Talk:Nancy MacLean

Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest section

I tagged this section as being in likely violation of WP's original research policy, as it appears to be a strung-together list of links and associations that the two editors of this section compiled on their own. [removed per BLP - please do not use this talk page to make accusations regarding other editors or the subject of this article]

WichitaLineman66 (talk) 05:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I removed the entire section not because it's original research, but because it's UNORIGINAL research. All the Wikipedia pages linked are very clear that these institutions are Koch-funded. Nothing is undisclosed. In case there's any question about it, I have never received any Koch money, either directly or indirectly. RussNelson (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I created this article on Nancy MacLean (even though the Koch brothers never sent me a cheque). I admit that the first draft suffered a bit from WP:RECENTISM and focussed on Democracy in Chains, but that's already solved itself (as generally happens on wikipedia). I listed the various accolades she has won, and linked to positive reviews as well as the criticism.

The wikipedia philosophy with a controversy is to summarize what notable/reliable sources say, link to references and let the readers make up their own minds. I linked to MacLean's reponse to Russ Roberts; if MacLean or others publish defenses of Democracy in Chains, they need to be added. The references to the Volokh Conspiracy blog are fine - the material is in-line attributed to Adler/Bernstein et al per WP:BIASED and WP:BLPSPS: "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." Hypothetically, if Adler and Bernstein published a book and a well-known *progressive* academic criticized it on WashPo's Monkey Cage blog, that would be perfectly fine to add to Adler and Bernstein's wikipedia pages.

I have also edited the Alice Goffman article in the past. The controversy over her book was extensively covered by right-wing hate sources like the NYT magazine, the New Yorker, the Chronicle of Higher Education and the New Republic, and the article does a good job of objectively summarizing what everybody said. If the article is unfair to Goffman, anybody with an internet connection can improve it. NPalgan2 (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I have edited the article to note that the quoted criticism is from libertarians. NPalgan2 (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Discrimination against Buchanan

I kinda liked my addition, where I wrote of the discrimination against Buchanan resulting in a heartfelt appreciation for discrimination against others, which MacLean totally flipped on its head, wondering why Buchanan didn't do that. It's almost as if she didn't read the things she was footnoting. Was there a reason you removed it? It seems typical of the MacLeanisms found elsewhere in her book. RussNelson (talk) 02:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry RussNelson, got a call from Charles and David; they said to change it. NPalgan2 (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it was a judgment call. Firstly, I think the article should more indicate the existence of disagreements rather than go into detail about one in particular and Carden gives most space to the Samaritan's Dilemma so I only mentioned that one when I rewrote. Secondly, it was pretty much the only point raised against DiC by any critic that I didn't find that persuasive - MacLean could argue that although Buchanan wrote that "(t)his sobering experience made me forever sympathetic to those who suffer discriminatory treatment”, he may have been blind to the suffering of African-Americans in particular, or have allotted them insufficient weight in his moral calculus, etc., etc. - this counter-argument may or may not be justified but it does not directly contradict Buchanan's quote from Better than Plowing. https://books.google.com/books?id=RfQnDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA34 https://books.google.com/books?id=bEZRUYDlZS0C NPalgan2 (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Damn. Well, we have to do everything they say, so I'll let your removal stand. RussNelson (talk) 05:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

MacLean took an NEH (governmental) grant for the book.

I think this should be mentioned, in the appropriate section of the page, considering the nature of the attacks contained in the book. Link: https://securegrants.neh.gov/publicquery/main.aspx?f=1&gn=FA-57183-13 Click on "Grant products" in order to see the "final" result that was produced with the help of that particular governmental grant. --G. L. Talk 18:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, please read WP:BLPPRIMARY. NPalgan2 (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, when I have time I will look for an article/review that mentions this fact and then I'll use it as a reliable secondary source. --G. L. Talk 19:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Now that I read the wiki "policy" link you gave me with more attention, I notice this: Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. This policy you mentioned talks about "assertions [on] living person[s]" in regards to personal details, dates of birth, home values etc. But the fact about the author having received 50.400$ from the NEH has nothing to do with personal information.

