Talk:Quillette/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Andy Ngo - RfC Daily Beast

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.

---

{{rfc|media|pol|soc}} Seeking feedback from uninvolved editors: Does the citation provided

• (a)back this claim regarding Andy Ngo

and

• (b)is it due in the Quillette article?

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.

Thanks Bacondrum (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• UNDUE Involved editor obviously. No, this content is not due for inclusion on several grounds. First, it's a BLP problem. Some people claim the video shows Ngo interacting with PP members as they plan an attack. However, it's not clear from the video that Ngo was aware of anything being said by the group and Ngo has disputed the allegation. As presented we would be implying this disputed claim is true. Second, which is more important here, how is this notable in context of Quillette. Quillette said Ngo left the publication prior to the release of this video. If that is true then the release of this video had no impact on Ngo's leaving and thus this again is not significant in context of Quillette. But lets assume TDB is correct which brings up the third point. Three, what impact has this, or any Ngo related topic had on Quillette? Quillette seems to have found some controversy based on various articles but few place any significance on Ngo's employment by the publication. The controversy seems to be due the publication of other writers, not anything Ngo did as part of his work at Quillette. Thus this is should be kept out for both BLP and DUE reasons. Springee (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you've already made this point, that's why the request is for feedback from uninvolved editors rather than an endless circular debate that's been had to death. Bacondrum (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Inclusion. The first sentence is written in a way that implies, without directly stating, that Ngo lost his job because of the video published by Portland Mercury. The source does not support that implied claim, and so the above version violates WP:EDITORIAL, which warns against implications that are not supported by the sources. Note that this is serious, insofar as the impliciation is that Quillette founder Claire Lehmann is lying about the circumstances of Ngo leaving. On the other hand, we could rewrite the sentence to avoid this unsupported implication by saying "Will Sommer at the Daily Beast speculated that ..." It would then be UNDUE. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Reflects the source. Bacondrum (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the source implies that Ngo lost his job because of the video, and that it does not even attempt to provide sufficient support for this claim. We should not do likewise, per WP:EDITORIAL, especially since the implied claim entails that Lehmann is lying. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Did you watch the video? The article contains irrefutable proof that Quillette's sub-editor was present while the conversation was taking place. Where does the article imply that Lehmann is lying? Bacondrum (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The article implies that he was fired because of the video. It also reports that she denies this. So the article implies (doesn't explicitly say) that she was lying about why he left Quillette. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• A and B - Follow the source, it speaks for itself. Quillette's denial is included for balance. All this other fluff is an attempt at obfuscation. Bacondrum (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion per Springee. Loksmythe (talk) 05:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
• OPPOSE inclusion per Springee Additionally, these RfC's are getting out of hand. Adoring nanny (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

So I should edit war? This is a perfectly reasonable way to settle disputes and this is a contentious subject. Got any other recommendations for dealing with disputes? I've not edit warred or made personal attacks, I've acted in good faith. I've done nothing wrong, not a thing. 220.253.50.117 (talk) 09:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC) bacondrum - I couldn't log in for some reason.

• Oppose. Daily Beast is not a good source for anything contentious. Guy (help!) 08:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
• I oppose any inclusion of Andy Ngo in the Quillette article. We already have an article on him. His contributions to Quillette have been minimal. Whatever the circumstances of his departure were, we have no business suggesting/implying/hinting at/not-really-saying-it-but-you-know-what-we-mean that he was fired for supporting/associating-with/being-part-of a group of criminals/patriots/centrists. No sane source has said anything like that. It's all synthesis, and it needs to stop. Don't think that I sympathize with Ngo though; I don't, and think he deserves an article that describes his work without pussyfooting around the shitty things he's done. But this article is not the place to do it. As for the personal attacks; may I just remind those of you who seem confused about this: Per WP:NPA "Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor". I know some of us disagree on the subject, but please treat each other with respect. Thanks,
• Comment Consensus is clearly against me on this one. Shall we close this discussion with the result recorded that the content is undue? Bacondrum (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I interpret this as you withdrawing the RfC. I will close it. Guy (help!) 21:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

References

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.

