Talk:Scientific American

Is criticism of Scientific American UNDUE?

@Generalrelative: Recently I added a criticism of Scientific American by biologist Jerry Coyne: "There’s no longer any doubt that one of the main missions of Scientific American involves not the dissemination of science, but pushing a 'progressive' Democratic ideology on its readers". This was removed as “undue/self-published.” But Jerry Coyne is a notable figure, and self-published sources may be used in order to present such a person’s personal opinion.

Two fundamental rules of Wikipedia are:

“All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.”

“When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.”

Coyne is a specialist and a recognized scientific expert. Therefore, his opinion is more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. He is a major player in the scientific field and literature. Why should his criticism of Scientific American be excluded? Furthermore, he is not the only one with this viewpoint.

• Richard Dawkins said, “Well, there were already signs that Scientific American was going under, but could anyone have believed that once great magazine could could conceivably ever sink quite so abysmally low as this?” Dawkins added that, “Scientific American was once a great journal.”

• Some comments by psychologist Lee Jussim: “Another douzie by editor of Scientific American. Are they considering changing their name to Scientific Democratic People's Republic?” “No no no. We recently learned at Scientific American that the normal curve is 'problematic.' Hey, it's science. Are you a science denier?” “Scientific American Goes Full Regessive Left”

• Science writer Michael Shermer, who was a monthly columnist at Scientific American for eighteen years, wrote an article titled “Scientific American Goes Woke.”

The opinion being expressed here is held by a substantial number of people both inside and outside the scientific community. You can’t just pretend that it doesn’t exist. Its adherents are too notable. We could, however, also supply a contrasting opinion, such as the following:

According to biologist Jerry Coyne, Scientific American has fallen far from its former glory by substituting a desire to promote 'progressive' ideology in place of its former strong commitment to science. "There’s no longer any doubt that one of the main missions of Scientific American involves not the dissemination of science, but pushing a 'progressive' Democratic ideology on its readers". However, Princeton anthropologist Agustín Fuentes disagrees. He defends articles with titles such as, “How astrophysics helped me embrace my nonbinary gender identity—in all its complexity” and “Modern Mathematics Confronts Its White, Patriarchal Past” by asserting that the editorial board at Scientific American has “recognized that times are changing and including previously excluded and marginalized voices, experiences, and perspectives in their pages is not only the right thing to do, but also the necessary thing to do for a better and more vibrant science of the 21st century. …Because science has a problem. Systemic gender inequities, sexism, racism, ableism, colonialist histories and their neocolonialist present exist in science.” Swood100 (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm certainly not interested in pretending that things don't exist, but I do not think that self-published sources should be included unless we have good reason. The issue is basically the same as with WP:PRIMARY but more so. Yes Coyne is an expert in something but that something is certainly not politics (though he seems more and more to have drifted into grievance politics as his primary focus –– becoming something of a Jordan Peterson lite). I would also object to including SPS / primary stuff by Fuentes, though he is someone that I respect a great deal. Without WP:SECONDARY coverage of what Coyne or Fuentes are saying here, it's hard to see how it merits inclusion in an encyclopedia. If you can find such sources, on the other hand, I will happily accede. Generalrelative (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I should note that Coyne has indirectly criticized me in a blog post, where he uncritically accepts the allegations of an anonymous Quillette article claiming that anti-science "wokism" is responsible for Wikipedia's consensus in the race and intelligence topic area. I do not think that this prevents me from editing neutrally with regard to him, but if anyone else does feel free to take my statements with the appropriate number of grains of salt. Generalrelative (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm certainly not interested in pretending that things don't exist, but I do not think that self-published sources should be included unless we have good reason.

You have stated your preference, but the rule is otherwise: “Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.”

Without WP:SECONDARY coverage of what Coyne or Fuentes are saying here, it's hard to see how it merits inclusion in an encyclopedia.

Your preference for WP:SECONDARY coverage is not a requirement with respect to self-published expert sources. What is your concern? That what he said is not notable or reliable? This is the part that is assured by his being (a) an established subject-matter expert, (b) whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.

Yes Coyne is an expert in something but that something is certainly not politics…

Coyne is an expert in Biology. He thoroughly understands the scientific method and its requirements. He is able to give an expert opinion as to whether a statement that purports to have scientific support does so in fact.

The issue is basically the same as with WP:PRIMARY but more so.

If Coyne asserts that a particular article or statement is not scientifically grounded, what is the WP:PRIMARY issue?

I should note that Coyne has indirectly criticized me in a blog post, where he uncritically accepts the allegations of an anonymous Quillette article claiming that anti-science "wokism" is responsible for Wikipedia's consensus in the race and intelligence topic area.

