Misplaced Pages

Talk:Quillette

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Conan The Librarian (talk | contribs) at 05:13, 10 December 2020 (→Political pigeonholing in the lead section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 05:13, 10 December 2020 by Conan The Librarian (talk | contribs) (→Political pigeonholing in the lead section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Quillette article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMagazines Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconAustralia Low‑importance [REDACTED]
WikiProject iconQuillette is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia.
[REDACTED]
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to help@wikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Template:WikiProject Libertarianism

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPolitics Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPodcasting Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Podcasting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of notable podcasts and podcast-related information on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PodcastingWikipedia:WikiProject PodcastingTemplate:WikiProject Podcastingpodcasting
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Media mentionThis Quillette has been mentioned by a media organization:
The contents of the Wrongspeak page were merged into Quillette on October 7, 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Quillette article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months 

Google memo article

@Emilyekins and Skyisdeep: I don't see a RS issue with adding a link to the Quillette article in question here ]. I agree that normally Quillette is not a WP:RS. However this is a paragraph about a specific article published by Quillette thus a link to the article would be inherently reliable in the spirit of WP:ABOUTSELF. I don't like that it was added as a raw link rather than a complete citation. Skyisdeep, would you be opposed if I added the link back as part of a complete citation? Springee (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The weight given to this incident in the article still needs to be based on reliable sources, which in this case is a single paragraph in an article about larger issues. The Quillette article isn't inherently reliable for this, since that article is not about the DDoS attack, and that's the only reason this is significant enough to even mention. As a ref for convenience, maybe, but what exactly would the article itself actually tell readers that they need to know? Also, are there any other reliable sources discussing this incident? Grayfell (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
The weight is established by the fact that it's discussed by all the three RS profiles we have of Quillette: SMH, Politico, and CHE. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Due weight is decided by sources, but it's not pass/fail. We should use reliable sources to indicate to readers why something is significant. Per Politico: Quillette’s rapid-fire response in support of James Damore, the writer of the notorious “Google memo” that criticized attempts to promote women and minorities within the organization, was so popular that the site crashed. (Lehmann’s tech support team told her it could have been a successful denial-of-service attack.) (This is part of a larger paragraph, also, and is provided by the source as context for a larger point) Politico's explanation is not the same as the current article's. Do reliable, non-opinion sources confirm that this was a DDoS attack? Grayfell (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
SMH says this:
A defining moment for Ms Lehmann occurred in 2017. Google employee James Damore attended a diversity program at the tech company and then wrote a memo to his managers complaining of an "ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be discussed honestly". While he opposed discrimination, he said the lack of equal representation between men and women in tech and leadership could be partly explained by differences in traits. He was sacked after the note attracted outrage, with social and mainstream media criticising him being sexist and "cherry-picking" the science. Quillette responded by running an article from four academics supporting the scientific rationale behind the memo, arguing there was, in fact, some biological evidence for his claims. The site was hit by a denial-of-service attack after publishing that piece, which stopped readers from being able to access it.
Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that one is already cited. Since the only other mention of this is this single sentence with ambiguous context, I have rephrased this line to clearly attribute this to Lehmann. Grayfell (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I think we have two changes now. The first is if a convenience link to the actual Quillette article should be included. The second is if the authors should be named. I'm inclined to say yes to both. The authors have their own Wiki entries so that suggests sufficient notability for inclusion. I'm sure verifying their names via a third party RS will be easy enough.
Back to the first issue, I don't see how a direct link is impacted by weight. It neither adds nor subtracts from the article text. Springee (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Seems right to me: yes on names, yes on link. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes on names, a very strong no on link. They are an unreliable source that publishes racist pseudo-science. If the reader wants to read that kind of stuff they can look it up, if the claims made in our article are made by other reliable sources then what purpose does linking an unreliable source serve other than promotion or access to content? I don't think sufficient cause has been shown to link a disreputable and profoundly racist publication. Bacondrum (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
RS doesn't enter into the issue here. The article itself is the most reliable source for the content of the article. Springee (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure that WP:ABOUTSELF is the relevant policy here, though, Springee, since that article isn't about Quillette, and it does make claims about third parties, etc. However, I think the piece should be linked according to WP:ELYES, which says that An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a legally distributed copy of the work. I would also note that this is the policy which recommends the external link we currently include at the bottom of the article to Quillette's official site. If Bacondrum's argument were accepted, we'd have to remove that official link as well, contrary to WP:ELYES. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
External links are different than citations, and I hope it's obvious why, so this is a distraction at best. So again, what, exactly, is the purpose of this link to this specific article as a reference. What information is it supporting? What information is this link going to provide to readers which is not already supported by more reliable, secondary sources? Grayfell (talk) 00:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
If the link was in the stable version of the article, why should it be removed? (if not, NOCON says it stays out) I see nothing wrong with keeping it. Why are you concerned that we would allow readers to go right to the article and judge for themselves? That said, since the authors of the article were notable enough to have their own Wiki pages we should keep their names in the article. They are part of the long term stable version of the article thus should be restored if we can't reach a consensus for exclusion. Springee (talk) 02:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
They are not mentioned by any reliable independent source. Their names are not automatically significant just because they can be propped-up by a primary source in a generally unreliable outlet. Adding superfluous details is a form of back-door promotion. Misplaced Pages is not a platform for promotion. Further, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a bureaucracy. If you feel these details should be included based on a single primary source, explain your position, or better yet, find better sources. Grayfell (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, I concur with Grayfell, As I said earlier - what purpose does linking an unreliable source serve other than promotion or access to content? Also, on reading Grayfells comment, I agree the names are not automatically significant. Bacondrum (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring - recent edits to the lede

