Jump to content

Talk:Grievance studies affair

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/arts/academic-journals-hoax.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. › Mortee talk 07:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Areas in need of basic improvements

[edit]

The article has gone through some edits that need further polishing, including:

  • avoid red linking
  • avoid inclusion of external links in the body of the article
  • the section "The reaction" needs to be more professionally re-written. That includes avoiding listing in it a bunch of outlets where the news appeared; for that we have the traditional citation style of wikipedia.

All these above hint to a promotional approach to the article, that should be avoided. Thank you, (talk) user:Al83tito  13:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun to address some of these issues. Thanks. (talk) user:Al83tito  23:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Others, as well as myself, have addresses several of the issues I listed above as my rationale for tagging the article for improvement. In my view, the issues of red linking and external linking (other than in the "External links" section at the bottom), are fully addressed. The section "The reaction" is now gone, with some parts moved to a similarly-titled "Reactions". I think more work can be done in improving the article (to keep having it written in a more neutral tone, and continue to improve the flow of the text), and at this point I think the tag can either stay a bit longer or be removed. (talk) user:Al83tito  11:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is calling the authors “too dumb to lock their own Wikipedia page” and it is not available in the edit screen to remove. They also included that these fields are being referred to as “grievance studies by them (and only them). Which is false and the phrase (and only them) is also not removable in the edit screen. They also made “unfounded” claims about the discussion on the Joe Rogan show. Please edit this page appropriately Hicxell (talk) 03:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Better article name?

[edit]

I created the article, and for the lack of a better article name I went first for "Grievance Studies" affair. However, I do want to ask the community: is there a better name for the article? Thank you. (talk) user:Al83tito  23:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of sources do back up your choice [1], [2]. --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Sokal Squared" or 'Sokal Squared Hoax" is a term commonly used and I prefer. The WSJ used it here https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-do-the-kavanaugh-confirmation-and-the-sokal-squared-hoax-have-in-common/2018/10/10/f7efabf8-ccc6-11e8-a3e6-44daa3d35ede_story.html and often its contextualised to Sokal as here in the Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/new-sokal-hoax/572212/.
Also "Grievance Studies" affair sounds more like an Tintin Adventure, as in The Calculus Affair. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Calculus_Affair
Keith Johnston (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Keith Johnston: just a note that you linked to the Washington Post, not the WSJ. The WSJ doesn't use the term "Sokal Squared". wumbolo ^^^ 16:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that most mainstream media outlets refer to the incident as either the "Grievance Studies" hoax (note that they tend to use "hoax" as opposed to "affair" when invoking "grievance") or Sokal Squared, I think that it's prudent that the article title be changed to just "Sokal Squared" in the spirit of Neutral POV. Unless there are meaningful objections, I'll change it over. Lionparty (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Grievance Studies hoax would be better than Sokal Squared, IMO. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion it should be described as multiple hoaxes. wumbolo ^^^ 22:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a clear preference for "Grievance studies" vs. "Sokal Squared" in reliable sources, but "Sokal Squared" is probably a confusing nickname for anyone who doesn't already understand the Sokal hoax. All else equal I think "Grievance Studies hoax/affair" are both preferable to "Sokal Squared". Nblund talk 19:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for some citations

[edit]

Some of the citations I added to this page were authored by me. Unfortunately, they contain arguments I have yet to see anyone else make. If I can track down a better source, I'll substitute it.

