Talk:Google's Ideological Echo Chamber

Damore's Background Relevancy?

Article has a high amount of focus on discrediting the manifesto's author by identifying his (lack of) work at Harvard University, but it's not relevant to the story of the manifesto and only serves to politicise the piece. Suggest trimming his background.--A1Qicks (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

While Damore's previous tenure is not relevant at this point, then his current or former academic positions are not personal life. -Mardus /talk 15:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The removal of his academic time is here. -Mardus /talk 15:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

IMO his brief touch with biology is relevant, since this is a hint where his "biological" ideas come from. But this kind of background analysis must come from sources, otherwise it will be WP:SYNTH. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Clearly if his background in biology is not relevant then surely Megan Smith's background as Google VP is just as irrelevant and shouldn't be mentioned either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.100.79.42 (talk) 07:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Found this: James Damore had an actual resume where he listed he was a FIDE master in chess which he is not. I'm no chess expert and this is hardly relevant to the article but it's interesting he would lie in his actual resume about something that most people can't verify. It would be interesting to know how he actually got hired. Even if you start as an intern there is probably still an interview and they will look at your resume. Or did they?

Link: https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/18271/is-james-damore-a-fide-master

2001:14BA:2F8:F700:D802:BFED:222F:6628 (talk) 11:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

quilette

 Requesting immediate archiving...

Discussion with poll down on the site agrees, that Quilette is a notable source
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
First - what is this source? Their twitter says "A platform for free thought featuring unorthodox viewpoints in politics, science & art" which is a big red flag for WP:FRINGE. Their "about" page says something similar, about "dangerous ideas" (often a code phrase for "nonsense") but I can't access it because it's down. Second - as an article this is a WP:PRIMARY source. It most certainly DOES NOT "provide an overview of academic opinions". It just has four scientists, probably cherry picked ones, commenting. I guess it would be ok to cite some of them with attribution BUT... Third - ... by itself this is WP:UNDUE because this is just one source, with a particular bias, and cannot be called representative. It's cherry picked, both in terms of sources, and what is being chosen out of that particular source. Please don't restore the material without discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC) Try to be constructive. You have a few options: Add references and summaries from RS yourself, leave a citation requesting additional sources or destroying. Wikipedia is an iterative process, try to build, not destroy. You have now removed the distinction between scientific and other opinion. Lets hope that doesn't cause problems down the line. 1130pm in UK, too tired to argue further. Will come back to points in AM.Keith Johnston (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC) You have failed to address any of the points (one, two or three) that I have made. Also, the fact that Assange tweeted some troll crap, is not significant and is UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC) I suggest we restrict opinions to those that received secondary coverage. So far I see Quillette covered in USA Today [1]. The opinion I removed (Angela Saini) had no secondary coverage. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC) @James J. Lambden I have incorporated the USA Today pieceKeith Johnston (talk) 06:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC) Angela Saini is a recognized expert published by a reliable source with full attribution. Grayfell (talk) 01:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC) By whom is she recognized as an expert in biology or social science? If it were so I'd expect secondary coverage. James J. Lambden (talk) 01:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC) Her utterance is neither of biological or otherwise scientific nature: it is a valid observation of a journalist about a certain subsociety, well within her recognized area of expertise. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC) The statement we cite to her is: "[the memo] reflected common misconceptions about the biological differences between men and women, and demonstrated a flawed understanding of the research it cited." That is clearly a statement about biology. So I ask again: by whom is she recognized as an expert on biology? James J. Lambden (talk) (edit conflict) If she were "just" a journalist, I wouldn't have included this. We shouldn't include every comment we can find. Saini has published a book on the subject of the science of biological sex differences through Harper Collins, which has been positively reviewed by The Economist,[2] the Guardian,[3] The Times,[4] The Week,[5], etc. The New Statesman specifically recommends her latest book as an explanation of this issue with Silicon Valley without even mentioning the Guardian article.[6] Her expertise has been established well enough that a single sentence of her attributed opinion can be included to help contextualize the article, especially since the article might not even last. If it really matters, Vox mentions the article, and uses stronger language than I did to make a similar point.[7] Grayfell (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC) You had me at Vox (secondary coverage.) But that someone with no background or training in social science or biology could write a well-reviewed book on the intersection of social science and biology is more an indictment of the publishing industry and journalism than anything else. Oh well. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC) First - This would be a completely understandable concern for a staff writer, who isn't simply responding to a request from Quillette. In this case, I think the people they are quoting have positions that are not fringe at all in their chosen fields. The "unorthodox views" umbrella is still fair because academics are mostly out of the public eye. Second - Citing Quillette as an "overview of academic opinions" is something I would never do. I agree that these four scientists are cherry-picked, just like the two who wrote for Recode are. Quoting with attribution is indeed my goal and I only need to do that for Lee Jussim. He's the one whose statements I did not find printed elsewhere. Third - No single source will be representative in a contentious issue like this. We impart a neutral POV to Wikipedia by referencing many of the ones that pass reliability / notability criteria. Regarding WP:UNDUE, if you think this article is missing sources that say the opposite of Jussim, by all means add them. Connor Behan (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC) I have several comments: The whole section "Scientific Views" is simply a selection of experts who have commented on the memo. To call some source "cherry-picked" is beside the point. The Quilette article is quoted in many places: here in NY Mag for instance, and in opinion columns by David Brooks in the NYT and Cathy Young in USA Today. The first name is the one I know the best. Lee Jussim is a well-known and respected social psychologist, at least on par with anyone quoted in the section. Check his Google scholar page: his most famous work on self-fulfilling prophecies has been cited almost 900 times. He has also done a lot of work on stereotypes and accuracy, including a book book Social Perception and Social Reality by Oxford University Press. It's a bit weird because three of the four people in the Quilette article are already quoted in the section. (Schmitt, Miller and Soh) I suggest that the people there be quoted with attribution, just like the other people in the section are. The quotes should be short and to the point, to avoid WP:UNDUE. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Responses

This article is seriously lacking when it doesn't include psychologists' responses to the memo, seeing as the memo made psychological claims. It's important for the context behind the debate surrounding the memo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ari1891adler (talk • contribs) 02:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree we should rely on scientists for claims about science. On the topic of cultural issues (women-in-tech) no scientific expertise is necessary. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The article made several psychological claims, and many of the responses addressed those claims as "pseudoscience," "bunk science," and "perpetuating harmful stereotypes." It's important for perspective to examine who's right here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ari1891adler (talk • contribs) 02:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you be more specific for what you had in mind? Without specific sources to work with this is all speculative. Grayfell (talk) 02:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

So I see that Quilette was addressed above. Prof. Jordan B. Peterson, whose main field of study is personality psychology, including gender differences, responded by saying it was "scientifically accurate." (If this is significant enough to include in the article I'll find the source for you.) I haven't yet seen what Simon Baron-Cohen thinks of it--much of the memo was based on his research.

And Psychology Today has a piece supporting the psychological claims, but disputing the conclusion (not sure if psychologists' opinions on google's diversity policy is relevant). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ari1891adler (talk • contribs) 02:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Peterson is controversial, to put it mildly, and Breitbart is completely out of the question. His opinion could be considered only with a reputable source and clear attribution.

I assume you mean this article from Psychology Today. Is this from KotakuInAction? Never mind, it doesn't matter. This should be handled with caution, as it's not really saying a lot about the memo itself. It's... sort of supporting the claims, but I think that's debatable. It's saying that sex differences exist but they aren't that strong, etc. This kind of thing is very, very easy to misread without a strong background in psychology, especially his use of statistics. The author also specifically (and commendably) qualifies much of his comments by saying they are outside of his area of expertise. Grayfell (talk) 02:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Controversial does not necessarily mean not-reliable. Also most of the """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""reliable sources""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" cited in the article have published very blatant lies about this very topic. Anyone who cares about source reliability should be very alarmed that the wikipedia dogma places blind faith in publications that are twisting and mispresenting a topic. The nature of Wikipedia as a partisan news site where the article is constantly changing instead of an encyclopedia becomes more clear with each controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.100.79.42 (talk) 10:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Psychology Today is an excellent RS and I have included it . If you think you can write a better summary of the contents of this RS feel free.Keith Johnston (talk) 07:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Article title

The sources introduce the subject as Google's Ideological Echo Chamber. Even if they later call it the Google memo/manifesto in short, the former title is the most recognizable (the name most people will call it), natural (reflecting what it's usually called), precise (unambiguously identified), and concise (not longer than necessary to identify), per the naming criteria (article titles policy).  czar 04:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it. When I checked if Wikipedia had an article on it I just typed in "google memo", not the title, which most people will not recognize right away.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

While "Google memo" may be a bit general - although that's how it's refereed to in sources - putting this under the title that the guy gave it is basically stating something in Wikipedia voice. It's implicitly agreeing with his argument which is summarized by the title.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Many Wikipedia articles about books, essays, poems, and other works use these works' titles as the Wikipedia articles' titles. Using a memo's actual title as the Wikipedia article's title does not mean that Wikipedia supports the author's position. It simply means that Wikipedia is introducing this memo, just as introducing other books, essays, poems, etc..--Neo-Jay (talk) 05:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The relevant policy here is WP:POVTITLE. ^Falling_Gravity 05:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Neo-Jay Those are published works. I was gonna give as an example something like Unabomber manifesto but it turns out that's part of the Ted Kaczynski article. That's funny, we don't have a separate article for the Unabomber manifesto - which was a huge deal since the guy threatened to keep bombing unless it was published - but we have an article for this little dinky thing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: We are not discussing about a merger issue, are we? We are discussing about the title issue. And Unabomber manifesto redirects Ted Kaczynski's specific section: Industrial Society and Its Future, the actual title of that essay. --Neo-Jay (talk) 06:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Which is why I said it wasn't a good example. Anyway, we should get a proper RM going.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Does your "RM" mean "requested move" or "requested merger"? If the latter, then you can start a "Merger proposal" section and we may discuss there. And by the way, Google's Ideological Echo Chamber has been published (by WND, see this page). --Neo-Jay (talk) 06:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Article title change voting

I consolidated all of the votes into this new sub-section. No content was modified, added, or removed - only consolidation was performed. Additionally, all other content and discussion was left as-is in the above section. airuditious (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

PROPOSAL (as outlined above): Re-name the article from "Google memo" back to the initial title "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber".

• Support move. Google's Ideological Echo Chamber was moved to Google memo at 23:00, 8 August 2017. But Google memo is too general to be this article's title. It should be moved back to Google's Ideological Echo Chamber. --Neo-Jay (talk) 05:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support move and make clear in the opening sentence it's the title of the memo (avoiding WP:POVTITLE issues.) James J. Lambden (talk) 05:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose move - Google memo is quickly becoming the shorthand term. We should reflect how users would search for this information and using the formal title is unlikely.Keith Johnston (talk) 06:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support move. I agree with VM and others that Google's Ideological Echo Chamber is non-neutral. However I agree with others that Google memo is absurdly general--to the point where it's even worse than Google's Ideological Echo Chamber. If I had to choose the lesser of two evils, it would be Google's Ideological Echo Chamber. However there are other options. I'd much prefer something like James Damore's Google memo. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support move to the unique title. Keeping it under this title will reinforce improper association of the generic term "google memo", a kinda circular influence of wikipedia on information. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support move: The current title, "Google memo", is definitely far too generic and ambiguous and while the original title could possibly convey some bias, it is IMHO the better choice between the two. That said, if a third option is acceptable, I would suggest something along the line of "James Damore's Google Diversity memo" or similar. airuditious (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support move. It should be named after the memo title, just as we do with book titles. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
• Strongly support move. - Google memo is too vague. Everyone else described it better than me. Jdcomix (talk) 02:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support move. The author's title is the title, just as On the Origin of Species (not Biology book or something equally vague) is another author's title. – Athaenara ✉ 04:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support move to the author's title, "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber". ^Falling_Gravity 15:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
• Moved - I changed the title without realizing that there was a discussion going on here, but since the consensus seems to be strongly in favor of it, I'll just leave it be instead of reverting myself. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 06:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Lede

@Anthony Ivanoff: This edit isn't going to work. Biology is a central point of the memo according to multiple sources. According to Fortune, Motherboard is the one who broke the story. Motherboard is the main source we should be using, and we need a specific reason to switch to some other source in the lede. Among other problems, this edit uses a commentary piece from Fortune to downplay biology, even though that article also explains that it's central to the memo. This also ignores Fortune's own news-style summary of the issue, which even more strongly emphasizes biology. Grayfell (talk) 05:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

In the TL;DR summary in our article only 1 (possibly 1.5) of the 5 bullet points deal with biology. To say biology is "central" (depending on how you mean that) would be incorrect. The sources reflect is a component of the memo not the component.

I'm not too concerned about who broke the story. It's not an investigative piece where Vice has access to research other sources do not. The memo is freely available and in fact I believe other sources posted text from internal chats which Vice did not access. But I do agree we should use a better source than fortune. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The "TL:DR" will have to be completely rewritten to avoid WP:COPYVIO, and to be in a formal tone, for one thing. Regardless, summaries are only encyclopedic when they reflect reliable sources. Weren't you the one who just said you wanted secondary sources? We cannot favor an arbitrarily selected commentary piece for defining the document in the lede, and a rambling primary list copied from the document itself should not act as the sole summary. If Motherboard, Fortune, and others all mention that biology is an important part of this memo (regardless of how many k of space it takes up) than so should Wikipedia. This is, according to sources, a defining aspect of the document, and the lede should reflect that. Grayfell (talk) 06:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Original Text Inclusion?

Much of the reaction to the memo/manifesto has been targeted towards the 4 sections of the 24-section document which refer specifically to biological differences in genders (6 in total which mention gender in general), but the memo itself offers several other arguments (particularly political differences, suggestions for improving ideological diversity, Google approaches to diversity the author identifies as non-functional).

