Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

It includes opinions of journalists(WTH) and Women Studies "scientists". If you are gonna pretend that his claims are scientifically controversial at least find some real scientist that disagree with Damore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.188.151.82 (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The section has been cleaned up (but not completely) over the past few months, to include, for the most part, the opinions of Biologists, Neuroscientists, Psychologists, etc. But you're right: the opinions of journalists (especially political activists) do not belong under that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcrt007 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

That's not correct. Articles are primarily written using WP:SECONDARY coverage; a journalist does not need credentials in science to report on broad reactions and trends. In fact, the list of scientists is probably a bigger problem, since it tries to engage in WP:OR / WP:SYNTH using nose-counting, when what we should be doing is looking for more reputable secondary sources summarizing the entire topic. --Aquillion (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Your interpretations are not relevant to this specific case.

First: it is indeed recommended for Wikipedia articles to be written using WP:SECONDARY coverage, preferably, yet those sources should be "reliable" (per the WP:OR / WP:SYNTH pages you link to). Science journalists can qualify as reliable; political-activists (and authors of opinion columns), like Owen Jones not so much.

Second, and most important, the secondary sources should contain syntheses on primary sources. Owen Jones' article does not quote a single study (e.g.: primary source) to support any of his claims; he doesn't even mention the topics Damore has brought up in his memo. So what would make him a reliable secondary source for the "On the Science" section?

Third: you claim that "the list of scientists is probably a bigger problem, since it tries to engage in WP:OR / WP:SYNTH using nose-counting" - please back up your claims by actual proof. From what I've seen so far in the articles quoting the scientists, they mention 3rd party papers (not their original research papers) including:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00843.x

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19883140

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27845378

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4687544/

https://www.pnas.org/content/113/14/E1968

https://www.pnas.org/content/113/14/E1971

https://www.pnas.org/content/113/14/E1966

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/113/14/E1965.full.pdf

-- Mcrt007 (talk 02:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

"...a journalist does not need credentials in science to report on broad reactions and trends." But Jones is not doing that, he's bloviating on his own opinions with little if any citation.GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Too many of Aquillion arguments seem to be made in bad faith here:

1) He's insinuating that the scientists listed in the "On the Science" section are engaging in "original research" (he's not pointing to anyone in particular and he presents no article that backs up any of his accusations).

2) He had deleted the comments of evolutionary psychology professor Jeoffrey Miller (though you can find them being quoted online by several "reliable" news organizations, including BBC)

3) Although there are plenty of articles from "reliable" news-sources criticizing Damore's manifesto (and some of those articles link to research that seems to contradict some of the resources used by Damore), Aquillion keeps linking to Owen Jones' diatribes which, while scoring rhetorical points for several slurs, here and there, are completely irrelevant to the topic and totally ignore Wikipedia's own guidelines on WP:CONTEXTMATTERS , e.g.: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." Mcrt007 (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Other editors who support keeping Jones' opinions in the Science section seem to engage in ambivalent behavior across similar situations, e.g.: Grayfell seems to favor including Jones' diatribes here, yet he does not seem to treat other similarly unqualified pundits/activists by the same standard - I quote from a comment he has made on the article I just linked to: "He is not qualified to explain the science of climate change either way. So again, why is Shapiro's statement being included at all?" . Well, that's exactly the situations Owen Jones is in : "He is not qualified to explain the science in any way. So again, why is Jones' statement being included at all?" Mcrt007 (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What does that have to do with this article? Good lord... Figuring out how to summarize Ben Shapiro's comments in in an article about Ben Shapiro is fundamentally different from this situation.

In this article, this is all about a single sentence. It is a brief quote of a journalist commenting specifically about the pseudoscientific quality of the topic, with attribution, and the support of two separate sources. We judge each article by its own context, and digging through old comments from months ago on a different article to try and prove some strained point is borderline disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 03:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Both scenarios are fundamentally the same: a pundit/activist/journalist gives a personal opinion (makes a comment) on a Science-topic he has no qualification on (in one case: climate change; in the other case: sex differences in psychology and neurosciences).

In one case, you complain about the inclusion of Shapiro's (unqualified) personal comments in a section (of the wiki-page about Shapiro) which presents Shapiro's views on climate change.

In the other case, you want Jones' (unqualified) personal comments included in the specific section presenting arguments "On the Science" in the Google's memo.

The above plus the fact that Jones' is the only unqualified person quoted in the "On the Science" section (the opinions of the other journalists are under the "Cultural commentary" and "Other commentary" sections of the article) is a strong argument for inconsistency in your editorial behavior ... Oh, and looking for a precedent is very common in American Law. Here that precedent revealed a rather inconsistent editorial behavior, however. Mcrt007 (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

"American law"? Oh dear, it appears we have a lawyer. I hope you'll at least avoid being a Wikilawyer. This isn't a democracy, and this isn't a bureaucracy, and Wikipedia works on consensus, not precedent. If you think my behavior is inconsistent, sure, okay, probably, but this talk page is the place to discuss this article, not my flawed behavior. Even if I'm a hypocrite, that doesn't actually make you correct. If you are a lawyer, I'm sure you already know that bringing up old comments by opposing lawyers from unrelated cases just because they disagreed with you once is the kind of thing that could get you sanctioned or disbarred if taken to its extreme. But of course, Wikipedia isn't a court of law, either.

