Talk:Slate Star Codex

Article

Calvinballing, the old article is in the WayBack Machine: [1]. Benjamin (talk) 06:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Resubmission

I don't disagree with theroadislong that many of the references included are passing mentions. However, I think that highlighting that many of the references are passing mentions fails to account for and address the strongest references.  Several are explicitly about Slate Star Codex or responding to Slate Star Codex posts, including:

-"The Scourge of Cost Disease" from the Weekly Standard -"Why the 'Depression Gene' Fiasco Is Bad News for Science" from Mother Jones -the newly added reference: "Notable & Quotable: Academic Groupthink" from the WSJ -"Red tape at the FDA doesn’t explain America’s high drug prices" from Vox

Additionally, the article Why Trump? Why Now? refers to one of the articles as "one of the best things I’ve ever read on the Web, period, and which I’ll quote at length", which hardly seems dismissable as a passing mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvinballing (talk • contribs) 22:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Three Best Sources

1292simon rightly points out that many of the references in this article are passing mentions, and asks for the three best sources. I suggest the following three:

1) https://www.vox.com/2016/8/31/12729482/fda-epipen-pharma-regulations This VOX piece is a direct response to an essay that Scott Alexander published at Slate Star Codex

2) https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/the-scourge-of-cost-disease This Washington Examiner article begins "I frequently point you to the writings of Scott Alexander", and continues to quote Alexander at length throughout the article.

3) https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/05/why-the-depression-gene-fiasco-is-bad-news-for-science/ This Mother Jones article, after introducing the topic and main points, cites, "This all comes via Scott Alexander, a psychiatrist who writes at Slate Star Codex."

Calvinballing (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Calvinballing, Thank you for providing the sources. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I was coming here to say, the passing mentions need stripping out - they're just WP:REFBOMBing - David Gerard (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

OK - I stripped all the passing mentions, and the many self-sources about things that just haven't been noted. The Washington Examiner piece - as well as being in a yellow-rated source that should be attributed if used at all - was a frankly frothing opinion piece; the NR piece is of similar political leanings, but is a much more sober news article, and fully covers the WE claims. I left the two academic cites, though I haven't checked to see if they're substantive or just passing mentions too - David Gerard (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

There are around 100 hits on Google Scholar; some of them may be useful for augmenting the "Reception" section. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

David Gerard, it's no surprise that the NYT journalist involved is Cade Metz. Now-banned Cla68 used to use him as a channel to factwash his speculative attacks on people here. Guy (help!) 09:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Metz wrote a SSC article because he's a fan - he wrote a puff piece! However, there is zero chance you're going to have the NYT profile the founder of a subculture that's newsworthy for being highly influential across the highest echelons of the tech world and increasingly so in politics, and not use the guy's name - that he spread across the internet himself for many years. While it's correct not to use it here until it's RS material, I'd expect it to be soon if SSC fans keep trying to get coverage for this the way they have in the past day - David Gerard (talk) 09:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Note that Washington Examiner and Mother Jones are the very opposite of good sources. Guy (help!) 09:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Specifically, I'm pretty sure we can't rely on yellow-rated sources (WE) as evidence of notability. MJ, however, is a green-rated source on WP:RSP - David Gerard (talk) 09:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Removed WE yet again - absolutely unsuitable for a BLP-sensitive topic in particular. Removed UnHerd - this is just a blog post - David Gerard (talk) 09:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Last name

The administrators' reverting (and deleting of revision history) of edits including Scott Alexander's last name is not clearly justified.

WP:DOX does not justify the removal of the edit since it addresses conduct between editors while Scott in this case is not an editor but the subject of an article.

WP:BLP may be relevant but clarification is needed on exactly how it applies. It appears WP:BLPNAME is the most relevant section here. It advises that "when the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context".

It is true that Scott does not use his last name on his blog. However, he has used his full name when republishing one of his blog articles as a chapter in a book published by a reputable scholarly imprint (see the book cited in my reverted edit, p. 235 or ch. 14.3). This use of his last name in a published book does not appear consistent with the "intentional concealment of name" and lack of "wide dissemination" that the policy refers to.

Furthermore, Scott's long-term active writing on the blog clearly qualifies him as a high profile individual, and as the author of the blog he is obviously heavily involved with it. This is the opposite of the " loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons" to which the policy is supposed to apply most strongly.

In light of the above, Scott's full name should be mentioned at the start of the article in accordance with MOS:LEGALNAME. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.32.37.217 (talk) 09:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

"WP:DOX does not justify the removal of the edit since it addresses conduct between editors while Scott in this case is not an editor but the subject of an article. "

Yes it does. According to WP:DOX, "This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors. ". Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The book is pretty telling, yes. OTOH, WP:BLP tends to erring on the side of caution. I think that unless and until the NYT piece appears, this blog is of marginal citable notability in any case (and I wouldn't have put this article live myself) - so I think there's no harm in holding off a while - David Gerard (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

That said, the book cite should definitely be present in the article as a published work - David Gerard (talk) 09:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

what's the book citation? the edit history got purged... BrokenSegue 14:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the book should count as wide dissemination; it's very clear that in the majority of cases where something is attributed to him, his name has been concealed. "Wide dissemination" here means "in the portions of his public presence that reach the most people". The book is not the portion of his public presence that reaches the most people. He fears that his name will be found by his patients and by harassers, and patients and harassers are not going to track down this book, but they are going to Google "Scott Alexander" and find a Wikipedia article. And that's the point, so it counts as being "intentionally concealed".