So, what you presented to me, does not prevent editors from inserting facts in biographies, even though those facts are from primary sources. The fact in question is not about the person itself, but the work the person has done. Before you respond to me, I should make present that Wikipedia uses SCOTUS rulings widely in articles pertaining to...SCOTUS rulings. SCOTUS rulings are PRIMARY sources and public (governmental) documents too. So if those public, governmental, primary sources can be used in wikipedia, I can't see how a governmental primary source can't be used to demonstrate that an author has taken government money to write a book. --G. L. Talk 22:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

User_talk:GLOBALIST_LIBERTARIAN 1) Scotus rulings may be cited in citations about SCOTUS decisions. This is a biography of Nancy MacLean, a living person, so we don't use primary documents to support assertions about her or her book. Read it again: "Do not use ... public documents, to support assertions about a living person."

2) Wikipedia decides whether to include material based on the weight of reliable secondary sources. We have now articles in npr, the atlantic, the washington post, reason, munger's forthcoming review article, history news network etc, about Democracy in Chains. Do any of them mention the 50,000$ grant? If not, it's WP:UNDUE. Look at other articles - do we normally use primary documents to mention where a writer or a thinktank receives money from - whether Nancy MacLean, Sasha Volokh, Michael Munger or Reason? Not normally, no. If secondary sources write about funding sources, only then do we write about funding sources. You're welcome to ask someone else at WP:3O if you want to. NPalgan2 (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia deliberately wants to avoid original research in looking at those documents. Let's wait for The New York Times to report what the NEH says about the grant and book and then you can cite the newspaper article. Wikipedia would be better off with no biographies of living people but no one wants to hear that argument. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, she did take money from the government to write a document defending the government. Whether that is appropriate to include by Wikipedia guidelines or not, it shouldn't be part of the public discussion of this book. First, because we should take the high road where she took the low road. Second, Wikipedia takes funding from all sorts of people. Do you therefore think that Wikipedia articles are in any way affected by the opinions of those donors? No. It's a ridiculous charge for her to make, and it would be a ridiculous charge for us to make about her. RussNelson (talk) 05:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Secondary source that mentions the NEH Grant: http://www.libertylawsite.org/2017/06/27/six-degrees-of-jim-buchanan/ Quote from the article/review: This notion of the recipient of funding—whether a candidate or a scholar—as a tabula rasa on whom the donor scrawls self-indulgent views is counter to common experience. It is like saying that MacLean had no views, then received a $50,000 government grant to research Buchanan (she did), and consequently became an apologist for government (in this book, she is). The last two steps in that sequence are correct, but the first is silly. There is nothing in Democracy in Chains, one can safely assume, that differs from what MacLean would have said without a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities. Nor is there any reason to believe Buchanan’s views would have differed had donors not backed him.

