with a consensus approach at deciding what specifics to include in the lead. I have made a suggestion: we should depend on the three general profiles of the subject, and their common views about what's important about it. If you don't think that's a reasonable approach, I'd be glad to hear another suggestion. Shinealittlelight (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree, we should work towards consensus, I wouldn't be involved in lengthy discussions if I didn't. I've acknowledged your suggestions and made numerous suggestions that took your suggestions into account. I just can't see how we can leave out poor editorial decisions that have been reported in dozens of mastheads and are featured in the body of the article WP:LEAD is clear about including controversies in the lede. We can't close our eyes to the controversial nature of this rag and focus on three articles that say nice things about it. Controversy is the bread and butter of these kinds of outlets they clearly aim to stir controversy and they've been very successful at it, I doubt anyone here would have heard of it otherwise. Bacondrum (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I see that your argument here is undermined when we include their involvement in the Sokal squred hoax in the body. I'll do that when I get a chance (probably within the next day or so). I'm not suggesting that we focus on articles that say nice things about it. I'm suggesting that we close our eyes to anything. I'm suggesting that we turn to all RS profiles of Quillette--whether positive or negative--to help us determine what is notable about them. As I said, we can produce a stack of links to include basically all of their controversies in the lead, but we don't want to include them all. So we need another criterion. Three RS profiles look like the best alternative, objective way to determine what to include there. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain to me why Sokal is relevant at all? Lehmann knew about the story before it broke? how's that noteworthy? Two questions need to be asked: Did Quillette itself get hoaxed? Did Quillette break the story? If the answer to both is no, then this is clearly undue. Bacondrum (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

There's two significant controversies in the controversies section. They belong in the lede. Publishing falsehoods is a very big deal in an industry where you stake your reputation on accuracy, so I can see why fans of Quillette wouldn't want them in the lede, but that's where they belong. Bacondrum (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I can explain: you have to read our RS profiles of Quillette, which state that the story was an important story for Quillette, and that they played an important role in "fanning the flames" of the controversy. Please explain why you've removed this muliply RS-sourced material about their involvement in the controversy? Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. The profiles are RSs that help establish what our sources think are the most significant things about this publication. When establishing weight we should differ to RSs vs our judgement when possible. Springee (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

That explains nothing. Were they hoaxed? Did they break the story? No. It's just one of thousands of stories they have run, along with hundreds of other outlets. It's fancruft. Bacondrum (talk) 04:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

You're not responding to the argument. On what basis do they have to have been hoaxed or break the story for the story to be notable? No, it is not "just one of the thousands of stories". It's one of the few stories that is attested by multiple RS as among their most important work. Shinealittlelight (talk) 04:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

As per WP:LEAD "prominent controversies" how's running a popular story controversial? Bacondrum (talk) 05:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

One point at a time or we'll get lost. You removed the material from the body on the grounds that it was allegedly not noteworthy. Do you still think that? Shinealittlelight (talk) 05:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Prominant controversies

As per WP:LEAD: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."

I've made a number of proposals relating to the inclusion of "prominent controversies" (DSA hoax, Google memo and Antifa claims) in the lede, but they've been repeatedly contested. So, which prominent controversies should we include in the lede if not the ones I've already suggested? Bacondrum (talk) 04:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• We have three RS general profiles of Quillette to pull from: Politico, CHE, and SMH. Looking at those sources, they seem to clearly think the Damore controversy was notable. They also highlight the Ted Hill controversy and the Sokal Squared controversy. None of them mentions the DSA or Antifa things. I'd be in favor of following the lead of these profiles, or any other general RS profiles of Quillette that can be provided. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

You are really struggling to differentiate between Quillette's own controversies and controversies Quillette ran story's on. running stories about controversies is not the same as being embroiled in one, what is meant by including any prominent controversies is those controversies relating to the publication itself, for example: recieving funding from Nazi's or being hoaxed or having it's senior editor jailed, offices bombed, goes bankrupt....get it? things that affect the outlet itself, not controversies they simply ran stories about. Bacondrum (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Please do not talk about my state of mind (third time). Point me to where in policy 'prominent controversies' is so specifically defined. Also, it is inaccurate to say that they merely reported on the Sokal squared hoax. I don't know if you have read our sources on this, but they represent Quillette as more involved in these controversies than that. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I've seen no evidence that they did anything other than report on it along with hundreds of other mastheads. Why would wikipedia lede's be required to list any controversy vaguely related to the articles subject simply doing it's job? This is a clear case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHATBacondrum (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Controversies section

There was some back and forth around the material in this edit [[6]]. At issue was some of the words used when describing the Lenihan material and the DSA Is Doomed content. @Newimpartial: justified the restoration by stating this was the stable version. I don't agree with that claim as this version of the text seems to be have been introduced just yesterday. I would suggest editors cite the sources that support the extra embellishing terms restored in this edit. My feeling is currently the Lenihan sentence should be rephrased. It's redundant to say unsubstantiated and "no evidence..." later. The "purportedly" part is redundant as well since we have captured the uncertainty/doubt with the earlier "Lenihan claimed..." It would probably be better to say Quillette published the finding of a Leniham study with claimed to have found X but [why study is deemed wrong]. It should be clear that Quillette didn't invent the claims, rather the unsupported/false/[term] claims were reported in Quillette. Also, we should be careful about citing The Independent in this case. The authors of that article are talking about things they say happened to themselves. That makes them 1st rather than 3rd party reporters of the material.

