Talk:Scientific American/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Bias

Any wonder that the editor who called this liberal political magazine [and no, "liberal political magazine" WAS NOT a joking reference, despite his editing] "one of the most respected science magazines in the world", on the strength of a blog citation, no less, is a self-described npr/cpb-ite and supporter of other leftist causes?

Any wonder wp has a reputation that's been described as "notoriously unreliable", among other things?

Answer: No, in both cases.

Thus, his revisions should be deleted.

D59g (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The above comments, and the middle two paragraphs of the "Scientific and political debate" section, are simply an expression of a long-running political attack on Scientific American magazine by those of right-wing persuasion. Those comments contain no balancing perspective, so they give the impression that it is a fact that there exists left-wing bias in the magazine.

Those two paragraphs should be deleted, or given in a balanced context.LimitingFactor (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Circulation

Could we include circulation figures? Especially numbers before and during the John Rennie period when it made a steep decline in objectivity. --- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrego (talk • contribs) 18:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The December 1985 issue lists the total number of copies at 787,404, which is slightly above the value listed in the article. Apparently, the militancy that SA has acquired since that period has not hurt circulation. The Evolution Revolution (talk) 06:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Burke

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Burke_(science_historian)

was he major contributor once too, i liked these articles very much

ps. i sort of agree with above, I do not think Einstein would joke as such as Greene, Krauss etc...

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.75.194 (talk) 06:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's delete the Criticism/Controversy box

The Controversies section is an interesting and useful contribution to understanding the nature and role of SciAm. It does not mean that the facts about the magazine's existence are in dispute. Let's delete the warning box at once. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Discovering Archeology

What relationship does DA have to SciAm? I've seen it described as a "sister publication". I can find no further information about it. Does it have a website? Drutt (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Scientific?

People have various concepts as to what is "scientific". If we define "science" as "knowing things as they are", then so called science or specifically "material science" is just a subset of "science" which has to explain absolutely everything in existence. Modern science (material science) can answer only the "how" questions (in physics, chemistry, biology, mechanics etc.) but cannot answer the "why" questions (which are often the subject of religion [defining religion is not easy]). The subject non-overlapping magisteria has to be considered, as science knows very little about consciousness, emotions, the purpose of life, etc. and nothing about the soul (defined at the moment as the non-material "particle" necessary for life) and... God. 59.95.11.206 (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Sci am mar 2005.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Sci am mar 2005.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 22 June 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Sci am mar 2005.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Not a scientific journal

I think we need to mention that Scientific American is NOT a scientific journal. It causes confusion unless List_of_scientific_journals page is seen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishikt (talk • contribs) 18:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, SciAm is a respected popular magazine dealing with science, and arguably does it better than anyone else, but it has never claimed to be a scientific journal and certainly isn't one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

There are countless accounts on the internet on the steep decline of the magazine. Which does coincide somewhat with the change of ownership. I think it should be noted in the article. It was at some point a magazine that most scientists would love to be a part of. But not anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.157.156 (talk) 05:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

in particular, a lot of these accounts may be found on Amazon, in reviews with 1 and 2 stars http://www.amazon.com/Scientific-American-1-year-auto-renewal/product-reviews/B002PXVYPU/ref=sr_1_1_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1 . A good mag for smart people ran into the ground by dumb leftists. 76.119.30.87 (talk) 01:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

censored Talk sections

Talk page has been tampered with to remove criticism sections "decline of SciAm" and "SciAm and frivolous content". They may be found in an earlier revision http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scientific_American&oldid=435346781 76.119.30.87 (talk) 02:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Scientific American. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120119195853/http://www.scientificamerican.com/pressroom/aboutus.cfm to http://www.scientificamerican.com/pressroom/aboutus.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Change from weekly to monthly

The article notes that Scientific American began as a weekly publication. It would be helpful to add when it changed to monthly. Pha telegrapher (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Year Info for first Editor should not be his birth-death . But the time he was editor.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.131.28.25 (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Intensely problematic use of the term "alleged"

I was browsing the Scientific American article and found myself in the "controversy" section, where some language misuse caught my eye. I will mark up the section of interest below.

"Although the alleged incident had occurred about a year earlier[...] Zivkovic responded on Twitter and his own blog, admitting the incident with Ms. Byrne had taken place. His blog post apologized to Ms. Byrne, and referred to the incident as "singular", stating that his behavior was not "engaged in before or since."

Due to the allegations, [...] Following Zivkovic's admission, several prominent female bloggers, including other bloggers for the magazine, wrote their own accounts that contradicted Zivkovic's assertions, alleging additional incidents of sexual harassment. A day after these new revelations, Zivkovic resigned his position at Scientific American, according to a press release from the magazine."

In this current climate of sweeping cover-ups of sexual violence against women, particularly by men in positions of influence and power, and resulting controversies, I see this as a gross misuse of language. I am asking the wikipedia community to understand the impact of colloquialising words like "alleged" to discredit assaults that many perpetrators and legitimizing institutions will never confirm. If Zivkovic admitted the incident, there is no place for the word "alleged" to discredit its reality or its harm. The two presidential forerunners are currently on the hook for "alleged" sexual assaults.