Notability

I don't believe that this meets Wikipedia's requirements for notability. Could someone review the matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.188.249.128 (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)

History Section

In the history section I had added https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quillette&oldid=861928735

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

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? 24.21.215.155 (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! https://quillette.com/2018/06/27/who-we-are/ 24.21.215.155 (talk) 02:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

References

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. 24.21.215.155 (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Conflicts of Interest

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. 24.21.215.155 (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Critique from Canadaland

Recent episode of canadaland has a critique of a Quillette article which would probably be worth including. 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)

References

Thanks. I'll tackle it either tonight or tomorrow. It will likely fit well in the reception section nested within the praise and critiques. 24.21.215.155 (talk) 03:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Merge Wrongspeak into Quillette

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 24.21.215.155 (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 24.21.215.155 (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. 24.21.215.155 (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,

24.21.215.155 (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).

24.21.215.155 (talk) 06:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support. It seems logical to merge Wrongspeak into Quillette. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 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. 24.21.215.155 (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2018 (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.

Incorrect/ambiguous Quillette Podcast

Quillette publishes both the "Wrongspeak" podcast, which can be found here: https://soundcloud.com/wrongspeak and the "Quillette Podcast", which can be found here: https://quillette.com/category/podcast/.

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 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Ideology Section

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 65.152.133.38 (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 65.152.133.38 (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 65.152.133.38 (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" .24.21.215.155 (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Hoax article

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 (talk • contribs) 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)

Right-wing troll and bizarre editorial practices

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 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. Subsequent to the publication of the Quillette article, the journalists who were mentioned in the article were harassed. 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)

References

Why was Eoin Lenihan banned by Twitter?

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)

https://www.cjr.org/analysis/quillette-antifa-journalist-smear-campaign.php 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)

Missing Content: Proposed Addition

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)

Eoin Lenihan

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.

Terrorist kill lists

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. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/new-republic-removes-homophobic-op-ed-attacking-buttigieg-n1029546 NPalgan2 (talk) 20:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Coming here from [[2]]. TNR article seems to be op-ed quality work. In context of the edit here [[3]], 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)

Lead should be rewritten

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[4] 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)

Jerry Coyne quote

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 [[5]]. 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

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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obviously open to suggestions, these are just my thoughts on how to improve the lede. Let me know what you think. 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 https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/quillette-dsa-and-hoax-wasnt 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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair) or the grievances study affair/Sokal squared (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair) 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 (https://thehill.com/homenews/media/440957-ny-times-opinion-apologizes-for-cartoon-depicting-anti-semitic-tropes), the incorrect accusation to Kavanaugh, the high profile corrections on https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/opinion/steve-scalise-congress-shot-alexandria-virginia.html, the incorrect facts in https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/07/books/review/shining-a-light-on-campus-rape.html, Jayson Blair (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/opinion/sundar-pichai-google-memo-diversity.html https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-unfortunate-fallout-of-campus-postmodernism/

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 (talk • contribs)

Edit warring

@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)

Remove cite overkill

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)

Article in The Nation

Interesting article from The Nation was put out today:

• Minkowitz, Donna (December 5, 2019). "Why Racists (and Liberals!) Keep Writing for Quillette". The Nation. Retrieved December 6, 2019.

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: https://quillette.com/2019/12/07/are-we-in-the-midst-of-a-transgender-murder-epidemic/. 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)

Proposal

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. [[6]]. 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."[7] 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)

• Support. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:17, 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): https://twitter.com/jonkay/status/1202776534878019584 MaximumIdeas (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Bacondrum (talk) 06:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose – The Nation publishes yellow journalism, as evidenced by this piece. Loksmythe (talk) 22:11, 14 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 ^talk_edits 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. 152.208.24.217 (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 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)