Talk:Intellectual dark web

First line of the article

Hi, this is my first ever post on Wikipedia after decades of use, I have just heard this term "intellectual dark web" and came here looking for explanation. The first line says this "is a term used by some commentators who oppose". This is problematic because they could be describing themselves or others. I am genuinely confused. I have done some research (as someone who has JUST heard this term) and it seems (but I could be mistaken) that either of the above terms are generally wrong? Because it seems (again I could be wrong) that this term isn't generally used by people to describe themselves as the I.D.W. For example Shapiro doesn't call himself this as far as I can tell. So it seems that the first line is very misleading... should it say this instead "is a term used to describe some commentators who oppose"? If it did say this then people would look at the names on the list like Shapiros and come to the conclusion that others describe him as this, which if I understand this term correctly... would be the correct interpretation? Thanks, Matt. MatthewMachinist (talk) 08:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok I am very sorry to reply to my post but I have just read this in the talk "The term was coined by Eric Weinstein to describe himself and a set of others including both liberals and conservatives, with whom he had a friendly intellectual alliance of sorts. It was not intended to be derogatory."

Ok... so this does clear up my misunderstanding to a large degree, however I have done a lot of reading on this and it seems lately that more and more people who are using this term are not IDW, but others describing them.

So for that reason alone I think my suggested edit "is a term used to describe some commentators who oppose" is still valid and better than what was written. Normally I oppose an ambiguous term like describe but in this instance it could mean self description or description by others and is therefore suitable. I am open to better suggestions if anyone has one?

Thanks, Matt. 124.197.13.4 (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Dave Rubin as quoted in Unherd

@GreenMeansGo: I see you added some content sourced to Unherd in 2001 with a quote from David Rubin, but you ended the quote in strange place that could leave the reader either dumbfounded as to the meaning of the quote or give the false impression that Rubin think that merely employing tools of liberalism in general is a fatal mistake. The fuller quote is "They've made what to me seems to be a very obvious fatal mistake, that you can use any of the tools of Liberalism — of open inquiry, freedom of speech, respect for your fellow human beings, individual rights — that you can use any of these things to rationalise with the monster that is coming to burn your house down. And that's why we've seen in effect the liberals have no defence over this, which is why all the liberal institutions are crumbling." His point is about dealing with those that everyone in the IDW would agree are left of liberal. Jweiss11 (talk) 13:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Per the context in the previous paragraph, it's supposed to be a criticism of Bari Weiss, Sam Harris, and Bret Weinstein. In the context of the discussion above, basically that "if you think you can be on the left and criticize the left, then you're a big dummy. You should have followed me and allied with the right instead." (obviously paraphrasing) GMG^talk 14:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Your paraphrasing makes sense, but the snippet of the quote you chose to include doesn't convey that sentiment. We should include the fuller quote and/or find a better way to articulate this. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

By all means... BEBOLD. I just did a scrub this morning for more recent sourcing and this is one of the things that came up. GMG^talk 14:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

---

I removed this material since the only source was an opinion piece by the site's editor. See § Internal disagreements below for more explanation. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

No longer applicable?

Thread retitled from "term no longer applicable (2023-2024)".

hello,

what does it take in Feb 2024 to demonstrate that none of those who were in this grouping identifies with this grouping any more, if they ever did? do we trust outside sources? (There are probably none insisting on grouping these people together under this name since 2021.) Do we trust the identified members themselves? If so, how can we find a source that says that none of these people identify with this label now? Do we have to find a source for each member, do demonstrate that they don't belong?

I think the term IDW is fine as term that had some salience for a few years. And we can state who belonged to the group for that period. (I guess from 2018-2021.)

skakEL 14:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Sauces plz. GMG^talk 14:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

See WP:NOTTEMPORARY. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Sam Harris "handing in his IDW membership card" doesn't mean we delete him from the page. It's not surprising heterodox pseudointellctual formations like the IDW are unstable. But we still cleave to reliable sources rather than running the whole page as an WP:ABOUTSELF situation. Simonm223 (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Clearly, things that are, perhaps, no longer in an active state can still be notable. This article could benefit from some updating regarding Harris, as detailed at Sam Harris#Intellectual dark web. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I really wish the Woking Up podcast constituted a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Internal disagreements

Internal disagreements

Writer Cathy Young has expressed uncertainty over whether she belongs in the intellectual dark web. Historian of medicine and science Alice Dreger expressed surprise in being told she was a member of the IDW at all. After she was invited to be profiled in the New York Times article, she stated that she "had no idea who half the people in this special network were. The few Intellectual Dark Web folks I had met I didn't know very well. How could I be part of a powerful intellectual alliance when I didn't even know these people?"