As for the DSA material. Why, "inadvertently" and "made further..."? ("Quillette inadvertently published and made further contributed to a hoax article "DSA Is Doomed".") It doesn't seem inadvertent, the source of the hoax, per the WP, said he targeted Quillette when creating the hoax.

The essay was a hoax perpetrated by a 24-year-old “left populist” in Illinois, who later told me and other journalists that he intended to reveal the right-wing bias of Quillette, which brands itself as an unbiased, nonideological “platform for free thought.”

Quillette's fact checking was questioned after the incident (not sure I like the current phrasing but it's supported). Anyway, we should try to agree on the phrasing rather than going for the back and forth. Springee (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose re hoax inclusion The hoax is too minor an incidence to be included in the lead. Should we add the typo statistics too? Jazi Zilber (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Grievance studies hoax Two RSs that profiled Quillette discussed this specific topic and Quillette's collaboration with the researchers behind the grievance studies articles. Due is established because two sources that are offering an overall profile of Quillette, as opposed to discussing a specific topic that involves Quillette, felt this content should be included in their profiles of Quillette. @Loksmythe, Bacondrum, and Shinealittlelight: Springee (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Human Biological Diversity

Based on this discussion regarding claims made in a respected, reliable source at the reliable sources noticeboard, where uninvolved editors unanimously support the source and the claim (with attribution), I propose adding this to the ideology section (or perhaps the controversy section?):

In December 2019, Donna Minkowitz accused Quillette of repeatedly published pseudo-scientific claims that black people are Intellectually and morally inferior to white people. Minkowitz noted a number of contributors to Quillette are proponents of the Human Biodiversity Movement (HBD), including Vdare blogger Steve Sailer, Ben Winegard, Bo Winegard, Brian Boutwell, and John Paul Wright.

Bacondrum (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Survey

• Due - as proposer. As per guidelines WP:RELIABLE WP:VERIFY and WP:DUE. Bacondrum (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
• Undue. As I said when we discussed this above, the fact that someone on the left of questionable notability called Quillette racist is not informative and adds no value to the article. We don't need to include every hit piece written about every political magazine, and doing so is undue. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as written The length of this text given the overall length of the article is undue and it should not be placed in the ideology section. Starting with the location, this doesn't represent the "ideology" of Quillette. As stated its clear Minkowitz is criticizing Quillette for publishing the HBD material. Thus she is saying this is a controversy and it would fit in the controversy section. What about the ideology claim? Well Quillette's founder has been quoted as saying she is going for a heterodox publication, ie the ideology of the publication is to give a voice to topics/POV that might otherwise not make it into a publication that tries to focus on the logic of the arguments being made by the various authors. It would be reasonable to say that the publication of this type of controversial content, as well as many other types, supports the view that they follow their ideology. However, it does not hold that they agree with the views expressed. So, if this is in the ideology section its only to illustrate they are willing to tackle these topics. It should not be to suggest their allowance was controversial in and of itself. Conversely, if the objective is to say that the publication of this content itself is the controversy, something that should have a second source, then it would go in the controversy section. WEIGHT is the other problem. Quillette has published a number of articles and themes that have been seen as controversial. This is simply one thus the length should reflect that. The proposed content could be trimmed to address this. Consider:

Journalist Donna Minkowitz accused Quillette of publishing articles by proponents of the of Human Biodiversity (HBD). [citation].

The date of publication isn't significant and is part of a proper citation. The list of names could be added in a quote but again isn't the critical thing. The critical thing is the publication of articles by proponents of HBD. Absent details of the claims we should be very careful about accepting claims like, "claims that black people are Intellectually and morally inferior to white people.", especially in combination with specific author's names. That can be a BLP issue since it implies one or all of the authors have made that specific claim. Springee (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm open to that, though I think the reader could use a little more detail. Bacondrum (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm open to more, pertinent detail. Why don't you offer an updated suggestion. I also suggest waiting for others to voice their views (I would ideally give it a week) before making article level changes. BTW, as an aside, I think we really should put a bit more emphasis on the heterodox part of the topic. I say this because it explains why this material gets published. Take HBD as a topic. Clearly it's going to be controversial because it can easily be used to justify racist actions, behaviors etc much the way economic "survival of the fittest" has been used to justify ignoring the plight of low income families during the industrial revolution. However, a reader might want to know why Quillette doesn't just avoid these topics? That likely comes back to the heterodox part. So long as the article meets some set of standards (I presume and have no specific ideas what they might be) the editors will allow it's publication. This is a case where the readers of the Wikipedia article will be better served if we try to answer why Quillette has become controversial rather than just saying journalist X finds the following Quillette articles offensive because of Y. Springee (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Springee, Minkowitz addresses that question in her piece for the Nation. The answer is in the response to Lehmann’s stated goal “to broaden the Overton window”: It is a ‘broad front’ strategy to gain access to mainstream political audiences. Vexations (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Looking at Minkowitz logic here she certainly is making rather large leaps with a health dose of assuming bad faith. Lehmann told Politico that Quillette’s goal is “to broaden the Overton window”—that is to say, expand the limits of acceptable discourse. She didn’t stipulate that she wants these limits broadened only to the right, but she didn’t have to. Writing in Quillette, Lehmann said the Overton window should be shifted so that people can more openly denounce “immigration,” for example by trumpeting the Muslim heritage of sex-crime suspects. It is Minkowitz's opinion/interjection that the Lehmann was only interested in a rightward shift. Her summary, "so people can more openly denounce" is a gross distortion of the whole article. It's exactly why I called Minkowitz's article a rant. Falsely summarizing the arguments of others and applying a cynical motive in the process is hardly quality journalism. Springee (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Springee, I think the original statement by Lehmann was "On major issues, such as immigration, the Overton Window has been so narrow, for so long, that many people feel that those who speak about these topics are not being straightforward or honest." Minkowitz's summary as "the Overton window should be shifted so that people can more openly denounce “immigration”" is blunt, but not wrong. Some people are frustrated that they can't say stuff that the dishonest liberals tell them is offensive, and they want to have a platform for that kind of speech, would be another way of saying the same thing. I'm all for making an attempt at the most charitable interpretation possible, but I don't see that Lehmann is advocating shifting the Overton window to the left, or to a position more supportive of immigration from countries with a majority Muslim population. Anyway, I do think it answers your question: Why doesn't Quillette just avoid these topics? Answer: To gain access to mainstream political audiences. Vexations (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Is Lehmann saying she is shifting to the right to grab an audience? That is Minkowitz's claim and I will grant that it might be true but there are certainly other reasonable motives including Lehmann primarily values dialog so she is trying to invite in those who are currently being told to shut up (regardless of which way they lean). I see no reason why I should accept Minkowitz's interpretation, especially given her clear hostility to the subject. Springee (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

