Talk:Google's Ideological Echo Chamber/Archive 1

What's the backstory behind the memo?
What was the discussion that preceded the memo, that prompted him to post it in response? I.e. What's the background and context of the situation? 97.34.194.35 (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate article
This article seems to be referring to the same memo as Google manifesto, this means that these two articles should probably be merged. Jchmrt (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge. Yes, Google's Ideological Echo Chamber should be merged with Google manifesto. --Neo-Jay (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy merge It is clearly the exact same subject. &mdash; Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. Google manifesto has been merged into Google's Ideological Echo Chamber. --Neo-Jay (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

NO: those two sources may be the same but they are both to edited versions of his memo. They have removed his supporting reference links and his included charts. This has allowed many to criticize him for un-sourced assertions. The link in this wikipedia entry points to one of those "abbreviated" versions. Here is the link to the FULL PDF as he published it: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.html that is, at the bottom where the references are cited, as number [1] it is going to a fortune article that does NOT include the full memo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorgesu (talk • contribs) 14:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2017
The "Others" sub-section should be part of the "Reactions" section, not "See Also". 4.35.160.50 (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done —72 talk 22:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2017
Change: David P. Schmitt, a personality psychologist writing for Psychology Today said that "in my view, claiming that sex differences exist in negative emotionality is not an 'incorrect assumption about gender.' It is an empirically well-supported claim," but that such differences were "unlikely to be all that relevant to the Google workplace," and were "not very large".[16]

To: David P. Schmitt, a personality psychologist writing for Psychology Today said that "in my view, claiming that sex differences exist in negative emotionality is not an 'incorrect assumption about gender.' It is an empirically well-supported claim. Speaking specifically about "sex differences in negative emotionality", he stated that in his opinion such differences were "unlikely to be all that relevant to the Google workplace," and were "not very large". However he commented that "Sex differences in occupational interests, personal values, and certain cognitive abilities are a bit larger in size". Debra Soh, PhD in Sexual Neuroscience at York University, commented "Despite how it’s been portrayed, the memo was fair and factually accurate. Scientific studies have confirmed sex differences in the brain that lead to differences in our interests and behaviour". Lukemosse (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 09:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Argumentum ad hominem
Dear community, I have reported a user here, who uses argumentum ad hominem to argue against a lot of people here, including me. So wikipedians, please, please don't attack people, but just use real arguments. Calling people "leftists" isn't cool, and neither should you call people "alt-right" without having any proof. I know that I am left-wing, I have written pro-feminist, pro-gay and pro-masculinist articles here - but that doesn't mean that my argues on the discussion page aren't of any worth. Please consider keeping the good tone here. Thank you <3 --Rævhuld (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for informing of us that. Do you have anything to add about the article that could not go a section above? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have anything to say that couldn't go two sections above? ;-) --Rævhuld (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Lede
This edit isn't going to work. Biology is a central point of the memo according to multiple sources. According to Fortune, Motherboard is the one who broke the story. Motherboard is the main source we should be using, and we need a specific reason to switch to some other source in the lede. Among other problems, this edit uses a commentary piece from Fortune to downplay biology, even though that article also explains that it's central to the memo. This also ignores Fortune's own news-style summary of the issue, which even more strongly emphasizes biology. Grayfell (talk) 05:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In the TL;DR summary in our article only 1 (possibly 1.5) of the 5 bullet points deal with biology. To say biology is "central" (depending on how you mean that) would be incorrect. The sources reflect is a component of the memo not the component.


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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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


 * No - not in this article. Any bio information concerning Damore belongs on a page dedicated to him if that page is deemed appropriate for Wikipedia.  Putting it here, aside from being off-topic, would only serve to further the character assassination already begun on Damore and would also distract the reader away from the relevant issues within and surrounding the memo. airuditious (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The thing is, he is not notable enough for his own article, but his background has been widely reported by various sources across the spectrum. I definitely think it deserves inclusion, even if a minor one. And honestly I don't see how saying basic facts such as he went to UIUC and Harvard and worked at Google since 2013 would "further the character assassination"; it would be quite the opposite, in fact. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well if he's not noteworthy enough for his own article, then surely personal details about him are equally or even more un-noteworthy. If the author's personal details were somehow relevant to the focus of this article or to the issues raised by the memo, then possibly (though still somewhat dubious even of that).  But we do not have either of those situations here - Damore's experience, training, education, etc. are not at all related to the memo's contents or the issues it raises.  It's the same as asking if you or I need to provide our personal details for us to be taken seriously on Wikipedia?  Of course not - our words and argumentation speak for themselves.  The purpose of this specific article is the memo itself, its contents, and the issues raised by it. airuditious (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Do reliable sources focus on his academic and professional background? If not, I think it would be undue weight at this point; however, if the story continues in the media and Damore makes his academic and professional background an issue of public concern (e.g. if he claims that because he has a certain educational background, his memo should be taken more seriously), then it might become relevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The proper question would be: Do reliable sources link his academic, professional, political, etc. background with the memo? Staszek Lem (talk) 20:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * But then you are opening the door to something like Wikipedia asserting that it is appropriate for that linking to occur. I would re-state and ask "Is it appropriate to link ..." and as I've mentioned earlier, IMHO, the answer at this point is no.  airuditious (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing of the kind for Wikipedia to assert. If and only reliable sources do such linking, in becomes appropriate for Wikipedia to report such linking. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If by "...to report such linking..." you mean staying within a narrow context and stating something like "SOME PUB has maintained that Damore's experience does\does not...", then sure. Otherwise, it is likely improper to include any bio content in this article...at least at this point in time.  As NorthBySouthBaranof mentioned earlier, will need to re-address if something changes such as Damore stating his experience, education, etc. in some way supports the content in his memo.  airuditious (talk) 23:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Science
Professor Lee Jussim claims "The author of the Google essay on issues related to diversity gets nearly all of the science and its implications exactly right." Other scientists like the pyschologist David P. Schmitt, professor for evolutionary psychology Geoffrey Miller and PhD in sexual neuroscience Debra W Soh agreed either entirely or in large parts with the scientific facts in the memo, criticizing that some newspapers didn't took notice of the scientific references James Damore provided.

