From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


I don't believe that this meets Wikipedia's requirements for notability. Could someone review the matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Given the breadth of linked sources you so cavalierly deleted, and the growing number of high-profile advocates of the site (supporters not even mentioned in the article include Gad Saad, Sam Harris, and Michael Shermer), I have no misgivings about applying Hitchens's razor on your non-argument here. Jg2904 (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Critique from Canadaland[edit]

Recent episode of canadaland has a critique of a Quillette article which would probably be worth including[1]. I don't have the time to add it right now, so am referencing here for others to hopefully get to it first. -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


  1. ^ "The Aesthetics Of Rigour". CANADALAND.
Thanks. I'll tackle it either tonight or tomorrow. It will likely fit well in the reception section nested within the praise and critiques. (talk) 03:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Ideology Section[edit]

Jessicapierce asked for another opinion of the removal on her talk page. While this disagreement is not yet ripe for a formal third opinion I will offer my thoughts even more informally. From comprable Candian media articles I have examined there is frequently a section that covers the overall editorial slant. I would personally suggest that the first and third paragraphs of the removed section do that well. I do not, however, feel strongly enough about it to do these changes myself and note that both Jessica and the IP are in WP:3RR territory. Hopefully there can be some sort of discussion here and mutually agreeable content can be found. If after some discussion it can't other methods of dispute resolution could be done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

" Writing for The Guardian, Jason Wilson describes Quillette as "a website obsessed with the alleged war on free speech on campus".[22] Writing for The Washington Post, Aaron Hanlon describes Quillette as a "magazine obsessed with the evils of 'critical theory' and postmodernism".[23] Writing for New York's column The Daily Intelligencer Andrew Sullivan describes Quillette as "refreshingly heterodox".[24] In a piece for Slate, Daniel Engber suggested that while some of its output was "excellent and interesting", the average Quillette story "is dogmatic, repetitious, and a bore", arguing that there was an irony in that many articles it published were critical of the alleged victim mentality among advocates of political correctness and identity politics, whilst their authors themselves saw themselves as victims of a politically correct orthodoxy, framing 'even modest harms inflicted via groupthink—e.g., dropped theater projects, flagging book sales, condemnatory tweets—as "serious adversity"' " This is so absurdly slanted. The entire section is poorly cited and extremely biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Editorial slant is what the section should be called then. Reception should be broken out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Why is there an "ideology" section in the first place? This is not common practice when contrasted with wikis for other news sources. The citations for this section are also very weak, coming mostly from opinion pieces hosted on other (unsympathetic or even competing) news sources. Folks reading a wikipedia page for a news source should be able to determine the ideology of the source themselves, not have it suggested for them by a poorly cited wikipedia section without any reasonable precedent on the wikipedia platform.
I agree that 3O or similar is premature. I have reverted the edit. This was poorly explained removal of sourced content, which is borderline vandalism. The burden is on the IP to establish consensus for these changes, but removing sourced material based on some other articles is not a great starting point. Grayfell (talk) 02:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
My understanding is that the burden for consensus is on those who wish to include things, not for those who wish to omit them.GPRamirez5 (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
That is not my understanding. The burden is on those who wish to change the article. The specific form of that change is not a loophole to exploit. Changes sometimes means adding new material and sometimes means removing existing material. Grayfell (talk) 23:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
What is your the deep justification for keeping this section, when there is no precedent for the section being a part of a news source wiki. It clearly frames the subject of the article in a specific way that is almost completely unfounded. The citations are also incredibly weak and based on opinion pieces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
This made me think about the fact that I think we all seem to misapply WP:OTHERSTUFF given WP:Some stuff exists for a reason right there on the same page Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, but it's a starting point. Grayfell (talk) 23:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Is the problem that this is called "ideology"? If so, I think it would behoove someone to rename it to "Political Views" or "Audience and Viewpoints" . (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

History Section[edit]

In the history section I had added

"She has stated that her motivation in creating Quillette was to inform readers about controversial topics which had neglected coverage in the media.[1]"

just after the first sentence.

Since this is the history section and this is a paraphrase of a direct quote (see citation as well as cited time in the video) of Claire's motivation from an interview, I don't see why this was removed. Grayfell writes in the edit history, "This is vague and promotional. Please find reliable, independent sources for this kind of puffery."

If this is removed because it's a direct interview of her and (somehow?) promotes her, in my mind that would similarly call for the removal of the citation of her twitter account, the interview with Psychology Today, the citation from Richard Dawkins's twitter account being promotional, the citation from Jordan Peterson's twitter account being promotional (he even includes a Patreon link that's embedded in the mouseover of the citation) and, although including many other sources, even the citation in The Spectator provides some direct comments from Claire. If you go through my source, you can see her sitting in a seat saying the quoted portion of my source... do I need to change my paraphrase? What am I allowed to add from an interview of the founder and what's not allowed (and why)? If this source isn't allowed, why are the above sources not removed for being promotional?

I rarely edit wikipedia and usually only when I'm spending some time learning about a topic and cross-referencing my reading/listening/viewing against wikipedia to see if it's even up-to-date on random things, so could someone help me understand what I can and can't add here as I'm taking a critical dive into Quillette? (talk) 02:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Grayfell and everyone else, after rereading my argument and reevaluating the sources, I just discovered a massive Conflict of interest: source 2 by Helen Dale is written by... drumroll... A CONTRIBUTOR TO QUILLETTE! Let's at least' remove this source. Holy crap! I'm glad I added the list of contributors! (talk) 02:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


  1. ^ Rubin, David; Lehmann, Claire (September 28, 2018). Free Thought, Outrage, and the Alt Right (Claire Lehmann Full Interview) (Podcast). Los Angeles: David Rubin. 07:03-05:35 00:07:03. afmxd42UNZA. Retrieved September 30, 2018. What led me to create Quillette was, um, when I was a graduate student I was involved in a lot of online discussions with academics in psychology and we had such fascinating interesting discussions that were completely unlike anything that you would see in mainstream media and I thought: firstly, there's a business opportunity here if I can bring some of these conversations to a market and, secondly, you know, people need to know that there are—there is scientific evidence on some of these topics and mainstream journalists are neglecting to, um, inform readers about some of these issues or some of this evidence.
Good point about the tweets, I've removed them. Wikipedia doesn't really work on precedence, it works by consensus and incremental change. No article is perfect, so instead of relying on other content in an article to justify a change, we also need to evaluate the content on its own merits.
There are, surely, too many WP:PRIMARY sources used on many articles, which probably still includes this one. To lazily copy/paste something I wrote somewhere else for a different issue: From Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources: When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. (WP:SCHOLARSHIP); Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. (WP:RSPRIMARY); from Wikipedia:Verifiability: Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. (WP:SOURCES); from Wikipedia:No original research: Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. (WP:PRIMARY, emphasis in original,); and many, many more besides.
In the context of an article about a magazine, an interview with the founder of that magazine is a primary source for her own motivations. If a secondary source emphasizes or comments on this quote, we could evaluate based on that source.
As for specifics, my reason for removing the addition was because it's an arbitrary selection from a longer interview. Why that quote? The was an accommodating quote from an accommodating source (a "notoriously nonconfrontational" interviewer, no less). These kinds of sources are permissible, in some cases, but there has to be a specific reason beyond one editor finding it interesting. I do not see such a reason. The description uses too many vague terms which sound impressive but fail to provide any concrete information.
Consider a hypothetical opposite to what's being said: "She said that she started Quillette to inform readers on mundane topics which were already widely covered by other media." Hopefully, this demonstrates how superficial her statement is. Every opinion and news site claims they are covering controversy. Every such site claims they are covering things neglected by their competitors or rivals. It's empty filler which tells readers nothing they didn't already known. It does, however, sound sexy and impressive to a subset of readers who are primed to distrust "the mainstream media". Wikipedia isn't a platform for this kind of spin, so there needs to be a reason why things like this are included, and that reason needs to be provided by independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 04:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Grayfell, that makes perfect sense—especially since you've pointed out that interviewer's reputation. Additionally, as per the guidelines around the closeness of the source to the subject, now that I've finished watching the whole interview it's pretty obvious that they're part of a I-scratch-your-back, you-scratch-mine relationship. I've only ever made superficial edits in the past (grammar, spelling, fixing dead links, tiny facts, etc.) so this is my opportunity to learn wikipedia editing processes, culture, etc. I'm used to writing in a world where you are supposed to use primary sources, so this is a shift of gears for me.
Since I've examined a few of the sources already, I'm going to go through the rest of them with the same mentality. However, first I plan on confirming that they actually contain the relevant claims and will add a quote field to each citation as I examine them. (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Conflicts of Interest[edit]

I would really like myself and others to go through the sources provided and take the time to assess whether or not the authors of articles evaluating Quillette have a conflict of interest due to being contributors to Quillette. I plan on doing this myself, but I wanted to open this up in the talk page so that when I am done people note that there's been a pattern of conflict of interest within the sources. (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Merge Wrongspeak into Quillette[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was unanimous: proceed with a merger (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm following this guide to propose this merger: WP:MERGEINIT

