Talk:Google's Ideological Echo Chamber/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Mispresentation

> Still others said that while there was scientific evidence for psychological differences between the sexes, this did not necessarily support all of his conclusions, saying that discrimination was still a factor and that organizations could benefit from diversity outreach for other reasons

This sentence looks like it has been deliberately written in a way that makes it seem that Damore's conclusions were that discrimination is not a factor or that Google wouldn't benefit from diversity outreach programs. This is seems like POV pushing and is also not in line of how the document is presented in the section "Course of events". Keyakakushi46 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The phrasing is a condensation of a lot of words into a couple of sentences, so is likely to be imprecise. What sort of phrasing would you recommend? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Since the sentence makes the document seem like the exact opposite of what it is I would prefer doing away with it completely. Obviously there are some active people here who would be very much against that. Another point for either removing the paragraph or completely rewriting it is that the citations don't seem to support what is written on it.

Let's go over the citations in order.

David P. Schmitt: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sexual-personalities/201708/google-memo-about-sex-differences and http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/08/some-scientific-arguments-james-damore-has-yet-to-respond-to.html

In the part quoted by nymag where Schmitt says Using someone’s biological sex to essentialize an entire group of people’s personality is like surgically operating with an axe. Not precise enough to do much good, probably will cause a lot of harm. and he probably thought that he was saying something that disagrees with the documen but in reality it's completely in line with it. Moreover Schmitt seems to be disagreeing about the nature of the differences, not about the conclusions drawn from them so this paragraph might not be the correct place for the Schmitt citation.

Geoffrey Miller: http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/08/some-scientific-arguments-james-damore-has-yet-to-respond-to.html

This citation agrees with Damore on the existence of sex differences, but does not mention discrimination nor outreach in any way. He does however agree with Damore in that more "diversity" is good. I wonder why it is presented as if he disagrees with damore on discrimination and outreach, two things that Damore is actually for and aren't even mentioned by the person in the cited article. Saying that it's sensible to aim for more equal sex ratios is not the same as saying that there is benefit from outreach. Better place for this citation would be in the first paragraph of the section.

Jonathan Haidt and Sean Stevens: http://www.siliconbeat.com/2017/08/11/googles-fired-engineer-james-damore-defends-himself-in-national-newspaper-op-ed/?doing_wp_cron=1507390472.6768229007720947265625

The beginning of the sentence holds true for this as they seem to agree with Damore about the sex differences.

I presume it's this quote that the editor thought aligns with the end of the sentence: This conclusion does not deny that various forms of bias, harassment, and discouragement exist and contribute to outcome disparities, nor does it imply that the differences in interest are biologically fixed and cannot be changed in future generations.

Seems to be completely in line with Damore, why is it presented as if they disagree on it? This citation would also be better suited in the first paragraph.

In summary, this sentence mispresents the document as if the conclusions were that discrimination is not a factor and that there is no benefit from diversity outreach, both of these are false, and cites articles that don't support the sentence.

Keyakakushi46 (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah.

1) Damore has been explicit that discrimination exists. So the sentence contains a (probably Good Faith) lie.

2) Haidt literature review concluded that generally Damore assertions are supported by the evidence.

3) I think that the editor tried to condense based on the citation in the article, rather than reading the various articles at source.

4) We can work honestly to write it correctly based on the sources. Jazi Zilber (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Phrasing

Still others said that while there was scientific evidence for psychological differences between the sexes, this did not necessarily support all of his conclusions, saying that discrimination was still a factor and that organizations could benefit from diversity outreach for other reasons; these included David P. Schmitt, Professor in Bradley University and founder of the International Sexuality Description Project (ISDP); Geoffrey Miller, a professor in evolutionary psychology at the University of New Mexico; Jonathan Haidt, of New York University, and Sean Stevens, of the Heterodox Academy.

References

Discussion and proposals

I have moved the disputed text to the talk page, where we can hammer out an acceptable phrasing. Suggest alternate phrasings below. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 22:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Regrading haidt: Jon Haidt and ???? (there was a co-author) of heterodox academy, conducted a literature review, that found that: "Damore is correct that there are “population level differences in distributions” of traits that are likely to be relevant for understanding gender gaps at Google and other tech firms. The differences are much larger and more consistent for traits related to interest and enjoyment, rather than ability. This distinction between interest and ability is important because it may address one of the main fears raised by Damore’s critics: that the memo itself will cause Google employees to assume that women are less qualified, or less “suited” for tech jobs, and will therefore lead to more bias against women in tech jobs. But the empirical evidence we have reviewed should have the opposite effect." The review has not looked into whether those differences are biologically inherited or not, but only about whether they are there.

My comments: 1) As a comprehensive literature review is should receive central coverage. It is not some individual view. 2) Their view is focused on part of Damore claim (maybe his central claim, but this can be argued about). 3) They have NOT said he is wrong about the rest. They just have reviewed a specific and central point. Do we split views by "agreeing with every letter of Damore memo" vs. agreeing with X%? I would say that putting this opinion as "saying he was wrong on other aspects" is factually wrong Jazi Zilber (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that summarizing Haidt as "disagreeing with the rest of Damore's view" is not accurate. However, for things to move forward, we require concrete alternate phrasings. Suggest something (doesn't need to be perfect, it can be tweaked). Open a separate subsection below, if you like. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Here you go

A literature review by Sean Stevens and Jonathan Haidt of Heterodox Academy regarding gender differences in math/science found:

• Small to nil differences in average ability, achievement, and performance. But men show a higher variability, meaning men have more geniuses and more retards.
• Large gender differences in interest' / enjoyment' from math / science
• Culture and context matter in complicated and sometimes counterintuitive ways.

I suggest positioning it before the list of opinions supporting. It is a literature review. Its basically cited (concisely, from "our conclusions" in the link, albeit not verbally of course) so no need to re-categorize it. Jazi Zilber (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I will try more on the rest as time permits Jazi Zilber (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

One should be careful of giving the review too much weight: while the authors are well-respected, the review does not have any kind of academic standing. It's one of the better sources around, so we can feature it more prominently.

The first point about ability is a bit too simplified. This refers to averages; however the same point talks about differences in variance. Perhaps: "Small to nil differences in average ability, achievement and performance, however men show more variance on a variety of traits" would better summarize it.

I'll probably give more comments later. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

How about: "Small to nil differences in average ability, achievement, and performance. But men show a higher variability, meaning men have more geniuses and more retards. "

Edited as such in above section too. Jazi Zilber (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

"But men show a higher variability, meaning men have more geniuses and more retards." probably UNDUE - 2603:3024:200:300:C543:C27:F402:DBD6 (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty much accepted as a fact in most circles and there is the data to back it up. why do you think it would be UNDUE?