Hjhornbeck (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes probably too long

[edit]

Hi @Hjhornbeck: thank you for your dedication to editing and expanding this article. I have noticed that you have introduced some lengthy quotes. Those may need to be shortened, and part or all of their content summarized in other words, per MOS:QUOTE. Thanks, (talk) user:Al83tito 06:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've shortened one of them, and added new citations. The first quote, where the trio describe the prior Conceptual Penis hoax, is reasonably short and condensed, and I could easily see someone level an accusation of "bias" if I were to type that the authors themselves found the hoax ineffectual. The third quote from Carl T. Bergstrom is even more condensed. I'll get rid of the first example in the "Mein Kampf" section, but the trio's paraphrasing is so extensive that you can't do a sentence-to-sentence comparison, and such a comparison is too illuminating to leave out entirely. Hjhornbeck (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hjhornbeck I've reverted yours and several other edits attempting to restore the last good version as you introduced a massive copyright violation (and not just because of the quote) as well as included several totally unreliable sources. Please see WP:RS. Praxidicae (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Praxidicae Which sources? I'll agree that citing my blog posts is a bit dodgy, but they are well-cited with reference to primary literature. They are currently the sole source for the claims made, and those claims are severe enough to change the interpretation of the entire affair. The remainder of sources are either from the three authors themselves, or news media. I'm willing to remove some of the citations to my blog, but excluding those changes I'm reverting back to the latest edit until you name the specific sources and why they are problematic. Hjhornbeck (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hjhornbeck Please don't restore contested, improperly sourced and copyvio content again. You posted just moments ago without giving anyone a minute to respond. Praxidicae (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I could keep going... yes some of these qualify as WP:PRIMARY but there is way too much synth here and it's overly detailed.Praxidicae (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The version you restored has an op-ed as the very first citation, and it's been present since the very first edit. If my cited op-eds are too synth, why isn't also that true for a good dozen other editors? "Original research" is not synonymous with "things you discovered," either; WP:OR states that it covers material "for which no reliable, published sources exist." There is reliable, published source material here, such as the Google Drive folders created by the hoaxers that contain the papers they created. My "completely irrelevant" blog post makes extensive use of them to document a claim directly related to this affair. All quotes fall under WP:FU guidelines, so there is no copyright violation. Your claims are so far separated from Wikipedia policy that I have a very difficult time seeing them as anything but personal bias. I do respect your request for more time to respond, so I'll keep the reversion in place until we can resolve this, either by ourselves or by a neutral third party as-per WP:ADMINGUIDE/DR. Hjhornbeck (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to tag you, Praxidicae, so while I'm here I should also ask how you call my changes "largely a copyright violation." Where did I violate WP:FU? It must have been very pervasive, to be worth scrubbing every single change I made, instead of asking me to paraphrase as other editors have. Hjhornbeck (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We're still not done yet, Praxidicae. You criticized me for adding citations to tweets and a Google Drive folder, yet as I point out on the Talk page for Peter Boghossian you had no problems with citations to tweets and the same Google Drive folder made by another editor on that page. That looks like a blatant violation of neutrality on your part; how do you explain this hypocrisy? 07:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Hjhornbeck Do not accuse me of some agenda because I fixed a policy violation on one article. I have no dog in this game and I could care less about either topic. Had I noticed at the time that someone added such ridiculous sources, I'd remove those too but given the massive mess that's been made in both articles, it's no surprise it was overlooked, but thank you for telling me as they need to be removed too. Praxidicae (talk) 16:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Praxidicae, I do not throw out the accusation lightly, but only in the face of substantial evidence. Take that tweet you criticized, for instance. A claim in the article is that a twitter account sent a tweet. I cited that tweet. I've checked WP:SELFSOURCE, and it tics every box. On the page for Donald Trump, a heavily visited site that can be counted on to be well-edited, a tweet is cited to back up the claim that he was self-funding his campaign. That page also cites an article from The Atlantic which mentions the claim, acting as secondary confirmation; in my case, I link to two websites which serve the same purpose.