The rules about revealing names are not supposed to allow you to signal-boost the name from "concealed most of the time" to "the first thing that shows up in a Google search". The fact that "concealed most of the time" is not "concealed literally all of the time" shouldn't change this.

I'd also add that "published by a reputable scholarly imprint" weighs against counting the book as wide dissemination of his name. Being published by a reputable imprint is good if we're discussing whether the book counts as a reliable source, but whether something counts as wide dissemination depends on reach, not quality. A book published by a scholarly imprint has less reach than one published by a popular imprint (even if it has more quality), and vastly less reach than a web source. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Also has a pile of medical research publications. Not enough to hit notability, but he's referred to them in SSC previously. - David Gerard (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Relevant to decision of whether to publish his full name (assuming this article remains live), I'm sympathetic to the arguments offered by Robby Soave in Reason:

"If Alexander did something that was notable or significant—other than just being a guy with a good blog—a reporter would have to consider naming him. But, by all accounts, the Times story was a puff piece about how great Slate Star Codex was. If that's true, it seems fairly inadvisable to move forward with it despite the subject's vehement objection. [...] Alexander [is] truly anonymous: Amateur internet sleuths can uncover [his] identities fairly quickly. Alexander concedes this point but thinks there's a difference between being relatively (though not completely) anonymous and being named in a New York Times piece."

There is likewise a difference between being cited as an author in a book, and having your full name show up in a Wikipedia article. I have to err on the side of non-disclosure here, given the legitimacy of his concerns about the importance of anonymity to his professional practice. TheBlueCanoe 23:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

In terms of whether or not the book (or medical articles for that matter) qualify as noteworthy, I would also note that this article is *not* an article about Scott Alexander, it's an article about Slate Star Codex.The two are obviously heavily inter-related, and relevance to one is obviously at least somewhat relevant to the other, but it is still a relevant distinction.g.j.g (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The article in the scholarly anthology is a reprint of a Slate Star Codex post---the fact that a blog entry has also been published in this context is clearly relevant to the blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.32.37.217 (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I concur - it's very much academic notability for the blog, and should be in the academic section of the article - David Gerard (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I've added the post, though not the full reference yet - but frankly, it's an academic usage in a book published by Springer, and there's no real excuse for excluding a proper reference to it from the article - David Gerard (talk) 23:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

And now someone's added the cite ... but bowdlerised the name, that is literally right there in the academic RS in question! This is getting silly, and I'm coming to think it stretches reasonable definitions of "private" given it's actually public - David Gerard (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Honestly only dropped part of the name out of fear of being hunted down by his fans. BrokenSegue 17:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@BrokenSegue: You may want to review the guidelines about Wikipedia talk pages - they are for coordinating work on the article, not for ranting about its subject. Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@HaeB: I ranted about its subject? I was explaining why I omitted some information from an edit I made. That seems relevant to "coordinating work on the article" to me. BrokenSegue 18:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, it sounded like you were talking about Scott Alexander's reasons for dropping his surname. Thanks for clarifying! Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to add my support to Ken Arromdee's point. The fact that it is possible with intentional research to associate Scott Alexander's full name with Slate Star Codex, does not preclude Scott trying to conceal his full name from casual searchers. It's abundantly clear that he is--why else would he have taken down the site and written the post which currently appears there? 96.233.39.220 (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Given WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPNAME, it seems clear that including Scott Alexander's surname is both against Wikipedia policy and not the right thing to do, given that he has requested it to not be published generally in association with Slate Star Codex and that "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." In this case it has been both intentionally concealed and not widely disseminated, and it does not result in a loss of context. Gbear605 (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that's quite an overstatement of Wikipedia policy and a misstatement of factual reality. His name has literally never been a secret, and this is evidence he's used it professionally. Even stating it's been "intentionally concealed" is highly disputable - David Gerard (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Saying "he didn't conceal it" or "never been a secret" is pretty facile. He has expanded great effort to conceal his name. And finding it requires dedicated effort. And please do not do new doxxing by starting to list the methods his name can be found. In common parlance, his name is a secret, even if not as hidden as atomic bomb formulas (which can also be found if the effort is invested!) In common parlance, he did conceal his name. Even if he "did not do a good enough job in keeping it secret" to paraphrase his own words. Jazi Zilber (talk) 11:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

None of your factual claims here are in fact true at all, as has been noted above at length. You're just blankly repeating the subject's questionable claims about himself - David Gerard (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

This is getting repetitive. I might as well say that "you are repeating your own misleading statements"

I am familiar enough with the case not have my own knowledge. Accusing me of repeating someone else is slightly impolite, I might say Jazi Zilber (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

And yet, your claims are still factually incorrect and repetitions of the subject's questionable claims about himself - David Gerard (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Notability

I think the real problem with this article and its subject is: it shouldn't really have been pushed live. The cites in there are thin gruel indeed for notability, and not substantially better than the version that was deleted at AFD.