I propose that the entirety of Wrongspeak be appended to the Quillette article in its own heading. The page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time. WP:MERGEREASON (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning for a merge. Seandevelops (talk) 05:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Seandevelops, I'm tempted to just do it (the guide says to be bold and go ahead, then try to reach consensus via talk if people object), however, maybe we should look through the recent edit history and try to get the attention of other editors so we can have more of this strange wikipedian concept of putative "consensus" (however amorphous a concept it seems to be in practice on this website). If you want to be bold, go ahead and do it. Otherwise I'm going to sit on it so people can review my edits, make modifications, and give feedback. I think I became a little overzealous on this page in including as much info as I could—I even made an embarrassing mistake in misunderstanding something I was quoting out of my own enthusiasm... so I'm going to hold my horses and wait. (talk) 05:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Dearscrewtape, RaphaelQS, CataracticPlanets, Kirbanzo, Jessicapierce, and SpikeToronto. Hi everybody, I saw that you had all contributed significant edits in the past to Quillette's article. Would you please provide feedback on whether it is a good idea to merge Wrongspeak into this article? Also, please review, revert, rephrase, etc. any of my overzealous edits I've already made. I got a little fixated on finding info to include, but I bet I'm brushing up against the boundaries of the guidelines and I don't want to have included anything that shouldn't be in the article, misinterpreted sources, made the page somehow biased, etc. Thank you for your time, (talk) 05:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Jg2904, you should chime in on this too since you created the page originally (I hope that this is the right way to send a "message" to all of you)! IDK if I should just get the attention of every editor or just the ones I see making significant contributions... but I guess that's up to me, right? Like most things on this website seem to be: interpretation (no offense, but plenty of sarcasm). (talk) 06:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. It seems logical to merge Wrongspeak into Quillette. Thanks!Face-smile.svgSpikeToronto 13:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - this merger could also improve this article in the process, so I'm all for it. Kirbanzo (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't see a real need for Wrongspeak to have its own article - makes more sense to me to merge. Jessicapierce (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems like an economical merge to me, too. Jg2904 (talk) 09:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Cool! I waited a few days. I'm going to go ahead and merge them now! Editing this page has been a great learning opportunity for me which allows me to more critically read wikipedia articles. Someone should write an essay that helps the public better understand the varying levels of objectivity, accuracy, etc. on wikipedia that is apart from pages like "criticisms of wikipedia" etc. (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Incorrect/ambiguous Quillette Podcast[edit]

Quillette publishes both the "Wrongspeak" podcast, which can be found here: and the "Quillette Podcast", which can be found here:

The issue is that the Wikipedia article describes the Wrongspeak podcast while the accompanying template is a mixture of both the Wrongspeak and the Quillette podcast (the episode count and producer refer to the Wrongspeak podcast while everything else [picture, release date and the whole presentation section] seems to refer to the Quillette Podcast). I'm unfortunately uncertain about how this ought to be fixed (presumably the Quillette podcast info should be replaced by the Wrongspeak podcast info as the former seems to have little significance??) and would, therefore, appreciate a more experienced Wikipedian fixing this issue/explaining how it ought to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiogenesofCorinth (talkcontribs) 19:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Right-wing troll and bizarre editorial practices[edit]

One editor has indiscriminately removed content sourced to the Columbia Journalism Review, New Republic and the Independent about how Quillette published a right-wing troll's bizarre ramblings (falsely portrayed as a "study) and responded in a non-transparent way to enquiries about the publication of the troll's "study". This content was in the "reception" section, where op-eds and analyses should be OK (as long as they're published in RS, which they are in this case). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Let's unpack this.
The first source is Jared Holt, a journalist and left-wing activist from the People For the American Way advocacy group, it is obviously a conflict of interest when he writes about someone who is studying the intersection between left-wing activism and journalism. In this regard, the piece published in the New Republic is even worse, the writer has admitted to being included in the "study" in question. It is impossible to use them to source the fact that the author of the "study" would be an "right-wing troll". --RaphaelQS (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Do you want this attributed to the authors of the pieces? Or do you just want it whitewashed in full? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm in favor of something like that
On (date of publication) Quillette published a piece written by (author of the "study") on (subject of the "study"). This was criticised in the Columbia Journalism Review by Jared Holt, a journalist and political activist[1] who called the author a "right-wing troll" and criticized the methodology employed. Writing for The New Republic journalist and activist Kim Kelly described what (he?she) called "an harassment campaign" targeting (him?her) and other journalists cited in "(author)'s "study".
Is this an honest assessment? --RaphaelQS (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Holt is not an activist. That's your original research. Also, your version of the text removes pretty much all criticisms, as well as Quillette's non-response to basic questions of editorial standards. Here's what a non-sanitized WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV version of the text might go:
  • In May 2019, Quillette published an editorial by someone purporting to be a researcher who had allegedly found extensive ties between journalists who cover far-right activism and anti-fascists. According to a column in the Columbia Journalism Review, the author of the Quillette piece was an established right-wing troll who would later be banned by Twitter for managing multiple accounts. When Quillette was asked about how it determined whether the troll's claims were legitimate and whether the editorial was fact-checked or editorially reviewed, Quillette founding editor Claire Lehmann declined to comment.[2] Subsequent to the publication of the Quillette article, the journalists who were mentioned in the article were harassed.[3][4] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
"Holt is not an activist. That's your original research." I do not agree with that at all. Using the common definition of words is not an "original search". Being an active and public member of an advocacy group makes you an activist or else the word activist no longer has any meaning. This is relevant in this context because the "study" is precisely about activism and journalism.
I also changed a lot of little POV-pushing in your version:
In May 2019, Quillette published an editorial by  someone purporting to be a researcher   Eoin Lenihan described as an "analyst"  who had allegedly found extensive ties between journalists who cover far-right activism and anti-fascists  activists . According to  a column   journalist and activist Jared Holt writing  in the Columbia Journalism Review,  the author of the Quillette piece   Lenihan  was an  " established right-wing troll "  who would later be banned by Twitter for managing multiple accounts. When Quillette was asked about how it determined whether  the troll   Lenihan 's claims were legitimate and whether the editorial was fact-checked or editorially reviewed, Quillette founding editor Claire Lehmann she  inquired what issues Holt found with Lenihan’s "study" and  declined to comment. Subsequent to the publication of the Quillette article,  Kim Kelly claimed in a piece in The New Republic that herself/himself and others of  the journalists who were mentioned in the article were harassed.   Jonathan Kay Canadian Editor of Quillette, subsequently responded to the allegations against Quillette on both the credentials of Eoin Lenihan and the methodology employed in his "study". Holt's article in the Columbia Journalism Review was described as a "hit job" by Rachel Stoltzfoos reporter at the The Daily Caller in an article published in June 2019. 
People who are involved in an advocacy group in some capacity are not necessarily activists. If you want to describe him as such, you need to substantiate it with a reliable source. The Daily Caller is not a reliable source and should not be cited on Wikipedia.[1] Also, there is no dispute that the journalists were harassed, and we do not impugn the descriptions of this harassment with WP:CLAIM. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
"People who are involved in an advocacy group in some capacity are not necessarily activists" He is literally described as a member of the advocacy group on all the biographies I could find on him. To ignore this would be dishonest, it would be to portray him as neutral and uninvolved.
"The Daily Caller is not a reliable source and should not be cited on Wikipedia" I'm not *citing* The Daily Caller I'm attributing statements to a reporter of the The Daily Caller, that's explicitly authorized if relevant. This is in this context.
"there is no dispute that the journalists were harassed" There is, it's a claim made by someone involved, non-neutral, and in flagrant conflict of interest. But I'm not saying we shouldn't include it in the article, just that we should indicate precisely who is making the claim and in what context, same thing that with The Daily Caller.--RaphaelQS (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
The Daily Caller should not be cited for an attributed POV. We don't just add random opinions to Wikipedia articles. If you want to note that Holt is a "research associate at the liberal advocacy group People for the American Way", that would be fine. Again, the harassment documented in the three RS cited is clear as day. If neo-Nazis upload a video of mass shooters, the names of the individuals mentioned in the Quillette piece and title the video "Sunset the media", that's harassment. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
"The Daily Caller should not be cited for an attributed POV." I see no reason not to do so, it's not a hill on which I want to die, but the whole relevant context is important, The Daily Caller is not acceptable as a source, but it's mainstream and relevant enough for the opinions of its published reporters to be sufficiently noteworthy to be included. The same goes for the Pravda, for example. This is not acceptable as a source, but the opinions expressed are notable. I'm not saying that the Daily Caller has the same scope or notoriety, but it's enough to be included especially on "culture war" topics.
"If you want to note that Holt is a "research associate at the liberal advocacy group People for the American Way", that would be fine." This is acceptable.
"Again, the harassment documented in the three RS cited is clear as day. If neo-Nazis upload a video of mass shooters, the names of the individuals mentioned in the Quillette piece and title the video "Sunset the media", that's harassment." Harassment is subjective by definition, I will not try to define it. I just note that in the sources only Kim Kelly claims to be harassed. Because he/she is not neutral, this statement must be attributed.--RaphaelQS (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
The CJR piece describes a harassment campaign against the journalists. It's not some personal feeling. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Let us be precise with words. A "smear campaign" isn't a "harassment campaign". Again, harassment is subjective. For example "smear campaign" is widely used by politicians against mainstream journalism, but this does not mean that they are being harassed. The only mention of "harassment" is in Kim Kelly's piece. --RaphaelQS (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
The CJR piece literally refers to "threats" against the journalists. If you want to say the journalists were threatened, that's also OK. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
This is acceptable. --RaphaelQS (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Columbia Journalism Review, at least, is definitely a reliable enough source to cover this, and the fact that they devoted an entire article to it (coupled with some coverage in other sources) means it's worth including. --Aquillion (talk) 07:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    • RaphaelQS the Columbia Journalism Review is a top-tier source. Your clear edit warring, combined with your excessive shouting in edit summaries and your accusations that I am part of a clique "coming" to your page isn't helping your case. You claim this is being discussed. So can you please promptly explain why you have edit warred to keep this valuable source out? Simonm223 (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
      • I don't care about the CJR being a "top-tier source" or something THE ISSUE ISN'T ABOUT THE FACTS BUT THE BIASED PRESENTATION OF THE FACTS read the discussion. Also YES I am talking about "your clique", a group of editors with the same editing pattern and interest coming (almost) at the same time to revert to a biased version of an article IS a clique. And by the way I have NEVER claimed that this article is "my page" what the fuck are you talking about? You think you can lie openly like that without me noticing or pointing it out? I'm getting really tired of your bullshit. --RaphaelQS (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
        • I would suggest you need to recall WP:CIV and tone back your replies. Simonm223 (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
          • And I suggest you stop lying about what I said before you ask me to be civil. --RaphaelQS (talk) 13:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
            • I don't think it's dishonest to caution somebody who is caps-locking do not revert on their edits about WP:OWN tendencies. Most of this "clique" you claim is editing against you has had Quillette on their watchlist a very ling time. I know I have. Now please WP:AGF and explain why you are edit warring to keep an unimpeachable source off this page. Simonm223 (talk) 13:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
              • I have already explained that the issue is not with the source but the biased presentation of the facts. Read the discussion. --RaphaelQS (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're asking us to include WP:FRINGE sources like the Daily Caller. That's not a pro-neutrality change. Simonm223 (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  • If you REALLY want to participate in the discussion, take the version of the passage we were agreeing on:

In May 2019, Quillette published an editorial by  someone purporting to be a researcher   Eoin Lenihan described as an "analyst"  who had allegedly found extensive ties between journalists who cover far-right activism and anti-fascists  activists . According to  a column   journalist and activist Jared Holt writing  in the Columbia Journalism Review,  the author of the Quillette piece   Lenihan  was an  " established right-wing troll "  who would later be banned by Twitter for managing multiple accounts. When Quillette was asked about how it determined whether  the troll   Lenihan 's claims were legitimate and whether the editorial was fact-checked or editorially reviewed, Quillette founding editor Claire Lehmann she  inquired what issues Holt found with Lenihan’s "study" and  declined to comment. Subsequent to the publication of the Quillette article,  Kim Kelly claimed in a piece in The New Republic that herself/himself and others of  the journalists who were mentioned in the article were harassed.   Jonathan Kay Canadian Editor of Quillette, subsequently responded to the allegations against Quillette on both the credentials of Eoin Lenihan and the methodology employed in his "study". Holt's article in the Columbia Journalism Review was described as a "hit job" by Rachel Stoltzfoos reporter at the The Daily Caller in an article published in June 2019. 

  • and use the same method with green boxes to add text and red boxes to remove text. If you want to delete the section with the Daily Caller, just put it in a red box. --RaphaelQS (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Well then here's what I would change:

In May 2019, Quillette published an editorial by  someone purporting to be a researcher   Eoin Lenihan   described as an "analyst"  who had allegedly found extensive ties between journalists who cover far-right activism and anti-fascists  activists . According to  a column   journalist   and activist   Jared Holt, writing  in the Columbia Journalism Review,  the author of the Quillette piece   Lenihan  was an  " established right-wing troll "  who would later be banned by Twitter for managing multiple accounts. When Quillette was asked about how it determined whether  the troll   Lenihan 's claims were legitimate and whether the editorial was fact-checked or editorially reviewed, Quillette founding editor Claire Lehmann  she inquired what issues Holt found with Lenihan’s "study" and  declined to comment. Subsequent to the publication of the Quillette article,  Kim Kelly claimed in a piece in The New Republic that they had been subjected to harassment, along with other  journalists who were mentioned in the article.  were harassed. Jonathan Kay Canadian Editor of Quillette, subsequently responded to the allegations against Quillette on both the credentials of Eoin Lenihan and the methodology employed in his "study". Holt's article in the Columbia Journalism Review was described as a "hit job" by Rachel Stoltzfoos reporter at the The Daily Caller in an article published in June 2019. 

On the basis that it's WP:Weasel to call Holt an activist in this context, Lehman's "inquiry" is irrelevant as it's not the body of her comment, the statement about Kay doesn't say how he responded. And the Daily Caller is a WP:FRINGE source, WP:UNDUE of mention. Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I would also change "Kim Kelly claimed..." to "Kim Kelly stated..." per WP:CLAIM AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Concur, missed that.
  • revised:

In May 2019, Quillette published an editorial by  someone purporting to be a researcher   Eoin Lenihan   described as an "analyst"  who had allegedly found extensive ties between journalists who cover far-right activism and anti-fascists  activists . According to  a column   journalist   and activist   Jared Holt, writing  in the Columbia Journalism Review,  the author of the Quillette piece   Lenihan  was an  " established right-wing troll "  who would later be banned by Twitter for managing multiple accounts. When Quillette was asked about how it determined whether  the troll   Lenihan 's claims were legitimate and whether the editorial was fact-checked or editorially reviewed, Quillette founding editor Claire Lehmann  she inquired what issues Holt found with Lenihan’s "study" and  declined to comment. Subsequent to the publication of the Quillette article,  Kim Kelly stated in a piece in The New Republic that they had been subjected to harassment, along with other  journalists who were mentioned in the article.  were harassed. Jonathan Kay Canadian Editor of Quillette, subsequently responded to the allegations against Quillette on both the credentials of Eoin Lenihan and the methodology employed in his "study". Holt's article in the Columbia Journalism Review was described as a "hit job" by Rachel Stoltzfoos reporter at the The Daily Caller in an article published in June 2019.  Simonm223 (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ [note] Jared Holt is a member of the People For the American Way advocacy group
  2. ^ "Right-wing publications launder an anti-journalist smear campaign". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved 2019-06-17.
  3. ^ Kelly, Kim (2019-06-14). "Quillette's "Antifa Journalists" List Could've Gotten Me Killed". The New Republic. ISSN 0028-6583. Retrieved 2019-06-19.
  4. ^ "Opinion: What happened when I was the target of alt-right death threats". The Independent. 2019-06-19. Retrieved 2019-06-19.

Hoax article[edit]

It recently came out that Quillette published a hoax article by “Archie Carter”, a “Queens construction worker” about the Democratic Socialists of America convention. Quillette Later retracted the article and Jacobin magazine revealed the author was actually a 24 year old from Illinois who made the whole article up to trick Quillette into publishing it. Should this be mentioned in the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:a601:ac92:6b00:cb7:e56b:68d0:b9b (talkcontribs) 01:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

It has a paragraph in the article now. I think the sourcing is sufficient to justify including that, yeah. --Aquillion (talk) 07:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Why was Eoin Lenihan banned by Twitter?[edit]

The article states that Twitter banned Eoin Lenihan for managing multiple accounts. I see no sources that indicate this. Provide a source indicating why he was banned before removing the challenge. Gungb5n6nqkg (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I take it back! I reverted my edit. Gungb5n6nqkg (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC) Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Snooganssnoogans. As soon as I made that edit and commented here I saw my mistake and reverted my edit. I added some additional details and clarity to that last paragraph. Would you mind looking through my changes? I'd like a second set of eyes in case I've done anything wrong, since I'm new to editing... Gungb5n6nqkg (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Maybe Grayfell could provide a review of my edits as well?? I don't know if I did anything wrong. Gungb5n6nqkg (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Lead should be rewritten[edit]

Hi guys. I'm learning about editing and just went through some pages about Wikipedia page structures. I discovered that the lead for this article should be rewritten. In particular, the lead doesn't "summarize the most important points including any prominent controversies" as the MOS:LEAD says it should. I might give it a shot later, but I'm not experienced LOL! Please help! Gungb5n6nqkg (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to list missing controversies below:
  • The website drew significant public attention on 7 August 2017 after publishing the responses of four scientists (Lee Jussim, David P. Schmitt, Geoffrey Miller and Debra W. Soh)[8] to James Damore's controversial memo "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber". The website was temporarily shut down by a DDoS attack following publication of the piece.
  • The final paragraph about the Eoin Lenihan controversy.
  • On August 2019, the magazine published a hoax piece titled "DSA Is Doomed", and then quickly retracted it after being alerted to evidence indicating it was a hoax. Democratic socialist magazine Jacobin reported that "Quillette was not only negligent in their fact-checking of [the hoaxer's] fabrication, they actually embellished his story with their own ideological fables."
 Question:Could these three be given a single sentence to summarize the type of controversy? It seems like two of them fall into the category of poor editorial review allowing hoaxes to be published and one is a controversy, since Quillette is a libertarian publication with an extreme free-speech philosophy giving a platform to unpopular political opinions (James Damore memo). What does everyone think? Gungb5n6nqkg (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I gave this a go. Take a look! —Srid🍁 00:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
The edit was unacceptably euphemistic and buzzwordy. Singling out specific examples of "unpopular political opinions" is a subtle editorializing, as it favors a specific, flattering narrative. Presenting the "popularity" of these opinions as the prime reason they are noteworthy is misleading, or at least hotly contested. Fake news and scientific racism and scientific racist fake news are not merely "unpopular". If the lead cannot indicate, in a neutral way, why these opinion are challenged and disputed, then it shouldn't be presented as some vague badge of honor. Grayfell (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
How do you suggest we phrase it? —Srid🍁 01:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Since Jonathan Kay's opinion is only significant with context from reliable, independent sources, it is not usable for this information. So, how do reliable, independent sources describe it? What are the defining traits according to outside sources? Grayfell (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
What makes you think this[2] is not a RS? (See "The Cancellation Media Ecosystem" section). —Srid🍁 01:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
All sources need to be evaluated in context. This one quote from a softball interview in the "Style" section of the NYT is providing a platform without any context. It also lacks any indication of lasting encyclopedic significance. It appears you added it because you thought it was helpful, which is perfectly reasonable. It is not, however, sufficient. It is taking one specific detail from an involved personality, which is so buzzwordy that it needs to be put in scare quotes to make any sense, and presenting it as the primary defining trait of the magazine. To be blunt, I don't think it makes sense even with the wikilink and scare quotes. This is puffery, since it is singling out a specific tidbit said promotional purposes and elevating it to primary significance. This applies regardless of your motives as an editor. Grayfell (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
It is actually a convention to put "canceled" in scare quotes, as far as I understand. If you read Call-out culture that's exactly what happens (in any case, I'm not too hung up on whether to use scare quotes or not here). I agree that it is not sufficient for a section that purports to delineate the topics discussed in Quillette (not just their podcasts), however it is a start and I understand that it is not comprehensive at this point. I've added the "Expand section" to that effect. Having read some of Quillette, I don't think this is a tidbit (much less for promotional purposes) nor is it a primary defining trait (it is a significant part of it though). It is not surprising that the Quillette attracts giving platform to those deprived of free speech (via being 'cancelled'); that is in fact in total alignment with its reputation for being associated with IDW (which is in the lede). —Srid🍁 01:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Missing Content: Proposed Addition[edit]

I was looking through the pages that link to this article and I found some content that should be included. I'm going to just dump some of it here first, then I'll see about reworking it into the article.

