Talk:Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft

A Reference

 * "The Quincy Institute opposes America’s endless wars. Why should that be a scandal?" by Stephen Wertheim https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/30/quincy-institute-opposes-americas-endless-wars-why-should-that-be-scandal/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.35.52 (talk) 11:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Washington Free Beacon
Is this seriously being used as a trustworthy source? 97.88.151.165 (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's an established media outlet that can be found in the Library of Congress (https://www.loc.gov/item/lcwaN0008251/); to me at least it passes the "sniff test." Like all publications, it has strengths and limitations; see its own Wikipedia entry for more information. Normchou (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's a question of "trustworthy" as it is ideology. The Washington Free Beacon is ideologically neoconservative so it's going to be opposed to dovish foreign policy, natch.  As long as this is identified in the article, I don't have any issue with citing WFB as criticism.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C6:4300:2540:8C24:3A2A:D678:C9 (talk) 04:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Cannot find WFB in WP:RSPSOURCES, though there were some scattered mentions in past discussions. Inline attribution should be given when citing this source. Normchou   💬 06:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Serious WP:NPOV problems
There are numerous WP:NPOV problems with the article:


 * The lead should note highlight criticisms of being anti-semitism and pro-China if it's exclusively sourced to Tom Cotton, the Jerusalem Post, and Table magazine.
 * Reliably sourced content from a high-quality source has been scrubbed from the article for the sole reason that it doesn't attack the think tank like all the other content in the article.
 * The article fails to flesh out what the think tank actually advocates for. Through WP:UNDUE weight, the article makes the organization seem like a wacko conspiracy theorist organization like globalresearch.ca.

To fix the article:


 * Criticisms should be removed from the lead
 * Reliably sourced content should be restored to the article
 * Basics about the organization (sourced to RS) should be put into the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Re Reliably sourced content from a high-quality source has been scrubbed from the article for the sole reason that it doesn't attack the think tank like all the other content in the article: No, it was removed because it is precisely a normative criticism but creatively introduced as a positive description of the supposed foreign policy position of Quincy. Some direct quotes from the piece:


 * It is perfectly acceptable to include this source to address the WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE concerns, but it should be used in a way that does not distort the original meaning of the piece. Normchou   💬 15:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * There is no dispute in that source or other sources that the Quincy Institute advocates for a grand strategy of restraint. It is the single most basic aspect of the think tank. If you want to add Deudney and Ikenberry's criticisms of the grand strategy of restraint, I have no opposition to that. What I do oppose is to add the criticism to the actual description of the grand strategy. I thought this would be noncontroversial but we don't write content on Wikipedia like this: "A advocated for B, which is a dumb thing to advocate for". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Re If you want to add Deudney and Ikenberry's criticisms of the grand strategy of restraint, I have no opposition to that: No, they are not criticizing "the grand strategy of restraint", but "restraint" of a particular flavor called "Quincy". Also, there is zero mention of Quincy's version of "restraint" being a "grand strategy" in the pieces you listed above. Normchou   💬 16:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, beware that the FP opinion piece is WP:PRIMARY with regard to the subject (cf. Full disclosure: I played a minor role in this initiative and presently serve on one of the institute’s advisory committees.). Normchou   💬 16:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Waalt is both an expert and advocate for a grand strategy of restraint. He's perfectly fine as a source for what the think tank stands for. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Restraint is one of several grand strategy options. Walt explicitly refers to it as one. If you want to dumb the article down, you can call it a "foreign policy of restraint". I don't particularly care. So long as the basics of the think tank can be covered, some of the severe NPOV problems will have been lessened. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Restraint is one of several grand strategy options. Walt explicitly refers to it as one is irrelavant to the discussion. This book was published in 2014, well before Quincy was founded. You are mixing your own WP:OR/WP:SYNTH/interpretation of the FP article/its author's previous opinions with what RSes say about the subject of this article. Given the sources that are there, a mention of "restraint" under "History" is the best we can do. Normchou   💬 16:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I came here to say what this section points out. The balance of the article is devoted to "criticism." Wikipedia should not be a platform for rhetorical strategies that label critics as immoral rather than engaging with their critiques. That's obnoxious. Besides, such serious charges ought to be supported with evidence, not just asserted as opinion. It's easy to demonstrate that e.g. Charles Lindbergh and Henry Ford were antisemitic. It's not just a matter of opinion. Where is the evidence re the Quincy Institute? What are the names of the people accused? What is the consensus? Don't give me an over-the-top characterization by a politician and expect me to swallow it.