If it gets the NYT piece, sure ... maybe ... assuming that single piece, plus a pile of chaff, reaches the bar. But it's not clear if that's a happener. This looks like a WP:TOOSOON, and I suggest we should consider shoving it back to draft until notability is actually clear - David Gerard (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

There is now lots of significant coverage in reliable sources, so the only possible reason to discount those sources would be WP:BLP1E and/or WP:NOTNEWS. But the subject is not low-profile (under his pseudonym, at least) by any means. The slew of articles would not have been written if he were just some random nobody. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I feel Scott Alexander is notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article. I feel the mention in Reason alone establishes notability (and, yes: I didn’t see a compelling argument why Reason wouldn’t establish notability brought up when this was last discussed); I feel the mention in National Review also, in and of itself established notability. I don’t think a source being in a yellow box in WP:RSP means the source can’t be used to establish notability (If I am wrong on this matter, please point me to WP:AfD discussion where a “yellow” source did not establish notability). In addition, there is a 121-word, i.e. non-trivial mention in the American Press Institute. Furthermore, I feel the article in Mother Jones may not in and of itself establish notability, but considering it is a 1,056 word article which has about 600 words based directly on information from a Slate Star Codex blog posting, it definitely cements notability. With those articles, I would vote “keep” in an AfD discussion without hesitation. SkylabField (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. The quality and quantity of citations across mainstream media and academia is staggering, making him meet WP:AUTHOR #1 ("widely cited by peers") IMO even before this whole thing blew up. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Yep. In terms of the “Is a National Review article enough for something to survive WP:AfD” question, I would say yes based on previous AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Menace_in_Europe:_Why_the_Continent's_Crisis_Is_America's,_Too (the “Delete” votes completely ignored the National Review article); Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/America-Lite:_How_Imperial_Academia_Dismantled_Our_Culture_(and_Ushered_in_the_Obamacrats) (“It appears the reviews in the National Review and Commentary Magazine are completely legit and in and of themselves are enough to establish notability”); Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Magdalen_Berns (A good discussion about whether National Review, in an of itself, establishes notability, saying biased sources can establish notability. The delete arguments pointed out Ms. Berns was published in the “Corner” [i.e. blog] section of National Review. Slate Star Codex, however, was published in the “News” section of National Review.) Some other National Review related AfD discussions: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jim_geraghty Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jennifer_Morse Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gatestone_Institute. I’m not a big fan of a lot of their content, but they do establish notability. SkylabField (talk) 07:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Notice that the first two AfDs are about books, and that the references are book reviews. Reviewing a piece is a somewhat different case from using a source as a reference or for quotations. The main issue with a lot of the current sources is that they don't actually cover the site, but rather use some details of what the site said. This may change as additional reporting comes out over the current event. Jlevi (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

yes - this article has the sort of references you see when fans of a site are scrabbling for scraps of notability in passing mentions. There are no articles on the site as a site, for example. Perhaps the NYT will publish one soon ... - David Gerard (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks like the blog author himself wasn't interested in an article (at least 3 years ago): [2]. Kind of funny that fans are trying to get the article made now, at the same time as the doxing thing. Jlevi (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The fans are already doxing the NYT article author, which I submit is not a way to get the press on your side. I expect they'll turn this into a news story in the mainstream press soon enough - David Gerard (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Nobody's "doxing" the NYT editor. The NYT editor uses his real name as the chief method of naming himself to the public. Revealing his real name under these circumstances can't be doxing. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

No, SSC fans posted a pile of the reporter's personal details - David Gerard (talk) 23:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The National Review article seems to be about the single event, so it shouldn't count, because of WP:BLP1E. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The National Review article about Slate Star Codex does not feel that Slate Star Codex is only notable for this single event, e.g. “Slate Star Codex is a popular blog in the “rationalist” subculture with an active community of readers. It began in 2013 and became famous for technical deep-dives into a wide range of subjects, including philosophy, medicine, psychology, politics, and social science”, so WP:BLP1E does not apply here. SkylabField (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Section header name

The trouble with naming this section is that nothing has happened yet. The story doesn't exist. All claims about what did happen - and the framing as "doxing" - are coming entirely from Scott Alexander. Even the internal NYT newsroom story from Slate is about SSC fans inside the NYT taking Scott's claims at face value, arguing with journalists about journalistic practice.

So it's not an "NYT incident", it's a Scott incident. "Potential surname outing" has the problem that it literally wouldn't be an outing, that's uncritically repeating a factually incorrect claim by the subject. I suggested "Potential wide surname publication", but it's long and nonspecific.

Is there a snappy section title that correctly characterises what's going on here? - David Gerard (talk) 10:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe "Alleged New York Times incident"? (Dropping "The" is OK in attributive form, just like how we talk about Beatles songs and not The Beatles songs.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

it's not really an incident since nothing has happened yet. maybe "Conflict with New York Times"? BrokenSegue 04:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I have changed it to "New York Times controversy". The wording "Claims about The New York Times" should be avoided per WP:CLAIM. Also, while I agree it's important to be aware that there might be another side to the story that we haven't yet heard (I added the New Stateman's comment about that to the article a couple of days ago), the basic information that the NYT has been interviewing people for an article about Slate Star Codex is not "coming entirely from Scott Alexander" - it has has been confirmed by e.g. Scott Aaronson too. So we shouldn't go overboard in suspecting that the NYT was in reality never involved.