Keyakakushi46 (talk) 04:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

"accepted as a fact in most circles"? That's actually disputed; in this article no less. - 2603:3024:200:300:396B:9808:D21B:4524 (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

This article does not mention higher variability at all though. Keyakakushi46 (talk) 05:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The link cited is explicit about higher variance in its conclusions.

<qoute> B) There is good evidence that men are more variable on a variety of traits, meaning that they are over-represented at both tails of the distribution (i.e., more men at the very bottom, and at the very top), even though there is no gender difference on average. Thus, the pool of potentially qualified applicants for a company like Google is likely to contain more males than females. To be clear, this does not mean that males are more “suited” for STEM jobs. Anyone located in the upper tail of the distributions valued in the hiring process possesses the requisite skills. Although there may be fewer women in that upper tail, the ones who are found there are likely to have several advantages over the men, particularly because they likely have better verbal skills.</qoute>

• Strongly disagree with the assertion that the Heterodox Academy piece should be given special weight. Most of the sources in that section say they provide or are based on a comprehensive literature review; it is not special in any way in that regard, and I would strenuously object to any version that gave it more weight (or quoted it at any greater length) than any of the other sources currently in the section. Additionally, I'll point out that Heterodox Academy itself is both not particularly high profile and has a clear point of view in this debate (since it's focused on defending points of view that its contributors believe are being suppressed, particularly by "the left") - it is by its own admission not mainstream. Having a point of view doesn't itself disqualify a source, but disproportionately weighting a source with a clear institutional POV would violate WP:NPOV. Finally, I'll point out that it is a blog post (it describes itself as one), published with no editorial controls or external fact-checking. While it probably falls under the WP:SPS exception that allows for established experts to be cited, even that exception is supposed to be used with caution - we cannot make a blog post central when we have many superior sources in the section. We could omit it entirely, or we could possibly insert it into one of the lists. If you want to categorize them as broadly supportive, possibly weakening the language of the "supporters" section slightly to account for their slightly more nuanced tone, I wouldn't object - on re-reading it, I think I screwed up in not putting it there to begin with. But I don't think the section benefits from going down a road that would turn it into a rehash of our entire article on Sex differences in human psychology; the important takeaway is that there was broad and severe disagreement among reputable academics. --Aquillion (talk) 05:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the piece should not be given special weight. However, the three points listed are not really in doubt among any of the people quoted in the passage under discussion: Miller and Schmitt make roughly the same points. It's just a question of how exactly to present it. This is why I said above, we need concrete proposals so that we can reach somewhere. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC about including "Sources cited in the memo" on this page - from Archive 3

This RfC about sources cited in the memo was sitting on WP:ANRFC, and it's obviously been long enough that it got moved to archive without ever being formally closed. So just for the sake of formally assessing consensus in case it comes up again, I find the consensus in that RfC is clearly in opposition to doing so, both in weight of argument and in sheer amount of !votes. I'm going to remove the link from ANRFC now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Blind poll

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the following text be included in the "Others" section?

A survey by Blind, an anonymous corporate chat app, found slightly more than half of Google employees surveyed disagreed with the decision to fire James Damore. The split was similar among other Silicon Valley companies surveyed.

References

Indicate Yes or No with reasons. (reopened by James J. Lambden (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)) Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC) I have removed the re-addition of the header. See comments below. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• No: These polls are not scientific and the numbers are basically meaningless. This is acknowledged in even the Daily Caller source cited: While not scientific, the survey does give an idea of the mood across Silicon Valley. Quartz: (We don’t know how scientific the poll actually is.) Instead, what one can have is a general statement to the effect that "among workers inside Google and Silicon Valley in general, opinion is divided on merits of the memo and Damore's firing". This is the message of, for instance, the Wired piece which uses other methods for gauging opinion inside Google. Ultimately, we don't know what is going on inside Google. As I said elsewhere, it is better to be vaguely right rather than precisely wrong. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• Yes: There's one good source for this, and the others are questionable at best. But the questionable nature of the other sources doesn't affect the reliability of Business Insider and per this discussion at RS/N, the Daily Caller is an appropriate second source. As such, I think the poll is notable enough. How scientific the poll is is irrelevant to its inclusion here. We refer to reports of unscientific polls and surveys all the time. What's important is that we describe the results as reported. As such, I'd suggest including the sample size of the poll. Cjhard (talk) 08:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a passing mention in BI. And you're completely and utterly misrepresenting the discussion on RSN regarding the Daily Caller: 1) it was about whether DC is a reliable source for statements about itself which doesn't apply here, and 2) even for that there ... it's basically one IP (a friend of yours?) saying it's RS and ... EVERYBODY freakin' else telling them it's not. How in the world does this support the idea that "Daily Caller is an appropriate second source"?????????????? How in the world are you suppose to have an honest discussion when people show up and engage in such blatant falsehoods??????/ This is absurd.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The title of the BI article is about the poll: Over half of Google employees polled say the web giant shouldn't have fired the engineer behind the controversial memo. The majority of the article discusses the poll. That is not "passing mention." James J. Lambden (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

You're right. I confused it with a different issue. Striking that part. Nevertheless the sourcing for this unscientific poll remains very thin.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Addendum I'm striking the part about the sources and the Daily Caller due to the Wall Street Journal source being found. Business Insider and WSJ are unassailable reliable sources. There was certainly some room for an argument that the poll was given undue weight when there was only one unquestionably reliable source, but now that there's two, I just don't see it. Is the suggestion that Blind has some sort of bias? That they intended to get a certain result so that the results represent some sort of fringe view? If not, there's the 'unscientific' argument, that because it wasn't some pure scientific research it shouldn't be included with attribution, which is not really a standard that we apply on Wikipedia. Like I said above, include the sample size (which I don't think is that small) of the poll. Cjhard (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• No. It's clearly WP:UNDUE to highlight a poll that has only been mentioned in a single reliable source, given the relative level of coverage this topic as a whole has received. The unscientific nature of this poll (eg. a nonrandom sample) does matter when evaluating its significance, especially when it has gotten so little coverage - "here's a low-quality non-random opinion survey", in a source, is naturally of less significance than something that makes stronger claims. If it had extensive coverage, we would have to cover it anyway, but when it's just one reliable source? No. --Aquillion (talk) 08:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• yes. This Blind poll was mentioned in multiple news sources. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Besides, Blind polls are reported in the media repeatedly on various topics. As this is a company that verifies that users are actually working at the tech company they say. And is the only way to get kinda honest info about employee opinions. Jazi Zilber (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

