Talk:HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory

Controversy in Lead

I think the controversy needs to be mentioned in the lead since it goes directly to the journals current status and leadership - and also because it makes up almost a third of the article. I would suggest a line saying "In June 2018 editor-in-chief Giovanni da Col was suspended by the board of trustees following allegations of improper conduct, and an interim editor was appointed although da Col still appears on the masthead".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

"verified"

Allegations cannot of course be "verified", and they also do not need to be verified to be included. The allegations against Da Col are notable and need to be included whether or not they ever result in a conviction or other form of "verification" because they have been subject of media attention and have resulted in his suspension as editor and in the entire editorial board stepping down.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

You can't be serious that a Wikipedia article has to include every unverified allegation. That would turn Wikipedia into a libel hub. Also, the controversy section should cite Claire Lehmann, "How David Graeber Cancelled a Colleague," Quillette (September 9, 2019).--98.111.164.239 (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Only allegations that are notable because they are published in reliable sources.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

While it has been covered by reliable sources, coverage is very slight; the section was cited almost entirely to primary documents, google docs, pastebins, etc. That's not the appropriate way to cover something so obviously BLP-sensitive. I've trimmed it down to a much more brief summary of the Inside Higher Ed coverage, which is the only really high-quality source. --Aquillion (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

HAU controversies section

(pinging Maunus, Aquillion since they've been involved in previous discussions about this)

Editor Thestudentspirit has been aggressively reverting any mention of the da Col controversy from this page. That has included removing sources from Inside Higher Ed by claiming that they are contradicted by an article from the Chronicle of Higher Education that came out late last year (but that article is not being used as a source in this article either).

As far as I can tell, those sources have not been discussed/compared on this page, making Thestudentspirit's edit summaries that refer to "previous discussion in the history section" confusing. The Chronicle source is more detailed, but it does not completely invalidate the Inside Higher Ed article—the Inside Higher Ed articles were written by a reporter for the site; it's not a self-published blog article.

All this to say: what sources can we use to discuss the ~2018 controversy and is it really as WP:BLP verboten as Thestudentspirit is suggesting? —Wingedserif (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Please feel free to ping. It doesn't change Wikipedia ethical and editorial policies. Don't middle age professional anthropologists have better things to do than engage in petty edit wars reinstating a repeatedly discredited rumour from over three years ago? The rumour was transplanted wholesale from anonymous blogpost onto the inside higher ed article. The chronicle of higher education piece, is researched by an independent and trustworthy science journalist who disproves the 3 allegations mentioned in IHE, embezzlement, sexual harassment and violence against HAU staff. all three have been disproven beyond a shadow of a doubt. These allegations cannot clearly be reverted back in. Aren't we scientists? Thestudentspirit (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The rumour was transplanted wholesale from anonymous blogpost onto the inside higher ed article.: source please. As for the three allegations, da Col assaulting someone is attested to by a source and not disproved in the article; the sexual harassment is not corroborated, yes; the literal financial embezzlement is not corroborated, yes. The article, however, goes on and on about the poor treatment of editorial staff, delayment or failure to pay them for their work, etc. —Wingedserif (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Since talk page consensus seems to indicate that the Chronicle source is reliable, I've taken a first crack at using it to discuss the controversy w/ da Col and Graeber. It's probably too both-sidesy, but I thought something should be there. —Wingedserif (talk) 23:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• The debacle received a lot of media attention and had concrete effects on HAU (change in staff and editorship). There should of course be a section on the controversy in the article. The article as it stands, cleaned of all mention of the controversy is very weird. The section could easily be written in a way that does not condemn Da Col. As for your rather obnoxious question, one might also ask what makes it so imperative for a PhD student to defend from all critique the tarnished reputation of another Phd student who has been accused of wrong doing by his employees and co-workers? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Since talk page consensus seems to indicate that the Chronicle source is reliable.: In the CHE article the author concludes that as no organisation ever launched an external investigation the hau case has been a swamp of gossip and associations that are not relevant in a discussion of the journal itself (inequality in academia, metoo, etc). The controversy was generated by sources considered by wikipedia as questionable and therefore should not be included (self-published or anonymous blog posts, even if these end up cited in another publication that can be cited). This is the wikipedia guideline "Take special care with contentious material about living and recently deceased people. Unsourced or poorly sourced material that is contentious, especially text that is negative, derogatory, or potentially damaging, should be removed immediately rather than tagged or moved to the talk page." I am following these guidelines and deleting it, feel free to create a hautalk page. The paradox is that HAUtalk is not about HAU. Thestudentspirit (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC) thestudentspirit

