Talk:Jacobin (magazine)

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Magazines Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines 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.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article. Socialism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism 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.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

@Dsakey1978, BuilderJustLikeBob, and Asoka89:, please stop edit warring and start discussing here. Reach a consensus, and then make the agreed upon changes to the article. Schazjmd (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please turn your attention to previous edits on any wikipedia page, including this one. When there are grammatical errors, they are fixed. If there are typos then you are supposed to correct them. There are many topics on wiki that are esoteric with much longer sections. Jacobin's stature does not mean that it cannot have such a section. Again stop the vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuilderJustLikeBob (talk • contribs) 21:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BuilderJustLikeBob: Stop characterizing disagreement as vandalism. It is a lot easier for people take you seriously if you do likewise. Acroterion (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have not referred to it as "vandalism" since Schazjmd asked me not to. Please turn your attention to the section and point out the errors. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuilderJustLikeBob (talk • contribs) 21:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dsakey1978, BuilderJustLikeBob, and Schazjmd:, I agree and thank you for the intervention. I agree with DSA key that the addition made was poorly written and constructed and seem to be heavily skewed towards editorializing. This was a pretty model page before the recent deluge of edits in the past month. Especially around very politically charged publications, we can't set the precedent for this kind of warring and editoralizing. If anything the page should be pruned down even more. But at the very least it makes sense to only add a Praise, Criticism section once some sort of consensus has been reached among all of those editing this page. Asoka89 (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before you continue discussing, please take a look at WP:INDENT and learn how to format your comments on Talk pages properly. Add your comment to the bottom of the discussion, not the top; indent using one colon more than the comment you are replying to. I've fixed these comments to comply. Also, BuilderJustLikeBob, vandalism has a specific definition on Wikipedia. Do not label content disputes "vandalism". The onus is on you to gain consensus for your content additions. Schazjmd (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have not engaged with my claim that the edits were unwarranted according to the reasoning put in the edit section. If there was "editorializing" why didn't you flag it for review? If there was poor writing why didn't you correct it? Usually if there are errors or perceived errors editors should flag it, and notify the originator to provide better sourcing or correct grammar. Both of you did none of this. Instead you deleted the entire section without question.

I have reproduced the section below, and welcome both of you to show me where there was editorializing and poor writing: — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuilderJustLikeBob (talk • contribs)

22:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I have collapsed the text dump. Without sources, it isn't very helpful. I suggest you take it piece by piece, citing the sources, and you can all discuss whether each piece is WP:DUE and appropriate to add to the article. Schazjmd (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have republished the section with the sources on the page, if you have any disagreements regarding "editorializing" and bad writing please point them out here and we can discuss. Thanks again BuilderJustLikeBob (talk)

This is getting absurd at this point, and I'd rather have others who have been contributing to what until now has been a fairly tight and coherent Wiki to chime in. In either case, I'll reply in full later in the week. But the default for now should be this new material you wrote not on the Wiki. Asoka89 (talk) 23:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you made claims of editorializing and poor writing. Hours ago! Now you remove the section again, this is the third time I believe. And yet both of you have not shown any of us where these errors occurred. The reason I put the section back was because one of the editors correctly stated that the post above was useless without sourcing. Putting the section back allowed me to cite the sources in a legible manner, allowing any editor to navigate the sourcing with ease. Make your argument, this is a collaborative project you cannot just remove edits without justification and then claim that you will respond later in the week. Why not respond later in the week with your justifications and then remove the post? BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Schazjmd, can I post the sources here, as in the links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuilderJustLikeBob (talk • contribs) 23:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BuilderJustLikeBob, yes. However, I suggest you all discuss them in small groups (the text and the sources supporting that text) rather than the entire section at one time as that would be unmanageable. I agree with Asoka89 that Wikipedia convention is that disputed content not be included in the article while discussion is ongoing. I believe the initial objection was made by Dsakey1978 who has not edited since, so has not had a chance to join the discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. We can take it chronologically then. I started by pointing towards some of the praise Jacobin has received. I will post the sources as links below each sub-paragraph. BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobin has been described by Vox as the socialist magazine "winning the left's war of ideas". In an interview with Bhaskar Sunkara, Ezra Klein stated that dialogue with Jacobin is easier to have than dialogue with other leftists since they are not aggressive and never stoop to insults.

https://www.vox.com/2016/3/21/11265092/jacobin-bhaskar-sunkara

https://open.spotify.com/episode/0Lgz0eu8pPPOgdKBsvYzt0?nd=1

Conservative talk show host Tucker Carlson has praised Jacobin for covering ideas and principles, and not just Trump gossip.

https://www.salon.com/2019/01/26/salon-interview-tucker-carlson-bashes-capitalism-says-he-might-vote-for-elizabeth-warren/

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2019/12/08/elizabeth-warren-jacobin-socialist-left-072693

The publication New Left Review described Jacobin as "one of the most remarkable socialist enterprises of the decade."

https://newleftreview.org/issues/II90/articles/bhaskar-sunkara-project-jacobin

Michelle Goldberg at the New York Times described Jacobin as the "flagship publication of the new socialist left."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/30/opinion/the-argument-socialism-bernie-sanders.html BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, I don't think this is going to get you where I believe you want to go. Unless I'm misreading your intentions and the disposition of others, these random one sentence blurbs and bare links won't go in the article and will not be clicked on by other participants in the talk page, respectively. The edits in question were about adding a large (!40% of the article!) section of inadequately relevant mentions of the magazine by other entities. This isn't a compendium of everything anyone has said about Jacobin, but an encyclopedia article. Maybe as a compromise, you would like to group some of these praises and criticisms together into two tight sentences or paragraphs with individual refs to the specific instances, not their own sentences and suredly not a paragraph each. Similar to how film reviews are aggregated and pulled. An article talk page is just the place to propose such textual exemplars, not line by line re-litigate each edit and definitely not the place to reproduce an entire article or section that everyone already has access to in the history. You're free to disagree with my proposal as a compromise, but just know that the way you're going about this doesn't have the best prospects. It might also behoove you to spend some time on other areas of Wikipedia and get a feel for the rules and practices here not related to a subject you might feel especially passionate towards. JesseRafe (talk) 12:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with JesseRafe here. There's a lot of objectionable in the new proposed section, but instead of line by line vetoing the additions, with the pressure on the people opposing the new content, the onus has to be on Bob telling us that these are vital and necessary, and *the* most vital and necessary things about Jacobin and the conversation around it. And also that these are the best sources and descriptions to capture that conversation. The movie analogy is apt. I also agree that right now this is already a long Wiki that's been getting longer and longer, far outpacing Jacobin's relevance. Dsakey1978 (talk) 14:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have already done what is being asked of me, but I will do it again and layout my arguments point by point. This will make it easy for all readers and editors to see: where I stand, why I stand there, and what they should be engaging with. Also because I am addressing points made by different people at different times in the chronology of the talk I am not indenting this, I do not know how to do that connecting line thing.

So why did I create the section? I answered this in the edit history on 08 May. This is what I said:

"Jacobin is a large and influential socialist publication. As a result it has drawn a lot of praise and criticism. Many other publications have similar categories on their wiki pages allowing new comers to get a quick glance at where such publications sit. I though that adding a similar heading / category to this page would be helpful for future readers, or interlocutors of Jacobin. TLDR I added examples of praise and criticism that Jacobin has received over the years."

Dsakey was the first editor to take issue with the section and remove it. This was their reasoning:

"Mostly reverted a large addition (seemed to be written mainly to editorialize about the magazine's content and was not properly sourced), as well as fixing a few copy editing errors."