Fixing this wording in the article alone will not solve anything, hence why I have not simply done it myself. I am hoping to prompt a conversation and careful consideration of our language use regarding assaults, victimhood, and believability in the future. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allegedlyfocused (talk • contribs) 23:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

No, it is not "intensely problematic." In fact, it is not problematic whatsoever. It is an accurate description. You sound like a far-left activist. Normal people are sick and tired of this ridiculous "language/tone policing" or whatever you people call this politically-correct activist nonsense. Knock it off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dupessybil (talk • contribs) 15:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Ownership

The fact that it is owned by a megacorporation is important, and the way in which it presents its lineage to this famous, singular paper is problematic, misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.59.126.42 (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Political Bias

Allsides.com, a site dedicated to rating media bias is not 'a reliable source'? Seriously? http://www.allsides.com/news-source/scientific-american — Preceding unsigned comment added by DevWall (talk • contribs) 15:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I’m not seeing that. I’m seeing that it leans left, which is plausible. Misterniceguii (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Allsides and mediabiasfactcheck are both unreliable. --Hipal (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Explain why. While mbfc may be considered unreliable, allsides follows a strict methodology and is recommended by many scientific, high-quality sites. From what I see people tend to think that allsides is unreliable, because it doesn't confirm their viewpoint (everyone wants to think that their favorite news outlet is unbiased) and triggers cognitive dissonance. This is a perfect example on how confirmation bias can harm Wikipedia quality. Seriously, if allsides rates a outlet, it's a good idea to write about it: allsides is not reliable to write that "medium HAS particular bias", but it's ok to write "ACCORDING TO ALLSIDES medium has particular bias". Even more: in this case not writing about bias is a violation of NPOV. NebulaX64 (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

If both allsides and mbfc agree on the bias, then it's probably true. There are many news outlets, that are described as biased, by evidence similar to combination of these two, even more: there is no site that opposes alleged left-center bias of SciAm. Why do you consider writing about it wrong? NebulaX64 (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. See your talk page.

If you want to attempt to change the article in a piecemeal fashion, section-by-section or smaller edits, others may be able to spot content that should remain, and we can get into policy details bit by bit. However, if we can't agree on what's reliable, we're not going to make any headway at all. --Hipal (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I asked you to explain, why do you consider these sources unreliable; that's not the answer. NebulaX64 (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Quoting what I wrote on your talk page, "WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable." I've been cleaning these up for years now. That's how I found this dispute, doing routine cleanup of unreliable sources. --Hipal (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

RSP states that there is no consensus on the reliability of allsides, that's why I don't use it alone. AdFontes and MBFC are not recommended by RSP, as they are self published, however I didn't use them as reference, but as a support for allsides. While usage of allsides on Wikipedia is controversial, the unanimity of these sources shows that it can be used here, as the usage of sources without consensus on reliability depends on context. NebulaX64 (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for reading that finally. Using poor and unreliable sources to support a rewrite of an article is a waste of time.

Will you follow my suggestion, If you want to attempt to change the article in a piecemeal fashion, section-by-section or smaller edits, others may be able to spot content that should remain, and we can get into policy details bit by bit.? --Hipal (talk) 22:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I've requested article protection to stop the dynamic ip (NebulaX64?) from continuing to edit-war. I've requested help at WP:FTN because of the additions of FRINGE-related content. --Hipal (talk) 22:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I really doubt that calling SciAm left-leaning is fringe. NebulaX64 (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

AdFontes and MBFC aren't reliable, so they don't count as "supporting" anything. Even if allsides is reliable, one source saying something is hardly ever sufficient reason to make its claim one of the first things an article says. Additions sourced to personal blogs are not suitable. XOR'easter (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Summarizing: it's OK to write that certain medium is biased only if allsides agrees with other media-rating sites, as it's in this case. NebulaX64 (talk) 23:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

If you want to write about possible political bias at the contemporary magazine, there are good sources with which to do that. Here is one which talks about the Biden endorsement. This review of Shawn Otto's book also mentions the endorsement in the context of the politicization of science. As does this piece published in the BMJ. Here is one which talks about their unprecedented step of criticizing a sitting president. Basically, all the notice for "left-leaning" arguments come around US presidential politics, it seems. Of course, there is already a section that does this in the article, so I would suggest starting there. jps (talk) 12:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

That suggests to me that slapping on the "left-leaning" label would be even more Americentric than such descriptions typically are. XOR'easter (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. It's only in the American political context that a centrist like Biden could be associated with the left in any way. Generalrelative (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Ignoring economics, isn't he socially center-left? 31.60.24.69 (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Biden is a centrist in western Europe, on political scene of more conservative countries he is viewed as progressive. It's however better to describe it as liberal-leaning, as political left is too much associated with economical left. 31.60.24.69 (talk) 04:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The point is that we have no basis for calling Scientific American "left-leaning" simply for endorsing Biden. We would need to see a good number of reliable, independent sources do so before such a characterization would be DUE. And so far the sources on offer are less than convincing. Generalrelative (talk) 06:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

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)