The controversy was generated by sources considered by wikipedia as questionable and therefore should not be included (self-published or anonymous blog posts, even if these end up cited in another publication that can be cited).: again, please provide proof of this claim. You have removed both reliable sources discussed here as well as academic, peer-reviewed articles by claiming them unsourced or poorly sourced material. Above, I discussed how the Singal source does not disprove every accusation; you are misusing the source. This event, which materially altered the journal and affected its wider academic community, was notable and therefore deserves mention, as long as it follows WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Enough editors have tried to include some version of that material on this article, that I think there is WP:CONSENSUS to have something there.

Pinging Wingedserif Yes, peer-reviewed articles which only comment the case as relying on anonymous sources are not just biased and sloppy but indirectly unreliable according to Wikipedia’s policy re: questionable sources. The encyclopaedia entry refers to a conference panel on hautalk and not the journal or the allegations, again hautalk is a twitter hashtag, sparked by anonymous allegations and tweets drawing on them. It was not about the Journal, which is the subject of this page.

Choosing to mention the tussle between Martin and da col shows how biased is your editing (again, see Wikipedia policy): 1) there are Oslo police official documents liberating da Col from all allegations, and I would argue that that type of personal detail that has nothing to do with the running of the journal has no place on wikipedia. 2) your edits exclude the direct reference to the Quillette article and its content, as well 98 pages of official emails (not quotes) disclosed from one of Graeber’s student showing an attempt against da Col to remove him with a coup d’etat (direct quote, see link), promising his job to accomplices. That batch is fully admissible as reliable source given it contains direct quotes by Graeber and other ex-HAU staff about the coup plans and also list other plans of criminal activities to destroy da col (honey potting and hacking). The Quillette article also cites an email by Graeber where he discusses with a hau member about the need to find a sexual harassment case to take da Col down, given that he was legally hard "to pin him down”. Graeber also intimates his desires “to kill da Col” repeatedly to a group of junior students. I’m sure you can find more email quotes from the memo.

There was also discussion about the bias of certain editors. If you are keen to develop the section and if it was such a significant phenomenon I suggested to start a standalone Hautalk wikipedia page. The discussion of Hautalk had nothing to do with the journal HAU, as even those interviewed for the Chronicle of Higher Ed will admit. This doesn't change the wikipedia guidelines, no citation of 1) anonymous sources; 2) twitter sources, cited as evidence; 3) self-publication of allegations (Graeber's apology). If you want detail please see the published memo: https://medium.com/@enrique.martino/david-graeber-and-the-hau-coup-b368f8f20f39  : https://eprints.ucm.es/id/eprint/60749/ Thestudentspirit (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)thestudentspirit

I disagree with your reading of WP:QUESTIONABLE. "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest." does not mean "sources that talk about contentious/confused topics". If you can show that these journals don't fact check or peer review, or have a conflict of interest, then I'm happy to agree. I excluded direct reference to the Quillette article because Quillette is deprecated on our list of reliable sources: it can't be referenced on Wikipedia except to report opinions; it can't be used to cite facts. Why should we trust their reporting here? Finally, to your proposal to have a separate page for #HAUtalk—I'm not 100% opposed, but I don't think there's enough reliable sourcing, as we've seen, on the topic for it to merit its own article. That the issue started with HAU, used its name, and then expanded outward still suggests to me that it should stay on this page, as long as we make clear that not all the discussion was about HAU, per se.