Understandably, this page leans heavily on the gender argument because that's what the sources are reporting, but it doesn't offer a complete and unbiased guide to the actual memo - to what extent is it worth providing an increase to the "Text" section to identify other features of the memo for a complete understanding of the author's argument?--A1Qicks (talk) 08:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Tend to agree, maybe not the whole memo (unsure, depends on length) but we should certainly expand on the memo itself - esp charts and references used. This is particularly important since some public commentary appears become its own echo chamber, and less and less related to the actual contents of the memo as time goes by.Keith Johnston (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I have begun to start a section on sources cited in the memo. perhaps other editors could assist. Thank you.Keith Johnston (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Scientific responses v others

I propose to create a subsection within responses entitled "Scientific responses". This will help readers distinguish between responses from scientists and other cultural commentators.Keith Johnston (talk) 08:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

USA Today

USA Today didn't "report" anything. It printed an opinion piece by Cathy Young.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

and therefore your constructive editorial suggestion is? Try to be constructive, we are building a page from scratch here.Keith Johnston (talk) 08:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

My constructive suggestion is for editors not to misrepresent sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources cited in the memo

The following discussion 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.

---

I have created a Sources cited in the memo section. This is key since the memo includes a number of citations supporting its argumentation including:

• Why Can’t a Man Be More Like a Woman? Sex Differences in Big Five Personality Traits Across 55 Cultures, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 94, No. 1, 168–182
• Gender Differences in Personality and Interests: When, Where, and Why?, Social and Personality Psychology Compass, Volume 4, Issue 11, pages 1098–1110, November 2010
• Why It’s Time To Stop Worrying About First World ‘Gender Gaps’ by Aaron Neil, Quillette Magazine, 15 July 2017
• The War Against Boys, Christina Hoff Sommers, The Atlantic Magazine, May 2000
• Women, careers, and work-life preferences, British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, Vol. 34, No. 3, August 2006
• Hard Truths About Race on Campus, by Jonathan Haidt and Lee Jussum, Wall Street Journal, May 6, 2016
• The Real War on Science: The Left has done far more than the Right to set back progress. John Tierney, City Magazine, Autumn 2016
• Heteredox Academy, The Problem
• Is Social Psychology Biased Against Republicans? Maria Konnikova, New Yorker Magazine, October 30, 2014
• Why Men Earn More (summary), Dr. Warren Farrell
• A Non-Feminist FAQ, August 6, 2016
• The Personality of Political Correctness, Scientific American, by Scott Barry Kaufman on November 20, 2016
• The Process of Moralization, Paul Rozin First Published May 1, 1999
• Liberal Privilege in Psychology Lee Jussim Ph.D., 26 September 2012, Psychology Today
• Conservative professors must fake being liberal or be punished on campus by Kyle Smith April 17, 2016, New York Post
• Liberals, conservatives, and personality traits by Steve Bogira, August 18, 2011, Chicago Reader
• Against Empathy, Paul Bloom, Boston Review, September 10, 2014

References

ENDS

Summarising this is a massive task with significant dangers of original research, for now this section allows readers to source the citations. if you wish to summarise the memo go ahead, but that is not a reason to destroy this section.Keith Johnston (talk) 12:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Poll

• Agree it is clearly relevant. But we should add a summary section and including it as a subsection.--Rævhuld (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Argumentum ad hominem removed. This would be straight up original research. So no. And why isn't this article semi-protected? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I have removed what is clearly a personal attack. As the article founder of the Gay concentration camps in Chechnya article, I am clearly not alt-right. All my contributions have to all time been very left-wing - I stand up for LGBT and equal rights. And when I write about terrorism, I am actually not attacking Muslims, but rather the opposite:protecting them. Non the less, attacking me is neither all right nor an argument in this debate.--Rævhuld (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

There are a number of arguments for including the citations: 1) they are effectively part of the memo - and the memo does not make sense without reference to them 2) They are not easy to summarise without engaging in Original Reserach 3) They provide the background argumentation to the memo

An argument has been raised that it would be preferable to summarise the contents of the memo and include reference to the citations as part of that project. I agree there is not enough actual content on this page about the memo itself, but the Sources of the Memo helps, and does not hinder that insight. If you wish as an editor to take on the task of summarising the memo then feel free, but this is not an argument for deleting this section - rather it is an argument for superseding it with a new section. That new section may take some time to write given the controversial nature of this topic. Therefore until such time as we have a new section and consensus on this, it is preferable to list the sources.Keith Johnston (talk) 12:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a summary of the citations used which also explains how the author has misused/misunderstood them (as per reliable sources). But I don't see the value of just making a copy of the citations on this page. If somebody wants to see all the citations they can just follow the link to the document. --ChiveFungi (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• The memo also cites the Wikipedia page Neuroticism, why isn't this included? ^Falling_Gravity 15:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is supposed to be a summary of what reliable sources have reported on the issue, not a original research analysis of every single one of his sources. I've removed the section as unencyclopedic. We're not here to host a debate club about the memo, we're here to write an encyclopedia article about the controversy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, the article has two purposes - to present the primary source (the memo) in a format which is accessible to the reader (which is why the sources are key) and to discuss RS reaction. By way of example see page on the Balfour Declaration. We cannot discuss the reaction without presenting the memo - which includes these references. It is also particularly useful since the sources are not easily identifiable in the original document (the author does not follow wikipedia guidelines!). Finally, by letting the sources speak for themselves we avoid problems associated with original research in controversial articles like this. Editors may wish to summarise the contents of the sources but this will no doubt be a lengthy process.

On the subject of the reference to Neuroticism, it is relevant and this should be included. However, this introduces a problem which it is not obvious to me how to solve. The author of the memo has referenced pages at a particular point in time. In order to accurately reference these pages we will need to reference an external source which captures the meaning of those pages at that time. if we do not then the meaning will change over time, which has little utility. If editors have a solution I am happy to hear it.

Please do not remove these sources until we have reached a consensus.Keith Johnston (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC) Its getting a bit hot in here, lets continue the discussion on the Rfc below.Keith Johnston (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

That's not the way it works, and you're well over 3RR; if you don't self-revert you're likely to be blocked. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support It is clearly relevant. We should create a summary section and use this as a subsection.--Rævhuld (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

There is already an RfC below. So I am closing this section. Feel free to revert if you disagree. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:03, 15 August 2017 (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.

RfC about including "Sources cited in the memo" on this page

Should this page contain the section on "Sources cited in the memo"? Keith Johnston (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support

Please see my comment below, this is a qualified support in the spirit of "What amount of the memo are we going to present to the reader?" I sadly do not know the best way to handle that part (do we just block quote the whole thing? If so the sources will be present there anyway). I do believe there has been discussion of the sources used (there was a scientific response section at one point, haven't check recently), so I don't know that any OR argument really holds weight in that sense. Arkon (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose it is original research, unless there are reliable sources that specificaly discuss the cited sources within the context of the memo. Minor4th 16:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Grossly undue, original research, and unencyclopedic. The WP:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY shortcut was set up for exactly this purpose. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is not how Wikipedia articles work. We summarize RS|what reliable secondary sources have said about a subject. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: This spams the references with tangentially-related sources which don't discuss the memo, some of which are not reliable by Wikipedia's standards. ^Falling_Gravity 17:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: While is it completely appropriate to park material on the article's Talk page (see "Share material" on this page), it must either be material removed from the article for some reason OR new material that is not ready for prime-time. As mentioned previously, the section you are discussing is original research which would probably be OK if intended for addition to the article (assuming it meets other WP criteria). However, it appears the purpose of your compilation is to prove the veracity of the assertions made by the memo's author. If so, then the section does not belong here. airuditious (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: Serves no purpose. The memo writer is not a recognized expert in social psychology altogether, so whatever he read is completely irrelevant. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose -- excessive intricate detail. If ppl are interested in the sources used, they can read the document which is widely available. It also looks like a coat rack. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - uh, why? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support There are a number of arguments for including the citations: 1) they memo is divided into the text, the sources and the charts, and for completeness we should include the sources 2) the memo does not make sense without reference to them 3) The sources are not easy to summarise without engaging in Original Research (I note many attempts to summarise the memo have been disputed) 4) The sources provide the background argumentation to the memo 5) The Sources are not easy to identify in the original source document (which is linked to) so referring to them by their title and providing a link to them is useful for those who wish to know more about the memo. Some editors may have practical issues which the sources being a long list, and therefore upsetting the narrative. If that is the case then we can include the Sources under Further reading.Keith Johnston (talk) 09:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support - with mods - the cites used have WP:WEIGHT in the discussion above the level of material included here, but I'll suggest a couple mods. First, better than a bare list would be an intro or descriptive paraphrased from cites, with a requirement that the cite includes a list of the actual cites to distinguish it as something about the actual cites. I'd particularly point to Motherboard as prominently covered. Second, this seems part of the Science section, which currently is a rather abrupt sampling of scientists with no obvious explanation of why they're being brought in, so it would solve two problems at one go if the mention of the memo cites is the first paragraph of the that section - as that part of the memo occurred first and is the genesis for the section being a major topic. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - If this were anything else (e.g. a research paper), listing its citations in the WP article would be a mistake. Happy to keep the list here in Talk for the benefit of later editors so that if the article quotes a portion of the memo which directly cites or quotes a source, it's easy to find. De Guerre (talk) 06:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Comment I'm not a fan of the current "Text of the Memo" section not actually including the....text of the Memo. We might need to start with that section to determine what we want to include or not. Arkon (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Minor4th Its not original research any more than referencing the Balfour Declaration on the Balfour Declaration page is original. Its the primary source. The primary source has created the RS reaction.Keith Johnston (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - the sources are not actually even cited; they are merely linked. And there is no notable discussion in secondary sources discussing the underlying sources. Minor4th 17:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: Wouldn't this be a candidate for WikiSource? – Athaenara ✉ 17:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

  Not unless Damore has released the text of the memo under a Wikimedia-friendly free content license. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - FYI that OP was blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. Jdcomix (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment and Question - Am I alone in thinking that this is mostly a pointless conversation until we have the "Text of the Memo" section hashed out? (Sources are in the text of course) I don't want to see this somehow referenced to neuter the text once we get to what I consider to be, the main problem, with this article. Arkon (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment There is a further argument that, by denying the inclusion of the citations, the Wikipedia summary of the memo fundamentally misrepresents the memo.

It is notable that Gizmodo’s original publication of the memo was the text only, and they omitted the citations and the charts. This was commented on by some critics:

“As Gizmodo’s post gained momentum, a common objection to it was that Damore makes statements without backing them up with evidence. As it turns out, he did —there are at least 27 links embedded in the original memo that back up his statements, along with 2 charts. But Gizmodo didn’t publish those in its post which it marketed as including the ‘Full 10-Page’ memo. Why? It noted the omissions in a small note at the bottom most people missed. The effect: all chances of sparking a meaningful debate based on controversial statements backed by evidence vanished in favor of a flame-throwing debate backed by feelings.” See https://medium.com/@100millionbooks/2-things-about-that-google-memo-75d3dcd29cc5

Gizmodo quickly updated the memo and added the citations and charts because by omitting them they were supporting a view of the memo that it was a screed. By omitting the citations we face the same dangers.Keith Johnston (talk) 09:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Gizmodo has NOT fixed and their "screed" article still does not include the links etc. check for yourself. Unless they disingenuously did it in a subsequent piece, in which case I will be polite and avoid using some choice words to describe them Jazi Zilber (talk) 10:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Motherboard however, published the full memo with links/charts. here is the link for it if someone wishes to add inside the article. [8]. Jazi Zilber (talk) 10:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• - Comment

Arguments against the inclusion of the sources fall into these categories: 1) That it is original research 2) That is provides undue weight 3) That it is unenclyopedic 4) That the sources are not RS as defined by Wikipedia 5) That the sources are available in the memo, which is linked below

I shall address each argument in turn. 1) The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist/

This is not what I am proposing. I am proposing to include the citations included in the memo for the purpose of completeness. In fact to deny reference to the sources is to misrepresent the primary source, as it consists of the text, the citations and the charts.

2) Undue weight – Wikipedia states: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources

Thus this charge is incorrect. Once again, I am proposing to include the citations included in the memo for the purpose of completeness. To deny reference to the sources is to misrepresent the primary source, and fundamentally corrupts the primary source. It is Undue weight not to include the sources.

3) That it is unenclyopedic. I have read the section on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Encyclopedic_content None of the advice suggests that citations to a primary source should not be included.

4) That the sources are not RS as defined by Wikipedia. This arguments demonstrates confusion in the mind of the editors. The citations are not RS, they are part of the primary source under discussion in the article.

5) That the sources are available in the memo, which is linked below

As stated above the Sources are not easy to identify in the original source document (which is linked to) so referring to them by their title and providing a link to them is useful for those who wish to know more about the memo. Some editors may have practical issues which the sources being a long list, and therefore upsetting the narrative. If that is the case then we can include the Sources under Further reading.