@RussNelson I don't think anything of what you mentioned above. I just wanted to insert a fact. I didn't put any spinning or interpretations in it. My opinion is the same as the author I've quoted above, that btw mentions the 50.400 dollar grant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk • contribs) 17:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Another Secondary source that mentions the NEH Grant. https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2017/07/03/the-case-for-abolishing-the-national-endowment-for-the-humanities-just-got-stronger/ Quote from the artiicle: The reason why I say that the case for abolishing the NEH, as proposed in President Trump’s budget, just got stronger is that it funded an egregiously political hatchet job of a book that was recently published, namely Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America by Duke University history professor Nancy MacLean. --G. L. Talk 18:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I think, that 2 secondary sources are enough and we can include, just the fact that the author received a governmental grant for that book. --G. L. Talk 18:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Yet another secondary source that mentions that she received a governmental NEH grant for Democracy in Chains. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/449110/nancy-maclean-james-buchanan-libertarianism-book-shortcuts-expose-evil Quote: You may have missed the story. The short version is that historian Nancy MacLean has written a book, apparently with some government funding,... --G. L. Talk 18:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." WP:IRS As the Mises.org people (proudly) admit, the great majority of their fellow economists view them as cranks (wrongly in the Mises org people's opinion, who return the favour). Forbes.com is problematic as discussed often on BLP/N and RS/N - they've trashed their brand by letting a vast flock of bloggers write underneath their masthead (a few of whom are good) with little supervision or editorial fact-checking. Per WP:BIASED if we're going to source a claim to an opinionated guy like Jonah Goldberg we need to attribute it to him: 'Jonah Goldberg wrote that MacLean wrote the book "apparently with some government funding".' It really seems pointless to include without better sourcing talking about it, and Russ Roberts and I don't think it's worth it. You can ask for a WP:3O if you want. NPalgan2 (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, G.L., what does this information add to the article? If you want to add the NEH grant info, why not readd the "undisclosed conflict of interests section" about how Reason and Michael Munger and George Mason U get money from the Koch foundations? (see the top of this page) NPalgan2 (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Laughable. You are reinventing and reinterpreting all wiki "policies", in order not to add that little piece of FACT in the article. --G. L. Talk 20:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Nancy MacLean did not “receive” an NEH grant for research-- that's an informal statement that leads to the sort of confusion we have in this discussion. The federal National Endowment for the Humanities, like agencies such as the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health does not give research grants to university professors. They give them to the universities—here Duke University (or Northwestern U) is the official applicant, the checks are made out it, and it controls the disbursement of the $50,000, while keeping a slice (from 35% to 50%) for itself (called “indirect costs.”) The actual researcher is called the “principal investigator” and is not allowed to apply directly to the agency. Instead the researcher goes through labyrinthine university procedures, based in the graduate school, and involving approvals by various deans and faculty committees. Once a grant proposal is approved by the internal University process, the University sends it to the government granting agency. The fact that Nancy MacLean was a principal investigator on an NEH grant to Duke University is not a fact about her private life, it is a statement about her official bureaucratic role as a university professor at Duke University. In history, there's usually only one principal investigator, plus several graduate students who are paid stipends, plus funds for travel. In the sciences, by contrast, it is common to have multiple investigators, and multiple post-docs whose salary depends on a successful grant proposal. Rjensen (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Some support

Good call, Rjensen. Thanks, for illuminating the benighted in their misunderstanding of the Federal reality that finances intellectual progress in the U.S.

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

altrightorigins

Someone has added a paragraph sourced from Dr John Jackson's blog at altrightorigins.com. This is a selfpublished source. See WP:BLOGS "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[7] Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources.[9] " All the other quotes we use about democracy in chains have been published in well-known outfits (History News Network, The Atlantic, Guardian, Washington Post, or articles to appear in scholarly journals), usually by established people with their own wikipedia pages. Basically, to be consistent, if we include the positive altrightorigins, there are lots more negative blogposts from people who are better known than Jackson (e.g. Steve Horwitz) we'd have to include if we are to be consitent. I am going to remove the paragraph per WP:UNDUE NPalgan2 (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Weight