David P. Schmitt, a personality psychologist writing for Psychology Today said that "in my view, claiming that sex differences exist in negative emotionality is not an 'incorrect assumption about gender.' It is an empirically well-supported claim," but that such differences were "unlikely to be all that relevant to the Google workplace," and were "not very large".

Edit Request: Fixes
- 2603:3024:200:300:1C86:5747:329F:C148 (talk) 07:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Make the Geoffrey Miller wikilink point to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Miller_(psychologist) not the disambiguation page
 * 2) fix whatever is causing the angle bracket (<) to show up in reference 4

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

Responses
This article is seriously lacking when it doesn't include psychologists' responses to the memo, seeing as the memo made psychological claims. It's important for the context behind the debate surrounding the memo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ari1891adler (talk • contribs) 02:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree we should rely on scientists for claims about science. On the topic of cultural issues (women-in-tech) no scientific expertise is necessary. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The article made several psychological claims, and many of the responses addressed those claims as "pseudoscience," "bunk science," and "perpetuating harmful stereotypes." It's important for perspective to examine who's right here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ari1891adler (talk • contribs) 02:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * Peterson is controversial, to put it mildly, and Breitbart is completely out of the question. His opinion could be considered only with a reputable source and clear attribution.
 * I assume you mean this article from Psychology Today. Is this from KotakuInAction? Never mind, it doesn't matter. This should be handled with caution, as it's not really saying a lot about the memo itself. It's... sort of supporting the claims, but I think that's debatable. It's saying that sex differences exist but they aren't that strong, etc. This kind of thing is very, very easy to misread without a strong background in psychology, especially his use of statistics. The author also specifically (and commendably) qualifies much of his comments by saying they are outside of his area of expertise. Grayfell (talk) 02:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Controversial does not necessarily mean not-reliable. Also most of the """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""reliable sources""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" cited in the article have published very blatant lies about this very topic. Anyone who cares about source reliability should be very alarmed that the wikipedia dogma places blind faith in publications that are twisting and mispresenting a topic. The nature of Wikipedia as a partisan news site where the article is constantly changing instead of an encyclopedia becomes more clear with each controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.100.79.42 (talk) 10:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

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

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


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

Article title
The sources introduce the subject as Google's Ideological Echo Chamber. Even if they later call it the Google memo/manifesto in short, the former title is the most recognizable (the name most people will call it), natural (reflecting what it's usually called), precise (unambiguously identified), and concise (not longer than necessary to identify), per the naming criteria (article titles policy). czar 04:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I seriously doubt it. When I checked if Wikipedia had an article on it I just typed in "google memo", not the title, which most people will not recognize right away.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

While "Google memo" may be a bit general - although that's how it's refereed to in sources - putting this under the title that the guy gave it is basically stating something in Wikipedia voice. It's implicitly agreeing with his argument which is summarized by the title.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Many Wikipedia articles about books, essays, poems, and other works use these works' titles as the Wikipedia articles' titles. Using a memo's actual title as the Wikipedia article's title does not mean that Wikipedia supports the author's position. It simply means that Wikipedia is introducing this memo, just as introducing other books, essays, poems, etc..--Neo-Jay (talk) 05:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The relevant policy here is WP:POVTITLE. FallingGravity 05:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @Neo-Jay Those are published works. I was gonna give as an example something like Unabomber manifesto but it turns out that's part of the Ted Kaczynski article. That's funny, we don't have a separate article for the Unabomber manifesto - which was a huge deal since the guy threatened to keep bombing unless it was published - but we have an article for this little dinky thing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @Volunteer Marek: We are not discussing about a merger issue, are we? We are discussing about the title issue. And Unabomber manifesto redirects Ted Kaczynski's specific section: Industrial Society and Its Future, the actual title of that essay. --Neo-Jay (talk) 06:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is why I said it wasn't a good example. Anyway, we should get a proper RM going.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Does your "RM" mean "requested move" or "requested merger"? If the latter, then you can start a "Merger proposal" section and we may discuss there. And by the way, Google's Ideological Echo Chamber has been published (by WND, see [ http://www.wnd.com/2017/08/googles-ideological-echo-chamber/ this page]). --Neo-Jay (talk) 06:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

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

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


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


 * There is a point though, as there reactions were of different types, rather than one way.
 * The uninformed reader (someone seeing a one sided source prior) might easily interpret it as the specific group reaction he was exposed to (i.e. total condemnation, or heroic support etc.) Jazi Zilber (talk) 09:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links below.