Are you referring to this post of his? What is the indirect reference to you? Swood100 (talk) 02:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

If it's secondary sources you're looking for, The Daily Princetonian serves as such for this:

From University of Chicago biology professor Emeritus Jerry Coyne: “Scientific American is changing from a popular-science magazine into a social-justice-in-science magazine” and “it is not science: it’s politics and sociology with a Leftist bent.”

Swood100 (talk) 03:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

No, you're misunderstanding. There is plenty of reliably sourced content out there which we do not just jam into any and all articles. Per WP:ONUS for instance While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Considerations such as WP:DUE weight, for instance, are paramount. Further, WP:SECONDARY coverage is not my "preference", it's Wikipedia's preference. Per that policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source. The Daily Princetonian source you quote is indeed such a source, but whether a student paper is enough to make Coyne's quote DUE for inclusion will come down to editor intuition. I'd prefer to hear from a third party since the two of us seem to see Coyne very differently. Generalrelative (talk) 05:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

With regard to Coyne's blog post, see where he says I haven’t checked the claims, which involves going through the editing history of many Wikipedia articles (the discussion is all on public view), but I direct you to the article to show you how censorious the woke editors have been. (What a profoundly unscientific thought process, by the way: "I haven't checked it but it shows that my preconceptions about 'woke' were right all along!") If you actually take the time to read the Quillette article (not recommending it) and click through the links, you will see that many of the diffs criticized are by me and others who have defended the topic area from racist pseudoscience –– often pushed by literal Nazi LTAs like Mikemikev. Generalrelative (talk) 05:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

No, you're misunderstanding. There is plenty of reliably sourced content out there which we do not just jam into any and all articles. Per WP:ONUS for instance While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included.

Well, on the one side we have a number of extremely notable scientific experts, such as Dawkins, Coyne, Jussim, and Shermer, indicating what can only be called their outrage at the behavior of Scientific American. What do we have on the other side? Please explain, in clear English, the factors that counsel against including this viewpoint. Please do not rely on code words, such as WP:DUE. What is the practical concern? Is here a potential harm? Are you saying that despite the comments of these scientists it's clear that there's "nothing to see here"? Swood100 (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll try to make this succinct for you. Policy is not "code words" and people expressing "outrage" on Twitter is not due for inclusion in an encyclopedia unless it's discussed in reliable, secondary sources. Feel free to take this to a noticeboard if you like. Generalrelative (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, as secondary sources we also have Sceptic, which said:

The word “woke” originally meant being aware of racial and social issues, but its meaning has become distorted to where it now interferes with rational discourse and scientific inquiry. Scientific American’s “woke” thinking might have led to the termination of Michael Shermer’s long-running “Skeptic” column. Should any subject be out of bounds? Shouldn’t skeptics be free to ask for evidence to support any claim?

Then, in addition to the scientists already cited, there are these:

• Lawrence M. Krauss: “The once-great science magazine, Scientific American, which has degenerated in recent years as social justice concerns have taken priority over science…”

• Evolutionary biologist Colin Wright: “Scientific American has been a joke for a while now” and “Scientific American once again beclowns itself by publishing pseudoscientific nonsense...”

• Peter Boghossian: “Scientific American is now woke. Like so many other venerable institutions, it has been ideologically captured. Once an organization falls to ideology, it ceases to discharge its mission and instead promotes the orthodoxy’s values. Writ large = legitimacy crisis”

Do all these add up to a sufficient critical mass? If not, why not? What is your practical concern? What is the potential downside of including this viewpoint? Swood100 (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

This conversation has become repetitive and annoying. As far as I'm aware, no amount of SPS adds up to "sufficient critical mass". If you believe you can persuade others, take it to a noticeboard. I'm done engaging with you now. Generalrelative (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Swood100 Most of these sources are Twitter which generally arent considered reliable in this context. See WP:RSTWITTER, it'd also probably be a better idea to also find a (reliable) source that backs up "significant mass". Now I do wonder about these non-Twitter sources, it'd be better to analyse these people individually and see if they're people who actually know what they're talking about. If such a source exists that is notable for inclusion, it should be mentioned that its their own opinion rather than fact. See WP:OPINION —Panamitsu (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Most of these sources are Twitter which generally arent considered reliable in this context. See WP:RSTWITTER.

“unless the author is a subject-matter expert”

Let’s take this tweet by Richard Dawkins:

Well, there were already signs that Scientific American was going under, but could anyone have believed that once great magazine could conceivably ever sink quite so abysmally low as this?

What is the evil or harm that we are trying to avoid by saying that the opinion of Richard Dawkins on Scientific American may not be reported in Wikipedia unless it is also reported by a secondary source? What does it mean to say that a tweet by Richard Dawkins, standing alone, is not “reliable”? We are presenting this as an opinion, not as truth. Are we saying that the opinion of an acknowledged subject-matter expert is presumed to be either false or insufficiently noteworthy unless a secondary source reports it?