"no corresponding effort to enhance the praise of the book" - I have added the Jacobin and Monbiot articles praising MacLean. It's not my fault if the articles praising the book have dried up. Let's agree on criteria for inclusion, then apply them even-handedly. If you can find other notable sources praising the book, add them. If you feel Georg Vanberg, the chairman of Duke's polisci dept, in WashPo criticising the book is UNDUE then how to justify having Carol Haggas (non-notable non-expert) praising it in Kirkus? NPalgan2 (talk) 05:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Look, you aren't obviously out to get her like the drive by editors have been. You are well intentioned, but the collective effect of everyone's additions is clearly an undue violation. I'm not asking for a fifty-fifty balance, which is not policy anyway, but we can't prominently feature every single vokolh blogger with a full sentence quote, especially when the wide-spread praise this book has gotten is represented here by generic half or quarter sentence quotes. Step back a minute and look at the section and you will see what I mean. I'm restoring the tag. Gamaliel (talk) 05:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but the guys who write for VC are all professors, who either have their own wikipedia articles or clearly pass WP:ACADEMIC. And there's little overlap amongst the criticism - each critic makes pretty distinct points and each link adds value. You are welcome to expand the "praise quotes" if you think they are too short. I added the Noah Smith quote because the reader is naturally going to be interested in the judgment of a nonlibertarian. As for the praise being widespread, I'd say the criticism has been wide-spread: Volokh Conspiracy at WaPo, History News Network, Reason, Vox, Cato's Regulation journal, Bloomberg View, The Independent Review: A Journal of Political Economy, The Watch (Balko) at WaPo. (National Review and the Weekly Standard have also written about it but aren't in the article - but we include Jacobin.) NPalgan2 (talk) 07:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Gamaliel I've added three interviews done by MacLean, quoting the brief secondary introductory material at the beginnings. The quotes of praise are generic because the articles were published before the controversy began or ignore it. I feel that the current article is more than fair to MacLean. NPalgan2 (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Gamaliel, do you still feel the section is UNDUE after your edits? Currently, the two longest quotes are both positive - from the Booklist and Sam Tanenhaus in the Atlantic. I understand you are concerned that we cite Adler, Bernstein and Vanberg, all on Volokh, but these are all notable academics making distinct points. If three different notable progressive academics criticised a rightwing book on the WaPo's Monkey Cage blog, I don't think that we should edit them down just because they were published in the same source. The fact that CHE and IHE have both published articles about the controversy also supports notability. NPalgan2 (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is clearly still undue. I'm not claiming they aren't all notable critics. But this is a biography of an author of multiple works, not a place for the accumulated criticism of every single notable person who talked about one of those numerous works. Lots of notable people have written about Huckleberry Finn, but the Mark Twain article is not the place for a quote from every single one of them. We are here to summarize the totality of the criticism, not provide bullet points for each bit of criticism. I would suggest you consider starting an article about this particular book, because the current accumulation is undue and inappropriate, even if it were all positive. Gamaliel (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think splitting an article that's under 25k is necessary. And are you concerned about NPOV or RECENTISM? The article as it stands does not include every bit of criticism - it does not link to: NRO, Jesse Waters in Reason, Weekly Standard, or quote progressive Rick Pearlstein's criticism; and if anything it includes, as I said, undue amounts of praise. Which particular critics do you think are being given undue weight? NPalgan2 (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Specifically, the Volokh group are overcited and quoted, but the main problem is UNDUE, as I've repeatedly stated. Criticism is basically bullet pointed in detail instead of summarized as fitting a biographical encyclopedia article. This article is 1284 words. Criticism of one book makes up 290 words, almost one quarter of the entire article. This is by any metric excessive. Gamaliel (talk) 23:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, a well known academic accusing a bunch of other academics is of being part of a shadow conspiracy against her is pretty interesting and has attracted widespread interest. To show goodwill, I have removed the Vanberg quote and shortened it to a just a link. I leave it to you to shorten the pro-MacLean quotes, which imho are much more obviously padded. NPalgan2 (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

And also, I dispute that the 1 (not particularly long!) paragraph describing varied, serious libertarian criticism that has been published by multiple RSs is UNDUE compared to Hypatia transracialism controversy, Dershowitz–Finkelstein_affair or any number of other academic quarrels gone into in great length on wikipedia. I strongly dispute that we go into too much detail about any one piece of criticism. NPalgan2 (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The fundamental difference is those are not biographical articles. I would be completely fine if we went into even more detail about this in an article devoted specifically to the one book, which is why I suggested it. The controversy is interesting! But it cannot overwhelm the biography of a single person's life, as established by years of policy and practice with BLPs here on Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 06:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Gamaliel I simply don't accept that under 300 words of criticism is "overwhelming" the article - and in any case it'ld be much better to plump up the other sections rather than delete well sourced notable (and highly interesting) material. Wikipedia articles about academics are a brief biographical precis but focus on what is notable about them i.e. their scholarly work. (You have to be a pretty famous academic before secondary sources start writing about your life and loves). We add what secondary sources about the academic's oeuvre until the article grows unwieldy, then we split. Creating a separate Democracy in Chains article would be ridiculous ATM, as it would just be little more than a stub. Look, I feel that your criticism basically boils down to "I wish that fewer notable sources had criticised Democracy in Chains". What negative source is in the article that you feel would be UNDUE if it had *praised* the book instead? NPalgan2 (talk) 08:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not appropriate for you to attribute my positions to my alleged personal "wishes" about the book (which I've never read or have no knowledge of independent of this article), especially when I do not attribute your over-eagerness to stuff this article with criticism to an opinion against McLean on your part. I've clearly outlined a clear policy-based reason for my objection, and you can't wave it away by stating you "simply don't accept" policy. Gamaliel (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand how your objection is "policy-based" - the criticism that notable sources have made of Nancy MacLean's latest book is an important aspect of Nancy MacLean. The "libertarian criticism" paragraph is currently under 200 words of a ~1300 word article which doesn't seem disproportionate. What number do you think would be proportionate? NPalgan2 (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I never claimed it wasn't an important aspect of her career. It does belong here! It should just be in the appropriate proportions, as required by policy. A quarter of the article is clearly disproportionate. If you want a specific number, off the top of my head I feel 10-15 percent would be more appropriate. Gamaliel (talk) 06:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The only reason anybody bothered to create a Wikipedia page for her is because she wrote a book that attracted large amounts of negative criticism. She is, out of so many academics, notable only because her book has gotten praise from people unfamiliar with the subject, and condemnation from people familiar with the subject (whose guidance she did not seek out). For this reason, the amount of discussion of that controversy is appropriate and not disproportionate. If you disagree, then do more than spit out a number of edits that you think somebody else should make. That's not how Wikipedia works. If you are confident that 15% is an appropriate amount, then go ahead and make the edits and see if they get reverted. Or if you're not familiar with wikipedia editing, then suggest what you think should be removed, and one of us will help you. RussNelson (talk) 04:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