In a 2020 episode of his podcast, Harris distanced himself from the movement, saying that he was "turn[ing] in [his] imaginary membership card to this imaginary organization", because some unidentified members of the group were propagating President Donald Trump's false claims that the 2020 US presidential election was stolen through voter fraud. He later described the focus on COVID-19 vaccines by Bret Weinstein as being "completely crazy".

In 2021, Dave Rubin described a growing ideological split among the early IDW. According to Freddie Sayers, Rubin includes Bari Weiss, Sam Harris, and Bret Weinstein among "those who believe the tools of liberalism can still be deployed to persuade the Woke Left to change their mind", while Rubin believes that is not possible, and that he is "better off building bridges with the Right".

Sources

I removed these three paragraphs as unduly weighted since every source cited is either a blog, podcast, or opinion piece (op-ed or editorial). All are primary sources that shouldn't be used as the basis of an article (or section). Why do we care whether Person X feels like they belong to Group Y, especially given the polarizing nature of said group? Sam Harris's disavowal of the IDW especially smacks of damage control. A truly balanced presentation would instead rely on secondary sources that put these statements in their proper context. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. You've basically unbalanced the entire topic. Viriditas (talk) 03:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I mentioned above we should avoid the trap of this article becoming a list of WP:ABOUTSELF disavowals. I support the removal on those grounds. Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas: kindly explain why you think opinion pieces and self-published sources from people with a clear conflict of interest should be given the same weight as books from respected academic publishers and other independent, mainstream sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

It's entirely acceptable to use these sources to say that Cathy Young, Alice Dreger, and Sam Harris disavow interest in the so-called "group", and I don't see how this constitutes a COI. Here is the version before you began "editing" it. Please kindly explain how you've improved the subject. Viriditas (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

If all that's been written about Young and Dreger's associations with the IDW (or lack thereof) is the pieces they wrote, then that can be excluded. As for the part about Harris turning in his "imaginary membership card" in the IDW, that is discussed at Sam Harris and sourced there to this piece from RealClearPolitics. I don't see any reason to exclude the Sayers piece in Unherd. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I would hope there would be a specific, good reason to cite a softball interview with an unreliable pundit, Rubin, from an unreliable partisan outlet, Unherd. Grayfell (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I see no reason to consider Unherd unreliable. Rubin should be reliable ultimate source here for what Rubin thinks about the IDW, as reported by a third-party. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Unherd is a niche website that has only been around since 2017, and the source in question is an editorial, as I already mentioned. No one is saying Rubin is necessarily unreliable for what Rubin thinks; the problem is undue weight. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

No one? Grayfell clearly opined that both Rubin and Unherd are unreliable. The due weight argument is more reasonable there. What do you think about the "imaginary membership card" stuff from RealClearPolitics? Jweiss11 (talk) 06:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

It's a snappy soundbite that's already included in our bio of Harris, so unless there's some more in-depth analysis of the event, I don't think inclusion in this article is particularly warranted. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Strikes me as at least at relevant in this article as the Harris one. As this article stands now, it makes no reference to this fracturing, leaving the impression that nothing's really evolved since 2018. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