I reverted Dsakey's edit and in doing so engaged with their reasoning in my explanation:

"user Dsakey1978 deleted the entire Praise & Criticism section claiming that those sections were poorly sourced and editorialized. Previous editors removed anything that could be considered editorializing or poorly sourced. If there are issues then editors should flag them first, request better sourcing, and remove anything considered editorializing. Editors should not just delete entire sections. Everything in this section is sourced."

Again I engaged with the critic, and asked for Dsakey to be specific and flag anything that could be considered editorializing or poorly sourced. Following this Asoka removed the section. This was Asoka's reasoning:

"I've reviewed the back and forth changes. There's some legitimate additions, but embedded within it is material that's clearly an advertisement for various podcasts and twitter personalities. I think it's worth locking this page until it's improved."

Responding to this I undid Asoka's revision and engaged with their reasoning in my explanation:

"user: Asoka89 has removed the entire section again just like Dsakey1978. Ashoka claim that there are legitimate additions. Then why remove the whole section. Secondly Ashoka claims that there is advertising for podcasts and twitter personalities, without specifying how these critics can be construed as such. This is vandalism of the page."

So this is the second time that I have engaged with an editor's reasoning. Dsakey removed the section a second time, and in their explanation concedes that the reasoning provided in their first removal was in adequate:

"I should have given a longer explanation before, but this section is simply not well written, contains typos, and is way too long given Jacobin's not especially mainstream stature. The topics and sources also seem randomly chosen (websites and commentators with limited reach). It seems like your account has only attempted to add to this (an already pretty complete article). I won't assume malintention, but you should work on others more in need of love!"

This is when Schazjmd stepped in to moderate. In my first post on the talk page I am responding to the explanation in Dsakey's second removal. So this is the third time that I have engaged with another editor's disagreement, and asked for clarification. Still no response. It it important to lay this out chronologically like this so that everyone can see that I have not been engaged with. This suggests that Dsakey and Asoka might be unable to back up their points. Below I am going to take each point raised here and in the history, and engage with them as systematically as I can.

Firstly Dsakey raised the question of Jacobin's relevancy. Dsakey argued that the section was too long when you consider the lack of Jacobin's "mainstream stature". I disagree. Jacobin is the largest and most influential left-wing media project in the US. In a talk given by Bhaskar Sunkara he says, correctly, that Jacobin is hegemonic amongst left media (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_GVbcTEffo time stamp 9:30 - 11:00). This was 2013. It's 2020 Jacobin has only grown exponentially in relevance and influence. You cannot talk about the left in the US, without talking about Jacobin. You cannot talk about Bernie Sanders, without talking about Jacobin.

Other media and political figures understand this. This is why across the political spectrum Jacobin is read and debated. The most popular prime time political talk show host? Tucker Carlson. He reads Jacobin. The most influential newspaper definitely in the US, maybe in the world? The New York Times. They read, debate, interview Jacobin. Both Sunkara (editor) and Meagan Day (staff writer), have been published in the NYT.

Jacobin recently hired a former Bernie staffer (Sirota) as an editor. Bernie is the most popular politician in the US, it's not even close. Bernie was a mainstream phenomenon who managed to be runner-up in two presidential elections.

Many Jacobin staffers are prominent members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). The most popular and largest socialist organization in the country. The DSA played a prominent role in the campaigns of Sanders, and the election of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC). AOC being one of the most well known politicians in the country.

So if Jacobin is not as relevant as you claim: why would Tucker Carlson bother reading it; why would Ezra Klein read it; why would the NYT interview them, debate them, and invite them to write in their pages; why would a Bernie staffer who came close to power consider working there?

Now looking beyond the US we must consider that Jacobin publishes a lot of reporting and analysis, and scholarly articles written by foreigners for a Jacobin audience. Additionally Jacobin has a franchise model, meaning they have a sister publications in: Italy (https://jacobinitalia.it), Brazil (https://jacobin.com.br), Germany (https://jacobin.de) and the UK (https://tribunemag.co.uk)

With all of this in mind, I would extend Sunkara's claim that Jacobin is the largest and most influential left media project in the US, and say that Jacobin is the largest and most influential media project on the planet. So your claims about Jacobin's lack of relevancy don't hold.

Adding on to this, other media projects have similar sections sometimes framed around "reputation" or "reception". On the right you have National Review, and The American Conservative (TAC). In the center you have The New York Times and Vox. On the left you have The New Republic (TNR). It should be pointed out that according to wiki the TNR has the same circulation numbers as Jacobin, and TAC has far fewer. So I see no reason why Jacobin can't have similar sections. That's the first point.

Secondly Jesse raised the issue of "line by line" relitigation, a problem shared by Dsakey. I'd like to ask that they both turn their attention to the reasons for the edits made by Asoka and Dsakey. Both make broad claims without specifying where the problems were, even after being asked to do so five times, if you include the talk page. So nobody knows where the problems are, except for them. As a result we have been forced to work our way through the section bit by bit, so that we can pinpoint the problems. Also Schazjmd asked that we do so to avoid long posts like the one you are reading now. I agree with that observation, if I didn't I would say so. That's the second point: line by line relitigation.

Third Jesse claims that the section was comprised of "inadequately relevant mentions" of the magazine. The praise part is there to illustrate the seriousness with which Jacobin is - correctly - afforded by people across the political spectrum. The criticisms are groups around different issues. Jacobin is not just another publication. It's staffers are political: they canvas for, raise funds for, and promote the efforts of different politicians, unions and social movements. Jacobin is widely considered to be a Berniecrat publication. They even published an issue with a potential Bernie presidency as the focus. So understanding how they related to him, his campaigns, and his opposition is the point of the 2020 Primary part.

Jacobin considers itself internationalist in perspective, and opposed to liberalism and right-wing elements across the globe. The fact that other left publications have taken issue with their foreign policy coverage is a scandal on the left. Finally identity politics is a hotly debated issue on the left, so much so that entire political projects have been dismantled over it. Providing readers with a glimpse of both sides arguments, including where Jacobin contributors disagree is illuminating for readers. That's the third point: inadequately relevant mentions.

The fourth point was raised by Jesse who asks that some parts be re-written like movie reviews. I agree. I think it can be done with the praise part, however it cannot be done with the other parts. Perhaps we can separate the praise part as it's own section, and then have another section "Criticism & Controversy". That's the fourth point.

Finally Dsakey says that the onus is on me to show why this section is necessary, and that these are the best sources. I agree with this statement. I have done so above. So for the sixth time, I ask that you start engaging. Flesh out your arguments, specify the problems. Everybody knows why I created the section, now we want to know why you deleted it. Where is the editorializing, where is the poor writing, where is the objectionable content? You can reply to the part I posted yesterday with the sources. Hopefully we won't have long posts like this again, but there was no other way for me to make myself clear.BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to say most influential *left* media project on the planet BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, this is what some here call a WP:WALLOFTEXT, and you are mistaken in a couple of key facts. One, "layout my arguments point by point. This will make it easy for all readers and editors to see: where I stand, why I stand there, and what they should be engaging with.", is counterintuitively to you it seems, not the way to make it easy for other editors to understand (or care) about what point you're trying to make. It's almost as if you ignored my advice completely.... Which is OK! You're under no obligation to heed it. But also, and this might be another area you are confused about, no one else is obligated to read your exceptionally long posts or engage with you. We have a rule that when there's a dispute we have to "try" to have a conversation about it, but if multiple people try and multiple people give up... Well, those multiple people might have the consensus that you're intractable and continue to ignore your missives. So, again, take some more time with the rules and guidelines linked on your talk page (You should have gotten a more hearty welcome than a warning, but you did come in hot with edit-warring immediately) and maybe spend some time in other areas of the project. But please, do not further delude yourself that you are only another 20 paragraphs away from convincing everyone you're right and they're wrong as they're probably not reading it. JesseRafe (talk) 12:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did consider your advice and explicitly said that I partly agree with it. To say that nobody is obligated to engage with me, and then in the next sentence say that disputes must be conversed around, is inconsistent. This is what the talk page is for. Dsakey, Asoka and I are equally responsible for this dispute. Even though they have disagreed with me, so far they have not tried to converse on the talk page. Also if they have given up, that could also mean that they are unable to converse in good faith about their allegations. Or they are just busy right now. Asoka did say that they would respond later this week. P.S. forgot to add the other sister publication in Africa (https://africasacountry.com). BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From the onus link that Schazjmd sent me, under the title Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion: "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article.The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content"