Can editors please let me know their reaction to this, and ideally address the arguments. Keith Johnston (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Inaccurate media coverage

Bre Payton, The Federalist, August 8 2017, Here Are All The Media Outlets Blatantly Lying About The Google Memo

The Washington Post, CNN, Time Magazine, Ian Bogost of The Atlantic, Forbes, The Huffington Post, Vanity Fair, ABC News, Slate, and Gizmodo all published "blatant lies" about the contents of the memo. These sources are not reliable for claims that are so strongly disputed. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Biography

Should we include a short biographical section on James Damore, with basic information on his academic and professional background? NoMoreHeroes (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

No - not in this article. Any bio information concerning Damore belongs on a page dedicated to him if that page is deemed appropriate for Wikipedia. Putting it here, aside from being off-topic, would only serve to further the character assassination already begun on Damore and would also distract the reader away from the relevant issues within and surrounding the memo. airuditious (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The thing is, he is not notable enough for his own article, but his background has been widely reported by various sources across the spectrum. I definitely think it deserves inclusion, even if a minor one. And honestly I don't see how saying basic facts such as he went to UIUC and Harvard and worked at Google since 2013 would "further the character assassination"; it would be quite the opposite, in fact. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Well if he's not noteworthy enough for his own article, then surely personal details about him are equally or even more un-noteworthy. If the author's personal details were somehow relevant to the focus of this article or to the issues raised by the memo, then possibly (though still somewhat dubious even of that). But we do not have either of those situations here - Damore's experience, training, education, etc. are not at all related to the memo's contents or the issues it raises. It's the same as asking if you or I need to provide our personal details for us to be taken seriously on Wikipedia? Of course not - our words and argumentation speak for themselves. The purpose of this specific article is the memo itself, its contents, and the issues raised by it. airuditious (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Do reliable sources focus on his academic and professional background? If not, I think it would be undue weight at this point; however, if the story continues in the media and Damore makes his academic and professional background an issue of public concern (e.g. if he claims that because he has a certain educational background, his memo should be taken more seriously), then it might become relevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The proper question would be: Do reliable sources link his academic, professional, political, etc. background with the memo? Staszek Lem (talk) 20:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

But then you are opening the door to something like Wikipedia asserting that it is appropriate for that linking to occur. I would re-state and ask "Is it appropriate to link ..." and as I've mentioned earlier, IMHO, the answer at this point is no. airuditious (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Nothing of the kind for Wikipedia to assert. If and only reliable sources do such linking, in becomes appropriate for Wikipedia to report such linking. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

If by "...to report such linking..." you mean staying within a narrow context and stating something like "SOME PUB has maintained that Damore's experience does\does not...", then sure. Otherwise, it is likely improper to include any bio content in this article...at least at this point in time. As NorthBySouthBaranof mentioned earlier, will need to re-address if something changes such as Damore stating his experience, education, etc. in some way supports the content in his memo. airuditious (talk) 23:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

If we're going to have this article: the names of David P. Schmitt and Cathy Young should be wikilinked. 69.159.83.14 (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Done. Arkon (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit Request: Fixes

1. Make the Geoffrey Miller wikilink point to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Miller_(psychologist) not the disambiguation page
2. fix whatever is causing the angle bracket (<) to show up in reference 4

- 2603:3024:200:300:1C86:5747:329F:C148 (talk) 07:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done Cjhard (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Reactions from actual scientists

At least four scientists in the field have claimed, that the memo got its science right (either in large parts or entirely). An example on something we could include is below. If you find scientists who claim something different, please just add it into the article as well.--Rævhuld (talk) 07:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Suggested Example
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Science Professor Lee Jussim claims "The author of the Google essay on issues related to diversity gets nearly all of the science and its implications exactly right." Other scientists like the pyschologist David P. Schmitt, professor for evolutionary psychology Geoffrey Miller and PhD in sexual neuroscience Debra W Soh agreed either entirely or in large parts with the scientific facts in the memo, criticizing that some newspapers didn't took notice of the scientific references James Damore provided. David P. Schmitt, a personality psychologist writing for Psychology Today said that "in my view, claiming that sex differences exist in negative emotionality is not an 'incorrect assumption about gender.' It is an empirically well-supported claim," but that such differences were "unlikely to be all that relevant to the Google workplace," and were "not very large".

References

Potential sources

I haven't had time to go through and incorporate these sources into the article. Leaving them here in case anyone is inclined:

• https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manifesto-isnt-sexist-or-anti-diversity-its-science/article35903359/
• http://www.businessinsider.com/james-damore-wrote-his-memo-after-attending-a-google-diversity-programme-2017-8
• http://www.businessinsider.com/many-google-employees-dont-think-james-damore-should-have-been-fired-2017-8
• http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/google-gender-memo-1.4240644

James J. Lambden (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

more sources to considers

• https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2017/0809/Troubling-trend-behind-sexist-memo-at-Google
• https://www.irishtimes.com/business/innovation/sacking-of-google-engineer-over-memo-a-modern-parable-1.3181524
• http://www.cosmopolitan.com/career/a11659088/james-damore-google-fired-memo-women/

The CSM one is interesting for setting a larger context.

The Cosmo one is interesting for not being a tech/business source, but a women oriented source. - 2603:3024:200:300:CCD7:B465:21DB:71FC (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Might it be a good idea to add a link to the full memo? I don't know how long this one stays up, but for what it's worth, here it is: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fringe Dweller (talk • contribs) 20:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a link in the article to https://diversitymemo.com with the full text. 173.228.123.18 (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@James J. Lambden thanks, v useful Keith Johnston (talk) 06:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek you have reverted my edit including this source: * https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manifesto-isnt-sexist-or-anti-diversity-its-science/article35903359/

You stated two arguments -1) that we should only use "notable reactions" and that 2) otherwise this will turn into a "he said, she said". Please 1) define notable and explain why The Globe and Mail and/or the author are not RS but the Guardian is and 2) RS (see BBC) say the science is conflicting so we should reflect this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston (talk • contribs) 07:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

https://www.recode.net/2017/8/11/16127992/google-engineer-memo-research-science-women-biology-tech-james-damore - 2600:1010:B057:B180:B5A3:4C50:9B86:D4C9 (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-google-got-right-with-its-sexism-crisis-that-uber-didnt-2017-8 "But unlike Uber — which is still recovering from the public maelstrom it found itself in the throes of just a few months ago — the tech giant actually seems to be faring well for itself in its demonstration of "unequivocal" commitment to diversity, say branding experts." - 2603:3024:200:300:C40E:1E9A:540B:74D9 (talk) 09:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

https://www.wired.com/story/the-pernicious-science-of-james-damores-google-memo/ "The problem is, the science in Damore’s memo is still very much in play, and his analysis of its implications is at best politically naive and at worst dangerous. The memo is a species of discourse peculiar to politically polarized times: cherry-picking scientific evidence to support a preexisting point of view. It’s an exercise not in rational argument but in rhetorical point scoring. And a careful walk through the science proves it." - 2603:3024:200:300:C40E:1E9A:540B:74D9 (talk) 10:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/16/16153740/tech-diversity-problem-science-history-explainer-inequality "In this context, Damore’s memo is particularly sloppy and fundamentally unscientific. The memo doesn’t clearly define what makes for a successful coder. It doesn’t explore what scientists do and don’t know about how biological sex shapes behavior. It doesn’t call on experts to debate. It doesn’t evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence. And it never once discusses what we know about gender discrimination or its long, sordid history in tech." - 2603:3024:200:300:C40E:1E9A:540B:74D9 (talk) 05:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Need Context section (Silicon Valley/Tech diversity, Labor Dept on gender pay gap,...)

Having a "Context" or "History" section would show some of the issues Google is dealing with externally and could explain part of the authors timing or backlash. Might want something to show (or not) Google's liberal bias (sponsorship, politics, internal,...). There are many RS for Google/SV/Tech diversity problems over the past few years. More recent is the US Dept of Labor investigation about gender pay gap (articles by: Wired, Verge). And now (coincidentally?), after this memo, there is a potential class action lawsuit by 60+ women against Google (Guardian, Forbes). — Preceding unsigned comment added by StrayBolt (talk • contribs) 21:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Context is a minefield. It is needed. But framing it is enormously political and pron to unlimited arguments.

I agree with the above comment that this is a slippery slope here. IMO, it makes sense to maybe touch on this but only in a very narrow context such as what Google's activities have been, at a very high level, WRT diversity in the workplace. That said, the details such as those being suggested really belong in a separate article focussing on Google and\or gender diversity in the workplace. Putting those details here will result in a dilution of this article's central topic and also lead to endless debates as what to put here. airuditious (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

youtube interview links

@Grayfell:

The only primary sources from the memo author himself are the memo, a short bloomberg 8 minutes interview, and two 45 + 51 minutes youtube interviews with james Damore. (linked below)

Given the dearth of direct information of the author, and the major fights about distortions of "what he said" "he is sexists" etc. etc. full length interviews are crucial and central for anyone interested in the subject.

Links below.

If you have any strong argument fro removal, you can argue it here and we can reach an agreement. Please do not delete unilaterally

• Stefan Molyneux's August 8, 2017 interview with James Damore (YouTube, 45 minutes)
• James Damore interview with Jordan Peterson (YouTube, 51 minutes)

Jazi Zilber (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

PS. there are no serious secondary sources for those Jazi Zilber (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Acting on the assumption of "distortion" suggests non-neutral speculation about his motives or character. We should not add content just to try and offset hypothetical positive or negative commentary from reliable sources. Wikipedia reflects a strong preference for secondary sources, and inflating primary content risks false balance.

So with that in mind, what information do these interviews provide? Specifically, what information do they provide about this memo? Per WP:EL, that's the goal. If this information would not, eventually, be included as sourced content in the article, than I don't really see how they belong here. Saying that these are the only primary sources about him is also presumptuous. The fallout is ongoing, and his willingness to be interviewed (by people with sympathetic views) is more about WP:RECENTISM than it is about the memo itself. If it's not ongoing, than it really should be folded into another article, right? If these are noteworthy as his only interviews, we should be able to explain that in the article, or wait until secondary sources establish these youtube clips as significant. Grayfell (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Did you actually look for secondary sources? I'm finding many:

• Gosh, Shona (9 August 2017). "Fired Google engineer James Damore is giving his first major interviews to controversial right-wing YouTube channels". Business Insider. Retrieved 10 August 2017.
• Kircher, Madison Malone (9 August 2017). "Fired Google-Memo Author James Damore's First Stop: Alt-Right YouTube". New York Magazine. Retrieved 10 August 2017.
• Levin, Sam (9 August 2017). "Fired Google memo writer gives first big interviews to rightwing YouTubers". The Guardian. Retrieved 10 August 2017.
• etc.

All of these mention why these are controversial choices. The source NY Mag source calls it 'alienating' and it's hard to argue with that. If Wikipedia is including it for balance or to humanize him, it's an odd choice which should be contextualized, not merely passed along as a link. Grayfell (talk) 23:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

The endless spins make the original material more important. Most secondary sources here, whether on the memo, the firing, the sequence, his views etc got extremely politicised and described the each writer's inclinations.

With relatively little secondary sources that are "reliable" in the non controversial sense, I think that a couple of interviews are very useful for anyone into the subject.

The Bloomberg interview is very short, and very news style thing, while the others are in depth with a non newspaper style. Jazi Zilber (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Jazi Zilber the video links are useful context. I also agree with Grayfell (!) that the sources can be contexualised with RS commentary. How RS characterise these sources is their choice, not mine, so my view is irrelevant over and above selecting Wikipedia appropriate RS. I am fine with that.

The above should not be taken as an argument for removing them altogether, just contextualising. Keith Johnston (talk) 09:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• I oppose inclusion of any of these primary sources. The content has been covered extensively by reliable secondary sources, so we should use those, as usual. The reliable secondary sources should be our guide as to what content is worthy of inclusion and what is not. Some call this spin; others call this Wikipedia policy. Editors who have a problem with how newspapers are "spinning" the story can write letters to the newspapers' editors, but Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Editorializing vs. proper content

Hello, earlier today I had content removed that was characterized as "...editorializing..." and that needed to be "...re-written w/ clear attribution to reliable sources." After being notified of the deletion and double\triple-checking my work, I placed a message on the deleting editor's talk page letting him\her know that the removed content had at least two reliable sources (Vox, UK Business Insider) and that the content was derived directly from the articles in question. The response back to me was that I am in error, that the content was editorializing, and if I still disagree, to take it to the article's talk page - hence my post here.

Prior to posting this, I did review it all again and am still unable to see how I was editorializing. Therefore, I submit the following for your review and feedback.

If you disagree with my postion, please be instructive rather then condemning - Thanks.

Deleted content

"While many are applauding Google's termination of Damore, others are expressing concerns that discussing any controversial issue is becoming more and more difficult in the workplace. As this recent event shows, many Americans incorrectly believe they have more rights and protections in the workplace than they actually do. When considering the specific financial disincentives (i.e. lawsuits for hostile work environment claims, etc.) coupled with at-will work laws, companies like Google are empowered to terminate employees for nearly any reason they wish thereby illustrating that very few employee protections remain such as those outlined in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act."

Select statements and support

• "While many are applauding Google's termination of Damore" --> 1st sentence
• "discussing any controversial issue is becoming more and more difficult in the workplace" --> 2nd paragraph
• "many Americans incorrectly believe they have more rights and protections in the workplace than they actually do" --> 5th paragraph
• "specific financial disincentives (i.e. lawsuits for hostile work environment claims, etc.)" --> 9th paragraph
• "coupled with at-will work laws, companies like Google are empowered to terminate employees for nearly any reason they wish" --> 3rd & 4th paragraphs
• "very few employee protections remain such as those outlined in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act" --> 4th paragraphs

• Granted, Title VII is not mentioned specifically in the linked article but the core idea of Title VII is mentioned which is also why I added the the link to the CVA and noted specifically Title VII of that act - so the reader could easily jump there if they desired to dig deeper.

References used

• Each of the following were included with my original content OR were already in the article.

• Campbell, Alexia (8 August 2017). "Why Google doesn't need to care about employees' free speech". Vox. Retrieved 10 August 2017.
• Edwards, Jim (8 August 2017). "James Damore, the Google employee fired for his controversial manifesto, is (almost certainly) not a victim of a free-speech violation". Business Insider. Retrieved 10 August 2017.
• Olson, Walter (9 August 2017). "Google memo drama really is about free speech". USA Today. Retrieved 10 August 2017.

Signed airuditious (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Feedback

I hope you don't mind that I reformatted this slightly for readability. Wikipedia is an old site and talk pages have many idiosyncrasies.

As I mentioned on my talk page, The problem is not the content, per say, but how it's being presented. This is a lot to process, so to start with, let's look at the third example listed above.

...many Americans incorrectly believe they have more rights and protections in the workplace than they actually do.

The Vox source doesn't say "many Americans..." it says that according to Angela Cornell, director of the Labor Law Clinic at Cornell University, "Sometimes Americans think they have more rights at work than they actually do ... You can be fired for any reason or no reason." This is the kind of clear attribution that would be needed to include this. We are making a broad, unverifiable statement, so we need to explain where it's coming from. It's surely an accurate statement, but that's not the only consideration.

If sources do not explicitly mention the Civil Rights Act or Title VII, than mentioning that is original research. It's an interesting point, but it absolutely does not belong until it's made by reliable sources.

I could say more, but that's a starting point. Grayfell (talk) 00:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

No issue with re-formatting the refs section - appreciated. And thanks for your feedback but I'm still not "getting it" per se. Despite the best of intention, perhaps I'm not cut out to be a Wikipedia editor...fingers crossed however. Still need a little more explanation here because it seems like you're expecting me to simply take the content I had, add the names of who said what, and we're good to go. If so, then what prevents Wikipedia from becoming nothing more than a bunch of statements with attributed names and\or quotes? airuditious (talk) 01:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

These paragraphs from Wired might also be useful in this context:

California is an "at-will" state, meaning Google can dismiss an employee for almost any reason. However, Damore says that before he was fired, he filed a complaint, formally known as a charge, with the National Labor Relations Board, which administers some aspects of federal labor law. Under the National Labor Relations Act, it's against federal law to fire someone in retaliation for filing a complaint to the board, lawyers say.