You have a lot more experience as an editor than I. But that also means that you should know that editors should have a light touch when dealing with those less experienced. As other editors have done on this page, you should engage in dialog and point the n00b to resources like WP:RS, only intervening when gentle reminders fail to work. You do not mass-delete their work with blanket accusations of policy violations, which with minor effort can be shown to be only partly true at best. You are behaving quite differently from other editors on here, and from what would be expected of you given your experience. The best explanation for that is personal bias, and pointing to WP:ASPERSIONS does not make the evidence go away. Again, I'm more than happy to walk through my edits and bring them in line with policy, but you need to make an effort to engage instead of handing out policy violations like they were stickers. Hjhornbeck (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding me right now? Coming from the person who said after two editors requested you discuss it that you were "restoring the changes unilaterally", you are accusing me of NPOV, bias and some personal vendetta? I'm not going to continue engaging you on this right here as it's clearly going nowhere as you've failed to read any of the pertinent points in this discussion and are using WP:OSE. If my behavior is breaking policy, well, ANI is that away...Praxidicae (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ANI is not the appropriate venue, it's meant for "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." According to DDE, the next step is to get a third opinion, provided both sides are willing to act in good faith. I'm still willing on my side, so what about you? Because if not, the next step still isn't ANI, but instead mediation. As the advice page puts it, "Taking a dispute to ANI is like going to war. War has no victors, only survivors." Hjhornbeck (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bah, I forgot to tag again. What will it be, Praxidicae? A third opinion or mediation? Hjhornbeck (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take the 3O off the table... I concur that the content sourced to blogs and primary sources (and the original research based thereon) should, per policy, be excluded. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, WP:AN. My point remains the same. I've only acted in good faith and been accused of an ulterior motive and personal bias. I don't care about the subject matter in the slightest. I'd also strongly suggest you read and re-read WP:RS. Take it where you please, because you still haven't addressed your egregious accusations.Praxidicae (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Praxidicae, the only thing I need to address is the charge of WP:OSE. As the page says, "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." I could easily have dredged up a dozen examples on smaller pages, but instead I picked a single example from one of the most-trafficked pages on here. If the usage of that Tweet survived thousands of edits by dozens of editors over the span of two months, then it's a de-facto community standard on that page and in the name of consistency should be propagated to elsewhere on that site. My usage is aligned with WP:SSEFAR.
I'd also like to point out WP:OSE states "This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who has made a reference to how something is done somewhere else." By doing exactly that you're again contrary to Wikipedia policy, and my accusations remain decidedly non-egregious. Hjhornbeck (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hjhornbeckmy accusations remain decidedly non-egregious Then please provide diffs per WP:NPA, as you've accused me of violating NPOV and having an ulterior motive. I await your response. Praxidicae (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Praxidicae, WP:NPA states that "diffs and links" are valid. My link is this talk page Hjhornbeck (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for stepping in, Ryk72, as a fairly inexperienced editor I'm not well-versed in the culture. Would you mind sticking around for a bit? The problem with Praxidicae's mass delete is that I have to go through my changes block-by-block, to double-check which are in line with standards and which aren't. Having a third editor present to offer their opinion would help ensure those policies are better adhered to. Hjhornbeck (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And not a single one of the things you've posted substantiate your claim, so again, please provide a diff of my edits which support your statement that I have violated NPOV and have an agenda. Thanks. Praxidicae (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try this again. Rather than have all my edits undone in a single stroke, I'm going to proceed slower and give more time for comment. As suggested I have re-read WP:RS, and believe all my latest edit is in compliance. Since I'm sure I'll come up, the citation to leiterreports is valid under [[WP::PRIMARY]] as it contains "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." The authors claim to have started August 16, 2017, and that link demonstrates the veracity of that claim. The edit also fixes the original complaint, that I was quoting too much material, by conveying the same information as the original. 21:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjhornbeck (talk • contribs)

