Talk:Quillette

Sources biased to the left

All sources I checked from media bias charts are leftist, as one can easily guess from the POV of the article. The following paragraph would be a more neutral description of Quillette. I hope that somebody could rewrite the article using neutral sources and a neutral POV. Before that, the most extreme POV parts should be removed. --Forp (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

According to Media Bias Chart 7.0, Quillette is almost as reliable and as close to center as Vox and FiveThirtyEight, more than CNN. This sets it near the boundary of "fact reporting" and "analysis or high variation in reliability", and it "Skews Right" (mildest of the three "right" categories). Although Lehmann calls Quillette centrist, also AllSides categorized it as "Lean Right", because today classical liberalism is more often considered right than left.

Yes, and Media Bias/Fact Check says Quillette is unreliable https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/quillette/, as does Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Quackwatch. Reliability of sources is what we look at not WP:BIASED. We all have bias, yes even you - bias is irrelevant. Reliability is what counts on Wikipedia. Media bias aggregate sites are rightfully given no consideration, just like political compass and other such gimmicks. Bacondrum 20:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

MBFC is also an unreliable source per WP:RSP - same as Ad Fontes. AllSides is not listed and I am not familiar with it. I do not believe this article warrants a POV tag. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Many editors here are referencing a biased and out-of-date book chapter: Richards, Imogen; Jones, Callum (2021). "Quillette, classical liberalism, and the international New Right". Contemporary Far-Right Thinkers and the Future of Liberal Democracy. London: Routledge. pp. 126–127. ISBN 978-1003105176. This book chapter contains basic errors including calling Jonathan Haidtt, David Haidt. The book chapter aims to paint Quillette as the populist right, which is very uncharitable considering Quillette regularly criticises this group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.96.195.9 (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The source meets the criteria for a WP:RS, and is certainly not out-of-date. A lot of what you have tried to do is to delete reliably sourced material and replace it with WP:OR, which is totally inappropriate. If you have your own sources to add that meet the criteria for reliable sources, then you can add them (avoiding synthesis), but the Wikipedia consensus is that Quillette is not a perennial source. It has been evaluated several times and has been found to be unreliable. And your own opinions about Quillette articles are certainly not a reliable source. Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Quillette

There is consensus that Quillette is generally unreliable for facts, with non-trivial minorities arguing for either full deprecation or "considerations apply". Quillette is primarily a publication of opinion, and thus actual usage in articles will usually be a question of whether or not it is WP:DUE for an attributed opinion rather than whether it is reliable for a factual claim.

Hist9600 (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Your opinions about Quillette are not reliable either.

My point is, you shouldn't let the majority of the Wiki article be the voice of 2 academics in one book chapter from 2 years ago, even if you personally dislike Quillette. 124.19.3.102 (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

There is no consensus that Quillette is generally unreliable. You base that "consensus" off one website (Media Bias Fact Check) but choose to disregard two other media-bias monitoring sites such as Ad Fontes and All Sides. Why? 124.19.3.102 (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I think you are conflating two different conversations. You posted under someone else's topic here, and now you are confused. Wikipedia has a general consensus that Quillette is not a reliable source. There have been discussions about this at length, going back several years, and the consensus is "generally unreliable". See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Quillette Hist9600 (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Wow, I think you're a bit confused about how this works.

Wikipedia has no "general consensus" on Quillette. The Quillette Wikipedia page is updated by users like you and I, there is no "general consensus" on the page that users must follow. The page is to be updated by reliable sources as they arise.

As it stands, there is one media bias checking website that says Quillette is unreliable, and two that says it isn't. My question is why you are insistent to chose the one that says it isn't, when there are two that says it isn't. Are you in a fit position to edit the page truthfully? SnarkOff (talk) 05:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

edit: two that say it isreliable. SnarkOff (talk) 05:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

So, there's sort of two distinct things being discussed here. Quillette is considered generally unreliable as a source on Wikipedia per WP:RSP (which in turn is based on discussions on WP:RSN.) That does not dictate how we describe it in our article on it, though naturally many of the same arguments and sources are likely to come up. The only thing it means consensus-wise is that we have to be cautious about using Quillette as a source. There are some caveats that allow it to be used in certain ways on this particular article per WP:ABOUTSELF regardless of its reliability, but it's important that we avoid doing so for anything unduly self-serving, and it would be best to avoid citing entire paragraphs solely to them or the like. --Aquillion (talk) 05:24, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

References

SnarkOff, there's two different issues here. The first is the content of this article. What should it say about Quillette? The second issue is whether Quillette is a reliable source to be used to support content on other articles across Wikipedia. There is indeed a prevailing consensus on the latter issue, one that I don't happen to agree with; see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Quillette. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page should have basic, neutral information about Quillette's history. For example, I just updated information to reflect the fact that Quillette now has ONE podcast, not two. I referenced it, and the user Sideswipe9th came through and deleted the entire section relating to the podcast.

