Talk:Neil Gross

Hi - The page I was working on for Neil Gross was still in draft form in its sandbox when you moved it. I realize that I probably didn't include that critical information at the top of the page (I'm really new at this!). Anyway, would you be able to remove the redirect so I can go back to working on the editing? My intention is to summarize the interview and include some quoted material as well. Also note that there are now two pages for this same individual; one, the original, is just Neil Gross and one - the one you added - includes his middle name. Otherwise they are currently identical. I suspect one of them should be deleted but that's way above my pay grade, as they say :-). Please let me know if you think there is a different way I should handle this. Thanks! 1stCoastal (talk) 04:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure thing! I can move it to a draft page by titling it "Draft: Neil Gross" so you can continue to work on it before it goes live again. Comatmebro  (talk) 05:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That's excellent :-) 1stCoastal (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neil Gross. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140424210055/http://www.transeo-review.eu/What-is-the-new-sociology-of-Ideas.html to http://www.transeo-review.eu/What-is-the-new-sociology-of-Ideas.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard
I've opened a thread at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard to address the podcast-sourced section I WP:BLPREMOVEd and other sourcing concerns. --Netoholic @ 16:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Brow review
Per this revert by Fyddlestix, it is HIGHLY irregular to be removing tags - I am watching this article and if I see a good edit which addresses a tag, I'll remove it immediately. If YOU remove it, you take ownership of the concern and might be made to answer for it. In this case, that quote is from the ABSTRACT of the review. Something tells me you don't actually have access to the whole review itself in order to accurately justify this revert of an inline concern tag nor to state it is "consistent w. the tone of the piece". If you have the review, then quote me the first line of the 4th paragraph, or else self-revert and put back the tag. I won't judge you either way, and if you self-revert I'll blank this section and let go of the issue. But if you don't self-revert, and don't prove you have access to the full review, then this issue becomes a deep concern. -- Netoholic @ 04:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please STOP typing in CAPITALS as if you were LECTURING other editors. It's irritating. So is the unnecessary pinging, which I've asked you not to do (I think three times?) already. Not going to dignify the rest of this comment with a reply - you can restore the tag if you're married to it, it's still silly and completely misinterprets the meaning of the quote (among academics, calling someone an apologist like that is an insult, not a compliment, and certainly not "puffery" - the tag was nonsensical). Fyddlestix (talk) 05:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * So you don't actually have access to the full review itself, have removed an inline tag by giving the impression you did have access by saying it was "consistent w. the tone of the piece", and now refuse to self-revert to correct your error. Is that correct? -- Netoholic @ 05:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Is that correct? No? I said nothing of the sort? Please don't put words in other editors' mouths. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please provide proof that you have access to the full review, or else your revert and removal of an inline tag may be construed as misleading. -- Netoholic @ 05:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The scholarship on the conservative personality has never been so voluminous and vituperative as it is today. Taking the lead from sociologists such as Theodor Adorno and Richard Hofstadter in the 1950s and 1960s, scholars both here and in Europe have been having a field day in the caricaturizing and defaming the conservative. Happy? Your tag was still nonsense, and I still stand by removal. What did the theatrics accomplish, exactly, other than illustrate that you seem more intent on acting like a jerk than actually improving any articles? have difficulty assuming good faith? Fyddlestix (talk) 05:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Do you want to help us out here also? Its your quote originally and you also removed the inline tag. Care to quote us the last line of the 5th paragraph? -- Netoholic @ 05:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Tryp asked you to stop pinging them, remember? Fyddlestix (talk) 05:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Do I want to be helpful? Yes, of course I do. This talk section began after I logged out last night, and I just logged back in now. In between, I was asleep etc. There is no need for sarcasm and condescension.
 * I'm losing track of all the inline tags coming and going, but I have no objection if anyone wants to add, or add back, such a tag, and we can discuss it. (I also have no objection to other editors removing them when they feel it to be appropriate.) Looking at the two diffs of my edits shown here, the first was where I attempted to respond to Netoholic's concern that it was UNDUE to base the entire section on the podcast, so I cut back on it a lot and added in its place other material that I thought would be an improvement. Of course, there is no reason to think that it could not be improved further. The second diff was where I attempted to respond to Netoholic's concern that I should not simply present a (partially) positive quote from a critic of Gross, without also presenting criticism. So I added some criticism and thought that I had addressed the concern raised by the inline tag. If I missed something in doing so, one can just tell me without making it personal.
 * More broadly, I find it strange to be arguing (1) that we should remove what the BLP subject says, and (2) add more about people finding fault with the BLP subject.