As for this line, it's Jones' commentary about the science. It's not Jones' commentary about culture, or about "other". Jones is a columnist who wrote an article specifically about the subject of this Wikipedia article where he specifically addresses science, with fact-checking and editorial oversight, in a major newspaper. A single sentence mentioning his conclusions is reasonable. This still has nothing to do with Shapiro, and especially not with Ben Shapiro as a Wikipedia article. Grayfell (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

You provide an extremely inconsistent and contradictory interpretation of things. The New York Times article cited under "Cultural commentary" states: Damore was tapping into the long and contentious debate about genes and behavior. On one side are those who believe that humans come out as blank slates and are formed by social structures. On the other are the evolutionary psychologists who argue that genes interact with environment and play a large role in shaping who we are. In general the evolutionary psychologists have been winning this debate. When it comes to the genetic differences between male and female brains, I’d say the mainstream view is that male and female abilities are the same across the vast majority of domains — I.Q., the ability to do math, etc. But there are some ways that male and female brains are, on average, different. , etc

The above quote is a great example of specifically addressing Science (especially when compared to Jones' slurs that have been included in this article and which you so vigorously defend, even though opinion articles like Jones', in the Guardian, are not really fact-checked). So how come this is merely listed under "Cultural commentary" but not included under "On the Science" section? Should we add a single sentence mentioning its conclusions? You should probably find this totally reasonable since David Brooks is an well established journalist, with a major newspaper, with fact-checking and editorial oversight, etc. Mcrt007 (talk) 08:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Grayfell there is no evidence that Jones has been fact-checked. There is usually no fact checking for opinion columnists, including at major papers. GPRamirez5 (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

That source is about the New York Times, not the Guardian, so again this tangential point is a distraction. We should summarize sources about this memo. That's the purpose of this article. The presumption on Wikipedia is that a reputable journalist working for a reliable outlet will abide by professional standards. We don't second-guess sources without a good reason, and "I don't like it" isn't a good reason. (Incidentally, we do have valid reasons for Shapiro's commentary). Since this is the clearly-attributed assessment of a noteworthy journalist writing for a major paper with editorial oversight, my points still stands, and trying to nit-pick this single sentence is a waste of everyone's time. If you knew of a source about the editorial oversight of the Guardian, or a source about this specific column, you almost certainly would've already brought it up, but regardless, please link it now if you think it will help. Grayfell (talk) 02:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I appear to have informed you about. something of which you were not aware. If you have any evidence that the standards are higher at the Guardian than they are at the New York Times then please link to them.GPRamirez5 (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

No, I already knew that Kristol is unreliable, which was the main point of the CJR source. If anyone tried to cite Kristol in this article without attribution, I would oppose that. The CJR source doesn't mention the Google memo, nor does it mention anything related to the Google memo. Linking to a source which doesn't even indirectly touch on the topic of the article to try and prove a point is tendentious. We are attributing an opinion as an opinion. Is this the hill you want to die on? Grayfell (talk) 03:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

You're missing the central argument of the CJR article The New York Times has long given its op-ed columnists a virtual free hand, exempting their copy from the layers of editing and fact-checking that a regular Times news story would undergo before it appeared in the paper., Kristol was just an example of a larger phenomena: the lack of fact-checking for opinion columns. But the Guardian is not better, 3/4 of their stories are not even fact-checked. And this trend has been going on for decades. Mcrt007 (talk) 08:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Which opinion articles are fact-checked and which are not? When is a very popular opinion-journalist fact-checked and when he's not? No wikipedia editor knows for sure, the only real certainty is that most opinion-articles are not fact-checked. You also misrepresent the main point of CJR. You imply that point was Kristol is unreliable, which was the main point of the CJR source, but they actually said "It’s also worth noting that, of the eleven columns Kristol has so far written for the Times, two have contained clear factual errors (his first column, which appeared January 7, attributed a quote by one conservative writer, Michael Medved to another, Michelle Malkin)". 9 out 11 columns that do not contain factual errors would make Kristol more reliable than the Guardian. Mcrt007 (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Listing David P. Schmitt as saying that "Damore had understood the science correctly" is incorrect. Nowhere does he say that; he is careful to note that while group differences exist, they are exaggerated and not relevant to Google, which directly contradicts Damore's points. --Aquillion (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

"How this all fits into the Google workplace is unclear to me. But perhaps it does...should we be able to openly discuss and be informed by some of the real psychological sex differences that account for variation in men’s and women’s workplace performance, and might lead to less than 50% of technology employees being women? In the right context, I vote yes to that, too."