You don't have to accept her interpretation. The proposed edit is not suggesting that her interpretation is correct, because her interpretation is not being stated in Wikipedia's voice, but rather is attributed to her.AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 07:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

So, Vexations is that a Due or Undue vote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (talk • contribs) 08:55, 10 January 2020(UTC)

Bacondrum, the whole ideology section should be deleted. It's premised on the belief that Quillette has a consistent ideology. It doesn't, and none of the sources make any attempt at identifying what it might be.

Clay Routledge, writing for Psychology today is unusable; he's a contributor to Quillette. Roy Edroso comments on Bari Weiss, but doesn't even mention Quillette and Weiss, in her article for the New York Times describes no discernable ideology at all. Minkowitz comes close with "The constitutive ideology of Quillette comes out most clearly in the arena of race". What she's referring to is Lehmann's objections to the blank slate theory and the publication of articles that promote "Human Biodiversity". One could presumably summarize that as "differences in human achievement are hereditary in nature, and we should not try to fix that". If you want to name an ideology for Quillette it would be this: racist. I doubt that you would get consensus to write that though, or even find any sources that will say that outright. Better to leave that conclusion to our readers. Vexations (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback and yes, I agree with your assessment 100%, I've been making compromises to try and reach concensus rather than battling it out, but at this point I think I may just have to suck it up. I do think this article skips over the issues this outlet is known for and reads more like a promo for Quillette. Bacondrum (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Expanding my reasoning The proposed content focuses on the BHD aspect of the article but if you look at the article as a whole, the real issue seems to be the author's opinion that Quillette is allowing discussions she doesn't like. Hence she focuses on the Overton window with a claim that the only direction it could be be going is to the right. That might be true but let's look at the quality of the article as a whole. The author, DM, starts by noting that quite a few left leaning authors are publishing there. So right away she undermines her own case by noting how many people who, presumably, are not supporting right-leaning ideas, still think this is a publication worth using. In some cases she is complementary of those authors, other than their choice to submit to Quillette. In other cases she attacks them though on questionable grounds. Consider how she characterizes Phyllis Chesler. She attacker her for writing "Islamophobic works". Chesler is writing about oppression of women in Islamic countries like Afghanistan. The false characterization continues when DM talks about Lehmann. DM points to tweets where Lehmann talks about research that indicates genetics do play a bigger roll in how people develop, including things related to criminal behavior but she summarizes the position falsely. She also tries the guilt by association trick to damn Lehmann for articles written by former colleges. All and all DM is basically trying to condemn anyone who would dare to have their work published in Quillette based on a questionable combination of guilt by association and interpreting things that are clearly gray as absolutely black or white (which ever fits her needs). Springee (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Due Notable writer, notable and reliable publication, presented in a manner appropriate for WP:RSOPINION AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 07:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
• Due. This is a comprehensively argued thesis. Attribution is warranted, of course, but the facts are well laid out and clearly not the product of a hatchet job. Guy (help!) 08:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
• Needs rewording Oppose. Per WP:WTW, "noted" is not NPOV. That sentence should instead start with "According to Minkowitz . . .". Furthermore, I think it's important to say that this came from the Progressive magazine The Nation. And lastly, I would leave out the list of authors she targeted. EDIT: seems that Wikipedia does not have an article on a "Human biodiversity movement". The link in the proposal goes to an article about human genetic variation. That's a bridge too far for me. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
• Due - Adoring nanny, you need to read the whole passage in context. 'Noted' is fine for facts, and the 'list of authors' is not 'targeted' - their association with the movement is a matter if fact, not opinion. Whether or not The Nation is 'progressive' does not affect the facts of the matter or their DUE inclusion here. Newimpartial (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, above I suggested waiting a week so a number of editors could weigh in. Not just on general inclusion but specifics. You jumped the gun on that and restored an edit which didn't have consensus for inclusion (even if there is general consensus for including something). As you said, we can fix it so I've done that in accordance with the discussion Bacondrum and I were having above. Springee (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