Please discuss here rather than edit war. Diffs:

  • I'm opposed to adding Lehmann's opinion as to how "oppressive" college campus' are or how her own outlet is a "safe space" and how great her outlet is to the lede. We should use third party, reliable secondary sources to describe the outlet. I believe WP:ABOUTSELF is cancelled out by WP:PROMO and WP:NPOV in this case as the about self describes a for profit, ideologically driven media outlet with an vested-interest in describing itself a certain way, a description that is contradicted by secondary sources, hence it is promotional opinion. I personally think about self has been fallen back upon far too readily when working on this article. Bacondrum (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
    Bacondrum, perhaps I may clarify my reverts, and explain why I didn't think it would be edit-warring. The first diff that's relevant is , which was reverted by Springee, saying it was an unsupported claim. I reverted that , because it wasn't. Then Shinealittlelight reverted it again, arguing that it isn't due for the lead,and we shouldn't be dropping the content about "scientific topics". I reverted that again, this time not because it was a factual error, but because I disagree about what is due for the lead. Apologies if that is edit-warring. It wasn't intended that way. As to what's due for the lead, the lead summarizes the most important points form the article's body. Should we mention why it was created, and what Lehmann herself had to say about it? Of course we do. Is it ideal to use her own words for that? Probably not. There is a lot of ambiguity in how she phrased it, and it can be interpreted as anything ranging from, "providing a space for rigorous academic debate" to "a place where pseudo-scientific racists can publish racist ideas". So context matters. The lead is not the place to explore those differing interpretations, but some reference to the reasons for its founding should be there. I think using Lehmann's own words in the lead and exploring the interpretations and context of those words further in the article is reasonable. Hence my edits. Vexations (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, no worries, I've done the same many times, that's why I started this discussion. I still don't think Lehmann's highly debatable public relations statement about her own outlet belongs in the lede, or in the article at all. Lehmann most likely founded the outlet for the same reason most people start media outlets, to make money and give a platform to their views and the views of others with whom they agree, I don't think we should analyse her motivation for starting the outlet, it's all original research and assumption. Bacondrum (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't really see an issue with the material and I disagree with Bacondrum's self promotional justification for removal. That said, if we all agree the earlier version was best I'm OK with that as well. Thank you Bancondrum for starting the talk so we can clear this up. Springee (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  • There are countless possible quotes we could include, if we had a valid reason. We can pluck from random sources to our heart's content. That's not what we should be doing. In this case, this quote from an article which is clearly skeptical of Lehmann's claims. The article says, for example, "none of the opinions expressed on Quillette are being shunned from mainstream discussion, as Lehmann might have you believe" and about a dozen similar statements. These indicate that Lehmann's position is actively contested by both the article's author and other observers. Ignoring this context and using the source for an arbitrary quote is cherry-picking. We cannot strip-away the context of a source to use it for a flattering tidbit merely because it supports a specific, niche position.
To put it another way, Lehman's opinions are only relevant to the extent they can be contextualized by reliable sources. That she has connected her mundane opinion on "oppressive campuses" to Quillette is not an excuse to add public relations. It's not an excuse to inject this into the article without any other context. I do not accept that this rises to the level of being ABOUTSELF. It's closer to Misplaced Pages:Avoid mission statements, if anything, but even that is giving this random quote too much significance. Grayfell (talk) 07:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Edits to remove basic 'blank slate' definition