On August 26, 2019, The Daily Beast reported that Ngo was leaving Quillette. Earlier in the day, the Portland Mercury covered a video that showed Ngo with members of Patriot Prayer, the far-right group active in Portland, as they planned violence at a bar frequented by left-wing activists.[6][53][67] Ngo, who ultimately blamed the violence on antifascist activists, is seen smiling and laughing at the discussion.[50][40] Some of the people he was with now face felony riot charges. Ngo's name was deleted from Quillette' masthead, and the site from Ngo's twitter feed, at this time.[33] The editor of Quillette, Claire Lehmann, told The Daily Beast that the two developments were not linked and that Ngo had left the website several weeks earlier.[33] On August 30, Spectator USA published an article by Ngo in which he claimed he did not know about the far-right group planning the attack, that he "[only] caught snippets of various conversations" and "was preoccupied on [his] phone", describing the accusations as "lies".[68]

This is taken from Andy Ngo.

I'm going to put this link here for my future reference: WP:COPYWITHIN. Gungb5n6nqkg (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The above excerpt seems to be either false or out of date, since you can still find Andy Ngo listed as a sub-editor on the website. Gungb5n6nqkg (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Terrorist kill lists[edit]

The new republic is a reliable source, and I'd say Quillette lists of journalists being used by one of the most notorious terrorist groups in the United States to build out kill lists is preeminently due. Removal appears to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT in action. Simonm223 (talk) 13:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

TNR and the Indy have been hollowed out and are now churn out lots of low quality clickbait, so I would prefer a better quality source for this to be included. Political assassinations are (thankfully) very rare, although internet death threats are two a penny. Are we going to note every time a Twitter account with a Stalin avatar posts an left-wing article about a right-winger and adds a death threat? NPalgan2 (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Atomwaffen are rather a different beast than a Tankie on Twitter making snarky remarks about "the wall." If you want to dispute that TNR is a reliable source here's the link. Simonm223 (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
If you want the article to suggest that the people at Quillette were not just journalistically sloppy but somehow behaved so irresponsibly that they placed other people in actual physical danger, better sources than the Indy's awful 'Voices' section and the post-Hughes TNR would have written about it. Because it would be a major scandal, bigger than a run-of-the-mill plagiarism or fabrication scandal, right? NPalgan2 (talk) 14:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." I have removed the material that is the subject of the immediate debate immediately and with out waiting for discussions because the quality of the sourcing is under debate here. That debate should be resolved before re-inserting the material. I'd like to see the debate here change from what appears to me to be a highly pointy battleground mentality to a more mature and thoughtful discussion of the historical importance, the exact nature of the sourcing, and the exact wording of the passage, and for the two of you (and others who may join in) to reach a consensus before anything is reinserted.

For clarity, I have no position on the underlying dispute. I know relatively little about the details. My point here is procedural: we don't publish contentious material without quality sourcing. I note, for starter, that 2 of the 3 articles are clearly opinion editorials, which have to be handled quite carefully.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

No grounds have been provided beyond personal distaste for why The New Republic cannot be used as a source in this case. Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I've mentioned this below, but I've created a WP:RSN discussion for this here, since it seems there's some disagreement over The New Republic as a source. --Aquillion (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
It's been a week and NPalgan2 has not adequately addressed my question about their reasoning why TNR should not be treated as a reliable source. Can we assume this is safe to re-insert? Simonm223 (talk) 14:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
The present day TNR is a purveyor of dumb clickbait op-eds, and in view of the gravity of the claim, no it's not. NPalgan2 (talk) 20:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Coming here from [[3]]. TNR article seems to be op-ed quality work. In context of the edit here [[4]], I see no reason to cite TNR in the lead even if it's included in the body. As for use in the body, given the extreme alarmist title "List Could’ve Gotten Me Killed" I think such claims against Quillette need a more substantial source. I think Guy's call was correct here. Springee (talk) 15:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Eoin Lenihan[edit]

OP blocked per arbitration enforcement. Guy (help!) 20:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Snooganssnoogans: calling a journalist a "troll" while citing op-eds without WP:INTEXT is a BLP violation. wumbolo ^^^ 08:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: how is a newsmagazine feature article by a music journalist less reliable than an op-ed by two non-journalist writers? You use the Independent op-ed for COI statements of fact without attribution, but remove New Republic wholly? And you removed several {{cn}} tags. wumbolo ^^^ 16:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Wumbolo, A two-author piece in The Independent is a more compelling source than a single-author opinion in the New Republic, which is more partisan, more biased, and more prone to opinion-as-fact than is the Independent. Indie is also substantially corroborated by CJR. The journalists in the Indie are reliable for this content because they are documenting what happened to them, not writing outside of their field. The Indie language is careful, it draws a clear distinction between fact and opinion. For example, they characterise Andy Ngo this: "Ngo is known for saying that antifascist activists are a violent menace who are being aided by the right, and a look at his podcast and social accounts gives us the impression of a man set on discovering antifa-bias in the media." That is a measured and neutral description that could have been a great deal firmer without being wrong, let alone risking a defamation suit. Overall the critique seems to be well stated with decent evidence and has been cross-checked by CJR. It does not seem especially problematic. Guy (help!) 16:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
We should probably take this to WP:RSN. The New Republic is clearly WP:BIASED, but I am not convinced they fail WP:RS sufficiently to justify the full removal in this edit. In particular, the cite to Kim Kelly with an in-line cite seems like it's definitely fine - the New Republic is a high-profile publication and, as far as I know, reasonably reliable despite its point-of-view, so at a bare minimum they're definitely usable for a one-line cite to the opinion of an author there with in-line citation. The quotes on the Lenihan piece are probably also usable (perhaps even necessary given that Kelly is someone involved in the affair, as someone named in the list; it's reasonable to write her response to what Quillete says about her.) But that should probably have an in-line citation, too, since, conversely, Kelly is involved and we need to disclose that when quoting her. I agree we don't need to cite it in the lead, but if you think TNR is completely unusable even with an in-line cite, we can take this to WP:RSN. It has been found reliable in the past, and while reliability is contextual it seems especially worth citing in the Lenihan paragraph given that Kelly was named in that list (though obviously with in-line citations.) --Aquillion (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I went ahead and created a WP:RSN discussion here, though in my opinion this dispute has an obvious answer of "leave it out of the lead, restore the bit that already had an in-line citation, rewrite the bit on the Lenihan piece to quote or summarize Kim Kelly's response with an in-line citation and context making it clear she was named in the list." --Aquillion (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
@Aquillion: would you agree with attributing the Independent article for the same reason? wumbolo ^^^ 16:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Wumbolo, There's no need to attribute the statements of fact that are corroborated by CJR, those are just facts. We can attribute the clearly identified statements of opinion to the authors. I agree it does not belong in the lede. Guy (help!) 11:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Just for the record, I do not have an opinion whether it belongs to the lead, mostly because I like to make such judgement based on independent RS. wumbolo ^^^ 13:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
@JzG: I'd omit the CJR entirely. It is an opinion analysis (as contrasted to a news analysis) by a completely irrelevant yet biased actor. WP:SPS. I'd much prefer the Independent and New Republic articles, with attribution for two reasons: BLP and context. And FWIW, CJR does not even mention Independent. wumbolo ^^^ 13:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Wumbolo, bizarre. CJR is a more reliable source than the Independent, and is a completely valid source for corroboration. We live in a weird world where being biased in favour of factual accuracy is seen as partisan because one party is so deeply wedded to falsehood as a core part of its narrative. Guy (help!) 20:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
All of the sources cited are either published in the opinions style section, or are classified as analysis by the publisher. We should be applying WP: NEWSORG to how those sources are used, and limiting it to attributed opinion, especially since the content is BLP related. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Kyohyi, it already is attributed. Guy (help!) 17:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
JzG While some content is quoted, I don't think it meets attribution, we should clarify the attribution instead of using a style which looks similar to WP:Scarequotes. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Kyohyi, depends. If there are statements of fact that are backed by CJR then attribution is not necessary. That doesn't mean it can't be used, but it would be in the form "X and said Y, and CJR confirmed it" or some such. Which is a bit clumsy for facts that are rather obvious. Guy (help!) 19:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article in The Nation[edit]

Interesting article from The Nation was put out today:

Seems like it could be useful. Grayfell (talk) 00:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