...

A person at Google familiar with the matter said Damore's dismissal could not have been retaliation for his NLRB complaint because the company only learned of the complaint after Damore was fired.

Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia accounts are like Google jobs — Anyone who arrives should be welcomed to the team. I'm sure you're cut out for it. In any case, I'd say that an article about a polarized controversy will indeed sound like a bunch of attributed statements, for better or for worse. A sudden break from this tone should probably be avoided, even if a few side topics like the definition of at-will employment are indisputable. And as for talking about what "many Americans" believe, it is probably fine to say "many Americans enjoy rock climbing" without discussing specific numbers and how they were obtained. But when the statement is a little bit more accusatory than that, the burden goes up. That's my $0.02. Connor Behan (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Micro-sectioning

Hello, does anyone have an issue with starting a new section that has only 1 or 2 statements yet is strongly suspected will grow in the near future?

Earlier today, I moved a point mentioning Damore's filing of his complaint at the NLRB to a new section entitled "Wrongful termination concerns". The only information in the new section was Damore's firing and the claim information. The edit summarily deleted and all information tossed due to "micro-sectioning". After checking and failing to find "micro-sectioning" as an actual Wikipedia policy (perhaps I missed it), I posted a message on the editor's talk page.

I have not yet received any response but in parallel, I wanted to ask if anyone agrees this was improper?

Thanks airuditious (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Im not sure I understand, perhaps you could post your proposed change? Talk is likely best done on this talk page, not the editors.Keith Johnston (talk) 09:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Both Sides

The summary currently ends with "The memo and subsequent dismissal provoked a strong reaction from commentators on both sides."

"Both sides" is a reductive false-dichotomy and terrible writing trope. If the article weren't locked and I could edit it right now I'd at least try to tune up that line to "... provoked a strong reaction across the internet on news and social media sites." Or just delete the line.

Jbartus (talk) 02:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done, good point. Diego (talk) 05:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a point though, as there reactions were of different types, rather than one way.

The uninformed reader (someone seeing a one sided source prior) might easily interpret it as the specific group reaction he was exposed to (i.e. total condemnation, or heroic support etc.) Jazi Zilber (talk) 09:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe "both sides" refers to the wider culture wars ongoing between conservatives and the left, with liberals in the middle. Perhaps it could be better expressed through reference to RS.Keith Johnston (talk) 09:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Goal: Objective Article

I noticed that many leftist editors are using this article to promote their agenda. I ask all editors to intervene, remove emotions, and make this article as objective as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.172.44 (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:AGF. If you think the article is biased or "emotional", it would be more helpful to point out or cite specific passages that justify your claim. Making a vague "leftist editors are using this article to promote their agenda" statement is not constructive nor helpful in improving the article. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Removal of first amendment content

Content discussing first amendment concerns was removed because the removing editor claimed the linked reference did not state the content that was removed. Then the same editor stated that the content did probably exist in the cited reference but that it was opinion. The removing editor needs to clarify because the vast majority of Wikipedia is essentially the exact same thing that was done here - the linking to content outside of Wikipedia - no opinion by was was added. Furthermore, when those outside refs are articles from a credible publication (in this case USA Today), then the Wikipedia editors do not go out and then hunt for a root source - we state the content here and reference accordingly. If the removing editor wishes for attribution beyond the cite ref, fine - then either make that change or suggest it here. But to wholesale remove the content is lazy, disrespectful, makes everyone else's job that much more difficult. airuditious (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Every comment on the 1st amendment implications of this case is opinion. That alone is not grounds for removal unless other objective tests are applied (expertise, secondary citations, etc.) James J. Lambden (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks James J. Lambden - I'm actually in the process of adding that content back in but in a revised form along with new sources I have compiled from numerous first amendment experts. airuditious (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Soh's description

I added "sexual neuroscientist at York University" to Soh's description cited to this NYTimes live article [9]. There will be many opinions and it's important to distinguish opinion from expert opinion. "Journalist who writes about gender science" could equally apply to Cauterucci who has no formal expertise. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

IMO, it might be a good idea to also cite a publication and\or study that Soh has participated in authoring OR is referencing in his comments. Again, MHO. airuditious (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Re: [10]. While the opinion piece may be about the memo, the text that is being inserted into this article doesn't say anything about the memo. It just tries to argue about biological gender differences. So what? Gamergate is over that way --> Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a coat rack -- this article is not about gender studies, but about a particular controversy. I'd support removal of the current content cited to Soh. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The memo focuses on the claim that biology affects technical inclination.

Coverage of the memo's content focuses on the claim that biology affects technical inclination.

Soh's field is not gender studies but sexual neuroscience.

Sexual neuroscience encompasses the study of the effects of biology on inclination.

She wrote an article responding specifically to the memo and addressing the author's claim that biology affects technical inclination.

The text we cite to the article concerns biological effects on technical inclination.

Please explain what part of that is a "coat rack."

James J. Lambden (talk) 06:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The part that didn't even mention the subject of this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Debra W. Soh a "scientist", really?!? She describes herself in LinkedIn and ResearchGate as a Playboy columnist and freelance sex writer.[11][12]. She's been active at York University in Toronto, but only as a research assistant. ResearchGate says, that she only participated in authoring three (3) papers about pedophilia, she got a Ph.D. with a work about male paraphilic sex addicts. Google Scholar doesn't even know her. Playboy published thirtyseven of her columns. No, IMHO it's no good idea to mention her as a "scientist" in this field. --2001:A61:22DB:F401:CC67:B929:20C2:2A0E (talk) 07:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

How is the memo racist and sexist?

The memo was not racist or sexist. He even sourced his statements with scientifically proven facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shayco122 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Where in the article does it state the memo is racist and sexist? Keep in mind Wikipedia is not a discussion forum on the topic or issues related to it; the talk page should be used to discuss improvements and issues with the article. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research: We should state the different opinions, as we did.--11:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Title style

Shouldn't the title of this article be italicized? See MOS:ITALICTITLE. CIreland (talk) 09:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

• MOS:MINORWORK says only the titles of major works (books etc.) should be italicised. Titles of essays etc. are simply quoted. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 09:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Someone just changed it into down case. Bad idea! Now it does read like it is in WP voice. 2600:1001:B028:7AA:585E:610D:960:7DD3 (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• No It should be in normal letters.--Rævhuld (talk) 11:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Yes It should be in up case, like a proper noun for the title that it is. 2600:1001:B028:7AA:585E:610D:960:7DD3 (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources of reactions from 'hard scientists'

I recently stumbled upon a very detailed and thorough sort of 'rebuttal' to the so-called scientific arguments put forward by the memo's author, by a reputable evolutionary biologist. What makes her comment stand out is her emphasis on neuroscience, epigenetics and developmental biology. So far most of the scientists whose reaction was included in the article are psychologists or evolutionary psychologists. It would be interesting to see coverage of reactions from a number 'hard scientists' (pardon the misnomer which I'm using for want of a better word to encompass scientists who study the human body's 'hardware', aka neuroscientists, geneticists, developmental biologists and so on) in order to see where their current mainstream consensus is (assuming there is one). I don't know if Quora can be cited as a reliable source (probably not, or at least not secondary) so here is a link to media coverage that include (among others) Sadedin's comment, in case anyone wants to add it. 82.216.227.236 (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Without specifically looking at this case, Quora is more like a message board in a way. But I am not sure what is wiki policy about it. I know there are arguments for and against this piece by Sadedin. I have not looked into details Jazi Zilber (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Quora consists of user generated content and hence is not a WP:RS. NYMag, by the looks of it, is, but it still needs WP:DUE weight given, remembering that NYMag can hardly be described as a scientific publication and, therefore, cannot provide a scientific opinion itself. Since NYMag's article primarily cites other publications, I would prefer it if potential cites refer to the original articles instead (i.e. the ones NYMag cites). Kleuske (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. We can't just directly cite scientific publications and summarize their content, can we? That's what secondary sources are for, if I understand well. I found another such source citing Sadedin's reply although it doesn't focus on the content itself of the critic, only that it has been made. It would clarify things a bit more, I think, to include the stance of actual biologists like her so as to include a comprehensive coverage from as much relevant fields as possible (insofar as the memo's scientific claims are concerned), so any help or guidance on how to proceed from there is welcome.82.216.227.236 (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I think we should have no problem quoting Sadedin with these two secondary sources in hand. Her post being mentioned in The Guardian gives some notability. And with that excerpt appearing in the survey that NYMag did, we can also address her argument without citing Quora. Connor Behan (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

In fact it seems the almost entirety of the Quora thing has been cited in Forbes. With these three secondary sources I'm going to go ahead and quote her in the article. 82.216.227.236 (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Include Quillette

Most of the scientists in Quillette have been recited in other mass media and included here. So why not use Quillette as a source, when the Wikipedia allowed sources clearly do use it?--Rævhuld (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Poll

• Agree: All the big newspapers recite Quillette.--Rævhuld (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Agree: Quillette seems to have become more notable as of late (even before the recent piece, that is). Jazi Zilber (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Agree: We quote opinions of people with expertise and notability. Whether that opinion appears in Quillette or somewhere else is irrelevant. We have no reason suspect that the authors at this publication are doctoring the quotations they gather. Trying to blacklist the source itself as if it were Breitbart or something is ridiculous. Connor Behan (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Agree: the source is good and the authors are qualified Keith Johnston (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Agree: There's no issue with this source or the views expressed in them, regardless of whether individual editors like or agree with those views. Cjhard (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Agree: The Quillette piece is widely cited. Sources and opinions referencing and linking to it – approvingly – include reports and opinions from across the political spectrum, among them https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/opinion/sundar-pichai-google-memo-diversity.html https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/nerdy-guy-writes-memo-world-has-nervous-breakdown/article35960330/ https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201708/the-psychology-the-new-mccarthyism https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/08/09/libertarian-site-suffers-ddos-attack-after-supporting-google-worker/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/08/08/googler-fired-diversity-memo-had-point-researchers-agree/548518001/ http://observer.com/2017/08/why-google-firing-the-diversity-memo-writer-was-the-wrong-call-possibly-illegal-james-damore-sundari-pichai-danielle-brown/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/google-science-women-brains_us_598aea57e4b0449ed506b6c0 It would be hard to find a source that was more relevant to this article. --Andreas JN466 07:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
• Agree: Expert opinion. Currently we include non-expert opinion from other sources which I wouldn't mind trimming. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support: All the big newspapers recite Quillette.--Rævhuld (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• As a side tidbit, Quillette site got DDoS attacks after the recent article got published. I guess this is correlated with a degree of fame.... of course not a direct argument for notability Jazi Zilber (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

If these opinions have been cited in "big newspapers" then why not use those "big newspapers" as sources? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Because this is the complete article, rather than broken sentences as newspapers usually do. News were used here as a hint of notability Jazi Zilber (talk) 08:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Phrasing

The section above discussing Quilette has been collapsed, so I am writing this here. I have added a capsule summary of Lee Jussim's comments in Quilette. I have put his comments just after the paragraph discussing Haidt, because Jussim is a founding member of Heterodox Academy together with Haidt and some others. I have added a reference to David Brooks citing the Quilette article in his opinion column to indicate notability. Feel free to revert/edit/discuss. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Thoughtcrime?

What is that article doing in the 'see also' section? What does a political memo about sex differences have to do with a 1984 reference or the general Orwellian concept of getting persecuted, arrested and tortured for having a dissenting opinion from the state? Even if there was some vague point to be made about a sort of analogy with the author having to renounce his six figure salary for using a company's own message boards to broadcast a politically charged message, no attempt was made to control his thoughts - speech is what this is all about. In fact, some of the points raised by the author specifically mentions a large chunk of the Google employee base holding similar opinions - hardly mind control or thought enforcement. 37.171.236.156 (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The inclusion of that see also is inappropriate and suggests bias. It should be removed. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

That whole SA section has been hijacked to push POV. For example CJK09 just restored the article on the chilling effect to the SA, making baseless accusations in their edit summary along the way. The article itself says In a legal context, a chilling effect is the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of natural and legal rights by the threat of legal sanction.. How in the world is this related to this memo? It's not. It's just somebody trying to cram their uninformed views into this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Deny: Thoughtcrime and Chilling Effect are actually what this case was about. He was fired for stating an opinion.--Rævhuld (talk) 08:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

No, no it wasn't. Argumentum ad hominem.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. I have removed your personal attack.--Rævhuld (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Damore was fired from Google to create a chilling effect. Even if the firing wasn't intended to create a chilling effect, it obviously is a very chilling effect on others Jazi Zilber (talk) 08:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

argumentum ad hominem.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

What?? No chilling effect after Damore firing? Googlers feel as free to say non PC now as before Damore firing? Jazi Zilber (talk) 09:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

You can argue that his memo was bad. But do you think that Googlers will feel free to share simpler opinions after the firing? This is what chilling effect means

He was fired from Google for attacking his co-workers. Look. Forget about it being google for a second. Suppose I run a restaurant. And one of my employees writes a "manifesto" about how the women in my restaurant are "not up to it" because of "biological differences". He then circulates it around, people get a wind of it. I find about it. What do I do? Well, first, this is a big signal that this guy is not a productive worker and is probably losing me money, because he doesn't know how to work with others. Second, even if that part is not true, he's now pissed off a bunch of my other employees so if I keep him around my employee morale is gonna go to shit, so why should I keep him? Third, this is the kind of bullshit that my restaurant just doesn't want to deal with, because our job is to make and serve food, not to serve as some kind of testing ground for gamergate/4chan social trolling experiments, so, basically, fuck him. So yeah, as a private company, that has the right to decide whom to hire and whom not to hire, I'd fire him without thinking about it twice. The problem here of course is that with a restaurant nobody'd notice, but because this is google, it became "a story".

Notice that none of this actually has anything to do with whether they're right or not. The fact they're not is just icing on the cake. It's just a sound business decision that any company that cares about making money (and that is what companies' purpose is) would do.