From this rule we can see that because I am the one seeking to include the information, it is my duty to prove that it improves the page. In other words as Dsakey1978 said the onus is on me. What logically follows from this is that anyone seeking to remove the information, must prove that it does not improve the page. Nobody has done this yet. I have made my argument for why the info does improve the page, after being asked to do so. BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can claim to have said anything above, my point is that nobody will read it so how would they know? Did you read about what a wall of text is and why they're to be avoidded? Most editors won't engage with another editor who employs this tactic of "conversation" and it gives off a Wikipedia:Wikilawyering and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing vibe. Again, spend some time on other elements of this project and see how conversations normally proceed before hamfisting your way into this. And again, no matter how right you think you are, basically saying nothing other than "this is how right I am, prove otherwise" will not get you your way. Lastly, and most importantly, the large chunk of the praise and criticism section was simply not good and given its undue weight, the correct thing to do was remove it entirely which was done by more than one editor. Discuss how this content can be pared down into something like 50-200 words, rather than expect people to choose to get into a "debate" with you over each source (spoiler: nobody will). JesseRafe (talk) 12:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"was simply not good and given [] undue weight". Could you please specify what was not good, and what was given undue weight, so that we can figure out what needs to be paired down together? Also under the chunk o' text defense of the wall of text rule: "an equal-but-opposite questionable strategy is dismissal of legitimate evidence and valid rationales with a claim of "text-walling" or "TL;DR". Not every matter can be addressed with a one-liner, and validity does not correspond to length, especially the more complex the matter is. The COTD is characterized by noise and hand-waving, not simply verbosity." BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a week and neither Asoka nor Dsakey have replied as they said they would, even though according to Asoka: "The addition does not stay until there is consensus over its contents, which is obviously are obviously ongoing".

The next section was on the criticism Jacobin received regarding the 2020 primary. BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 02:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Warren and The 2020 Democratic Primary

In a May 2019 interview with the New York Times, Sunkara stated: "I think there has to be a way to support Sanders while still supporting and boosting Warren."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/30/opinion/the-argument-socialism-bernie-sanders.html

The left-wing podcast What's Left, hosted by Cambridge University political theorist Benjamin Studebaker and Australian political analyst and media critic Aimee Terese, argue that Warren is a Hayekian neo-liberal candidate who does not substantively support left-wing projects such as Medicare for All, student debt relief, and free college education. They also argued that Jacobin gave uncritical support to her candidacy throughout 2019.

https://www.polis.cam.ac.uk/Staff_and_Students/benstudebaker

https://soundcloud.com/whatisleftpod/the-left-case-against-elizabeth-warren

https://www.patreon.com/posts/p22-consent-30158365

In December 2019 Ruairí Arrieta-Kenna writing in POLITICO reported that Jacobin "Millennial socialists’ favorite magazine is breaking up with Elizabeth Warren." Sunkara told him that "There’s a reason, after all, why the candidate who said she is a "capitalist to her bones" was not the socialists’ favorite to begin with."

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2019/12/08/elizabeth-warren-jacobin-socialist-left-072693

Studebaker claimed that Warren is one of the factors in the poor performance of Bernie Sanders as she captured part of his base in the primaries, and Jacobin's inability to see this was a failure by the left. Terese has gone as far as saying that she believes Jacobin to be Libertarian in its orientation.

https://benjaminstudebaker.com/2020/02/06/iowa-shows-that-sanders-gains-in-cities-will-have-a-cost-in-the-countryside/

https://soundcloud.com/whatisleftpod/the-iowa-caucuses

https://soundcloud.com/whatisleftpod/progressivism

After Bernie dropped out Sunkara claimed that Jacobin was now free from the party line and could openly say things like "fuck Elizabeth Warren." Jacobin's Story Editor Conor Kilpatrick has also expressed regret at the inability of the left - including Jacobin - to cut Warren.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzTdnvkvUJ0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHAdhekKayo BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 02:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I simply think that the article is fine as is. The prose needs an edit and rewriting, but that's more superficial. My main issue, which has been echoed by others, is the choice of topics and sources. I've followed Jacobin's coverage and they seemed to be, to the point of excess in my opinion, critical of Warren. In either case, their opinion on one candidate in a 2020 primary that's over, even if you were presenting this in a balanced way, isn't worthy of inclusion in my mind. Your sourcing is also very dubious. Amy Terese and Benjamin Studebaker aren't particularly prominent figures writing in fact-checked and edited venues, their criticism doesn't seem to reflect Jacobin's actual coverage and it's strange that you want to link to a Soundcloud. The same with identity politics and your other additions: they seem to offer a fringe opinion of Jacobin that contrasts with how most people read them (critical anti-identity politics), and there's no balance to how the section is written. I just have no idea why any of this should be added to a fairly complete and well-sourced Wikipedia, however. Magazines and newspapers publish dozens of stories every day, we have to be judicious when considering what should and shouldn't be included in entries like this.

I'm assuming good intentions here, but all you've done on this platform so far is stir up an edit war on a Jacobin article and demand replies from other volunteers (many of whom are busy working on many other articles in need of attention). Asoka89 (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the article needs some beefing up relative to Jacobin's prominence Young Trinidad. I know you are wrong about your opinion of Jacobin's Warren coverage, as do you. Jacobin's opinion of a candidate in a primary that's over matters. Why? Because this is the consensus leading Bernicrat magazine, and Bernie was running in the same race. Yet they actively sought to juice up another candidate. Your opinion fails to line up with reality.

As shown above Jacobin's Editor explicitly says to The New York Times, Warren needs to be boosted, and many months later after an about-face, POLITICO reports on the shift from boosting Warren to critiquing her. Your opinion also does not line up with the post election analysis of Jacobin's own editors and contributors: Guastella, Uetrecht, Denvir all of whom explicitly state that Warren was a factor in Bernie's loss. And Sunkara who implicitly admits the cost of Warren's campaign on Bernie's. As stated by another Jacobin editor Karp, the dems consolidated behind Biden before Super Tuesday. At the same time Warren diluted Bernie's potential base, this is the argument made by Terese and Studebaker. In other words, Sunkara succeeded in his goal of boosting Warren. I mean even Trump has stated many times the damage Warren did to Bernie's chances by splitting the vote.

Throughout the campaign Terese and Studebaker were the only figures on the left who pushed for Jacobin to change position on Warren. The reason I link to a Soundcloud is because they are broadcast journalists. Both are scholars whose work has to undergo the rigors of academic scrutiny, these aren't the type of people who would just say anything. They are used to fact checks. Terese and Studebaker are prominent enough that they had to be addressed by In These Times, a left publication as big as Jacobin. Studebaker is prominent enough to have been published in The Huffington Post and Current Affairs, another Berniecrat quarterly. These are not fringe analysts, and their criticism of Jacobin accurately reflects Jacobin's coverage, even POLITICO thinks so.