That doesn't "directly" contradict Damore at all, and it explicitly makes no judgment about the Google workplace.GPRamirez5 (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

He contradicts Damore on two key points, essentially dismissing his scientific argument: Again, though, most of these sex differences are moderate in size and in my view are unlikely to be all that relevant to the Google workplace (accounting for, perhaps, a few percentage points of the variability between men’s and women’s performance outcomes), which unambiguously dismisses Damore's core argument (the science one, anyway, as opposed to his cultural preferences) by stating that the facts are not strong enough to support it; and As this is not my area of expertise, I can only offer my non-expert opinion on this issue, which is this: There have been (and likely will continue to be) many socio-structural barriers to women working in technological jobs. These include culturally-embedded gender stereotypes, biased socialization practices, in some cultures explicit employment discrimination, and a certain degree of masculinization of technological workplaces. Within this sea of gender bias, should Google use various practices (affirmative action is not just one thing) to especially encourage capable women of joining (and enjoying) the Google workplace? I vote yes. Note this in the context of the author's interpretation of Damore's opinions: Alongside other pieces of evidence, the employee argued, in part, that psychological research on sex differences indicates affirmative action policies based on biological sex are misguided. Maybe, maybe not. Let's explore the issue. I read both of these as directly disagreeing with Damore's argument on the ground that (while there are some fragments of truth) the overall argument extends beyond what the scientific facts can reasonably support; and I certainly don't see any way it could be parsed as saying "Damore had understood the science correctly." "Some differences between sexes exist, but they are too small to matter in this context" is dismissing his argument as poorly-grounded, not accepting it. Fortunately, we can avoid the need to make detailed reading or interpretation by putting him in his own section and giving a close paraphrase (which I think my version does.) But I strenuously object to the way another editor moved his comment into the list of people who unequivocally agreed with Damore - I don't think that's a reasonable reading of his piece. The parts you cited, note, say that Damore should be allowed to make his argument, but that, taken in the context of the rest of the piece, Schmitt thinks that that argument is wrong, as in, misusing the data. Since the section is about whether people think he got the science right, the piece obviously falls on the side of saying that, while some gender-differences exist, Damore misunderstood or exaggerated them and therefore used them to make an argument that the science does not support. --Aquillion (talk) 07:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I came here independently to complain about the exact same thing.

"David P. Schmitt, former professor of psychology at Bradley University, said that while there was strong evidence that some traits differed along gender lines, the size of those differences is small and unlikely to be relevant to Google's workplace.[64]"

That's not what he said. Those aren't words that he used. He has been deliberately misquoted to the point that this statement borders on vandalism. So my first question is "Who added this section, and why did they deliberately mischaracterize the Article in order to push their ideological viewpoint using Wikipedia's Voice?" I'm tempted to simply delete the whole section, and force whoever put it there out into the open.

Tym Whittier (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

This was missing from the original article, and a summary was needed. Note that the purpose of this section is not to comment on the content, but simply to summarize what Danmore actually said. I redid Danmore's diagram to avoid copyright nazis, if anyone knows how to contact him and get permission it would be good to publish his original diagrams instead. Tuntable (talk) 07:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted this, as your summary did not appear neutral, and from past discussions on this talk page, it's not clear that such a summary could exist based on any one editor's assessment. The memo should be summarized according to how reliable, independent sources summarize it, not according to how some Wikipedia editors summarize it. Yes, this is a high standard. No, not every article about a written work need to be treated this way. This specific work is extremely controversial according to reliable sources, and has prompted a broad number of very different interpretations by those sources. Since we are not a platform for Damore to share his opinions, his charts are not appropriate, copyrighted or not. Grayfell (talk) 07:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

It is not the job of Wikipedia to plagiarize other people's summaries. If it was not an exact copy then you would argue that it is POV. The source for the summary is the memo itself, obviously. If you disagree with the summary, then improve it. But do not censor it.

What you are essentially saying is that no summary can be provided because it would have to be copied from another source. That is a very POV statement to make. The whole point about this issue is that many of the people that have strong feelings about it (either way) do not actually know what the memo said. That said, if you can find a decent NPOV summary and get permission to insert into the article verbatim I would not object.

I might add that there is nothing in the Wikipedia guidelines that your "High Bar" is required. No work in Wikipedia is based on "One Editors Assessment". What actually happens is that editors work to produce a summary that is actually pretty NPOV, just the facts. That is one of the best things that Wikipedia actually does. Tuntable (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying. Your summary highlights some points as being central while downplaying others, which is a form of editorializing. The way these points are described also includes editorializing language. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, but this memo is not a reliable source for statements of fact. Therefore, any contentious interpretation of an unreliable source, even if it's superficially unbiased, must be supported by reliable sources, otherwise it's WP:OR. Find a reliable source which summarizes his main points. Use this source to explain how these points are "controversial" and why. Use these sources to determine which parts he "stresses". Use reliable sources to choose "examples", etc. Grayfell (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Grayfell, it is very difficult to argue that the Memo is not a reliable source for what the Memo itsefl actually says. It is NOT the purpose of this section to argue what is good or not good about the Memo. Would you consider any of these to be a reliable NPOV source:

• 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

No, of course not. They are all arguing a point, which is exactly not the point of a summary. There is no reliable source that you would be satisfied with, and no need for one per Wikipedia guidelines. What you are asking for is actually censorship.

So, let us start the process properly. Please present ONE issue that is either

• In the summary that is not in the Memo.
• In the Memo but not in the summary but should be. One of the downplayed issues that you mentioned.
• Expressed in a POV manner.