You unilaterally proposed to wait a week before adding anything (!), and now you have unilaterally added in your own preferred text, which no other editor has yet supported. That's not how to build consensus, yo. Newimpartial (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

You said add then fix. That is what I've done. It was clear the text you restored didn't have consensus for inclusion. Seven editors have weighed in. Three of the seven said No/Not as proposed. So with that sort of NOCON why would you restore that version vs start a discussion to get a consensus. Bacondrum did support with a request for a bit more detail which I did add. If we can't agree perhaps we should roll back the changes until more people weigh in (note the number of editors who were critical of the Minkowitz article last December) before making changes. Springee (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

That's still 4/7 for Bacondrum's version, and 1/7 (so far) for your version. And at least one of the "fix" comments for Bacondrum's version is not policy compliant (Adoring nanny).

I'd actually argue that your intervention isn't policy compliant either, since you violate WEASEL in your proposal by stating as attributed opinion what is actually a documented fact - that Quillette published articles by proponents of the of Human Biodiversity. You essentially turn this into an allegation by removing the authors' names and thereby turning Minkowitz's documented, factual claim into a bald assertion. That isn't cricket, and it isn't NPOV, either. Newimpartial (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Four out of seven falls well into NOCON territory. I do see your point about "accused". It would be better to say criticized or similar. Unless it is disputed that the authors in question support HBD. What about, Journalist Donna Minkowitz, in an article in The Nation, accused Quillette of trying to normalize racism by publishing articles by proponents of the of Human Biodiversity (HBD). I'm not sure that "normalize racism" is the best way to phrase it but perhaps that better addresses the concern? Would you be willing to propose alternative wording? Springee (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, in my view that is much better. There is an accusation in the Minkowitz piece, and it is something quite like "normalizing racism" or perhaps "normalizing racist discourse". I am open to different ways of talking about the issue, just not the eggshells approach you proposed first. Newimpartial (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't see that they want to "normalize" the iconoclastic discourse that they publish; they want to make it permissible to engage in such discourse. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I think this is where we have to be careful. Minkowitz's, if I'm not mistaken, is they want to normalize it, not just allow the discussion. This I think is where the Minkowitz article goes from presentation of fact to presentation of opinion. The part where Minkowitz suggests intent and applies her moral opinion to the topic is both effectively Op-Ed material. We should try to make sure the Wiki article doesn't suggest Minkowitz is right or wrong in her view. I understand we technically do that by using attribution but tone can matter as well. I think it would be helpful if we could expand the ideology section as that might help people judge if Minkowitz's opinion fits the facts or not. It would be ideal if we had an opinion to offer "the other side of the coin" to this one. Springee (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Here's a piece by Crispin Sartwell that looks relevant. Key quote: This guilt-by-association approach to publications and publication ends up attributing thousands of contradictory opinions to everyone who writes opinion journalism for many outlets. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what the controversy is TBH; this seems pretty obviously Due to me. (Neutral either way on AN's proposed rewording.) Loki (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
• Undue. Inclusion of profoundly prejudicial opinion piece (written in first-person). Already discussed above Talk:Quillette#Proposal and majority opposed inclusion. Loksmythe (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

No evidence has been given for "prejudicial", and the discussion at the RSN has already found the source to be reliable; the use of first person is a complete red herring. Also, there has been no previous discussion of this particular language, so the appeal to any precious local consensus (if such there ever were) is not policy compliant. Newimpartial (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Due. The Nation is a reliable, high-profile publication within the sphere of the same cultural fault lines Quillette focuses on. In the article body, two sentences devoted to an in-depth piece on Quillette from a publication of that nature (with in-line citations) is reasonable. --Aquillion (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you feel it is correct to put that content in the "ideology" section vs say the controversy or reception sections? Springee (talk) 12:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Undue I don't believe anyone here has argued that The Nation is generally unreliable, but as was established in the discussion above last month, this particular piece by Donna Minkowitz travels outside the bounds of reasonable opinion and into the waters of distortion and defamation. For a simple example, she describes the intellectual dark web as a "far right grouping". The intellectual dark web is composed principally of Sam Harris (liberal, Democrat), Eric Weinstein (liberal, Democrat), Bret Weinstein (liberal, Democrat), Maajid Nawaz (liberal, former Liberal Democrat candidate), Jordan Peterson (arguably conservative), Ben Shapiro (textbook mainstream conservative Republican), Joe Rogan (liberal), and Dave Rubin (former left-winger, now libertarian or arguably mildly conservative). To describe this group as far-right is delusional or propagandist. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• Undue We don't have to include every publication-to-publication attack, and as others have noted this TN piece suffers from clear POV, including tells like referring to the IDW (which includes moderate liberals like Sam Harris) as "far-right". --MaximumIdeas (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• It's clear this is a reliable source. A reliable source claiming Quillette regularly publishes racist pseudo-science and proponents there of, that claim is due in and of itself. publishing pseudo-science is kind of a big deal. The source is The Nation and is respected and reliable...the author Donna Minkowitz is an award winning journalist, so the claim is strong and clearly verifiable as per guidelines. The claim is analysis so it has been attributed to the author as per guidelines. Bacondrum (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
• Incorrect description above. The discussion at RSN was about reliability, not inclusion. Those are obviously different things: we don't include every fact in every reliable source that we can find on a given topic int he article on that topic. The fact also has to be due, which was not under discussion at RSN. The consensus that emerged at RSN was one that frankly was never in doubt in this discussion: that the Nation is RS for attributed opinion. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