As repeatedly pointed out to you, out of these sources, only the BusinessInsider one is reliable and even that one is close. And even that one is only in passing. At least this time you didn't try to pretend that ageofshitlords.com so I guess that's an improvement. Anyway, your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and complete disregard for Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources perfectly exemplifies the problems we're having on this talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

That is incorrect. This Wall Street Journal article [9] which covers the poll is RS. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's because this is the first time the source has been brought up. But it's still not enough because the mentioning of the poll is brief and not very significant.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• No. In terms of sources: there is ONE, only ONE and just ONE source which is borderline reliable (BusinessInsider) which mentions this poll in passing and doesn't even go much into it. The other sources being offered are pure garbage such as "ageofshitlords.com". That right there raises a ton of red flags. It's basically the internet screaming at you "don't include it, it's bullshit!!!" In terms of merits: as Kingsindian and Aquillion point out, and as I've said myself, this is not a scientific poll, it's sure to include sampling bias, it works by self selection... you might as well ask your friends on facebook what you think. This has also been repeatedly stated.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• No: Zilber claims the poll is from multiple sources, but the poll has only 1 source, and extremely biased websites without print publications are all pointing at the same 1 source because it supports their own bias. Zilber's sites comprise a neo-con echo chamber that all say the same things at the same time but don't perform original reporting. A real poll would be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and a valuable one would then be cited in additional research. Real press is covering this in great detail, but they don't say anything about this bad poll because it is not fit to print, even though they have had ample opportunity to do so. This poll has self-selection bias, violates the encyclopedic requirement of being published in actual print media that Wikipedia requires, it has no control group, it wasn't conducted in a double-blind fashion, and contains no falsifiability test that would make it experimentally revealatory of factual knowledge instead of confirmation bias. It is a kind of slander against the employees of Google to claim that this is representative of them, and puts wikipedia at risk of a libel lawsuit (although that's unlikely to happen ;-} ). The inclusion of this statement or anything like it actively disinforms our readers and therefore needs to be deleted. Furthermore, the users who are responsible for it's inclusion appear to be engaged long-term in vindictive edit-warring against the same particular other users; demonstrating evil intent. Perhaps no future wikipedia edits they want should be permitted without peer review in advance. They need chaperones, because their behavior shows they can't be trusted any more with our wiki! ♠Ace Frahm♠^talk 16:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Blatant lying all around. The BI link isn't "mentioned in passing" as various here have said either ignorantly, or shamelessly. It is an article dedicated for the poll. [10] Jazi Zilber (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Not lying, it was a mistake. Now, the part where you tried to pass off ageofshitlords.com as a reliable source, was that a mistake or blatant lying? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Here is from WSJ (via Dow Jones wire service) [11] Jazi Zilber (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

WSJ direct link [12]. Fox news also syndicated the WSJ piece [13] Jazi Zilber (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Good find re: the WSJ article, that settles it for me. I wonder why it didn't come up in my searches. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

It was mostly re-posted via syndication via Dow Jones Wire service, but it is WSJ. Also, WSJ's gated so many hate linking to it. Besides, the other sources simply got shared much more probably, so google search put them on the first 20 or so finds. Also, search terms.... I didn't see it originally too.... Jazi Zilber (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• yes - multiple 2nd & 3rd party sources reference that poll (and the results are corroborated by other sources) so it passes WP:V and notability. Our job is to cite RS and if those sources claim whatever, then whatever is what we include in the article...using inline text attribution because it has been challenged per NPOV and V. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• Yes per articles where the poll is the primary subject (Business Insider and Daily caller): Over half of Google employees polled say the web giant shouldn't have fired the engineer behind the controversial memo, Survey: Most Google Employees Disagreed With Decision To Fire Memo Writer

and coverage in a Wall Street Journal article: Google Cancels Meeting on Diversity, Citing Safety Concerns for Employees

I second Cjhard's suggestion that we include the Google employee sample size (440) and I don't oppose describing the survey as "unscientific" or something to that effect. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• Neutral - seems scientific polling, done by random pick versus open internet voting, though it seems same results as Slashdot poll. Not very prominent though, as it's a sub thread or follow on conclusion after the main event is no longer big coverage. Markbassett (talk) 02:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
• In appropriate context, okay I was inclined to say no here because I'm not sure what the encyclopedic value of poll results of this kind are. But it appears it has been mentioned in multiple sources. If it is mentioned the sample size and method of the survey should be mentioned as to not mislead readers about the results. - Scarpy (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
• Yes because it's directly relevant to the issue. Antigenderist (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
• Qualified Yes. Either course could be justified, depending on contextualisation and due attention to the nature of the various objections, none of which seems a killer to me as long as suitable care is taken to meet them. When in doubt, publish. JonRichfield (talk) 05:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
• Absolutely No "an anonymous corporate chat app" this is not a scientific poll. - 2603:3024:200:300:2D03:CDDC:D4B4:B04B (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Not "anonymous" as of unreliable. The Blind company verifies that every user is actually working at said company (you need to verify via corp email or similar verification measures).

This has a level of reliability to it. Even though it is not as calibrated as professional polls that control for a zillion confounds, and allocate by various parameters etc. Jazi Zilber (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• Qualified yes If the poll isn't scientific, this should be stated, and preferably the methodology stated, where known. There's a danger that including this line might imply that the majority of Google staff disagreed with the firing, which can't be demonstrated by this line--Topperfalkon (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
• No "an anonymous corporate chat app" … "The survey only accounted for the opinions of employees who are Blind users" … the sample size is 441 … this is not remotely scientific, there are plenty of text references to the fact that responses are divided from tech employees, with a broader range of opinions than support/oppose per Kinsindian above. BTW, what does the response actually mean? XX% disagree with the sacking ... because?? Because they agree with the 'gender elements' memo?? Because someone should not be sacked for expressing an opinion?? Because they think that the sacking has done more harm than ignoring the memo would have done ?? BTW2 So encouraging to see that workplace democracy is so vigorous in Silicon valley, and that employees feel empowered to dictate company policy. Pincrete (talk) 09:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, per Antigenderist, JonRichfield, Topperfalkon, et al. --Froglich (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
• No Poll is not scientific and is therefore not reliable enough to draw any meaningful conclusions from. We do our readers a disservice by presenting it here with any weight. AIRcorn (talk) 10:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
• No for all the reasons of inadequate statistics, self-selection bias, and ideological bias explained clearly in the first half of Ace Frahm's comment (before it gets to the personal attacks). It appears to be a poll designed as an excuse to push a political opinion, rather than one to elicit a meaningful sample of the opinions of the population. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• No. I actually think that we should be looking for proper (i.e., analytical) secondary sources on this subject, and neither a one-off survey nor a news article that describes the one-off survey is actually the kind of source that we need. (WP:Secondary does not mean independent. A simple statement in a news article is independent but not secondary.) The self-reported personal opinions of uninvolved employees are not the kind of information that is obviously necessary for an informative article (i.e., these bystanders' POVs are not equivalent to the facts such as the date of publication or the identity of the person who was fired that we would normally include). In the end, I see a good reason not to include it at this time/in this way (the lack of a solid secondary source) and no good reason to include it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
• Yes because reliable sources WSJ and BI gave it enough coverage that we can include a fair picture of the poll's limitations (convenience sample, no correction for self-selection bias). FourViolas (talk) 12:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
• No The poll is meaningless and therefore WP:UNDUE regardless of reliable (or not) sources. I agree with Pincrete's point about what this crap poll actually asks. It does not throw any light on the gender issues this article discusses. Jschnur (talk) 07:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• No - These kinds of "polls" are not reliable and have next-to-no weight, as others have explained in detail above. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• No - The text being proposed is not really providing enough useful, neutral information to be worth the bother. This would have to be so heavily qualified and explained there would be little point in mentioning it, but that rephrasing would have to be judged on its own merits. Grayfell (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - For reference this is how The Wall Street Journal covered it [14]:

In the mobile app Blind, where users must use their work email addresses to verify they are employees at a given company, a survey of Google employees reflected the divisions. Of 440 Google employees who responded to a Blind survey on Tuesday and Wednesday, 56% said they disagreed with Google’s decision to fire Mr. Damore.

James J. Lambden (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Google has fifty to sixty thousand employees, and a self-selected group of 440 of them who were willing to install an app is absolutely not an appropriately selected sample to indicate any larger trend. This is statistical garbage, and we would be obligated to explain that. In that case, why bother mentioning it at all? What information is an unscientific survey intended to provide? Grayfell (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I gave a neutral factual summary of the WSJ's coverage. You responded with your opinion. They do not carry equal weight. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Uh huh. Again, what information is an unscientific survey intended to provide? Grayfell (talk) 01:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, but..... WSJ reports: "In the mobile app Blind, where users must use their work email addresses to verify they are employees at a given company, a survey of Google employees reflected the divisions. Of 440 Google employees who responded to a Blind survey on Tuesday and Wednesday, 56% said they disagreed with Google's decision to fire Mr. Damore." So include the WSJ in the footnotes, and omit this proposed sentence: "The split was similar among other Silicon Valley companies surveyed". If it was a petition by 440 Google employees, we'd include that (even though petition signers are self-selected). Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The same survey also asked employees from other companies. Hence the sentence "The split was similar among other Silicon Valley companies surveyed", which is the concise way of saying "facebook 45-55, Uber 53-40, etc" (the numbers above an example, but the general theme was similar to google;s numbers) Jazi Zilber (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yes-ish - Because it got significant coverage WP:WEIGHT, yes -- either this or something like it, down with the Harvard-Harris survey. Markbassett (talk) 00:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• No, per WP:UNDUE and because it's a primary source the reliability of which cannot be assessed (we have no idea what measures are in place to prevent double-voting, etc.). It is not a scientific survey.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Blind (app) is designed to verify users and does not allow double voting by its very design.

They do verify each user to be working at said company, and he can only vote once with his user name.

Obviously, it is not the highest level scientific poll. But this aspect will be noted if added. And it gives a fairly relevant indication on what employees that do use the app and choose to vote think on the subject. Jazi Zilber (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• No for multiple reasons: it's undue, a single questionable source, unscientific polling -- something the Daily Caller admits upfront, so hiding behind the "reliable source!" shield doesn't work -- and not even widely used. --Calton | Talk 14:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

See this section for some discussion on the topic. Further comments can be added below. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, at this point the people who are voting "yes" in this thread are just labeling themselves as editors or accounts who actually don't give a shit about Wikipedia policies and are WP:NOTHERE. Sorry, but after the preceding discussion and all the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT involved, there's no other conclusion one can arrive at.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

You need to stop the PAs, VM. Such derogatory statements are highly disruptive and a bad reflection on you. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

What I support is removing "56%" so that we don't pretend this number is definitive. But the existence of polls in general seems to have due weight. First, I don't see why a pro-Damore person would be more likely to answer the poll than an anti-Damore person. Second, there appears to be a reliable source besides Business Insider; Volunteer Marek has previously cited QZ. Third, there's a pie chart going around in some sources that mention "informal polls". Let's mention these with Kingsindian's goal of being "vaguely right". Connor Behan (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The "informal poll" is the same one which is discussed in this section. As I said, it has the same problems as the Blind poll. If anything it is worse. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Unless the issue is the sources. I think the "informal poll" has been reported about more widely. i.e. [15] but I recall seeing more references to this one. Jazi Zilber (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• General comment: I don't think this RfC should have been reopened. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@James J. Lambden and Flyer22 Reborn: I have removed the RfC header. The RfC has already been listed on WP:ANRFC for closure. Someone will hopefully get to it eventually. There's a bit of a backlog. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I misunderstood the closing procedure. Thank you for correcting my mistake. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

more sources

• https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/darwin-damore-how-modern-science-failed-women-ncna801586 - 2603:3024:200:300:C40E:1E9A:540B:74D9 (talk) 09:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• https://www.inc.com/sophie-jarvis/james-damores-google-memo-hurt-women-in-tech-more-than-you-thought-science-says.html
• https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/08/adam-grant-on-google-memo-differences-between-sexes-are-slim-to-none.html
• https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/20/opentable-ceo-on-silicon-valley-response-to-google-anti-diversity-memo.html - 2603:3024:200:300:C40E:1E9A:540B:74D9 (talk) 08:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
• https://thewire.in/189567/implicit-bias-gender-stereotypes-women-stem-association-test-lack-of-fit/ - 2603:3024:200:300:84F3:A299:53A0:DF7B (talk) 05:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
• "the memo made Silicon Valley leaders more aware of conscious and unconscious discrimination against women and people of color in the workplace." https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/20/opentable-ceo-on-silicon-valley-response-to-google-anti-diversity-memo.html - 2603:3024:200:300:C40E:1E9A:540B:74D9 (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
• "In August, Google engineer James Damore made headlines by calling this disparity a myth and lauding men’s supposed biological advantage in the tech world, in a memo that used long-debunked pseudoscience to support its own spurious claims. That kind of malarkey is easy to dismiss. (As was Damore, who was fired from Google just days after posting the document.) " https://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2017/10/26/paying-men-and-women-equally-helps-companies-why-don-they/2N3E0D14YDUuytNd3SIILJ/story.html -2603:3024:200:300:C40E:1E9A:540B:74D9 (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Articles cited by the Google memo