When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.

This seems to be saying that we can assume reliability and significance in some cases merely by the identity of the author, and without the addition of a secondary source. Is that true or not true?

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.

What is the relevant rule? Can self-published expert sources be considered reliable in the absence of the opinion being published independently or not? Swood100 (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Swood100 Good points backed up by policy, including "A self-published source by an expert may include a significant opinion that hasn’t yet appeared in a non-self-published source." I think some of this criticism should be included then, although I must say that I'm not sure what there is to write about the previous example from Dawkins. —Panamitsu (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

although I must say that I'm not sure what there is to write about the previous example from Dawkins.

The common denominator of these criticisms is that while Scientific American had previously insisted on scrupulously following the requirements of the scientific method, it now is willing to relax those requirements in the furtherance of "social justice" or other non-scientific goals. Do you think that the above Dawkins quote fails to clearly express this sentiment? Swood100 (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• Note that since I disagree with the direction this conversation has gone and do not wish to keep repeating myself, I have invited broader community participation at the NPOV noticeboard. Generalrelative (talk) 23:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  Coming from said noticeboard: I agree that most of these sources are not reliable. WP:SPS says that subject-matter experts can be sourced to self-published sources. I don't think that what these people are being cited for is even appreciably close to their subject matter. If they were pointing out actual factual mistakes that were relevant to the subject matter that'd be different, but they're mostly just complaining from a firmly political angle. The closest any of them get is Coyne claiming that Sci-Am is wrong about the literature on trans health care, but Coyne is neither a doctor nor a medical researcher so this is still out of his wheelhouse. Loki (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Generalrelative and Loki appear to prefer to frame this issue as being one involving a subject-matter expert (scientist) who is addressing an issue outside his area of expertise (politics), and so is not entitled to be treated as an expert. It may be true that in many of these instances the scientific expert is disagreeing with the substantive goals or social policy preferences of Scientific American. However, the issue is not whether those goals are worthwhile but whether advocacy of those goals is a scientific project. Trying to convince readers of the correctness of a certain social ideology inevitably involves differences of opinion on questions that cannot be resolved through the scientific method. Scientific experts such as Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins have expertise and are qualified to determine whether an argument is a scientific one or is a political one. They are qualified to evaluate whether conclusions that are asserted to be required by scientific reasoning are scientifically justified. And they are qualified to distinguish an opinion journal from a scientific one.

Jerry Coyne expresses his opinion succinctly: "There’s no longer any doubt that one of the main missions of Scientific American involves not the dissemination of science but pushing a 'progressive' Democratic ideology on its readers". His claim is that whereas before their project was the dissemination of science, now it has become social advocacy. His scientific expertise qualifies him to be able to distinguish the two. Swood100 (talk) 00:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I think this is where it gets confusing as the writer mentions both the scientific method and politics. The writer says ... pushing a 'progressive' Democratic ideology on its readers which seems to be talking mainly about politics (who they aren't an expert in), so it'd seem to me that it'd be undue to include this, the political part is the reason, not the science part, being a self-published source. —Panamitsu (talk) 01:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Suppose a scientist complains that a scientific journal has begun to sacrifice scientific content in order to engage in political advocacy. His complaint concerns a scientific deficiency. What if the journal started reporting sports stories. Would you say that since he is not a sports expert it cannot be presumed that he can recognize the decline in science content? Swood100 (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Note that I've found a mention of this journal being "woke" on The Wall Street Journal here which is not free so I'm unable to verify if this is relevant or reliable. It appears to me that if there is a source which may be considered due, it'd be this one only. —Panamitsu (talk) 01:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I’m about to head down to the library to read that article. There are other potentially interesting WSJ articles mentioning Scientific American here, here, here, here and here. In addition, there are articles in Newsweek, American Council on Science and Health, National Review, Sceptic, and The Princetonian. There are clearly secondary sources out there, but it's hard to anticipate what objections people might have to them. Swood100 (talk) 02:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I think including this would be undue without reliable (i.e. not opinion pieces on fringe websties) secondary coverage. Otherwise there is no indication of significance. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

What is the meaning of the following statements of Wikipedia policy:

"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."

"When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint."