No, Shinealittlelight, the incorrect description is yours right here. The RSN discussion determined that the source is reliable, and this discussion will weigh in on DUE. Who (besides you) has suggested otherwise? Newimpartial (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The RSN discussion said that this article passes WP:V assuming attribution. It does not establish how much WEIGHT should be given. That level of weight can include zero. Springee (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Yep, exactly what Springee said. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Big issue here. Bacondrum's proposed text to add isn't even factually correct. Minkowitz's piece does not say Sailer is or was a contributor for Quillette, which he has not been. Loksmythe (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
• The text shouldn't be in the article at this point. Based on weight of respondents we are borderline NOCON for inclusion at all. We are clearly NOCON for the text as proposed. Since we have a compromise text that seems to have more support it's problematic that editors have restored the version that is clearly not supported by consensus. Springee (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Due but in what form Currently there is a forming consensus that the material should be included in some form. For those who have said DUE, in what form and where. This should be answered before including the text, especially as the text is currently in an "ideology" section where it makes no sense in context of the article. Additionally, last December editors were against inclusion of this article in any form. That cannot be ignored. Springee (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the December discussion did not produce a policy-based consensus against inclusion; it was pretty much a classic NCON discussion. And many OPPOSE arguments at that time were not policy compliant or were based on The Nation being a 'progressive' source, arguments that have been conclusively answered in the RSN discussion.

I do agree that we have to decide collectively where to put the darn thing. Newimpartial (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Let's not dismiss all the arguments as "not policy". Many of the arguments in favor simply stated the opinion was due but didn't say why. The isn't just a question of where but to what extent the content is due and which content, if any, from that article should be included. Springee (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Better source for first sentence in ideology section

@Vexations: Thanks for adding that tag; I tried to add a better source and removed it. Let me know if that isn't satisfactory. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I must be going blind...where does the new source mention the claim cited? Bacondrum (talk) 07:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I included a quote in the citation that supports that content, where she says almost exactly the same thing to Politico about the "blank slate" theory. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Sorry. I reworded it to reflect the new source more accurately. Bacondrum (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't see an issue with putting the "ideology" content in the history section. Neither section is very long. We could always expand the section name to be more inclusive of both history and general background. Springee (talk) 12:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with either suggestion, both make sense to me. Not a fan of straight ideology sections on articles like this, ideology warrants a mention, but not a whole section, IMO.

Lack of consistent reasoning

If award winning journalist Donna Minkowitz And widely respected masthead The Nation are not RS then neither are Politico etc. We are clearly WP:CHERRYPICKING sources in a tendentious manner here, presenting the subject in the most favorable light possible. Based on the reasoning for refusal of the Minkowitz piece, I'm removing all non attributed claims that cite op-eds, opinion and analysis as per WP:PRIMARY. Lets have some consistency here. Bacondrum (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

No one here is doubting the general reliability of The Nation. The problem is with this specific piece by Minkowitz, which as I said before, "travels outside the bounds of reasonable opinion and into the waters of distortion and defamation." See above for more detail. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

This is opinion "travels outside the bounds of reasonable opinion and into the waters of distortion and defamation" ie WP:IDONTLIKEIT Minkowitz is a respected award winning journo and The Nation is a respected masthead. I'm not going to insist any further on Minkowitz being included, but I do expect consistency from those arguing against it's use. Looking at the arguments and the article I was left scratching my head about the number of claims based on unattributed opinion that have been included. Even found two completely unusable cites from PJ media and Medium. Didn't change the overall article much, but seeing as we are following guidelines to the letter and beyond on the Nation, I think at the very least the same standards should apply to all primary sources. Bacondrum (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Several editors, myself included, have noted issues with Minkowitz's misleading characterizations of groups/work she is maligning. IDONTLIKEIT doesn't apply in cases where there is eventuality reasons to question a source. Yes, "I don't like it" but that is because Minkowitz' logic is poor and her characterizations of others is misleading. I don't like it because it presents a questionable foundation from which she is trying to get me to jump to her same conclusions. I "might not like it" but that doesn't mean IDONTLIKEIT applies. Springee (talk) 03:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Care to show some evidence that Minkowitz shouldn't be treated like any other respected journalist published in a respected source. I'd be more inclined to think this refusal by a couple of editors wasn't tendentious cherry-picking if a skerrick of evidence had been provided - as opposed to what I've seen so far - a small number of editors who simply don't like what's being said about the poor editorial standards, racist pseudoscience and contrarian whinging of Quillette. Bacondrum (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

