Talk:Google's Ideological Echo Chamber

What's the backstory behind the memo?

What was the discussion that preceded the memo, that prompted him to post it in response? I.e. What's the background and context of the situation? 97.34.194.35 (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate article

This article seems to be referring to the same memo as Google manifesto, this means that these two articles should probably be merged. Jchmrt (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Merge. Yes, Google's Ideological Echo Chamber should be merged with Google manifesto. --Neo-Jay (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedy merge It is clearly the exact same subject. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Google manifesto has been merged into Google's Ideological Echo Chamber. --Neo-Jay (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Damore's Background Relevancy?

Article has a high amount of focus on discrediting the manifesto's author by identifying his (lack of) work at Harvard University, but it's not relevant to the story of the manifesto and only serves to politicise the piece. Suggest trimming his background.--A1Qicks (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

While Damore's previous tenure is not relevant at this point, then his current or former academic positions are not personal life. -Mardus /talk 15:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The removal of his academic time is here. -Mardus /talk 15:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

IMO his brief touch with biology is relevant, since this is a hint where his "biological" ideas come from. But this kind of background analysis must come from sources, otherwise it will be WP:SYNTH. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Clearly if his background in biology is not relevant then surely Megan Smith's background as Google VP is just as irrelevant and shouldn't be mentioned either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.100.79.42 (talk) 07:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

quilette

First - what is this source? Their twitter says "A platform for free thought featuring unorthodox viewpoints in politics, science & art" which is a big red flag for The Guardian wouldn't like them WP:FRINGE. Their "about" page says something similar, about "dangerous ideas" (often a code phrase for "nonsense") but I can't access it because it's down.

Second - as an article this is a WP:PRIMARY source. It most certainly DOES NOT "provide an overview of academic opinions". It just has four scientists, probably cherry picked ones, commenting. I guess it would be ok to cite some of them with attribution BUT...

Third - ... by itself this is WP:UNDUE because this is just one source, with a particular bias, and cannot be called representative. It's cherry picked, both in terms of sources, and what is being chosen out of that particular source.

Please don't restore the material without discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Try to be constructive. You have a few options: Add references and summaries from RS yourself, leave a citation requesting additional sources or destroying. Wikipedia is an iterative process, try to build, not destroy. You have now removed the distinction between scientific and other opinion. Lets hope that doesn't cause problems down the line. 1130pm in UK, too tired to argue further. Will come back to points in AM.Keith Johnston (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

You have failed to address any of the points (one, two or three) that I have made.

Also, the fact that Assange tweeted some troll crap, is not significant and is UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Two things, Keith:

1) Volunteer Marek is right.

2) If you think Volunteer Marek is wrong, refer to 1).

--BowlAndSpoon (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I suggest we restrict opinions to those that received secondary coverage. So far I see Quillette covered in USA Today [1]. The opinion I removed (Angela Saini) had no secondary coverage. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@James J. Lambden I have incorporated the USA Today pieceKeith Johnston (talk) 06:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Angela Saini is a recognized expert published by a reliable source with full attribution. Grayfell (talk) 01:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

By whom is she recognized as an expert in biology or social science? If it were so I'd expect secondary coverage. James J. Lambden (talk) 01:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Her utterance is neither of biological or otherwise scientific nature: it is a valid observation of a journalist about a certain subsociety, well within her recognized area of expertise. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The statement we cite to her is: "[the memo] reflected common misconceptions about the biological differences between men and women, and demonstrated a flawed understanding of the research it cited." That is clearly a statement about biology. So I ask again: by whom is she recognized as an expert on biology? James J. Lambden (talk)

(edit conflict) If she were "just" a journalist, I wouldn't have included this. We shouldn't include every comment we can find. Saini has published a book on the subject of the science of biological sex differences through Harper Collins, which has been positively reviewed by The Economist,[2] the Guardian,[3] The Times,[4] The Week,[5], etc. The New Statesman specifically recommends her latest book as an explanation of this issue with Silicon Valley without even mentioning the Guardian article.[6] Her expertise has been established well enough that a single sentence of her attributed opinion can be included to help contextualize the article, especially since the article might not even last. If it really matters, Vox mentions the article, and uses stronger language than I did to make a similar point.[7] Grayfell (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

You had me at Vox (secondary coverage.) But that someone with no background or training in social science or biology could write a well-reviewed book on the intersection of social science and biology is more an indictment of the publishing industry and journalism than anything else. Oh well. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2017