(Btw, David, it looks like you keep mixing up Slate and The Daily Beast ... Try "The Daily Codex" next time? ;)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of "controversy", for the same reason I originally changed it away from "incident". "Controversy" is a vague and charged term (controversial with who? did SSC cause the controversy or did NYT? some other party?). Unfortunately it's also the go-to on Wikipedia for these kinds of sections (I've even written an essay about it). I'm in support of David Gerard's proposal of "Potential wide surname publication" as it actually tells you about the matter. If we want it shorter, maybe "Potential surname dissemination". Opencooper (talk) 23:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

yeah, "controversy" is pretty much always a bad section header, particularly for a single thing - what controversy? It's a mystery-meat link - David Gerard (talk) 11:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

1) The NYT have intentionally given a non-denial denial. saying "we do not comment, but we strive to publish as many details as possible" which implies the story was very true. Moreover, given the wide attacks on the NYT about it, they would have definitely denied it if false. So the NYT very clearly gave the impressions that it was true.

2) There was clearly an incident. We have multiple people saying they were interviewed or sought to be interviewed. The blog was taken offline for a month. His Patreon was also put on hold. There was a 5,000+ petition against the NYT about it. And cancellations of subscriptions (anecdotal reports in various online sources)

This is definitely an "incident". Are we awaiting some holy man to annoit it as an incident? or what? Jazi Zilber (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The holy men would be reliable sources specifically referring to it as the "NYT incident". We wouldn't take it upon ourselves to coin it "NYT-gate" or "SSCgate" for comparison. Also, as David Gerard clearly explained above, all those things—the blog, Patreon, and petition—were Scott's doing, not the NYT's. Regardless, the whole brouhaha was over his name, and the current header reflects that, as opposed to a vague "incident". Opencooper (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

National Review claims

Currently, the National Review is used for two purposes on this page. First, it shows notability of Slate Star Codex, and second, it provides information about specific attributes of the blog. The National Review is a widely read magazine, so an article about Slate Star Codex shows that Slate Star Codex is notable, in the same way that an article about a conspiracy would show that the conspiracy is notable. However, the information about the conspiracy wouldn’t necessarily be truthful.

Similarly, the information about Slate Star Codex might not be truthful. For harmful claims about a living person, I think a more consistently factually accurate source than NR is needed, given the NR’s political biases and previous issues of false information about living people. Whether or not these claims are true (which is very difficult to verify, given the length and size of the blog as well as it currently not being hosted by Scott Alexander), these claims are harmful and thus require a source known for truthful claims about living people. Gbear605 (talk) 14:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't get how that sentence is harmful. It is specifically saying he was commended. You just removed the details about what he was commended for. Either remove the whole sentence or keep the details. Also, demonstrating he said those individual things shouldn't be hard by citing his blog via the way back machine. BrokenSegue 15:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

BrokenSegue, I parsed the sentence as having the factual claims as separate from the opinion praising the blog, and left in the opinion to appease the people who wanted the National Review in the article. I'd personally prefer to remove the citation of the National Review entirely for the same reasons, but I think that the opinion of "they think that this blog has these values" is more reasonable to leave in than "they think that this blog said these things that are controversial and not necessarily what the blog said." This is especially true since the controversial claims are claims that could cause harm to the author.

For example, imagine if the National Review said "John Smith is a smart person. See for instance how they have said that racism is good." Wikipedia wouldn't want to add the second sentence to an article about John Smith, unless there was a clear neutral source for it. However, adding the first sentence could potentially be okay.

If you can find sources for those specific claims on the Wayback Machine archive of his blog, feel free to add them. I looked and couldn't find anything. Gbear605 (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The New Yorker article is very comprehensive, and can be used to describe the blog's contents. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I've restored it. It's cited to an RS for this subject - and SSC has the content described in the RS. So it's an RS, and it's accurate. If it was used as a bare source for "SSC contained", it would count. I mean, we could also link the archive.org copies of the posts in question if you're doubting the claims are accurate, as well has having been noted in the RS in question.

This is a Wikipedia article, not a public relations exercise. If you think it looks bad for the subject, take it up with the RS - David Gerard (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

What’s the reasoning for Wikipedia considering the National Review an RS? Wikipedia’s page for the National Review lists a number of incidents where they have stated blatantly false information and only later retracted it, and the retractions were only on major issues (eg. U.S. President Obama’s birth certificate). I certainly don’t consider the National Review to be a reliable source for any information, especially information that agrees with them politically. Also, if this is information that was on the blog as you stated in the edit summary, please provide a link instead of stating controversial information as a fact. Gbear605 (talk) 22:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