Similarly the identity addition includes Jacobin's own flagship podcast coming out in favor of identity politics, in response to a review in Jacobin! that argued against it. Also Adolph Reed is a titan on the left. If he takes issue with Jacobin's orientation towards identity politics, it's a big deal. So who exactly is fringe here Nascheck the Jacobin contributor, or Reed the other Jacobin contributor. Taylor? Who was nominated for a Pulitzer. Come on. None of these figure are fringe.

You claim that the section is not written in a balanced way, if so why not outline how it can be re-written to be balanced. Why delete the whole thing? As I see it, the section is balanced. Finally we are here because of you and Dsakey. It is you two who stirred up this edit war. It is you two who have made demands of me: to stop adding the section, to take on the onus and explain why the section should be added. Yet only now have you actually attempted to defend your deletion. Maybe you should do another Stay at Home ep about how Bernie lost, and not what he accomplished.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4FGhNF8sQU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGouvtvfGSY

http://inthesetimes.com/article/22091/trolls-twitter-discord-sanders-warren-wfp

https://www.pulitzer.org/finalists/keeanga-yamahtta-taylor BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dsakey1978, JesseRafe, Schazjmd, and Acroterion: do you have anything to add? BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CowHouse, Gonza349, and EditWorker: You are the three other editors who took issue with some of the section. Unlike Asoka and Dsakey I believe all three of you were fair and removed things that could be proven to go against wiki law, or corrected bad writing and asked for better sourcing before removing anything. Do you have anything to add? BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in the topic of this article; my involvement was solely to stop the edit warring and get the involved editors discussing. The first editor to object to BuilderJustLikeBob's content was Dsakey1978 who only edited for 2 days and hasn't been heard from since. That leaves Asoka89's objections. Follow the steps in dispute resolution to work through the issue. Good luck! Schazjmd (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't know exactly how to reply, so I dropped out of this thread even though I've been keeping up with developments. But I still don't see why the section is needed, and I don't see why if it was needed we would necessarily cover those subjects with those particular citations. If others agree that it's necessary to have an additional section, why not have one of the other page editors take a stab at writing one? Wouldn't that be the easiest route, just getting all offending parties out of it for a while? I'm happy to defer to the wisdom of others on this. Dsakey1978 (talk) 00:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even though you are one of the editors who deleted the section, you have not even attempted to explain your objections. And this is after you declared that the onus was on me to prove why the section should be included. You're unserious. BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dsakey1978, JesseRafe, Schazjmd, Acroterion, CowHouse, Gonza349, EditWorker, and Asoka89: I have done everything according to policy. I would like to resolve this dispute, so that I can move on to other articles of interest. So I am going to make a request for comment, and publicize it in both the Reliable sources and Neutral point of view noticeboards. BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BuilderJustLikeBob, good idea. edit to add: I'm disappointed that the editors who balked at inclusion did not seriously engage with the discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 00:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BuilderJustLikeBob Okay. I will say that I haven't followed this dispute at all -I only added the NPOV and copyedit tags- but looking at the article now the issues I had with the article are resolved. I think my main issue (which I should have elaborated on) was that many of the examples provided of praise and criticism, even if verifiable, were indiscriminately added; that is, like JesseRafe mentioned, they were not notable enough that the average reader would find them interesting.EditWorker (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Praise & Criticism section contain editorializing?

Does the Praise & Criticism section contain poor writing?

Is the sourcing in the Praise & Criticism section unreliable?

Are the topics chosen in the Praise & Criticism section worthy of inclusion? BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Omit section as written, per my analysis here. To start with, per WP:CSECTION a Praise & Criticism section is a terrible idea and I would oppose it regardless of the sourcing or strength of the writing. That said, the sourcing here is weak (it relies too much on opinion pieces, podcasts, youtube videos, and so on), and the few usable sources don't really indicate that the "controversies" this section tries to push are noteworthy or deserve their own dedicated sections. Throwing a bunch of random comments people writing for Jacobin have made about something together and slapping a header on it isn't the way to approach these things. Where's the high-quality secondary coverage? --Aquillion (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aquillion, Buidhe, and Idealigic: Thanks for actually attempting to object to the section, unlike the editors I was dealing with before. By the way your critique was removed from the place it was published. Could you repost it here above your current post so that all other editors can access it with ease?

Section is a bad idea

You objected to the idea of the section because it usually leads to editors adding opinion pieces, and other irrelevant material in an effort to find balance. You also stated that in the case that such opinions are added that they should be shown to be relevant.

The only source I cited that I would regard as an opinion is The New York Times, and this is only because it is published in that paper's opinion section. The source is more of an interview, followed by a debate amongst some of it's writers.

When I added the section, I was following the model I saw on other wiki articles of similar material. Specifically: The New York Times, New Republic, and National Review, all of which have criticism and controversy sections. I think that it is misguided to expect articles that cover political material to not have sections revolving around critique and controversy. Politics, unfortunately, involves a lot of head-butting sometimes serious and other times not. Below I will explain why it is that I think the sources are of good quality, and where I think you go wrong in claiming them to be poor sources.

The New York Times

I somewhat agree with your claim that the addition of the paper considering Jacobin to be the flagship magazine of the left can be considered trivial, when the Vox source exists. Perhaps this can be removed.

I disagree with your claim that the source is irrelevant when considering Elizabeth Warren and Jacobin. As I said above, before the Rfc, Jacobin is the leading pro Bernie Sanders publication, this is consensus. In this interview with the NYT the editor and publisher of Jacobin explicitly states that Warren needs to be boosted and supported alongside Bernie, in a Democratic primary in which only one person can win. The source clearly illustrates Jacobin's position in the primary. Similarly the POLITICO report further corroborates this by showing how Jacobin performed an about-face in relation to Warren.

Podcast Source

The podcast does mention Jacobin explicitly, and refers to many of it's articles published during the primary. Please listen to the podcasts, I can even provide time stamps if you'd like. I do not understand the "self published" critique, please elaborate. Additionally the hosts are both practicing academics at reputable institutions. These aren't random people online.

YouTube

You then go on to claim that the sources used in the next paragraph are attributable to the podcast above. The videos cited here are both Jacobin's own productions, and the people referred to are Jacobin's own editors and publisher. Please actually watch the videos.

Venezuelanalysis / Brasil Wire / Bread & Roses

You have not explained why you are dubious of the sources here. You have just made a proclamation. Venezuelanalysis and Brasil Wire are both reputable English language sources on these regions from a left wing perspective. B&R is a caucus with the Democratic Socialists of America and Socialist Call is their publication. Many Jacobin staffers are members of B&R

Identity

You claim that I tried to slip in opinion pieces here. There is not a single opinion piece in this part of the section.

"Here's something someone said in a book review on their podcast". The podcast was a response to the book review. And this is not just "someone". This is an incredibly powerful media figure who was also a prominent member of the movement around the Bernie Sanders campaign, who also interviewed the candidate. These are not just random people.

You claim the rest of this part cites people often via YouTube videos. There are only two videos. The first involves then Jacobin columnist Keeyanga (who now writes for the NYT), and then Bernie Press Secretary (!) in a dialogue sponsored and hosted by Jacobin. The second video is an interview hosted by Current Affairs with another left wing scholar. Did you even watch the videos?

Finally the article in which Adolph Reed claims Jacobin to be notoriously interventionist, and called in to question their claim to not be a line-publication, was published in a peer-reviewed academic journal (nonsite.org)

Conclusion

I do not think that you scrutinized the sources carefully enough. You skimmed everything.

You claim that some of the YouTube videos are attributable to Studebaker etc., when they were published by Jacobin. You claim some are opinion pieces when they are actually articles published in peer-reviewed academic journals. Come on.