"Interesting" in that it's a non-RS smear opinion? Loksmythe (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Donna Minkowitz is a noteworthy journalist sharing an opinion in a major publication. Her opinion, with attribution, is as relevant to this article as the other opinions already cited, if not more so. Grayfell (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
It's a dishonest hit-piece that makes straight up defamatory statements about a number of living people. Doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC) (editor topic banned)
It's defamatory to call the author dishonest without evidence of publishing falsehoods, also to refer to the authors work as a smear. The Nation is a respected masthead with a reputation for quality editing/factchecking etc. they don't publish falsehoods and admit when they get it wrong - by wikipedia's standards this The Nation meets the RS criteria, no issue there. As per Wikipedia: "there is consensus that The Nation is generally reliable. Most editors consider The Nation a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from The Nation constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy." So, if it is used here it should be attributed and used sparingly as per WP:DUE. More neutrally toned sources are preferable if available. Having said that comments like "It's a dishonest hit-piece" and "it's a non-RS smear opinion" are not fair, lets keep the tone of discussion as neutral as possible, lest we turn the discussion into a WP:BATTLEGROUND and/or WP:FORUM. Bacondrum (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
There's evidence in the article. Minkowitz labels a number of liberal individuals in article as "far right". Jweiss11 (talk) 02:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)(editor topic banned)
It seems to me that, given the Nation's overtly partisan nature, and the potentially defamatory nature of the attack on Quillette, this needs to be left out. If major nonpartisan outlets pick it up, we could re-visit. Liberté égalité (talk) 13:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Agreed that The Nation is a highly partisan source. The article in question is very clearly opinion, not news. The author is seeking to discredit Quillette and makes no attempt to conceal this. She also repeatedly misrepresents complex issues. For example, she argues that Claire Lehmann advocates "trumpeting the Muslim heritage of sex-crime suspects," which makes it sound like Lehmann is calling for sex-crime suspects who happen to be Muslim to be arbitrarily singled out for their religion. In fact, if you read the linked article used to substantiate this claim, you'll find that Lehmann was expressing concern that the Australian immigration minister was called racist for noting that "22 out the last 33 people charged with terrorist-related offences in Australia were from a second and third generational Lebanese-Muslim background." To make no distinction between pointing out a pattern where one exists and arbitrarily singling out individuals for their religion is dishonest. (Also, on the more nitpicky side, the discrepancy between sex crimes and terrorism is a clear factual error.) The author also defines "blank slate fundamentalism" as "the proposition that educational outcomes, career success, capacity for ethics, and economic class are determined more by environmental factors than genetic ones," which is inaccurate. The term "blank slate" refers to the hypothesis that human behavior is determined solely by environment with no innate factors involved at all, which has been thoroughly debunked by science as documented by the psychologist Steven Pinker in his book The Blank Slate, although there is controversy as to exactly how much is determined by nature vs. nurture. These are just a couple of things that stuck out to me as suspect from reading through the article. I did not thoroughly fact-check everything in there, and it seems likely that there's probably more to find if one were to do so. DGAgainstDV (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Totally usable with attribution. The Nation is a RS per the RSP, and its biases do not preclude it from being used as a source. Also worth noting that the article in question is not really an "opinion" piece in the same way as that term is typically used, inasmuch as it is just a regular article published by the Nation, and does not include any sort of "these opinions are solely those of the author" type disclaimer, and is not labeled as an "opinion" piece. I find the arguments against its inclusion to be lacking in any actual Wikipedia policy based objections, and rather based on what appears to be editors' original research. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Of course it's an opinion piece. It's written in the first person. Loksmythe (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, Loksmythe is correct here. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)(editor topic banned)
I concur, it's an opinions piece and should be treated as such. Reliable for the authors views only. Bacondrum (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Many news articles are written in the first person, that is not the sole qualifier of whether or not something is an "opinion piece". "Opinion piece" generally refers to pieces that are solely the opinions of the authors and not subject to the usual review process (e.g. fact checking, editorial oversight) that normal articles are, hence the disclaimer that most often accompanies them and/or their placement into an "opinions" section. This is a published article in the Nation, and would be subject to the review process of that publication, which has been determined to be a reliable source. Regardless, no one is suggesting using anything from the article without attribution, so it is really a moot point, as even opinion pieces are acceptable sources for attributed statements. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, it is a moot point - op-ed/opinion/analysis same diff as far as reliable sources are concerned. All opinion, all primary sources. Bacondrum (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Fine to add with attribution. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Given the partisan nature of The Nation I would leave it out unless the same problem is supported by other sources. It seems we have a lot of cases where secondary (even more prominent) media sources are devoting a lot of text to the perceived sins of other sources. This isn't just a question of RS but also of DUE. We shouldn't use Wikipedia as a platform to repeat this sort of journalistic sniping. Springee (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Springee, shouldn't be used in the article. Severisth (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

In response to the repeated assertion that the article should not be used due to its "partisan nature", and for the benefit of any new/infrequent editors who may not be fully aware of Wikipedia Policy on such things, allow me to quote from WP:PARTISAN: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."(Emphasis added). Bias is not a valid reason to exclude a source. As to the argument about DUE, having looked over numerous reliable sources I see nothing that would give the impression that this article represents such a minority view that its attributed inclusion would violate DUE. A noteworthy journalist writing in a reliable publication seems perfectly acceptable to include with attribution. To exclude it simply because an editor perceives it as "journalistic sniping" seems more like a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT argument. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not a news article, it's analysis (opinion) and the author is relatively obscure. Her opinion can be quoted, but not stated as fact. I'm no fan of this Quilette, quite the opposite. I'm a fan of good articles and strong citations. As for "journalistic sniping", I agree 100% with the author, but lets call a spade a spade, it's an attack piece.Bacondrum (talk) 23:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Again, nobody is suggesting using the article to state facts in Wikipedia's voice. I would disagree with the assertion that Donna Minkowitz is an obscure author, as her work goes back several decades and has been quite influential, but that is perhaps a matter of opinion. Also, to me, "journalistic sniping" about "the perceived sins of other sources" would, to me, imply that there is some measure of equality between the two sources (as if, perhaps, the NYT and BBC were taking aim at each other), which is not the case. The Nation is a respected publication that is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia, whose RSP entry states "There is consensus that The Nation is generally reliable. Most editors consider The Nation a partisan source whose statements should be attributed.", which is exactly what is being suggested, using it with attribution. Quillette is not a respected or reliable source, as evidenced by its RSP entry which states "There is consensus that Quillette is generally unreliable for facts. Opinions from Quillette are likely to constitute undue weight." and calling it out as such is not, in my view, "journalistic sniping". AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 00:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
All true, and I agree with your NYT/BBC analogy - Quillette publishes yellow journalism, The Nation is a reputable news outlet. That being said, it's an opinions piece (analysis, same diff) and it's a scathing attack, not undue, but it's opinion/analysis not reportage. Donna Minkowitz has never popped up on my radar and her Wikipedia article suggests she's pretty obscure. Might have to agree to disagree on some minor points. Bacondrum (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm not in position to pass judgement on The Nation as a whole, but this Minkowitz piece is far yellower than anything I've come across in Quillette. Describing Quillette as "yellow journalism" is way off. Sure, much of the content falls into the category of op-ed or memoir, but the whole point of the magazine is to provide analysis that is heavy on evidence and critical reasoning, i.e. to put numbers and facts around the rhetoric, e.g. this recent example: The Minkowitz piece falls outside the pale of reasonable opinion and delves into malevolent errors of fact, e.g. the claim that the Intellectual dark web is "far right", i.e. Nazis. The IDW is composed of a majority of liberals and some fairly mainstream conservatives. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)(editor topic banned)
You're entitled to your opinion. Cheers. Bacondrum (talk) 08:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The article in question is biased in the extreme and does not even define the monikers it attaches to living persons such as “far right,” so if one purported it to be factual, it could be considered original research, and I think I might flag it thus. Pammalamma (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The authors analysis is pretty bloody thorough. It's a primary source, but it's a good primary source. Bacondrum (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


Anyway... This source seems perfectly usable for a sentence or two in the "reception" section. Minkowitz is certainly not the first person to notice Quillette's combination of apparent centrism/ liberalism, and scientific racism, but a lengthy article in The Nation seems like a valid indication of significance. There are many, many sources expressing this viewpoint, and some have been published in reliable outlets. If there is some good reason this particular source cannot be used for this perspective, I haven't seen it here.

So here's a rough stab at it:

Donna Minkowitz, writing for The Nation, accused Quillette of repackaging far-right and white supremacist ideas as liberal, as a way to normalize them.[source]