AFAICT, NR is cited to support four sentences. 1) Slate Star Codex was launched in 2013 and taken down by its author [...]. and 2) According to Alexander, the reporter told him that it was newspaper policy to use real names. By now, there are other sources including The New Yorker which could be cited to back up both of those sentences, at least as additional corroboration if not as replacements for NR, so those article-text sentences seem fine. Then there is 3) National Review criticized the Times for applying its anonymity policy inconsistently. Here, NR is cited for its own opinion, which it is reliable for. (It could be debated whether that opinion is due, but we could look for secondary sources discussing NR's criticism, or reliable sources making the same criticism, either of which would help establish that it was due.)
Lastly, a bare URL (which someone should fix...) is cited to support 4) Conservative magazine National Review commended the blog's "emphasis on unbiased empirical analysis", and noted how Alexander argued [..."]certain ethnic groups may have inherently higher IQs than others." In this case, NR's statements are attributed to them and their POV is spelled out, which is good, but three things still jump out. First, the sentence is nonetheless written as if taking the POV (in wikivoice) that NR's comments are correct, which it should not (per WP:NPOV); per WP:SAID, it should read more like Conservative magazine National Review said the blog had an "emphasis on unbiased empirical analysis", and stated that Alexander had argued [...]. Second, there is again the question of whether their view is due weight, and third, as Gbear605 says, NR is attributing potentially unflattering things to Alexander—basically saying he's racist, even though they seem to regard that as positive—and I can see why someone could want a stronger source for that; I don't have time right now to examine either of those two issues, but someone could notify the WP:BLPN if they think it's a problem. (I will fix the NPOV/"noted" issue, though.) -sche (talk) 03:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

This sounds like "the NR was a reliable source until it said something that might be bad public relations". If it's an RS for notability of a subject, per the above "Notability" section, then it's an RS for notability of a claim. The claim is not only true (and it is true - is anyone here claiming that NR's claims are not true?), it's a thing that has been noted about the topic - that is, a notable claim - David Gerard (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, how is being a "bare URL" in any way a substantive objection to the source? - David Gerard (talk) 11:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Restored after removal by single-edit SPA - David Gerard (talk) 11:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

If a dozen tabloids talked about an issue, I'd consider that issue notable enough to put that issue on the relevant Wikipedia page, even though I wouldn't trust those tabloids to be accurate in their reporting. Similarly, by virtue of having a wide readership, the National Review's publication would make the topic of an article notable even if everything that it said in that article was false. Regarding the truthfulness of the claim in this article, I legitimately don't know whether it's true. I've looked for articles by Scott Alexander that state those and couldn't find any, but perhaps I was simply bad at searching his blog's archives. I wouldn't trust the National Review to state that the sky is blue, so I certainly don't trust them when they say something that supports them politically. If you can find primary sources (or other secondary sources) that support those claims, then I'd be entirely happy to leave the information on the page, but I hope you'll forgive me for not taking your word for it.

Re: the bare URL, I think that -sche was simply stating that that was something that needed to be fixed, not an objection to the source.

Thanks for reverting the change by that single-edit account, whoever created that account needs to learn how to discuss an issue in the public spaces rather than making unilateral changes on a part of a Wikipedia page that is being debated. Gbear605 (talk) 12:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The article where Scott Alexander which goes over male vs. female preferences and participation in tech is: https://archive.is/sVt04 As for the "certain ethnic groups may have inherently higher IQs than others" claim, look at https://archive.is/nznux. I can't find the British Empire quote. Anyway, the question is this: Is this WP:UNDUE weight to point out these few articles, considering the huge number of subjects Scott Alexander covered in his blog? The point the National Review article was trying to make is that we should be able to have an open rational discussion about such things, but the modern outrage-inducing press shuts down said debate, since they are more interested in ideology than in facts. It was the outrage press, after all, who posted multiple articles about how Alcoholics Anonymous has only a 5% success rate in the mid-2010s, facts be damned, until the 2020 Cochrane Review of AA made it impossible for even the clickbait press to claim that with a straight face. SkylabField (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I have trimmed the sentence where we summarize the National Review article. Considering how sensitive and outrage inducing those quotes are in isolation, it’s not fair to Scott Alexander to bring them up out of context. They were hardly the only things Scott talked about, they were only a small part of his entire blog, and we need to make sure to give them due weight. SkylabField (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this description of wp:due weight accords with how it is described in policy. By the policy, due weight means that information should be provided "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". In contrast, it does not have to do with proportional representation of all the things a given article subject has done. For instance, National Review has published on a wide range of topics. However, a proportionally large percentage of its article goes to describing just a single column written by Ann Coulter. This is not a problem (assuming the article has gotten enough editing attention) because the overall content of NR doesn't matter--rather, it is what has been written in external sources about NR.

All that said, I don't have a problem with the presentation now (though some minor copy-editing might be in order). Better coverage is presented in other sources, and descriptions of SSC contents from other sources should certainly be added, with the NR content description being proportionally represented. Jlevi (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Deliberately providing incorrect information to readers

I corrected the author information for the book "The Technological Singularity" which includes a reprint of an SSC blog post. My edit was undone without explanation by @Gbear605: The author was given as "Scott". We all know that is not correct. If the source is going to be included in this article, readers should not be given false information. Either use the source and give readers the right information, or don't use the source. I don't care which, but let's not do our readers a disservice. Mo Billings (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Mo Billings, per WP:BLPNAME it is preferable to not include his last name given that it meets all the criteria for privacy. As I said in my discussion in the Last Name section, his last name has been both intentionally concealed and not widely disseminated, and it does not result in a loss of context, which are three criteria listed in BLPNAME, this seems like clear reason to omit the name. I admit that the situation is more complex than the policy provides guidance for, but in this case we need to prioritize minimizing any 'possibility of harm to living subjects' (WP:BLP) Gbear605 (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that's quite an overstatement of Wikipedia policy and a misstatement of factual reality. His name has literally never been a secret, and this is evidence he's used it professionally. Even stating it's been "intentionally concealed" is highly disputable. It's highly arguable that he broke his own privacy long before - David Gerard (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I admit that I'm not a Wikipedia admin, but my reading of that policy is that "intentionally concealed" is referring to the intention of the subject. Seeing as he has said "“Scott Alexander” is my real first and middle name, but I’ve tried to keep my last name secret. I haven’t always done great at this, but I’ve done better than “have it get printed in the New York Times“.", that seems to prove intention even if it hasn't been completely succeeded in the past. Gbear605 (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Gbear605 I don't want to get involved in that debate. If the source is used, it should show the author's real name as used in the publication. That is what we are discussing here. I know your thoughts about the name. What are your thoughts on deliberately giving Wikipedia readers incorrect information? Mo Billings (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

