This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide, including this page. 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 sanctioned. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is this seriously being used as a trustworthy source? 97.88.151.165 ( talk) 23:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
There are numerous WP:NPOV problems with the article:
To fix the article:
Reliably sourced content from a high-quality source has been scrubbed from the article for the sole reason that it doesn't attack the think tank like all the other content in the article: No, it was removed because it is precisely a normative criticism but creatively introduced as a positive description of the supposed foreign policy position of Quincy. Some direct quotes from the piece:
Over the last decade, as the Iraq disaster has haunted US foreign policy, the Quincy coalition, a new school of thought emphasising ‘restraint’, has emerged and quickly become a major voice in the conversation about American foreign policy... In part, the new restraint school has gained influence because of generous funding provided by libertarian philanthropists Charles and David Koch, and liberal philanthropist George Soros.
While the new restraint coalition did not commend Trump’s reckless conduct and administrative incompetence, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the basic thrust of his ‘America First’ foreign policy was a bold – if crude – implementation of the Quincy coalition’s core vision.
To grapple with these new realities, the restraints offered by the Quincy coalition are thoroughly outmoded. And it is the restraints offered by modern liberalism and its globalist internationalism that are needed now.
When these deficiencies are combined with the severe underappreciation of interdependence, the unifying theme in the libertarian–realist alliance of restraint is revealed to be deeply flawed. The restraints they advocate are misplaced and inadequate, and any domestic and international world order following these guidelines would be marked not by restraint, but by a significant and dangerous lack of restraint.
The Biden programme proposes an array of new restraints, to be sure, but unlike the Quincy coalition’s programme, it will advance rather than impede the realisation of basic liberal-democratic goals and values.
Both the Quincy coalition and the new liberalism offer packages of restraint. But the Quincy restraints are for a different time and place, while the restraints proposed by the new liberalism are tailor-made to address the central domestic and international problems of the present and future.
If you want to add Deudney and Ikenberry's criticisms of the grand strategy of restraint, I have no opposition to that: No, they are not criticizing "the grand strategy of restraint", but "restraint" of a particular flavor called "Quincy". Also, there is zero mention of Quincy's version of "restraint" being a "grand strategy" in the pieces you listed above. Normchou 💬 16:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Full disclosure: I played a minor role in this initiative and presently serve on one of the institute’s advisory committees.). Normchou 💬 16:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Restraint is one of several grand strategy options. [5] Walt explicitly refers to it as oneis irrelavant to the discussion. This book was published in 2014, well before Quincy was founded. You are mixing your own WP:OR/ WP:SYNTH/interpretation of the FP article/its author's previous opinions with what RSes say about the subject of this article. Given the sources that are there, a mention of "restraint" under "History" is the best we can do. Normchou 💬 16:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I came here to say what this section points out. The balance of the article is devoted to "criticism." Wikipedia should not be a platform for rhetorical strategies that label critics as immoral rather than engaging with their critiques. That's obnoxious. Besides, such serious charges ought to be supported with evidence, not just asserted as opinion. It's easy to demonstrate that e.g. Charles Lindbergh and Henry Ford were antisemitic. It's not just a matter of opinion. Where is the evidence re the Quincy Institute? What are the names of the people accused? What is the consensus? Don't give me an over-the-top characterization by a politician and expect me to swallow it.
More fundamentally, what is the history of the Quincy Institute? If it is nothing but a straw man for partisans to set fire to, then it's not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If it is notable, then this article is lacking basic information. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 15:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
The balance of the article is devoted to "criticism": There is a specific definition for WP:BALANCE, and it entails reliable sources (also, see WP:FALSEBALANCE and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Balancing different views). The correct way to fix this is to find different views in RSes and then duly present them in proportion to their prominence. Re
Don't give me an over-the-top characterization by a politician and expect me to swallow it: This is your own view, and your personal views have little impact on maintaining NPOV (unless they are also published in relevant RSes). Normchou 💬 19:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:CREATELEAD:
The primary purpose of a Wikipedia lead is not to summarize the topic, but to summarize the content of the article. It should prepare the reader for whatever is in the body of the article, get them interested in the content, and inspire them to read the whole article.
Also:
This rule of thumb will ensure the lead covers all significant subject matter in the article:
If a topic deserves a heading, then it deserves short mention in the lead according to its real due weight.
If we don't follow that equation, then POV warriors can successfully "hide" negative material away from many readers' notice by spinning it off and leaving a small section which is then viewed as not worthy of mention in the lead. That must not happen. It should still be mentioned in the lead according to its real due weight.
