Talk:Scientific American/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Proposed addition to Scientific American article

A number of scientists, scholars, and pundits have complained that Scientific American, originally devoted exclusively to dissemination of scientific knowledge, has gone "woke" and has joined the "social justice" bandwagon. An example of this view is University of Chicago biology professor Emeritus Jerry Coyne: "Scientific American is changing from a popular-science magazine into a social-justice-in-science magazine" and "it is not science: it's politics and sociology with a Leftist bent." The Wall Street Journal recently commented on this issue in these terms: "The politicization of formerly respected scientific publications is one of society's more disturbing recent trends and it seems that yet another periodical is willing to surrender its claim to authority." The article quotes Yale professor of social and natural science Nicholas Christakis, "It's just incredible how far [Scientific American]—a periodical I admired—has fallen from its mission to provide accurate, clear, and vivid coverage of science." Christakis points to a post on Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True" website that accuses Scientific American's editor-in-chief of distorting biology in order to promote a social justice goal (equality for the transgender and for marginalized groups). According to another critic, "Scientific American's descent from respected publication to ideological tabloid is nearly complete. The magazine is now promoting anti-GMO activism under the guise of 'social justice.'" Newsweek cited a Scientific American article titled, "Why the Term 'JEDI' Is Problematic for Describing Programs That Promote Justice, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion" as an example of a wider pattern of scientific institutions going "woke" and hemorrhaging credibility. According to Skeptic, while the term "woke" originally meant being aware of racial and social issues, it has come to refer to an attitude that interferes with the ability of Scientific American to engage in rational discourse and scientific inquiry.

Scientific American's defenders, such as Princeton anthropologist Agustín Fuentes, defend articles with titles such as "Modern Mathematics Confronts Its White, Patriarchal Past" by asserting that the editorial board at Scientific American has "recognized that times are changing, and including previously excluded and marginalized voices, experiences, and perspectives in their pages is not only the right thing to do, but also the necessary thing to do for a better and more vibrant science of the 21st century. ...Because science has a problem. Systemic gender inequities, sexism, racism, ableism, colonialist histories and their neocolonialist present exist in science." Swood100 (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I think this needs a bit of copy editing, for example I think "a number of ..." is a bit misleading and suggests that more people are criticising it than what the source says, I suggest changing it to "a group of ...", also I think that this group of people should be named as mentioned by another editor in this discussion.

Now for @Generalrelative:'s rollback here they mention that "obviously against consensus" although consensus was made on the a couple of self-published "fringe" sources and statements on Twitter, which this revision by Swood100 didn't use and instead used secondary sources that aren't related to Dawkins or Coyne, so I'm personally unsure of what this meant. —Panamitsu (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Panamitsu is clearly correct. There was a consensus that tweets by Coyne, Dawkins, etc. would not be sufficient and that secondary sources would be required. I don't see anybody saying that even reliable secondary sources would be insufficient. If there are objections, what are they? Swood100 (talk) 01:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

In a post on 10 October, @Generalrelative wrote this:

Without WP:SECONDARY coverage of what Coyne or Fuentes are saying here, it's hard to see how it merits inclusion in an encyclopedia. If you can find such sources, on the other hand, I will happily accede.

Has that statement been revoked? What would be the reason? Swood100 (talk) 01:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: Are my proposed changes disputed? What is the dispute? Swood100 (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The addition is blatant editorialising, an in no shape or form belongs in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Andy here. Per WP:RSEDITORIAL:

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

Swood100 has cited four opinion pieces. And, as I stated at NPOVN, coverage of critical remarks about Scientific American in The Daily Princetonian and The Skeptic is glancing at best. The same is true for the Newsweek editorial they cited. I haven't read the Wall Street Journal one but it's immaterial. Actual WP:SECONDARY coverage would be in-depth (i.e. focused on the matter you're trying to use it to write about, in this case criticism of Scientific American) and it would be actual reporting rather than editorial/opinion columns. And that is leaving aside the completely unencyclopedic tone of the text Swood100 sought to add.