Also, your first sentence and second sentence above contradict each other (in the 8:56 comment).Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: With all due respect. Take the time to read the whole thing from beginning to end: https://diversitymemo.com I don't see the guy saying that women are "not up to it". There are plenty of reliable sources making the same observation:

• https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/the-most-common-error-in-coverage-of-the-google-memo/536181/
• https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/opinion/sundar-pichai-google-memo-diversity.html
• http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450281/google-fires-james-damore-over-sexist-memo-committing-heresy
• http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/googles-war-on-free-thought/news-story/0b587a1c9b99631516fabc0853b1a0cc

If you can spare the time, have a look at those as well. Regards, --Andreas JN466 10:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

This is starting to get off-topic, but there are grounds to argue that the author is, in fact, disparaging his fellow female coworkers under the pretense of "pointing out sex differences". Namely, he affirms that women:

*have higher anxiety levels and lower resistance to stress,

*are innately predisposed to be disinterested in technology jobs in favor of "social" and "artistic" stuff (whatever that means),

*are selected in a discriminatory manner through diversity programs and the like.

It is not too much of a stretch to draw the underlying implications (insofar as the Google workplace is concerned) he's aiming at about women, in that they:

*are more likely not to have 'what it takes' to endure the potentially demanding working conditions at Google

*are less passionate and less enthusiastic about their job which they view more in an utilitarian way ("I'm cleaning up Java APIs at Google because it pays well, but deep down inside I really want to paint pictures of kids with horses" or something)

*are less likely to have been selected because of their ability and technical skills

So he's potentially calling into question their fit for the job, their passion for the job and their skill at the job, all at the same time. I know most of it sounds like extrapolation and maybe he really didn't mean it that way but it's not hard to imagine that a 'woman in tech' would take it like this, especially if you add an environment ripe with harassment and sexism on top of it. Same for many journalists who have been writing about the issue. 82.216.227.236 (talk) 11:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

He does not affirm that. He is talking about professional preferences at a population level, not about the abilities of individuals ("women"), and he was very careful to make that clear: "Reducing people to their group identity and assuming the average is representative ignores this overlap (this is bad and I don't endorse that"). One of the commentators in the links I included in my previous post mentions female-dominated professions like veterinarians and Ph.D. psychologists. In the US, 97.5% of speech-language pathologists are women, along with 90% of registered nurses, 89.2% of occupational therapists, 81.5% of social workers, 74.2 of HR managers, 70.9% of PR managers, 67.5% of psychologists, 66.5% of fundraisers, 63.2% of veterinarians, 55.7% of financial specialists, 55% of marketing specialists, 56.6% of artists, etc. If someone came along and insisted that 50% of speech-language pathologists and HR/PR managers should be men, to rid these professions of gender bias "keeping men down", I doubt anyone would object to it if someone pointed out the relevance of population-level professional preferences and their relationship to biological predispositions, or even how many men lack the social and emotional awareness to be good at these professions. And I believe they would be allowed to make that argument without being accused of stating that male veterinarians, psychologists, PR/HR managers etc. are intrinsically inferior to their female counterparts. Don't you? --Andreas JN466 12:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

You are missing the point. I am not talking about what he actually means, and it is indeed pointless to try to read into his clumsy style to infer his true meaning, only he could possibly know that. I am talking about what other people may have read from his piece. Communication is an art, words have weights and implications that may change depending on whom they are addressed; it appears that a number of women in tech, media outlets and other significant parts of his audience did take the aforementioned implications at face value. It does not matter how many awkwardly phrased disclaimers were added before he delivered on his matter-of-fact, I'm-just-being-rational rhetoric, the point here is that he failed to convey a global reassurance that he didn't regard his fellow female coworkers (or any woman working in an engineering related field) in low esteem, possibly due to his innate masculine deficiencies in verbal and social skills (heh). As for the list of US statistics that you are placating me with, I don't know what you're aiming at. Not only are they unrelated to the subject matter at hand (i.e. the tone of the author and how it translated into bad reactions from media outlets), but no one ever talked about the gender ratio among US speech-language pathologists or even argued about where a possible imbalance may come from, or if it was 'biological' (whatever that means). You are making an argument about sex differences to the talk page about a memo, which doesn't serve much point. There are other outlets to make your points if you so wish. 82.216.227.236 (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

A quick look at 'chilling effect' yields "the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of natural and legal rights". Again, how does that relate to the author having to renounce his six figure salary for using a company's own message boards to broadcast a politically charged message? Note that even the author of the memo did turn out to have a solid case in his sueing of the company (which the majority of legal experts argue is not the case), it doesn't mean that his fundamental rights to free speech (which is what I assume is at hand here) were infringed, only that he benefited from California's specific labor laws. I understand that folks may get passionnate about the issue but let's not translate that into spurious analogies in a wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.169.58.127 (talk) 10:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Andreas, I don't really want to get into a discussion of "what Damore really meant". Suffice to say other sources don't see it that way (there's one given from Business Insider in the section right below). The qualifications and "suggestions" in the memo can easily be seen as a way of covering one's ass. Regardless, the point is that the article on the chilling effect should not be in the "See Also"s, which very often wind up as a pretty silly list in articles like this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

If the above commenters description of 'chilling effect' is correct then obviously Damore's natural and legal rights weren't inhibited. Especially not his free speech rights as they do not apply to private institutions. Only the government. In any case, we should wait for the results of his labor complaint though it might get settled outside of the courts too. 2001:14BA:2F8:F700:D802:BFED:222F:6628 (talk) 11:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I have not seen so much energy expended on such a peripheral part of an article before. Here's a simple solution: Just open an RfC on whether "Thoughtcrime" should be included in "see also". There's no real "right" and "wrong" here, so prolonged discussion is likely to just turn into a forum and not go anywhere. I can open the RfC myself if you like, and spare everyone the "someone is wrong on the internet" stage. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I see why the addition of Chilling effect what controversial however Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) has made no attempt to justify the removal of sex differences in intelligence or especially sex differences in psychology, which are exactly what the memo alleges to be about and therefore incredibly germane to the article. I don't care what happens to chilling effect but I am strongly in favor of keeping those two. CJK09 (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The author of the memo made didn't mention sex differences in intelligence, so that would have to stay out. Sex differences in psychology, I don't know. 82.216.227.236 (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with sex differences in psychology. The other two don't belong here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Employee reactions inside Google

There isn't much material on this yet but it would add more depth to the article of what the employee reactions have been like inside the company. Hopefully there will be more interviews to come. I've only found one employee interview so far from an anonymous woman in Google's NY office: Business Insider: Female employee on the Google memo: 'I don’t know how we could feel anything but attacked by that'. If you find any other interviews of Google's own employees, not from high leadership positions but regular employee reactions, then let's list them here. 2001:14BA:2F8:F700:D802:BFED:222F:6628 (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Reaction from employees is important, another reason I support including the poll. I see this source has been added. Good. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Assange

[13] When and if Damore accepts a job with Wikileaks (do they even hire people?) you can put that info in. All there is right now is a single non-notable tweet from Assange which is clearly just trying to troll and piggy back on this controversy to put himself in the spotlight. Please stop restoring this inanity.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

And putting this in the lede is especially ridiculous.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I just removed it from the lede. I.e. I reverted the user who strangely put it there, not you. I agree with you as to the motives of Assange. But I don't think it matters. Assange and the sources discussing him in the Google memo context are notable. Connor Behan (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

There are people who are far more notable than Assange, like, uh, the president, who tweet all the time, their tweets get widespread coverage and yet we don't go including them or writing them all up. Unless the tweet by Assange has notability independent of this memo, it's WP:UNDUE and shouldn't be here.

That poll doesn't belong here either.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Ummm, if Drumpf tweets about the Google memo in particular, yes of course we will have to include it. I can take or leave the poll. Connor Behan (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The point is, that unless there really is widespread coverage of this tweet in sources - which would necessitate at least a source or two which is about the tweet (rather than just mentioning it in passing) - there's nothing notable here. I mean, so Assange posted another trolling tweet? So what? What is the encyclopedic value of that information? To call it tabloid-y gossip is to treat it generously.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

He got two job offers, one from an extremely notable organization (Wikileaks.) RS covered them, we include them. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, you were just running around Wikipedia screaming about how the fact that a source covers something is not enough for inclusion. And now BOOM! complete 180! Why exactly? I'll answer for you. Because it's all bullshit excuses for your WP:IJUSTDON'TLIKEIT and the WP:IJUSTLIKEIT. There is no source which discusses this "job offer" (sic - it's not, it's just a troll) in depth. There's a couple sources which mention it in passing. It's a troll. We don't include random trolls because they're unencyclopedic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Calm down and read Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources which explains the difference between the opinion piece I argued to exclude (in a different article) and the verifiable statement of fact I'm arguing to include here. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Growing Sadedin quote

At first I expected this edit to be uncontroversial, but some wiki-lawyering has taken place so I will propose it here. I plan to summarize the argument of Suzanne Sadedin with this version, which I think says the same thing more concisely. Instead of just length, my reason has to do with the sentence "many of its predictions turned out to be wildly misguided." As if predictions were thinking entities unto themselves. It's plausible that she wanted to say the predictions were wrong and therefore people are misguided in trusting them. But when we have our pick of so many quotations, we don't need to pick one with imprecise wording like this. A reader who assumes the worst could misconstrue her sentence as suggesting that it's misguided to publish the predictions of your model if they make people uncomfortable. Connor Behan (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Generally, we should not quote those at full length and detail. One would do the same for each one cited and a monstrous article will result. Those are mere summaries.

PS. I edited the first lines to remove useless Burdensome text removed. Post citation in various newspapers was used as justification to include it. Yet, this is for notes etc. The poor reader isn't supposed to suffer for it.

I have not touched the content though Jazi Zilber (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I actually tried to remove the first lines of 'X cited Y in Z' but it got reversed. As for the corrected version, however, I think you are sort of interpolating by conflating two arguments into one sentence and giving it a new and slightly different meaning. I don't think she is arguing that the entire field of evopsych is dubious because it relies on the nature vs. nurture dichotomy. She is arguing on one hand that the author himself relies on that, which presumably ignores recent advances made by dev. biologists and so on (I assume that research on these fields must move very quickly since epigenetics is still somewhat in infancy and imaging tech keeps progressing); and separately from that, she questions predictive arguments and justifications made by evolutionary psychologists due to bad precedents etc. This is to show different (and indeed differing) takes from different fields of expertise. 82.216.227.236 (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I just tried something else which hopefully has "nature vs nurture" tied to Damore and not evo psych. Connor Behan (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I think the first paragraph in that section is now the coatrack. Connor Behan (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Interesting people

These sources are not suitable at the moment. But perhaps we can watch to see if newspapers mention them.

• Sabine Hossenfelder's blog which someone briefly added.
• Jillian York's blog.
• Another Quillette article whose point was already covered by Cynthia Lee.
• A funny parody.
• Scott Adams video.

Good night! Connor Behan (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

we should stop this flow of inflating the reactions sections. It seems to grow as 20% per day and will become monstrous very soon Jazi Zilber (talk) 07:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll stop looking for new pages to add. Connor Behan (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Blind (Bling?) poll

I have added the Bling poll before

This is a widely reported poll. Highly relevant, as Google policing of its workforce expressions is part of the story.

Here is the piece that Volunteer Marek wishes to remove.

A Bling poll showed that 56% of Google employees surveyed disagreed with the decision to fire James Damore and 44% agreed with it. Other tech workers have shown similarly split views, depending on the company.

He unilaterally removed this piece twice. WITHOUT discussing in talk. Without providing any reasonable argument. and never waiting for consensus. Jazi Zilber (talk) 07:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

If it's "widely reported" let's see these "wide reports". Sources please. And I'm the ONLY one who's tried to discuss the poll. YOU're the one who hasn't bothered.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Here are some news reports. they also explain the method and how pervasive this kind of poll is.

This is NOT the newspaper online box poll. It is an app that has a sensible polling system, with verification that people work at the company etc. etc.

news sources [14] [15][16][17] Jazi Zilber (talk) 07:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I would only call one of those sources reliable. Connor Behan (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Uh.... ageofshitlords.com? Fucking seriously??? That right there is the perfect reason why we DON'T include the poll.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

And it is an ONLINE, unscientific, nonsense poll.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@YechezkelZilber: Just a point on the inclusion/removal of the poll. Here the Wikipedia policy of WP:ONUS is relevant: just because something is verifiable does not mean it has to be included, and the responsibility for getting consensus is on the person who wishes to include content, not the one who wishes to remove it. Therefore, it is up to you to get consensus for inclusion. I suggest discussion, and if necessary, an RfC. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Google itself users bling polls regularly to get feedback, it's completely standard within companies, there's no such thing as a "scientific poll" to be conducted internally. Self selection bias it's not possible to remove. Our clearly is relevant Objective Reason (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Objective Reason: Do you have a reference for that? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Sure, just as a correction the poll in question is from "Blind" there is no "bling app" Trieu, Rosa. "How Businesses Are Using Anonymous Blind App To Change Work Culture". Forbes. Retrieved 2017-08-15. -- Objective Reason (talk) 15:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. If we include it that should be mentioned. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Does the Forbes article mention this memo? No? Then who cares? How do you know this is "the same kind of poll"? This is textbook example of WP:SYNTH.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I immediately deleted the poll statement myself the moment I read it and the source, as any sensible thinker can see it has numerous problems.
The statement fails to inform our readers that TWO kinds of self-selection bias are happening. Only people who use this particular app can take the poll, and of those, only people who take the poll are included in the result. But the statement misleads our readers into thinking a MAJORITY(!!!), 56%, of ALL google employees disagree with google's assessment of Damore's position, a state of affairs that is not supported by this doubly-biased poll.

There are glaringly obvious problems:

1. Self-selection bias to only users of an obscure chat app
   
2. Of those, a self-selection bias of only the users who saw the poll inside that app and took it
   
3. There's no way to verify the chat app's users aren't sock-puppets, non-employees, or ex-employees, such as James Damore himself.
   
4. Even if ALL of the chat app survey takers are real google employees, that's only 247 of 72,053 who think Damore shouldn't have been fired. That's a measly ~0.34% of all google employees, a sample too small to draw a conclusion about what the rest of them actually think.
   
5. Poll was only about the firing of Damore, not about whether or not other chat app users agree with his views. A worthwhile statement in our article would make that point clear, as presumably even fewer poll-takers would agree with him
6. Statement placed inside this article fails to inform our readers that these bias problems make this chat app poll worthless as a source of knowledge.
   
7. Since the poll is worthless as knowledge source, it doesn't belong inside the article, wasting our reader's time and energy. The poll itself has no other independent reason to be mentioned here.
8. Claiming the poll is "widely reported" does not make it so. I haven't seen it referred to anywhere else but inside this very wikipedia article edit that we're busy deleting right here.
   

