Talk:Michael Hobbes

Chick-fil-A tweet

I am a bit baffled at the paragraph about the Chick-fil-A tweet. It seems so insignificant. I would also expect that there would be a follow-up. Did Hobbes apologize, add proof, delete his tweet? I tried to find sources on what happened next but couldn't. I assume that is because no-one cared enough to do a follow-up. So I would recommend just deleting this section. Óli Gneisti (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, if anything it seems like the content would be better placed in the article for the Atlantic. Deleting here makes sense to me. NoahKale (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I actually think it's fantastic, as it correctly shows the criticism of Hobbes in terms of depth and pearlclutchyness. (Those being: very shallow, and very pearlclutchy.) In that sense... it's quite informative. It also is indicative towards whose toes Hobbes tends to step on in his broader body of work – as Chait and The Atlantic seem like perfect representatives of that class. So... idk... that whole part made had me chuckle. 176.0.140.251 (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@176.0.140.251 Okay, I'm very late here, but I do think it should be deleted. If you think he is pearlclutching and shallow, then you gotta go find a source saying that and put it there, otherwise writing something insignificant because it fits with your own perception of him borders on original research and uncited and uncitable sourcing. Saeleriela (talk) 07:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

If the quote from Nicholas Quah is WP:DUE for inclusion based on a single article, I see absolutely no reason why this can't be included, given that it received three articles' worth of coverage in The Washington Post, Reason, and New York magazine. And the argument "there was no follow-up, so it should be deleted" is simply not policy-based - many people, upon being corrected, would choose to simply stay quiet and let the matter pass. I've shortened the paragraph for readability but oppose removal. Astaire (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Here is a source assesment table of the three citations used. These articles only pass Reliablility, but fail either being independent or having significant coverage.

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
"The 'Fake' New York Times Chicken-Sandwich Story Turns Out to Be Quite Real". New York.	~ Chait is the subject of this sentence in the Wikipedia article. The article was published by Chait, making it independent. The other two sources here don't mention Chait and therefore fails as it is a criticism that can't be sourced to reliable secondary sources.		:	? Unknown
"New York Times Staffers Bullied a Conservative Writer". Reason.			Passing mention only (Only mentioned in one sentence, see Wikipedia:ONESENTENCE)	✘ No
"New York Times employees fighting over Chick-fil-A? Sounds about right". The Washington Post.			Passing mention only (Only mentioned in one sentence, see Wikipedia:ONESENTENCE)	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I should note that even if you think that only the first source should stay, then the article will violate WP:BLPBALANCE, as it will give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints. The way that sentence is written as of right now also fails WP:SYNTH, the term "bad-faith media [critic]" only appears in the title of the article. ~2026-40218-85 (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

This analysis is not useful. Source tables like this are used for assessing WP:GNG, which is for assessing the notability of entire articles, not the inclusion of content within an article: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. You cite pages like WP:ONESENTENCE without actually understanding them: sources that only contain a "trivial mention" of a topic are insufficient to establish that topic's notability. "Topic" here means the subject of the article, not every piece of text within the article. Please see WP:N.

even if you think that only the first source should stay, then the article will violate WP:BLPBALANCE, as it will give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints No it will not. A single sentence of criticism, sourced to a reliable outlet like New York magazine, does not violate WP:BLPBALANCE. In fact, that page says: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. We have two quotes from individual writers - Quah and Chait - that praise and criticize Hobbes, respectively. If you feel that this is imbalanced - say, because Hobbes has been overwhelmingly positively received - the solution is to find more sources showing that praise, not to remove all criticism.

In fact, your objection to Chait, and not Quah, is revealing: the Quah article likewise "can't be sourced to reliable secondary sources." So why are you only trying to remove one and not the other? Astaire (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Academic background

Is there a reason his educational background is omitted? According to his LinkedIn profile, it is the following:

• Master's degree, European Studies (2005 - 2007) from Aarhus University
• Master's degree, Political and Legal Theory (2003 - 2004) from UCL
• Bachelor's degree, Journalism & psychology (2000 - 2003) from Western Washington University

This information seems relevant to readers assessing the authority of the views expressed on his podcasts, and I think it meets WP:ABOUTSELF criteria for inclusion. (I don't usually edit BLPs...) Patrick (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Jonathan Chait

@HenrikHolen: Jonathan Chait (not Haidt) was not employed by The Atlantic at the time; he became a staff writer 8 months later: Prior to that, he had written two Atlantic articles in 20 years . I don't think it's accurate or due to describe him as "a writer for The Atlantic" in this context. Astaire (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2026 (UTC)