What's the evidence that [this] source is a blog (as claimed in the edit summary of the edit which removed it)? It seems like it is a journalist writing under the supervision of distinguished editors. I don't have much of a feeling about arcdigital. Could be a case for RSN. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, I think that's been discussed a number of times. As I understand it, consensus is that Medium is a WP:SPS. Vexations (talk) 02:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Vexations: Medium isn't really a source, is it? I mean, they describe themselves as a "platform". And it seems Arcdigital seems to have editorial oversight from experienced editors. See here: [7]. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, a bit like wordpress, I suppose. I was referring to discussions like [8] and [9] I suppose the question we could try to answer is: Is Cathy Young a reliable source for the claim that the citation supports (and that was removed with [10] Given that the article by Young now has a disclaimer that says "Lenihan’s study is too compromised by conflicts of interest and credibility issues to be considered reliable", perhaps it is unwise to include any statements that "summarized Lenihan's argument". Vexations (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Vexations, you're right. I think that this piece should not be included, but because of what you pointed out, not because it was published in Arcdigital. I also just noticed that Young is a Quillette contributor, so not an independent source. We currently have another citation to an opinion piece she wrote for USA Today stating that Quillette is "libertarian leaning". Do you think that should be pulled since she's a Quillette contributor? Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the views of an editor about Quillette, published in a RS who's editorial oversight is independent of Quillette, should be excluded simply because that person has published other work in Quillette. It could be seen as bias but how is that more or less prejudicial that someone who is condemning other writers for submitting work to Quillette? Springee (talk) 03:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight Medium (and its blog, Arcdigital) is listed here, consensus is that Medium is "Medium is a blog hosting service. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Medium should never be used as a secondary source for living persons", it is opinion from an unreliable source' blog -user generated content from an unreliable source cannot be used to cite anything, end of story. Bacondrum (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

springee Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability this citation is neither neutral nor independent as clearly required by guidelines. Simply applying guidelines, if guidelines are to be enforced to the extent that they are being enforced with The Nation logic dictates that the same standard should apply to far lower quality sources too. Bacondrum (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you cite the specific passage in WP:V that supports what you are saying? Springee (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The lack of consistent reasoning relating to sources here is indicative of WP:CHERRYPICKING AND WP:IDONTLIKEIT Bacondrum (talk) 07:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Bacondrum, again, not one is saying The Nation is categorically unreliable. We're just saying it's inappropriate to the use the Minkowitz piece because it's an extreme, deranged piece loaded with delusion, defamation, and propaganda. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

This "inappropriate to the use the Minkowitz piece because it's an extreme, deranged piece loaded with delusion, defamation, and propaganda" is your opinion, you are welcome to have one, but it is not definitive. Consensus is the The Nation is a reliable source, the onus is on you to demonstrate that it isn't in this case. This selective exlusion of The Nation article is text book WP:CHERRYPICKING

No, it's an example of sensible editing in service of NPOV and avoiding defamation. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

That's your opinion and I disagree, your views are not definitive. Bacondrum (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Arc Digital is owned/hosted by Medium. But it functions like a magazine with notable journalists like Cathy Young as writers/editors. It's not like Medium where anyone can post whatever they want. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Take it to the reliable sources noticeboard then. Bacondrum (talk) 07:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

No, we don't need to take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. Every single newspaper/periodical doesn't have to be specifically run through the reliable sources noticeboard before it can be cited. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, its publisher is listed as an unreliable source. Its a blog. Its use has been contested. So, if you want to use it you should get consensus. I've been getting outside feedback and seeking consensus for many additions, you can do some of that too, all editors are expected to do so. Unless you are looking for an edit war, RS noticeboard is probably the best way to get a firm consensus either way. Bacondrum (talk) 08:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Jweiss11, you're right, we don't need to take it to RSN. There is no indication of editorial review and the About page goes to a different website which is itself not a RS. This is so obviously not a reliable source that a trip to RSN would be a waste of time. Guy (help!) 09:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: I think you're not looking at the right "about" page. See here: [11]. They do appear to have editorial oversight from experienced editors. Nevertheless, I think this content should not be included in this case per Vexations above, and because the author is a Quillette contributor. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

This has been a rapidly developing discussion, but I would point out that both Jweiss11 and Springee have been returning to reliability concerns about this piece, which were dismissed by clear consensus at RSN. Their contributions here therefore beyond IDONTLIKEIT and into IDONTHEARTHAT terrain, and the local consensus they tried to construct in the December discussion will never override WP policy and broader consensus. Newimpartial (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Newimpartial:, I haven't said anything about ARC Digital so your comment is in a misleading location. As to The Nation which is what I think you are talking about, RSN did not evaluate if this particular article was accurate and there was no conclusion there. Editors might have reviewed the article to decide if it generally looked factual but that discussion does not supersede the more detailed discussion here. For example, the RSN discussion included a sentence that was in Wikivoice (may of the replies said it had to be attributed if included) and no one (myself included) noted that the sentence was factually incorrect as Steve Sailer has not contributed to Quillette (and The Nation article didn't say he did). Cries of "IDONTLIKEIT" is a red herring when your actual problem is you haven't addressed legitimate concerns. When articles have factual errors (as was mentioned in December and more recently) the ONUS is on those pushing for inclusion to address concerns. Additionally, WEIGHT isn't addressed by a RS blessing. The current RfC does not have a consensus for inclusion based on DUE/UNDUE. This has turned into a clear NOCON case... even if you don't like it. Springee (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, "The internet’s best opinion page"? OK, so the least appropriate possible page as a source for Wikipedia then. Thanks. Guy (help!) 18:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: I'm sorry, maybe I'm not following. Yes, Arcdigital is an opinion source. That doesn't mean it isn't reliable; it does mean that it would normally not be usable without attribution. But the link I provided was to show you that they have a team of editors. And I don't have strong views about them as a source; I'm just not going to say that they are a SPS when they apparently aren't one. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, that means it's usable only when it's notable opinion, and we know that because it's covered in reliable independent sources. Opinions are famously like arse holes: everybody has one. Guy (help!) 19:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Notability was not under discussion. You said There is no indication of editorial review. I was suggesting that you were mistaken about that. I think they do have editorial review, as indicated on the about page I linked, and, because of this, I don't think they are a SPS. Sure, there are lots of other considerations, obviously. In this particular case, I don't think we should include the piece, but not because of lack of editorial review (since there is no such lack!) and not because it's a SPS (since it isn't!), but because the author had second thoughts about her own initial opinion (per Vexations above), and because the author is not independent of Quillette. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, I don't think they do, but that would be a question for WP:RSN. Opinions that are not reported in any secondary source are generally worthless unless the source is particularly known for this kind of critique and is often cited by reliable sources as such. There are a small number of group blogs like this which are allowed as RS without being covered by secondary sources because they are widely cited authorities on a subject. Feel free to produce evidence that is the case here. Your case is not helped by the fact that it follows the alt-right line uncritically. Guy (help!) 20:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