I realize that you may disagree with the content of the Memo but that is not relevant. (I do not particularly like it, but I do not like censorship.)Tuntable (talk) 02:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Speculating about my opinion is projection at best, but inappropriate, regardless. Labeling this "censorship" is inflammatory nonsense. If you want to discuss this, you'll have to approach this without this semi-personalized assumptions. Editorial restraint is not censorship, and Wikipedia is not obligated to include your proposed changes just because you personally vouch for how neutral they are. Do I need to explain why?

As I said, this memo is not a reliable source for statements of fact. Damore had no reputation at all prior to its publication, much less the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy which is required of sources. The memo is 10-page collection of Damore's opinions along with some citations. Some of the memo's sources may have been reliable (some were definitely not, and some were heinously misrepresented by Damore, which has already been discussed here to death) but the memo itself is only significant to the extent it is discussed by reliable sources. Wikipedia must, therefor, summarize it according to those sources, because those sources are the only reason the article exists. In some cases, a neutral summary of a work can be constructed based entirely on primary sources, but in this case, for reasons I'll get to, I think that's a such a difficult task that it might not be possible. Regardless, your summary did not get very close.

I want to emphasize that this is just one problem among many, but as an example: "Controversial" is a WP:LABEL. Even if it's accurate, it's still an emotionally loaded, subjective attribute which is not used by the source, and is not attributed to anyone. This is making a claim about the memo in Wikipedia's voice, which is editorializing. Editorializing is not acceptable, and in this case it editorializes in a way which primes the reader to make further assumptions later on in the article. There are several other large problems with your proposals, and a similar number of not-so-obvious problems.

The burden is on you to write a neutral summary, but this almost certainly will have to be based on reliable sources, because even reliable sources cannot seem to agree on what, exactly, he was trying to say. You are not a reliable source, you are a Wikipedia editor. When you make a claim about what he was attempting to emphasize and why, you are making a subjective choice about how the memo should be summarized. This is far, far more difficult than you're making it out to be.

As for the links, opinions published in reliable outlets, such as those you list, can be cited as primary sources of expert opinions with attribution, per Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources. They can also, cautiously, be used for factual statements in some cases, since these outlets engage in fact checking. If any of these sources are being used to present opinions as facts, fix the problem or point it out so we can discuss it. Grayfell (talk) 03:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, I've collapsed the copypaste of the proposed addition and merged it with this section. Otherwise I'm concerned this will mess up the talk page's automatic archiving. Grayfell (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for putting the proposed addition in a box, but you miss the point.

"As I said, this memo is not a reliable source for statements of fact."

It is not the purpose of the section to comment on whether Damore's claims are reasonable or not. Simply to state what his claims were. I should make that point explicit in the article. And if you will accept that those sources are reasonable I can add references, although I do not think they add much.

If someone wrote a notable document that the earth was flat or that the holocaust did not happen then it would be quite reasonable to summarize what it actually said even though we would both (probably) disagree with the content. Knowing the content provides insights into what other people think, which is important.

Every single sentence in Wikipedia has been written because it some editor's opinion that the sentence reflects the truth, and that it reflects relevant citations. These opinions are then reviewed and argued about (ad nauseam). The OR is to prevent wild new theories polluting the space, not to prevent people writing anything at all.

Anyway, you have failed to produce ONE example of why the content itself is not OK other than commenting on the process. Therefore I assume you have no difficulty with the content itself. Tuntable (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I do have a problem with the content. I specifically gave "ONE example" of a problem I had, and emphasized that it was only one of many. The burden is on you to achieve consensus for the changes you want to make.

Wikipedia has at least a couple articles on books about Holocaust denial, but those articles generally do not accept the author's perspective beyond what is necessary to supplement reliable sources. Those with more lengthy summaries, such as Hitler's War, cite multiple independent sources for different points. Your proposal fails to accomplish this on both counts. Damore's exact position is controversial. I am NOT just saying that his opinions are controversial, I am saying the controversy is over what he meant. Reliable sources differ on which parts are central, which parts are deflection, and which parts are filler. (This probably says something about his writing, but we both agree that's subjective.) Regardless, we cannot summarize something we don't understand, and we (Wikipedia editors) don't understand what he meant. You may understand what he meant, and I sure think I do also, but if we don't agree, than we need sources to solve the problem.

Making every single sentence on Wikipedia into an "opinion" misrepresents what "opinion" means here. I am disputing that your summary is an improvement to the article, for many reasons. I have also explained, several times now, that I don't think that any summary is going to meet WP:NPOV unless it is supported by reliable, independent sources. Find what sources are saying about the memo, and write a summary accordingly. Grayfell (talk) 04:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, so maybe I am stupid, but I could not see the "ONE Example" that you mention. Could you please restate it more clearly. I am not talking about the process, or references, but actual content. I actually do not think that there is much disagreement about what he meant, just a lot of disagreement about whether it is valid, and more importantly whether it was actually misogamistic. But if I am wrong, then there must be at least one concrete point. So let's start there. Tuntable (talk) 00:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The paragraph above which starts "I want to emphasize that this is just one problem among many..." I'll explain more once you've read that, if I really need to.

I don't understand what you mean by "one concrete point". There are many problems here, and resolving one isn't going to make any others go away, but maybe you mean something else?

