Talk:The Virtue of Nationalism

Criticism section
I noticed that user Jlevi removed some material from the criticism section, citing skepticism about the source and author's notability. I took a look at the source, and while it isn't the New York Times, it seems like it meets Wikipedia standards, gets the occasional mention in other publications, and publishes a handful of wiki-notable writers. And from what I can tell, though the author isn't particularly notable, his article is the most substantive with regard to the claim in question and a quick google search shows that critics of Hazony are citing and linking to the piece (some examples: "Not The National Conservatism We’ve Been Looking For," in the Federalist, and "Nationalism and the Conservative Country Club" in takimag). Granted, the quoted material takes up a lot of space, so I'll take a stab at trimming it down a bit. In future, discuss the merits of keeping/removing material like that on the talk page before doing a wholesale deletion. --Staplesworth (talk) 05:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey . Thanks for looking further into this. It's totally possible I missed something, and I appreciate you looking further into this matter. I think it's at times reasonable to remove a clearly marginal, unreliable source, and I identified this as one of those. If you feel I erred in this, that'd be very useful information.
 * At the same time, I think there is more work to be done. The wp:UBO in Takimag is not useful given its status per RSN. And I'm aware of a couple writers for the magazine who are wiki-notable, such as Nick Land, but the fact that they're notable doesn't mean they're reliable or due--quite the opposite in some cases. I haven't really seen any mentions in mainstream sources other than this: . The Federalist mentioning it is something, though. Jlevi (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)