Swood100 (talk) 01:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Cherry-picking social media posts is a poor way to "fairly, proportionately" represent the views of the scientific community on a long-established journal. If say Dawkins had written an in-depth commentary on Scientific American, and such commentary had attracted secondary coverage it would quite possibly merit inclusion. Twitter posts that nobody sees worth remarking on? No. Entirely undue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

How do you reconcile that with Wikipedia policy that says that the opinions of subject-matter experts can be considered reliable and significant even though not published in an independent secondary source? Swood100 (talk) 01:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how Coyne, a subject matter in perhaps biology and criticism of religion, is a subject-matter expert on popular general science publishing or modern politics. Same with Dawkins. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Coyne is a subject matter expert in what constitutes rigorous science. He is like the biology professor whose job is to recognize the deficiencies of a weak student. If the student hands in a paper in which he makes a political argument when he should have made a scientific one, or if he uses scientific reasoning that has holes in it, the professor is qualified to criticize his output since it falls short of the scientific standard that the professor is demanding. The professor does not need to be an expert in political subjects to be able to tell the student that he shouldn't be submitting political advocacy pieces, regardless of the nature of the advocacy. Swood100 (talk) 04:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• It is fundamentally impossible to answer the question posed with primary sources. Any source that purports to answer whether the opinion being expressed here is held by a substantial number of people both inside and outside the scientific community. would be by definition a secondary source (this is distinguished from whether the source is independent or reliably published). If such a source exists and it's use is proposed, I would suggest that RSN be better equipped to answer the question whether it sufficient to support the claim. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The point is that there is a presumption that the opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. Swood100 (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Likely, yes, but the statement "expert sources are reliable" is very different, and by typical practice a category error. Sources are not reliable or unreliable in the abstract, and likely to reflect a significant viewpoint is not the same as verifiably is a significant viewpoint. Hence, secondary sources (which themselves summarise and weigh the primary sources) are generally preferred. Use of primary sources for this purpose would only be permissible on a case by case basis. Whether they are reliable doesn't actually matter, or rather, it is very rare for a statement of opinion to not be a reliable source for the opinion of that person, so reliability is trivially assumed. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Yup. This isn't a reliability issue, it is one of weight. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I have reviewed things in a bit more detail, so I think it's worth elaborating on the kind of case needed for inclusion. As a matter of policy, primary sources are not entirely proscribed, but there is a strong preference for secondary sources. In the abstract, it is possible to be appropriate to cite a self-published expert for their attributed opinion, but to assess the appropriate level of weight accorded (i.e. WP:DUE) there needs to be a specific group that this opinion represents (your "substantial number of people") and it should be patently obvious that this is in fact an accurate reflection of the group as a whole. There should also be no secondary source covering the opinion of the same group.

Collapsing specific advice to Swood100 for concision unless/until revised shorter

In both the proposed text and this discussion, I would counsel that you be much more specific on whom exactly this specific group should be. In the text, a mention is good practice to make obvious why the opinion was considered relevant. In the discussion here, it is necessary to both significance and representativeness. In a way, this is the opposite of the typical WP:AWW, and rather than {{who}}, we need to know who else holds this specific opinion. I can tell you now, that if your group is "people who are critical of the publication" as a whole, as would be implied by the headline question, then I'm willing to immediately grant the size and significance of that group without really feeling the need to quantify it. At the same time, that their opinions are substantially identical beyond the common factor of being critical would seem implausible. Perhaps it is possible to cut things down to a one-size-fits-all critical opinion, but I expect that you'd need to make an extremely strong case to convince anyone at all. If we cross-categorise into critical scientists, that hardly narrows the expected range of opinion down at all. On the other hand, unless they are incredibly prominent, you would have your work cut out to argue for inclusion of individuals-as-individuals. So, if you want to make a case Swood100, pick a group. Is Coyne's opinion significant as a biologist? A skeptic? A New Atheist? An WP:RSEDITORIAL from an established organisation generally has it easier because the "who" and the "why" is more obvious. Still, there are issues that using an actual secondary source would not have, and in my opinion we could stand to use them less.

That is not to say that the sourcing issue is restricted to your addition. The previous two paragraphs are sourced exclusively to the publication itself, and while we also allow some latitude for WP:ABOUTSELF, I would say the use here is not appropriate. And it's not like secondary sources for this specific article is that hard to find. It's clearly noteworthy, and while my initial review for the 2016 editorial only found the NYT article on the 2020 endorsement, which did mention it, but only in passing, and Inverse, which seems to have more depth but while a NEWSORG seems considerably... bloggier... a slightly deeper search clearly that there is some coverage, both in slightly more detail (QZ, Media Matters, Raw Story (unreliable) Inside Higher Ed (narrower circulation?)) and more clearly trivial mentions (Vox, CBC Business Insider, USA Today, Am Pol Res, Il Post, Reno Gazette-Journal, and more situationally Medical Republic (circ/area?) and PanSci). Having secondary mentions is also an indication that an opinion is noteworthy enough for inclusion in an article. The NYT article is probably fine as a source for both paragraphs, maybe with one or two others thrown in, and looking at secondary sources like this, who knows, you might find some other NEWSORG that has a noteworthy view on the topic. Still, ideally we'd hope for some secondary coverage on the whole "this publication and politics" in general, and only use the primary to fill in any obvious gaps.