It would be nice to try and separate the statements from their accuracy, but this is never going to work. Damore (much to his apparent chagrin) didn't get to decide the terms of the debate he started. Few authors do. Wired sums this point up pretty well: 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.[1]

To put it another way, if we attempted to summarize Damore's position without any outside context, we would still have to avoid naively accepting his underlying claims. This would be begging the question. The problem, as the Wired source points out, is that even the experts cited by Damore don't accept all of those claims. If we accepted his claims about innate biological differences in order to summarize his conclusions, we've made a big mistake. The problem is not just his conclusions, it's how he gets there, or perhaps how he fails to get there.

When you (or any Wikipedia editor) tries to summarize this memo, there has to be choices made, and in this case, those choices assumed that he was making a specific, coherent point. Sources do not agree on this. Your summary also highlighted some things he said while ignoring others. It listed four "feminine" traits while Damore listed five, even though he didn't explain the fifth very clearly. Your summary left out the part where he compared boilerplate diversity initiatives to "Maxist intellectuals" waging warfare on "gender and race politics". Where was the three paragraphs about "leftists" and how some men are labeled "misogynists and whiners"? Why did you include the passing comment about 93% of all work-related deaths, even though that wasn't even about Google?

There is so much more I could say on this, but this is already way, way too long. Just find sources and go from there. Grayfell (talk) 03:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

From what I can see, the part about 93% of workplace deaths was highlighted within the original memo. -GPRamirez5 (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC) GPRamirez5 (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Greyfell, You made a good point about re-reading your earlier paragraph, in which you speak about Wikipdea Voice. Consider the following

• Hitler said the Jews are degenerate.
• The Jews are degenerate.

The first statement would be in Hitler's voice, and not controversial. The second would be in Wikipedia's voice. I think we would both agree with the first and disagree with the second. My proposal had "Damore Said" six times, but maybe that is not enough.

While there is plenty of controversy about whether Damore is actually correct, I do not think that there is actually much controversy about what he actually said.

The reason that I ask for ONE thing is that then we can move forward one at a time. When I have time I will

• Add some other references.
• Add an even stronger statement at the beginning about the content being disputed.
• Mention the points you raised about "Maxist intellectuals" and "misogynists and whiners".

I would appreciate other Editors input into this.Tuntable (talk) 07:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I will just re-emphasize the importance of third-party sources. The memo is defined by its controversy, which means Wikipedia editors like us are probably not going to agree on which parts are important and which are not. One of the specific problems with this memo is that it's written in a way that suggests Damore is trying to be clear and straightforward, when he's leaving a lot unspoken or implied (while I recognize this because it's also a flaw in my own writing, I think reliable sources support this interpretation, as well). Without a lot of caution, we risk drifting towards either giving him the benefit of the doubt above and beyond his intentions, or assuming the worst and using the most damning interpretation possible. Neither is appropriate, of course.

My suggestions is this: pretend like the memo is a lost work that has to be reconstructed from other sources. Find reliable sources, figure out what they say, and only then, after an outline is built from those sources, go back and check it against the memo itself. Perhaps this would be too tedious or silly, but the hopefully the suggestion helps explain what I mean. Grayfell (talk) 07:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Tuntable (talk) I agree with your perspective. This article is unbalanced and not as helpful as it might be because it does not contain enough information about the memo including its sources. Keith Johnston (talk) 11:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The perspective of Tuntable (talk) seems very reasonable to me as well. Mcrt007 (talk) 08:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

This article is clearly weaker than it should be because it never explains what Damore actually says. The proposed summary would obviously improve things. If it is possible to do better than the proposed summary, then by all means lets do so. But for now, lets make this article as good as it can be. The absence of universal agreement is not a reason to leave things as they are. 98.7.1.133 (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I also want to disagree with Grayfell's comments. A summary absolutely should represent what is actually written, not what is implied. That is what readers expect. This article has numerous sections in which implications can be (and are) discussed. It is entirely inappropriate to have things appear in the summary of a written document that never appear in the actual document (nor is it appropriate for us to be discussing the author's intent in the summary). 98.7.1.133 (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

That's not what I intended to say, and I don't entirely disagree with you, but the underlying issue remains. The problem is this: who gets to write the summary? It is not up to me, and it is not up to you, and as we know from past history, editors are not going to agree on which parts are important and which are not. Not every detail of this ten-page memo belongs here, for many reasons. Readers can read the memo themselves if they want to, but this article should summarizing the topic based on reliable sources. Not the memo, but the topic. As I said, we could attempt to summarize the memo based on the memo itself, but this isn't easy. In fact, it's extremely difficult. No work can be fairly summarized in isolation. That's not a neutral approach, because context matters a great deal. If minor detail X is left out of the summary, that means that someone can come along and claim the article is biased because X leads to Y, which implies Z, and Z is discussed by sources A, B, and C. Instead of relying on editors to resolve this, we need to work backwards from sources. It is not possible for us, as editors, to completely divorce the memo from the author's intent, at least not in a summary format. If reliable sources summarize the memo, let's discuss how they do it, so we can use that to fix the problem. Grayfell (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

So, who gets to write anything on Wikipedia? Who gets to decide which references are relevant? What makes you think you are qualified to make any judgements at all about anything to do with any article?