The non- WP:PRIMARY RSes on this think tank overwhelmingly point to criticisms, so why would an editor try to hide them from our readers? Normchou 💬 18:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Should the lead to this article state that the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft "has been criticized for its orientation and stances on policy issues"? Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 21:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Withdrawing from the Middle East and terminating the war on terrorism are their prime objectives.) Citing them authoritatively here comparable to citing an academic study funded by the sugar industry in an article on soft drinks - we do need to at least note their bias if we're going to use them, and it casts WP:DUE weight into question. -- Aquillion ( talk) 09:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.The decision to include material in the lead should reflect the relative importance of something to the article subject, and from my look at the coverage of Quincy, the mere fact the organization has been occasionally criticized doesn't seem like something RS regard as especially important. The criticisms presented in the article seem to vary widely in issue taken, quality and source, such that a single sentence blithely saying Quincy has been criticized "for its orientation and stances on policy issues" misleads more than it informs. Also agree with others' general criticism the controversy section probably merits trimming. — 0xf8e8 💿 ( talk) 22:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Former South China reporter Ethan Paul of the Quincy Institute discussed the hazards of U.S. political entities’ increasing belligerence toward China in an 18 October 2021 interview.
The Wikipedia article, as written, has content discussing member’s anti-semitism with little content addressing the Institute mission of responsible statecraft.
The problem with the Wikipedia article is it has no information about the message of Ethan Paul, and the Quincy Institute, on the counterproductive attitudes of the GOP, Democrats, and Trumpists towards US-China relations.
The immense disservice of Wikipedia in publishing this lopsided article in the face of the world-wide threats of instability created by US leadership towards China needs attention. Johnskaufman ( talk) 16:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the "Criticism" section features an article by Curt Mills and implies that it is a critical article, but the article ("Realism Resurgent: The Rise of the Quincy Institute") is more of a description of the institute than anything. Saying that the Quincy Institute's agenda "puts it in league with the Trump administration's foreign policy on some issues, such as negotiating with North Korea, but has a different approach from the Trump administration on others, such as U.S. involvement in the war in Yemen" is quite literally an observation and not a criticism, so it seems odd that this is included in this section. The author of the article is also a writer for The American Conservative website which is generally fond of realists. RedPandaEdits ( talk) 02:41, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide, including this page. 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 sanctioned. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is this seriously being used as a trustworthy source? 97.88.151.165 ( talk) 23:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
There are numerous WP:NPOV problems with the article:
To fix the article:
Reliably sourced content from a high-quality source has been scrubbed from the article for the sole reason that it doesn't attack the think tank like all the other content in the article: No, it was removed because it is precisely a normative criticism but creatively introduced as a positive description of the supposed foreign policy position of Quincy. Some direct quotes from the piece:
Over the last decade, as the Iraq disaster has haunted US foreign policy, the Quincy coalition, a new school of thought emphasising ‘restraint’, has emerged and quickly become a major voice in the conversation about American foreign policy... In part, the new restraint school has gained influence because of generous funding provided by libertarian philanthropists Charles and David Koch, and liberal philanthropist George Soros.
While the new restraint coalition did not commend Trump’s reckless conduct and administrative incompetence, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the basic thrust of his ‘America First’ foreign policy was a bold – if crude – implementation of the Quincy coalition’s core vision.
To grapple with these new realities, the restraints offered by the Quincy coalition are thoroughly outmoded. And it is the restraints offered by modern liberalism and its globalist internationalism that are needed now.
When these deficiencies are combined with the severe underappreciation of interdependence, the unifying theme in the libertarian–realist alliance of restraint is revealed to be deeply flawed. The restraints they advocate are misplaced and inadequate, and any domestic and international world order following these guidelines would be marked not by restraint, but by a significant and dangerous lack of restraint.
The Biden programme proposes an array of new restraints, to be sure, but unlike the Quincy coalition’s programme, it will advance rather than impede the realisation of basic liberal-democratic goals and values.
Both the Quincy coalition and the new liberalism offer packages of restraint. But the Quincy restraints are for a different time and place, while the restraints proposed by the new liberalism are tailor-made to address the central domestic and international problems of the present and future.