Also, that "leiterreports" blog citation links to the exact same file that's present in the Google Drive link in the "External Links" section, if you'd like to verify its authenticity. Hjhornbeck (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Under consideration papers?

[edit]

There are six paper missing (the yellow ones in [3]). Someone should add them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning on doing that, in the style I used in this edit. I need to finish something else first, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjhornbeck (talk • contribs) 14:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Media

[edit]

I have uploaded both freely licensed videos from YouTube onto Commons, and they are available at c:Category:Grievance Studies affair. So anyone can feel free to grab screenshots or use them however you like. GMGtalk 15:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

Moving these to talk until they're actually used in the article. We really don't need a dozen sources in the lead to support a single sentence. GMGtalk 15:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Academics Expose 'Grievance Studies' Field by Submitting Hoax Papers to Journals". The National Review. 2018-10-03. Archived from the original on 2018-10-08. Retrieved 2018-10-08. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  • Drezner, Daniel. "A paper that would never have gotten past peer review criticizes the academy. Film at 11". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2018-10-08. Retrieved 2018-10-08. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  • Drum, Kevin. "Cultural studies is the target of another hoax — and this one stings". Mother Jones. Archived from the original on 2018-10-04. Retrieved 2018-10-03. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  • Whipple, Tom (2018-10-04). "Journals publish hoaxers' absurd gender studies". The Times. ISSN 0140-0460. Retrieved 2018-10-04.
  • "Academics defend fake research, say it exposes 'political corruption' in universities". SBS. Archived from the original on 2018-10-07. Retrieved 2018-10-08. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Rejected papers list

[edit]

The user GreenMeansGo has recently edited the list of rejected papers, to remove the sentence "Submitted to, and rejected by: " that was included in each citation template to indicate that the manuscript being cited, was not published by the journal being included in the citation template. Here is an example of the two versions:

  • Richard Baldwin (borrowed identity). "Self-Reflections on Self-Reflections: An Autoethnographic Defense of Autoethnography". Submitted to, and rejected by: Journal of Contemporary Ethnography.
  • Richard Baldwin (borrowed identity). "Self-Reflections on Self-Reflections: An Autoethnographic Defense of Autoethnography". Journal of Contemporary Ethnography.

Even though the header at the top of of the section says "Rejected", given the sensitivity that those journals may have to being wrongly thought of having fallen for the hoax, when they did not, I believed it most prudent to include that clarifying clause in each of the citation templates. Moreover, several citation styles, including APA recommend specifying in the citation whether the a work being cited is unpublished. So I still believe that a clarification in each citation that the journal mentioned rejected the manuscript is warranted. I wonder what other members of the community think is the better approach. Thank you. (talk) user:Al83tito 16:06, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding "Submitted to and reject by" is silly. This is patently clear from the section header. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do the modification myself but all the papers published have been retraced at this moment, someone should change the title to better reflect that fact.ZebKorniche (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? I don't believe this ping went through. But I'm not entirely sure I'm the culprit here.Far as I know, I believe I've made mostly cosmetic changes to the article. GMGtalk 15:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Defense of November 5th revision

[edit]

The summary was corrected to change "award" to "special recognition," and the phrasing clarified to point out that recognition was for one of the four published papers. Follow the citation, and you'll see this is a straightforward factual claim acceptable under WP:PRIMARY.

Likewise, the revised paragraph also makes "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" when discussing the numeric details of the submissions, and the details of the "Dog Park" paper. It relies on the summary of a secondary source when discussing feedback.

If you think I am in breech of Wikipedia policy on that edit, I welcome your feedback here. Hjhornbeck (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Defense of November 10th revision

[edit]

I've elaborated on the discovery of the hoax. Based on my reading of WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:USEPRIMARY, my changes are within policy guidelines.

