Talk:Angela Nagle

Sloppy sourcing and Wikipedia plagiarism accusations

I'm not entirely sure what should be done with this, but Libcom.org has come-out swinging at Nagle's book for general sloppiness and plagiarism. This has been picked up by The Daily Beast, which more-or-less supports the accusation. The Daily Beast acknowledges that the book has been generally well-received, and any inclusion of this controversy should be proportionate to that reception.

Some of Nagle's description are, apparently, extremely similar to those in Wikipedia and RationalWiki, among other places. The focus of these two articles is less on the plagiarism issue specifically, and more about sloppy attribution. The book, per sources, misrepresents statements made by journalists as those made by the people they are covering, and more insidiously, misrepresents information about extremist fringe advocates' (such as Aleksandr Dugin) by taking their comments about themselves at face value, even when these statements are easily refuted. Any expansion of coverage of this book should probably also mention this issue. Grayfell (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Someone else came along and expanded this. Again, I'm not sure what to do with this, but if it's going to be here, it needs to be presented in context. The Daily Beast is reliable, and Libcom is arguable or borderline. Regardless, since it is directly mentioned by a more obviously reliable source, it is sufficient reason to use it to help explain what's going on. The complaint wasn't just sloppy sourcing, it was sloppy sourcing leading to specific factual errors, as well as arguable plagiarism, which is a serious issues. Vaguely alluding to all this without any detail at all invites readers to use their imagination, which isn't really what we want. Lumping this problem in the same paragraph with a vaguely positive bit of puff from a NYT review is also non-neutral and kind of confusing, as well.

I made a mistake with Socialmatters.net, though. I thought it was something else, but it absolutely shouldn't be cited without a more reliable source backing it up. Grayfell (talk) 06:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Beast is the borderline reliable source, Libcom is not a serious entity with fact-checkers and if you'd like to ask moderators if it comes even close to Wikipedia's very strict rules on sourcing in this context (living biographies, especially accusing people of crime or unethical activity) we can do that.

The Daily Beast restates some claims from LibCom, but it does not accuse Nagle of plagiarism, copy and pasting, or verbatim lifting without attribution, or any other creative and legalistic way of saying plagiarism. In fact, a quick search of the chronology of this incident shows that The Daily Beast retracted its original claim (which would've made your contribution accurate) after Nagle's response (which you included).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was you who included the New York Times praising Nagle's book. I was seeking to compromise with you on that by taking out the immaterial "right-wing" coupling with Ross Douthot.

This issue may require a dispute and moderator arbitration if you keep insisting an anarcho-communist blog with multiple articles attacking Nagle ideologically is a reliable source for accusing a famous author of stealing content. It is, for the sake of biographical value, no different than the neo-nazi website you tried to use before.

Details matter here. If you don't have any sources other than LibCom and Social Matters for a very dubious accusation, we cannot compromise on this source. If you would like to open up a dispute or bring moderators in let's do that.

Thanks,

FriendlyKor (talk) 07:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)FriendlyKor

The Social Matters source has already been removed.

I'm not trying to present this as a threat, but it's a little peculiar that a brand new account with no editing history at all is so eager to authoritatively point to policy and guideline. Are you aware of Wikipedia's policies on sock puppetry and conflicts of interest? If you say you're familiar with these policies, there's no reason to press the matter further.

Regarding the reliability of LibCom, I would probably not use it for a BLP without a good reason... but we have a good reason to consider it. Everything is judged in context, but Daily Beast is the boring kind of reliable, not "borderline" reliable. Our source here documents this as a plagiarism accusation, so we reflect this in proportion to due weight. The Daily Beast discusses and expands upon the LibCom article, and specifically cites that article as the origin of this accusation. The Daily Beast article is specifically saying that it's not the only one making this criticism, so implying that it only came from there would be misrepresenting the source. That this accusation originally comes from an unreliable source is a distraction, because this is still reported on by a reliable one.

