Talk:Google's Ideological Echo Chamber/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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.

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 [1], [2] 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 Category:White_supremacy_in_the_United_States, 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)

Kingsindian, I think the purpose of the poll was to avoid opening an RfC on what's a pretty straightforward, uncontroversial issue. Cjhard (talk) 23:26, 18 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)

The piece said she was speaking with management approval, so..? I think it would have to be a RS overview of the employees generally, or many more voices without CEO control or knowledge of identity to really call it the " employee reactions". Markbassett (talk) 00:17, 19 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)

I came here to ask why it says "fired Damore for allegedly violating the company's code of conduct." in the last sentence of the first paragraph, and lo and behold, it's already being discussed. I too think including the word "allegedly" is a WP:WEASEL; after all, he wasn't fired for "allegedly" doing something, just like a person isn't convicted of a crime for allegedly committing a crime. He was fired for violating the code of conduct, period. Please change this. Rockypedia (talk) 06:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

scientific, or not

what kind of science is "scientific" in the darmore case? i thought a paper puplished in a recognized scientific journal is "science", everything else is not? "scientific views" i find quite an oxymoron i must say. a view of a scientiest, but in which science? my head explodes :) i would appreciat if "reactions" stay "reaction" without giving it a touch of science ... --ThurnerRupert (talk) 06:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Scientists are usually whom we trust on scientific views.

Wikipedia cannot do Original Research (see WP:OR). Thus we cannot start collecting references etc. The scientists roughly represent what the science says. With limitations, of course. Reading the part everyone can see it is a collection of views from professionals in the field Jazi Zilber (talk) 06:32, 19 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)

Usually, I HATE the terms "fake news" and MSM etc. Unfortunately, here, the media have lied quite blatantly, probably from laziness and overly trusting secondary sources + obvious feeling of pressure to give the memo a negative spin.

I am not sure it matters much to the current article, though. Jazi Zilber (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Move Singer out of Scientific views section

Can we get consensus to move Peter Singer's reaction out of the Google's Ideological Echo Chamber#Scientific views section and into the Google's Ideological Echo Chamber#Others section? Singer is a philosopher and not a scientist. — Strongjam (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

reasonable with me. Scientific views about for experts on the subject. Singer is indeed a top philosophy expert, putting his views on slightly higher value than mere commentators, but I think the section is for topic experts, not merely high level intellectuals Jazi Zilber (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I actually take issue with the whole scientific views section, most of which are not scientific views but expert opinions. Granted, some of them try to address the specific claims made by the memo but statements like "Damore got 'most of the science right'" or "The key thing for me is that he's got quite a lot of the science wrong." are not scientific views, they are just opinions. We could call them expert opinions if the people expressing them are psychologists or have relevant degrees, but they are not scientific views. We should change the heading to "Reactions from experts" or something like that.

Also there are more people who are in the section from irrelevant fields AFAIK: "Cynthia Lee, a computer science lecturer" "Evolutionary biologist Suzanne Sadedin" "Gina Rippon, chair of cognitive brain imaging" Darwinian Ape ^talk 02:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Darwinian Ape here. Bioethics is as much science as Psychology or even Evol Bio (or at least some parts of that). The distinction is subjective and indeed, a bit ORish.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

How are neuroscience and evolutionary biology irrelevant to the memo's content? If anything they are more relevant to the notable claims of the memo, i.e. the supposed 'biological' origins of sex differences. 37.175.150.147 (talk) 10:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

James' claims are regarding behavioural and psychological traits, not things like neurotransmitters, brain folds, sexual reproduction. There is a tendency in science that more fundamental disciplines falsely believe they are entitled to act as experts on more derived disciplines (shamefully, us physicists do this a lot). But unless they've actually studied the topic in depth, their knowledge is probably based on some over-simplified and out-of-date undergraduate textbook that they read a decade earlier.