The unsupported claim of "Wide reporting" does not magically transform a bad, twice-biased poll into a worthy wikipedia source. If the existence of a worthless poll somehow becomes part of the relevant subject of an article, the wikipedia editor who includes it still has a powerful burden to HIGHLIGHT to our readers that the poll is bogus, regardless of what other effects it has had out there in the real world.

I can't believe we're even having a talk page section on this. Delete the statement about the Blind chat app poll. It disinforms our readers and isn't relevant to the subject because the bias inside it makes it a harmful anti-knowledge source.

♠Ace Frahm♠^talk

18:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Multiple arguments here do not stand.

1. The said poll service is widely used by tech companies to have an idea about employee opinions, it is NOT an obscure father-less joke. You can learn this by perusing the various news links about Bling (use Google) and the links provided above and elsewhere in this entry.
2. Given that many take those polls seriously, (*again go try Googling it), it stands to reason that they do verify and fix for the most obvious problems. I find it highly unlikely that they will allow every anonymous user to sign in as a Google employee.
3. The sample % relative to Total Google employees is irrelevant. 400 people answering a yes/no poll is highly significant. Albeit, of course the sampling error and other biases do exist. But the 247 number used in the argument is clear nonsense (to say politely). Statisticians have things to say about the issue.....
4. Yes it is about the firing. The text added said clearly "disagreed with Google decision so fire Damore". Simple comprehension of the text is enough not to be mistaken. Jazi Zilber (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Blind DOES verify company work place [18]Jazi Zilber (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

1. No, no it's not. You just made that up.

2. Prove that "many take" THIS poll - this poll right here not some other poll - seriously. Sources. Please. I don't care what YOU think is "highly unlikely" or not. Neither does Wikipedia. It's original research. I want to see the sources.

3. "400 people answering a yes/no poll is highly significant" Only true if it's a random sample. Which it is not. And if there's sampling bias then the small sample size means the poll is shit.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Leave it included. The current language explaining Blind is fine. If a more scientific poll is conducted we should include that as well but we don't require scientific polls. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Right, and you were the one who was just running around screaming about how the fact that it can be sourced is not sufficient for inclusion. Do you even try to pretend? And yeah, we require scientific polls. We don't publish random bullshit. There's a whole portion of the internet which will be happy to accommodate that. Perhaps you should stick to that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Stop with the personal attacks. And yeah, we require scientific polls Can you point me to the policy that explains that? I think that would settle this debate but I couldn't find one when I searched. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Not making personal attacks. Critizing your behavior. Not the same thing. You were in fact running around proclaiming that sourcing isn't sufficient to include something when that something was something you "just liked". Now you are doing the exact opposite. If you have a problem with that then perhaps you should consider not doing it.

And yeah we require scientific polls. You know why? Because not-scientific-polls are non-scientific. And that makes them unencyclopedic unless the poll in question is for some reason itself notable. So, can we please stop playing games here? Since you are basically admitting that this is a non-scientific crappy poll (yet want to include it anyway)? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The fact that the sources provided for this poll are idiotic crap like "ageofshitlords.com" (seriously, a user above actually provided that pretending that this was a reliable source above!) pretty much proves that this is exactly the kind of nonsense that has no place in an encyclopedia article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Brevity, PLEASE!!!!

discuss below at #Very long?

The article is getting longer now with each new edit. New articles and comments will keep coming. Adding five lines per every new headline / commentary will make the article an unmanageable mess. Be AS CONCISE AS POSSIBLE when adding new material or editing. Thanks everybody in advance Jazi Zilber (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC) I beg all editors not to use this point as yet another excuse for biased editing. We have had enough Jazi Zilber (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC) Yes, it keeps getting longer because some editors insist on filling it up with garbage. What'd you expect? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Allegations presented as facts

> Damore was fired for violating the company's code of conduct.

This should be something like

> Damore was fired for allegedly violating the company's code of conduct.

The source used for this accusation does not present any evidence of such alleged violation or even make a good case for it. It is personal opinion and it would be good to steer away from Wikipedia accusing people of things that they might not have done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.100.79.42 (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

-I affirm this change, objections? Objective Reason (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Do the sources say "allegedly"? No? Then don't try to WP:WEASEL it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

A company's code of conduct is pretty much what it says it is, so "allegedly" is kinda pointless. 2600:1002:B102:DF89:DC4C:6753:9E9E:62A7 (talk) 02:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The sources are alleging it, there is no need for them to say that it's alleged. If Wikipedia doesn't acknowledge that these are mere unproven allegations and state them as a fact then it's Wikipedia making possibly false accusations. Just as if there were allegations of some crime Wikipedia hopefully wouldn't report those allegations as a fact. It's not Wikipedia's place to make claims of what someone did or did not do when there is only one allegation without evidence of any kind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.100.79.42 (talk) 07:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Same issue with Google's cancellation of the all-hands meeting. Google alleged it was due to identities being leaked and security. But many other reasons were mentioned. Some argue that the questions selected did not satisfy Google's CEO. Others say that James Damore was due to "crash" the meeting by attending it, to the chagrin of Google's PR guys. Jazi Zilber (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I think these "allegedly" words are not necessary when dealing with Google-wide decisions. It's implied that these are stated reasons because a company that big would never be completely honest and transparent. Connor Behan (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree. I might qualify the cancellation but I can't think of phrasing that wouldn't make the sentence awkward. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

diversitymemo.com no longer valid

Please see [19]. It now forwards to James Damore's website https://firedfortruth.com/ . --Nanite (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Intriguingly, the version on the new site differs from the one that was on diversitymemo.com. Compare https://web.archive.org/web/20170809021151/https://diversitymemo.com/ against https://firedfortruth.com – the captions on the bell curve diagram for example are different, and the firedfortruth.com version contains an entire section, titled "Higher variance among men", that was missing in the diversitymemo.com version. --Andreas JN466 01:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Good catch! I didn't notice that. Right, so as it stands, the PDF copy on firedfortruth.com matches the old diversitymemo.com ; however the html copy on firedfortruth.com is different. --Nanite (talk) 04:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Firedfortruth says explicitly that the pdf is the "more detailed version"

Bye, mashable published first the pdf / Google Doc. There are more onions versions available btw

Also archive.web of diversity memo.com Jazi Zilber (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Very long?

@Emir of Wikipedia: How is the article too long to edit? Are inline citations too difficult to read and reformat? Otherwise, you are thinking that there are too many details in the article, which should have been {{overly detailed}} instead. Is that right? --George Ho (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• Disagree is not that long and is momentous topic. 2600:1002:B102:DF89:DC4C:6753:9E9E:62A7 (talk) 02:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

There are way too many reactions, especially scientific views. I suggest any two views that share the same reaction and field of expertise (e.g. all these psychologists who agree, or sociologists who disagree, etc.) get merged. If two specialists from the same field have differing reactions, they should be kept to reflect the lack of unanimity. Otherwise we don't need to overload the reader with reactions from people who come from the same background and are saying the same thing. 37.171.132.217 (talk) 05:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• Disagree It is not that long. There are much longer political topics that are not being split. Splitting this now would be more confusing. As for the reactions, not all of them are from the same background. There seems to be more than one psychologist chiming in. Should we really call these 'scientific views' and is there a need to include so many? Psychology is not really hard sceince but soft science and can evolutionary psychology really be considered science? Isn't it more of a theory or a framework that is impossible to prove scientifically? 2001:14BA:2F8:F700:5921:D63A:549F:F00B (talk) 08:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Without delving into the subject of whether the notion of 'hard science' makes sense, whether a field being 'soft' somewhat weakens the predictive power of its findings or the validity of the field of evopsych (because I'm sure you're going to be "well, actually"'d by evopsych proponents and so on and I'd like to defuse any argument on that account before it's too late), it is true that there are many, many reactions by psychologists and evolutionary psychologists that basically say the same thing, with little nuance. I don't see the point of adding this many reactions unless one wanted to create through sheer quantity a 'compelling illusion of consensus' which is visibly specific to those fields. From the sources I could gather, neuroscientists and biologists are much more split on the issue or are even explicitly intent on 'debunking' the memo's interpretations. All these views are diverse and come from a broad range of people which I think the article fails to accurately reflect. 37.163.66.34 (talk) 10:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: I added it based on the concerns at #Brevity, PLEASE!!!! by YechezkelZilber. The other template may be more appropriate and I have no objection to you changing it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Will be challenging to fix without starting all those POV issues all over again.

Might be better to leave the thing in peace rather than have all those issues argued and re-argued as infinitum Jazi Zilber (talk) 12:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• Disagree: at 19 kB readable prose size, the article reaches none of the threshold at WP:TOOBIG. If the problem is WP:DUE, or scope, then please use tag it correctly. The "too long" tag should be removed immediately. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

We have an agreement above that {{very long}} should be removed. Alternatively, it can be replaced with {{overly detailed}}. Maybe one of templates from the Category:Neutrality templates would do, but it's not discussed or considered. --George Ho (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done Removed. Samsara 08:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Deliberate misslabeling of your political opposition

> and the alt-right's Stefan Molyneux.

No source is provided for accusations of Stefan Molyneux actually being alt-right. Even the article about him makes it clear that the association of him with alt-right has been made by other people and is not presented as any sort of fact, which it of course shouldn't be. But still Volunteer Marek decides to push his ideological propaganda and label him as one in this article. Looking through Marek's contributions to this page and the comments on this talk page it's quite clear that he is trying to add an ideological spin to the article.

Here is the exact version where this false label was added by Marek:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Chamber&oldid=795593093 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.100.79.42 (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree here. I was looking for specific sources where he, perhaps, declared himself alt-right or even anti-feminist and couldn't find an obvious one. Either way These both seem like WP:LABELing to me. - Scarpy (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Just because he doesn't call himself alt-right doesn't mean he is not alt-right. Of course if there are no RS calling him alt-right it should be removed but it isn't immediately obvious that he is not, and your rant about 'propaganda' is unwarranted. Assume the best, yadda yadda. 37.163.66.34 (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... I would add even with a RS it's still an perhaps a borderline BLP violation. - Scarpy (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

And what rant about propaganda are you referring to here? - Scarpy (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of alt-right or otherwise, it's a politicising label when the much more accurate and indisputable "podcaster Stefan Molyneux" is available. -A1Qicks (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a "label" which provides information. Very pertinent information in this case. And that's what encyclopedias do too - they provide information.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Just look at his Wikipedia article. You'll find plenty sources there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I had a look at Stefan Molyneux article, and I would even say there it's reaching and also a borderline BLP violation (although I'm not going to jump in that to that fight on that page). Being described as "alt-right" in click-seeking publications is not the same as being that thing. If we're going by the definition in the Wikipedia article on alt-right as "a loosely defined group of people with far-right ideologies who reject mainstream conservatism in favor of white nationalism" then it's essentially calling Stefan Molyneux a white nationalist, and that's a pretty extreme labeling of someone that requires substantial evidence. Personally I really can't stand Stefan Molyneux (I think he's done a lot to muddy the waters on climate change, for example), but I don't see evidence that he's a white nationalist. I agree with A1Qicks here, it's at least politicizing, but I would add unduly contentious and WP:LABELing. - Scarpy (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Politico is NOT a "click-seeking publication". Neither is New York Magazine. Neither is The Guardian. Neither is USA Today. Etc. Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek:This is dirty pool. (a) Neither the The Guardian or USA Today articles linked described him as "alt-right." NYMag uses it as an adjective but offers no evidence that Stefan Molyneux is a white supremacist. (b) Yes, all of these are click-seeking publications. One of the reasons why good peer-reviewed scholarly journals are so valuable is that they are not funded by advertising but by subscription fees which means they're not trying to generate views to get clicks to get paid. (c) none of these are actually evaluating evidence that Stefan is or is not a white supremacist.

If you want to label someone a alt-right/white supremacist on Wikipedia, you need better evidence than his name being used in the same article as the adjective. - Scarpy (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

"on conservative and alt-right sites such as Stefan Molyneux' Freedomain Radio and Jordan B. Peterson's YouTube channel" Is Peterson suppose to be the "alt-right" in that sentence? The Guardian says "an overnight celebrity amongst the “alt-right” and the mentions Molyneux. It's disingenuous to suggest that's "not describing him as alt-right".

"offers no evidence that Stefan Molyneux is a white supremacist" - 1) we are not calling him "white supremacist", we are calling him "alt-right" 2) You deciding whether a source "offers evidence" is original research.

Your definition of "click-seeking publication" basically covers any non-scholarly journal publication. Sorry, that's actually not a criteria we use.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

1) Key figures of the "alt-right" movement all describe white nationalism as a key part of "alt-right". This is also how it is commonly perceived.

2) Reading a source is not original research, if that was the case then all use of any source would be original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyakakushi46 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

> Just look at his Wikipedia article. You'll find plenty sources there.

The article does not call him "alt-right" nor does it have any evidence that he is one. The article does mention that some publications have labeled him that but it doesn't present it as a fact like you do.

> It's a "label" which provides information. Very pertinent information in this case. And that's what encyclopedias do too - they provide information.

It is not just any label, it is a very strong and politicized label which is often used as a synonym for white nationalist. Most people see white nationalism in a very bad light and as a racist ideology. For many it is also a reason for instant dismissal. So it is basically you are calling him a racist with no evidence. It is not pertinent information at all, if anything it is deliberate misinformation to dismiss someone you seem to be politically opposed to. There is nothing encyclopedic about falsely labeling people to discredit them.

I agree with A1Qicks that the fact "a podcaster" is a much better, and accurate, label for Stefan Molyneux than "alt-right".

> New York Magazine

New York Magazine shows no evidence of any kind to support their claim of Stefan Molyneux is "alt-right". This might even be enough for a defamation case. Even a cursory glance on Stefan Molyneux' content makes it quite clear that he isn't "alt-right".

> The Guardian. Neither

The only context in which the Guardian mentions "alt-right" is when saying that Damore became an overnight celebrity amongst them in Silicon Valley. How in the hell can you even twist this to mean that Stefan Molyneux is "alt-right"?

> USA Today

> series of interviews on conservative and "alt-right" sites such as Stefan Molyneux' Freedomain Radio and Jordan B. Peterson's YouTube channel.