(Edit: I have posted this issue to the WP:BLPN, given edit summary justification given for last revert.) —Wingedserif (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with User:Wingedserif, the sourcing is about as good as one can find and the prose itself is neutral and concise. As for a separate article, I expect it would be quickly merged back into this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk • contribs)

I am attaching hereunder what I wrote in WP:BLPN.

I've been following this story and you are obviously ignoring a number of BLP sensitive issues which two editors (studentspirit and Aquillon) have raised when they deleted the whole paragraph.

1) you are directly targeting a living person and naming a paragraph of a journal entry after him, proof of that is that you are not attempting to provide any neutral language but one where the editor, who has been acquitted from all allegations (twice -- January 2018 and November 2018) comes out as a horrible human being. 2) your paragraph (and title) implies that the editor was exclusively responsible for all the management of the journal while there were different boards, including one with an executive function (see constitution). If there were problems at the journal, they cannot be attributed to a single individual. 2) last but not least, your edits are defamatory and Wiki encourage immediate removal. It is irrelevant if the association between hautalk and metoo has been made by a peer-reviewed journals. Journal authors and articles may be libellous, too, even if they are peer-reviewed. You seem to be missing the point raised by the other editor (studentspirit):"(self-published or anonymous blog posts, even if these end up cited in another publication that can be cited)" they do not become reliable sources. See Wiki BLP policies: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. 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.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." And the following: "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[b] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material." ---This should be enough to disprove your sensationalist claim that studentspirit is “aggressively reverting” your edits. The user is following Wiki policy on BLP sensitive issues, which you are notalso see the sensitive issue re the policy for" people notable for one event", given that you named a whole sub-section after the editor" See also BLP policy re: Privacy of names: "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value." --- Actually da Col's name should be removed and only reference to the “the editor" should be used in the talk page and here. Finally, see the paragraph "People accused of crime. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other,[d] include sufficient explanatory information." Was the editor convicted or even subjected to a police investigation? I don't think so. Associating him with metoo is also associating him with a movement emerged out criminal activities like sexual harassment and assault. I am not aware of any evidence of a single case of sexual harassment towards the editor emerging in the last three years. You are even repeating the sensationalist false claim in this notice board by calling hautalk "a metoo analog".

Here is what I'd like to add: a) your account remains incorrect and shows previous bias and errors, like studentspirit notes, no member of the editorial board has ever accused da Col. You are citing a self-published source (Graeber); 2) Expert wiki editors may further remarks on Quillette's reliability. That article though is not an opinion piece (as noted in the entry on reliable source) but based on official documents (reliable sources) or direct quotations from Graeber's emails (unlike the journal and encyclopedia articles you cited which takes entire paragraphs from anonymous and self-published sources as having truth-value. I reiterate studentspirit (and Aquillon's points too): non reliable sources do not become reliable because they're commented in a peer-reviewed journal or in a "reliable source". Re: metoo, see Quillette article which disprove this claim (as well the CHE article) and also the twitter discussion between Graeber and Alberto-corsin Jimenez (a former (a former member of the editorial board) on twitter: that argument emerged because there was NO connection between hautalk and metoo.) Morph1989 (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC) — Morph1989 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Morph1989, I think you're confused about what makes a reliable source. If a reliable source is reporting on something, even if what they're reporting on is from a blog or anonymous letter, the source itself is still reliable. Multiple reliable sources cover this controversy and name the editor so there is no reason we should not include it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

No, they do not, it would be absurd. It is also unscholarly to use anonymous sources as having truth-value. Moreover, hautalk or the editor are not the focus of the cited article but just a minor part. See the argument on BLP sensitive issues above, as both studentspirit and Aquillon noted, they take priority over everything else. Morph1989 (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