I do believe that the sources accurately reflect Jacobin's positions and history. So again please actually check the sources. Also please read the debate had before the Rfc, because I went out of my way to illustrate why the section is relevant to the article. BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As others (and myself) have mentioned, the main issues taken with a "Praise & criticism" (remember to format titles in sentence case) section is that it could be easily prone to editorializing. I have not followed this dispute, nor do I follow this article's topic, but what I will say is to follow NPOV and especially due and undue weight.EditWorker (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The section contains interesting materials, some of it well-sourced , but as a section I don't approve of it. The contents should be merged into the "Ideology" section per WP:CSECTION, IMO. Bishonen | tålk 12:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: Could you provide us with examples of how similar material has been merged in to an "Ideology" section? If not, can you tell us how we should go about doing this if we end up removing the section and taking this path?

It is my view that the norm with political articles is a "Criticism & Controversy" section for this kind of material. Whereas "Ideology" sections are where editors explain the viewpoint of the subject. BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• A "reception" section is common. I just removed the Chomsky quote to a newly created one. Guy (help!) 22:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: When creating the section I used the model of The New York Times, New Republic, and National Review articles. Could you please provide examples of a "Reception" section being used for similar material? BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reception section can be used to include the praise part mentioned above. I would second re-writing that part as @JesseRafe: suggested in the debate above as the way to go in terms of the reception section. BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 22:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My objections were more or less the same as Aquillion. But to him you reply, "I do not think that you scrutinized the sources carefully enough. You skimmed everything," and "I do not think that you scrutinized the sources carefully enough. You skimmed everything." Multiple people have said the same thing about the section as you have written it, but you keep responding saying they're not seriously engaging with the section. I don't know what kind of engagement you're expecting! Dsakey1978 (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dsakey1978: Don't dare, your objections were not the same as @Aquillion:. Of the editors in the Rfc there are three who have called for the removal of the section, four if we count you. Two editors who believe it should stay, three if you count me.

All of the editors who seek to remove the section have based their objection on Aquillion's analysis. Unlike you and @Asoka89: (to an extent), Aquillion actually went through the sources and material point-by-point making their argument for what should be removed and why. Because this was done in a legible manner, it was easy for me to respond. Aquillion actually engaged with what was there. The engagement I've been seeking! Not once did I say that they never engaged in a discussion. What I did say is that they were mistaken about some of the claims that they made. Not once did you show us where the errors you alleged occurred. Your objection was non-existent. You had to wait for another editor to make an objection, and then claim theirs as yours. The third time you've done this. So really there is just one objection (in the Rfc) and that's Aquillion's.

Just a note: of the editors who believe the section should stay each one of us has a different solution. @Bishonen: believes that it should be merged in to the "Ideology" section. @JzG: believes it should be incorporated in to a "Reception" section. I think some of it can go in to the reception section, and the rest in to a Criticism & Controversy section following the model of the articles mentioned above.

It's funny how you always show up behind other editors to shout "hear, hear!". First Asoka89, then after @JesseRafe:'s first edit on this talk page, and now Aquillion. You have never made your own objection to the removal YOU made. This is why I opened up a sockpuppet investigation on you, your actions just don't make sense. First you were absolutely evasive in the discussion before the Rfc. Now you have mischaracterized my response to Aquillion as a handwaving dismissal, when I have actually gone through their objection in a fair and legible manner. You make me laugh. I can't even...🙈 Stop making me laugh, please I'm dying. By the way Aquillion explicitly said that they were going to skim the section from the foreign policy part onwards. This is one of the reasons I said it seems like they skimmed everything. How about you actually attempt to defend the objection instead of laser-focusing on one sentence, to the exclusion of everything else I said. There are four of you relying on that analysis. Was I wrong in characterizing some of Aquillion's claims as wrong? BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Omit per Aquillion's analysis on RSN. buidhe 22:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Omit section per Aquillion Idealigic (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rewrite as a typical "Critical reception" section. Or remove it per WP:TNT, if the material doesn't seem salvageable, or this page attracts so much PoV pushing that such a section can't reasonably be maintained.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @SMcCandlish: Sincerely, if we ended up following your first suggestion would that mean that there would be both a "Reception" section and a "Critical Reception" section? Also could you please provide us with models of a "Critical Reception" section if they are out there? I ask because I modeled this section on the Criticism & Controversy sections of similar articles namely: The New York Times, New Republic, and National Review. Thanks. BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  No, same section. It's clearer to call it critical reception (in the academic sense of "criticism/critical", which is often not negative, but simply analysis). Just calling it "Reception" sounds like its means a grand-opening party or something. And "criticism" by itself is apt to be taken in the negative. Any featured article on a film, book, or other major work typically has a critical reception section (though sometimes called "reception" or something else; it's not 100% consistent). I suppose since many periodically go on for a long time and cover (and sometimes get involved in) a wide variety of issues, there might sometimes need to be a section for controversies involving the publication/publisher. But it may not be a poor idea to merge that with critical reception (i.e., what the reputable writers and thinkers of the world have to say on the record about the quality of the publication), as it is going to seem like (and drift toward being only) a big pile of negativity without any WP:DUE balance. That would seem to be why this RfC is happening. While going with "Praise and criticism" (and I suppose shoehorning "controversy" into the one-sided sense of "criticism") is one balancing approach, it might not be the best one.

  ANYWAY, what I meant by rewrite is to avoid a focus on controversy, and try to just lay out the facts about what other reputable publications say about this one, in general. I think Bishonen is onto something, in suggesting that some of this can merge out of that section into the one on the publisher ideology (though I'm not sure I like that word; maybe we're doing that in most paper/mag articles, I dunno.) To the extent controversies need to be in there, reliable sources should be telling us that they are controversies. But if a source has a harsh view of Jacobin and they mention some alleged controversy as why, then that's part of their viewpoint on it, but it's not "a controversy" to WP if multiple other sources aren't agreeing it is. It doesn't mean WP has to dwell on the details. We don't need to go looking for people being critical (in the vernacular sense) just to have some in there. If the real world isn't telling us there's an encyclopedia-worthy issue, then there's not one. Cf. what EditWorker said: "easily prone to editorializing". How defining of the subject in general public opinion is the supposed controversy? There's a big difference between, say, what Bill Cosby got in trouble for versus Bill Murray once getting arrested for marijuana possession, if you see what I mean. Another example of this kind of distinction is all the drama going on at Talk:J. K. Rowling about a not-transphobic tweet that a few activists looking to be angry at everyone said was transphobic. It's not a real controversy, and even other pro-trans-rights people are telling those few to STFU [1] [reg. required for full text]. WP should not be covering this. By contrast, we certainly have to cover Don Imus derailing his career in 2007 due to multiple public incidents of racist humor (or whateverTF that was; not everyone bought his "I just do edgy humor" excuses). A closer-to-home example might be that the mainstream press publishers and TV/net/radio news producers have a strong supermajority view that Fox News is basically bankrupt of journalistic ethics and is acting as propaganda, not news. It would be one thing if, say, ABC News and LA Times said so but everyone else wondered what they were going on about. Nope, the entire industry has a consensus on this. I haven't absorbed much of a sense of public and professional opinion of Jacobin and how its reputation stands (with whom), so it's hard to say what should or should not make the cut, without doing a bunch of research on it. I'm just coming from a general-principles position. If other periodicals' articles here are also taking a "criticism and controversy" tack, they probably have balance problems, which will worsen over time (especially in articles on American news sources, the closer we get to November).
  Blah blah, yak yak, I will shut up now.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: You've swayed me to your position, which is similar to JzG and Bishonen. The section in question should be merged in to the "Reception" section. I do not think we should re-name it "Critical Reception" though. I say this for four reasons:

1) The use of "Reception" is more common. So just for standardization purposes we should keep it

2) Wherever such a section exists we should assume any material and it's sources have good faith analysis. However we should always double check that

3) Unfortunately these days the word "Criticism / Critical", as you said, has a negative connotation. This as EditWorker and Aquillion said invites more negative edits or editorializing. "Criticism" used to mean analysis based on considered and fair evaluation. This is how I have understood, and used the word here. But it's clear some people might misread it. So we should abandon the use of a "Criticism & Controversy" section as Aquillion and others suggested

4) The term "Critical Reception" usually refers to film / music critics, which is why they use it in articles covering those subjects. So I don't think the term fits here. The use of "Reception" is more appropriate

In terms of Bishonen's suggestion for using the "Ideology" section, I thought I completely disagreed but now I see what they were most likely pointing out. Correct me if I'm wrong, but such sections are usually used to portray the position of the subject, in their own words. So the comments of Jacobin, its editors and writers, and their political affiliations. Whereas a Reception section would be about what others think of them. If this is the case then all of the "Identity Politics" part can be re-written and merged in to the "Ideology" section, excluding the last paragraph which would fall under "Reception".