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


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

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


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


 * Acting on the assumption of "distortion" suggests non-neutral speculation about his motives or character. We should not add content just to try and offset hypothetical positive or negative commentary from reliable sources. Wikipedia reflects a strong preference for secondary sources, and inflating primary content risks false balance.
 * So with that in mind, what information do these interviews provide? Specifically, what information do they provide about this memo? Per WP:EL, that's the goal. If this information would not, eventually, be included as sourced content in the article, than I don't really see how they belong here. Saying that these are the only primary sources about him is also presumptuous. The fallout is ongoing, and his willingness to be interviewed (by people with sympathetic views) is more about WP:RECENTISM than it is about the memo itself. If it's not ongoing, than it really should be folded into another article, right? If these are noteworthy as his only interviews, we should be able to explain that in the article, or wait until secondary sources establish these youtube clips as significant. Grayfell (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


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


 * The endless spins make the original material more important. Most secondary sources here, whether on the memo, the firing, the sequence, his views etc got extremely politicised and described the each writer's inclinations.
 * With relatively little secondary sources that are "reliable" in the non controversial sense, I think that a couple of interviews are very useful for anyone into the subject.


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

I agree with Jazi Zilber the video links are useful context. I also agree with Grayfell (!) that the sources can be contexualised with RS commentary. How RS characterise these sources is their choice, not mine, so my view is irrelevant over and above selecting Wikipedia appropriate RS. I am fine with that.
 * The above should not be taken as an argument for removing them altogether, just contextualising. Keith Johnston (talk) 09:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


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

Removal of first amendment content
Content discussing first amendment concerns was removed because the removing editor claimed the linked reference did not state the content that was removed. Then the same editor stated that the content did probably exist in the cited reference but that it was opinion. The removing editor needs to clarify because the vast majority of Wikipedia is essentially the exact same thing that was done here - the linking to content outside of Wikipedia - no opinion by was was added. Furthermore, when those outside refs are articles from a credible publication (in this case USA Today), then the Wikipedia editors do not go out and then hunt for a root source - we state the content here and reference accordingly. If the removing editor wishes for attribution beyond the cite ref, fine - then either make that change or suggest it here. But to wholesale remove the content is lazy, disrespectful, makes everyone else's job that much more difficult. airuditious (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Every comment on the 1st amendment implications of this case is opinion. That alone is not grounds for removal unless other objective tests are applied (expertise, secondary citations, etc.) James J. Lambden (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks James J. Lambden - I'm actually in the process of adding that content back in but in a revised form along with new sources I have compiled from numerous first amendment experts. airuditious (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Goal: Objective Article
I noticed that many leftist editors are using this article to promote their agenda. I ask all editors to intervene, remove emotions, and make this article as objective as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.172.44 (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:AGF. If you think the article is biased or "emotional", it would be more helpful to point out or cite specific passages that justify your claim. Making a vague "leftist editors are using this article to promote their agenda" statement is not constructive nor helpful in improving the article. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

USA Today
USA Today didn't "report" anything. It printed an opinion piece by Cathy Young.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * and therefore your constructive editorial suggestion is? Try to be constructive, we are building a page from scratch here.Keith Johnston (talk) 08:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My constructive suggestion is for editors not to misrepresent sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Title style
Shouldn't the title of this article be italicized? See MOS:ITALICTITLE. CIreland (talk) 09:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * MOS:MINORWORK says only the titles of major works (books etc.) should be italicised. Titles of essays etc. are simply quoted. &mdash; Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 09:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Someone just changed it into down case. Bad idea! Now it does read like it is in WP voice. 2600:1001:B028:7AA:585E:610D:960:7DD3 (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No It should be in normal letters.--Rævhuld (talk) 11:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes It should be in up case, like a proper noun for the title that it is. 2600:1001:B028:7AA:585E:610D:960:7DD3 (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