(Regarding this discussion -- this whole section needs a revamp anyway. Currently it is just long & rambly. Could just shorten it all down to "Some experts agreed with the scientific views, some did not".) --Nanite (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The author's claims are not limited to differences between psychological traits. In fact I'd even argue that it wouldn't have gone viral if it was only limited to pointing out these differences. What really stuck and actually caused him to get fired (according to the CEO at least) is the 'biological origins' part. And yes, neuroscientists and developmental biologists have more expertise on this than psychologists. Also, you seem to underestimate the amount of knowledge overlap among these experts. For instance, this paper which caused a lot of stir in the media and political circles when it was released in PNAS, involves both psychologists and neurobiologists. To think that such complex subjects can be easily separated into fields and can only be commented by experts in one field is a bit naive, and that underhanded remark about scientists being 'entitled' is just disingenuous and uncalled for at worst, off-topic and unhelpful to the conversation at best. 37.175.150.147 (talk) 12:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

OK perhaps I'm misstating my argument. The 'biological' scientific views of James are not referring technical discipline of biology (like, through what biological mechanisms is neuroticism mediated), rather they're more related to Nature versus nurture (btw, very nice article over there) --- generally the obsession of behavioural geneticists, evolutionary psychologists, developmental psychologists, etc.. And yes of course we shouldn't exclude anyone based on the name of their discipline --- the key thing is that they actually have expert knowledge, i.e., a good handle on the literature. --Nanite (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not understanding you here. 'Biology' isn't limited to mechanisms. It's not an abstract entity that sets your stats at birth like a video game character either. There's a very complex interplay of genetics, epigenetics, environmental factors (both post- and pre-natal, which makes the definition of 'environmental' quite blurry) that's often inextricable and all these factors influence one another in some way, which led many scientists to completely reject the nature vs. nurture dichotomy altogether, as is stated in the very lede of the article you cite. If evolutionary psychologists ignore these issues and still go on about nature vs. nurture, that actually makes them less qualified to react to the memo's contents, not more. 82.216.227.236 (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean. I guess when you get to that notion of 'biology' it captures everything, and then it would seem that every sex difference would automatically count as biological, i.e., so it should not be controversial to say a sex difference is biological in origin. But I think we're veering off the article here. Anyway, thanks for pointing that out. --Nanite (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

As to the text of this article, Singer is not speaking to the scientific or other factors that might bias the proportion of women employees. He's stating his view that this is a reasonable matter to discuss within the corporation. That's not a scientific view, so it should not go under "scientists" here. SPECIFICO talk 00:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

His work is not "science" in any sense. It lies instead in he vast terrain -- among philosophers, social scientists, and political ideologues -- of work built on misappropriated threads from various scientific disciplines to support new hyphenated doctrines such as socio-biology, bio-ethics, etc. These are fancied-up opinions in pseudo-scientific garb. Some have gotten traction and are notable as such, but they should be clearly differentiated from what WP calls "science". Not to compare Singer, but we know that this labeling gets into risky business. SPECIFICO talk 13:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Disparity and biology

Did James Damore argue that Google's gender disparity could be partially explained by biological differences between women and men? Here are some of his quotes:

1. I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. (emphasis added for Wikipedia Talk)
2. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing).
   • These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.
3. We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change), the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social sciences lean left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs. (emphasis added for Wikipedia Talk)

It looks like he's saying that personal preference could be a significant factor. Where he may have struck a nerve is by offering an analysis of the current scientific state of the question as to how these personal preferences came into being. (He might have been wiser to mention cultural pressures, etc.) But it looks like he got fired for suggesting an alternative to the notion that "the only possible or permissible explanation for gender disparity is employment discrimination". --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Congrats on reading the memo and trying to charitably understand what James was trying to say. You've done more than most. As you know, however, our interpretations as editors are not supposed to matter for article content, as they would count as original research. :-) --Nanite (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, but my point was that many people seem to have misinterpreted what the man was trying to say. It may even be that it was because of these misinterpretations that he was fired. (This is not OR, I have sources for these ideas. :-)

• After a memo proclaiming women are underrepresented in tech because of biological differences between the sexes and not because of discrimination went viral, a Google employee is now out of a job

Once again, I ask, did he say that "women are underrepresented in tech because of biological differences between the sexes and not because of discrimination" - or did he say that different preferences "may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women"?

I am suggesting a section that compares what Damore actually said/wrote, and how various people (other than us Wikipedia editors, of course!) have interpreted his remarks. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• [He informed] his female coworkers that he viewed them as biologically incapable of doing their job well. Time magazine

The above is a typical conclusion that Damore's opponents have drawn from his Memo - albeit without citing a particular passage from it - let alone explaining how they drew such a conclusion.