You mentioned not having absorbed much about Jacobin's reputation. I have an edit from 18 May 2020 on this Talk page that can give you a sampling of some of that. If you have the time and desire to read it, it's a long comment. Appreciate your comment. BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your 1–4 points sound reasonable. Yes, we seem to be on the same page when it comes to ideology vs. criticism/reception, though I would add that some of the sources cited in the longer messages up top may actually be relevant for the former. The fact that the publication is very left-leaning is an assessment that appears to be common in sources about this publication (regardless what Jacobin says of itself, which tells us how they wish to be perceived but not necessarily what they actually produce; e.g. Fox News styles itself a conservative but accurate source of real, proper news coverage, but RS tell us this is not the case, and that it is a far-right propaganda farm that intentionally pushes false information on a regular basis). These assessments about ideology are distinguishable from whether the same sources are praising or damning, which would be more pertinent for the reception material. And it's good that we have independent sources writing about Jacobin's politics. Too often, I see an article on a newspaper or magazine or website or TV news production claim that it is liberal or conservative without there being a clear source for this assessment (i.e., it is editor opinion, which is often going to be correct but is still not how to write an encyclopedia).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge section. Just so that it's clear where I stand as the editor who created the section, and initiated this Rfc. My position has changed since the start of the Rfc. I have adopted a synthesis of the different editors critiques to the section, and their comments in the Rfc.

@Aquillion, Buidhe, Idealigic, and Dsakey1978: argued against the use of a Criticism section, because they usually invite point scoring for balance between editors. I have come around to this argument, and think that guideline should be followed. My disagreements regarding the other claims in their objection still stand.

@Bishonen, JzG, and SMcCandlish: separately suggested that the section should be re-written, and different parts assimilated in to the already existing "Reception" or "Ideology" sections respectably. As I said in my exchange with SMcCandlish, I believe this is how the salvageable material should be incorporated.

@JesseRafe: suggested that what was the praise part be re-written in a format similar to movie review sections. I agree.

So the use of a Praise and Criticism section should be abandoned. Rather the appropriate material should be re-written and incorporated in to the existing sections. Where applicable the material should be re-written to resemble movie "Critical Reception" sections. BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 03:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aquillion, Buidhe, Idealigic, Dsakey1978, Bishonen, JzG, SMcCandlish, and JesseRafe: It has been two weeks since the Rfc was started. According to wiki they should last at least a month, and currently there is a deadlock between the opposing views. So I wanted to ask if you guys think the compromise I proposed above at 03:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC) is a potential solution? BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 02:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BuilderJustLikeBob, not seeing the problem. We now have a Reception section, and which spoecific things go in there is a matter for individual discussion and consensus. Guy (help!) 08:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: The problem is that there currently is no consensus. This is why I am asking for input on whether some of that material can be added to the Reception section, and the Ideology sections as I proposed. As I stated earlier in my exchange with Dsakey those of us who believe parts of the section can be salvaged have different solutions for how this can be done. One way out of this impasse is the compromise I offered above. BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BuilderJustLikeBob: I welcome the compromise you proposed above as a solution indeed, provided the appropriate material is re-written and incorporated into the existing sections. Idealigic (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I already essentially agreed, in the paragraph I began with "Your 1–4 points sound reasonable".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the title of this section, because I think some might find it misleading. The material that was part of the previous edit still exists, it has just been moved up to what I call the overview area. I just wrote the history of the magazine and added an operations, and organization section following NYT and FT. So it wasn't a "re-write" exactly, but an addition and clarification edit. BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was not enough space for this explanation.

For the most part I went off the models of Monthly Review, The New York Times and Financial Times.

The history section was more of an overview, so I moved it up to the usual overview area, and wrote the actual history of the magazine. Following the NYT I added an Organization part.

I created a Notable Contributors part, assimilating what was the Contributors section. It now says why these are considered notable, and expanded on the prior edit.

I included the role of the magazine in the two previous Democratic Primaries.

Following the NYT and FT (Contents) I added an Operations section that explains what the magazine does, where and how.

I plan on doing a similar re-write for other socialist pages when I get the time.

If anybody knows how to add the "Socialism in the United States" template to the Ideology section, please do it. I couldn't figure it out. Also for the reading groups lists I could not figure out how to have two columns side-by-side so that more info can be packed in to a smaller space. If you know how to do this please re-format that part so that the US and Canada groups are on the left, and the international groups sit to their right. BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 04:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest, I have not understood much of our contentious interactions on this talk page (sometimes literally, since they reference ideological debates that I'm not privy too). I brought up concerns, along with others, of your new section as added, others were also mediating the discussion, with the conclusion that it should not be added, at least in that form. The emphasis *on all parties* was building consensus for changes.

But despite this conversation, you just rewrote the vast majority of the article, with what amounts to, in parts, an original work of scholarship. I must say that a lot of the content you did end up adding is compelling to people interested in the subject, but it seems excessively detailed (and in one or two cases repetitive). There are numerous errors with missing punctuations and errant capitalization throughout. There are also obvious misspellings, like "Jhacobin" in the title of the CLR James book.

Beyond the typographical errors and questionable additions, there are also some uncited factual additions, some of which appear false:

1. I can't find any evidence that Jacobin has an office in Chicago, IL. There's no evidence at the page you cited.

2. It seems like an advert for the Jacobin reading groups. It's not clear that those reading groups actually exist in those locations still.

3. Africa Is a Country is now published by the New School, not Jacobin: https://thenewschoolcollaboratory.org/2018/04/26/africa-is-a-country/

4. Jacobin Deutschland is actually billed as "Jacobin in German" (the German language, not Germany, on their website).

5. Noam Chomsky and other scholars would seem more prominent than the ones choice, but those are just editorial qualms.

Despite any negative back and forth, I don't want to seem completely dismissive -- I found the additional sections interesting and largely well-informed. But I don't think it's appropriate in this context for the article to be completely written in this form.

I suggest reverting back to the old version of the page as soon as possible. (I won't undo the edit myself, though. And I don't have time at the moment to fix the typographical errors.) @Dsakey1978, Schazjmd, SMcCandlish, and JesseRafe:

Asoka89 (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Rfc in question was about the Praise & Criticism section. Some of the editors in the Rfc, including myself believe some of that material is salvageable, and can be merged in to the Reception, and Ideology sections. If you actually see my last post, my current position is an amalgam of many editors' positions, including those I disagreed with (Jesse / Aquillion / Bishonen / JzG).

If you actually check the re-write you will see that I did not touch the Reception or Ideology sections, or add any of the contested material. I intentionally made sure that I didn't. Yet you claim that I have. Sincerely, please stop mischaracterizing my actions. It's just becoming annoying, and is willfully disingenuous.