I hope that this, and the more specific advice, helps explain what we'd need from you to even begin discussing things seriously, because at the moment, you are engaging with the wrong policies and guidelines to use in this case. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for passing along citations to those sources. I appreciate it. Swood100 (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• Coming from the NPOV reference desk. I do not accept that Jerry Coyne or Richard Dawkins are subject matter experts on wokeness. Their Twitter remarks are at best primary sources. What is needed is secondary sources or actual subject matter experts or perhaps Scientific American itself. It is not Wikipedia's job to comment on or turn primary sources into assessments like secondary sources do. The Daily Princetonian or Sceptic can count as such secondary sources though I'd have thought it would be noted more widely, I think they are enough for a short note. As to the idea of noticing outrage on Twitter by some notable scientists and writing that up in Wikipedia because they are good at scientific reasoning - that is very much a no no on Wikipedia and comes under a whole lot of nots in WP:NOT and this discussion verges on WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS the way it has being going, see what it says about not riding the crest of the wave but being behind the curve. NadVolum (talk) 08:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I do not accept that Jerry Coyne or Richard Dawkins are subject matter experts on wokeness.

They are subject matter experts on what constitutes rigorous science. If a scientific journal started writing stories about sports one wouldn't need to be an expert in sports to be able to recognize that it's not science. Swood100 (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The wokeness business does grate with me but if you've read anything at all from it you'll see that scientists are about as bigoted and illogical as any other member of the population. In areas that they are not subject matter experts they should be treated by Wikipedia just like anybody else. NadVolum (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I don’t question that those sources are experts on what is and is not scientific method in their own fields of expertise. But what they’re being quoted for shows a strong political bias. A long time ago, long before the concept of “wokeness” existed, Scientific American went from being a journal that explained scientific advances in accessible language but at a sophisticated level to a much lower-level magazine that was oriented toward popular appeal and trendiness. I noticed this in roughly the 1990s, and discontinued my subscription. I very much doubt that this transformation was connected with politics, although I suppose that from a leftist perspective you could say that it’s our rotten capitalist system that forces many worthwhile enterprises to go under or be transformed into clickbait crap in order to survive financially. In contrast, from a right-wing perspective it’s all the fault of "wokeness" and Democratic Party politics. The latter POV is ahistorical, in view of the actual history of Scientific American, and not at all based on any scientific method. It does not reflect any subject-matter expertise on the part of the sources. BTW, my own tongue-in-cheek leftist comment that it's all the fault of our rotten capitalist system is similarly not based on my subject-matter expertise as a scientist. If I had put that on Twitter, it would not have been a suitable source for Wikipedia. NightHeron (talk) 12:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Swood100 (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposed addition to Scientific American article

A number of scientists, scholars, and pundits have complained that Scientific American, originally devoted exclusively to dissemination of scientific knowledge, has gone "woke" and has joined the "social justice" bandwagon. An example of this view is University of Chicago biology professor Emeritus Jerry Coyne: "Scientific American is changing from a popular-science magazine into a social-justice-in-science magazine" and "it is not science: it's politics and sociology with a Leftist bent." The Wall Street Journal recently commented on this issue in these terms: "The politicization of formerly respected scientific publications is one of society's more disturbing recent trends and it seems that yet another periodical is willing to surrender its claim to authority." The article quotes Yale professor of social and natural science Nicholas Christakis, "It's just incredible how far [Scientific American]—a periodical I admired—has fallen from its mission to provide accurate, clear, and vivid coverage of science." Christakis points to a post on Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True" website that accuses Scientific American's editor-in-chief of distorting biology in order to promote a social justice goal (equality for the transgender and for marginalized groups). According to another critic, "Scientific American's descent from respected publication to ideological tabloid is nearly complete. The magazine is now promoting anti-GMO activism under the guise of 'social justice.'" Newsweek cited a Scientific American article titled, "Why the Term 'JEDI' Is Problematic for Describing Programs That Promote Justice, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion" as an example of a wider pattern of scientific institutions going "woke" and hemorrhaging credibility. According to Skeptic, while the term "woke" originally meant being aware of racial and social issues, it has come to refer to an attitude that interferes with the ability of Scientific American to engage in rational discourse and scientific inquiry.

Scientific American's defenders, such as Princeton anthropologist Agustín Fuentes, defend articles with titles such as "Modern Mathematics Confronts Its White, Patriarchal Past" by asserting that the editorial board at Scientific American has "recognized that times are changing, and including previously excluded and marginalized voices, experiences, and perspectives in their pages is not only the right thing to do, but also the necessary thing to do for a better and more vibrant science of the 21st century. ...Because science has a problem. Systemic gender inequities, sexism, racism, ableism, colonialist histories and their neocolonialist present exist in science." Swood100 (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I think this needs a bit of copy editing, for example I think "a number of ..." is a bit misleading and suggests that more people are criticising it than what the source says, I suggest changing it to "a group of ...", also I think that this group of people should be named as mentioned by another editor in this discussion.