  1. "... came to a premature end." According to [[WP::USEPRIMARY]], "primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source." The authors themselves state "we had to take the project public prematurely, and thus stop the study, before it could be properly concluded."
  2. "... the Twitter account New Real Peer Review ..." See above, as well as WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. As Tweets can be deleted, I made sure to include a link to an archived version. Again, there is also supporting evidence for this in the next two links.
  3. "... reporters at The College Fix, Reason, and other news outlets ..." See above. As for the lack of a citation to "other news outlets," "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed." (WP:NOR) The Wall Street Journal article counts towards this.
  4. "... "Gender, Place, and Culture" published a note on August 6th 2018, ..." See above.
  5. "According to the trio, ..." Straightforward factual claim, falls under WP:USEPRIMARY. From their write-up, "This deserved incredulity led to small and then larger journalistic publications investigating our fictitious author ... With major journalistic outlets and (by then) two journals asking us to prove our authors’ identities, the ethics had shifted away from a defensible necessity of investigation and into outright lying. We did not feel right about this and decided the time had come to go public with the project. As a result, we came clean to the Wall Street Journal at the beginning of August."
  6. "When the Wall Street Journal report went public ..." This paragraph is either straghtforward factual claims, or relies on citations from other editors which have been uncontested for months.

Again, If you think I am in breech of Wikipedia policy on that edit, I welcome your feedback here. Hjhornbeck (talk) 00:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Defense of November 15th revision

[edit]
  1. I tightened up the introduction. The explicit mention of Dave Rubin, the Wall Street Journal, and Campus Reform seem out of line for a summary, so I removed the former and left the latter two as citations. Those details are better included in the body.
  2. The first paragraph of "Reactions" mentions praise and criticism, but only includes praise. I included a one-line criticism from Joel P. Christensen and Matthew A. Sears to patch that omission.
  3. Mounk's counter-argument against controls is strangely placed at the end of the "Criticisms," as if an editor was trying to soften the criticism in violation of WP:NPOV. Rather than delete it (personally, I think it fails), I moved it to the "Praise" section and shortened it to a summary. Mounk's thesis is preserved, and the citation at the end makes it trivially easy to read the details.
  4. "Other people" in the "Praise" section was vague when we know the author's name and dilutes the impact of the claims, so I gave proper credit.
  5. Ditto the omission of Daniel Engber's name in the "Criticisms" section.
  6. I reinserted Carl T. Bergstrom's criticism from an earlier revision, but this time wrote a summary instead of reusing the quote from earlier. I also noticed a new criticism from one of the peer reviewers that claimed the hoaxers had selectively used their words in the same article, so I added it.

As usual, I welcome your feedback here. Hjhornbeck (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Political and theoretical motivations for the grievance studies

[edit]

The authors of the grievance studies state that an important incentive for their work was to 'uncover' the supposed political and ideological bias within certain postmodern identity-driven fields of the humanities, e.g. 'identity studies', critical theory, gender studies, and its effect on society. So the motives for conducting the grievance studies seem to go well beyond that of the Sokal Affair, in which the peer-review process of a postmodern journal was merely tested. In my opinion, this is still poorly described in the article.

For example, the authors argue that the political underpinnings and the methods common in these fields are responsible for a 'corrupted academic climate', which the authors aim to reverse, see the following quote:

”Scholarship based less upon finding truth and more upon attending to social grievances has become firmly established, if not fully dominant, within these fields, and their scholars increasingly bully students, administrators, and other departments into adhering to their worldview. This worldview is not scientific, and it is not rigorous. (..) Because open, good-faith conversation around topics of identity such as gender, race, and sexuality (and the scholarship that works with them) is nearly impossible, our aim has been to reboot these conversations.“

(https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/)