It's my opinion that Wikipedia policy explicitly allows for omitting information that is sensitive, and this seems to be sensitive enough given the risk. Perhaps we could solely leave the author-first=Scott field without having any author-last field? That is surely not incorrect. Gbear605 (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Please don't be disingenuous about this. Omitting information is an editorial decision. We can choose not to include Scott Alexander's real name in this article. That is not the same thing as putting incorrect information about an author in a reference. The subject of this article allowed one of his blog posts to be reprinted as an essay in a book. It was credited with his real name. It was not credited to "Scott Alexander". We don't credit authors by first name alone, so please drop that idea entirely. Look, if the name issue is the over-riding concern, why are we including a source that has his real name in it? Either we omit the source entirely because of that or we use it and credit it in the normal, standard, usual, correct way. Mo Billings (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

It's an RS where he is placing academically peer-reviewed SSC content under his full name. But it turns out academia doesn't run on Reddit rules either, and you're supposed to use your name. Like, he could have not done that. But he did.

Even the claim that he "tried to keep my last name secret" isn't really in accordance with behaviour like this. It reads much more like something he's claiming very late in proceedings to put a genie back into a box that he released.

(Although I don't have a citable source on this, I'm told that people who emailed him as late as last year at the blog email address got back responses from Scott Lastname, not Scott Alexander.)

I appreciate we have a single obscure RS for Scott's surname in connection with Slate Star Codex. But it's one he put out there himself. Pretending he ever maintained security on his name is simply an incorrect statement of factual reality - David Gerard (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The reason we do not include Scott Alexander’s real name here is because while WP:BLPNAME is not for this exact circumstance, it’s close enough that we should follow it. Scott Alexander is still a private person. He’s a private person who had a very public blog, but he himself is still private. There’s a difference between having someone’s name show up if we do 30 minutes of research and having someone’s name show up after a 10 second Google search, and we, in the interests of WP:BLP, should err on the side of not including this information. This was discussed at depth above, and the consensus then and now is still the same: Respect his privacy. SkylabField (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

That's all fine and good so far as not including the name in the body of the article goes, but I am talking about a reference here that currently has incorrect information in it. If the name issue is such that we can't include it then how do you justify including a reference with his real name in it? (By the way, if I google "scott alexander real name", Google suggest a search which is just his real name, so that's not even 10 seconds of work. Your results may vary, of course.) Mo Billings (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with excluding the reference. David Gerard was the one insisting that it be included in the article. Gbear605 (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I added the reference. Why would we remove a valid reference to a fact stated in the article without replacing it with an equivalent reference? Either remove the fact (which I disagree with), replace the reference with an equivalent one or keep it as-is. The reference info isn't incorrect it's just incomplete. Just like the entire article is by not including his last name. BrokenSegue 18:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

It's the subject of the article in use in academia, and there's no way it's not deeply relevant to the topic. Why on earth would you remove it from the article? WP:NPOV surely requires it such that relevant RSes are presented - David Gerard (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Notably, this is an article about a blog, not about a person. That said, I agree that the article is also relevant to the blog, seeing as it is sourced from the blog and mentions the blog. Gbear605 (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

BrokenSegue How is not incorrect? "Scott" (which is what he have now) is not the name used by the author in the source. It is not even the author's pseudonym. That's not "incomplete". It is incorrect. There is only one correct value for the author fields and it is the name of the author. Anything else is incorrect. How is this even arguable? Mo Billings (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Mo Billings It includes his first name and not his last name. That's "incomplete" to me. I mean even if you consider that to be erroneous it's a very minor error and worth preserving for the sake preserving his pseudo-anonymity. BrokenSegue 19:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Citing an author by first name only is not the practice of Wikipedia. That argument is a non-starter. Can we skip to the part where we decide what to do about the source? Delete it or cite correctly? Mo Billings (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

To summarize (and not to try to vote, since I'm aware that Wikipedia is not a democracy), currently we have Mo Billings saying that the citation must have the full name if it is included, BrokenSegue saying that it must be included and should not have the full name, David Gerard saying that the citation must be included, and myself and SkylabField who are neutral whether or not the citation should be included but say that it must not have the full name if it does exist.