All I have done is tried to improve the article and seek clarity from your objections and every time, literally every time, my intentions are questioned and I'm accused of being contentious, and only by the two editors who removed the section under review.

In almost every comment you and Dsakey have made you resort to an ad hominem attack on me, and every time I respond I have asked you to clarify your contentions, and responded to those that were clear.

The Rfc is ongoing, according to wiki they usually should last a month, unless a consensus or plurality is reached quickly. None of that has happened yet.

This re-write has nothing to do with the Rfc's Praise & Criticism section. Good lawd! Please read. If you want to talk about the Rfc please post under it, and not here.

About your concerns with this re-write:

1) Which parts exactly do you find excessively detailed?

2) Which parts are repetitive?

3) The misspellings you point out were there prior I just copied them, and arranged them differently but forget to spell check. Like I have said before to both you and Dsakey, if there are grammatical errors correct them. I might get around to fixing them, and welcome other editors to do so

4) I'm pretty sure Jacobin has staff working out of Chicago, however if I or other editors cannot find a source for an actual office there then that claim should be removed

5) It's not clear from the source you provided that Africa is a Country is published by the New School. On the publications about page Jacobin is listed as one of it's partners. Jacobin did redesign their website (Lauren one of their designers did it) and provides the tech for their website. Additionally the hamburger menu has links to not only Jacobin, but Catalyst. The two websites also crosspost articles, so there is a relationship beyond the tech and design. Following this perhaps we should change Africa to a partner and not a franchise?

6) Could you point out where exactly the German franchise is referred to as Jacobin in German, I looked but struggled to find it. Doesn't make sense since it's German language no?

7) Noam should be added. Those that are there now are prominent figures in their respective fields especially on the left which Jacobin is a part of. Noam is more widely recognized. I will likely add one or two others.

Also it's funny how with this edit you suddenly gained the ability to point out with specificity were the errors were, but for some reason have been unable to do so with the material in the Rfc. Yet instead of correcting them, just like the previous time you're already chomping at the bit to revert an edit. Disagreements should be worked through, this is how collaboration should occur smh BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 02:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just put in claims based on being "pretty sure" about something without any sourcing. I can't DEFINITELY prove that Jacobin doesn't have an office in Chicago, but I can say that it's nowhere in your references and they're not listed in the city of Chicago... it seems like you have done firsthand reporting and research and are just putting unsourced claims in a Wikipedia article. This isn't how already existing and established articles are written – this wasn't a stub before you completely rewrote the actually sourced material. And also, in the middle of a dispute about a section that you similarly wrote, you went ahead and changed an entire article. Asoka89 (talk) 03:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simply, there is material in this article that is unsourced and factually inaccurate now. The burden should be on us now to go through and remove the inaccuracies and errors – we slowly build sourced and accurate material, we don't add a bunch of primary source reporting and then prune it down.Asoka89 (talk) 04:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What came after my claim of being "pretty sure"? I explicitly said that if there is no source that the claim should be removed! Tell us where the inaccuracies are, and where the unsourced material is. The Chicago office claim should be removed, you seem to be right about that, but what about the other stuff.

The material that was there in the previous edit is still a part of the article. Like I said in my explanation for the edit, it was moved up to what I call the overview area. The overview area being what falls right below the Title of an article. There is no real "History" there. So I had to write it myself.

Again this edit has nothing to do with the disputed section. It's almost as if you have an issue with me just looking at this article. As the article currently stands, I believe it is a vast improvement on the previous edit. When I'm done with this page it will be a Featured Article 😉

You should keep an eye on the Financial Times, Monthly Review, Catalyst (to be created), Socialist Register and American Affairs articles. I'm gonna give them - and others - the same amount of love when I get time. To be fair the MR article has a great history section.

Oh and, I'm actually giggling as I type this part, but you completely dodged my questions and mischaracterized me AGAIN. Force of habit I guess Young Trinidad? SMFH BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 04:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can barely follow anything you’re saying (“Young Trinidad?”). If you’re serious about participating, you should follow some sense of order and seriousness when making your changes. And at the very least proofread your contributions and fix your capitalizations. When you don’t have a citation, delete the claim. That would be at lot more useful than attempting to remake entire sections of Wikipedia at your whim. Asoka89 (talk) 04:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why won't you collaborate? If you’re serious about participating, you should answer the questions and suggestions I had in response to your problems with the edit 🍑 BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, you are not editing or acting in good faith. You can't stomp and pout, "Why won't you collaborate" when you are being condescending and argumentative and belitting to other editors, both in passive aggressive talk page comments and in edit summaries. You're not acting in good faith or being collaborative yourself. Just an FYI if you want to stick around here, you'll encounter more and more people who don't want to "collaborate" with someone who cares little for others' time and attention and good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia. JesseRafe (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For all other editors who may read this, note what's happening here, I responded to Asoka's objections to the edit and offered up both suggestions and points of clarification. Now I'm being told that I am acting in bad faith, and not being collaborative. Neither Asoka, nor Jesse have responded to my suggestions or points. I responded to everything. They are the ones who are acting in bad faith and not collaborating, but project this on to me. Not the first time they have done this. Yes I did make tongue-in-cheek comments in summaries, but since it seems to be a problem I'll stop. BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 12:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure why any volunteer would want to be subjected to abuse for pointing out potential inaccuracies in uncited materials, copy editing errors, and the fact that all this material was added in an inappropriate way without any guidance from other editors. This has clearly become an obsession and battle that I want little part of. But suffice to say the latest round of changes should be rolled back and the page should possibly be protected. These kind of changes will attract political trolls in the future, and this page is very probed to becoming an ideological battleground. @JesseRafe:/other edits at least on the rollbacks would that be something that can be done or would be an appropriate course of action? Dsakey1978 (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice what's going on here? One my disagreements and jokes are now being mischaracterized as "abuse", by laser focusing on one sentence to the exclusion of everything I have said. Two Dsakey suggests that if I want to make an edit, I have to consult other editors. I'm assuming that means them and Asoka. When an edit is made other editors are there to check it for inaccuracies, and grammatical problems. I don't have to consult anyone, if there are disagreements air them. If there are errors correct them. Just like Jesse and Asoka you have not responded to my claims made about the latter's objection. If there is abuse, I invite you to follow the process for such claims. Bring in a third party to mediate, if your problem still persists escalate the investigation. Let's see if your allegation stands. BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's something wrong in almost every other sentence: consider lines like "pathbreaking scholars" and why that's not the neutral language you would expect in an encyclopedia article. This page is now a messy fan wiki. The responsibility isn't on us to fix all your errors, it was on you to add material in a responsible way. Dsakey1978 (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the editing that occurs on wiki is copy editing. Every single editor on this talk page has copy edited at least one other edit. Who took issue with the 18 June edit? If it is not your responsibility to make copy edits, then why bother doing so on other pages? You copy edited the Long Bay College article 30min ago. Why do that if it's not your responsibility? Just so that I am not misunderstood: I am not saying they should copy edit every mistake I made. What I am saying is they should copy edit the mistakes we have agreed upon, if not I'll do it. BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, all you do is deflect, attack and gaslight. At this point half a dozen different editors have given you concrete objections to specific items and you miscategorize the objections and the editors' intentions, proclaim that no one is interesting in "collaboration", and then make fun of other volunteer editors. This is bad faith. I've made numerous edits to improve this article, probably none since your account was created, but many editors often leave off when a tendentious editor like yourself shows up and wait for them to get bored and then go back and fix the article to Wikipedia's regular standards. Don't mistake silence for endorsement, of either version. JesseRafe (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is what you said on my Talk Page: "If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Jacobin, you may be blocked from editing."

Can you tell us what was disruptive?

What was inappropriate?