This would be appended to the end of the "Writing for the Guardian..." paragraph. I think the source could, potentially, be expanded on for a couple more sentences, but not a whole lot more. This summary seems comparable to other opinions already cited in the article. Grayfell (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose as proposed: I don't see how the opinion of Minkowitz is due in this article. Why should we care about her particular opinion or take on the subject? Do we have any way to prove if the claim is actually true? Are the ideas in question really unique to far-right or white supremacists? Why should we place significant faith in or emphasis on Minkowitz's opinions on the subject? However, if this were part of a blanket statement, "Quillette has been criticized for X [cited sources]" I would change my view. In such a case we would be showing that a number of sources are making similar claims. It isn't significant if a single source is making that claim nor is her particular take on the claim (if wide spread) significant. Springee (talk) 03:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
In looking up some information for this reply I found an article that I think is far more insightful regarding much of the criticism of Quillette. [[5]]. It's interesting in part because it suggests a larger reason behind much of the criticism of the site. Springee (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Grayfell's proposal because, as I've noted already, the Minkowtiz piece is based on malicious errors of fact, not reasonable opinion. Furthermore, consensus here backs that view. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)(editor topic banned)
It is due, because it is published at length in a reliable source. As I said, it is proportionate to the other opinions already cited, so you will need to do better than this.
Arcdigital (Arc Digital?) describes itself as "The internet’s best opinion page. Fiercely committed to intellectual pluralism."[6] I don't know much about it as an opinion outlet, but it doesn't appear to have a demonstrated track record of editorial oversight or fact checking. The Nation does have that track record. This is why an article in The Nation is automatically more significant than an article on what appears to be an imprint of the blogging platform Medium.
The ArcDigital article is filled with what-about-ism and lumps together swathes of right-wing bugbears as "leftist preoccupations", but of course, that is merely my own opinion. What is not my opinion is that the author has also published in Quillette, which does matter, and likely would need to be mentioned for the opinion to be included. Further, as linked in that article, ArcDigital has also published at least one opinion opposing Quillette, and specifically documenting scientific racism promoted by the site (this one) I don't think either of these belong, based on the outlet, but both of them strongly suggest that this perspective, broadly speaking, is encyclopedically significant. This is another example of how reliable sources have been talking about it for over a year, now. As I said, there are many, many sources expressing this viewpoint. The Nation Source is a good one, whether you agree with it or not. Ignoring this source, and this perspective, won't make it go away, so we should figure out how to explain it proportionately.
Dismissing these as "malicious", without backing that up, is non-productive, at best. Grayfell (talk) 05:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Already backed up my assertions about the Minkowitz piece. As I said before, describing liberal members of the Democratic Party as "far right" is a malicious error of fact. That's the only piece I have labeled malicious here. I have not weighed in on any of the ArcDigital pieces. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)(editor topic banned)
I'm not proposing Arcdigital as a source. I agree it lacks the needed evidence to use as a Wikipedia RS. However, I think the points made are correct. More to the point, unlike the proposed inclusion, the AD article attempts to explain what Quillette gets right and wrong and why some sources feel such a need to attack them. My suggestion was more along the lines of trying to make the reception section more like the AD article in that it tells a cohesive narrative rather than being a laundry list of quotes that tend to support which every POV the adding editor promotes. Springee (talk) 14:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Minkowitz's views reflect mainstream progressive criticisms of the outlet. The claims are attributed and the article is an RS for this claim. It would be obfuscation to leave out this commonly held view (of an outlet with a reputation for publishing racist pseudoscience and other falsehoods). Bacondrum (talk) 06:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
If this is a commonly held view then we should be able to cite multiple sources that say the same thing and bundle them as a general criticism. There is no reason to quote this specific person's opinions. Springee (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
There is no reason not to quote this specific person's opinions, as Greyfell pointed out this content is of a comparable quality to opposing opinions already cited in the article. Bacondrum (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Any particular reason? Springee (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - for such derogatory content to be included, which many allege has malicious errors of fact, we should have an appropriately high bar in terms of reliability. An opinion piece in an avowedly progressive outlet falls well short of the bar needed. MaximumIdeas (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Derogatory content/malicious errors of fact? Care to point out the offending derogatory claims and malicious errors of fact? The masthead certainly has a reputations for good editorial control and fact checking. Bacondrum (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
If you're curious, see here for some of the main critiques (including from other progressive sources): MaximumIdeas (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Bacondrum (talk) 06:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
The Nation does not publish Yellow Journalism, that's absolute nonsense. Bacondrum (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
It's absolute nonsense that Quillette publishes yellow journalism, as you've stated above. Loksmythe (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
You're entitled to an opinion. Bacondrum (talk) 06:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - I see many, many POV interventions here against the inclusion of this article that are based neither on evidence nor informed opinion. What we have here is informed analysis by a respected and award-winning journalist. It would be UNDUE not to include it, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As I discussed above, it's a hit piece with known factual errors, and probably others that we haven't identified yet. DGAgainstDV (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
    DGAgainstDV, those "known factual errors" look to me to be well within the realms of reasonable people may differ. You can't argue with the fact that they not only hired Andy Ngo, but kept him on until they ran out of excuses. Guy (help!) 12:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support It is a piece by a notable journalist published in a respected reliable source. Per WP:PARTISAN, bias is not a valid reason to exclude a source. So far I have seen no policy based arguments against inclusion, just a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 09:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Correctly WP:ATT piece in a venerable politically aligned but non-insane source. Guy (help!) 11:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The previous discussion came nowhere near agreeing that this source was acceptable. It's an obvious hit piece with a number of factual errors. There are less strident sources available that can more properly be used to discuss the issues this source is describing. —Torchiest talkedits 20:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't see any 'previous' discussion. Please clarify. Newimpartial (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I think Torchiest is referring to the discussion here, prior to the proposal. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)(editor topic banned)
If so, they are misconstruing the way discussion here is supposed to work. Inconclusive discussion on a general topic will always be superseded by consensus around a specific proposal, as long as the latter complies with policy. Newimpartial (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Per WP:RS/P, The Nation is a high-quality opinionated source, which makes it a good source to use to summarize particular opinions about the article's subject; and this piece is both in-depth and focused on the subject; furthermore, the existing sourcing in the section is enough to show that this broad strand of opinion is WP:DUE for coverage, while the Nation's reputation and reliability make it an excellent source to represent it (with in-line citations, of course, as WP:RSOPINION.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. The Nation is a RS and the article already cites the opinions of plenty of other opinion pieces. Citing an opinion and attributing it to someone's opinion (rather than presenting it as fact) is perfectly within the scope of the encyclopedia. If this source shouldn't be included, then most of the stuff already in the article would also have to be removed for the same reasons. rʨanaɢ (talk) 08:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Someone on the left of questionable notability called Quillette racist. This 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) 15:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
    • If opinions of non-notable people don't belong in the article, then how do you justify everything else that's there? In the current version I count 10 essays cited in the Reception section, and 8 out of those 10 are by non-bluelinked authors. So by your logic, if the Nation piece shouldn't be in there, most of the other stuff there should be removed as well. (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
What I said was that this piece would not add value to the article. The other pieces would have to be considered case-by-case. But sure, I accept the general point that "reception" sections easily become coat racks for hit pieces that add little value to an article, and this reception section looks somewhat that way to me. But that's another topic. What is under discussion here is this particular article in The Nation, and my judgment was that it would not add value or inform the reader of anything helpful or interesting. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I would not always favor use of The Nation by any means, but this article and @Grayfell:s reasoning are solid. SPECIFICO talk 17:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as proposed It's a partisan opinion piece that makes bombshell claims, such as "Quillette’s creep toward fascism...", and then has the author arguing for those claims. The author's view may be due here (she is an award-wining LGBT issues journalist), but such claims need more context. Liberalism as a term does not equal modern American progressivism, and it's also a bad idea to mention serious things like white supremacism without further context/evidence. That needs more than just one opinion piece. --Pudeo (talk) 12:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The number of opinion pieces attacking Quillette with subjective adjectievs is unending. Extremely difficult to vet and select etc. Are we going to establish a court to do line by line judgements? We already have plenty of citations for and against Quillette. Since nothing superbly new/unique came about here, its just yet another opinion piece. Jazi Zilber (talk) 12:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Quillette is a new, and very young, attempt to provide a counterforce to a media landscape in the western world that is heavily biased towards a certain worldview. By quoting a rather large number of publications that Quillette criticizes, Wikipedia could be seen to take sides in this debate. Especially since there are not many natural sources that will support Quillette at this time that could counteract this negative list in the Reception section. Especially since there seems to be a bias in this discussion to take progressive publications (The Nation, which is #17450 on Alexa) more serious than alternative way more popular publications (The Daily Caller, which is #1179 on Alexa). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkriens (talkcontribs) 18:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Jerry Coyne quote[edit]

This quote is taken severely out of its context in the source (Engber, who works for Slate, brings it up specifically to dispute and dismiss it as "gloss".) Putting it at the top of the section, without that rebuttal, is plainly taking it out of context and misrepresenting the Slate piece as a source. Furthermore, the focus of the quote, in the source, is the comparison to Slate - the rest isn't treated as important. --Aquillion (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Seems that Coyne's opinion should be given at least as much weight, given that he is more notable than Engber, and his opinion was noted by a third party, Slate. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)(editor topic banned)
The context in which a quote comes up matters; pulling a quote from a blog that is mentioned, once, dismissively, in a single opinion-piece and giving it such focus is plainly WP:UNDUE. Beyond that, the Slate piece is an opinion piece, so per WP:RSOPINION we cannot cite Engber's opinion for Coyne's opinion. If we want to cover Coyne's opinion we would have to find an WP:RSOPINION-compliant source written by Coyne, or a non-opinion piece written by someone else. It is silly to suggest that we can cite an opinion-quoting-an-opinion, mentioned in passing, and not (eg.) direct coverage of the topic by The Nation. --Aquillion (talk) 07:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't think this logic really follows. The article content wasn't included as fact in Wikipedia voice rather an attributed opinion. Unless we think the opinion wasn't actually offered by Coyne, the fact that it's packed by Slate in an opinion vs factual reporting article doesn't matter. Since Slate offers a source I think we can see the comment is reliably quoted. So the next issue is DUE. If the comment were just taken from the Coyne source I would question DUE but in this case the quote was highlighted by a Slate article about Quillette. I think that makes it just as DUE as anything else in that article. Finally, this is a quote that has been in the Wiki article for some time. It was recently removed then restored so at this point we need consensus for removal. Springee (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that logic follows. Some random biologist? Quoted by a third party in a primary source? It obviously doesn't belong here. A random third party opinion from someone with no particular expertise on the subject, from a primary source - this is totally undue and the citation is not good enough anyways. Bacondrum (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Um, I don't know what recent means to you, but it doesn't look like the Coyne's claims were removed recently, I can't be bothered going through the whole history and finding when it was removed, but it hasn't been there for at least a week. Bacondrum (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Please don't remove text until there is a consensus. Remember this is long standing content and requires consensus for removal. A BOLD edit to remove was made and reverted. Thus discuss and get consensus. So long as The Slate article appears in the wiki article I see no reason why the quote can't. Is there a consensus for removing the whole Slate article instead? Springee (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
No, you need consensus to add the claim. The Slate article is currently used to cite direct quotes from the author as per WP:PRIMARY. Quotes from a primary source of a third party's opinion are not, a primary source is not an RS for such a claim...besides who cares what some random biologist thinks of this publication? Bacondrum (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Please review WP:NOCON. The content in question was added by @Cardifform: almost a year ago [[7]]. In the case of no-consensus regarding a change, WP:NOCON says, "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. ". In a sense you are correct, I do need consensus to add something new but since this isn't new we need consensus for removal. A no-consensus state results in no change. When people tell you that you are the one changing something from status quo it's best to verify vs just say it's too much effort to look it up. Back to the discussion of DUE, why is part of the Engber article due but someone Engber felt important to cite is not? Springee (talk) 02:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
"why is part of the Engber article due but someone Engber felt important to cite is not?" Please see WP:PRIMARY, again - the guidelines are clear on this one - Look, it's been added and removed several times, so status quo is debatable, it certainly wasn't there three or four days ago. The person making the comment is completely random, there's no reason to include their views at all. It's a third party opinion from a primary source, so it can't be used regardless. Too bad. Please listen this time, I'm not going over it ad nauseum Bacondrum (talk) 02:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Since you claim they are clear on this matter, please cite the specific section and why you think it applies here. The RS rules have exceptions when dealing with attributed quotes. As for if the material was there a few days ago, that doesn't matter as the removal was challenged and this discussion is a continuation of that challenge. Per BRD the first time the material was restored it shouldn't have been removed again until a new consensus was developed. The person making the comment has a Wiki entry and per that entry has commented on subjects related to what Quillette does. Furthermore, if Coyne's comments weren't important then why did Engber bring them up? Engber's discussion of the quotes is what establishes them as DUE and we are quoting Engber's article (a secondary source) not Coyne's blog. Coyne's blog just verifies that Engber's quotes were accurate. So do you feel that Engber's comments are also UNDUE for the article? That would be a strong argument against including Coyne. Springee (talk) 03:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Actually per WP:ONUS: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content." once the content is disputed, policy is on the side of not including it unless, and until, consensus is reached to include it. Also, the part of WP:NOCON which you chose to omit states "However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 03:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
ONUS is part of WP:V. The quote is easily verified. No one has claimed Coyne didn't offer that quote. So what about the rest of ONUS?
While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content.
Well it tells us that consensus is what we need to review to decide if content should be included. So we go to wp:CON and it talks about a NOCON state where we can't agree if the material should be in or out. In that case policy says we revert to the previous stable version of the text. There is an assumed consensus for inclusion when material has been in an article for some time. See WP:SILENCE and WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS (a part of WP:CON). The text has been in the article for almost a full year, it has implied consensus for inclusion and a new consensus is required for removal. Since ONUS is about WP:V it doesn't apply here. Also, the comment about "for contentious matters related to living people" doesn't apply here. Quillette is an online magazine, not a living person. Inclusion of Coyne's comments does not reflect something controversial about Coyne himself. Springee (talk) 04:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
This is another boring case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT You've no consensus to reinstate. Feel free to make your case once you have a Primary or Secondary source that actually makes the case, though I'd say it is still undue as I fail to see how a random biologists comment on the subject is even in the same universe as due content for a critique of this magazine. Coyne's opinion is clearly not even close to WP:DUE and his quote is from a third party in a WP:PRIMARY, if you can't understand why it can't be included I can't help you. I'm done explaining the many ways this is not suitable content or sourcing. Cheers Bacondrum (talk) 05:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
You are correct, you aren't hearing. You are failing to follow policy. You are trying to remove material that was added in January. Per policy I don't need consensus to restore a BOLD removal. You need to show consensus for the removal. That is policy per WP:NOCON. Springee (talk) 11:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I didn't remove it. You seem to be struggling with understanding the guidelines here. Bacondrum (talk) 21:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Improving lead[edit]