I believe that WP:NPOV implies that the citation should probably be included (see David Gerard's argument). I also believe that both for the sake of the safety of the Scott Alexander and in keeping with WP:BLPNAME, omitting the name in the citation is both the right thing to do and in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Gbear605 (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

We could alternatively add a note to the existing references indicating that we have omitted some information and cite the author's name as "Scott [Redacted]" (or similar). I would be ok with this since it is maximally upfront with the reader about what is going on here. BrokenSegue 20:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Please stop framing this issue as about the name. This about whether or not we deliberately give readers of Wikipedia incorrect information. BrokenSegue, Gbear605, and SkyLabField are arguing that contrary to expectations and normal practice, we should not give a correct author citation. I am not clear on David Gerard's view. Mo Billings (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is simply not incorrect information, especially if it is formatted with "[Redacted]" or something similar. Certainly within Wikipedia policy to allow that. Can you provide me a reason for calling omission, which is allowed by Wikipedia in cases relating to living people, "incorrect information"? Gbear605 (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I have already explained this and I am sure you understand. Mo Billings (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Mo Billings, my previous comment was a bit rude in tone, and I apologize for that. However, your claims need to have some basis to them beyond simply stating that including a redacting name is incorrect. Providing the name as "Scott" or "Scott [Redacted]" is simply redaction/omission. Omission is a policy that Wikipedia explicitly requires in some circumstances (see numerous places in WP:BLP), so by your logic, Wikipedia requires providing incorrect information. Instead, I would say that omission is not incorrect. You say that "Citing an author by first name only is not the practice of Wikipedia," but you seem to be the only one here who believes that that is what Wikipedia mandates. Can you provide a citation or reference for that? Alternatively, potentially David Gerard as a Wikipedia admin could provide some guidance on the practice of Wikipedia regarding whether Wikipedia allows omission of information relating to living persons. Gbear605 (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think David Gerard (or myself) being admins has anything to do with this. If anything (and I say this as someone that basically agrees with him here) David Gerard's public persona/statements should disqualify him from being the authority here. That said I 100% agree with your response to Mo Billings. BrokenSegue 21:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mo Billings: "Please stop framing this issue as about the name." Whatnow? This discussion is primarily about the name. WP:BLPNAME is policy with legal implications and trumps any stylistic concerns with the citation; we are going to follow it. The claim of incorrect information is a red herring. Now that that's established, can you explain to my why we aren't just using the author's pseudonym? Crediting a pseudonym is not "deliberately incorrect information"; noms de plume have been around for a while now. That seems to me to be less distracting than something like "Scott [redacted]" while meeting the requirements of WP:BLP. VQuakr (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I support BrokenSegue's suggestion of redacting the last name in the reference. I'm not aware of any policy this violates. Mo Billings Citations are not problem sets to get correct, they're tools that serve a purpose. Citations serve humans, humans do not serve citations. - Scarpy (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

VQuakr No, this isn't about the name. I don't care if the name is included in the body of the article or not. I am simply interested in having a citation that correctly cites the information provided by the source. I don't care if the source is used or not. (It seems strange that it would be used since anyone can find out the name we are not using just by looking in that book, but that's not my concern.) I just want it to be correctly cited if it is used. That's all. Not incomplete information, not bastardized information, not a pseudonym. just exactly what the source says. I don't think there's a specific policy about it because it is such a basic assumption that our citations are accurate transcriptions of the facts about the source. Mo Billings (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Mo Billings You're inverting the human-citation relationship. - Scarpy (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

There actually is a relevant policy about this, WP:V. Per that policy we must provide enough information about the source that someone can verify it. We can do this while also complying with WP:BLP by using a partial name, omitting his name altogether, or using his pseudonym. Since your specific desire here, to provide what you consider a complete or "correct" citation, is not policy-based, we can safely ignore it per WP:CON. My !vote is for using his chosen pseudonym, Scott Alexander. I don't have a strong opinion against the other BLP-compliant alternatives that have been discussed above, though. Removing the citation altogether isn't a good option, for the reasons discussed at WP:BABY. VQuakr (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Your argument about the intent of the verifiability policy is fairly persuasive, but mostly I'm just tried of arguing. It will all be moot soon enough anyway. Mo Billings (talk) 03:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd prefer we not make the reference point to the name "Scott Alexander" since that is actually incorrect and makes looking up the citation slightly harder/confusing. I prefer "Scott", "Scott [Redacted]" (or similar), or "Scott S." BrokenSegue 04:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to include any form of his name on the citation? It is clear from the later quote that Scott is the author. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Citing it as "Scott Alexander" would actually be misleading - because that's not the name it's published as.

GBear seems to want to protect the author of the article more than said author himself wants to - it's not like someone outed him against his will in the book, he would have published that and okayed the use of his actual name. Because academia doesn't run on Reddit rules either.

Similarly, GBear's previous claim that the NR description of the blog was "harmful", even though as we saw from the source blog posts it was accurate - the author was certainly happy to write those things, and evidently didn't consider it "harmful" at the time. I think the saying "you can't be more royalist than the King" applies here.