You can see here what Aquillion trimmed it to, which is similar to the coverage currently in the article. None of the sourcing issues they brought up exist in the current prose. The article does not cite any anonymous sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, the article TAJA does cite anonymous sources and that you claim it is not, shows either that you are in bad faith or didn't check proper the source." cf. page 279. For that reason and the number of BLP sensitive issues which I've raised and you haven't addressed, I am reverting the edits again, as Wiki suggests. Morph1989 (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

A reliable secondary source can cite anonymous primary sources. This is seen is newspapers, magazine articles and other news coverage near constantly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The issue here is not citing anonymous primary sources along others but grounding an argument/point entirely on anonymous sources (unreliable according to Wiki); and b) such claim and spurious association has been widely disproved in the last 3 years and is now defamatory (hence the BLP sensitive issues), or are you aware of any evidence of sexual harassment at the journal? Morph1989 (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

We're not grounding anything on anonymous sources. The prose states that there were allegations which spurred dicussion in the community, and the editor resigned. It is sourced to the Chronicle of Higher Education and two journals. None of those sources are anonymous. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Morph1989, I used "Da Col departure" to change the section from "HAU controversy" or "HAUTalk controversy", which had been previously objected to as non-WP:NPOV. It was not an attempt to indict da Col or violate WP:BLP; it was an attempt to reach consensus. What would be a neutral way to describe this factual event that affected this journal? (That is, I would love to hear constructive criticism.) —Wingedserif (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, you are not following the discussion and studentspirit points. Nowhere is written the editor was forced to resign or he did resign following the allegations. It seems he resigned from the organisation almost two years later. Re: the two journals, studentspirit already made the points: 1) the encyclopedia "entry" (not journal article, let's be precise, encyclopedia entries are not peer-reviewed but just checked by the project or section editor) refers to hautalk only to cite the tweet hashtags at the conference of the American Anthropological Association. No reference to reliable sources, the whole paragraph is focused on twitter analytics and reproduced ad verbatim from the author's blog (self-published); 2) the second journal article make a spurious connection based exclusively on anonymous sources. The two sources that you claim are reliable discuss a twitter hashtag and anonymous letters, no other source or identifiable testimony is employed. We are talking about articles which ONLY employs questionable sources. Indeed, Wikipedia states clearly that: "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context." Re: the CHE article, there is no association between metoo and hautalk and the sexual harassment allegation was entirely disproved. Reproducing that with da Col's name violates WP:BLP, the CHE article also reports allegations by third parties which have never been proved and violate the BLP policies above regarding people accused of a crime. 4 years and not even a police investigation? Wingedsherif the issue is simply too controversial and WP:BLP sensitive. I'm worried that you claim neutrality and you make sweeping non-neutral connection like the one between hautalk and metoo and claim that you were not using the editor's name to violate WP:BLP. Ignoring BLP policies is not neutral; it indirectly harms the LP. Morph1989 (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

There does not have to be a police investigation or charges, nor do any of the cited sources say that anything was disproved, and the prose does not mention sexual harassment. As far as his resignation we have the Chronicle of Higher Education source saying HAU has made some changes since this controversy broke. The payment structure was reformed. Da Col was ousted as editor. The prose that was in the article is a neutral summation of sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