Two editors (one being a now banned sock-puppet) have now undone my edit which included the very brief definition of Blank Slate as "the theory of human development, which assumes individuals are largely products of nurture, not nature" – which came from the original source and is a very common term in science and psychology. See here, here and here. It is appropriate to be included in that quote for the reader. I do not know why two editors have attempted to remove it when it's a very basic term, and was a popular ideology in the 20th century. There was entire book named after the term: The Blank Slate, or read about David Reimer who was famously castrated and turned into a woman in infancy due to blank slatism, and raised as a girl under the belief his parents could socialise him into a girl. I find it highly unusual that two editors have attempted to remove this definition from the article when they openly express the fact they do not know what it means (see this edit in which the editor writes: "tabula rasa is very different to what ever this "blank slate orthodoxy" is that Lehmann is talking about")... In reality: blank slatism is almost identical to tabula rasa and had a fine definition from Politico. Baconundrum then went and posted an 'edit warring' notice on my talk page, completely ignoring the WP:AGF guidelines and the definition of 'edit warring' which requires three successive edits in 24 hours. 'Blank slatism' is a basic concept, defined appropriately and briefly by Politico, and is important to include in the sentence. It should not be removed based on the opinions of editors or their misunderstanding of the concept. I have read a Quillette article probably 3 times in my entire life because they do sometimes happen to post good opinions from established experts in psychology/science (I personally think what Lehmann says to be at times ridiculous), but I won't tolerate editors deleting basic definitions because they WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This is my line of knowledge. I always try to to WP:AGF, and I am sorry if this message 'seems' grumpy, but it does get tiring when editors remove perfectly cited content for unbeknownst reasons. Note that my edits are actually in the field of science and psychology, while others clearly have a more political interest. That is fine, but don't bring your views into editing. I am going to alert Crossroads who can hopefully check this for me. Sxologist (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey Sxologist, sorry if I've offended you, please stop taking things so personally. You were edit warring, it's not a personal attack and I certainly do assume good faith - no hard feeling, hey. I understand you are fairly new to this, so I'll explain...be BOLD when making edits, if someone disagrees they REVERT your edit, if you really think your edit should stand you take it to talk, like we are doing now and 'DISCUSS as per Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Bacondrum (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Passive aggressive and patronizing comments are not necessary. You have previously deleted your account in a huff after constant warnings and criticisms over your ideologically motivated edits. You even wrote: "I've no respect for this place or the people that run it. I will never be returning". Does that sound like someone who respects Misplaced Pages policy? WP rules don't bend to your liking when you feel like it. I'm glad other editors could see that. Sxologist (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
In my view, it really doesn't matter what we think 'blank slate' means, or how it's related to 'tablua rasa'; all that matters is that our RS says that it's the theory that "individuals are largely products of nurture, not nature". Since that's what the reliable source says, there's no doubt that the claim is verified. So the claim must be that it's undue, is that right Bacondrum? I'm fine with including it, and it seems sort of helpful to include it. But I'd like to hear what the reason was for removal. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
On the face of it I don't see the harm in having the statement and can see why it would be useful to the reader. I don't feel strongly about it but absent an explanation why we would want to remove it I'm in favor of inclusion. Springee (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
A brief explanation of what "blank slate" means in this context is due. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I think the quote is undue, but I'm not diametrically opposed to its inclusion. What I'm really not okay with is the wikilink. We can't be sure what she means by blank slate orthodoxy, What is "blank slate orthodoxy"? Sounds like some personal ideological stance to me. I don't think we should be wikilinking within the quote in such a manner, it's like putting words in her mouth...we are giving meaning to her quote that is not explicitly stated by her. Tabula rasa and "blank slate orthodoxy" don't necessarily seem to me to be the same thing. Bacondrum (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't really care whether we include the wikilink. But I will note that WP redirects 'blank slate' to the tabula rasa article, and I see no reason she doesn't mean what everyone means by it. Moreover, our tabula rasa article says "Generally, proponents of the tabula rasa theory also favour the "nurture" side of the nature versus nurture debate" which suggests that the theory as explained at that article is exactly what our source identifies as what Lehmann meant by it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Exactly. Lehmann is educated in psychology; it's perfectly clear what she means when she refers to "blank slate orthodoxy". As is written here: "Blank slate is the epistemological thesis that individual human beings are born with no built-in mental content". Additionally, the opening paragraph on the Wiki article for Steven Pinker's book The Blank Slate states that "the author makes a case against tabula rasa models in the social sciences, arguing that human behavior is substantially shaped by evolutionary psychological adaptations". When she says 'Blank slate orthodoxy' she is referring to a dominant view in sociology that we are born with brains like playdough which are set entirely by our upbringing. It's been discredited for decades, yet is still dominant in SOME schools of thought. Anyone who has studied psychology, genetics or biology is utterly frustrated with it's dominance... twins who are raised apart in radically different environments are remarkably similar. It doesn't even matter IF it is an orthodoxy or not because her opinion stays in quote marks. The definition of 'blank slatism', however, is well established and correctly outlined by Politico. Bacondrum, I'm going to assume good faith and believe you have a misunderstanding of the term and concept. Sxologist (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