When you say this accusation is "very dubious", well, that's a valid opinion, but it's not up to us, is it? Does your assessment that it's dubious make the Daily Beast less reliable? So what reliable sources call it dubious? Nagle's blog is fine for an attributed opinion (WP:SPSBLP) but it's not fine for a statement of fact. We can, and probably should, cite it as her response as a matter of basic respect. That doesn't make this a platform for promoting her, and allowing her a response isn't the same as agreeing with her. We cannot frame this as a single criticism (from some guy with an ax to grind, according to Nagle), because that's not how reliable sources frame it. Grayfell (talk) 08:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Merge

see also merge discussion here Talk:Kill_All_Normies#Proposed_merge_with_Angela_Nagle Queen-washington (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Criticism of her views

After repeated edits deleting any criticism without proper discussion I think I should briefly state the reasons for wanting some in. It is said her article was 'controversial' but this wa followed by Zizeks love for her , and then Tucker Carlsons love for her. No criticism. No evidence of the controversy just statements loving Nagle. then the SPA account Shackleton inserted a squib from the Nation ( a magazine whose left credentials are minimal at this point), and then , if you read it leaves no criticism of the points Nagle makes at all. Its like its been designed to leave a sentence that appears to show criticism was stirred up but leaves no actual trace of the content of any controversy. Crap. It just says its part of a wave or something but addresses the points made by Nagle not at all. So to give some life to the sentence that her article caused controversy its important I believe to show something of the clash of IDEAS. What the SPA wants its very clear is a vanilla article full of love for the subject. No good for a living article imo. Please at least properly discuss. Dan the Plumber (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:BRD. Multiple editors have objected to the inclusion of this material, so simply reverting their removal of it is edit warring. It's good that you've opened a talkpage discussion, but now you must make a case for its inclusion. Until you gain consensus for its inclusion, you should not reinsert it. In the meantime, assume good faith. I don't have any particular content view, but I did remove your addition both on the grounds of BRD and because it needs to be better written--the proposed formulation of statements was almost impossible to parse. Grandpallama (talk) 11:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Two editors , is that 'multiple'? A SPA and one other. Maybe my condensing the text made it difficult to read but I wanted to keep it concise. I shan't edit the article back with my additions but the article is in danger of being a puff piece and there is now no criticism, merely praise for what is said to have been a 'controversial' piece. The token 'criticism' , from the dire 'Nation', as it is written for this article contains no actual criticism of the piece she wrote. My additions actually contained criticism of the piece, so showing up some of the aforementioned 'controversy'. Dan the Plumber (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Three editors, if you include me (which I did). I'm not going to be involved in the discussion of the source, but if it's disputed as reliable, you'll need to secure consensus that it can be used. And if that consensus is acquired, it needs to be written in a more comprehensible manner, so it's clear exactly what point is being made in terms of criticism. Until then, per BRD (which I saw you referenced in one of your own edit summaries), it should remain excluded. Grandpallama (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I"ll take it to the RS noticeboard. This issue of reliability is so complicated . I wouldn't use Newsweek as a Reliable Source. Others would. As someone I regard highly on Twitter wrote 'Since @Newsweek published (an) absurdly false @wilkmaster article about Mattis stating “Assad didn´t use chemical weapons” nothing can shock me anymore. Shit sells.' As it is , like I said , the article says she wrote a controversial piece but the opposition to it is limited to the crappy old pro Russia Nation rag. You probably aren't following all my points . The 'Left' is not to be represented by the useless 'Nation' magazine. And basically the article isn't illustrating any proper Leftist opposition to her piece. Dan the Plumber (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

More importantly, notice that you two editors who reverted to the version determinedly tailored by the SPA Shackleford, have now left the paragraph in a state where it contains no actual CRITICISM OF THE IDEAS EXPRESSED by Nagle ' Read it. 'In November 2018, American Affairs published Nagle's controversial essay ”The Left Case against Open Borders.” Writing in The Independent, Slavoj Zizek referred to the “ferocious attacks on Angela Nagle for her outstanding essay ..." . The Nation responded with a critical essay, calling it "just one of the volley of pieces by liberals and people to the left of center who have derided the out-of-touch utopianism of open-borders advocates."

Calling it 'just one of the volley of pieces by liberals who have derided the out of tuch utopianism' in fact only gives further voice to Nagle. Her critics are 'out of touch utopians'.. HER IDEAS ARE UNCHALLENGED> So how does the article SHOW how her piece was 'controversial'. And this is no accident. The SPA goes APOPLECTIC if any hint of criticism of this person is written up. Dan the Plumber (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Date of birth? Age?

Can somebody get these crucial pieces of info? I mean what generation does she even belong to? -Wwallacee (talk) 11:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

A year has been added with a source, but please review WP:DOB before hunting for a specific date. While useful, this information is not obligatory, and should only be included if it can be supported by reliable sources and is already public knowledge. Grayfell (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Birthplace

She mentions being born in Texas in the podcast I cited. It's an interview. Why shouldn't such information be cited? Are we to assume that any piece of biographical information conveyed directly by a subject is unreliable? JakeDapper (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I see that it's already there, but want to confirm that this is indeed acceptable for non-controversial information per WP:ABOUTSELF. —PaleoNeonate – 20:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)