I have added a section listing the scientific articles, books, and journalistic articles cited in the Google memo. That section has been immediately removed (RfC said no). What's gone wrong? Amirite (talk) 19:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

There is a clear community consensus not to include the sources. This isn't standard practice for any other Wikipedia article regarding a memo or paper. Please don't readd them without discussion. --RevivesDarks (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

[16] [17]. Volunteer Marek  19:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by "don't read them without discussion"? Amirite (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

He said "re-add" not "read". Volunteer Marek  20:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Lead needs work

Presently (with the "AKA" clause stripped):

"Google's Ideological Echo Chamber" originated as an internal memo, dated July 2017, by US-based Google engineer James Damore about Google's diversity policies.

Proposed template:

"Google's Ideological Echo Chamber" is a memo written by US-based Google engineer James Damore, dated July 2017, originally circulated to internal staff discussion lists within Google, to challenge received opinion on gender science and stimulate discussion around what Damore perceived to be a groupthink corporate culture gaining ascendancy over Google's workplace diversity policies, that was met with sharp opposition within Google's management ranks (some of whom perceived the memo as having an unnecessarily hostile tone); having become a political hot potato, the memo soon leaked to the outside press amid a brewing internal controversy, whereupon it quickly went viral (again), and within days—as public reaction mounted—was followed by Damore's controversial termination as a Google employee, further polarizing public opinion.

My proposed template is largely supported by the following in-depth article:

• 'I see things differently': James Damore on his autism and the Google memo — 16 November 2017

I don't know whether various bits and pieces of my phrasing is ultimately supportable, but I do know that my nutshell factor is 1000% better than the present lead sentence.

I also know that the worst thing about this sentence is a nuance few will notice: the subtle implication (to a lazy reader) that Google fired Damore only because of the memo (and its controversial aftermath), when in fact, Damore greatly complicated his wrongful termination suit by how he handled the public controversy, in (perhaps unwittingly) further associating himself with divisive figureheads of the alt-right.

... Damore's controversial termination as a Google employee (perhaps with consideration also given, beyond the memo itself, to Damore's handling of the internal and external aftermath), further polarizing public opinion.

Unfortunately, that's definitely straying into nutshell implosion. The parenthetical goes unstated to experienced managers, though not so much to the reactive lay reader.

This is a hard nut to crack, because the memo itself (and the page title which attaches mainly to the memo) ultimately isn't the primary story. — MaxEnt 16:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Note that it's possible to write this as a single sentence without the intermission semicolon, but I felt this discussion would go better with the semicolon in place. — MaxEnt 16:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Too much editorializing. Also, long for a lede. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Content on GAB

As I've said in my edit notes, the source says nothing about the Memo, or James Damore so the source fails WP: OR. Further the content it's supporting is just a coatrack about GAB, and not the topic of the article. Further, I loosely support the removal of that whole sentence as being rather undue for the article, but not a large enough support to remove it myself. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The job-offers don't belong in the "Course of events" section. They are inconsequential to either the memo, or the reaction. At best they would belong in the "Responses" section, but I would argue are undue. As for describing GAB, we can just stick to what the source says "a digital haven for racist, sexist rhetoric" without an concern about WP:OR. — Strongjam (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The job offers are absolutely relevant to the reaction. Damore was immediately embraced by political activists and the job offers are a documented and appropriately cited example of that, so clearly not OR as it is defined in policy. Gab, unlike Wikileaks, may be obscure to some readers and as such a brief explanation of why it is relevant is, IMO, perfectly appropriate. --RevivesDarks (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The job offers are not a part of the course of events of the memo, but a response to it. Gab being obscure is not a reason to engage in OR, we can wikilink it though. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Unless you all want to change the article to be about James Damore, and not the memo and its fallout, his job offers are COATRACK and CRYSTALBALL. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Even this is more relevant than job offers he didn't take: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/16/james-damore-google-memo-interview-autism-regrets -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with the stuff on Gab and Wikileaks "job offers" being removed entirely per UNDUE. But IF it's gonna be in there, the nature of GAB needs to be described as it's pertinent to the controversy. Volunteer Marek  06:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Brookings Report Finds Women Have Sharper Tech Skills Than Men

"There’s a reason the memo written by ex-Google engineer James Damore went viral this summer: many people still believe that women aren’t equally represented in tech because of 'genetic differences' between men and women." Schulte continued, "These false biases are not only harmful to women and minorities, but also to hurt a company’s bottom-line. Tech companies without diversity on their leadership teams and on boards perform worse in the long run. First Round Capital found that female CEOs outperformed their male counterparts 63% in terms of returning value to investors."

Overall, she added, research from the Brookings Institution and numerous other sources indicate that hard numbers on women's effectiveness in tech and at work aren't enough to create real change, apparently and unfortunately.

"There are seemingly endless data points to validate the critical role of women in tech," Schulte said. "I’m not sure how much more proof companies and Venture Capitalists need before they finally make diversity in tech a top priority."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetwburns/2017/11/29/brookings-report-finds-women-have-sharper-tech-skills-than-men/ -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Author is a Forbes contributor not Forbes staff. She has a bio at https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetwburns/ if someone wants to do a closer analysis of the author. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

What we need to get it the Brookings report. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

[18]. Volunteer Marek  06:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The report doesn't mention the memo, so all we could do is put in further reading I would say. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with putting this to further reading. Raymond3023 (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:RS

@Emir of Wikipedia: The first (archived) link never was a WP:42 link, it's a primary source, and per wayback the former diversitymemo.com is now firedfortruth.com. Actually it doesn't matter, the archived link is okay, only deadurl=no is wrong. But two references of the same source in one statement of the lede, why on earth do you tag this excessively bad page with multiple issues, instead of simply deleting it as hopeless, if you revert an admittedly minor improvement? –185.23.227.64 (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

EAGAIN skipping the firedfortruth.com nit, this site is listed in the #External_links. –185.23.227.64 (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Lawsuit discussed twice

So, see this revert [19]. The lawsuit is not a part of the 'event', it is 'aftermath' ( 5 months after) and there is no reason to discuss it twice. (I also have no objection to making the suit discussion a subsection of it's current section (===) as (although it perhaps does no warrant it yet, it is likely to grow). So, please lets remove it from the event section. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It is common to give a short description of such things in the main text, and a detailed description in its pertinent subsection. Which is exactly what was done here.