This quote from USA Today does not necessarily mean that any of Stefan Molyneux, Freedomain Radio or Jordan B. Peterson is "alt-right". It just means they are some of the conservative or "alt-right" channels that Damore was interviewed on. The "alt-right" sites could very well be the other sites that are implied. Drawing the conclusion that this makes or even accuses any of the mentioned to be "alt-right" is quite dishonest.

If you can't make a good case for why Stefan Molyneux is "alt-right" then you should refrain from labeling him such publicly. I'm quite disgusted at how you are pushing this kind of bullshit narrative here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyakakushi46 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

"The article does not call him "alt-right" " - I don't know what article you're reading but it sure does. Twice in the lede. Several more times in the article itself. Each time, well sourced. Stop making shit up.

"New York Magazine shows no evidence" - *YOU* think that, but it doesn't matter. Please see WP:OR and WP:V. All that matters is that they a) they are a reliable source and b) they describe him as such.

"It is not just any label, it is a very strong and politicized label which is often used as a synonym for white nationalist." - maybe it is, maybe it isn't. The point here is that this label is informative and encyclopedic.

"This quote from USA Today does not necessarily mean" - see WP:WEASEL and WP:WIKILAWYER. You can try spinning it. But it's actually not controversial.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

>I don't know what article you're reading but it sure does. Twice in the lede. Several more times in the article itself. Each time, well sourced. Stop making shit up.

No. The Stefan Molyneux article says that he is described as "alt-right" by certain publications. This is not the same as saying that he is "alt-right". In addition when I made that comment another part of the article said that he is associated with "alt-right", this also doesn't mean he is one.

>*YOU* think that, but it doesn't matter. Please see WP:OR and WP:V. All that matters is that they a) they are a reliable source and b) they describe him as such.

I care more about being factually correct than bullshit bureaucracy that is only used to push a political agenda, like you are doing now. WP:NPOV until it's not convenient anymore is a bad way to do things and leads to articles filled with falsehoods such as the one you are trying to justify here.

>maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

If you think that is incorrect then go correct the alt-right article. When it doesn't equate "alt-right" with "white nationalist" you have a case of it not being politically charged label.

>The point here is that this label is informative and encyclopedic.

There is *NOTHING* encyclopedic about mislabeling someone you merely disagree politically. It's just a lousy ad-hominem and has no place in any encyclopedia.

>see WP:WEASEL and WP:WIKILAWYER. You can try spinning it. But it's actually not controversial.

It's not controversial? How come *EVERYONE* here is disagreeing with you then? You could read WP:WIKILAWYER yourself and stop "relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions". Keyakakushi46 (talk) 07:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

And great! Another sketchy brand new account - just like A1Qicks, just like Raevehuld, just like Ari1891adler, just like several others. You guys are burning through your sleeper accounts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Let me quote your own words:

> Please don't make spurious and ubstantiated accusations of sock puppetry (see WP:ASPERSIONS).

Pleease don't be a hypocrite. Maybe you realized that you are losing this argument and resorting to such accusations feels like only way for you to win but still it's dishonest and hypocritical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyakakushi46 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know why I'm even bothering with a WP:SPA newly created account with six edits which was obviously created to stir up shit and push POV. But. If you say stuff like "I care more about being factually correct than bullshit bureaucracy " ("factually" being whatever you decide is "factual") what you are actually saying is "I don't plan to follow Wikipedia policies". That's nice. Now, go away since obviously this place isn't for you.

And I love how an account with six edits knows how to throw obscure Wikipedia space pages like WP:ASPERSIONS around. Wanna tell us which banned master account is you, sock puppet? Here's a hint: a bunch of throwaway accounts showing up to a Wikipedia article and brigadin' it cuz sub idiotic subreddit put out a call to arms doesn't make something "controversial".

Not gonna play this stupid game. *This* is exactly why we need flagged revisions or automatic semi-protection of any controversial articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

>Yeah, I don't know why I'm even bothering with a WP:SPA

Just because account is new and hasn't participated in more articles does not mean it's "Single Purpose". Again, WP:ASPERSIONS is appropriate in this case.

>newly created account with six edits

Oh, nice! Elitism at it's finest. So just because you have more edits you are automatically correct?

>which was obviously created to stir up shit and push POV.

WP:ASPERSIONS

>But. If you say stuff like "I care more about being factually correct than bullshit bureaucracy " what you are actually saying is "I don't plan to follow Wikipedia policies".

I'll follow policies, but not dogmatically. There are cases when they are a hinderance to the neutrality of WikiPedia. Also when policies contradict the ones that would better ensure neutrality and accuracy of WikiPedia should be followed.

>("factually" being whatever you decide is "factual")

No, it's whatever has enough supporting evidence. Your claims that Stefan Molyneux is "alt-right" does not have evidence.

>That's nice. Now, go away since obviously this place isn't for you.

I'm not goin anywhere.

>And I love how an account with six edits knows how to throw obscure Wikipedia space pages like WP:ASPERSIONS around.

It's fallacious to try to discredit me based on the amount of edits. Also I found out about WP:ASPERSIONS through you.

>Wanna tell us which banned master account is you, sock puppet?

WP:ASPERSIONS This is my first WikiPedia account.

>Here's a hint: a bunch of throwaway accounts showing up to a Wikipedia article and brigadin' it

WP:ASPERSIONS

>cuz sub idiotic subreddit put out a call to arms doesn't make something "controversial".

I don't know which "idiotic subreddit" you are talking about. I guess it's not really controversial, there is a clear consensus against calling Stefan Molyneux "alt-right".

Keyakakushi46 (talk) 08:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: your equivocation between alt-right and white supremacist is nullified when you can click on alt-right and see that it's a synonym for white supremacist. In any case, none of the articles you've linked show evidence that he's "alt-right" (in whatever sense you're trying to define it) other than the adjective being used in some context, which looks a lot like WP:SYN.

Even if you want to use click-seeking non-scholarly publications to justify the adjective, there's still an issue of WP:UNDUE weight. You need to argue for why, out of all the possible adjectives you could use to describe Stefan Molyneux, (podcaster, Canadian, quinquagenarian, cult-leader, etc) why alt-right is appropriate or relevant here, or if any adjective is necessary at all. - Scarpy (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

"your equivocation between alt-right and white supremacist is nullified... " - what in the world are you talking about? And yes, the sources I linked to *do* say he's alt-right. As for this "show evidence" - not going to play this stupid game. I know how this works. Evidence is shown and the other person keeps insisting "but but but there's no evidence!" and it goes on in circles and circles and circles. That shit might work on Reddit or in the Daily Caller comments section, but not here.

The second point - " You need to argue for why, out of all the possible adjectives" - is actually pertinent. But the answer is also obvious. Because the "alt-right" is related to the nature of this memo and they're the ones who picked up Damore's cause. This is also why the fact that Molyneux is an "anti-feminist" is pertinent. So WP:DUE is satisfied.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

How is the "alt-right" related to the nature of the memo? What criteria are you using to claim they "picked up" the memo? When you say things like that, or as you also said recently, that "The point here is that this label is informative and encyclopedic" you're not providing any evidence or reasoning for your claims. How is this label informative and encyclopedic? Your statement above that you won't provide evidence because you believe I'll just dismiss it is not assuming good faith and neither are your insinuations that myself or other editors are using sock-puppet accounts. If you really believe this, then I invite you to take it up with WP:SPI or stop with the accusations. I'm going to take this off my watchlist until the PP has expired and hopefully this can be discussed more respectfully and dispassionately. - Scarpy (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: You say "You deciding whether a source 'offers evidence' is original research." I Ignored this originally, but looking again I think it's worth comment because I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. A source, for example, might argue that president James Buchanan was gay and might provide evidence for this and there's nothing WP:OR about presenting that if it's covered in reliable sources. That's very different than finding a source that, while discussing James Buchanan used the adjective gay to describe him without explaining why they used that adjective. The source that you're using to claim Stefan Molyneux is "alt-right" only uses that adjective to describe Stefan Molyneux, it doesn't make a case for why Stefan Molyneux should be considered "alt-right" or evidence showing that he is "alt-right" or explain why some people think he is "alt-right"--it just uses the adjective. I'm saying that's WP:SYN as it's "implying a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." - Scarpy (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Of all the possible labels used to describe Molyneux, someone decided to put the most controversial one ('alt-right') and one which he has never used for himself. Remove this BLP violation immediately, and whoever inserted this deserves a scolding. --Nanite (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

No, it, along with "anti-feminist", is the one most pertinent to the topic of this article. And it's well sourced, hence it's not a BLP vio.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

This is most certainly a BLP violation. I saw the same label thrown around Molyneux few days ago and removed it because it's a BLP violation and clearly against WP:LABEL, it seems it has find its way back. Alt-right is such a contentious label, it should only be used when there is clear evidence to support the claim, preferably a self admission. It should not have been restored with such flimsy sourcing. I don't see a wide agreement among reliable sources to describe Molyneux as Alt-Right. This seems to be an "anyone I disagree is Alt-right" situation. I don't really care for the guy either, I actually despise most of his views, but I don't see any evidence to support calling him alt-right, neither does the sources support such inclusion. Because as I said, for contentious labels such as this, we need a wide agreement from the sources.

A superficial analysis of the sources:

There are 4 sources cited right after the disputed sentence, two of them mentions Molyneux, Guardian calls him "a YouTube personality" and the verge calls him(emphasis mine): "a YouTube personality associated with the alt-right" This seems to me clear cut, even the sources are wary of calling him alt-right. So we most definitely should not label him as such.

Article seems to be mostly about the reactions of notable people, and their opinions on the validity of the claims made by Mr. Damore in the memo. I fail to see any relevance to alt-right or anti-feminism but a tangential one. Darwinian Ape ^talk 02:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

You "fail to see any relevance" of "anti-feminism" to this memo? Really? And you are saying this in all seriousness? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the article not once mentions anti-feminism, or feminism for that matter. Some people involved in the article may be anti-feminists and some are undoubtedly feminists, but article itself is not about feminism or anti feminism. As I said, there is a tangential relation, nothing more. Darwinian Ape ^talk 08:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, that may be a problem with the article then. Maybe it should [20], [21] Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The way it's currently phrased, it gives the impression that Molyneux belongs to an official group called the "alt-right". In reality it's a nebulous term used to demonise people—including self-identifying leftists and liberals—who oppose certain modern leftist ideas. This is a pertinent video in which a journalist is taken to task for labeling Jordan B. Peterson and Molyneux "far right" (the journalist revises Molyneux's descriptor to "right-leaning"). - 203.192.89.198 (talk) 03:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Find a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

And just to point out, we're not talking about Peterson, but Molyneux.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the "alt-right" bit should go as a pretty clear example of WP:LABELling. Does anyone other than @Volunteer Marek: oppose its removal? Cjhard (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah.... "alt-right" is nowhere to be found in WP:LABEL. Nice try though. Wanna quote some other irrelevant policy while you're at it? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The "words to watch" part of that guideline is to serve as a list of examples, not a closed list. The guideline is about "value-laden labels". Please drop the combative tone. Cjhard (talk) 07:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

...which is actually NOT an open ended license for a user:Cjhard to add whatever words they fancy. You're gonna have to come up with something better than just WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Marek, can you clarify something, do you not think alt-right is a contentious label? Because that's what I and other editors are arguing. That it is a contentious label, almost akin to white supremacist. Do you not agree with that assessment? If you don't agree, can you explain why? However, if you agree, you should also agree that WP:LABEL is a perfectly good reason to oppose a BLP to be labeled as such.Darwinian Ape ^talk 08:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think alt-right implies white supremacist, for several reasons. Alt-right is much more encompassing and includes many beliefs about race, gender, religion and social mores which white supremacists don't necessarily have, since their main focus by definition is solely on race. Also white supremacism is pretty much exclusive to America, where categorizing people as 'white', 'black', 'asian' is so prevalent. There is an alt-right in Europe but it is much more focused on nationalism than whiteness for instance. Lastly, because alt-right beliefs generally rely on psychometrics hogwash related to IQ, I assume Asian Americans could be alt-right (while not being white supremacists obviously). 37.165.126.154 (talk) 09:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The alt-right article implies that it is white supremacist. A lot of people equate white nationalism with white supremacy.

The "alt-right" article is also has been categorized as , this is quite clear labeling of "alt-right" as white supremacy. Thus any labeling of person as "alt-right" is just the same as labeling them "white supremacist".

White_supremacy starts with the statement: ``"White supremacy or white supremacism is a racist ideology based upon the belief that white people are superior in many ways to people of other races and that therefore white people should be dominant over other races."``

By labeling someone a "white supremacist" you are labeling them a racist, stating that Stefan Molyneux is alt-right is thus a clear violation of WP:LABEL

Keyakakushi46 (talk) 10:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

You're just saying that the alt-right article is inaccurate here. 37.165.126.154 (talk) 10:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know whether it is, but because of the way it is now labeling someone "alt-right" like this is clear violation of WP:LABEL. If you think the article is inaccurate and "alt-right" is not "white supremacist" then maybe you should correct it.

Even if the "alt-right" article was corrected (if it is indeed incorrect now, discussion about that belongs on that talk page) it would not make the labeling of Stefan Molyneux as "alt-right" correct. It just wouldn't be such a clear violation of WP:LABEL in that case.

Keyakakushi46 (talk) 11:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact I seem to be under attack for voicing an opinion, we do now seem to be talking in circles. Putting in a poll to make this simple - should "alt-right" be changed for a less politicised label? -A1Qicks (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

OK I can't believe this hasn't been removed yet --- I guess an admin hasn't noticed yet. I've started a section at the BLP noticeboard Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Google.27s_Ideological_Echo_Chamber. --Nanite (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Poll

• Agree: Alt-right, white supremacism or not aside, is a tangential label that overly politicises this article when "podcaster" would be sufficient given context. We are not here to argue whether the memo is "anti-feminist" as certain parties have put forward above - only to record events as recorded by reliable sources. -A1Qicks (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
• Agree: I think I've gone through enough reasoning in the discussion above. Keyakakushi46 (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
•  Disagree per Mr. Molyneux's own page. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumuzid (talk • contribs) 17:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: What is all this "poll" stuff? Voting is discouraged on Wikipedia, and a "poll" with accounts having less than a hundred edits means nothing. If you want a "poll", you open an RfC based on the guidelines here. Have a short, neutral heading describing exactly what you are asking for, and add an RfC header so that people all over, not only those who are watching this page, can weigh in. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

They're voting because they're confusing Wikipedia with whatever alt-right GamerGate subreddit they came from. The first two are newly created sketchy SPA accounts. The third one... I guess tha... never mind, just click "edit count" and then take a look at their contributions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I have opened an RfC below. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

>They're voting because they're confusing Wikipedia with whatever alt-right GamerGate subreddit they came from.