If you take that attitude, there will be no Wikipedia. The articles are the result of a consensus of the editors. Sure, we do not want any weird theories. But it is the very job of editors to summarize information.

I think there is a consensus above that the summary should be included. If you have any issue with any aspect of it feel free to improve it. Tuntable (talk) 08:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Should a summary along above lines be added to the article. Note that this is not a poll about any aspect of the summary, merely that a summary be added based on the content of the memo itself. This has been discussed excessively with Greyfell above, and we need the input of OTHER editors.

Note that there is no WP policy that says that the disagreement of a single editor should prevent information being added to an article.

• Support. This article is vacuous if it does not summarize the actual memo. The memo itself provides a solid reference for what the memo actually says. Tuntable (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article is already summarized by WP:RS throughout the article. Creating it's own section seems redundant and WP:OR. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Much of the public controversy included false or misleading citations of the memo. The first gizmodo copy omitted the memo references and graphs. And so on. Citing discussions using wrong content is alright. But a reasonably accurate summary is important Jazi Zilber (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Agree with Tuntable's point. Besides: lots of other documents ("memos", "manifestos", essays, etc) are summarized on Wikipedia. Some examples: (a) the Unabomber's manifesto; (b) the Devin Nunes memo; (c) the Downing Street memo. Mcrt007 (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The inclusion of the Harvard-Harris Poll has been disputed. The "Harvard" in Harvard-Harris is Harvard University, specifically the Center for American Political Studies. The "Harris" is The Harris Poll, a polling company that does provide the names of their key people. It took me less than five minutes of searching to find this poll. The relationship between The Hill and Harvard-Harris is neither secret nor undisclosed; the pollsters routinely provide the results to The Hill which then decides to write about them (or not); see here. here's also a footnote to that efffect right in the piece by The Hill. So I don't think this can be called unnamed or undated. Using a secondary source like The Hill to interpret a primary source (the raw poll data) is best practice on Wikipedia. Whether this specific poll belongs in the article may be debatable, but I don't see problems with the quality of either the poll itself or the article written by The Hill that would by themselves disqualify the poll from being used. Huon (talk) 03:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• User:Huon If you want us to follow and possibly help you, include the disputed text here.

Hello, Maybe I'm the only one, but does anyone else think it's strange that the article is named after the document instead of the events/controversy surrounding it? The document itself doesn't seem very notable and thus is a reason why this article is difficult to find. I don't have a perfect replacement, but "Google's Diversity Memo" or "Google-James Damore Controversy" both seem like good alternatives that would allow more people to see the article. Also naming the article after the name of the memo doesn't seem to be NPOV since that is the argument Damore's memo is making. Thoughts? Pokerplayer513 (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• I would not object. Tuntable (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

We must keep in mind the common name. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I also think the existing title is problematic because it is neither italicized nor quoted as the actual name of a document. Instead, it reads as a statement of pov (which it is, as Damore intended). I think the suggested titles above by Pokerplayer are reasonable, but italicizing or quoting the existing title also works for me. DonFB (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

DonFB, I'd do it, but I haven't looked up how to "move" articles yet which I believe is how we would achieve the article name change. If you want to do the article name change yourself, I'd support it. Cheers, Pokerplayer513 (talk) 04:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Omg I mucked up. I accidently moved the original talk page to the new article page. Idk how to fix it :(

I oppose to moving, especially to "Google-James Damore Controversy". Who is that "Google-James" guy and what is "Damore Controversy"? "Google's Diversity Memo" is also wrong because it makes look like Google is the author. Please leave the title as is or start discussion on WP:RM. --M5 (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how to start a discussion at WP:RM, but I'd support it if you want to start one. Can we just try to reach consensus here? I don't really think anyone would confuse "Google-James" for a person or "Google's Diversity Memo" suggests that Google itself wrote the memo. Those seem like unreasonable mistakes. The current title clearly violates WP:NPOV and doesn't follow WP:NDESC. No one knows the memo by it's name, because the controversy surrounding the memo is what makes this page notable, not the memo itself. In addition to what I've already suggested I think "Google's Diversity Memo Controversy" or heck, even a page on James Damore instead of the memo seems preferable. I just think my initial suggestions are better because James Damore falls into the WP:ONEEVENT BLP category. I'm willing to discuss further. Cheers, Pokerplayer513 (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

As an aside, I don't think Damore falls under WP:BLP1E category, since he has intentionally sought fame after the incident - BLP1E exists to protect private individuals, but specifically excludes people who intentionally seek fame (because it's meant to be used to protect people, not silence them). That doesn't mean we necessarily should have a page for him, and definitely doesn't mean we must, but at this point he's a slightly-notable activist, so I feel we could if we wanted to. Moving this entire page there might have consequences, though, since it would probably have to be rewritten to focus more on him and trimmed of some side commentary. --Aquillion (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah I thought the rule was more about fame than the desire for fame. You explanation makes sense though. He just hasn't been hired by a right-wing think tank yet (unlike Lindsay Shepherd) and spends most of his time tweeting so I thought the BLP1 rule applied to him. Cheers, Pokerplayer513 (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

He has a job and tweets a couple times a week, which is much less than others with his follower count. ChandraJace (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