They are a secondary source relative to the present topic. It isn't a group blog; they have editors. See previous link. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Springee, I was talking about your comment here and that of Jweiss11 here, both of which concerned the piece in The Nation, AFAIK. Please let me know if I misunderstood.

Also, you are misstating WP policy about factual corrections. When a generally reliable source makes factual errors, we do not repeat the incorrect information and, where necessary, use other RS to provide corrective information. We do not ignore expert, reliable sources just because of a factual error.

What is more significant is your attempt to ignore or subvert the RSN finding that the source is reliable. That doesn't mean that we ignore factual errors, and it doesn't mean that it is necessarily DUE, but it does mean that this source is consodered by policy to be a reliable publication and potentially due for inclusion. A couple of editors vituperating a source and performing WEASEL paraphrase are leading the article away from, not towards BALANCE and NPOV. Newimpartial (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, we are talking about the same thing but you put your reply in an odd spot in the discussion. Now on to the other comments. The RSN had fewer replies than we had here. You are, in effect, forum shopping by deciding to use the replies in one location vs those at the article talk page. Additionally, you are leaping to the conclusion that The Nation is an "expert", "high quality" source. It was actually viewed as a biased source. As for the author being an expert, well as several editors pointed out, she made some questionable claims in her article. That casts her whole article into question even if The Nation is still "generally reliable with attribution". You are accusing me of "subverting" the RSN discussion yet that is exactly what you are trying to do to the RfC here. You say you are worried about NPOV. Well NPOV is not a RS question but a WEIGHT question. So far the RfC trying to address that question is about 50/50 with editors pointing out questionable claims. Anyway, this discussion is getting circular. Springee (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

What RfC are you referring to now? I am at a loss.

You have totally misconstrued my position: I am not saying that The Nation is an expert source, I am saying that Minkowitz is an expert source. A factual error in the article does not make the source inappropriate or undue, a fact you seemed to recognize at one time, for a while. It is discouraging that your personal Overton window has shifted to removing relevant material. Newimpartial (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

On what grounds can you say Minkowitz is an "expert" source. She seems a very partisan source. Let's focus on the content here. I was looking to find a compromise solution for the content in question. I felt like we were at least going in that direction around 10 Jan. After that people decided the only correct version was the one Bacondrum originally proposed. Well I'm fully opposed to that. So here we are. BTW, factual errors that aren't significant don't really matter. But in this case the errors are significant. Minkowitz's characterizations of the works of others are critical to her claims. If those characterizations are questionable so are the claims based on them. That is the situation we have here. If you really want to get the source in perhaps you could propose a compromise text. I still think the content is UNDUE but I'm open to a more amicable solution (as I showed before). Springee (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for being willing to compromise. The basic issue many of us have is that many sources in this article are far weaker. No evidence has been produced to suggest Minkowitz got any facts wrong, just opinions about her work. She's a highly regarded journo and The Nation is a respected masthead. I'm happy to compromise also, but cherrypicking sources isn't on and that's what a lot of the objections based on opinion look like. Bacondrum (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The quality of the source needs to be proportional to the nature of the claim. This is spelled out in WP:RS. We range from "Sky is blue" claims (the sky near Martha Stewart's house is sometimes blue) that require no sourcing to things like controversial claims about a living person which require extensive or very robust sourcing (Martha Stewart is an alien in disguise). The issue with Minkowitz is she is noted in her field but it's a narrow, culture war related field, and her attacks are very partisan in nature. Look at the Politico vs Minkowitz articles. Politico and The Nation might sit in similar strati in our RS hierarchy, both are sources that might be used with or without attribution depending on the claim. The Politico claims are rather uncontroversial. They neither hold Quillette on a pedestal nor relegate it to the gutters. The Minkowitz article is quite different. It condemns writers who have contributed to the source, offers questionable summaries of some of their work in a way that would tend to denigrate them, offers a very "glass is almost empty" assessment of Lehmann's free speech type objectives, and finally uses research related to genetics as proof that a number of contributors are clearly racist and should be condemned as such. Basically a whole series of claims that are controversial and thus should be held to a higher standard. He claims COULD be true but with the very same set of facts could also be false. Furthermore, if true one would have to ask, why aren't other RSs discussing it*? I think what I was proposing was a decent compromise. It tries to get to the core complaint in the article while using language that says this isn't universally accepted. I think, had we stayed on that path, rather than restoring the original contested edit, far fewer digital trees would have been killed to support our text here.