The lawsuit is an integral part of the event and firing. And it has to be mentioned in a way in the event timeline. A full description of it, however is more aptly detailed in the employment issues section, especially as it is more related to the larger employment implication in Google. Jazi Zilber (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Main text? The article is the main text. The Event is a subsection and is the memo and the firing issues of July-August. The last thing in Event is August 12. The suit obviously belongs in "Response", not in Event, because that's what a suit is a response to an event. It's not only bizarre to jump months ahead and then go-back to the flurry of aftermath, it is bizarre discussing the suit twice and undue. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

"event" is the main story with the related protagonists.

"responses" is the various opinions voiced about the whole story.

Damore firing, and the resulting lawsuit are part of the main story.

The responses are the various opinions of everybody in the world.

The lawsuit is related to both places. Because it is also a part of the employment law discussion. The logic to put it in short form in main event piece is to avoid making it too long. and fill more details in the employment law section. Jazi Zilber (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. Your "main event" rationale is absurd, especially for repeating stuff to give it undue weight, so that it can misrepresented information, for example, at present there is no class action, because none is certified. The lawsuit is a response to the event and it relates to the other responses as it comes after them, and actually has new actors and new claims. And you can't actually neutrally mention the suit at all, without giving Google's response to the suit, and there is no reason to discuss it twice. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

he "filed a class action". Every lawsuit is nothing until the judgment. But he filed a class action. This is a fact. Not a judgement. Go and read the responses section and you will see......

Lawsuit primary source etc.

I am not in the mood of having a decided opinion about the precise details. Just general comments.

• The cited was also published in secondary news reports. One might find those and reference to them.
• Its a living person, so great care should be taken to stick to facts objectively etc.

Have fun arguing everyone Jazi Zilber (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Gizmodo censured version?

Gizmodo published a censured version of the article, omitting both images as well as sources. Should this be mentioned in the article?

https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320 https://medium.com/@Cernovich/full-james-damore-memo-uncensored-memo-with-charts-and-cites-339f3d2d05f — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.36.1.23 (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Your medium.com source might be better accessible than the archived PDF for some users, but I fear the Gizmodo issue would be an off topic distraction. Otherwise I'd be tempted to add a remotely related "thundercunt"-video. –84.46.52.89 (talk) 12:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

a source to add maybe

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-02-01/women-once-ruled-computers-when-did-the-valley-become-brotopia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3024:200:300:FC80:E2C0:527:70AE (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Nice source, and it might fit on one of the pages listed under #See_also. Why on earth did she start with the Lenna image? It was used by researchers of all genders, same idea as Tom's Diner, but it does not really count for women in computer science: Lena Söderberg and Suzanne Vega didn't volunteer, they were artists, not scientists. –84.46.52.89 (talk) 12:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

NRLB

https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/16/17021714/james-damore-google-nlrb-complaint-diversity-discrimination — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3024:200:300:A0AA:2F75:9EA3:164C (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

https://gizmodo.com/labor-board-found-google-was-within-its-rights-to-fire-1823086744 "Damore’s memo constituted sexual harassment, the NLRB found, despite his efforts to “cloak comments with ‘scientific references’” and his “‘not all women’ disclaimers.”" 2603:3024:200:300:A0AA:2F75:9EA3:164C (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tn-google-james-damore-20180216-story.html 2603:3024:200:300:A0AA:2F75:9EA3:164C (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added a bit covering that. --Aquillion (talk) 05:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

There are some issues with the text included, Damore filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board, which found his firing to be proper. and Damore filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board over his firing; the board eventually found that while the law shielded him from being fired solely for criticizing Google, it did not protect discriminatory statements, and that the memo's "statements regarding biological differences between the sexes were so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be unprotected", and that these discriminatory statements, not his criticisms of Google, were the reason for his firing.; referenced to the 3 sources above. Each of these sources is clear that the conclusions or findings are not those of the Board itself; but of an employee, associate general counsel, Jayme Sophir, in a memo to the Board.

1. LA Times: Statements in Damore's 3,000-word memo "regarding biological differences between the sexes were so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive" that they fell outside protections for collective action in the workplace, an associate general counsel for the National Labor Relations Board wrote in a six-page memo disclosed Thursday.;
2. Gizmodo: Google did not violate labour law by firing James Damore, the author of a memo that argued women were biologically less capable to work in software engineering than men, according to an attorney for the National Labor Relations Board.;
3. TheVerge: Google didn’t violate labor laws by firing engineer James Damore for a memo criticizing the company’s diversity program, according to a recently disclosed letter from the US National Labor Relations Board. The lightly redacted statement is written by Jayme Sophir, associate general counsel of the NLRB’s division of advice; it dates to January, but was released yesterday, according to Law.com.

None of these directly support our content. Neither do the following sources:

1. WIRED: Google did not violate federal labor law when it fired James Damore, a lawyer for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) concluded in a lightly-redacted memo made public Thursday.[20]
2. TechCrunch: The NLRB memo, issued on January 16 and published publicly yesterday, does not constitute an official ruling or legal action. It is, however, the official advice of a federal lawyer who specializes in this field, and its conclusion, that the complaint be dismissed, would likely have been followed by the regional board being advised. Instead, Damore withdrew the complaint.[21] I note here that the source speculates on a likely finding, but is clear that there was no actual finding.
3. The Register: Google was well within its rights when it dumped controversial bro-grammer James Damore in mid-2017. This is according to legal advice given to America's National Labor Relations Board by its associate general counsel Jayme Sophir.[22]
4. The Star: Google did not break the law when it fired an engineer who wrote a memo critical of the company’s diversity efforts, a lawyer for a U.S. federal labour agency said.[23]

Suggest amending the lead section to: Damore filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board, which he later withdrew. More than this seems undue, considering the current terseness of the lead.
Suggest amending the body to: Damore filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board over his firing, which he later withdrew. In a memo to the Board, associate general counsel, Jayme Sophir, wrote that while the law shielded Damore from being fired solely for criticizing Google, it did not protect discriminatory statements, and that the memo's "statements regarding biological differences between the sexes were so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be unprotected", and that these discriminatory statements, not his criticisms of Google, were the reason for his firing. Sourced to any combination of the sources above.
Thoughts?
NB: In the spirit of BLP (particularly BLPDELETE), I will remove the content pending formation of a consensus here. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I have reworded it slightly; but given the coverage (and the fact that the sources seem to agree that this was what the board was about to find before Damore decided to withdraw his finding, as the memo advised him to) it definitely belongs in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Change Lede to reflect this?