We definitely should explain to the reader what is meant by the phrase "blank slate", and the Politico source does so in the context of Quillette, so I'm not seeing any good reason not to do so. I would put the phrase as "a theory of human development which assumes individuals are largely products of nurture, not nature", including that wikilink. Wikilinking to tabula rasa may also be good. Note, too, SarahMinuit was a sockpuppet, and as such, their opinion counts for zilch, and they can be reverted by anyone for any reason per WP:Block evasion. Crossroads 02:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done: I have included the sentence with that structure. Thank you Crossroads. Sxologist (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

And I accept the consensus. Thanks. Bacondrum (talk) 02:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Possible additional sources

General:

On that list of journalists:

More Archie Carter:

On Yang (pretty minor):

On transgender issues and Helen Joynce:

On Cancel Culture:

Huh. Amazon shared a Quillette post:

Jlevi (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Notice: General reliability discussion at RSN

For editors watching this page, there is a discussion regarding the reliability of Quillette at RSN ] Springee (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Political pigeonholing in the lead section

Please can we have some well argued references for the alignment of this publication (as opposed to just lifting unexplained tagging from opinion pieces). If it's libertarian, that's fine but all we have at the moment are unexplained assertions which might just reflect incorrect assumptions of the journalist or them lifting it from Misplaced Pages. Until then I suggest we leave the various perspectives on it's position to the main body. Conan The Librarian (talk) 04:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Quillette Add topic