 * I also think that it would be a good idea to add or rewrite material that one thinks needs fixing, instead of just tagging or reverting. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * it's disappointing to see an argument from one article spillover to the other..... especially when someone's not familiar with the topic. So at this point I think the deletion would require consensus as there is a gross misunderstanding of policy.- I'm not sure if these edits are purposely disruptive or simply a misunderstanding. What we are looking for is positive contributions not delete Masters.Moxy (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have removed the two primary tags. A secondary source is not required to reference a direct quote. A secondary source is needed for the two synth tags. While it may be undoubtedly true to someone familiar with the topic, or to someone who reads all the primary material that other researchers have reached the same conclusion, primary sources to the research itself do not cut it unless its a clear sky is blue situation. Without a secondary source stating they are the same, we are basically unreferenced stating in wikivoice 'All these researchers agree' which would be OR. Or if you prefer, an unsourced conclusion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Restoring the tags. Without a secondary source, we have no way of knowing these quotes are not cherry-picked to push a POV. --Netoholic @ 16:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest that we leave those two tags pending further discussion, even though I obviously disagree with them. There's no hurry to remove them. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * In fact, I just added a few, myself. { --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting that you didn't likewise tag the Gross's quotes and his reply to critics. Do you still feel you're editing toward NPOV? -- Netoholic @ 04:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do. I've had a lot of experience dealing with POV disputes. One thing that happens, when a good-faith editor comes across POV-pushing and seeks to correct it, is that the good-faith editor must make a lot of edits that go in the opposite POV direction from that of the POV-pusher. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm so glad you can sympathize with what I've been having to deal with. Keep in mind, that the gratuitous self-quotes appeared in this article first, and you failed to address them on your own. You then submitted a review with glowing praise (Hermanowicz), even going so far as to cherry-pick praise from an obviously critical review (Brow). I also note that in both those cases, your quotes come from the abstracts available on the public internet, not from the main body of those reviews, and have yet to prove that you actually had access to the full reviews when you cited them. If you don't have access to the full reviews (and you haven't given the proof I asked for above), you cannot claim to be representing those reviews fairly. Next you "balance with criticism" by including a broad unsourced statement (yet still keeping the cherry-picked quote). Your next big edit was to add what you think is confirmation of Gross's conclusion, but which in reality is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH since those should only be added in the capacity that they specifically address Gross's work itself, not in general terms. You then do the same thing again (OR and SYNTH). Then, after actual, highly-cited peer reviews were added, you WP:POINTedly tag-bombed them. Do you still feel you're editing toward NPOV? -- Netoholic @ 18:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously expecting a "no?" They obviously did think those revisions where NPOV, that's why they made them. You should assume good faith and focus on content rather than badgering editors who disagree with you - especially with requests like "prove you have access to x source," and what amounts to "you're pushing a pov, admit it!" which, imo, are way out of line and completely counterproductive. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * This might have to turn into a WP:LASTWORD situation. I don't see any sign that Netoholic's concerns are gaining traction with other editors, and I suspect the discussion will stagnate soon.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is one of those times where the dispute created new problems. I fully support this edit, the number of reviews (both positive and negative, several of them of dubious weight/relevance) being cited before was excessive. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I support it as well. Netoholic -- I strongly suggest that you should not go to the edge of 3RR on this one.  I've had a look at your block log...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If sourced commentary is going to be suppressed, then we should start a new article Why Are Professors Liberal and Why Do Conservatives Care?. – Lionel(talk) 10:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between editorial judgment and suppression. Are you seriously accusing me and other editors of suppressing information? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

While I appreciate this edit which restores a few peer reviews as minimal secondary sources, it still doesn't go far enough to address the NPOV problems in this section. The Brow review which inspired this talk page section has completely gone missing. The only full quotes are still overtly glowing praise which neither represent the sources nor represent the bulk of reviews. The section "In a field of study where experts disagree" is another section of WP:SYNTH (since those references are selected by the editor as examples of studies which disagree but should instead be sources that say studies disagree if that's the point meant to be conveyed). The "some have taken opposing views specifically on Gross' methods and interpretations" misinterprets and radically downplays the feedback given by the peer reviewers. Lastly, it presents the authors primary-sourced and questionably selected views as dominant over peers, by giving him the last word in the section in a way which wrongly implies that the peer reviewers are the conservatives who are "intentionally distorting the results of demographic research". Structurally, the section is lacking a chronological flow and so the various works, secondary sources, criticism, and praise are a nebulous jumble. I would arrange it back into a three paragraph structure. Para 1 is the 2006 PAP study and 2007 working paper presentation. Para 2 is the 2013 book, longest by a measure compared to either other paragraph since its the major treatise, including the Society peer reviews and his response (all prose). Para 3 is the 2014 essay and any other various follow-ups (room to expand in the future). -- Netoholic @ 08:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)