• I am aware that the jokes made where not taken kindly, and I explicitly said I would stop
• Was there anything else that was inappropriate?

What was formatted in a way that is hard-to-read?

You also claim that all I do is deflect, attack and gaslight. In my response to Asoka's objection (02:05, 19 June 2020) I go through it, and even numbered the different point as they did as well. So:

Where is the deflection?

Where is the gaslighting?

My response has not been given a fair shake. Asoka mischaracterized me and only considered point 3). You accused me of being condescending and of being argumentative. All I did was in a considered manner respond to an objection. You also said I mischaracterize others objections.

Where did the mischaracterization occur?

You also did not consider my response.

Dsakey then accused me of abuse.

There is no real discussion here, and I'm only talking about you three. I have not once mistaken anyone's silence for any kind of endorsement. If others have anything to say they can speak for themselves. I only consider what is actually said.

What you have done here is accuse me of doing what you three are doing. That is called projection.

It is you three who have deflected. It is you three who have mischaracterized me. And it is you who spoke to me in a condescending tone in the discussion before the Rfc.

I'm not going to go away. And if you guys continue doing this, I will seek dispute resolution according to the rules, just like you forced me to do before. It is you that is attempting to gaslight me. It's always you three. Always BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually read the notice on your talk page, you'd have gotten to the point where it says "There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason", which is what the entire template notice was about. Or, if you read my note, you'd see it was again, another request to please learn how to format and write in the standard manner used on this encyclopedia, not your random whims. Once again, your response is just deflecting, gaslighting, and obfuscating the situation with a new wall of text. As I advised you a month ago, this is not going to go the way that you imagine it will. I also advised you to take some interest in other areas of the encyclopedia project... you soon may not have any other option. JesseRafe (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did read it, just like I read the wall of text rule you informed me about a month ago. What was poorly formatted? What was not written in the standard manner? BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You read the whole manual of style? And you still write section headings In Capital Letters? You still use weasel words to bloat out credentials? You still use ampersands? I don't have to do your work for you. I don't have to highlight every error you make. The onus is on you to learn how to operate here, you've been given an incredibly long leash and open hand, yet you've spurned every overture in how you can improve as an editor and you are more and more looking like you are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, but just serve your own ends. Again, there's links on your page, read them? JesseRafe (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So because I used ampersands an entire edit was reverted? Because I used capital letters in section titles, an entire edit was reverted? Because I used "weasel words" an entire edit was reverted? Interesting. Why did you not point this out before reverting the edit, so that I could correct those errors? Your revert doesn't seem like a balanced response to those errors.

The use of "pathbreaking" scholars is fair, because these scholars have either birthed entire fields, or made significant contributions to them. I can always remove it as a compromise. I can always remove the ampersands and the capital letters. Everyone makes mistakes.

The overtures about how I can improve have been accepted multiple times. You are being disingenuous by claiming that I have not done so. And in many cases yourself, Asoka and Dsakey have not been specific in where the problems are, even after I have asked multiple times. BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 20:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm loath to see mass-scale revertwarring. I have faith that the recent redraft or the old version can be used as a basis for a consensus-produced, remade article. I think I would prefer to work with the re-drafted one, because it improves over the original in multiple ways. If something from the old copy has been lost or bent in the new one and needs to be restored, that is probably easier than going back to the old material entirely and trying to re-re-draft it all over again. I'm not going to squabble about it either way, though. My own topical interest in this article is nil; I was just responding to a WP:FRS notice, and have desired to see consensus reached.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the version that's up now via JesseRafe is a fine basis for any necessary changes or additions, in part because it doesn't contain errors, obvious editorializing, or uncited material. This ordeal has been exhausting enough for all involved (and I especially have been subjected to bizarre invective from BuilderJustLikeBob) that I would suggest other parties take the lead on any needed additions though. Asoka89 (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asoka at 00:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC):

"I must say that a lot of the content you did end up adding is compelling to people interested in the subject"

"Despite any negative back and forth, I don't want to seem completely dismissive -- I found the additional sections interesting and largely well-informed."

Aside from the errors Jesse pointed out, were there any other errors?

Where was the editorializing?

Where was the uncited material?

Why did you avoid my response to your objection?

Perhaps we should have an Rfc for this edit as well, cause you guys just won't defend your actions / positions? @Asoka89: BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dispute over the following edit made on the 18 June 2020: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacobin_(magazine)&oldid=963151905

The edit in question was reverted to the current article.

Reinstate, The edit should be reinstated

Omit, The edit should be omitted from the article BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reinstate the 18 June edit. I believe that the edit in question greatly improves the article in the following ways:

1) It provides an actual history of the magazine

2) What was the history section is kept in the article and moved in to the summary / overview area right under the title of the article

3) It elaborates on the role the magazine played in the two democratic primaries

4) It explains why certain contributors should be considered notable

5) It provides an overview of how the magazine is organized

6) It elaborates on the actual functions of the magazine with the Operations section

That said the edit should have its faults corrected. The use of capital letters and ampersands in the titles of sections should be removed from the copy BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hell no. That relied excessively on quotes from Sunkara, editorialised statements, and generally read as a PR piece. Guy (help!) 08:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: In the entire edit, there are only five paragraphs which quote Sunkara. Each coming either from profiles of Jacobin in The Columbia Journalism Review and New Left Review, or a panel hosted by the Columbia Journalism Review. Do you not think you are giving those quotes more weight than they actually have in the edit?

Also which statements were editorialized?

What read as PR? BuilderJustLikeBob (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Omit. Tightly written content with multiple secondary sources can be introduced but I'm not really seeing any of that in this specific edit. — Bilorv (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: An 18k edit with the not very diplomatic tag line "The article was garbage, so I re-wrote it. See the Talk page for a full explanation" is incredibly hard to judge. I lean towards voting for inclusion, but it is just to hard to judge such gigantic edits. It would have been way easier if you had split your rewrite into smaller edits.ImTheIP (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is something like Breitbart called "far right" while this magazine is not called "far left?"It is obviously far left so why ignore that?24.139.24.163 (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to add this media bias check on Jacobin. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/jacobin/24.139.24.163 (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's explicity called a socialist magazine in the first sentence. There's no need to add various synonyms to make the style clumsier. Bishonen | tålk 18:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

You do realize that socialism is on the far-left of the political spectrum? -69.121.9.199 (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The media bias check you link to rates its bias as "LEFT," not far left. MBFC isn't a reliable source anyway. TFD (talk)

Since this IP address was at ANI I noticed this too. It cannot really be compared to Breitbart, although we also don't use it as a source it's a useful guide: Fuentes Media places Jacobin quite leftwards, but also upwards ("hyper-partisan left", "mix of fact and analysis"), when Breitbart is both very rightwise and near the bottom ("most extreme right", "unfair interpretation of the news, nonsense damaging to public discourse," etc). I agree that socialist here is adequate and supported by this citation. Far left is also more commonly associated with extremist revolutionaries, —PaleoNeonate – 14:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobin has supported extremist revolutionaries and defended Stalinism numerous times. -69.121.9.199 (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. government has supported extremist revolutionaries and defended Stalinism numerous times. TFD (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think that if Breitbart was described as “fascist” anyone would complain that it is not being described as “far right”. Same thing here with “socialist”. It could also be different with something like Workers World (newspaper) where you’d want to clarify that it was the far left kind of socialism though even there the word “communist” would probably cover it. Volunteer Marek 21:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both Jacobin and Breitbart are populist publications that cater to different ideological audiences. Both push anti-establishment views and certainly Jacobin is well outside mainstream liberalism. Jonathan f1 (talk) 08:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this worth mention? https://www.washingtonpost.com/books/2023/12/05/kissinger-book-verso-jacobin/ Asoka89 (talk) 06:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]