The basis of a constructive debate is to at least assume that the person you're speaking to has sound reasons for coming to the conclusion they did. Even better is to put yourself in their shoes to try and build their reasoning based on how you think they would feel. Let's assume the best for a moment and not believe the media and Google feminists are on the prowl for innocent scapegoats to sacrifice on the altar of bloodthirsty PC gods. I'm going to quote a paragraph I wrote above:

there are in fact 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) 22:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Are we allowed to create a section comparing what Damore said vs. what others (like his opponents) say he said? --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

It sounds like 82.216.227.236 wants to do precisely what I suggested. He has already started doing it, by quoting from Damore and giving some "implications" which he imputes to him, on the following grounds:

1. It is not too much of a stretch
2. it sounds like extrapolation
3. it's not hard to imagine that a 'woman in tech' would take it like this

But my question is still whether the article would be improved by such a section. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't 'impute' the implications to him, I'm trying to explain why some people reacted badly to it. It is not important what he really meant, we are not Damorian hermeneuticists. I invite you to look above as this conversation has already been had. 82.216.227.236 (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, you are imputing those implications to him: "... 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" (if that's not an imputation, what is?)

But that's okay, if the purpose is to help show our readers how easy it is for people to twist what he said. Did he really say they '... are innately predisposed to be disinterested in technology jobs in favor of "social" and "artistic" stuff'? I don't remember reading that, and I've gone through his memo twice.

I've heard this sort of thing before, and it always comes down to:

• Someone notes that women have different jobs than men do
• There's a debate about why this happens
• One side says it can only be due to men discriminating against women, not giving them an equal chance - and that we must push STEM programs, provide quotas, etc.
• Another side says women might be choosing these different jobs voluntarily - and gets labeled the bad guy

Don't misunderstand me: I'm not protesting such an occurrence. I'm saying we should describe this phenomenon in the article, using Wikipedia's agreed-upon rules so that we can avoid falling into the WP:OR trap. Okay? --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I may have to repeat myself here. I am not saying he implied these things. In fact, I don't care what he implied, because, as I said before, the inner working of Damore's brain are of little interest to us. What I am doing is trying to explain how people perceived what he said. Words do not just exist in a vacuum, and it is the duty of the writer or speaker to ensure the meaning they try to convey through their words is accurately received by the people they want to reach, especially in a very lengthy piece like this where he presumably had the time and space to think things through. If so many people reacted badly to it, and we assume they are not all evil feminists or bloodthirsty journalists looking for any prey to sharpen their pitchforks on, it means they took it personally for a reason. So what I've been trying to do is outline a path of reasoning where all these innocuous, reasonable, matter-of-fact looking statements ended up resonating very badly with the intended audience.

Trying to construe these extrapolations as wild misinterpretations by a clueless audience who only delights in outrage is intellectually dishonest or at the very least shows a striking lack of empathy. Maybe your masculine lack of predispositions for empathizing with people is clouding your judgment? Anyway, I don't know if this should be included in the article, but if you want sources where women at Google explain it more clearly than me, here you go. 82.216.227.236 (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

IP editor 236, thanks for pointing this out and keeping us on track. You're right, nobody should be "attributing to malice what cannot be chalked up to ignorance" as they say. I personally believe the memo was badly misinterpreted, however what you've laid out on this talk page is a very straightforward story of how those interpretations were arrived at, and I buy it. (If I or a friend ever has to write something like a Google memo, I'd point them to your comments on how their stuff may be interpreted.) The fact that various sources got such wildly different interpretations is actually quite fascinating and (as I opined below) worthy of inclusion, what do you think? By the way, you should make an account --- we need more level headed editors like you around. :-) --Nanite (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ed Poor: I think this is possible but it has to be done carefully. For example I find it very tempting to do but it would be WP:SNYTH to just juxtapose these wild misinterpretations against a very mild direct quote from the memo itself. It would read like "James said X; this was interpreted as NOT-X by all these commentators."

That said, I think it is encyclopedic to include the wild misinterpretations in some way; that these wild misinterpretations were made is one of the most important elements to the story, as they were what got him fired. Hmm, what do you think about something of this form? Various commentators have interpreted the memo as implying that James believed his female coworkers were biologically inferior and that anti-woman discrimination played no role in the workplace(cite cite cite), however other commentators have interpreted the memo as a plea for the consideration of other factors in addition to discrimination (cites, eg [3]).