What?

>The first two are newly created

Ad-hominem.

>sketchy SPA accounts.

Slander. See WP:ASPERSIONS

Keyakakushi46 (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

A brand new single purpose account knows how to throw WP:ASPERSIONS around. Right...... Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

RfPP

I'm not sure where the right place to bring this up is, but I think this RfPP was overkill. - Scarpy (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

1. IMHO, this RfPP was justified. 2. The article is NOT too long by far. [Disclaimer: I have not edited it ;) ] Zezen (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

To effectively halt work on an article related to a developing event, and to resolve an unstated dispute (what edit war is this about anyway?), it seems like it's overkill to me. - Scarpy (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a week-long edit in part to prevent constant updates due to new coverage. In terms of the edit war, I'd suggest it's the to-and-fro of Volunteer Marek with a few others over whether the poll should be included. No opinions on overkill, just providing what context I can see. --A1Qicks (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Really? You sure it's not the sudden appearance of all these sketchy-ass accounts with less than 100 edits starting up shit on the article and brigading the talk page? Oh wait...! Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

VM I've seen you edit in other articles and I have a lot of respect for you. This is an honest question. I was asking here because it's not clear from the RfPP and I wasn't sure. A1Q offered a suggestion. No one is saying you're wrong or right here for whether or not the poll should have been included (I would say no at the moment). But I also didn't really see a clear edit war looking through the history. If I'm missing something obvious, please let me know. - Scarpy (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree it's overkill. But semi- is needed for sure.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit war implies two sides. I wouldn't go so far as to highlight a variety of different people you've had disagreements with, the only recent context I could see (which I was providing) was that the poll was there, then gone, then there, then gone, with you being present for all the "gones". In fact, the RfPP was submitted by Objective Reason, with whom you've had some disagreements over, yes, the poll. Just providing an answer to the question asked about the reason for it.- A1Qicks (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Article is protected, but comma fix required

"A survey by Blind, an anonymous corporate chat app>>>,<<< found..." Equinox ◑ 19:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done Samsara 08:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The 'scientific views' section is just a huge mess.

Right now it's just an unorganized pile of reactions which I strongly suspect were added on top of another by contributors very intent on making it look like there is a consensus (or lack of, depending on the POV being pushed) on the memo's content. This POV-by-sheer-numbers pushing, however, comes at the cost of unreadability for the poor user, who has to trudge through paragraphs of quotations that are sometimes irrelevant, many of which are saying the same thing. The overall content is also sloppily written, overly verbose and goes off in tangents more often than not. Here are more specific gripes:

• A good third of the quotations are basically 'Something something professor of something psychology said they agreed with the memo's contents something something'. Can't we just add a subsection devoted to reactions from psychologists with a quick summary describing the consensus among them, with a few nuances added if need be? Is the goal here to quickly inform the reader or just hammer them with the same quotes over and over again?
• The section is entitled 'scientific views' but many of the quotes are actually political or nonscientific in nature. Do we actually care what Pr. Miller has to say about what sex ratios have to offer to businesses? Do we care whether Pr. Peterson thinks the manifesto is an 'anti-diversity screed' or not? Why is Peter Singer's opinion of the author's firing included? I could go on and on. As I understand this section is about to checking the accuracy of the scientific claims made in the memo. Anything else is tangential at best, off-topic at worst. The 'others' section is already crowded enough that we don't need additional opinion quotes clogging up the section.
• Capitalization is inconsistent. I don't care whether we should say 'a professor of something' or 'Professor of something' or 'Professor in something' or even nothing at all but not all four at once, it is overall untidy. Stick to a single naming scheme, it makes the section easier on the reader's eyes.
• A lot of words are simply unnecessary and shouldn't be there: "He finishes his article by saying" in David Schmitt's quote, "Saying:" in Gina Rippon's; "On the other hand" in Sadedin's; 'stated of Damore's content that there are "serious articles, published in leading peer-reviewed scientific journals, supporting it"' should really become 'said there are serious articles, published in leading peer-reviewed scientific journals, supporting [Damore's content]', etc. Concision, people!
• Some of the quotes are overly long, and some are overly short. Why does Schmitt gets twice as much paragraph space as Rippon's and Peterson's quotes taken together? Especially both these people deserve more attention since 1) Rippon's quote is not detailed at all: you have all these people saying the memo's accurate and fair and all that, and suddenly someone disagrees with no explanation; the fact that she isn't a psychologist is even more intriguing for the reader, and 2) Peterson actually inspired the writing of the memo itself. He deserves more space than most. If anything he should be at the forefront. Schmitt's quote on the other hand should just be halved, especially the last sentence which should just be removed.
• The author of the memo actually makes several claims, but the reactions are unified and muddied. When people say the science is 'right' or 'wrong', 'fair' or 'dubious', it is unclear what is actually meant. It could be referring to the papers the author cites; it could be referring to the claim that there are significant sex differences in psychology; it could be referring to the 'biological' origins of such differences (also note that since the term 'biological' is extremely vague and the since author makes little effort to clarify what is precisely meant - genetics? epigenetics? prenatal development? postnatal development? -, at the very least the reaction itself should pinpoint the nature of the origin itself if possible); it could be referring to the claim that these differences explain the current gender ratio at Google and other tech firms; or it could be referring to the claim that diversity programs are counterproductive. Limiting reactions to "he's mostly right" or "he's mostly wrong" fails to accurately inform the reader as to what is at hand and is nothing more than a subtle form of POV pushing.
• Why the hell does Slate Star Codex get any mention at all? Should we just add every blog post as long as the blogger has enough Internet fame and the blog post is sufficiently full of links?
• What is the reaction from a computer scientist like Cynthia Lee is doing in the 'scientific views' sections? How is her field of expertise relevant to the claims being made by the author of the memo?
• Why are there no reactions from geneticists, sociologists or gender studies scholars? I'm sure some of them have something to say in some RS, and the claim is relevant to these fields after all. Generally speaking there is a huge field imbalance here, and maybe there should be separate reactions for each field (psychology, neuroscience, developmental biology, evolutionary biology, etc.)

37.174.67.18 (talk) 03:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Can't we just add a subsection devoted to reactions from psychologists with a quick summary describing the consensus among them, with a few nuances added if need be? Summarizing a "consensus" would be WP:OR. Wikipedia editors are not qualified to evaluate scientific claims. These kinds of things happen when Wikipedia articles are created about breaking news stuff. What typically happens in these cases is that a bunch of stuff is added indiscriminately to the article, as long is as it is "notable". Which results in the monstrosity you see. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

1. We can definitely tighten things up so that people in the same field are discussed in the same paragraph. However, we cannot say they have a consensus. 2, 3, 4. I agree. 5. Balancing the lengths is a good idea, but Peterson deserves less space than most, not more. If he inspired Damore and interviewed him, it becomes harder to trust that he's giving an objective opinion. 6. This sounds a lot like a complaint about something the article is not doing. 7. Grant specifically made a second response to the memo because he was prodded by Slate Star Codex. That's the only reason it's here. 8. I was about to remove the paragraph for that reason. But then I saw that Lee teaches statistics and based a lot of her reaction on statistical fallacies that the memo apparently had. 9. I tried to find those. Hopefully you'll have better luck. Connor Behan (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: memorandum titles italicized on WP

So, when the article becomes unlocked again, I hope an editor adds "{{italic title}}" at top of page.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Description of Stefan Molyneux in article

Should Stefan Molyneux be described as alt-right in this article? Indicate Yes or No with reasons. 03:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Comment: I have no opinion either way. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
• Reject: His article attributes the description and neither source it's attributed to gives him more than a passing mention. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, but attributed — "Alt-right" doesn't appear to be "near-universal," but it certainly appears to be widespread; here it is in New York, here in USA Today, here in The Next Web, here in Fast Company, etc. I don't find any sources which explicitly reject the claim. So I would propose "video blogger Stefan Molyneux, who has been widely described in the media as part of the alt-right.[citations here]." Other sources describe him in related terms such as "far-right", "anti-feminist" and the like. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think requiring sources that contradict the description is a reasonable standard. If we had 10 sources for a subject and 2 described him as "controversial" that would mean we'd need two that describe him as "non-controversial", which is extremely unlikely even if the subject is non-controversial.

I think a better standard would be: of the sources that describe him in detail what descriptors do the majority share (i.e. wide agreement.) James J. Lambden (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

By that standard, the correct decision is Yes. He's a marginal figure, not widely covered by the mainstream but those that mention him call him alt-right. SPECIFICO talk 13:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Yes - here are some additional sources:

• "alt-right online philosopher Stefan Molyneux" (Politico)
• "alt-right YouTuber Stefan Molyneux." (NY Magazine)
• "Stefan Molyneux... controversial alt-right commentator" (Salon)

seems like this is how RS describe him, particularly in the context of the Google memo, which is what's most applicable here. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Yes - per Fyddlestix and NorthBySouthBaranof. Sourcing is strong, but I would not be averse to attribution. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
• Yes - it's important context, and reflects the majority viewpoint of reliable sources. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
• No per the discussion above , I'll also copy/paste my objections from above:

This is most certainly a BLP violation. Alt-right is such a contentious label, it should only be used when there is clear evidence to support the claim, preferably a self admission. It should not have been restored with such flimsy sourcing. I don't see a wide agreement among reliable sources to describe Molyneux as Alt-Right. This seems to be an "anyone I disagree is Alt-right" situation. I don't really care for the guy either, I actually despise most of his views, but I don't see any evidence to support calling him alt-right, neither does the sources support such inclusion. Because as I said, for contentious labels such as this, we need a wide agreement from the sources.Darwinian Ape ^talk 04:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• No' as he does not self identify as such. This term is very new, ill defined, and used by liberal media in a liberal fashion to attack many right of center right wing BLPs as a LABEL. Will we be using alt-right in five years? Will it mean the same thing? Best to stick to better defined terms that are not used as an attack label.Icewhiz (talk) 07:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The issue is never whether he self-identifies as such but whether he is described as such in reliable sources. And he is. Also, all that nonsense about "liberal media in a liberal fashion to attack" basically indicates this !vote can be safely discounted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• No' "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." "Alt-right" is definitely such "value-laden label" since it is directly associated with "white supremacy" in it's own WikiPedia article and "white supremacy" is called "a racist ideology" in its article and thus this would be violation of WP:LABEL unless done with in-text attribution. In-text attribution would be too wordy for this article and should be done in Stefan's own article. In this article it's better to call him a podcaster as that has much more relevancy to the interview itself. Also I would like to kindly ask Volunteer Marek to stop throwing around spurious accusations about me and other users participating in this discussion. Keyakakushi46 (talk) 10:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
• No' - "the alt-right's Stefan Molyneux" suggests actual membership of some group. I would use "podcaster"; even "right-wing podcaster" would be better. Alt-right is too much of a general accusatory term to pin down specific ideals - and it's not immediately relevant to the context. -A1Qicks (talk) 11:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
• No. I don't understand other Wikipedians's obsession with labels. Anyone can easily click on Molyneux's article if they wish to learn more about him.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Note that both User:A1Qicks and User:Keyakakushi46 are single purpose accounts with fewer than 50 edits. The latter appears to have been created solely to brigade this vote and talk page, the former looks like a straight up sleeper account.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I already asked you nicely stop the spurious accusations. Just because this is the only talk page that I've properly participated in so far does not mean that the account is single-purpose or that I cannot make valid points. Also merely disagreeing with you is not "brigading". This is a clear personal attack. Keyakakushi46 (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Note that the single purpose accounts account actively specifies to assume good faith. All I've said is that I feel "alt-right" is an unnecessarily politicising label when others are valid, and pointed out that the edit war the RfPP was requested for probably referred to the one you were involved with, because of the person who submitted it at the time they submitted it and the reason they submitted it. Neither is aggressive as an action. I'd be grateful to not be attacked for my lower number of contributions even if we disagree on a topic. -A1Qicks (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• No 1) The Alt-Right attribution was clearly done for frame Damore as an Alt right, which his various interviews, and his answers in the IAMA clearly show him not to be (not foolproof, but it is very hard to believe). In a way this superfluous labeling is actually misleading rather than just not needed. 2) Unless said guy is overwhelmingly clear to beling there, I cannot see much reasons to add those labels. 3) Should we add "Diversity obsessed" in front of Google's CEO name? (dunno enough, but he is said to ensure that Google's board is half female etc. Its legit, but enough to slap various labels in front of his name. Enough said, anyway Jazi Zilber (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

See discussion here. Further discussion can be added below. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hjernevask

The documentary of sociologist Harald Eia, "Hjernevask", should be included under "See also". It has been heavily mentioned/quoted by journalists world wide when writing about this memo and lot of the arguments in the memo have been debated in the show.--Rævhuld (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Poll

• Agree: It is clearly relevant.--Rævhuld (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support: Because of the overlapping information and similarities, not to mention it's mentioning in mass media in the same context, it should be included.--Rævhuld (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• The fudge this has to do with this article?. This "RfC" appears to be just disruption of the talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I have to point out that this user has a, well, let us call it "crush" on me. No, this is not disruptive in any way. But you can of course have a different opinion than me. As I pointed it out: there is informational overlap and many mass media sources actually compare Hjernevask with this memo.--Rævhuld (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

This latest comment Rævhuld does not speak well for you in light of your ANI request demanding action toward another editor for accusing you of being something you're not. Are you seriously suggesting this editor is physically or emotionally attracted to you? I dare say, this is not helpful to your case. Maineartists (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Argumentum ad hominem

Dear community, I have reported a user here, who uses argumentum ad hominem to argue against a lot of people here, including me. So wikipedians, please, please don't attack people, but just use real arguments. Calling people "leftists" isn't cool, and neither should you call people "alt-right" without having any proof. I know that I am left-wing, I have written pro-feminist, pro-gay and pro-masculinist articles here - but that doesn't mean that my argues on the discussion page aren't of any worth. Please consider keeping the good tone here. Thank you <3 --Rævhuld (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)