I am deeply sceptical that Wkipedia rules somehow require us to fake a citation - and it is faking a citation - or bowdlerise it, when the author literally chose to use his name in the published work, quite recently - David Gerard (talk) 07:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Round two: "Scott S"

BrokenSegue has changed the author name to "Scott S". So we won't use the full name, but we will use the first letter of it? I am still of the opinion that the reference should either be accurate or, if that is not possible due to concerns around the name, removed entirely. Mo Billings (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Removing an RS reference that's doing work strikes me as being against Wikipedia sourcing rules. Given that some admins seem to be removing all allusion to the name even when it's clearly publicly available in a Wikipedia-quality reliable source (and that seems pretty obviously an abuse of the revision-delete procedures), I'd prefer to see consensus before putting it in the article - but removing an RS reference is a ridiculous move to even propose - David Gerard (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Mo Billings I added the last initial to make it more clear it wasn't an "errant "Scott"" as a previous editor thought, but an intentional omission. Removing the reference is a bad idea and until people are ok with the full name this is the best compromise. BrokenSegue 01:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Why are these republished articles cited at all? They are not in the 100 most popular articles from the blog. Over at the BLP Noticeboard people claim that they establish the notability and/or credibility of the blog. This is false. No one connects them, let alone claims that academic republishing adds to the credibility of the blog. The blog stands on its own. That the blog has academic credibility is demonstrated by academics citing it, but these are academics in other fields who don't know of these publications.

I propose deleting these citations. 98.114.54.138 (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

While I think whether the citation should be included is a worthwhile discussion to have, I would suggest waiting until the BLPN discussion is over. Enterprisey (talk!) 20:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

The citations are being used as a roundabout way to include the name, so that's really not possible. Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

And the initials are yet another try to get around the doxxing thing... Jazi Zilber (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

you mean, where someone forcibly added his real name to an academic reprint of his work, against his will? Or reality, where that's a thing that didn't happen? I think it's not called doxxing when you consciously publicly reveal your details yourself; and you calling it "the doxxing thing" is assuming your conclusion, hard - David Gerard (talk) 12:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Scott himself has written a blogpost "Against Signal Boosting as Doxing" which is about, well, why signal-boosting something like that counts as doxing even though it is technically already "revealed". Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

"Scott Alexander" interview by CoinDesk

I'm wondering how people would feel about using this interview in CoinDesk as a source. "Scoott Alexander" says a couple of things in the interview that may be relevant to some of the discussion on this page.

I started Slate Star Codex seven years ago. I previously had another blog under my real name, but I had a few bad job interviews where the interviewers hinted that I might not get the job because I was blogging. So I decided to delete it and start over with an anonymous blog.

and

I failed terribly at keeping my identity secret, because everyone who read my last blog knew I was the same person writing the new one.

I'm not sure what this has to do with cryptocurrency, but since it is an interview I don't think the source should be an issue. Any thoughts? Mo Billings (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:RSP#CoinDesk marks it as generally unreliable, so unsuitable for a BLP with issues. It's also a puff piece. Not sure adding further claims from the subject from an unreliable source will help the article - David Gerard (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

David Gerard Unless you are saying that CoinDesk can't be trusted to accurately transcribe "Scot Alexander"'s words I don't see how it is unsuitable. The article currently contains nothing about why SSC was started or how careful "Scott Alexander" was to hide his identity. This article would not exist today if it were not for the identity issue. Mo Billings (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLPs can't use unreliable sources. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. - David Gerard (talk) 05:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, are you concerned the interview might fabricated or inaccurate? Benjamin (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, WP:BLPs can't use unreliable sources. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. - David Gerard (talk) 08:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

You are not clarifying, you are just repeating what you said earlier. Could you please be more specific about why you think this source is unreliable in this context in particular? Specifically, do you doubt that Scott said those words? Benjamin (talk) 09:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

It's a Generally Unreliable source that shouldn't be used on Wikipedia in general, and definitely not on a BLP, and that's quite sufficient reason. As I said at the top of this, which is the complete answer to your repeated question: WP:RSP#CoinDesk marks it as generally unreliable, so unsuitable for a BLP with issues. It's also a puff piece. Not sure adding further claims from the subject from an unreliable source will help the article. If you take issue with that as being the complete answer to your repeated question, I would first assume you just didn't like the answer and wanted it to be a different one. See also JzG's similar answers on the issue - David Gerard (talk) 12:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

No, that is not the answer to my question. I asked if you thought Scott actually said that, and you simply ignored that. Benjamin (talk) 12:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

He may well have, but that's an irrelevant red herring, not an argument of substance - David Gerard (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

How is it irrelevant? That is the claim in question here. Reliability depends on context. Benjamin (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Um, no. CoinDesk is largely ignored outside the walled garden of cryptobollocks. It's not significant. Guy (help!) 22:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Wait, the source isn't "significant" so an interview with the blog's author should be ignored? That definitely doesn't seem right. Mo Billings (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the source is significant, the interview isn't significant unless it's published in a reliable source. Even better would be to summarize a reliable independent source about the interview. Wikipedia is not obligated to help a blogger share information about himself, so we need WP:IS to establish this information's significance. Grayfell (talk) 06:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

RS coverage of blog going back up?

Has literally an RS anywhere noted the blog going back up? I can't find one - David Gerard (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

David Gerard, I agree that there are no RS’s noting it that I’ve seen, but I think that it’s fine to have a primary source citation for that information that you reverted. It doesn’t seem particularly controversial, and the information noted was either WP:BLUE or simply stating a direct quote of Scott’s, which is allowed for uncontroversial information. Gbear605 (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if "back up" is the right term. The URLs are now retrieving the old articles, but there's no comment I'm aware of on it's future. - Scarpy (talk) 01:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, including blatantly false and outdated information like "was a blog" is the worse of two evils, so I think a primary source citation is fine per WP:BLUE. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Name use discussion

Please see WP:BLPN#Slate Star Codex. Enterprisey (talk!) 20:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)