--Nanite (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Perfect. I wish I weren't so wordy. That's just what I was trying to say. [Maybe I have a genetic predisposition toward loquaciousness? :-] --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The article never really says in detail what the memo says. There is one paragraph in the "course of events" section which summarizes the argument. Since there have been wildly divergent readings of the memo, it would be hard to actually say something too detailed without running into WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Logo

Could someone add the logo {{pp-dispute}}? I think that is the correct one. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 15:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

How is the memo racist and sexist?

Not a forum. Jdcomix (talk) 11:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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)

Request: Reduction in protection level

It seems the talk page discussion has calmed down now quite a bit, so a reduction in protection level already now wouldn't be a bad idea (two days earlier than the set deadline). However at the same time, I would like to request that even after August 23, the article remains semi-protected in some way. Culture war articles like this can get maddening with new editors influx. --Nanite (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Full protection is over, and semi-protection will be enabled when needed, not pre-emptively. Samsara 09:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

so I guess this is locked to editing...

Can someone at Wikipedia's Ideological Echo Chamber change "Gina Rippon, chair of cognitive brain imaging at Aston University, disagreed with Miller's assessment. Saying..." into an actual sentence "Gina Rippon, chair of cognitive brain imaging at Aston University, disagreed with Miller's assessment, saying..."?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I added a request, and that was a funny joke. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 15:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

When noted untouchables edit war on an article, they are not sanctioned - instead the article they are edit warring on is sanctioned. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't follow you...--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

This off-topic note meant: That when "holy" \ "untouchables" wiki editors have edit wars, the block goes against the article, and not against the editors waging war.

I disagree. There was not much nastiness here, just too many disagreements. So stopping editing made sense. Obviously, if some editors here breach rules flagrantly, I guess they should be punished independently of the article situation.

Of course, I am not familiar with whatever other gossip / info the said commentator has to base his line on. So who knows? But in this specific article, i am not seeing much fodder Jazi Zilber (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I assumed the "Don't follow you" comment referred to the "I added a request, and that was a funny joke". I didn't see a legitimate reasons for this article to have been locked down - so I suspected illegitimate ones: it was not locked to protect the article but to protect certain editors from themselves. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:14, 23 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)

Well, he is really rude against me personally. He uses phrases like "stupid" and indicates that I am part of the alt-right movement. Another "argument" on his part is that I have a relative new account (only one year old). So yes, I think he is emotionally attracted to me. But it is sweet how you start defend him, in the light that many people actually claims that he attacks them personally. --Rævhuld (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, my comments were not defending at all. In fact, I find the manner in which said editor converses, discusses, replies and overall interacts with other editors is less than admirable. However, I am pointing out it's better to take the high road in asking others to join your cause. That's all. Best, Maineartists (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thank you <3 --Rævhuld (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Does the documentary mention the Google memo? If not, I know we could not include it in the article. I don't know if "See Also" follows a different set of rules. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

A "See also" needs to be a link to a Wikipedia article, not be an external link, and the linked article should be about a subject that is connected, in a reasonable npov way, to the first article. I don't see anything in Hjernevask to justify a see also link. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: What does a Norwegian documentary have to do with the memo? Do we just include any piece of media that has some remote connection with the memo's content? 37.175.150.147 (talk) 10:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: The documentary in question certainly concerns the same area covered in the "offending" memo, but the same could be said for thousands of things, any scientific paper published on that research area for example. And there is nothing actually in the Wikipedia article about the findings of the documentary. The documentary (which is well worth watching [4]) is actually to do with Norwegian society: its insularity, conformity, and the tendency of its population to accept without questions what its leaders say is correct. By the end there was no substantive difference in outlook between those Norwegian "scientific experts" and religious fundamentalists denying evolution - ideology alone was important and it was a matter of faith rather than scientific evidence. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Interestingly, the same ideological dogma that this Norwegian documentary exposed as being pseudo-science nonsense is being repeated in a BBC program as I write. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:17, 23 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)

The mention of the "chilling effect" appears to be based on a passing mention in an op-ed piece. That's textbook WP:UNDUE weight.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)