You can't genuinely be serious, this comment is in full violation of the WP: BLP policies. See above the reference to people accused of a crime and the principle of presumption of innocence adopted by WP which you seem to ignore. Likewise, you are refusing to engage with the WP: BLP issues I've raised. Out of the four sources cited the CHE source did not find any evidence of sexual harassment, violence at the journal or financial embezzlement. The two "academic" sources refers to hashtag hautalk as being prominent the conference (encyclopedia) and an anonymous source of allegations. The Quillette article cites official document which acquit da Col and discusses Graeber's plan to cancel him. As for your citation from the CHE, please see the statement of the Board of Trustees dated 25 October 2018: "Giovanni da Col has expressed his strong interest in resigning." There is no reference to ousting. That is the official company's statement and not the speculations of a journalist. Cf. the statement of the Board of Directors of the Society for Ethnographic Theory dated 7 December 2020 which condemns the CHE article quite strongly: "But rather than situate the events of the past within the broader concerns of contemporary publishing and its fraught relationship with academia, the article dwelled on gossip, email exchanges, and innuendo, shallow in its ethical judgement, and betrayed its informants. Its analytical value as a sociological analysis of academic practices is underwhelming and not up to the standards of CHE." https://www.haujournal.org/index.php/hau/announcement. I believed I've showed enough the WP: BLP sensitivity of the issue. This BLP-one-event case, is greatly controversial and contentious and fits the WP: BLP policy incontrovertibly: "Take special care with contentious material about living and recently deceased people. Unsourced or poorly sourced material that is contentious, especially text that is negative, derogatory, or potentially damaging, should be removed immediately rather than tagged or moved to the talk page." This is why removing the paragraph does not constitute nonsense edit warring (to respond to Wingedsherif). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morph1989 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Being considerate in our coverage does not mean that we can't include anything about a topic. The sources you cite to refute the CHE article are self-published, and therefore not reliable here on, as you agree, a contentious topic (see WP:BLPSELFPUB). —Wingedserif (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, a contentious topic. So if the New Yorker or the New York Times releases a statement about one of their editors subject of allegations - who is later exonerated - is such statement considered "self-published"? The Society for ethnographic theory is/was not a puppet run by the journal editor. The citation by ScottishFinnishRadish ironically shows how the CHE article too is contentious. The payment structure of the journal was revised in January 2018, 6 months before Graeber's apology and hautalk, as documented by the foundation of the new Society for Ethnographic Theory and bylaws published in January 2018. The CHE article thus gets wrong the chronology of the company's official documents and the timeline of the events. Not such a reliable source, isn't it? The conclusion emerging from this discussion is not that one can't write anything about a topic but the contentious nature of this topic, one closely intermingling with BLP sensitive issues, WP's presumption of innocence, the "people notable for one event" policy and the reliability of the sources, which remain contentious either for factual mistakes or —exclusive– use of anonymous or twitter sources. But let's see what studentspirit has to say, I'm curious.

Secondary sources are allowed to make interpretive claims and conduct original research (unlike us). If you can show the Society's editorial and administrative separation from the Journal, then sure their announcements might count. I don't think you will find that—the two share a website. —Wingedserif (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Wingedserif, Thanks for shifting the discussion to the BLP issues as it appears in the header: "This page is being discussed at the biographies of living persons noticeboard, since it includes information related to a biography of a living person. Please discuss policy compliance issues there." I think you are confused as to what citation means, if a book by Richard Evans cites Mein Kampf one can't just cite the claims of Mein Kampf that are cited in it and claim its reproduced in a reputable publisher! The allegations in the Inside Higher Ed are reproduced ad verbatim from a delirious twitter mania and have been proved false by the Chronicle of Higher Education piece (the rumour propagated was that HAU staff were assaulted, etc, this is untrue, One cannot in good faith reproduce things that ones knows to be untrue).

Second: I would think that official corporate documents like a constitution showing the date when certain changes were made and when someone resignation was accepted is admissible. Its like citing the UN Charter to describe the UN Charter page. If you are interested in knowing the separation of powers of SET and HAU, see the bylaws that follow UK companies house regulations, i.e. board of directors is seperate from CEO, as is the basis of corporate law and limited liability companies: "4.1.1. Directors and Editors (including the Editorial collectives, Associate Editors and the Digital Editor but excluding Honorary Editors and editorial advisors to the Board of Directors) shall not be Members of SET." https://www.haujournal.org/index.php/hau/pages/view/bylaws