More fundamentally, what is the history of the Quincy Institute? If it is nothing but a straw man for partisans to set fire to, then it's not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If it is notable, then this article is lacking basic information. — ℜ ob C. alias ALAROB 15:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Re The balance of the article is devoted to "criticism": There is a specific definition for WP:BALANCE, and it entails reliable sources (also, see WP:FALSEBALANCE and Neutral point of view/FAQ). The correct way to fix this is to find different views in RSes and then duly present them in proportion to their prominence. Re Don't give me an over-the-top characterization by a politician and expect me to swallow it: This is your own view, and your personal views have little impact on maintaining NPOV (unless they are also published in relevant RSes). Normchou   💬 19:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I assume you're not recommending that I help turn this article into a WP:QUOTEFARM. Anyway, to clarify, I'm not writing as a volunteer editor but as a dissatisfied reader. I came here to learn about the Quincy Institute and found an article as insubstantial as cotton candy.
 * Let me repeat my most fundamental question: What is the history of the Quincy Institute? Using reliable sources to narrate that history is the most neutral and encyclopedic way to give readers info they can use to form their own judgments. Balanced or not, I don't appreciate being fed professionally crafted quotes that are designed to persuade rather than inform. I can find that anywhere. — ℜ ob C. alias ALAROB 21:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding criticism in the lead
Per WP:CREATELEAD:

Also:

The non-WP:PRIMARY RSes on this think tank overwhelmingly point to criticisms, so why would an editor try to hide them from our readers? Normchou  💬 18:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That's BS. Every think tank, politician and subject has been criticized for something or the other. For example, Deudney and Ikenberry criticize restraint, but they have in turn been criticized themselves (that's how academic debates work). It would be insane to add "Ikenberry has been criticized" to his lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I started a discussion on the NPOV noticeboard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Inserting_%22X_has_been_criticized%22_to_the_lead_of_a_small_article . I think the edits in question are a disgrace and the content should not be restored in the absence of consensus per WP:ONUS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I believe it would be better to build up detailed commentary including criticism and them summarize that in the lead when it becomes detailed enough. I support expanding the criticism section (possibly renaming it to Reception), but I think including a generic criticism statement in the lead does not say much, unless it makes a specific point.
 * There is also a lot of useful commentary in Ikenberry's paper which is not necessarily part of his criticism of the institute, but is more of a commentary that supporters could agree with (e.g. it representing a foreign policy coalition between right libertarians, progressive left, and neo-realists) which I think can be included outside of the Criticism section and in History. Additionally, the Washington Post editorial includes useful information and attributions that can be expanded. Rauisuchian (talk) 01:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I mentioned this below, but that paper was published in Survival, the in-house journal of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a think-tank who consistently refuses to reveal its funding (though reports indicate it receives nearly half of it from the government of Bahrain.) While the journal does meet the bare minimum for being considered academic, it is a low-quality source as far as journals go and clearly WP:BIASed given that it is part of a think-tank that directly opposes the Quincy Institute's goals.  I'm not sure that we should be citing it at all, but I'd strenuously oppose more than a sentence or two devoted to it at most. --Aquillion (talk) 09:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Should lead say it has been criticized?
Should the lead to this article state that the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft "has been criticized for its orientation and stances on policy issues"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Survey