What's your point? Pokerplayer513 (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Your statement made it seem like he's a professional commentator, which I was trying to correct by pointing out that he has a job and doesn't post any more than most people. ChandraJace (talk) 03:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

It was intended to say he's not a pro commentator. If he was hired by a right wing think tank that might change.Pokerplayer513 (talk) 07:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• I suggested a name change a long time ago, but the problem, as you've found out, is that nobody can agree on a better name. I don't think this one passes WP:COMMONNAME (the name of the memo seems to be of little note in most coverage), but there isn't a clear title to move it to, either. "Google Diversity Memo Controversy" does seem like it might have some potential. --Aquillion (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll second "Google Diversity Memo Controversy" Pokerplayer513 (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• I think it's fine as is. The title of the page is italicized to indicate that it's a title and the beginning of the article gives context. Why should this be treated much differently than a book title? ChandraJace (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Because the article is mostly about the controversy stemming from the memo, rather than the memo itself; and that controversy, rather than the memo itself, is what's generally noteworthy about it. It also isn't really the WP:COMMONNAME - a google search for it with quotes turns up ~16,000 hits, which is high but not remotely as high as would be expected for something of this level of coverage if the title of the memo were considered central to the controversy. Also, if it fails WP:COMMONNAME, then the title may run into WP:NPOV issues given the scathing way it describes Google. --Aquillion (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • It's not a book and is self-published so it shouldn't be treated like a book. The title was italicized in response to the suggested move a few days ago and doesn't make the obviously necessary changes. We can include "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber" in the lead, but it clearly should not be the title for reasons stated above. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I don't see how it being self published or the recency of the title being italicized matters. The distinction between a book and article seems arbitrary to me too. ChandraJace (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Because Damore's document itself isn't what's notable (he's not an expert and he self-published what is essentially a wikipedia article) it's the controversy around the article is what's notable. I just think the recency of italicization shows there is a lack of awareness by editors here to what is a clear POV violation (apart from Aquillion apparently). Read WP:RSSELF for why self-publishing matters. Also check out WP:COMMONNAME. I don't see how there's any argument that people know it mostly as "The Google Memo" and that's reflected by data from Google Trends. "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber" is hardly mentioned and I think it goes without saying that no one knows it by that name (honestly). I don't see what the downside it to changing it to "Google Diversity Memo Controversy," (apart from the the ones addressed earlier) but I'm open to ideas. I might take a poll after this to see where we are. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Study--178.189.216.64 (talk) 06:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

I just want to see where we are at in regards to a name change. Please reply to the following statement with Support Both, Oppose Both, Support 1 (if you oppose option 2), or Support 2 (if you oppose option 1) along with a comment:

• I think the title of this article should be changed from Google's Ideological Echo Chamber to:
• 1. Google Diversity Memo

• 2. Google Diversity Memo Controversy

WP:COMMONNAME is relevant to this discussion as well. Citing an example to justify your reasoning is helpful for further discussion.

Context here is a Google Trends link that shows "Google Diversity Memo" makes up over 99% of Google searches in the past 5 years nationally when compared with both "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber" and "Googles Ideological Echo Chamber" combined. Only in California do the two searches with "ideological echo chamber" have a statistically relevant amount. At 4% each they still are only 8% of comparable searches in California which is where Google is located (check the last subregion in the link).

Pinging those involved in previous discussions: Tuntable, Emir of Wikipedia, M5, Aquillion, talk,

Cheers, Pokerplayer513 (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Support Both. Title was italicized at my suggestion. That was the very least required for Npov, but it is a fairly subtle change that will not be recognized as the title of the memo by many general readers. A better solution is to change the name to a neutral phrase, as suggested. I don't think the actual name of the memo meets CommonName guidance; another Common needs to be applied: CommonSense. DonFB (talk) 05:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Support Both, but prefer #2 for the reasons DonFB mentioned (couldn't have said it better myself honestly and that data from Google Trends shows that clearly 1 or 2 more closely follow the common name policy. Cheers, Pokerplayer513 (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be changed, but I'd support #1 over #2. ChandraJace (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you choose one of the options and explain why? Just so it's clear. I'll also add I prefer #2 because the article is really about the controversy. Had the memo stayed internal to Google it wouldn't be notable. Heck, the document itself links to Wikipedia multiple times. Cheers, Pokerplayer513 (talk) 04:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the actual contents of the memo are important enough to warrant their own section of the article. We should dedicate a section to Damore's claims, preferably contextualizing them with the state of scientific knowledge about gender differences and methods of promoting diversity (since the paper is not completely against diversity). Otherwise, we end up treating it like many newsrooms are treating the Green New Deal resolution, discussing only the reactions to the memo and not the memo itself. Qzekrom 💬 ^they_them 03:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• User:Qzekrom, if you look further up on this talk you will find a poll on this. There are some that oppose, but your view would be valuable there. Feel free to close that poll and just put the proposed change in the article, together with any changes you think appropriate. I would no contextualize in that section, but do it in a separate section. That is because it will be controversial, but what Damore actually said is pretty clean. (The anti-discussion aspect to this case is far more concerting than the memo itself. Let me know if you do this. Tuntable (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  @Tuntable: I'll take a closer look at the proposed text when I get a chance. Qzekrom 💬 ^they_them 06:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