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


 * Without specifically looking at this case, Quora is more like a message board in a way. But I am not sure what is wiki policy about it. I know there are arguments for and against this piece by Sadedin. I have not looked into details Jazi Zilber (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Quora consists of user generated content and hence is not a WP:RS. NYMag, by the looks of it, is, but it still needs WP:DUE weight given, remembering that NYMag can hardly be described as a scientific publication and, therefore, cannot provide a scientific opinion itself. Since NYMag's article primarily cites other publications, I would prefer it if potential cites refer to the original articles instead (i.e. the ones NYMag cites). Kleuske (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. We can't just directly cite scientific publications and summarize their content, can we? That's what secondary sources are for, if I understand well. I found another such source citing Sadedin's reply although it doesn't focus on the content itself of the critic, only that it has been made. It would clarify things a bit more, I think, to include the stance of actual biologists like her so as to include a comprehensive coverage from as much relevant fields as possible (insofar as the memo's scientific claims are concerned), so any help or guidance on how to proceed from there is welcome.82.216.227.236 (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we should have no problem quoting Sadedin with these two secondary sources in hand. Her post being mentioned in The Guardian gives some notability. And with that excerpt appearing in the survey that NYMag did, we can also address her argument without citing Quora. Connor Behan (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In fact it seems the almost entirety of the Quora thing has been cited in Forbes. With these three secondary sources I'm going to go ahead and quote her in the article. 82.216.227.236 (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

quilette
First - what is this source? Their twitter says "A platform for free thought featuring unorthodox viewpoints in politics, science & art" which is a big red flag for WP:FRINGE. Their "about" page says something similar, about "dangerous ideas" (often a code phrase for "nonsense") but I can't access it because it's down.

Second - as an article this is a WP:PRIMARY source. It most certainly DOES NOT "provide an overview of academic opinions". It just has four scientists, probably cherry picked ones, commenting. I guess it would be ok to cite some of them with attribution BUT...

Third - ... by itself this is WP:UNDUE because this is just one source, with a particular bias, and cannot be called representative. It's cherry picked, both in terms of sources, and what is being chosen out of that particular source.

Please don't restore the material without discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Try to be constructive. You have a few options: Add references and summaries from RS yourself, leave a citation requesting additional sources or destroying.  Wikipedia is an iterative process, try to build, not destroy.  You have now removed the distinction between scientific and other opinion.  Lets hope that doesn't cause problems down the line.  1130pm in UK, too tired to argue further.  Will come back to points in AM.Keith Johnston (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You have failed to address any of the points (one, two or three) that I have made.
 * Also, the fact that Assange tweeted some troll crap, is not significant and is UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest we restrict opinions to those that received secondary coverage. So far I see Quillette covered in USA Today . The opinion I removed (Angela Saini) had no secondary coverage. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@James J. Lambden I have incorporated the USA Today pieceKeith Johnston (talk) 06:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Angela Saini is a recognized expert published by a reliable source with full attribution. Grayfell (talk) 01:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * By whom is she recognized as an expert in biology or social science? If it were so I'd expect secondary coverage. James J. Lambden (talk) 01:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Her utterance is neither of biological or otherwise scientific nature: it is a valid observation of a journalist about a certain subsociety, well within her recognized area of expertise. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The statement we cite to her is: "[the memo] reflected common misconceptions about the biological differences between men and women, and demonstrated a flawed understanding of the research it cited." That is clearly a statement about biology. So I ask again: by whom is she recognized as an expert on biology? James J. Lambden (talk)


 * If she were "just" a journalist, I wouldn't have included this. We shouldn't include every comment we can find. Saini has published a book on the subject of the science of biological sex differences through Harper Collins, which has been positively reviewed by The Economist, the Guardian, The Times, The Week,, etc. The New Statesman specifically recommends her latest book as an explanation of this issue with Silicon Valley without even mentioning the Guardian article. Her expertise has been established well enough that a single sentence of her attributed opinion can be included to help contextualize the article, especially since the article might not even last. If it really matters, Vox mentions the article, and uses stronger language than I did to make a similar point. Grayfell (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You had me at Vox (secondary coverage.) But that someone with no background or training in social science or biology could write a well-reviewed book on the intersection of social science and biology is more an indictment of the publishing industry and journalism than anything else. Oh well. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

First - This would be a completely understandable concern for a staff writer, who isn't simply responding to a request from Quillette. In this case, I think the people they are quoting have positions that are not fringe at all in their chosen fields. The "unorthodox views" umbrella is still fair because academics are mostly out of the public eye.

Second - Citing Quillette as an "overview of academic opinions" is something I would never do. I agree that these four scientists are cherry-picked, just like the two who wrote for Recode are. Quoting with attribution is indeed my goal and I only need to do that for Lee Jussim. He's the one whose statements I did not find printed elsewhere.