 * No. It's a violation of WP:NPOV and is WP:UNDUE. Every think tank, politician and subject has been criticized for something or the other. By highlighting this criticism in the lead, we simultaneously communicate nothing of substance (who hasn't been criticized?), yet also suggest that the organization is fringe. The criticism in question ranges from the absurd (Tom Cotton's views on Quincy), weak (the Jerusalem Post saying that renowned scholars associated with Quincy such as Stephen Walt, and John Mearsheimer have written critical works on US foreign policy regarding Israel), tepid (Tablet Magazine noting that two fellows of the institute have downplayed Chinese atrocities), and academic (two prominent academics who support one particular grand strategy arguing against the one advocated by the Quincy institute). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No. A quick Google News and Google Scholar search shows no indication that the subject is noteworthy for being criticized or controversial. The entire criticism section feels WP:UNDUE (it has the problem, common to such sections, where every piece criticizing it has been dropped in.)  The first one is cited to the house journal of another think tank; the second one is a single comment by a senator with no WP:SUSTAINED coverage; and the third is a patently WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim cited to a single biased source.  This isn't the sort of thing that should be making up half the article, nor is any of it leadworthy - throwing a bunch of one-off statements with no followup into an article in a bloated controversy section and then trying to use them to argue the subject as a whole is controversial is WP:SYNTH - that is to say, a collection of trivial, non-leadworthy pieces is still nontrivial (and probably should be significantly trimmed.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No. Not in the lead, and the Criticism section seems WP:UNDUE in its size. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. A sentence in the lead that just says it has been criticized doesn't say much, unless it includes the specific criticism. Without detail, it almost serves to make the article look less NPOV, and thus benefit the subject as "unjustly criticized" off the bat. Outside of the lead and in the main body, detailed debate, support, and criticism doesn't seem undue to me, and there can be a reception section that also includes positive as well as negative views. However, if one wants to limit the size of the criticism section, it would be better to include the more academic sources as a primary component of that section, for encyclopedic nature. I think the academic critique (by Deudney and Ikenberry) should have a bit more detail, as the way it is quoted now makes it look like an arbitrary offhand statement when it's a detailed research paper that thoroughly addresses the subject. This was the reasoning behind my edit which you reverted, and I believe it would be justified to restore the edit. Rauisuchian (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I restored. Thanks for the explanation. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 02:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a quick clarification - the source in question was published in Survival, the house journal of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a think-tank infamously cagey about who its sponsors are (investigations have indicated that over half of it comes from the government of Bahrain.) While it does have peer review and meets the bare minimum to be called a scholarly source, it has a fairly low impact factor, and broadly speaking the house journal of a think tank isn't really a very good source - people are waving it around as if it's the strongest source on the page, when I'd say it barely warrants inclusion.  At the very least anything published in Survival should be considered WP:BIASED for issues related to middle-east politics, which is what they identify as a core part of their beef with the Quincy Institute (Withdrawing from the Middle East and terminating the war on terrorism are their prime objectives.)  Citing them authoritatively here comparable to citing an academic study funded by the sugar industry in an article on soft drinks - we do need to at least note their bias if we're going to use them, and it casts WP:DUE weight into question. --Aquillion (talk) 09:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * No.
 * Also, why was the Wikipedia article on Quincy Institute co-founder Stephen Wertheim summarily deleted, perhaps a year ago?
 * Nihil novi (talk) 02:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is the deletion discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stephen_Wertheim It was listed for a week. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * No. Thoughts were summarized neatly by others, but unless there is a very specific and notable criticism, would almost never merit the inclusion. What they are known for is what they are notable by, and unless the Quincy Institute is known for being criticized, it should not be mentioned in the lede. Sennecaster  ( What now? ) 21:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No. This seems like a classic example of how discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. The decision to include material in the lead should reflect the relative importance of something to the article subject, and from my look at the coverage of Quincy, the mere fact the organization has been occasionally criticized doesn't seem like something RS regard as especially important. The criticisms presented in the article seem to vary widely in issue taken, quality and source, such that a single sentence blithely saying Quincy has been criticized "for its orientation and stances on policy issues" misleads more than it informs. Also agree with others' general criticism the controversy section probably merits trimming. —0xf8e8 💿 (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Ethan Paul interview on Democracy Now! website
Former South China reporter Ethan Paul of the Quincy Institute discussed the hazards of U.S. political entities’ increasing belligerence toward China in an 18 October 2021 interview.

The Wikipedia article, as written, has content discussing member’s anti-semitism with little content addressing the Institute mission of responsible statecraft.

The problem with the Wikipedia article is it has no information about the message of Ethan Paul, and the Quincy Institute, on the counterproductive attitudes of the GOP, Democrats, and Trumpists towards US-China relations.

The immense disservice of Wikipedia in publishing this lopsided article in the face of the world-wide threats of instability created by US leadership towards China needs attention. Johnskaufman (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Amen.
 * Nihil novi (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Criticism that is not criticism
The first paragraph of the "Criticism" section features an article by Curt Mills and implies that it is a critical article, but the article ("Realism Resurgent: The Rise of the Quincy Institute") is more of a description of the institute than anything. Saying that the Quincy Institute's agenda "puts it in league with the Trump administration's foreign policy on some issues, such as negotiating with North Korea, but has a different approach from the Trump administration on others, such as U.S. involvement in the war in Yemen" is quite literally an observation and not a criticism, so it seems odd that this is included in this section. The author of the article is also a writer for The American Conservative website which is generally fond of realists. RedPandaEdits (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that the first sentence is an assessment rather than a criticism. What about changing the start to "Some writers have argued that the agenda of the Quincy Institute is in line with the Trump administration's foreign policy on some issues ... ". Policy suggests a better title for the section would be "Reception". Burrobert (talk) 11:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that sounds like it would be better. RedPandaEdits (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)