Given the very sensitive nature of this subject, I understand that it is important to uphold a neutral and objective tone. We should obviously avoid a political discussion. Nevertheless, the authors state very clearly that one of their objectives, if not their main objective, was to investigate political bias within certain subsets of the humanities. I would therefore suggest to mention this in the text in a careful, objective and neutral manner. Of course I am happy to to the edits myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drznayder (talk • contribs) 15:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drznayder: Third-party sources have to be used to describe motives, and the source you gave does not seem to confirm what you want added. wumbolo ^^^ 16:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wumbolo: Thank you for your reply. I am not quite sure what you mean. The source I provided is a primary source. It was written by Lindsay et al., the authors of the grievance studies themselves. It is already used in the article. Moreover, the source contains precisely their motives, you can find it in the Introduction and under "Part III: Why Did We Do This?". After reading this, I can only arrive at the conclusion that the stated motive, to "Test the quality of the editorial and peer review process" is not sufficiently comprehensive. Drznayder (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Drznayder: your ping didn't go through because you didn't sign your comment by ending it with four tilda characters (~). wumbolo ^^^ 12:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Drznayder: There's a difference between what they claim and what they accomplished. For instance, the trio have shifted their description of the "Dog Park" paper, and while in their Fact Sheet they admit one of their Feminist Mein Kampf papers "diverges significantly from the original," the Areo Magazine article you linked to omits that. That info box on the side isn't for blindly repeating their claims, it's meant as a summary of their work written by someone else.
The body of this page is a better place for that. I think that mention of their motives fits nicely in that second paragraph on "Sequence of Events," especially as it marks a shift from their prior motive of discrediting Gender Studies. Keep the edit short and phrase it as one of their claimed goals, and I don't have an objection to the addition. Hjhornbeck (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your "free thought" blogs are not a reliable source for anything. I would agree with removing most infobox fields, if not the whole infobox. wumbolo ^^^ 10:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wumbolo: I went out of my way to provide citations in those blog posts, so you don't have to take my word for it. For instance, the hoaxers themselves state in their fact sheet the chapter they used from Mein Kampf, and even provide a link to an online English translation. They also provide their original paper. All you have to do to verify my interpretation is read both and look for overlaps. My other posts are no different, read'm and check the citations for yourself if you doubt me. Hjhornbeck (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Criticism" section

[edit]

Upon reading this section, i find it to be missing a reaction to the criticism that parts of the social sciences are basically poor science that replaces methodology with ideology. The section does not mention any reaction to that criticism but rather focusses on claims that the project should not have conducted for i.e. "exploiting "credulous journalists interested mainly in spectacle"". This section should focus on counterarguments beeing made - and not ad hominem-arguments, but i can not see any of that. -- Liberaler Humanist (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, again, that's mostly because the vast majority of the reaction from the social sciences were "that wasn't a nice thing to do / the hoaxers were disingenuous!". Very few reacted with "yeah we need to do better", the closest comments from these publications being something like "we will now have more stringent check on the people submitted things", focusing on finding bad people, rather than bad science/arguments. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

academic consequences to authors section?

[edit]

Should there be a section dealing with the academic consequences of sokal squared? If I recall right one of the publishers mentioned in a podcast that they were investigated on ethics violation. Fast google says at least: https://www.chronicle.com/article/Proceedings-Start-Against/245431 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.210.21.210 (talk) 08:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added a "see also" hatnote. wumbolo ^^^ 20:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics?

[edit]

In the abstract it said that 6 article was rejected, yet in the "List of hoax papers" 8 of articles marked as rejected. So is it 6 or 8? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.188.123.238 (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 October 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Grievance Studies affair → Grievance studies affair – Not a proper name. The term should be uncapitalized in accordance with MOS:DOCTCAPS which provides, "Doctrines, philosophies, theologies, theories, movements, methods, processes, systems of thought and practice, and fields of study are not capitalized". 24.72.14.64 (talk) 05:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 16:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Based Picture

[edit]

Whoever selected this picture did a fine job. LizardMeat (talk) 03:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slow clap

[edit]

This article is written in the most credulous language imaginable. Bravo to every contributor for their abject poverty of critical thinking, especially when it comes to 21st century political movements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.18.196 (talk) 04:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"feminist mein kampf"

[edit]

That's what Lindsay and them claimed, but people who actually reviewed the paper don't agree:

https://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2018/10/09/nothing-squared-is-still-nothing/

That's a pretty intense claim to be making based on their say so Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

various journals have deleted the papers. making the links here obsolete. I've seen someone has backed the various papers, but it's an archive of some sorts Jazi Zilber (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grievance_studies_affair&oldid=1256561172"