I think we all can agree the lede needs improving. I propose the following changes (Changes in Bold):

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:

  • 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):

  • 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):

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

Obviously open to suggestions, these are just my thoughts on how to improve the lede. Let me know what you think. Bacondrum (talk) 10:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Clearly the hoax was a serious issue and must be part of the article. That said, it was withdrawn in hours after publication on their website and the content was actually quite credible after a wildly ridiculed DSA conference that showed many behaviors described in the 'hoax'. See argues, clearly not Quillette fans. I wonder if the hoax should not have its own section where it is more factually described? Clearly this hoax was not like the Sokal hoax ( or the grievances study affair/Sokal squared ( to which this hoax was an attempt to take revenge for. Putting the hoax in the lead seems to make Wikipedia take a non-neutral position in this discussion IMHO. I.e. the hoax is a bad incident but I do not think it is fair to define Quillette by it as the Damore article did. Taking a Wikipedia editor as a reference when he first found out about Quillette seems quite arbitrary I.e. the introduction section of the NYT also does not contain a reference to the Anti Semitic Cartoon (, the incorrect accusation to Kavanaugh, the high profile corrections on, the incorrect facts in, Jayson Blair (, etc. Last, I think a shoestring publication like Quillette that criticizes the far majority of publications in our media landscape on a shoestring budget should not be held to the same editorial standards as an NYT. I.e. criticism to their (lack of) editing is fair but then it should also mention that this publication tries to stay independent by not taking on large donors.

Oppose parts The hoax article sentence should not be part of the lead. "Conservative" and "right wing" are also questionable for the lead as much of the content isn't either of those. Also, why would we emphasize "conservative" and "right-wing" when the majority of the "reception" sources call it "libertarian"? Springee (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

"right-libertarian" As a compromise? As many sources say right-wing as libertarian. Bacondrum (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
No objection to the factual statements about the podcasts. Oppose the rest per Springee. Hard-to-far leftist journalists have a reliable tendency to label anything to their right as "conservative", "right-wing", or worse when it could be better descried as center-left, centrist, center-right, libertarian, heterodox, or something else. We should resist imbuing Wikipedia's voice, particularly in leads, with that tendency. Also, the Eoin Lenihan article was not a hoax. There has only been one hoax published by Quillette, the Archie Carter piece. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, how about this then (Note Jweiss11, I've referred to the Eoin Lenihan bogus story as a fabricated study rather than hoax and only the DSA Hoax as a hoax):

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

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

  • Google memo:

The bogus study and the hoax are what the mag is most widely known for. I've also added the google meo as that is widely known, I'd certainly never heard of Quillette before they were hoaxed.

Cheers Bacondrum (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Lenihan's piece wasn't "bogus" or fabricated". Your claim about what Quillette is most widely known for is evidence only of an editor's uninformed opinion and is not useful in building this article. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Read the source material, it was a fabrication. No need for personal attack - I assure you I'm well informed. Bacondrum (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I've read the source material. Lenihan's piece wasn't a fabrication. It was an analysis some people didn't like. You can assure me all you want, but you've admitted you never head of Quillette before the hoax. It was notable before then. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaximumIdeas (talkcontribs)

Remove cite overkill[edit]

Do we need so many cites for a short paragraph? I reckon one academic journal and a news article well and truly cover the claims as per WP:CITEOVERKILL Bacondrum (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the first cite in question (to Quillette's piece) is very useful to readers, as it points them to the actual cause of the controversy. As for the others, I can see your point. Would be interested in what others think on them. MaximumIdeas (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

@Bacondrum: You are edit warring with me and two other editors over your striking/deleting of my comments based on your own contentious interpretation of a sanction. Please stop. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

You have a tban affecting that article, and you know it. Bacondrum (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Controversies section[edit]

There was some back and forth around the material in this edit [[8]]. 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)

Back to improving the lede[edit]

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:

  • 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):

  • 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):

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

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)

Further the lede[edit]

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 [9][10] — 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 [[11]] 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):

And a retraction by Quillette 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):

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

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)

Human Bio-diversity[edit]

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.


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:

@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 [[12]]. 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. [13]. 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[edit]

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)

Politico vs The Nation[edit]

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 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)

RFC The Nation[edit]

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)


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)

Human Biological Diversity[edit]

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.[1]

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


  • 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 (talkcontribs) 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)


  • 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)

Prominant controversies[edit]

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)

RFC prominent controversies[edit]

As per WP:LEAD: the lead should "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." The body of the article mentions three prominent controversies: The Google memo, the Eoin Lenihan antifa editorial and the DSA hoax. Looking at the WP:LEAD guideline, which (if any) of these should be included in the lede:

  • (a)The Google memo
  • (b)The Eoin Lenihan antifa editorial
  • (c)DSA hoax
  • (d)None of the above

Bacondrum (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Survey - RFC prominent controversies[edit]

  • a, b and c - as proposer. As per guidelines WP:LEAD and WP:DUE. Bacondrum (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • None There is no reason to mention any specific controversy in the lead. We should follow the RSs that have offered overviews of Quillette as a subject. That would be say that some of the articles have been controversial but no reason to mention any specific thing in the lead. Also, I'm not sure how the Google memo related article was a controversy related to Quillette. It's notable in that it resulted in a DDoS attack and, I suspect, it helped many, myself included, learn about the publication. The Wiki article is clear that the Google memo related article was significant to the publication but doesn't suggest that the aritcle was itself controversial. Springee (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
There's a reason, the guidelines are quite clear WP:LEAD. Bacondrum (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it includes the comment Do not violate WP:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section.. The lead is meant to be a summary. We can summarize that there have been controversies without mentioning any specific one. Springee (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • a and none of the others We have three RS general profiles of Quillette to look at: 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) 04:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • a only We should follow the sources. As User:Shinealittlelight summarized nicely above, the majority of sources think the Google/Damore memo is important. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • a only per Shinealittlelight. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Black Kite seeing as this article is about an outlet that Andy Ngo was a editor for many years, doesn't the indef tban apply here? At the very least didn't this discussion conclude that Jweiss should seek clarification before contributing to articles related to Andy Ngo? Bacondrum (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

  • a only per Shinealittlelight's analysis. Loksmythe (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • a only, also based on Shinealittlelight's points.--MaximumIdeas (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • a and b definitely (both have been extensively discussed in RS), undecided on c but probably include as it was reported as fact by Fox and this in turn was discussed elsewhere along with discussion of Quillette's original publication - a viral hoax piped into the brains of 40% of America is not a small thing. Guy (help!) 16:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • all three Like Guy says a and b are pretty undeniable; c is a little less certain but I'd lean towards including it. Loki (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • a, b, and c Increasingly the most notable things about the publication, Quillette gets very little specific press about anything else nowadays. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • a, b, and c. Diving headfirst into one side of the culture war arguments over the Google Memo is what made it notable to begin with. The other two received substantial coverage for a source that hasn't, generally, received huge amounts of attention outside of the somewhat narrow sphere of its own ideological bubble, plus the mandatory back-and-forth with people on the other side. --Aquillion (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion - RFC prominant controversies[edit]

They're the three stand out controversies in the body of the article and should be summarised in the lede as per WP:LEAD. Bacondrum (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Lack of consistent reasoning[edit]

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: [14]. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Shinealittlelight, a bit like wordpress, I suppose. I was referring to discussions like [15] and [16] 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 [17] 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 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: [18]. 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 [[19]]. 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)

Better source for first sentence in ideology section[edit]

@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.

