Talk:Quillette/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Quillette. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Andy Ngo

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

Because Ngo's employment at Quillette isn't really notable in context of the Quillette article per RS's. Springee (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh, come on. That's ridiculous. Bacondrum (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

No, it's perfectly reasonable. This is an article about Quillette. Ngo, per RSs, is not a significant part of the Quillette story. The huge section you just added on Ngo is completely undue. Just look at the text in question. Where does it tire into Quillette. Springee (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

All that stuff went on while he was the sites subie. There's no parallel universe where all that stuff going on with your sub editor isn't the biggest deal to ever hit your publication, come on. I'll be back with sources, this is a crazy argument. Bacondrum (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

It's quite simple. The articles about Ngo barely mention Quillette (if at all). Stories about Quillette barely mention Ngo, if at all. The only significant overlaps are the articles which speculated that Ngo was let go after the Proud Boys video. Those are problematic here since they don't represent a controversy about Quillette. Springee (talk) 12:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Not true, many articles cited connect the two, here's a bunch from a quick google search, the connection between Ngo and Quillette is possibly the most widely reported story about Quillette (note that this is international coverage):

etc etc etc... Even Quillette felt it was newsworthy: https://quillette.com/2019/06/30/antifas-brutal-assault-on-andy-ngo-is-a-wake-up-call-for-authorities-and-journalists-alike/ I hope we can all agree that there's been extensive, international coverage of the behavior of what is probably Quillettes most prominent writer and the sites sub-editor - over periods of months - and the coverage connects the two. Bacondrum (talk) 12:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Just a connection isn't sufficient for inclusion, certainly not to the extent that you added Ngo into the article. Yes, Ngo has received a lot of coverage but not due to his work at Quillette. The fact that an article talking about an event or even about Ngo himself mentions Quillette is not sufficient grounds for inclusion here. Because you want to cast this as some controversy about Quillette, you need to show that something about Ngo had a notable impact on Quillette. Springee (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Bacondrum, what you are proposing is that material that is about Ngo is DUE for inclusion here because many sources about Ngo mention Quillette. However, few sources about Quillette mention know. Thus you are arguing that, because a mention of Quillette is DUE in context of the Ngo article, the reverse must also be true. Essentially you are arguing that WEIGHT has reciprocity. That is a question that has come up in the past. Consider the results of this relatively recent RfC regarding the mention of very notable crimes within automobile articles [[1]]. In one case the question was should the Oklahoma City bombing be mentioned in the Ford F-500 article. A second part of the RfC was should the Chevy Caprice article discuss the car's use in the DC sniper attacks. In both cases the answer was overwhelmingly no. While certainly the Chevy Caprice played a big roll in the DC attacks and was commonly mentioned in articles about the attacks, the crime had little impact on the sales, design, reputation etc of the car. That is effectively what we have here. At the time of the attack on Ngo, most sources just say "Ngo, a Quillette editor, was attacked..." (or similar). Later we had sources claim Ngo was fired for actions caught on video but Quillette denies it and the evidence is scant. Again, how does that reflect on Quillette? What is the impact to Quillette? When you read articles talking about how terrible Quillette is, how many mention Ngo? It looks like most mention the "horrible things" Quillette is willing to publish.

Finally, for quite some time the content about Ngo has basically not been here and no one seemed to be pushing for inclusion. Why did you suddenly decide we needed to make 2/3rds of the controversy section a short history of Ngo? Springee (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Bacondrum, propose content and sources, let's see what it looks like. Guy (help!) 18:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

JzG "In August 2019, The Daily Beast reported that Quillette sub-editor and writer Andy Ngo was leaving Quillette after the Portland Mercury published a video of Ngo with members of the far-right group Patriot Prayer as they planned violence at a bar frequented by left-wing activists. Lehmann, told The Daily Beast that Ngo had left a few weeks earlier of his own accord." Ref: https://www.thedailybeast.com/andy-ngo-who-became-a-right-wing-star-leaves-quillette-after-incriminating-video-appears