The "Others" sub-section should be part of the "Reactions" section, not "See Also". 4.35.160.50 (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Done —72 _talk 22:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Responses

This article is seriously lacking when it doesn't include psychologists' responses to the memo, seeing as the memo made psychological claims. It's important for the context behind the debate surrounding the memo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ari1891adler (talk • contribs) 02:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree we should rely on scientists for claims about science. On the topic of cultural issues (women-in-tech) no scientific expertise is necessary. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The article made several psychological claims, and many of the responses addressed those claims as "pseudoscience," "bunk science," and "perpetuating harmful stereotypes." It's important for perspective to examine who's right here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ari1891adler (talk • contribs) 02:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you be more specific for what you had in mind? Without specific sources to work with this is all speculative. Grayfell (talk) 02:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

So I see that Quilette was addressed above. Prof. Jordan B. Peterson, whose main field of study is personality psychology, including gender differences, responded by saying it was "scientifically accurate." (If this is significant enough to include in the article I'll find the source for you.) I haven't yet seen what Simon Baron-Cohen thinks of it--much of the memo was based on his research.

And Psychology Today has a piece supporting the psychological claims, but disputing the conclusion (not sure if psychologists' opinions on google's diversity policy is relevant). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ari1891adler (talk • contribs) 02:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Peterson is controversial, to put it mildly, and Breitbart is completely out of the question. His opinion could be considered only with a reputable source and clear attribution.

I assume you mean this article from Psychology Today. Is this from KotakuInAction? Never mind, it doesn't matter. This should be handled with caution, as it's not really saying a lot about the memo itself. It's... sort of supporting the claims, but I think that's debatable. It's saying that sex differences exist but they aren't that strong, etc. This kind of thing is very, very easy to misread without a strong background in psychology, especially his use of statistics. The author also specifically (and commendably) qualifies much of his comments by saying they are outside of his area of expertise. Grayfell (talk) 02:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Psychology Today is an excellent RS and I have included it . If you think you can write a better summary of the contents of this RS feel free.Keith Johnston (talk) 07:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Article title

The sources introduce the subject as Google's Ideological Echo Chamber. Even if they later call it the Google memo/manifesto in short, the former title is the most recognizable (the name most people will call it), natural (reflecting what it's usually called), precise (unambiguously identified), and concise (not longer than necessary to identify), per the naming criteria (article titles policy).  czar 04:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it. When I checked if Wikipedia had an article on it I just typed in "google memo", not the title, which most people will not recognize right away.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

While "Google memo" may be a bit general - although that's how it's refereed to in sources - putting this under the title that the guy gave it is basically stating something in Wikipedia voice. It's implicitly agreeing with his argument which is summarized by the title.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Many Wikipedia articles about books, essays, poems, and other works use these works' titles as the Wikipedia articles' titles. Using a memo's actual title as the Wikipedia article's title does not mean that Wikipedia supports the author's position. It simply means that Wikipedia is introducing this memo, just as introducing other books, essays, poems, etc..--Neo-Jay (talk) 05:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The relevant policy here is WP:POVTITLE. ^Falling_Gravity 05:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Neo-Jay Those are published works. I was gonna give as an example something like Unabomber manifesto but it turns out that's part of the Ted Kaczynski article. That's funny, we don't have a separate article for the Unabomber manifesto - which was a huge deal since the guy threatened to keep bombing unless it was published - but we have an article for this little dinky thing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: We are not discussing about a merger issue, are we? We are discussing about the title issue. And Unabomber manifesto redirects Ted Kaczynski's specific section: Industrial Society and Its Future, the actual title of that essay. --Neo-Jay (talk) 06:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Which is why I said it wasn't a good example. Anyway, we should get a proper RM going.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Does your "RM" mean "requested move" or "requested merger"? If the latter, then you can start a "Merger proposal" section and we may discuss there. And by the way, Google's Ideological Echo Chamber has been published (by WND, see this page). --Neo-Jay (talk) 06:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Article title change voting

I consolidated all of the votes into this new sub-section. No content was modified, added, or removed - only consolidation was performed. Additionally, all other content and discussion was left as-is in the above section. airuditious (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

PROPOSAL (as outlined above): Re-name the article from "Google memo" back to the initial title "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber".