Third - No single source will be representative in a contentious issue like this. We impart a neutral POV to Wikipedia by referencing many of the ones that pass reliability / notability criteria. Regarding WP:UNDUE, if you think this article is missing sources that say the opposite of Jussim, by all means add them. Connor Behan (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I have several comments: I suggest that the people there be quoted with attribution, just like the other people in the section are. The quotes should be short and to the point, to avoid WP:UNDUE. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 01:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The whole section "Scientific Views" is simply a selection of experts who have commented on the memo. To call some source "cherry-picked" is beside the point.
 * The Quilette article is quoted in many places: here in NY Mag for instance, and in opinion columns by David Brooks in the NYT and Cathy Young in USA Today.
 * The first name is the one I know the best. Lee Jussim is a well-known and respected social psychologist, at least on par with anyone quoted in the section. Check his Google scholar page: his most famous work on self-fulfilling prophecies has been cited almost 900 times. He has also done a lot of work on stereotypes and accuracy, including a book book Social Perception and Social Reality by Oxford University Press.
 * It's a bit weird because three of the four people in the Quilette article are already quoted in the section. (Schmitt, Miller and Soh)

Damore's Background Relevancy?
Article has a high amount of focus on discrediting the manifesto's author by identifying his (lack of) work at Harvard University, but it's not relevant to the story of the manifesto and only serves to politicise the piece. Suggest trimming his background.--A1Qicks (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * While Damore's previous tenure is not relevant at this point, then his current or former academic positions are not personal life. - Mardus /talk 15:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The removal of his academic time is here. - Mardus /talk 15:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * IMO his brief touch with biology is relevant, since this is a hint where his "biological" ideas come from. But this kind of background analysis must come from sources, otherwise it will be WP:SYNTH. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Clearly if his background in biology is not relevant then surely Megan Smith's background as Google VP is just as irrelevant and shouldn't be mentioned either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.100.79.42 (talk) 07:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Select statements and support

 * "While many are applauding Google's termination of Damore" --> 1st sentence
 * "discussing any controversial issue is becoming more and more difficult in the workplace" --> 2nd paragraph
 * "many Americans incorrectly believe they have more rights and protections in the workplace than they actually do" --> 5th paragraph
 * "specific financial disincentives (i.e. lawsuits for hostile work environment claims, etc.)" --> 9th paragraph
 * "coupled with at-will work laws, companies like Google are empowered to terminate employees for nearly any reason they wish" --> 3rd & 4th paragraphs
 * "very few employee protections remain such as those outlined in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act" --> 4th paragraphs
 * Granted, Title VII is not mentioned specifically in the linked article but the core idea of Title VII is mentioned which is also why I added the the link to the CVA and noted specifically Title VII of that act - so the reader could easily jump there if they desired to dig deeper.

References used

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



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

Feedback

 * I hope you don't mind that I reformatted this slightly for readability. Wikipedia is an old site and talk pages have many idiosyncrasies.
 * As I mentioned on my talk page, The problem is not the content, per say, but how it's being presented. This is a lot to process, so to start with, let's look at the third example listed above.
 * ...many Americans incorrectly believe they have more rights and protections in the workplace than they actually do.
 * The Vox source doesn't say "many Americans..." it says that according to Angela Cornell, director of the Labor Law Clinic at Cornell University, "Sometimes Americans think they have more rights at work than they actually do ... You can be fired for any reason or no reason." This is the kind of clear attribution that would be needed to include this. We are making a broad, unverifiable statement, so we need to explain where it's coming from. It's surely an accurate statement, but that's not the only consideration.
 * If sources do not explicitly mention the Civil Rights Act or Title VII, than mentioning that is original research. It's an interesting point, but it absolutely does not belong until it's made by reliable sources.
 * I could say more, but that's a starting point. Grayfell (talk) 00:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

...

A person at Google familiar with the matter said Damore's dismissal could not have been retaliation for his NLRB complaint because the company only learned of the complaint after Damore was fired. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 04:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia accounts are like Google jobs &mdash; Anyone who arrives should be welcomed to the team. I'm sure you're cut out for it. In any case, I'd say that an article about a polarized controversy will indeed sound like a bunch of attributed statements, for better or for worse. A sudden break from this tone should probably be avoided, even if a few side topics like the definition of at-will employment are indisputable. And as for talking about what "many Americans" believe, it is probably fine to say "many Americans enjoy rock climbing" without discussing specific numbers and how they were obtained. But when the statement is a little bit more accusatory than that, the burden goes up. That's my $0.02. Connor Behan (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

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


 * Generally, we should not quote those at full length and detail. One would do the same for each one cited and a monstrous article will result. Those are mere summaries.
 * PS. I edited the first lines to remove useless Burdensome text removed. Post citation in various newspapers was used as justification to include it. Yet, this is for notes etc. The poor reader isn't supposed to suffer for it.
 * I have not touched the content though Jazi Zilber (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I actually tried to remove the first lines of 'X cited Y in Z' but it got reversed. As for the corrected version, however, I think you are sort of interpolating by conflating two arguments into one sentence and giving it a new and slightly different meaning. I don't think she is arguing that the entire field of evopsych is dubious because it relies on the nature vs. nurture dichotomy. She is arguing on one hand that the author himself relies on that, which presumably ignores recent advances made by dev. biologists and so on (I assume that research on these fields must move very quickly since epigenetics is still somewhat in infancy and imaging tech keeps progressing); and separately from that, she questions predictive arguments and justifications made by evolutionary psychologists due to bad precedents etc. This is to show different (and indeed differing) takes from different fields of expertise. 82.216.227.236 (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I just tried something else which hopefully has "nature vs nurture" tied to Damore and not evo psych. Connor Behan (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the first paragraph in that section is now the coatrack. Connor Behan (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Interesting people
These sources are not suitable at the moment. But perhaps we can watch to see if newspapers mention them. Good night! Connor Behan (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sabine Hossenfelder's blog which someone briefly added.
 * Jillian York's blog.
 * Another Quillette article whose point was already covered by Cynthia Lee.
 * A funny parody.
 * Scott Adams video.
 * Scott Aaronson's blog.