James M. Buchanan, Public Choice, and the Political Economy of Desegregation

There's a paper relevant to DiC at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3071403. I can't tell its academic status. Oddly, it doesn't like the book William M. Connolley (talk) 09:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Removal of positive reviews and awards/nominations

It's come to my attention that whenever I've added updates of positive reviews and/or award nominations, those additions are almost immediately deleted. I have, in good faith, tried to keep the page balanced, and have never deleted any of the elements critical of MacLean, even when they are not related to fair criticism of the book. This is unacceptable. Both negative and positive reviews should be included, as any nominations from major and respectable organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuqualib (talk • contribs) 20:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I reverted your edit for the reason explained in my edit summary. You regrouped/changed the ordering so I didn't realise that some material had been removed. You're welcome to readd any material you want. NPalgan2 (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

If any material had been removed (if it was, it was an honest mistake), why not simply add that back in? I've been conscientious in noting where criticism is coming from, including calling the positive reviews "sympathetic" authors. I am going to add the information back in, both positive and negative, and will add the "positive" information in the section that describes positive reviews, even leaving the "negative" reviews as the last word. That is more than fair, I think. Fuqualib (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Because this is Wikipedia. We don't demand that other people do our work for us. As NPalgan2 says, if you want it there, put it there yourself. RussNelson (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

What does this have to do with MacLean?

"Radley Balko argued that public choice theory was a crucial tool in his work investigating the actions of unscrupulous police and prosecutors.[48]" RussNelson (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree, removing. NPalgan2 (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Should we include unsubstantiated accusations?

Should we include this? "the Koch team of professors who don’t disclose their conflicts of interest and the operatives who work full time for their project to shackle our democracy."

She doesn't name anyone, and thus her claim is impossible to refute. All she need do is say "Oh, I didn't mean *them." I'm not sure this belongs in Wikipedia, being baseless slander of a number of living people. RussNelson (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that it's important to include details of Maclean's response which was quoted by both IHE and CHE. NPalgan2 (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Reorganization of Democracy in Chains section

I did a substantial reorganization of the section on Democracy in Chains to improve its order and bring it into line with other WP articles on controversial books. In the interest of documenting the changes and rationale, I'm detailing the revision strategy below.

1. The previous version lumped a multitude of appraisals of the book together in a messy and disjointed fashion. To address this I separated the reviews into three subsections: "Appraisals" for positive reviews, "Criticisms" for negative reviews, and "Response" for further replies by the author and discussion of the controversy.

2. Some of the appraisals that were mixed in with the old version were not actually reviews of the book. They were promotional interviews and similar material for the book (e.g. the Rebecca Onion interview for Slate). I dropped these on the grounds that they don't really tell us much about the independent reception of the book by its reviewers. I also added descriptive identifiers to some of the authors and publication venues that were missing.