Note that I stated above that I would not be engaging with Swood100 further on this matter, but since they've located additional sources I've made a good-faith effort to answer. I will not be engaging further with what I see as WP:BLUDGEON and refusal to WP:LISTEN. Any attempt to re-add the disputed content without first securing a positive consensus should be considered disruptive. Generalrelative (talk) 01:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, I was referring to editiorialising by Swood100, in Wikipedia's voice, when I described the content as 'blatant editorialising', rather than the sources being cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Aha, I see how I was unclear there. I was writing my own reply while you posted, Andy, and then awkwardly pasted on the "I'm in agreement with Andy" part. I did not mean to imply that you were referring to WP:RSEDITORIAL yourself. Generalrelative (talk) 02:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

It should be further noted that even in the first sentence, the content cherry-picks a source (The Princetonian) which is supportive of Scientific Americans editorial policy in order to imply that The Princetonian opposes a supposed 'social justice' 'bandwagon'. This is gross misrepresentation, and utterly unacceptable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

It's possible that The Princetonian is the appropriate source for the introductory sentence, but it should definitely be attributed and the text adhere more closely to the source. Specifically, I see a distinction drawn between "a number" and the more preferred "group", but it seems to me that "select group" as used by the source is the key qualification here. Fuentes also, multiple times (instead of once for "select group") refers to the group as the "anti-woke" crowd, but I am still hesitant to include that in the article for want of a secondary source. Perhaps with attribution. I've only reviewed about 5 of the 8 sources used here, but I don't think there's a single secondary source in there? Use of primary sources, especially for content that is or is likely to be challenged, should generally be done with extreme care, which doesn't seem to be the case for the proposed insertion. As a postscript, I found the even produced calls for me to be fired from Princeton. part from Fuentes an interesting tidbit, and it does appropriately add some spice to an opinion article, but it doesn't exactly sell me on it as a non-opinion source (not that it should, given it's clearly marked as opinion). Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm with the others that this is editorialisation. I feel though that with a bit of copy editing it may warrant being in the article, but it's difficult to tell at this point. I'm wondering if the part in the policy, rarely reliable for statements of fact can be avoided if it's made clearer that they are opinions, and who these opinions are from. —Panamitsu (talk) 01:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Even ignoring other concerns, the sheer bulk of the content is undue, given the sparse sourcing. The topic might merit a sentence or two at most. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd be open to a sentence or two –– if we can find a secondary source that discusses criticism of Scientific American in depth. So far we've seen screeds against "woke" science, along with a very thoughtful rebuttal by Fuentes in The Princetonian, but none of them focus on Scientific American for more than one sentence. Without such coverage, it's hard to see any mention as due for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Generalrelative (talk) 02:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Scientific American is in print since 1845, the somewhat recent criticism of people who don't understand the term "woke" is basically irrelevant. Polygnotus (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with AndyTheGrump that it might deserve a sentence or two. But what we've got so far does not justify the sheer bulk of what was stuck in. Basically I consider it failed WP:UNDUE badly and was turning the article into a coathanger about the current editor. NadVolum (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I also agree. The long first paragraph of the proposed addition reads like a politically-motivated screed against Scientific American, such as would appear in a conservative blog or magazine. Definitely UNDUE. NightHeron (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Some cite WP:RSEDITORIAL and complain that editorial opinion columns are rarely reliable for statements of fact. But look, whether Scientific American has become “woke” or has replaced scientific content with social justice advocacy is a matter of opinion, right? Are you demanding a source that states this as FACT, as if it is a matter of hard news and the proven conclusion of a scientific study? What is your point here? What kind of piece are you looking for? The article in The Daily Princetonian begins like this:

Recently a select group of scientists, scholars, and pundits have denounced key science journals, specifically Scientific American (SciAm) and Science, as going “woke” and joining the “social justice” bandwagon.