Google’s fired engineer sexually harassed co-workers via memo: U.S. labor board lawyer from: https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/02/20/googles-fired-engineer-sexually-harassed-co-workers-via-memo-u-s-labor-board-lawyer/

Damore filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board; while he later withdrew this complaint, an internal memo from the board dated to shortly before he did so found his firing to be proper. After withdrawing this complaint, Damore also filed a class action lawsuit, alleging that Google was discriminating against white men.

Damore filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board; while he later withdrew this complaint, an internal memo from the board dated to shortly before he did so found his firing to be proper due to the sexually harassing nature of Damore's memo. After withdrawing this complaint, Damore also filed a class action lawsuit, alleging that Google was discriminating against white men.

or something like

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Lede has been updated to mention the NLRB already. I would avoid using the "sexually harassment" language from the memo. As the source points out, it's not really what the lawyer writing the memo likely meant, there is a legal difference between sexual harassment and gender discrimination. — Strongjam (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

False sense of disagreement.

The last statement in this sentence after the comma ("but...") is irrelevant and only serves to give a misleading idea that there may be a disagreement but it agrees with Damore's memo. I attempted twice to remove the irrelevant bit but it keeps being reverted.

David P. Schmitt, former professor of psychology at Bradley University;[51][53] said that the memo was right about average group differences, but one could not use it to judge individuals.

41.147.80.198 (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

You're misreading it. Schmitt explicitly uses that argument to rebut what he sees as the main thrust of Damore's argument. "Alongside other pieces of evidence, the employee argued, in part, that psychological research on sex differences indicates affirmative action policies based on biological sex are misguided. Maybe, maybe not. Let's explore the issue.", to Again, though, most of these sex differences are moderate in size and in my view are unlikely to be all that relevant to the Google workplace, and, later on, "Within this sea of gender bias, should Google use various practices (affirmative action is not just one thing) to especially encourage capable women of joining (and enjoying) the Google workplace? I vote yes." He absolutely does not agree with Damore's memo and makes this clear in both the first paragraph and the conclusion - he sees Damore as taking some theoretically-valid research about very broadly-defined differences between men and women and misusing them to oppose the very specific case of Google's affirmative action policies, a position that he says that the research Damore cites absolutely does not support. --Aquillion (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Misleading paragraph, opinion as science.

This paragraph appears to be backed up by "science" and unbiased journalism but it's only criticisms from left leaning political activists and commentators. I've attempted to fix this twice by adding that it's criticisms by left leaning political activists and commentators but it keeps getting reverted without addressing the issue. The paragraph could also be moved elsewhere away from the heading "On the science" to something with opinion although I don't know how to do that. As it stands the paragraph is misleading:

Journalistic coverage of the science behind the memo reflected these concerns; Angela Saini said that Damore failed to understand the research he cited,[59][46] while John Horgan criticized the track record of evolutionary psychology and behavioral genetics.[60] Owen Jones said that the memo was "guff dressed up with pseudo-scientific jargon" and cited a former Google employee saying that it failed to show the desired qualities of an engineer.[61][62]

41.147.80.198 (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, to start out with, what makes you say they're left-leaning? Asserting that a source's journalistic reputation is mostly as a "left-leaning journalist" - sufficient to require it as a disclaimer before anything they write - is a fairly serious accusation and would require something to back it up. --Aquillion (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

EX-GOOGLE EMPLOYEE CLAIMS WRONGFUL FIRING FOR CRITICIZING JAMES DAMORE’S MEMO

https://www.wired.com/story/ex-google-employee-claims-wrongful-firing-for-criticizing-james-damores-memo/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3024:200:300:C40E:1E9A:540B:74D9 (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

& https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/21/17038430/google-james-damore-memo-tim-chevalier-lawsuit-liberal-conservative-backlash — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3024:200:300:C40E:1E9A:540B:74D9 (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

& https://www.engadget.com/2018/02/22/google-diversity-memo-lawsuit/

Added a sentence for it, thanks. --Aquillion (talk) 03:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

COMMONNAME issues.

After thinking about it a bit, I'm not sure the title of this article satisfies WP:COMMONNAME or the recognition and naturalness criteria under WP:CRITERIA; it's also inaccurate in that the article is not really about the memo itself, but about the controversy and reaction to it. Generally speaking, coverage of the incident has not focused on the title of the memo (which is mentioned in passing, if at all), and the bulk of commentary and controversy now seems to be about the firing anyway. Could we come up with a better title? Something like James Damore Firing Controversy or the like? --Aquillion (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

That'd be a better title, though I suspect people unacquainted with the details wouldn't be searching Wikipedia for it with James Damore's name. They'd probably search on "Google memo" or the like. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 07:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

James Damore Memo or Google Memo or James Damore Memo Controversy or Google Memo Controversy -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 07:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:SAID

With respect to this edit [24] (Undid revision 832048952 by Nbauman (talk) the claims are questioned through out. assert is better than said here. per wp:said)

which is justified with "per wp:said",

Where in WP:SAID is there anything to justify this edit?

Here's the guideline WP:SAID:

Words to watch: reveal, point out, clarify, expose, explain, find, note, observe, insist, speculate, surmise, claim, assert, admit, confess, deny, ...

Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, or revealed something can imply that it is true, instead of simply conveying the fact that it was said. To write that someone insisted, noted, observed, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the person's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence, even when such things are unverifiable.

To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence. Similarly, be judicious in the use of admit, confess, reveal, and deny, particularly for living people, because these verbs can inappropriately imply culpability.