 * we should stop this flow of inflating the reactions sections. It seems to grow as 20% per day and will become monstrous very soon Jazi Zilber (talk) 07:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I'll stop looking for new pages to add. Connor Behan (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Brevity, PLEASE!!!!
The article is getting longer now with each new edit.

New articles and comments will keep coming.

Adding five lines per every new headline / commentary will make the article an unmanageable mess.

Be AS CONCISE AS POSSIBLE when adding new material or editing.

Thanks everybody in advance Jazi Zilber (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I beg all editors not to use this point as yet another excuse for biased editing. We have had enough Jazi Zilber (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, it keeps getting longer because some editors insist on filling it up with garbage. What'd you expect? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

diversitymemo.com no longer valid
Please see. It now forwards to James Damore's website https://firedfortruth.com/. --Nanite (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Intriguingly, the version on the new site differs from the one that was on diversitymemo.com. Compare https://web.archive.org/web/20170809021151/https://diversitymemo.com/ against https://firedfortruth.com – the captions on the bell curve diagram for example are different, and the firedfortruth.com version contains an entire section, titled "Higher variance among men", that was missing in the diversitymemo.com version. --Andreas JN 466 01:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Good catch! I didn't notice that. Right, so as it stands, the PDF copy on firedfortruth.com matches the old diversitymemo.com ; however the html copy on firedfortruth.com is different. --Nanite (talk) 04:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Firedfortruth says explicitly that the pdf is the "more detailed version"
 * Bye, mashable published first the pdf / Google Doc. There are more onions versions available btw
 * Also archive.web of diversity memo.com Jazi Zilber (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Poll

 * ✅: All the big newspapers recite Quillette.--Rævhuld (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅: Quillette seems to have become more notable as of late (even before the recent piece, that is). Jazi Zilber (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅: We quote opinions of people with expertise and notability. Whether that opinion appears in Quillette or somewhere else is irrelevant. We have no reason suspect that the authors at this publication are doctoring the quotations they gather. Trying to blacklist the source itself as if it were Breitbart or something is ridiculous. Connor Behan (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅: the source is good and the authors are qualified Keith Johnston (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅: There's no issue with this source or the views expressed in them, regardless of whether individual editors like or agree with those views. Cjhard (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅: The Quillette piece is widely cited. Sources and opinions referencing and linking to it – approvingly – include reports and opinions from across the political spectrum, among them https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/opinion/sundar-pichai-google-memo-diversity.html https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/nerdy-guy-writes-memo-world-has-nervous-breakdown/article35960330/ https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201708/the-psychology-the-new-mccarthyism https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/08/09/libertarian-site-suffers-ddos-attack-after-supporting-google-worker/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/08/08/googler-fired-diversity-memo-had-point-researchers-agree/548518001/ http://observer.com/2017/08/why-google-firing-the-diversity-memo-writer-was-the-wrong-call-possibly-illegal-james-damore-sundari-pichai-danielle-brown/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/google-science-women-brains_us_598aea57e4b0449ed506b6c0 It would be hard to find a source that was more relevant to this article. --Andreas JN 466 07:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅: Expert opinion. Currently we include non-expert opinion from other sources which I wouldn't mind trimming. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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


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

Phrasing
The section above discussing Quilette has been collapsed, so I am writing this here. I have added a capsule summary of Lee Jussim's comments in Quilette. I have put his comments just after the paragraph discussing Haidt, because Jussim is a founding member of Heterodox Academy together with Haidt and some others. I have added a reference to David Brooks citing the Quilette article in his opinion column to indicate notability. Feel free to revert/edit/discuss. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 14:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

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

And putting this in the lede is especially ridiculous.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I just removed it from the lede. I.e. I reverted the user who strangely put it there, not you. I agree with you as to the motives of Assange. But I don't think it matters. Assange and the sources discussing him in the Google memo context are notable. Connor Behan (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There are people who are far more notable than Assange, like, uh, the president, who tweet all the time, their tweets get widespread coverage and yet we don't go including them or writing them all up. Unless the tweet by Assange has notability independent of this memo, it's WP:UNDUE and shouldn't be here.