Last but not least, if you want to take stab at a neutral summary or open a HAUtalk page, then try this: there were allegations raised by a prominent public intellectual who used his platform and followers to organize the forced removal of the editor by public scandal. Those self-published allegations generated a twitter movement but eventually proved false when material from the various investigations including the Executive Council of HAU, composed of 20 professors was posted (on pastebin, hauleaks and ended up cited in the Quillette piece), reinforced by the Chronicle of Higher Education piece whose journalists interviewed a dozen people in the fray including the original claimants. Some claimed an initial connection with metoo which was dropped entirely later, the analogy of "metoo" cited in the journal article you cite was merely about self-publishing allegations on blogs as a form of redress and voice-giving, but even this analogy is inappropriate, once could just as well make the analogy to the long tradition of "petition-writing", since the issue of sexual harassment was not the cause of contention at the journal (see CHE piece and memo). The only non-anonymous allegation of workplace "abuse" remaining were voiced in the CHE piece, by two former managing editors, that complained about the editors temper via email and one of the them about delay of their honorarium which they confirm was paid out in late 2017 early 2018 before the "scandal" broke. By late 2018 Da col was freed from the three serious criminal allegations and obviously never investigated by a formal body such as the police, because there were no crimes even though he had been accused. The police is the appropriate body to investigate and reconstruct the three crimes that were alleged and reproduced in the Inside Higher Ed piece (embezzlement, assault and sexual harassment). If these are not even remotely true, there can be no justification to include them in a BLP entry about the journal editor, otherwise one could go around BLP entries and write "someone alleges that they embezzle and assault", etc which is plain mad. The editor in question was still editor in 2019 and decided to resign then, well over a year after the "scandal" which can demonstratively be proved to have been based on fabrications of serious charges. (Again see memo cited above) Thestudentspirit (talk) 08:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)thestudentspirit

You've not responded to my arguments; I haven't mentioned the IHE articles in quite some time. The version of the HAU structure you are citing was adopted in 2018—and the Society directors can hardly be said to be uninterested in the reputation of the journal that is so linked to their organization; they are biased. As to the (repeated) claim that there was nothing but unfounded gossip to this, I'll just cite the CHE: While it’s true that some of the rumors circulating about da Col were unfounded and over-the-top — and that Graeber appears to have contributed to their spread — former HAU staff and contributors, and a pile of old emails, suggest that da Col indeed regularly engaged in conduct that could be justifiably described as unprofessional and even abusive. He aggressively berated his workers, frequently threatened to sue them for all manner of infraction, and withheld their pay capriciously. This went on so long, according to former staff members, because they feared the reputational damage da Col would threaten to inflict, and because of a strange, back-loaded payment system that enabled him to withhold thousands of dollars that, by the standards of any modern labor arrangement, they were already owed. —Wingedserif (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Still waiting for any editors reply to this, and why it shouldn't be included in the article. (I also want to challenge the idea that the status quo of this article is not having this section; there has been one for years, and the article history clearly shows that there is not WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS for keeping it out.) —Wingedserif (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I generally oppose including the piece by Singal to cite Quillette; by my reading it's an opinion piece (since it's in "the review" section) and treats the Quillette article dismissively (Quillette published an article that echoed the conspiracy story line ... But Quillette’s account is, at best, incomplete.) Using it to cite that piece seems like a misuse of it as a source. I'm indifferent to the rest or the larger question of whether the section should be included, though - the other sources are decent enough to pass WP:BLP but not so strong as to require inclusion. --Aquillion (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm fine w/ leaving the Quillette article out, even from an indirect citation; I tried to be balanced by mentioning them, but I think that was just a misuse. I am feeling mixed about the WP:PROPORTION of the page—I don't think there have been enough RS for the section to be as long as it once was, esp. as all the HAU stuff developed, but I do think the 4 sentences of summary are WP:DUE. —Wingedserif (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Aquillion seems to agree that the CHE piece is also an unreliable opinion piece. That it is unreliable becomes quite clear when contrasted with the accurate timeline that can be reconstructed from a publicly available documentary record. For example, the false idea put forth in the CHE article and above by some wikieditors like Wingedserif, that reforms were made following and as a result of hautalk, or that the editor was ousted, are negated by cross-checking them with SET records (announcements, bylaws, etc). No significant reform was introduced following hautalk, except the "Ombudsperson", see the variations of the HAU Constitution between January 2018 (hautalk was june 2018) and today, the editor in question stayed on until 2019 and 2020 for HAU Books. This is not the subject of biased opinions but official company documents submitted to UK companies house. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thestudentspirit (talk • contribs)