• Support move. Google's Ideological Echo Chamber was moved to Google memo at 23:00, 8 August 2017. But Google memo is too general to be this article's title. It should be moved back to Google's Ideological Echo Chamber. --Neo-Jay (talk) 05:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support move and make clear in the opening sentence it's the title of the memo (avoiding WP:POVTITLE issues.) James J. Lambden (talk) 05:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose move - Google memo is quickly becoming the shorthand term. We should reflect how users would search for this information and using the formal title is unlikely.Keith Johnston (talk) 06:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support move. I agree with VM and others that Google's Ideological Echo Chamber is non-neutral. However I agree with others that Google memo is absurdly general--to the point where it's even worse than Google's Ideological Echo Chamber. If I had to choose the lesser of two evils, it would be Google's Ideological Echo Chamber. However there are other options. I'd much prefer something like James Damore's Google memo. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support move to the unique title. Keeping it under this title will reinforce improper association of the generic term "google memo", a kinda circular influence of wikipedia on information. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support move: The current title, "Google memo", is definitely far too generic and ambiguous and while the original title could possibly convey some bias, it is IMHO the better choice between the two. That said, if a third option is acceptable, I would suggest something along the line of "James Damore's Google Diversity memo" or similar. airuditious (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Lede

@Anthony Ivanoff: This edit isn't going to work. Biology is a central point of the memo according to multiple sources. According to Fortune, Motherboard is the one who broke the story. Motherboard is the main source we should be using, and we need a specific reason to switch to some other source in the lede. Among other problems, this edit uses a commentary piece from Fortune to downplay biology, even though that article also explains that it's central to the memo. This also ignores Fortune's own news-style summary of the issue, which even more strongly emphasizes biology. Grayfell (talk) 05:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

In the TL;DR summary in our article only 1 (possibly 1.5) of the 5 bullet points deal with biology. To say biology is "central" (depending on how you mean that) would be incorrect. The sources reflect is a component of the memo not the component.

I'm not too concerned about who broke the story. It's not an investigative piece where Vice has access to research other sources do not. The memo is freely available and in fact I believe other sources posted text from internal chats which Vice did not access. But I do agree we should use a better source than fortune. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The "TL:DR" will have to be completely rewritten to avoid WP:COPYVIO, and to be in a formal tone, for one thing. Regardless, summaries are only encyclopedic when they reflect reliable sources. Weren't you the one who just said you wanted secondary sources? We cannot favor an arbitrarily selected commentary piece for defining the document in the lede, and a rambling primary list copied from the document itself should not act as the sole summary. If Motherboard, Fortune, and others all mention that biology is an important part of this memo (regardless of how many k of space it takes up) than so should Wikipedia. This is, according to sources, a defining aspect of the document, and the lede should reflect that. Grayfell (talk) 06:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Original Text Inclusion?

Much of the reaction to the memo/manifesto has been targeted towards the 4 sections of the 24-section document which refer specifically to biological differences in genders (6 in total which mention gender in general), but the memo itself offers several other arguments (particularly political differences, suggestions for improving ideological diversity, Google approaches to diversity the author identifies as non-functional).

Understandably, this page leans heavily on the gender argument because that's what the sources are reporting, but it doesn't offer a complete and unbiased guide to the actual memo - to what extent is it worth providing an increase to the "Text" section to identify other features of the memo for a complete understanding of the author's argument?--A1Qicks (talk) 08:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Tend to agree, maybe not the whole memo (unsure, depends on length) but we should certainly expand on the memo itself - esp charts and references used. This is particularly important since some public commentary appears become its own echo chamber, and less and less related to the actual contents of the memo as time goes by.Keith Johnston (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I have begun to start a section on sources cited in the memo. perhaps other editors could assist. Thank you.Keith Johnston (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Scientific responses v others

I propose to create a subsection within responses entitled "Scientific responses". This will help readers distinguish between responses from scientists and other cultural commentators.Keith Johnston (talk) 08:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

USA Today

USA Today didn't "report" anything. It printed an opinion piece by Cathy Young.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

and therefore your constructive editorial suggestion is? Try to be constructive, we are building a page from scratch here.Keith Johnston (talk) 08:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources cited in the memo

I have created a Sources cited in the memo section. This is key since the memo includes a number of citations supporting its argumentation including:

• Why Can’t a Man Be More Like a Woman? Sex Differences in Big Five Personality Traits Across 55 Cultures, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 94, No. 1, 168–182
• Gender Differences in Personality and Interests: When, Where, and Why?, Social and Personality Psychology Compass, Volume 4, Issue 11, pages 1098–1110, November 2010
• Why It’s Time To Stop Worrying About First World ‘Gender Gaps’ by Aaron Neil, Quillette Magazine, 15 July 2017
• The War Against Boys, Christina Hoff Sommers, The Atlantic Magazine, May 2000
• Women, careers, and work-life preferences, British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, Vol. 34, No. 3, August 2006
• Hard Truths About Race on Campus, by Jonathan Haidt and Lee Jussum, Wall Street Journal, May 6, 2016
• The Real War on Science: The Left has done far more than the Right to set back progress. John Tierney, City Magazine, Autumn 2016
• Heteredox Academy, The Problem
• Is Social Psychology Biased Against Republicans? Maria Konnikova, New Yorker Magazine, October 30, 2014
• Why Men Earn More (summary), Dr. Warren Farrell
• A Non-Feminist FAQ, August 6, 2016
• The Personality of Political Correctness, Scientific American, by Scott Barry Kaufman on November 20, 2016
• The Process of Moralization, Paul Rozin First Published May 1, 1999
• Liberal Privilege in Psychology Lee Jussim Ph.D., 26 September 2012, Psychology Today
• Conservative professors must fake being liberal or be punished on campus by Kyle Smith April 17, 2016, New York Post
• Liberals, conservatives, and personality traits by Steve Bogira, August 18, 2011, Chicago Reader
• Against Empathy, Paul Bloom, Boston Review, September 10, 2014

References

ENDS

Summarising this is a massive task with significant dangers of original research, for now this section allows readers to source the citations. if you wish to summarise the memo go ahead, but that is not a reason to destroy this section.Keith Johnston (talk) 12:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

There are a number of arguments for including the citations: 1) they are effectively part of the memo - and the memo does not make sense without reference to them 2) They are not easy to summarise without engaging in Original Reserach 3) They provide the background argumentation to the memo

An argument has been raised that it would be preferable to summarise the contents of the memo and include reference to the citations as part of that project. I agree there is not enough actual content on this page about the memo itself, but the Sources of the Memo helps, and does not hinder that insight. If you wish as an editor to take on the task of summarising the memo then feel free, but this is not an argument for deleting this section - rather it is an argument for superseding it with a new section. That new section may take some time to write given the controversial nature of this topic. Therefore until such time as we have a new section and consensus on this, it is preferable to list the sources.Keith Johnston (talk) 12:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a summary of the citations used which also explains how the author has misused/misunderstood them (as per reliable sources). But I don't see the value of just making a copy of the citations on this page. If somebody wants to see all the citations they can just follow the link to the document. --ChiveFungi (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• The memo also cites the Wikipedia page Neuroticism, why isn't this included? ^Falling_Gravity 15:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is supposed to be a summary of what reliable sources have reported on the issue, not a original research analysis of every single one of his sources. I've removed the section as unencyclopedic. We're not here to host a debate club about the memo, we're here to write an encyclopedia article about the controversy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, the article has two purposes - to present the primary source (the memo) in a format which is accessible to the reader (which is why the sources are key) and to discuss RS reaction. By way of example see page on the Balfour Declaration. We cannot discuss the reaction without presenting the memo - which includes these references. It is also particularly useful since the sources are not easily identifiable in the original document (the author does not follow wikipedia guidelines!). Finally, by letting the sources speak for themselves we avoid problems associated with original research in controversial articles like this. Editors may wish to summarise the contents of the sources but this will no doubt be a lengthy process.

On the subject of the reference to Neuroticism, it is relevant and this should be included. However, this introduces a problem which it is not obvious to me how to solve. The author of the memo has referenced pages at a particular point in time. In order to accurately reference these pages we will need to reference an external source which captures the meaning of those pages at that time. if we do not then the meaning will change over time, which has little utility. If editors have a solution I am happy to hear it.

Please do not remove these sources until we have reached a consensus.Keith Johnston (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC) Its getting a bit hot in here, lets continue the discussion on the Rfc below.Keith Johnston (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

That's not the way it works, and you're well over 3RR; if you don't self-revert you're likely to be blocked. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC about including "Sources cited in the memo" on this page

Should this page contain the section on "Sources cited in the memo"? Keith Johnston (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support