This is a well-respected Professor of Anthropology at Princeton writing this. Do you doubt the truth of his statement? Another person claims that accurately quoting this statement "cherry-picks a source," since the author ends up disagreeing with those who denounced Scientific American. But the point is that the fact remains true: there is a select group of scientists, scholars, and pundits who have denounced Scientific American. How is it cherry-picking to point this out?

Another person complained of the unencyclopedic tone of the text I added, without explaining what was meant by that. Another person said that "the sheer bulk of the content is undue, given the sparse sourcing." What kind of sourcing would not be "sparse"? Another person said that "it failed WP:UNDUE badly." That suggests that it violated the following:

Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.

How does the addition violate neutrality? One gets the distinct impression that those objecting to this are disagreeing with the critics of Scientific American, rather than claiming that there are no such critics or that their complaints are not prominent enough to become a part of this article. If this issue is discussed in The Wall Street Journal, The Daily Princetonian, Newsweek, and Sceptic, not to mention in countless tweets by notable scientists, then it is prominent enough for this article. Swood100 (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Swood100, I'd strongly recommend reading WP:BADGER and WP:STONEWALL at this point. You seem to be doing little more than repeat yourself, in a context where your earlier comments will already have been read, and taken into account. In a collaborative project, we all have to accept that sometimes the consensus will be against us. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I suppose this could have stood to be emphasised a bit more by Generalrelative, and it's you may have missed this, but I will need some form of acknowledgement of this: Are you aware here that opinion pieces are not considered a secondary source, Swood100? Second of all, with regards to weight, while I am not able to act as a formal closer of this discussion, nor is it of a type that even requires or admits a formal close, it's fairly clear to me that consensus is that the coverage supports at most a sentence or two of text in the article. Are you able to clearly explain, with reference to relative prominence and the current length of the article as a whole, what you believe to be the most appropriate length and why?

Finally, please do so on the talk page. I would strongly counsel that you do not make another insertion into the article before there is a positive consensus for your specific proposed insertion. If you do not feel confident in correctly evaluating such a consensus, please err on the side of caution and/or ask someone else to do so. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC) (amended 12:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC))

@Alpha3031: I would dispute your assertion that consensus for including a sentence or two has been made clear at this point.

AndyTheGrump says The topic might merit a sentence or two at most.

NadVolum says I'm in agreement with AndyTheGrump that it might deserve a sentence or two.

NightHeron says I also agree.

All emphasis mine of course. If these editors would like to make their support for inclusion definitive, I'd call that consensus, but so far consensus for inclusion of any of this stuff hasn't been established.

My objection to including any mention of this at all until better sources are provided –– leaving aside the question of whether WP:RSEDITORIAL sources can ever be considered WP:SECONDARY –– is that 1) such sources are rarely reliable for statements of fact and thus do not carry DUE weight, and 2) the sources that have been trotted out so far aren't actually about Scientific American. Rather, they give it glancing mention while discussing a broader topic. Taken together, this coverage adds up to a whole lot of nothing. Generalrelative (talk) 04:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I will amend my statement won't the insertion of "up to" or "not more than" when I am able to do so. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Cheers. Much appreciated. Generalrelative (talk) 06:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes (to explain "I also agree"), although I’m not necessarily opposed to a sentence or two, depending on what it says, I’m bothered by any addition that suggests that the problem with Scientific American is “wokeness”. My own perception (for which I have no sources to suggest) is that the journal, which once (roughly until the 1980s) was one of the leading sources of scientific information and insight for the layperson, with brilliant writers such as Martin Gardner, declined after that, presumably because they thought that dumbing down would attract more subscribers and advertisers. At that point it was almost inevitable that they would start including politically and sociologically oriented opinion pieces with little scientific content. Contrary to what right-wing commentators say, the basic problem was not “wokeness” (whatever that means), but rather financial pressure to lower quality, a problem that’s not unique to that particular journal. NightHeron (talk) 09:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I said a sentence or two. I did not mean by that eleven sentences with an average of thirty five words each plus eight citations. Perhaps I should be more specific about what I mean by what I think the maximum DUE limits would be here given its coverage and in relation to the rest of the article. I would limit it to at most three sentences with a total of sixty words between them and three citations. That would easily match the coverage given to its support for Biden, and I certainly don't see it as DUE more coverage than that. NadVolum (talk) 12:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Alpha3031:

Are you aware here that opinion pieces are not considered a secondary source, Swood100?