If you want to add Deudney and Ikenberry's criticisms of the grand strategy of restraint, I have no opposition to that: No, they are not criticizing "the grand strategy of restraint", but "restraint" of a particular flavor called "Quincy". Also, there is zero mention of Quincy's version of "restraint" being a "grand strategy" in the pieces you listed above. Normchou 💬 16:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Full disclosure: I played a minor role in this initiative and presently serve on one of the institute’s advisory committees.). Normchou 💬 16:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Restraint is one of several grand strategy options. [5] Walt explicitly refers to it as oneis irrelavant to the discussion. This book was published in 2014, well before Quincy was founded. You are mixing your own WP:OR/ WP:SYNTH/interpretation of the FP article/its author's previous opinions with what RSes say about the subject of this article. Given the sources that are there, a mention of "restraint" under "History" is the best we can do. Normchou 💬 16:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I came here to say what this section points out. The balance of the article is devoted to "criticism." Wikipedia should not be a platform for rhetorical strategies that label critics as immoral rather than engaging with their critiques. That's obnoxious. Besides, such serious charges ought to be supported with evidence, not just asserted as opinion. It's easy to demonstrate that e.g. Charles Lindbergh and Henry Ford were antisemitic. It's not just a matter of opinion. Where is the evidence re the Quincy Institute? What are the names of the people accused? What is the consensus? Don't give me an over-the-top characterization by a politician and expect me to swallow it.
More fundamentally, what is the history of the Quincy Institute? If it is nothing but a straw man for partisans to set fire to, then it's not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If it is notable, then this article is lacking basic information. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 15:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
The balance of the article is devoted to "criticism": There is a specific definition for WP:BALANCE, and it entails reliable sources (also, see WP:FALSEBALANCE and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Balancing different views). The correct way to fix this is to find different views in RSes and then duly present them in proportion to their prominence. Re
Don't give me an over-the-top characterization by a politician and expect me to swallow it: This is your own view, and your personal views have little impact on maintaining NPOV (unless they are also published in relevant RSes). Normchou 💬 19:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:CREATELEAD:
The primary purpose of a Wikipedia lead is not to summarize the topic, but to summarize the content of the article. It should prepare the reader for whatever is in the body of the article, get them interested in the content, and inspire them to read the whole article.
Also:
This rule of thumb will ensure the lead covers all significant subject matter in the article:
If a topic deserves a heading, then it deserves short mention in the lead according to its real due weight.
If we don't follow that equation, then POV warriors can successfully "hide" negative material away from many readers' notice by spinning it off and leaving a small section which is then viewed as not worthy of mention in the lead. That must not happen. It should still be mentioned in the lead according to its real due weight.
The non- WP:PRIMARY RSes on this think tank overwhelmingly point to criticisms, so why would an editor try to hide them from our readers? Normchou 💬 18:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Should the lead to this article state that the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft "has been criticized for its orientation and stances on policy issues"? Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 21:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Withdrawing from the Middle East and terminating the war on terrorism are their prime objectives.) Citing them authoritatively here comparable to citing an academic study funded by the sugar industry in an article on soft drinks - we do need to at least note their bias if we're going to use them, and it casts WP:DUE weight into question. -- Aquillion ( talk) 09:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.The decision to include material in the lead should reflect the relative importance of something to the article subject, and from my look at the coverage of Quincy, the mere fact the organization has been occasionally criticized doesn't seem like something RS regard as especially important. The criticisms presented in the article seem to vary widely in issue taken, quality and source, such that a single sentence blithely saying Quincy has been criticized "for its orientation and stances on policy issues" misleads more than it informs. Also agree with others' general criticism the controversy section probably merits trimming. — 0xf8e8 💿 ( talk) 22:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Former South China reporter Ethan Paul of the Quincy Institute discussed the hazards of U.S. political entities’ increasing belligerence toward China in an 18 October 2021 interview.
The Wikipedia article, as written, has content discussing member’s anti-semitism with little content addressing the Institute mission of responsible statecraft.
The problem with the Wikipedia article is it has no information about the message of Ethan Paul, and the Quincy Institute, on the counterproductive attitudes of the GOP, Democrats, and Trumpists towards US-China relations.
The immense disservice of Wikipedia in publishing this lopsided article in the face of the world-wide threats of instability created by US leadership towards China needs attention. Johnskaufman ( talk) 16:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the "Criticism" section features an article by Curt Mills and implies that it is a critical article, but the article ("Realism Resurgent: The Rise of the Quincy Institute") is more of a description of the institute than anything. Saying that the Quincy Institute's agenda "puts it in league with the Trump administration's foreign policy on some issues, such as negotiating with North Korea, but has a different approach from the Trump administration on others, such as U.S. involvement in the war in Yemen" is quite literally an observation and not a criticism, so it seems odd that this is included in this section. The author of the article is also a writer for The American Conservative website which is generally fond of realists. RedPandaEdits ( talk) 02:41, 24 November 2022 (UTC)