Also, the text as in the article here [[2]] is probably a BLP violation. It strongly implies, in Wiki voice, an association between Ngo and Patriot Prayer an association that is both not supported by the video and is refuted by sources. The current text can reasonably be read as Ngo was sitting down at the planning table as the group talked about how they were going to carry out an attack. A claim that Ngo helped plan an assault would need absolutely rock solid sourcing. Springee (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Quillette says lots of things, they are not a reliable source. The Daily Beast is. The current text follows this reliable source. Bacondrum (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Only for hard news, not opinion. Guy (help!) 23:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Not claiming he was fired. Published in many high quality reliable sources from around the world. Bacondrum (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

If the text in the article now is not speculating that he was fired because of the video, then what is the point it is making? I don't understand the text you've included if it isn't meant to speculate that he was fired because of the video. If I de-couple the video from his leaving Quillette, we'd have no reason to include the stuff about the video. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Clutching at straws to obfuscate widely reported facts relating a prominent contributor and sub editor removing all connections from Quillette and announcing his moving on the day it was widely reported he'd documented a hate crime being planned and did nothing about it. Come on, this desire to obfuscate is tendentious. I accepted a number of your removals and criticisms, but this one is nonsense. If you need more citation I can add them, dozens of outlets from all around the world reported on this. Bacondrum (talk) 01:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss this anymore, because it's going nowhere. If you really insist it's not due we can take it to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/All. Bacondrum (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

If you have RS saying that he was fired for this reason, please add it. If what we have is speculation, it doesn't belong in the article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Red herring, no one claims he was fired. All claims are backed by a reliable source (and many other outlets reported it). Take it to RFC if you really think it's not due. Bacondrum (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight is correct, putting these two events together in a Quillette article strongly implies a connection. If the video is unrelated then why mention it in this article. If the video is related then we need RSs that establish that as more than speculation. Quillette says it wasn't so do we have any sources that say Quillette is wrong? We don't have reliable sources that say Quillette fired Ngo. We have sources that speculated or repeated the speculation. It's one thing to have that information in the Ngo article where at least the departure is seen as significant about Ngo. However, there is little evidence, certainly no quotes presented here, that Ngo is significant to the story of Quillette. Springee (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Red herring, no one claims he was fired. I've started a rfc, we've had a circular debate here and I'm sure we are all bored with it, so I'm specifically asking for feedback from uninvolved editors, please respect that. Bacondrum (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Springee, right. Regardless of any objections to inclusion of specifics, there should be no novel synthesis. Guy (help!) 22:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

This article has been the subject of outside WP:CANVASSing

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

I think it's safe to say that most of the recent activity on this article and this talk page has been initiated by editors who are clearly not fans/followers of Lehmann or Quillette. I think the unsubstantiated insulation that Lehmann's tweet spurred a significant amount of activity here, much less any at all, along with the characterization of "damage" having been done serves to poison the well, retroactively or going forward, against any edits or views that might be neutral or supportive of the subject. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

This is clearly Aquillion's personal interpretation of Lehmann's tweet and one that is factually incorrect. S/he should strike, modify his/her remarks: nothing in the tweet "directed" anyone to do anything. Please respect WP:BLP in making such damaging insinuations of others. Loksmythe (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Aquillion I agree there's clearly been outside canvassing, it's not really credible to deny it. Bacondrum (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

In looking back it appears the call for help was around Nov 4th. It appears the concerns were related to edits made by a new to Wikipedia editor who was almost solely focused on Quillette. Looking at the involved editors around that time, who are the editor's who appear to have been canvased? I'm choosing my words to say we are aren't claiming an editor actually was canvased. In effect, based on this suspicion, what should we do? Springee (talk) 02:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Well I would say that, at the very least, it is quite the coincidence that, soon after Lehmann's tweet, at least five editors either created new accounts or revived essentially unused ones seemingly for the sole purpose of protesting the inclusion of Donna Minkowitz's Nation article, using similar non-policy based arguments. I do not think it is unreasonable to surmise that perhaps there is some sort of off-wiki coordination taking place, either through people simply following Lehmann's tweet (which is pretty much WP:STEALTH Canvassing by Lehmann) or through other discussions in Quillette-following circles/forums. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 06:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken the Minkowitz discussion took place in early/mid December, almost a month and a half later. Springee (talk) 11:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Shinealittlelight, The talk page of one or more directly related articles is appropriate. See WP:APPNOTE Vexations (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