*(footnote) Kind of a problem with articles like this is often they aren't really big enough to get "complete" coverage. If they are controversial with a certain set of readers then publications that target those readers are likely to run stories about it. This doesn't make those stories false (or true) but means that the volume of articles may be skewed towards the interests of those who are for or against a topic vs what a neutral observer might find to be a reasonable balance related to the subject. Springee (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

There seem to be two different issues here: (1) Minkowitz listed an author who did not actually write for Quilette, and (2) various editors disagree with Minkowitz's analysis/interpretation. There is also (3) some disagreement whether (1) should bear on DUE conclusion for (2). Is that accurate from your perspective, Springee? Newimpartial (talk)

1. makes it clear that people didn't read the article that carefully before !voting. I don't think any of us would support putting a clearly false claim into the wiki article. That isn't a fault of Minkowitz's article but does suggest the RSN discussion wasn't very thorough. 2. This isn't just "disagree". She is grossly misrepresenting facts that are part of her core argument. When ever I reviewed a research paper where the authors got their background material wrong I was always skeptical of the whole paper (and often was right to be skeptical). While it doesn't seem like HBD and Minkowitz's LBGT work overlap, perhaps she is motivated by some of the LBGT articles published by Quillette. It's possible she see's the LBGT related voices at Quillette as bad so she is motivated to silence them by taking away a platform. This is speculation on my part but it would fit the facts at hand. Certainly there is no love lost here [[12]]. 3. As I said a few days back, if we were to summarize what Minkowitz is really getting at, it's not that Quillette is publishing HBD authors, rather it's that she sees Quillette as normalizing "alt-right" ideas including racism. I'm not sure if this really addresses your questions. Springee (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you have evidence/examples where Minkowitz "grossly misrepresenting facts". We are not here to speculate on the motives of the author. I accept the exclusion of the HBD claims (though it's true the publication has published proponents of this racist pseudoscience), but I strongly disagree that this article/journalist/masthead is not a reliable source. Bacondrum (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

My take is different from Bacondrum's, I think. I agree with Springee's summary of what Minkowitz is getting at, but I regard that as DUE commentary from an award-winning journalist. But I do have a similar question, Springee: what, besides the name of one HBD author given in error, counts as "gross misrepresentation of facts"? I haven't seen any, but you may have examined the article more closely than I did.

The "clearly false claim" point is again a red herring, for the reasons I outlined above. Nobody suggests putting factual errors into the article, but people do agree that this particular source is generally reliable'. Newimpartial (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I list some examples in my "Expanding my reasoning" comment in the RfC above. The twitter string also includes some relevant questions. Twitter comments are not likely to make it into the article but they do further show the problems with DM's claims. Springee (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any examples of factual errors in that comment, only differences of interpretation (about some of which I agree with you, but still matters of opinion). So I will take it that there are, in fact, no "gross misrepresentations of facts". Newimpartial (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I think claiming someone is Islamaphobic because they are concerned about women's rights in places like Afghanistan is a gross misrepresentation. Springee (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

There's also the ridiculous claim about the "intellectual dark web" being a "far-right grouping". I've detailed here. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Both of you: there is a difference between disagreeing with an interpretation, and treating an interpretation you don't like as "ridiculous" and a "gross mischaracterization". There are reasons to regard the "intellectual dark web" (sic.) as tendentially far right, and there are reasons to regard Phyllis Chester as Islamophobic. Dismissing other findings of an award-winning journalist because she holds to these interpretations, with which you disagree is purest IDONTLIKEIT and not at all how we are supposed to determine DUE. Newimpartial (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Your fall back to the IDONTLIKEIT doesn't turn this into CONSENSUS and certainly isn't going to help foster a common ground here. Springee (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Notable people sometimes say ridiculous and potentially defamatory things. There are many things I disagree with that are still within the bounds of reason. Other things extended beyond that boundary. Calling a group of mostly liberal people "far-right" qualifies as the latter. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Otherwise liberal people who explicitly or implicitly support scientific racism can therefore also be considered "far right". It's pretty much definitional. Newimpartial (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that or is it just your opinion? Springee (talk) 14:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

For what? Including scientific racism in the far right by definition? Newimpartial (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Your claim you just made. What is your source and can we be sure it applies to what the Quillette writers were actually writing about vs what a hostile article characterized their writing to be. To be honest I don't see why we are continuing this discussion. At this point neither of us is going to change the mind of the other and we might actually have different things in our own minds thus each of us is correct based on what we see as the topic at hand. Regardless, I'm not sure we are going to persuade others and nor is this discussion, at this point, likely to impact the article text. Springee (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

White-Washing Race makes such an argument about contemporary scientific racism and self-identified liberals, in case you are actually interested.

So would you like for me to draft an NPOV throughline from Minkowitz, and we can collectively assess it for BALANCE and DUE? Newimpartial (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, sounds like a good way to address this issue of selectively excluding a reliable source. Bacondrum (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)