Please see my comment below, this is a qualified support in the spirit of "What amount of the memo are we going to present to the reader?" I sadly do not know the best way to handle that part (do we just block quote the whole thing? If so the sources will be present there anyway). I do believe there has been discussion of the sources used (there was a scientific response section at one point, haven't check recently), so I don't know that any OR argument really holds weight in that sense. Arkon (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose it is original research, unless there are reliable sources that specificaly discuss the cited sources within the context of the memo. Minor4th 16:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Grossly undue, original research, and unencyclopedic. The WP:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY shortcut was set up for exactly this purpose. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is not how Wikipedia articles work. We summarize RS|what reliable secondary sources have said about a subject. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: This spams the references with tangentially-related sources which don't discuss the memo, some of which are not reliable by Wikipedia's standards. ^Falling_Gravity 17:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: While is it completely appropriate to park material on the article's Talk page (see "Share material" on this page), it must either be material removed from the article for some reason OR new material that is not ready for prime-time. As mentioned previously, the section you are discussing is original research which would probably be OK if intended for addition to the article (assuming it meets other WP criteria). However, it appears the purpose of your compilation is to prove the veracity of the assertions made by the memo's author. If so, then the section does not belong here. airuditious (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: Serves no purpose. The memo writer is not a recognized expert in social psychology altogether, so whatever he read is completely irrelevant. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Comment I'm not a fan of the current "Text of the Memo" section not actually including the....text of the Memo. We might need to start with that section to determine what we want to include or not. Arkon (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Minor4th Its not original research any more than referencing the Balfour Declaration on the Balfour Declaration page is original. Its the primary source. The primary source has created the RS reaction.Keith Johnston (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - the sources are not actually even cited; they are merely linked. And there is no notable discussion in secondary sources discussing the underlying sources. Minor4th 17:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: Wouldn't this be a candidate for WikiSource? – Athaenara ✉ 17:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

  Not unless Damore has released the text of the memo under a Wikimedia-friendly free content license. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - FYI that OP was blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. Jdcomix (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment and Question - Am I alone in thinking that this is mostly a pointless conversation until we have the "Text of the Memo" section hashed out? (Sources are in the text of course) I don't want to see this somehow referenced to neuter the text once we get to what I consider to be, the main problem, with this article. Arkon (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Inaccurate media coverage

Bre Payton, The Federalist, August 8 2017, Here Are All The Media Outlets Blatantly Lying About The Google Memo

The Washington Post, CNN, Time Magazine, Ian Bogost of The Atlantic, Forbes, The Huffington Post, Vanity Fair, ABC News, Slate, and Gizmodo all published "blatant lies" about the contents of the memo. These sources are not reliable for claims that are so strongly disputed. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Biography

Should we include a short biographical section on James Damore, with basic information on his academic and professional background? NoMoreHeroes (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

No - not in this article. Any bio information concerning Damore belongs on a page dedicated to him if that page is deemed appropriate for Wikipedia. Putting it here, aside from being off-topic, would only serve to further the character assassination already begun on Damore and would also distract the reader away from the relevant issues within and surrounding the memo. airuditious (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The thing is, he is not notable enough for his own article, but his background has been widely reported by various sources across the spectrum. I definitely think it deserves inclusion, even if a minor one. And honestly I don't see how saying basic facts such as he went to UIUC and Harvard and worked at Google since 2013 would "further the character assassination"; it would be quite the opposite, in fact. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Well if he's not noteworthy enough for his own article, then surely personal details about him are equally or even more un-noteworthy. If the author's personal details were somehow relevant to the focus of this article or to the issues raised by the memo, then possibly (though still somewhat dubious even of that). But we do not have either of those situations here - Damore's experience, training, education, etc. are not at all related to the memo's contents or the issues it raises. It's the same as asking if you or I need to provide our personal details for us to be taken seriously on Wikipedia? Of course not - our words and argumentation speak for themselves. The purpose of this specific article is the memo itself, its contents, and the issues raised by it. airuditious (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Do reliable sources focus on his academic and professional background? If not, I think it would be undue weight at this point; however, if the story continues in the media and Damore makes his academic and professional background an issue of public concern (e.g. if he claims that because he has a certain educational background, his memo should be taken more seriously), then it might become relevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The proper question would be: Do reliable sources link his academic, professional, political, etc. background with the memo? Staszek Lem (talk) 20:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

But then you are opening the door to something like Wikipedia asserting that it is appropriate for that linking to occur. I would re-state and ask "Is it appropriate to link ..." and as I've mentioned earlier, IMHO, the answer at this point is no. airuditious (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Nothing of the kind for Wikipedia to assert. If and only reliable sources do such linking, in becomes appropriate for Wikipedia to report such linking. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

If we're going to have this article: the names of David P. Schmitt and Cathy Young should be wikilinked. 69.159.83.14 (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)