That policy says it is appropriate to notify people here of a relevant discussion. Fine. But it is not appropriate to carry out a discussion of non-content-related behavior issues here.Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, since this potentially dovetails into WP:MEATPUPPET territory, noting and discussing this here is useful for anyone assessing consensus in previous discussions, as "In votes or vote-like discussions, new users may be disregarded or given significantly less weight, especially if there are many of them expressing the same opinion. Their comments may be tagged with a note pointing out that they have made few or no other edits outside of the discussion." AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 08:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

So in which discussions are you suggesting we tag and accuse editors of acting in bad faith? If a brand new editor shows up tomorrow are you going to suggest they were summoned by a November 2019 tweet? Should we just anyone who joined the topic after 4 Nov of being canvassed by that tweet? The irony of it is if this is really not a vote and the quality of the argument ships carry the day then it shouldn’t matter. Regardless, those in favor of this please state who should be ignored and why. Springee (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

So, the rules potentially being broken in controversial topics are many and varied. Agenda driven editors can always summon the most convenient rules from the vast Wikipedia rulebook. Wikilawyering (forgive me not having the wiki link on hand, for lack of practice) is also very clearly common.

The critical question is how balanced an article is, how diverse the involved editors are. And whether editors are gaming the system in any kind of way.

Those issues must get a honest and objective answer. Rather than nitpicking on minor rules and sub rules as fits convenience Jazi Zilber (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

RFC prominent controversies

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus for adding options A, B, and C to the lead. There is no consensus for not adding them. By 1 !vote, there was contested consensus to add only A. Therefore in the absence of resolution now, you could start a new RfC with two choices (add A or add A,B,and C) to make your determination. (non-admin closure) -SusanLesch (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Survey - RFC prominent controversies

a, b and c - as proposer. As per guidelines WP:LEAD and WP:DUE. Bacondrum (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
None There is no reason to mention any specific controversy in the lead. We should follow the RSs that have offered overviews of Quillette as a subject. That would be say that some of the articles have been controversial but no reason to mention any specific thing in the lead. Also, I'm not sure how the Google memo related article was a controversy related to Quillette. It's notable in that it resulted in a DDoS attack and, I suspect, it helped many, myself included, learn about the publication. The Wiki article is clear that the Google memo related article was significant to the publication but doesn't suggest that the aritcle was itself controversial. Springee (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

There's a reason, the guidelines are quite clear WP:LEAD. Bacondrum (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it includes the comment Do not violate WP:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section.. The lead is meant to be a summary. We can summarize that there have been controversies without mentioning any specific one. Springee (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

a and none of the others We have three RS general profiles of Quillette to look at: Politico, CHE, and SMH. Looking at those sources, they seem to clearly think the Damore controversy was notable. They also highlight the Ted Hill controversy and the Sokal Squared controversy. None of them mentions the DSA or Antifa things. I'd be in favor of following the lead of these profiles, or any other general RS profiles of Quillette that can be provided. Shinealittlelight (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
a only We should follow the sources. As User:Shinealittlelight summarized nicely above, the majority of sources think the Google/Damore memo is important. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
a only per Shinealittlelight. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Black Kite seeing as this article is about an outlet that Andy Ngo was a editor for many years, doesn't the indef tban apply here? At the very least didn't this discussion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=933411850 conclude that Jweiss should seek clarification before contributing to articles related to Andy Ngo? Bacondrum (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Discussion - RFC prominant controversies

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

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

Google memo article

@Emilyekins and Skyisdeep: I don't see a RS issue with adding a link to the Quillette article in question here [[3]]. 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.)[4] (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. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Further, Wikipedia 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: [5]

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 [6], which was reverted by Springee, [7] saying it was an unsupported claim. I reverted that [8] , because it wasn't. Then Shinealittlelight reverted it again, [9] arguing that it isn't due for the lead,and we shouldn't be dropping the content about "scientific topics". I reverted that again,[10] 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 agree with Bacondrum here in excluding this statement from the lead. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:43, 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 ^-talk- 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)