Andy Ngo[edit]

How is it that the Quillette article barely even mentions Quillette's most notorious contributor and former editor Andy Ngo and his connections to the extreme-right and neo-Nazism? This glaring absence stinks to high hell of tendentious editing/blatant obfuscation, sorry if that offends anyone but his contributions were noted throughout the Quillette article and the Andy Ngo article but there was barely a single mention of the man himself in the Quillette article...How is that? Why is that? Bacondrum (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Because Ngo's employment at Quillette isn't really notable in context of the Quillette article per RS's. Springee (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Oh, come on. That's ridiculous. Bacondrum (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
No, it's perfectly reasonable. This is an article about Quillette. Ngo, per RSs, is not a significant part of the Quillette story. The huge section you just added on Ngo is completely undue. Just look at the text in question. Where does it tire into Quillette. Springee (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
All that stuff went on while he was the sites subie. There's no parallel universe where all that stuff going on with your sub editor isn't the biggest deal to ever hit your publication, come on. I'll be back with sources, this is a crazy argument. Bacondrum (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
It's quite simple. The articles about Ngo barely mention Quillette (if at all). Stories about Quillette barely mention Ngo, if at all. The only significant overlaps are the articles which speculated that Ngo was let go after the Proud Boys video. Those are problematic here since they don't represent a controversy about Quillette. Springee (talk) 12:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Not true, many articles cited connect the two, here's a bunch from a quick google search, the connection between Ngo and Quillette is possibly the most widely reported story about Quillette (note that this is international coverage):

etc etc etc... Even Quillette felt it was newsworthy: I hope we can all agree that there's been extensive, international coverage of the behavior of what is probably Quillettes most prominent writer and the sites sub-editor - over periods of months - and the coverage connects the two. Bacondrum (talk) 12:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Just a connection isn't sufficient for inclusion, certainly not to the extent that you added Ngo into the article. Yes, Ngo has received a lot of coverage but not due to his work at Quillette. The fact that an article talking about an event or even about Ngo himself mentions Quillette is not sufficient grounds for inclusion here. Because you want to cast this as some controversy about Quillette, you need to show that something about Ngo had a notable impact on Quillette. Springee (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Bacondrum, what you are proposing is that material that is about Ngo is DUE for inclusion here because many sources about Ngo mention Quillette. However, few sources about Quillette mention know. Thus you are arguing that, because a mention of Quillette is DUE in context of the Ngo article, the reverse must also be true. Essentially you are arguing that WEIGHT has reciprocity. That is a question that has come up in the past. Consider the results of this relatively recent RfC regarding the mention of very notable crimes within automobile articles [[20]]. In one case the question was should the Oklahoma City bombing be mentioned in the Ford F-500 article. A second part of the RfC was should the Chevy Caprice article discuss the car's use in the DC sniper attacks. In both cases the answer was overwhelmingly no. While certainly the Chevy Caprice played a big roll in the DC attacks and was commonly mentioned in articles about the attacks, the crime had little impact on the sales, design, reputation etc of the car. That is effectively what we have here. At the time of the attack on Ngo, most sources just say "Ngo, a Quillette editor, was attacked..." (or similar). Later we had sources claim Ngo was fired for actions caught on video but Quillette denies it and the evidence is scant. Again, how does that reflect on Quillette? What is the impact to Quillette? When you read articles talking about how terrible Quillette is, how many mention Ngo? It looks like most mention the "horrible things" Quillette is willing to publish.
Finally, for quite some time the content about Ngo has basically not been here and no one seemed to be pushing for inclusion. Why did you suddenly decide we needed to make 2/3rds of the controversy section a short history of Ngo? Springee (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Bacondrum, propose content and sources, let's see what it looks like. Guy (help!) 18:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
JzG "In August 2019, The Daily Beast reported that Quillette sub-editor and writer Andy Ngo was leaving Quillette after the Portland Mercury published a video of Ngo with members of the far-right group Patriot Prayer as they planned violence at a bar frequented by left-wing activists. Lehmann, told The Daily Beast that Ngo had left a few weeks earlier of his own accord." Ref:
Also, the text as in the article here [[21]] is probably a BLP violation. It strongly implies, in Wiki voice, an association between Ngo and Patriot Prayer an association that is both not supported by the video and is refuted by sources. The current text can reasonably be read as Ngo was sitting down at the planning table as the group talked about how they were going to carry out an attack. A claim that Ngo helped plan an assault would need absolutely rock solid sourcing. Springee (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Quillette says lots of things, they are not a reliable source. The Daily Beast is. The current text follows this reliable source. Bacondrum (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Only for hard news, not opinion. Guy (help!) 23:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

We do not know whether he was fired at Quillette. The claim that he was fired is not verified, and not reported in RS. There has been speculation that he was fired in biased source the Daily Beast. But that's all it is: speculation. And we should obviously not include speculation or rumor of this sort. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Not claiming he was fired. Published in many high quality reliable sources from around the world. Bacondrum (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
If the text in the article now is not speculating that he was fired because of the video, then what is the point it is making? I don't understand the text you've included if it isn't meant to speculate that he was fired because of the video. If I de-couple the video from his leaving Quillette, we'd have no reason to include the stuff about the video. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Clutching at straws to obfuscate widely reported facts relating a prominent contributor and sub editor removing all connections from Quillette and announcing his moving on the day it was widely reported he'd documented a hate crime being planned and did nothing about it. Come on, this desire to obfuscate is tendentious. I accepted a number of your removals and criticisms, but this one is nonsense. If you need more citation I can add them, dozens of outlets from all around the world reported on this. Bacondrum (talk) 01:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not going to discuss this anymore, because it's going nowhere. If you really insist it's not due we can take it to Bacondrum (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
If you have RS saying that he was fired for this reason, please add it. If what we have is speculation, it doesn't belong in the article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Red herring, no one claims he was fired. All claims are backed by a reliable source (and many other outlets reported it). Take it to RFC if you really think it's not due. Bacondrum (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Shinealittlelight is correct, putting these two events together in a Quillette article strongly implies a connection. If the video is unrelated then why mention it in this article. If the video is related then we need RSs that establish that as more than speculation. Quillette says it wasn't so do we have any sources that say Quillette is wrong? We don't have reliable sources that say Quillette fired Ngo. We have sources that speculated or repeated the speculation. It's one thing to have that information in the Ngo article where at least the departure is seen as significant about Ngo. However, there is little evidence, certainly no quotes presented here, that Ngo is significant to the story of Quillette. Springee (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Red herring, no one claims he was fired. I've started a rfc, we've had a circular debate here and I'm sure we are all bored with it, so I'm specifically asking for feedback from uninvolved editors, please respect that. Bacondrum (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Springee, right. Regardless of any objections to inclusion of specifics, there should be no novel synthesis. Guy (help!) 22:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

This article has been the subject of outside WP:CANVASSing[edit]

Just noticed this, but it was a few months back: Claire Lehmann implicitly directed her followers here, with a direct link and a pretty clear indication of what she was asking them to change (and that seems to have been roughly when many of the disputes on this page heated up.) It was also picked up by The Post Millennial, a blog which is in the same general ideological bubble. It might be worth keeping that in mind when assessing consensus for any discussions from around that time, and swinging back around to repair damage done during that period once things have calmed down. --Aquillion (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that most of the recent activity on this article and this talk page has been initiated by editors who are clearly not fans/followers of Lehmann or Quillette. I think the unsubstantiated insulation that Lehmann's tweet spurred a significant amount of activity here, much less any at all, along with the characterization of "damage" having been done serves to poison the well, retroactively or going forward, against any edits or views that might be neutral or supportive of the subject. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
This is clearly Aquillion's personal interpretation of Lehmann's tweet and one that is factually incorrect. S/he should strike, modify his/her remarks: nothing in the tweet "directed" anyone to do anything. Please respect WP:BLP in making such damaging insinuations of others. Loksmythe (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Aquillion I agree there's clearly been outside canvassing, it's not really credible to deny it. Bacondrum (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
In looking back it appears the call for help was around Nov 4th. It appears the concerns were related to edits made by a new to Wikipedia editor who was almost solely focused on Quillette. Looking at the involved editors around that time, who are the editor's who appear to have been canvased? I'm choosing my words to say we are aren't claiming an editor actually was canvased. In effect, based on this suspicion, what should we do? Springee (talk) 02:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Well I would say that, at the very least, it is quite the coincidence that, soon after Lehmann's tweet, at least five editors either created new accounts or revived essentially unused ones seemingly for the sole purpose of protesting the inclusion of Donna Minkowitz's Nation article, using similar non-policy based arguments. I do not think it is unreasonable to surmise that perhaps there is some sort of off-wiki coordination taking place, either through people simply following Lehmann's tweet (which is pretty much WP:STEALTH Canvassing by Lehmann) or through other discussions in Quillette-following circles/forums. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 06:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken the Minkowitz discussion took place in early/mid December, almost a month and a half later. Springee (talk) 11:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

If you guys have reasonable suspicion of inappropriate canvassing, take it to the implicated user's talk page, and to the relevant notice board, per WP:CANVAS. This page is where we discuss content. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, The talk page of one or more directly related articles is appropriate. See WP:APPNOTE Vexations (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
That policy says it is appropriate to notify people here of a relevant discussion. Fine. But it is not appropriate to carry out a discussion of non-content-related behavior issues here.Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Actually, since this potentially dovetails into WP:MEATPUPPET territory, noting and discussing this here is useful for anyone assessing consensus in previous discussions, as "In votes or vote-like discussions, new users may be disregarded or given significantly less weight, especially if there are many of them expressing the same opinion. Their comments may be tagged with a note pointing out that they have made few or no other edits outside of the discussion." AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 08:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
So in which discussions are you suggesting we tag and accuse editors of acting in bad faith? If a brand new editor shows up tomorrow are you going to suggest they were summoned by a November 2019 tweet? Should we just anyone who joined the topic after 4 Nov of being canvassed by that tweet? The irony of it is if this is really not a vote and the quality of the argument ships carry the day then it shouldn’t matter. Regardless, those in favor of this please state who should be ignored and why. Springee (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
So, the rules potentially being broken in controversial topics are many and varied. Agenda driven editors can always summon the most convenient rules from the vast Wikipedia rulebook. Wikilawyering (forgive me not having the wiki link on hand, for lack of practice) is also very clearly common.
The critical question is how balanced an article is, how diverse the involved editors are. And whether editors are gaming the system in any kind of way.
Those issues must get a honest and objective answer. Rather than nitpicking on minor rules and sub rules as fits convenience Jazi Zilber (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  1. ^ Minkowitz, Donna. "Why Racists (and Liberals!) Keep Writing for 'Quillette'". The Nation. The Nation Company, L.P. Retrieved 6 January 2020.