Talk:The Virtue of Nationalism

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Criticism section[edit]

I noticed that user Jlevi removed some material from the criticism section, citing skepticism about the source and author's notability. I took a look at the source, and while it isn't the New York Times, it seems like it meets Wikipedia standards, gets the occasional mention in other publications, and publishes a handful of wiki-notable writers. And from what I can tell, though the author isn't particularly notable, his article is the most substantive with regard to the claim in question and a quick google search shows that critics of Hazony are citing and linking to the piece (some examples: "Not The National Conservatism We’ve Been Looking For," in the Federalist, and "Nationalism and the Conservative Country Club" in takimag). Granted, the quoted material takes up a lot of space, so I'll take a stab at trimming it down a bit. In future, discuss the merits of keeping/removing material like that on the talk page before doing a wholesale deletion. --Staplesworth (talk) 05:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Staplesworth. Thanks for looking further into this. It's totally possible I missed something, and I appreciate you looking further into this matter. I think it's at times reasonable to remove a clearly marginal, unreliable source, and I identified this as one of those. If you feel I erred in this, that'd be very useful information.

At the same time, I think there is more work to be done. The wp:UBO in Takimag is not useful given its status per RSN. And I'm aware of a couple writers for the magazine who are wiki-notable, such as Nick Land, but the fact that they're notable doesn't mean they're reliable or due--quite the opposite in some cases. I haven't really seen any mentions in mainstream sources other than this: [1]. The Federalist mentioning it is something, though. Jlevi (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]