  • User:Qzekrom, if you have an opinion on the matter please at least express it in the poll above. Tuntable (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

This contains two comments, one sourced to the NY Daily news and one to The Hill. These are low-grade sources (notably worse than the best sources cited in the article), and in an article this long the commentary adds nothing. Both engender a strong sense of "so what". The first does not appear to have been picked up outside the primary source, and the second is a survey covered only in The Hill from what appears to be a press release. Guy (help!) 15:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree; there doesn't seem to be a reason to call these out here. The article has more than enough "responses" and "reactions" as it is; some trimming is justified. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, the reactions section is already huge and cites much more higher-profile sources than these (and, generally, gives each one far less weight than that section was giving these two.) Devoting an entire section and a paragraph each to such low-quality sources when even scientists with expertise in the field get a sentence or less is clearly WP:UNDUE. --Aquillion (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, Implemented until each piece can be justified. ,Objective Reason (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The above section refers to a different part of the article which was already removed. If you wish to justify your proposed removal, please do so here so that things aren't further confused. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Unlike the sources discussed above, Angela Saini and John Horgan are reasonably well-known science journalists and published experts on the intersection of science, culture and gender (Saini) and intelligence (Horgan) in the specific context of arguments of this nature; they're reasonable sources to cite for brief a position on it. Additionally, Saini and Jones' comments both have secondary coverage, while Horgan's was published in Scientific American. This is more relevant sourcing than eg. Debra Soh (cited via The Globe and Mail, tangential expertise, no secondary coverage), David P. Schmitt, or Alice H. Eagly (both have only tangential expertise and no secondary coverage). Note that the latter two currently get decently-sized paragraphs cited only to their own opinion pieces with no secondary sourcing. --Aquillion (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with Objective Reason's changes. Edit5001 (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The section "concerns over sexism" offers no content for an encyclopaedic entry. It entirely premised on the assumption that people who do not like or find offensive the content of specific researches (esp. sociobiology, evolutionary psychology) might disregard them or even label them as "bad science" or "even sexism". Most of the section is anecdotal. The non-informed opinion or feelings of someone on something they are affected by, is virtually immaterial to the reader, who is concerned with the objective information about the event. I propose the section to be eliminated entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.74.242 (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It started full of political correctness. I had failed earlier to get any summary of the actual memo into it -- busy with other things. But it now reads really well, and the summary is fine if different from what I had proposed. Well done, amazing that Wikipedia can produce things like this when there is so much passion around.Tuntable (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I came here to mention an issue that based on the tag above has been ongoing. This article contains British and American English usage. Let's choose one and stick exclusively to it please. I guess you have collectively chose American English, so maybe someone wants to edit the article some time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.251.182.104 (talk) 10:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

This isn't really Google's echo chamber, this is James Damore's theory of Google's echo chamber. I don't see how this "echo chamber" is backed up by anybody else but James Damore.

This article uses the name of the memo. I agree however, that this title does not function properly as a title on Wikipedia - to quote WP:COMMONNAME: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used", and to quote WP:CRITERIA, "The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.". This article is the name of the memo, however the name of the memo itself makes for a misleading article title. The titles I'd propose are:

• "The Google Memo" - While this is the main memo referred to by that name, and the name used on the article, it's incredibly vague. It also is perhaps less recognisable than the current title.
• "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber (Memo)" or "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber (Controversy)" - Since the article title refers to the specific event/memo, this would make it very clear that the article is not about a supposed Echo Chamber itself, rather the memo of the same name, and the subject is very clear at a glance.
• There must be some better title than these two, that conveys the topic of the article better than the current one, especially as the article no longer centers exclusively on the memo.

Inkybinky3 (talk) 07:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, the title is confusing as it suggests the topic as fact. Maybe "James Damore's Google's Ideological Echo Chamber Memo"? A bit long maybe but I feel the rest still gives too much weight to the truthfulness of the echo chamber

I'll change it too Google's Ideological Echo Chamber (Contreversy) now as no one has responded for 25 days Some2Guy (talk) 10:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed two times before in 2017 and 2019 and both times it has been decided to keep, so I'll create an other request too move.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Chamber/Archive_1#Article_title

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Chamber/Archive_5#Requested_move_10_March_2019 Some2Guy (talk) 11:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I see no need for a change. The topic is the memo and reactions thereto. We don't worry about the titles of articles on books endorsing the claim of the book, and it would be silly to because the capitalization and lead sentence are very clear that the topic is a written work. Adding something in parentheses is an unnecessary disambiguation and against WP:TITLE. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

While yes the capitalisation does make it clear if you notice it and know how to interpret it, I don't think it is something most people will notice, (I didn't at least). That being said I might reconsider my position. I still consider the title to be slightly misleading tho, as I think most people who will end up on the article won't know the memo by name, and may not pick up that the tile is the name of the memo (also took me some time). This can lead to some confusion leading some to take the tile as an authoritative claim backed by Wikipedia on fist glance. At the end of the day, I think the reason this issue has come up so frequently is that that has been the first interpretation of many people who have stumbled on the article (again at least for me). This leads to the title of the article sujesting something else then is in the article Some2Guy (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Caterjean.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by YechezkelZilber (talk • contribs) 18:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)