That text seems to clearly require that we use "says" rather than "asserts". Where is there anything in that text that supports your edit? --Nbauman (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

"Cultural commentary" section is one-sided

This section covers nothing but anti-Damore public response. It's pretty clear that not all social reaction was negative, however, so both sides (and in the middle?) should be covered here. See the "On the science" section for how to approach this in the WP:NPOV way.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 13 July 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the article to any particular title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 17:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

---

Google's Ideological Echo Chamber → Google memo – My title is not ambiguous and is neutral, and unlike the status quo, the memo is commonly referred to as the Google memo in reliable sources. The memo is only referred to by its title when the source wants to state the actual title of the memo, which is not often. Usually a manifesto has "manifesto" in the title so a reader can guess that it is a manifesto from its title, but that's not the case here. wumbolo ^^^ 12:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Title is overly vague for the uninitiated. Suggest alternate move to Google's Ideological Echo Chamber memo._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose A move is reasonable, but this title is meaningless. I could vote for something like "2017 Google gender controversy" however.GPRamirez5 (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose; "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber" is the actual title of the work. We do no censor titles of works, even if some will be offended by them. "Google memo" is temporarily mostly referring to this memo, but if you search "Google memo" and exclude various keywords like "diversity", "Damore", and "ideological" you rapidly find news coverage of other Google memos, especially the public one on AI ethics: [25], [26], and other internal Google memos [27]. You also find results for other entities' memos in regard to Google [28], [29], [30].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Both: From a lexicographic point of view, Google's Ideological Echo Chamber is the correct title of the work, but people who search the memo will use the term Google memo. This can be, and has already been, solved with a redirect page. I consider this solution satisfactory for both use cases. — Tatzelbrumm (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

legal filing redactions require & new google rules

1. https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/07/16/googlers-threatened-after-fired-engineer-damore-identifies-them-in-court-filings-judge/
2. https://www.law360.com/articles/1063309/google-gets-protective-order-for-staff-in-anti-male-bias-suit
3. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2018/06/27/google-toughens-rule-internal-harassment-after-james-damore-firing-roils-staff/738483002/
4. https://www.axios.com/google-sets-new-boundaries-for-internal-debate-culture-wars-james-damore-d2c417d8-a440-4c4a-85cd-6ffc1f95a7bf.html
5. https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2018/06/28/google-internal-discussion-guidelines.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3024:200:300:C40E:1E9A:540B:74D9 (talk) 05:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

"Related controversies" section.

I reverted this edit, since the connection to this topic seems tenacious; the Twitter post aside, only two of the sources mention Damore, and those cites (Dice Insights and a Reason editorial) do not seem particularly high-quality. This article is about Damore's memo in particular - it shouldn't become a dumping ground for every other complaint that mentions it in passing. I'm bothered by the cite to "Lincoln Network", which seems to be a personal website. Also, the wording is non-neutral (the claim that the lawsuit 'corroborated' Damore's feelings about Google seems to be pure WP:SYNTH.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Do the opinions of Owen James really belong in the On The Science section ?

Per WP:NEWSORG : 1) "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact" 2) Also: "Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy"

Per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS : "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article."

Owen James is an English newspaper columnist, political commentator, and left-wing political activist with no Scientific/STEM training. His Guardian opinion article doesn't quote any reliable source or studies to support its claims. His article links to a Medium (blog) opinion by Yonatan Zunger which cites no Scientific studies either.

What exactly would make Owen James's opinion a reliable secondary source for the "On the Science" section? Why is his opinion worthy of being added next to the opinions of Science Journalists and Scientists ?

The decision seems even more strange when considering the article already has some other sections, like "Cultural commentary" and "Other commentary", which present the opinions of non-Scientist and journalists in even more reputable sources (e.g.: The New York Times)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Context_matters

Mcrt007 (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Quillette

While we have another source now, Quillette absolutely fails WP:RS. While they present themselves as a magazine, they exert no fact-checking and openly describe themselves as presenting a particular opinion rather than reporting. Past discussions on WP:RSN have found it to fail RS (eg here.) They're a blog and a personal website to expound a particular opinion, not a news source. --Aquillion (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Wow. That's incredibly disingenuous. The above linked RS noticeboard is not about Quillette, and has only one or two non-consensed opinions about it.GPRamirez5 (talk) 02:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

That was a dishonest argument, indeed. The discussion linked by Aquillion has a Wikipedia user accusing Quillette that the author of one of their article does not understand postmodernism (lol) and another user claiming (with no proof) that Quillette is not a reliable source (according to him). This, by no means, can be enough proof to infer that "Past discussions on WP:RSN have found it to fail RS". What is rarely to never fact-checked, however, are the highly-ideological opinion articles that are more blog-material than "news source" and Aquillion keeps defending. Mcrt007 (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing dishonest about pointing out that other editors don't take Quillette seriously. As the RSN board says, This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context. "Context" is the important part. Outside of spam and similar, it's very rare for entire outlets to be rejected across the site. In that particular context, the Quillette article was laughable. Grayfell (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree there's nothing dishonest about pointing out that other editors don't take Quillette seriously. It's, however, dishonest to imply that just because a couple of people in a discussion don't take Quillette seriously "past discussions" have found it failing to RS (that's just an example of weasel words in action).Mcrt007 (talk) 07:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• "Quillette was created with the intention of giving non-journalists — in particular scientists and scholars — a platform to share ideas without unnecessary editorial interference." (emphasis mine) [31]. Quillette will probably never be a reliable secondary source. wumbolo ^^^ 20:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

"Unnecessary editorial interference" is not the same as no editing. The choice to focus on academic scientists is itself an editorial decision.GPRamirez5 (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

General editing is not the issue. A source can have an editorial position and still be reliable. We are specifically looking for editorial oversight as it relates to fact-checking. Quillette fails in this regard, and we would generally need a specific reason to include attributed opinions from the site's authors. Grayfell (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Established experts contribute to Quillette. While it may not be a reliable source, there is no evidence of any misconduct. I would personally avoid it like any other recently created website, however reliable, including e.g. vox.com. wumbolo ^^^ 08:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Yet, Vox.com is quoted by hundreds of Wikipedia articles (more than 330), here's a few examples:

The Yemen model,

List_of_New_York_State_Senators,

List of protests in the United States by size

Unindicted co-conspirator

Gun_Violence_Archive,

Foreign_Policy_Interrupted

Quillette is also quoted in about 60 articles. A far less reliable source, Medium.com, is quoted in more than 800 articles. Blogspot.com articles are quoted in more than 18,000 wikipedia articles. wordpress.com articles are quoted in more than 13,000. It seems to me like the way these rules are enforced is extremely subjective. Mcrt007 (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

In this unsympathetic Vice piece, Quillette is referred to as a "magazine." The same designation has been given to it by a half dozen other mainstream news organizations.GPRamirez5 (talk)

"Magazine" is a meaningless designation. The Good Citizen was a magazine, and Weekly World News was a newspaper. Who cares? The specific designation doesn't make this automatically reliable. Why would it?

Medium, Blogspot, etc. should be removed when its constructive, but blogs are sometimes useful WP:PRIMARY sources, or with attribution, or a blogging site sometimes hosts a reliable source. That's why WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Grayfell (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS was my point exactly. Yet, other users (e.g.: Aquillion) seem to totally disregard it when it appears convenient to them (e.g.: ignore the statements of Scientists in Quillette yet include the unqualified opinions of a political-activist with no Science background in the non-factchecked section of opinion articles of the Guardian) Mcrt007 (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)