 * That poll doesn't belong here either.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ummm, if Drumpf tweets about the Google memo in particular, yes of course we will have to include it. I can take or leave the poll. Connor Behan (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The point is, that unless there really is widespread coverage of this tweet in sources - which would necessitate at least a source or two which is about the tweet (rather than just mentioning it in passing) - there's nothing notable here. I mean, so Assange posted another trolling tweet? So what? What is the encyclopedic value of that information? To call it tabloid-y gossip is to treat it generously.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * He got two job offers, one from an extremely notable organization (Wikileaks.) RS covered them, we include them. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, you were just running around Wikipedia screaming about how the fact that a source covers something is not enough for inclusion. And now BOOM! complete 180! Why exactly? I'll answer for you. Because it's all bullshit excuses for your WP:IJUSTDON'TLIKEIT and the WP:IJUSTLIKEIT. There is no source which discusses this "job offer" (sic - it's not, it's just a troll) in depth. There's a couple sources which mention it in passing. It's a troll. We don't include random trolls because they're unencyclopedic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Calm down and read Identifying_reliable_sources which explains the difference between the opinion piece I argued to exclude (in a different article) and the verifiable statement of fact I'm arguing to include here. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

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

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


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


 * It's a week-long edit in part to prevent constant updates due to new coverage. In terms of the edit war, I'd suggest it's the to-and-fro of Volunteer Marek with a few others over whether the poll should be included. No opinions on overkill, just providing what context I can see. --A1Qicks (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Really? You sure it's not the sudden appearance of all these sketchy-ass accounts with less than 100 edits starting up shit on the article and brigading the talk page? Oh wait...! Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * VM I've seen you edit in other articles and I have a lot of respect for you. This is an honest question. I was asking here because it's not clear from the RfPP and I wasn't sure. A1Q offered a suggestion. No one is saying you're wrong or right here for whether or not the poll should have been included (I would say no at the moment). But I also didn't really see a clear edit war looking through the history. If I'm missing something obvious, please let me know. - Scarpy (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree it's overkill. But semi- is needed for sure.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Edit war implies two sides. I wouldn't go so far as to highlight a variety of different people you've had disagreements with, the only recent context I could see (which I was providing) was that the poll was there, then gone, then there, then gone, with you being present for all the "gones". In fact, the RfPP was submitted by Objective Reason, with whom you've had some disagreements over, yes, the poll. Just providing an answer to the question asked about the reason for it.- A1Qicks (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Article is protected, but comma fix required
"A survey by Blind, an anonymous corporate chat app>>>,<<< found..." Equinox ◑ 19:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Samsara 08:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

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


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


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


 * Disagree It is not that long. There are much longer political topics that are not being split. Splitting this now would be more confusing. As for the reactions, not all of them are from the same background. There seems to be more than one psychologist chiming in. Should we really call these 'scientific views' and is there a need to include so many? Psychology is not really hard sceince but soft science and can evolutionary psychology really be considered science? Isn't it more of a theory or a framework that is impossible to prove scientifically? 2001:14BA:2F8:F700:5921:D63A:549F:F00B (talk) 08:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Without delving into the subject of whether the notion of 'hard science' makes sense, whether a field being 'soft' somewhat weakens the predictive power of its findings or the validity of the field of evopsych (because I'm sure you're going to be "well, actually"'d by evopsych proponents and so on and I'd like to defuse any argument on that account before it's too late), it is true that there are many, many reactions by psychologists and evolutionary psychologists that basically say the same thing, with little nuance. I don't see the point of adding this many reactions unless one wanted to create through sheer quantity a 'compelling illusion of consensus' which is visibly specific to those fields. From the sources I could gather, neuroscientists and biologists are much more split on the issue or are even explicitly intent on 'debunking' the memo's interpretations. All these views are diverse and come from a broad range of people which I think the article fails to accurately reflect. 37.163.66.34 (talk) 10:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


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


 * Will be challenging to fix without starting all those POV issues all over again.
 * Might be better to leave the thing in peace rather than have all those issues argued and re-argued as infinitum Jazi Zilber (talk) 12:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


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

We have an agreement above that very long should be removed. Alternatively, it can be replaced with overly detailed. Maybe one of templates from the Category:Neutrality templates would do, but it's not discussed or considered. --George Ho (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Removed. Samsara 08:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