That's the sort of interpretation and analysis that requires a published, secondary source. We have a recent scholarly source in Postill (2024) that has quite a lot on the IDW and Harris, but nothing about this supposed fracturing that I can see. Therefore it seems WP:UNDUE to mention it in this article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC) edited 20:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The "fracturing" is effectively an ideological split around two poles: pro-Trump vs anti-Trump and pro-vaxine vs anti-vax. However for this to be anything more than the normal instabilitu of fringe groups we'd need to demonstrate it went beyond rhetoric. Preferably using high-quality secondary sources. And, of course, WP:BESTSOURCES like Posthill are due more weight than WP:ABOUTSELF bon mots. Simonm223 (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't have access to the John Posthill book, but it looks like the relevant content here comes from the chapter: "Meet the anti-wokes". The abstract of that chapter can be read here. Quote: "Rather than being 'old-school reactionaries', as their critics have described them, the chapter argues that they are best defined as 'Schmittian liberals'; that is, as classical liberals and conservatives united in their staunch opposition to the alleged 'woke capture' of liberal institutions." This would lend support to "Those who have been labelled as being part of the IDW include both liberals and conservatives.", which was a long-standing part of lead, recently removed by Grayfell, twice, the second time after I restored it with a sources that only described Harris as a liberal. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I removed it only once, because your use of that source was a form of original research. Your use of an abstract of a source you don't have access to for this claim would also be original research, and it would be just as flimsy. The body of the article doesn't support having this in the lead in such blunt terms.

One of the issues with this in the lead -one of many issues with this- is that "liberal" and "conservative" are not necessarily exclusive as used by reliable sources in this context. The IDW was part of an uptick in the use of "classical liberal" as a buzzword, typically by political conservatives. Conservative liberalism and Libertarianism in the United States are manifestations of this idea. To use the lead to editorialize and imply that these two concepts are mutually exclusive, and therefor to imply IDW is a big tent for including both, is inappropriate and misrepresents the article's sources. Sources do not say it's this simple, so we cannot either. There may be a way to explain this is the body, but it doesn't belong in the lead without more context. Grayfell (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

What I added wasn't OR. It was just incompletely sourced and incompletely developed in the body. We can easily find multiple sources that say 1) Harris and the Weinsteins are liberals 2) Peterson and Shapiro are conservatives 3) the interactions within the IDW were an attempt, in part, to bridge such divides with conversation. I'll grant you that the use of "liberal" and "conservative" can be complicated and contextual, but I'm really at a loss for the OR claim with respect to the abstract of Posthill's chapter. Isn't an abstract supposed to faithfully summarize the body? Sounds like you have access to whole work. Can you share some relevant passages? I can also see about getting access myself. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

If such sources can be easily found then can you present them if you think they should be added to the article. We should not WP:CENSOR discussion of "internal disagreements." Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Nothing is being censored because of social or religious objections to the material. The issue is avoiding undue weight.

I recently got a PDF of Chapter 3 from Postill (2024), "Meet the anti-wokes", via WP:REREQ. If anyone wants a copy, just email me and leave a note on my talk page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

a new criticism heading

I think a criticism heading should be added with the POV of those who are against the movement including the points made by progressives and centrist authors incl points made by zero book and the guardian Nohorizonss (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf Nohorizonss (talk) 17:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

There's already a § Reception section for this. I specifically removed the citation to Michael Brooks because his book is a polemic rather than a work of scholarship. Criticism sections are a bad idea in general, especially for polarizing topics like this one. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Forgive me, but the pattern in your edits appears to be to give this topic a right-wing slant by eliminating left-wing voices and critics. Viriditas (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, what? You can't alter Hamburger's citation to Michael brooks because you don't like it. That's what he originally said.[1] This is a most bizarre set of edits. You don't get to do meta-editing on the source itself. Based on your removal of Brooks from Hamburger's source citation, I am starting to question all of your edits to this article. Viriditas (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think I have done meta-editing on the source itself. The archived version of Hamburger's essay you linked to doesn't mention Michael Brooks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Beacon Press

@Sangdeboeuf I'm curious regarding this source removal. It's a Unitarian Universalist publisher - as such I'm a bit confused over it being listed as "partisan" - last I'd heard the UU church hadn't endorsed any specific politicians. Simonm223 (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Regardless, it's not a scholarly source. Sheedy (2022) makes the same claim about IDW commentators dismissing issues of gender inequality while welcoming some gay men into their ranks, citing Stern's book Proud Boys and the White Ethnostate. I simply kept the citation to the more established academic publisher. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

OK that's fine. Thanks. Simonm223 (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)