Is this not vandalism? SnarkOff (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

It was not vandalism. Read what people are trying to explain to you. The information you added was not basic, nor was it neutral, regardless of your stated intentions. Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion. Cite reliable, independent sources for this, otherwise it's trivia. Grayfell (talk) 06:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I added: "Quillette no longer publishes Wrongspeak. The last episode was on 31 December 2019."

I'm a newbie, but could you please explain how that isn't neutral? SnarkOff (talk) 06:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

For future reference, this was the reverted edit. In addition to adding trivia supported only by routine listings and primary sources, your edit also restored unrelated content which had previously been removed. Your edit summary, "Updated information on the podcast." was misleading, as it ignored this added content, but even beside that, as I already said, you should cite reliable independent sources for this kind of thing for a whole host of reasons. Grayfell (talk) 06:30, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

SYNTH

This is WP:Synthesis. Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source....If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. In this case the Richards 2021 source mentioning articles supporting the 'Human Biodiversity Movement' (A) is being combined with sources about the Human Biodiversity Insitute (one of which is from 2003!) (B) to create a conclusion about association with scientific racism and eugenics (C). Given that the source that does mention Quillette already defines Human Biodiversity, it is unclear why these sources unrelated to the actual topic are needed.

Also, WP:COATRACK. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Do the sources establish a connection between the HBM and scientific racism/eugenics, or not? If you're implying that that the Human Biodiversity Institute isn't part of the HDM, that's a rather EXTRAORDINARY claim, is it not? Newimpartial (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Beside the point - we need sources connecting those to Quillette, not random SPLC briefs from almost 20 years ago. The exact nature of the connection of HBI within, or encompassing, HBM, and the relevance of any of that to Quillette, is up to RS, not Wikipedia editors. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Right. And the reliable sources say that the HBM incorporates scientific racism, with the HBI as a case in point. The reliable sources also say that Quilette platforms the HBM. Explaining what the reliable sources say about the HBM cannot possibly be SYNTH. There simply is no basis in Wikipedia policy for the fairy tale that "we can only describe things in an article the way the sources on that article's topic describe them". That is relativist nonsense and not the way Wikipedia works. Newimpartial (talk) 17:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

The basis in Wikipedia is WP:SYNTH which has been cited multiple times above. This is the way Wikipedia works. ITBF (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

To what statement in the relevant addition are you objecting as a WP:SYNTH violation? If you think SYNTH says, or means, "we can only describe things in an article the way the sources on that article's topic describe them" - well then, I suggest you read WP:SYNTH again. I don't see any basis for that, nor for the corollary that "all sources used in an article must mention that article's primary topic". Newimpartial (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree the content was being used as a COATRACK. It would be like mentioning some NAZI article then diving into a section about all the evil things the Nazi's did. The issues associated with HBD etc can be found in their respective articles. That is it controversial is clear from the sources that mention Quillette + HBD. Springee (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

That isn't the point. The point is that this article should give readers who don't follow the link what the HBM is. The WHITEWASH version you have restored doesn't do that, which is why the other version was an improvement. It isn't noticeably longer (so not a COATRACK), and it is helpfully more specific. Newimpartial (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

If readers don't want to follow a link then they're obviously not that interested in learning more about that topic. We do not need multi-sentence parentheticals. Your passive aggressive responses and hysterical ALLCAPS shouting here are not giving much support to your claim that you're not coatracking. ITBF (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Re: "hysterical ALLCAPS shouting" AFAIK, gender-based personal attacks are even less welcome on-wiki than most other personal attacks. Let's not do that, but rather WP:FOC.

Also, I am unaware of any basis in enwiki policy for the principle, "let's not make a minor mention using the most relevant sources on the thing mentioned, because of readers are that interested they will click the wikilink". Newimpartial (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

The statements from Richards are completely separate from the other additions, and the references make that very clear. WP:SYNTH is generally used when statements are combined. These statements are not combined. They are separate statements that clearly use separate sources. All statements meet the criteria for reliable sources. When reading an article like this, readers should be clear that "human biodiversity" is a euphemism for scientific racism, race theories, "race realism", etc., as is stated in reliable sources on the matter. If there are other notable views, then those can be added as well. Hist9600 (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Likely whitewashing

My source I added to page was inappropiately removed:

Imogen Richards and Callum Jones. "Quillette, classical liberalism, and the international New Right", in A. James McAdams, Alejandro Castrillon (eds.) Contemporary Far-Right Thinkers and the Future of Liberal Democracy (London and New York: Routledge: 2023), p. 45.

Instead it was replaced with following: Actually Existing Anarchist Anthropology 51.6.193.169 (talk) 02:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I stated my reason in the edit summary: the claim failed verification as explained. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

political leaning

out of curiosity I wonder why the paper is associated with right leaning and conservative? The paper itself claim to be neutral. isn't it doing a lot of inference already to put it in one category? ~2025-41769-33 (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2025 (UTC)