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

37.174.67.18 (talk) 03:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A good third of the quotations are basically 'Something something professor of something psychology said they agreed with the memo's contents something something'. Can't we just add a subsection devoted to reactions from psychologists with a quick summary describing the consensus among them, with a few nuances added if need be? Is the goal here to quickly inform the reader or just hammer them with the same quotes over and over again?
 * The section is entitled 'scientific views' but many of the quotes are actually political or nonscientific in nature. Do we actually care what Pr. Miller has to say about what sex ratios have to offer to businesses? Do we care whether Pr. Peterson thinks the manifesto is an 'anti-diversity screed' or not? Why is Peter Singer's opinion of the author's firing included? I could go on and on. As I understand this section is about to checking the accuracy of the scientific claims made in the memo. Anything else is tangential at best, off-topic at worst. The 'others' section is already crowded enough that we don't need additional opinion quotes clogging up the section.
 * Capitalization is inconsistent. I don't care whether we should say 'a professor of something' or 'Professor of something' or 'Professor in something' or even nothing at all but not all four at once, it is overall untidy. Stick to a single naming scheme, it makes the section easier on the reader's eyes.
 * A lot of words are simply unnecessary and shouldn't be there: "He finishes his article by saying" in David Schmitt's quote, "Saying:" in Gina Rippon's; "On the other hand" in Sadedin's; 'stated of Damore's content that there are "serious articles, published in leading peer-reviewed scientific journals, supporting it"' should really become 'said there are serious articles, published in leading peer-reviewed scientific journals, supporting [Damore's content]', etc. Concision, people!
 * Some of the quotes are overly long, and some are overly short. Why does Schmitt gets twice as much paragraph space as Rippon's and Peterson's quotes taken together? Especially both these people deserve more attention since 1) Rippon's quote is not detailed at all: you have all these people saying the memo's accurate and fair and all that, and suddenly someone disagrees with no explanation; the fact that she isn't a psychologist is even more intriguing for the reader, and 2) Peterson actually inspired the writing of the memo itself. He deserves more space than most. If anything he should be at the forefront. Schmitt's quote on the other hand should just be halved, especially the last sentence which should just be removed.
 * The author of the memo actually makes several claims, but the reactions are unified and muddied. When people say the science is 'right' or 'wrong', 'fair' or 'dubious', it is unclear what is actually meant. It could be referring to the papers the author cites; it could be referring to the claim that there are significant sex differences in psychology; it could be referring to the 'biological' origins of such differences (also note that since the term 'biological' is extremely vague and the since author makes little effort to clarify what is precisely meant - genetics? epigenetics? prenatal development? postnatal development? -, at the very least the reaction itself should pinpoint the nature of the origin itself if possible); it could be referring to the claim that these differences explain the current gender ratio at Google and other tech firms; or it could be referring to the claim that diversity programs are counterproductive. Limiting reactions to "he's mostly right" or "he's mostly wrong" fails to accurately inform the reader as to what is at hand and is nothing more than a subtle form of POV pushing.
 * Why the hell does Slate Star Codex get any mention at all? Should we just add every blog post as long as the blogger has enough Internet fame and the blog post is sufficiently full of links?
 * What is the reaction from a computer scientist like Cynthia Lee is doing in the 'scientific views' sections? How is her field of expertise relevant to the claims being made by the author of the memo?
 * Why are there no reactions from geneticists, sociologists or gender studies scholars? I'm sure some of them have something to say in some RS, and the claim is relevant to these fields after all. Generally speaking there is a huge field imbalance here, and maybe there should be separate reactions for each field (psychology, neuroscience, developmental biology, evolutionary biology, etc.)
 * Can't we just add a subsection devoted to reactions from psychologists with a quick summary describing the consensus among them, with a few nuances added if need be? Summarizing a "consensus" would be WP:OR. Wikipedia editors are not qualified to evaluate scientific claims. These kinds of things happen when Wikipedia articles are created about breaking news stuff. What typically happens in these cases is that a bunch of stuff is added indiscriminately to the article, as long is as it is "notable". Which results in the monstrosity you see. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 11:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 1. We can definitely tighten things up so that people in the same field are discussed in the same paragraph. However, we cannot say they have a consensus. 2, 3, 4. I agree. 5. Balancing the lengths is a good idea, but Peterson deserves less space than most, not more. If he inspired Damore and interviewed him, it becomes harder to trust that he's giving an objective opinion. 6. This sounds a lot like a complaint about something the article is not doing. 7. Grant specifically made a second response to the memo because he was prodded by Slate Star Codex. That's the only reason it's here. 8. I was about to remove the paragraph for that reason. But then I saw that Lee teaches statistics and based a lot of her reaction on statistical fallacies that the memo apparently had. 9. I tried to find those. Hopefully you'll have better luck. Connor Behan (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: memorandum titles italicized on WP
So, when the article becomes unlocked again, I hope an editor adds " " at top of page.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


 * The memo focuses on the claim that biology affects technical inclination.
 * Coverage of the memo's content focuses on the claim that biology affects technical inclination.
 * Soh's field is not gender studies but sexual neuroscience.
 * Sexual neuroscience encompasses the study of the effects of biology on inclination.
 * She wrote an article responding specifically to the memo and addressing the author's claim that biology affects technical inclination.
 * The text we cite to the article concerns biological effects on technical inclination.
 * Please explain what part of that is a "coat rack."
 * James J. Lambden (talk) 06:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The part that didn't even mention the subject of this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Debra W. Soh a "scientist", really?!? She describes herself in LinkedIn and ResearchGate as a Playboy columnist and freelance sex writer.. She's been active at York University in Toronto, but only as a research assistant. ResearchGate says, that she only participated in authoring three (3) papers about pedophilia, she got a Ph.D. with a work about male paraphilic sex addicts. Google Scholar doesn't even know her. Playboy published thirtyseven of her columns. No, IMHO it's no good idea to mention her as a "scientist" in this field. --2001:A61:22DB:F401:CC67:B929:20C2:2A0E (talk) 07:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)