I’m curious to know the kind of source somebody thinks would be appropriate for this purpose. Let’s take one of the statements by Agustín Fuentes:

Recently a select group of scientists, scholars, and pundits have denounced key science journals, specifically Scientific American (SciAm) and Science, as going “woke” and joining the “social justice” bandwagon. ...These criticisms have spread from blogs to the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal and Newsweek.

This is a statement by a high-profile scientist and academic who is writing a piece critical of those who have denounced Scientific American. His piece establishes that, in his opinion, those making these criticisms have achieved a prominence that justifies a public response. His description of them appears to be an objective one, from his perspective. One would expect an opponent of such criticism to tend to minimize its impact or importance, and so the prominence he ascribes to it is unlikely to be exaggerated. That, together with the attention this has received in the Wall Street Journal, Newsweek and elsewhere, along with the prominence of the critics Fuentes is referring to, justifies a mention of this issue in the article on Scientific American. Fuentes gives, as an example, quotes from Jerry Coyne, presented as Coyne’s opinion:

“Scientific American is changing from a popular-science magazine into a social-justice-in-science magazine” and “it is not science: it’s politics and sociology with a Leftist bent.”

Fuentes also gives the titles of some of the articles that have provoked the criticism he is describing:

“Modern Mathematics Confronts Its White, Patriarchal Past” and “Science Must Not Be Used to Foster White Supremacy”

These quotes also seem appropriate to include, as succinct factual examples of the type of opinion that Fuentes is critical of and the types of articles that generated that criticism. Fuentes ends his piece with his defense of Scientific American, which is that the editorial board at Scientific American has:

recognized that times are changing, and including previously excluded and marginalized voices, experiences, and perspectives in their pages is not only the right thing to do, but also the necessary thing to do for a better and more vibrant science of the 21st century. ...Because science has a problem. Systemic gender inequities, sexism, racism, ableism, colonialist histories and their neocolonialist present exist in science.

Perhaps the above elements would be sufficient to explain the issue, and the additional examples of this type of criticism could be dispensed with. Certainly, Fuentes’ defense of Scientific American appears to be the one that is relied upon by Scientific American and its other defenders, and so would be appropriate to include. The alternative would be that Fuentes is wrong in thinking that such criticism is prominent enough to justify any recognition whatsoever, but I don’t see what there is to support that approach. On the contrary, the references in the Wall Street Journal, Newsweek and elsewhere establish that these criticisms at least are noteworthy. Swood100 (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

A secondary source, Swood100. A secondary source would be "what is appropriate for this purpose". Failing that, go take a look at the coverage for the Biden endorsement versus the anti-woke thing and tell me with a straight face that it is in proportion to the prominence in those two sets of sources to have three times as much content on the latter. We don't generally dump choice quotes into articles, because it is rarely an appropriate form or summarisation, and because generally what is included has sufficient secondary sourcing to write something actually meaningful. Like some of the others present, I am also rapidly running out of patience with your repetition substantially the same arguments for substantially the same text. Other than brief clarifications and minor amendments, I expect that unless you change your tack significantly, my next comment on this will be in relation to conduct exclusively and be placed either on your talk page or a relevant noticeboard. Alpha3031 (t • c) 23:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

About five times as much, not three! NadVolum (talk) 12:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: Interesting that you mentioned those 3 people but excluded me from that list. Polygnotus (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Nothing personal, Polygnotus. I only mentioned those whose statements seemed like they might have implied support for "one or two sentences" to show that even these statements couldn't be taken as straightforward endorsements of inclusion. It was pretty clear that you, like me, see this as unencyclopedic content, so I didn't see the need to ping you. Generalrelative (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Swood100 (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)