3. The criticisms section was similarly a mess of dozens of links on vastly different topics. I rearranged them into three thematic paragraphs that cover the main criticisms of Democracy in Chains: (a) its depiction of Buchanan on race and segregation, (b) its claims about Buchanan and the Pinochet dictatorship, and (c) its claims about Buchanan and libertarianism/George Mason University/other George Mason professors. I also trimmed some of the redundant links, specified the claims of criticism, and added cross-links to other articles on WP where suitable.

4. I consolidated the "Response" section to include MacLean's answers to her critics, plus subsequent reviews that have also focused on the controversy around the book. Other than tweaking the language for NPOV and descriptive clarity this section is largely made up of the previous version's paragraphs that were tacked on at the end of the section.

If you think more information is warranted or want to further revise this section please do so, or please discuss below. It should continue to be improved. But simply reverting to the old version is not constructive as that version was a cluttered mess. LiberalReformer (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry guv, but you're avoiding the key problem with your edits, which is kinda hinted at by your user name. The previous version, honestly, said "MacLean's book set off a heated dispute among historians and economists when it appeared.[18] Reception Democracy in Chains "led to an enormous, highly charged debate," mostly along partisan lines...". Your version says "Appraisal Democracy in Chains received favorable reviews..." which is dishonest, as an overall appraisal William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Incredibly biased

This article undermines criticism of her work and does an incredibly poor job of highlighting the reasons for the controversy that likely brings the majority of people to this article. I expect nothing less than liberal bias from wikipedia - let's not even pretend like this website is balanced - but this article is a travesty and purposely elevates her views for the sake of ideological proselytizing. Fix it. 73.42.40.92 (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Accusing WP of liberal bias is absurd. It just means this anonymous editor is unwilling or unable to edit the article, citing reliable sources.--Zeamays (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Undue weight

The Democracy in Chains subsection has turned into a coatrack of sorts for libertarian activists to demonstrate their skills of prevarication. While that might be interesting to people outside the reality-based community who don’t rely on facts, evidence, and data, back here in the real world, that’s not how we write biographies. I recommend summarizing the content in its most neutral and accurate form and spinning it out into a new article about the book. Viriditas (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

There's only a paragraph in there and given the focus of the book it seems to be perfectly WP:DUE. If you write about libertarians then yeah, you gonna get some libertarians responding. Volunteer Marek 22:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The section in question consists of 1,029 words (6,580 characters), which is the length of many small articles. It has six paragraphs, not one, and three of those paragraphs lack line breaks, which means there are in actuality, nine paragraphs. This is the size of an article, not a biographical section. Per summary style, the section should be spun out into a new article about the book. It is entirely undue to devote hundreds of words to opinions from so-called libertarians, whose sources appear to be front groups for corporate donors. Viriditas (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

No, the part that's about "libertarian activists" (sic) is only one paragraph. The other paragraphs are either praise for the book or criticisms from non-libertarians. One of these "six paragraphs" is a single sentence. The length appears to be appropriate given that this is what she is mostly known for. The entire section is NOT devoted to "opinions from so-called libertarians, whose sources appear to be front groups for corporate donors". Volunteer Marek 22:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

No, again, the length is not appropriate for a biography article. Per WP:SS, this length is appropriate for an article about the book. Viriditas (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

So... NOT "six paragraphs"? Volunteer Marek 22:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I was exceptionally clear up above. Viriditas (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, no. You first claimed there were six paragraphs devoted to "coatrack of sorts for libertarian activists". I pointed out that this wasn't the case. That doesn't sound very clear. Volunteer Marek 23:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, no, it’s exactly what I said, a coatrack for libertarians to engage in what Flaherty calls a coordinated, swarm attack on MacLean's book, violating undue and summary style in the process. All of this fake criticism can be traced back to Koch-financed, right-wing think tanks, and we certainly don’t write articles in this way, and the way the section is currently written, is basically unreadable, as it’s a long, convoluted mush-mash of random quotes with no connection other than the critics can be traced directly back to the people she is criticizing. Viriditas (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I think we're in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory now. Volunteer Marek 03:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I think that you are, yes. Viriditas (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Section seems fine. This is encyclopedic content with long-term value. If academic works are being debated by scholars and commentators, then it's great that WP covers that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