Now for @Generalrelative:'s rollback here they mention that "obviously against consensus" although consensus was made on the a couple of self-published "fringe" sources and statements on Twitter, which this revision by Swood100 didn't use and instead used secondary sources that aren't related to Dawkins or Coyne, so I'm personally unsure of what this meant. —Panamitsu (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Panamitsu is clearly correct. There was a consensus that tweets by Coyne, Dawkins, etc. would not be sufficient and that secondary sources would be required. I don't see anybody saying that even reliable secondary sources would be insufficient. If there are objections, what are they? Swood100 (talk) 01:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

In a post on 10 October, @Generalrelative wrote this:

Without WP:SECONDARY coverage of what Coyne or Fuentes are saying here, it's hard to see how it merits inclusion in an encyclopedia. If you can find such sources, on the other hand, I will happily accede.

Has that statement been revoked? What would be the reason? Swood100 (talk) 01:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: Are my proposed changes disputed? What is the dispute? Swood100 (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The addition is blatant editorialising, an in no shape or form belongs in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Andy here. Per WP:RSEDITORIAL:

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

Swood100 has cited four opinion pieces. And, as I stated at NPOVN, coverage of critical remarks about Scientific American in The Daily Princetonian and The Skeptic is glancing at best. The same is true for the Newsweek editorial they cited. I haven't read the Wall Street Journal one but it's immaterial. Actual WP:SECONDARY coverage would be in-depth (i.e. focused on the matter you're trying to use it to write about, in this case criticism of Scientific American) and it would be actual reporting rather than editorial/opinion columns. And that is leaving aside the completely unencyclopedic tone of the text Swood100 sought to add.

Note that I stated above that I would not be engaging with Swood100 further on this matter, but since they've located additional sources I've made a good-faith effort to answer. I will not be engaging further with what I see as WP:BLUDGEON and refusal to WP:LISTEN. Any attempt to re-add the disputed content without first securing a positive consensus should be considered disruptive. Generalrelative (talk) 01:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, I was referring to editiorialising by Swood100, in Wikipedia's voice, when I described the content as 'blatant editorialising', rather than the sources being cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Aha, I see how I was unclear there. I was writing my own reply while you posted, Andy, and then awkwardly pasted on the "I'm in agreement with Andy" part. I did not mean to imply that you were referring to WP:RSEDITORIAL yourself. Generalrelative (talk) 02:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

It should be further noted that even in the first sentence, the content cherry-picks a source (The Princetonian) which is supportive of Scientific Americans editorial policy in order to imply that The Princetonian opposes a supposed 'social justice' 'bandwagon'. This is gross misrepresentation, and utterly unacceptable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

It's possible that The Princetonian is the appropriate source for the introductory sentence, but it should definitely be attributed and the text adhere more closely to the source. Specifically, I see a distinction drawn between "a number" and the more preferred "group", but it seems to me that "select group" as used by the source is the key qualification here. Fuentes also, multiple times (instead of once for "select group") refers to the group as the "anti-woke" crowd, but I am still hesitant to include that in the article for want of a secondary source. Perhaps with attribution. I've only reviewed about 5 of the 8 sources used here, but I don't think there's a single secondary source in there? Use of primary sources, especially for content that is or is likely to be challenged, should generally be done with extreme care, which doesn't seem to be the case for the proposed insertion. As a postscript, I found the even produced calls for me to be fired from Princeton. part from Fuentes an interesting tidbit, and it does appropriately add some spice to an opinion article, but it doesn't exactly sell me on it as a non-opinion source (not that it should, given it's clearly marked as opinion). Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm with the others that this is editorialisation. I feel though that with a bit of copy editing it may warrant being in the article, but it's difficult to tell at this point. I'm wondering if the part in the policy, rarely reliable for statements of fact can be avoided if it's made clearer that they are opinions, and who these opinions are from. —Panamitsu (talk) 01:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Even ignoring other concerns, the sheer bulk of the content is undue, given the sparse sourcing. The topic might merit a sentence or two at most. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd be open to a sentence or two –– if we can find a secondary source that discusses criticism of Scientific American in depth. So far we've seen screeds against "woke" science, along with a very thoughtful rebuttal by Fuentes in The Princetonian, but none of them focus on Scientific American for more than one sentence. Without such coverage, it's hard to see any mention as due for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Generalrelative (talk) 02:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Scientific American is in print since 1845, the somewhat recent criticism of people who don't understand the term "woke" is basically irrelevant. Polygnotus (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with AndyTheGrump that it might deserve a sentence or two. But what we've got so far does not justify the sheer bulk of what was stuck in. Basically I consider it failed WP:UNDUE badly and was turning the article into a coathanger about the current editor. NadVolum (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I also agree. The long first paragraph of the proposed addition reads like a politically-motivated screed against Scientific American, such as would appear in a conservative blog or magazine. Definitely UNDUE. NightHeron (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Some cite WP:RSEDITORIAL and complain that editorial opinion columns are rarely reliable for statements of fact. But look, whether Scientific American has become “woke” or has replaced scientific content with social justice advocacy is a matter of opinion, right? Are you demanding a source that states this as FACT, as if it is a matter of hard news and the proven conclusion of a scientific study? What is your point here? What kind of piece are you looking for? The article in The Daily Princetonian begins like this:

Recently a select group of scientists, scholars, and pundits have denounced key science journals, specifically Scientific American (SciAm) and Science, as going “woke” and joining the “social justice” bandwagon.

This is a well-respected Professor of Anthropology at Princeton writing this. Do you doubt the truth of his statement? Another person claims that accurately quoting this statement "cherry-picks a source," since the author ends up disagreeing with those who denounced Scientific American. But the point is that the fact remains true: there is a select group of scientists, scholars, and pundits who have denounced Scientific American. How is it cherry-picking to point this out?

Another person complained of the unencyclopedic tone of the text I added, without explaining what was meant by that. Another person said that "the sheer bulk of the content is undue, given the sparse sourcing." What kind of sourcing would not be "sparse"? Another person said that "it failed WP:UNDUE badly." That suggests that it violated the following:

Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.

How does the addition violate neutrality? One gets the distinct impression that those objecting to this are disagreeing with the critics of Scientific American, rather than claiming that there are no such critics or that their complaints are not prominent enough to become a part of this article. If this issue is discussed in The Wall Street Journal, The Daily Princetonian, Newsweek, and Sceptic, not to mention in countless tweets by notable scientists, then it is prominent enough for this article. Swood100 (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Swood100, I'd strongly recommend reading WP:BADGER and WP:STONEWALL at this point. You seem to be doing little more than repeat yourself, in a context where your earlier comments will already have been read, and taken into account. In a collaborative project, we all have to accept that sometimes the consensus will be against us. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I suppose this could have stood to be emphasised a bit more by Generalrelative, and it's you may have missed this, but I will need some form of acknowledgement of this: Are you aware here that opinion pieces are not considered a secondary source, Swood100? Second of all, with regards to weight, while I am not able to act as a formal closer of this discussion, nor is it of a type that even requires or admits a formal close, it's fairly clear to me that consensus is that the coverage supports at most a sentence or two of text in the article. Are you able to clearly explain, with reference to relative prominence and the current length of the article as a whole, what you believe to be the most appropriate length and why?

Finally, please do so on the talk page. I would strongly counsel that you do not make another insertion into the article before there is a positive consensus for your specific proposed insertion. If you do not feel confident in correctly evaluating such a consensus, please err on the side of caution and/or ask someone else to do so. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC) (amended 12:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC))

@Alpha3031: I would dispute your assertion that consensus for including a sentence or two has been made clear at this point.

AndyTheGrump says The topic might merit a sentence or two at most.

NadVolum says I'm in agreement with AndyTheGrump that it might deserve a sentence or two.

NightHeron says I also agree.

All emphasis mine of course. If these editors would like to make their support for inclusion definitive, I'd call that consensus, but so far consensus for inclusion of any of this stuff hasn't been established.

My objection to including any mention of this at all until better sources are provided –– leaving aside the question of whether WP:RSEDITORIAL sources can ever be considered WP:SECONDARY –– is that 1) such sources are rarely reliable for statements of fact and thus do not carry DUE weight, and 2) the sources that have been trotted out so far aren't actually about Scientific American. Rather, they give it glancing mention while discussing a broader topic. Taken together, this coverage adds up to a whole lot of nothing. Generalrelative (talk) 04:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I will amend my statement won't the insertion of "up to" or "not more than" when I am able to do so. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Cheers. Much appreciated. Generalrelative (talk) 06:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes (to explain "I also agree"), although I’m not necessarily opposed to a sentence or two, depending on what it says, I’m bothered by any addition that suggests that the problem with Scientific American is “wokeness”. My own perception (for which I have no sources to suggest) is that the journal, which once (roughly until the 1980s) was one of the leading sources of scientific information and insight for the layperson, with brilliant writers such as Martin Gardner, declined after that, presumably because they thought that dumbing down would attract more subscribers and advertisers. At that point it was almost inevitable that they would start including politically and sociologically oriented opinion pieces with little scientific content. Contrary to what right-wing commentators say, the basic problem was not “wokeness” (whatever that means), but rather financial pressure to lower quality, a problem that’s not unique to that particular journal. NightHeron (talk) 09:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I said a sentence or two. I did not mean by that eleven sentences with an average of thirty five words each plus eight citations. Perhaps I should be more specific about what I mean by what I think the maximum DUE limits would be here given its coverage and in relation to the rest of the article. I would limit it to at most three sentences with a total of sixty words between them and three citations. That would easily match the coverage given to its support for Biden, and I certainly don't see it as DUE more coverage than that. NadVolum (talk) 12:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Alpha3031:

Are you aware here that opinion pieces are not considered a secondary source, Swood100?

I’m curious to know the kind of source somebody thinks would be appropriate for this purpose. Let’s take one of the statements by Agustín Fuentes:

Recently a select group of scientists, scholars, and pundits have denounced key science journals, specifically Scientific American (SciAm) and Science, as going “woke” and joining the “social justice” bandwagon. ...These criticisms have spread from blogs to the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal and Newsweek.

This is a statement by a high-profile scientist and academic who is writing a piece critical of those who have denounced Scientific American. His piece establishes that, in his opinion, those making these criticisms have achieved a prominence that justifies a public response. His description of them appears to be an objective one, from his perspective. One would expect an opponent of such criticism to tend to minimize its impact or importance, and so the prominence he ascribes to it is unlikely to be exaggerated. That, together with the attention this has received in the Wall Street Journal, Newsweek and elsewhere, along with the prominence of the critics Fuentes is referring to, justifies a mention of this issue in the article on Scientific American. Fuentes gives, as an example, quotes from Jerry Coyne, presented as Coyne’s opinion:

“Scientific American is changing from a popular-science magazine into a social-justice-in-science magazine” and “it is not science: it’s politics and sociology with a Leftist bent.”

Fuentes also gives the titles of some of the articles that have provoked the criticism he is describing:

“Modern Mathematics Confronts Its White, Patriarchal Past” and “Science Must Not Be Used to Foster White Supremacy”

These quotes also seem appropriate to include, as succinct factual examples of the type of opinion that Fuentes is critical of and the types of articles that generated that criticism. Fuentes ends his piece with his defense of Scientific American, which is that the editorial board at Scientific American has:

recognized that times are changing, and including previously excluded and marginalized voices, experiences, and perspectives in their pages is not only the right thing to do, but also the necessary thing to do for a better and more vibrant science of the 21st century. ...Because science has a problem. Systemic gender inequities, sexism, racism, ableism, colonialist histories and their neocolonialist present exist in science.

Perhaps the above elements would be sufficient to explain the issue, and the additional examples of this type of criticism could be dispensed with. Certainly, Fuentes’ defense of Scientific American appears to be the one that is relied upon by Scientific American and its other defenders, and so would be appropriate to include. The alternative would be that Fuentes is wrong in thinking that such criticism is prominent enough to justify any recognition whatsoever, but I don’t see what there is to support that approach. On the contrary, the references in the Wall Street Journal, Newsweek and elsewhere establish that these criticisms at least are noteworthy. Swood100 (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

A secondary source, Swood100. A secondary source would be "what is appropriate for this purpose". Failing that, go take a look at the coverage for the Biden endorsement versus the anti-woke thing and tell me with a straight face that it is in proportion to the prominence in those two sets of sources to have three times as much content on the latter. We don't generally dump choice quotes into articles, because it is rarely an appropriate form or summarisation, and because generally what is included has sufficient secondary sourcing to write something actually meaningful. Like some of the others present, I am also rapidly running out of patience with your repetition substantially the same arguments for substantially the same text. Other than brief clarifications and minor amendments, I expect that unless you change your tack significantly, my next comment on this will be in relation to conduct exclusively and be placed either on your talk page or a relevant noticeboard. Alpha3031 (t • c) 23:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

About five times as much, not three! NadVolum (talk) 12:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: Interesting that you mentioned those 3 people but excluded me from that list. Polygnotus (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Nothing personal, Polygnotus. I only mentioned those whose statements seemed like they might have implied support for "one or two sentences" to show that even these statements couldn't be taken as straightforward endorsements of inclusion. It was pretty clear that you, like me, see this as unencyclopedic content, so I didn't see the need to ping you. Generalrelative (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Swood100 (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Circulation?

The magazine industry is collapsing. National Geographic no longer employs any writers. What are the current circulation figures for SA? How do they compare with peak? Impact figures? Staff numbers? Page numbers?

And at the same time, WTF? Three paragraphs on a staffing controversy at an associated blog site? Anybody adding actually useful content is welcome to cut that cruft as well. 124.187.219.128 (talk) 04:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)