I think you're misrepresenting Aquillion's short statement on that source. In previous iterations of this conversation, you've held up the CHE source as reliable to discredit other sources (like the IHE article)—please stop moving the goalposts. —Wingedserif (talk) 22:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The CHE piece doesn't cite any evidence about "legal threats" which you reiterate here, for example about payments being withheld "capriciously". HAU was an unincorporated association in the UK regulated by a constitution and had no staff besides freelance copyeditors paid hourly, but only honorary staff who accepted to be paid a honorarium only at the end of each calendar year, following the completion of all tasks which they accepted to fulfil at the beginning of the year. This arrangement abolished in December 2017 clearly sucked, but it's not unheard of, and it's not something that belongs in a wikipedia entry about journal, or else all other journals would have to have a section about their past and present modalities of payment and non-monetary compensation, and the opinions of an furious volunteer who left before the legal terms of the agreement etc, HR drama etc that definitely doesn't belong on wiki.

The purpose of the page is to describe the journal and not to idiosyncrasies and workplace relationships or personalities of its previous editors.

What the CHE piece cleared up were the barrage of rumours of a monstrous criminality at the journal (sexual harassment, fraud, embezzlement, hiring of sexual workers with company's money, paying staff with sexual favours), etc which had been spread and weaponised by a small group of academic on social media who wanted to force the editors and board to resign by way of scandal so as to take ownership of the journal brand, etc. There are emails to prove this. Please see the memo above. That could well deserve its own Wiki page, the "Graeber coup of HAU".

This entry cannot be a place to host provably false rumours. It is those rumours that gave rise to "hautalk" and its spurious association with metoo, etc. In a well-circulated letter to da Col dated 20 december 2017, also cited by Quillette, Graeber unequivocally blackmails the editor and threatens to use (those unfounded rumours) in a "particular conjuncture" (the metoo age) which would lead to his destruction unless he would resign.

Its quite clear what this was all about. Thus the "public" relevance of hautalk (which seem to concern Wingedserif) is based on unfounded gossip on a Living Person and is not even an HR issue. So given the BLP sensitivity, the case remain "contentious", and references to it should be removed without further justification as per wikipedia policy, see above.Thestudentspirit (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)thestudentspirit

@Thestudentspirit: you have been mentioned at the Conflict of interest noticeboard, as another editor believes you have a conflict of interest. Please let us know if you do have any connection to Hau: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, or to someone that works there. You need not be paid to have a COI. Thanks. --- Possibly ☎ 22:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wingedserif and Possibly I have replied to your concerns in the talk page of the COI noticeboard, but I wish to reiterate the BLP issue as it trumps COI. I have above shown how the sources sources used are contentious and rely on anonymous sources and tweets and personal communication, and it in my right as a wikipedia editor to follow wikipedia guidelines and not be harangued or accused of COI or vandalism because of it.

I would like to flag user Wingedserif, for COI as can be seen from their twitter exchange, he is a student or follower of Hans Steinmüller, a professor of the LSE, who has very clear COI issues as he was the person organizing a campaign against HAU, this information like the other information I have cited is all available online. Again "Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself. Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest." Thestudentspirit (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)thestudentspirit