It’s fine for an article about the book, perhaps, but this level of detail doesn’t belong in her biography. It’s also undue. Viriditas (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

It's fine. It's the work she is most known for. Not sure which part of WP:Summary Style actually supports you here. But if you think that the book deserves a separate article, and that it passes notability, feel free to start one. Volunteer Marek 22:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

It’s undue, and SS explains why it’s not how we write articles. Viriditas (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is how we write articles. You can either explicitly quote the portion of Summary Style which you think supports your position, or start a separate article (in the meantime, the content here should remain). And to be blunt, your choice of words above strongly suggests that your real issue is not really with the length of the section but rather with the nature of a portion of its content, and you're just using WP:SummaryStyle as an excuse. Volunteer Marek 23:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

No, this is not how we write articles, it’s undue, it’s not summary style, and it’s best characterized as a coatrack attack on the author, and is not about her biography. This is not how we write articles on Wikipedia. Furthermore, the content in question is a random assertion of stochastic quotes that make little to no sense other than to attack the author in some way. There’s no thematic connection or overarching thread that we can find. That’s why an article about the book and not a biography is the best place for this material. “X said Y; A said B; C said D” is not appropriate for a biography. If you want to criticize her book, feel free to attempt a coherent approach in an article about a book. As it stands, more than a 1000 words in her biography about people attacking her book is undue. Viriditas (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

None of this is true. The section summarizes responses to the book. First it lists the positive responses. Then it lists the critical response. Out of those it first lists some of the responses from, roughly, "libertarian" authors - which is not surprising given the subject of the book, and then it lists the responses from numerous non-libertarians authors. It's well organized and it covers a broad spectrum of sources. These are these "thematic" connections you claim don't exist. IF it was a coatrack as you claim (it's not), it would exclusively or unduly focus on just one type of response. But it does not do that.

And again, you're repeating the falsehood that there are "more than a 1000 words" "attacking her book". It's already been pointed out to you that this is false. The ENTIRE SECTION is "more than a 1000 words". But a good chunk of the section is PRAISE (!!!), not criticism. The part that's "criticism from libertarian authors" is about 250 words. Like I said above, you've pretty clearly jumped into straight up WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Volunteer Marek 03:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with your repeated mischaracterization. This is a biography about an academic with a 27 year career, not a platform for an artificial, coordinated controversy created by libertarians to malign our subject. It’s undue weight to focus more than a 1000 words on describing the reception a single book had, and it’s a coatrack of random criticism that has no inherent narrative. It should be removed. I also want to push back on your repeated false claims about how the majority of the section is praise, not criticism. In the version that I originally responded to here, there are a total of nine supportive statements (grouped), versus 13 negative statements (grouped) about the book. After recent edits by other editors, I believe the negative statements about the book still outweigh the positive ones. Viriditas (talk) 02:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm with VM and against V. But, the section is too long and should be cut down (I don't think it should become its own article). Some people like it, some people think it is all lies, but we don't need quite so many words to say so William M. Connolley (talk) 09:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Why shouldn’t there be a separate article on the book? Why should an academic biography contain more than half of the content about an artificial controversy created by conservatives when her career spans 27 years? This is a classical example of undue weight, as well as a coatrack attack article, which has the usual suspects from the libertarian world showing up to coordinate their baseless attacks on MacLean. Viriditas (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Because the book is insufficiently notable of itself, and the controversy is real, not artifical; your statements make it look as though you're unable to overcome your biases. Your charges of coatrack are unreasonable William M. Connolley (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

You are certainly welcome to your opinion, but might I suggest informing yourself about the subject before having one? The book is widely considered to be one of the most notable works about American politics for 2017, and to make the claim that it is "insufficiently notable" is so far off the mark, I’m worried you might be writing on the wrong talk page by mistake. Second, the controversy is entirely artificial, and virtually every contested point has been shown to be false, in extremely bad faith, and in many cases, under false pretenses, particularly by writers like Andrew Seal. We also know that this "controversy" was manufactured by the Koch network in the same way that they have manufactured controversy against all their critics, such as Jane Mayer in 2016. It’s surprising to me that you aren’t aware of any of this. Are you sure you are on the right page? Viriditas (talk) 09:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)